ISN'T IT ROMANTIC [Movie][Eng][2019]

The story is simple but effective. It won't win awards but it will give you a little smile in the end.

Released In

2019

Language

English, with Australian accent of course!

Where to watch

Netflix, like every other movie these days. Is cinema dying soon?

Cast-Character

Rebel Wilson - Natalie

Liam Hemsworth - Blake

Adam DeVine - Josh

Priyanka Chopra - Isabella

Betty Gilpin - Whitney

Brandon Scott Jones - Donny

Jennifer Saunders - Natalie's mother

Summary

A cynical (in love) timid woman who, after getting hit on the head, wakes up in a world where everything around her plays out like the genre of the movie she hates the most; a romantic comedy film.

More details

Wikipedia. Spoilers alert.

REVIEW

I'd thought I give this a try, since I had literally nothing to watch and my Netflix reminder recommended this film. Hot release you see. I knew the story, expected the ending but I didn't expect to be quite charmed by it all.

Natalie is a competent Architect with dreams but suffering from low self esteem. When she was young, she believed in the romance in movies. Of course, Pretty Woman is an unrealistic romantic dream. Her mother certainly chased away any romantic notions in here when she cruelly reminded her daughter men will marry her for visa. As a grown woman, her life was going  nowhere. She is in a career where she was never listened to, her colleagues all but 2 treated her as some "ah sei" in the office. Private life, she had no love, her dog refused to listen to any of her command and her neighbour was a jerk. As for herself, her hair is a wreck, she is dreary person living in dirty dreary New York where she is constantly bullied. One time, when an attempted purse snatcher tried to snatch her bag , she knocked her head hard and woke up with her face and make up ready, her hair beautifully blown and facing a handsome young doctor in a huge first class looking hospital room. Everyone was mesmerised by her, she returned to her apartment which became as she said, stretched and certainly upscale, her dog actually listened to her every command and in her office, she was the star architect which had people applauding even when she really didn't give any idea. She caught the attention of a super rich and handsome client who kept saying "beguiling" to her and she was always perfectly dressed. She knew of course she was in her own rom com. The downside was her assistant ho was her best friend in real lie was now her mortal enemy at work. For someone who was a cynical person under everyone's radar, she was now in everyone's radar and she couldn't take it. She surmised her only way out is to live out the romcom movie setting meaning make someone fall in love with her. She thought it was Blake and there was a funny sequence where they kissed, she obviously didn't want to leave the romcom world yet and yet everytime they reached the "main point", scene was cut to the next morning and he was coming out of the  shower. Again and again and again. It was rather funny. And then there were scenes where she kept saying the F word and they were all conveniently beeped out by a honk or alarm or something. So being in a romcom was bad, it was a PG 13 rated romcom which made it worse. And then there was the prerequisite gay best friend who had nothing to do but to be by the side of our heroine and that gay best friend happened to be her jerk neighbour in real life.

Frankly the cliches highlighted by this movie in the romcom mode were all hilarious and so true. Then there was Isabella, who introduced herself as a swimsuit model, yoga instructor/ambassador, role model. That part had be laughing hard.

Whilst the film pointed towards the many cliche in romcoms, and in itself was full of cliche in its real life mode, it did have a good message. Natalie thought she had to make Blake fall for her, and then realised she had to do a "My Best Friend's Wedding" and make Josh fall for her except in the end to leave the romcom world, she had to really fall in love with herself. It was all about self esteem and her journey of discovery that she worthy of her own love. It is quite an empowering message although not elaborated a lot, more like convenient plot point. I do like how in the romcom world, Natalie was never that enchanted by it at all and was constantly trying to find a way to escape to reality and then when she did leave that world, she appreciated her real world a lot more. She was never sucked into a lie so to speak, and preferred the truth except when she woke up, she became a more confident woman willing to fight for her job, respect, etc. In a word, she found her voice. And of course, love in one of the loveliest semi confession of love in the end.

The story is simple but effective. It won't win awards but it will give you a little smile in the end.

I do love how in the romcom world the screen suddenly became wide screen? Everything seem so colourful, so grand, so chirpy. I do think perhaps the colour scheme also changed when Natalie came back to real life. It felt different. I also love the many references of popular romcom films, where Natalie dressed like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.She actually looked gorgeous.

As for the performances, the cast had chemistry. 

I never really felt much for Liam Hemsworth, the one who was in Hunger Games movies, the one married Miley and of course the brother of the one who played a god (and looked like one). It felt quite strange to hear him speak with Australian accent eventhough he is Australian. But I thought he was effective as the overly romantic but ultimately a douche bag Blake in the romcom world and a jerk but a professional client in real life. And he is so tall.

Seeing Adam DeVine almost made me think this was Pitch Perfect movie. In Pitch Perfect he was sort of a jerk at first but in this movie, he is the nice cheerful encouraging friendzoned guy. Not much for him to do actually, not much growth as a character but he had chemistry with Rebel Wilson.

Betty Gilpin as Whitney was effective as the best friend in real life and the mortal enemy in romcom. I was shocked to see her made up so differently in romcom, she almost reminded me of how Emily Blunt looked in The Devil Wears Prada. Perhaps it was intentional. It was like 2 very different characters. Again not much growth, but effective.

The least of growth or even a resemblance of a character is Priyanka Chopra's Isabella but she wasn't in this movie as some major character. She was the special appearance meant to be funny and she was funny! I actually thought she was interesting as Isabella, like some cliche character she was meant to be.

Brandon Scott Jones was really amazing. His persona in real life vs romcom life was so different, it was like Betty Gilpin's performance. He to me gave the best performance. I won't say more, you have to see him to believe it. Like Natalie said, Donny in romcom was like a huge step back for gay depiction in movies, but he was funny and in one scene very poignant as he was describing how his heart was broken. For me the best performance in the movie.

Rebel Wilson is an interesting one to watch for me. She's not a fantastic actress, or a fantastic singer, or a fantastic dancer, and she had to do all 3 in here. She's not exceedingly funny too nor is she some amazing dramatic actress. Her acting is like how you see her talking in real life. But I find her very very interesting to watch in interviews, more than in movies. However Natalie is a character that suits her well. But I do have to say, eventhough Natalie is meant to have the most growth in character since the entire movie is a basis for her character to realise an obvious proposition, however I do find her performance more fluffy than deep. There were moments of course but ultimately I felt for others I would have called this a below average performance, but for Rebel Wilson, who I never expected much as an actress,  find this performance to be effective in her own way. But I do love her fashion, how she showed me whatever the size, you can still look magnificent.

IN SHORT

The cast has chemistry, the premise is funny, I like the story, expect some great performance from those you never expected but frankly fans of Rebel Wilson won't be disappointed even if she isn't the best actress in here. You will still be entertained and so for that alone, this movie is effective.

RATING

B+

Read More

HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 [O]

Written by Funn Lim



"But I would have hoped another 20 minutes on the above scenes would have made this movie into a brilliant one. Do read the book to fill in the gaps."







SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

RELEASE
2010

THIS IS ...
An opinion/review on the 1st part of the movie on the 7th and fina; Harry Potter book

MORE INFO
Here at imdb.com

COMMENT
I just rushed to watch Harry Potter & The Deathly Hollows Part 1 and I am very very impressed with David Yates who in movie 6 managed to show the scale of Hogwarts and in Movie 7 managed to show the urgency of the situation at hand. It is a scary loud movie and at times tender and incredibly manages to be funny as well thanks to Rupert Grint. I believe he has taken the essence of the book or half of it and made it almost as good as the book. Luckily this last book has 2 movies treatment because 1 movie does it no justice. Most scenes in the book are in this movie. So I am very very pleased. However a few major problems or rather details in the book not included, therefore made the movie less than the book and sometimes incoherent;

1. I believe Wormtail's death in the movie is different, if he is dead. He should be since in the book he is dead in that scene except he didn't die the way he did in the movie. By changing the way he died changes the entire relationship between Wormtail and Harry and the ruthlessness of Voldemort, that he will even kill a loyal servant, that Wormtail died because of a moment of mercy he showed on Harry. In the movie he died very very differently and rather meaninglessly.

2. After being taunted by Voldemort who appeared out of Regulus Black's locket, Ron actually destroyed that Hocrux and cried. He actually cried and wept as Harry told him quietly that he loved Herminone as a sister and he heard Hermione crying sometimes, missing Ron. That's when Ron knew for sure Hermione and Harry didn't have any relationship as taunted by Voldemort. The significance of that scene is Ron's real feelings, and how he was taunted so cruelly and how Harry responded. However the movie for whatever reason did not show Ron crying or Harry's consoling words. I find it a bit cold. It was Ron's moment, and he should have had that moment.

3. In the beginning when Dudley was leaving, his unrepentant parents did not bother to say goodbye to Harry, but Dudley rushed over and in his way apologised for the years of abuse of Harry. It was a closure for Harry and for his only living relatives, one of whom Dudley. It also shows to us a changed Dudley, capable of good things perhaps, we may never know since we never heard from him again. It was Dudley's big scene and this movie for whatever reason decided to summarise this and totally cut that out. I find it terrible, that in the Dudley remained the same when in the book he changed after the Dementors attacked him.

4. The entire back story of Regulus and how he betrayed Voldemort and stole the Hocrux from the cave and his relationship with Kreacher which shows Kreacher somewhat in a good light was cut out totally. We know who was RAB but we don't know how Regulus got the Hocrux and I doubt part 2 will explain that. This is significant because Regulus was like Sirius, born into a dark arts pure blood family but chose to sacrifice themselves for goodness. I hope part 2 retains the scene how Kreacher is treated with respect and in one of the best scene in the book, how Kreacher led the fight against the pure bloods.

5. I am not sure if it will be in part 2 but I hope the conversation with Ollivander and the role of Griphook will be given justice. I am not happy how Griphook's role in denying the Gryffindor sword in Bellatrix's hands is fake and not the real one. There is a significance since Griphook being a goblin would not have helped a wizard to lie but he helped Harry. That was cut from this movie.

6. I am sorely disappointed the scene where Harry saw Luna's bedroom and saw her sketched of Harry, Hermione, Ron and I think Neville with the words like best friends or something was cut out. That scene was touching to show Harry felt an enormous gratitude to Luna for believing in him and he felt a rush of affection for Luna hence his closeness and friendliness with Luna. I would have wished Harry ended up with Luna.

7. The most significant of all, Harry's anger when he saw Mad Eye's fake eye on the door of Delores Umbridge's office. How his cover was broken was when angrily he ripped the eye out to take with him, angry at how Mad Eye was killed. That scene was missing and the eye remained there on the door. I find that cold and not very like Harry.

8. The entire story of Bill and Fleur just sort of appeared. Might as well just write them off.

9. Why the significance of the visit of Rufus Scrimgeour to Harry is cut out is beyond me. The great thing about this book is it shows how even supposedly people on the good guys' side will use ruthless means to a desired end. Rufus was supposed to get Harry to stand on the Ministry of Magic's side as their poster boy, but Harry rightly refused. This scene is significant. And Rufus' death is even more significant since he knew where Harry was but supposedly he was tortured to death but he didn't betray Harry which made Harry realised he may have been too harsh on Rufus Scrimgeour. I love Bill Nighy but he played this character like an insane sort of guy. The guy in the book described as lion like would have been more formidable looking.

I still feel Harry is lacking the anger and emotional turmoil although Daniel Radcliffe was funny when he had to be different characters. He has a gift for comedy. But the dramatic acting is still lacking. Rupert Grint lacked some anger in some pivotal scenes but frankly he is the best actor of the younger actors. He has serious talent in comedy and I think he did well. Emma Watson improved and I love the fact that the scene of her wiping out her memory from her parents was included in the movie, shows the urgency of the situation and the sadness. However she is way too serious to be the level headed Hermione I know from the books. Good thing is that in Book 7 Hermione has to be so serious looking. But I still don't like Emma Watson who still doesn't seem where to stand in a room full of people; she looked awkward. The adults were all great even if their role is reduced. Helen McCrory was a miscast and also terribly underused.

Anyway I felt some scenes were great, like when Harry, Ron and Hermione drank Polyjuice potion and entered Ministry of Magic as 3 adults and these 3 actors portrayed the 3 younger actors' personalities perfectly! I love how Snape appeared. I love all those scary scenes were not deleted but in fact played out in full. I really love how the 3 brothers' story were told in animation and I find that creative and artistic. I love Dobby! And when he died I was very sad, I was sadder reading his death but the movie did the scene justice. When Hedwig fell from the sky I was in shock eventhough I knew that was coming. I like the fact that Fred and George are given something to do than to just stand around like in previous movies. I dread Part 2 because of what is coming for the twins. I cannot stand Ginny so I am glad her role is minimal. The most waste of space of the role of Narcissa. No dialogue at all, just wallpaper. Draco had some scene but not enough. And I thought Dumbledore was buried standing up instead of laying down. And most of all, the last scene should not have ended with Voldemort getting the elder wand, it should have been a long or far shot of Hogwarts since Part 2 will deal with the great battle at Hogwarts and the destruction of further Hocrux and a major revelation.

I have a feeling the director will manage that well but I hope Neville will be given his day of glory and Ron as well. Very significant roles as well for Mrs Weasley. But I really want Neville to have his day. And more importantly, Snape. This will be Snape's moment and I hope this movie, after 7 movies will not screw up Snape's big moment and the answer to why he did what he did.

Anyway for all my complaints, Part 1 is a great adaptation. You can't have it all, especially for such a rich book as this one. But I would have hoped another 20 minutes on the above scenes would have made this movie into a brilliant one. Do read the book to fill in the gaps.

Powered by: Fast payday loans

Read More

INCEPTION [Mov]

Written by Funn Lim

"Whilst Inception is not the most important movie or best movie as it has its flaws and some questionable casting decisions, no doubt it is a very enjoyable movie that makes you think."




SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

Released in
2010

Language
English

Director
Christopher Nolan

Writer
Christopher Nolan

Cast-Character
Leonardo DiCaprio ... Cobb
Joseph Gordon-Levitt... Arthur
Ellen Page ... Ariadne
Tom Hardy ... Eames
Ken Watanabe ... Saito
Dileep Rao ... Yusuf
Cillian Murphy ... Robert Fischer
Tom Berenger ... Peter Browning
Marion Cotillard ... Mal
Pete Postlethwaite ... Maurice Fischer
Michael Caine ... Miles
Lukas Haas ... Nash
Tai-Li Lee ... Tadashi
Claire Geare ... Phillipa (3 years)
Magnus Nolan ... James (20 months)

Plot Summary
From imdb.com

In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption which involves executing his toughest job till date, Inception.

Story Summary
Complete spoilers for those who can't understand the movie, check out imdb.com

Comments
I had to suspend my disbelief that you can actually kidnap someone, inject that someone with something, share a dream and find confidential information inside that subconcious mind in the dreamworld of this kidnapped person, in a world of corporate espisionage. Also that an "architect" can actually build layers upon sub layers of this dream world and convincing the dreamer that it is his dream and when it is somebody else's. Definitely a new cooler way of corporate espisionage and the movie doesn't bother in explaining the basics, just that they are and everybody seems to know there are such methods.

The reception for this movie is beyond critical success; some went further to say it is perhaps one of the most important movies of modern age, an instant classic, etc. Now this is a good movie but the most important in the sense of The Matrix that made you question your very existence? I doubt it.

What makes this a good movie it is a story well told, disguised in great special effects, some competent to good acting and set in a world that anything can happen and does and an ending that will be debated till the ends of earth that only the director can answer whether did Cobb really reunite with his children or was it a dream? My sister even went as far to say this is a story of the mind of a schizophrenic, nothing is real, nothing happened, just in his mind. Others would say earlier parts happened but the ending whether real or not depending on how you interprete the spinning top, some said it was still spinning meaning it is not real, some said it falters a bit and so it is real. Some noticed Cobb wears a ring in real world but not in the dream world, some said you never see the children's faces in dream world and they looked like they never grew up in even the ending thus it is fake. Some said the children wore different clothings so it must be real.

Whatever your opinion of the ending may be, the clever director who also gave us the puzzle movie, The Prestige achieved what he desired; this is one much talked about movie. My personal opinion? I like the idea that my sister proposed; he is a schizophrenic but no way the movie seems to point to that direction. I like to believe the ending is a happy one that he did reunite with his children, the spinning top did falter towards the end.

No doubt, such questions, probably will be answered in the 10th anniversary with the re-release of this movie is whatever format we will be using in future. The actors certainly didn't say anything. Argue away!

Back to the movie itself, like I said, it is full of great special effects. It looks good on screen and I can't fault the vision, the presentation.

However the narration and the story is a bit confusing. For one, it is difficult to accept the concept at fave value. If you could, then there's the question of very confusing "whose dream are we in now?" sort of way. Even if we ignore that, I was very bored with the reoccurence of Mal, Cobb's dead wife. She was intriguing at first but the ending scene of her arguing maybe he is in the real world and Cobb said no he knows he isn't because Mal in the real world killed herself so she is not real, she is just a representation of his guilt, therefore his totem (one item to remind the person whether they're in real or dream world), the entire scene felt like a fan fiction story come true, those sort you and I often write about as amateur. But there was nothing amateur about that scene, except it was very very long and became very very tedious. I was very bored with the character Mal and in the end I sorta realised I never knew the real Mal since she died. The Mal we knew was from his memories, from his guilty conscience and she was from the start a facade, nothing real. Even some flashback scenes on what happened to her and why she killed herself, and how Cobb said he could carry out the inception because he did it before seems rather forced. How did he actually did that? Putting an idea in a safe etc. That's what I mean when the story does not even explain the technically, just know that it is. And frankly, Marion Cotillard is beautiful no doubt, but I am not wowed by her acting. Since I am already irritated with the character of Mal and her irritating presence in the movie which breaks the narration rather than moving it along, Marion Cotillard didn't help matters with her how shall I put it? Her accent? I find it difficult to follow not because I could not understand her but because I could not stand the amount of time for her to finish her lines. And now I heard she may be catwoman. Why bother with the mask then? Since anyone can recognise her from the way she speaks. And Leonardo Di Caprio and Marion Cotillard shares zero chemistry; they could play complete strangers for all I know. Husband and wife is not believable at all. As to how she died, it wasn't such a big shocking mystery to me. I find it rather ridiculous anyway that her death was caused by her belief she is still in a dream, she needs to wake up by killing herself which she did. That is because frankly I couldn't buy the concept of a continous dream.

The movie presents to us the hypothesis that we can live our entire lives in a dream, from young to old for decades in a matter of minutes because in dreams world moves slower. And the deeper level of subconcious you go, the longer the time, to the point you can wake up losing your mind because in your dreams you would have probably lived a lifetime. It doesn't explain though do you or can you die in your dream from old age and what happens after? Another level of dream, deeper still? It does explain to wake up you need to kill yourself so imagine how many times Cobb did that. But by killing yourself when you're in a deep sleep means you will go to the deepest level of I suppose subconcious where it is like hell from the way it is described. In fact the levels of dreams felt like description of purgatory and hell whilst it may be heaven to some. You as the dreamer is the architect of your own dream, every character, every building, you subconciously placed them there. For most their dreams is based on reality although you can bend space, time, matter, etc. Sounds like The Matrix to me except Matrix is not a dream but a world created by machines to trick men into believing that's the real world. I can see where's the inspiration of Inception. But Inception itself presents this hypothesis as is; so I just watch it as is. But somehow in my mind I kept thinking are we capable of one continous dream as presented by the movie? Can our dreams be shared? Apparently it can be. When we wake up will we be so consumed by the perfect world in our dreams which in turn is based on reality that we will turn mad or in denial like Mal? Is it even possible? I haven't had a dream where it is one continous dream with consistent people in it. I wish I could do that.

This does make the movie an attractive one doesn't it? Strangely though since it is your dream so to speak, how come they can be attacked by guns etc? Can't they fight back by asking the architect to dream them a bigger gun or change the scenario or something? Or is the architect bound by her own creation; once in motion, she can't change it?

I have more questions but ignoring these technicalities, I find the movie very entertaining and nail biting because of the action stuff going on. Sort of like James Bond in a dream sort of action. However, one ridiculous moment had to be the moment(s) where we see 3 subconcious levels together; the van driver Yusuf and the van falling into the river which takes forever, Arthur gathering the sleeping ones in level 2 into an elevator where earlier I heard he has only minutes but it went on forever, the centre at the snow area for level 3 and in the end of course Cobb finding Saito in level 4. The scene of the van falling into the river was taking forever but the one that annoyed me was the level 2 elevator scene, it really felt like forever.

I must note the great special effect scene which is the one where Ariadne bending the streets as they fell on top of the other creating a perfect symmerty. Great scene.

In restrospect, we know so little of the characters don't we?

As for the performances, there seems to be a collection of Oscar winners, nominees and what nots. Doesn't make them all great.

Marion Cotillard is not my favourite so frankly I didn't enjoy her performance. Moreover, let me be petty; Mal isn't exactly a name that can elicit pity or any sort of emotion.

Ken Watanabe I never liked frankly but from the looks of it he is Hollywood's favourite Japanese actor, probably the only Japanese actor. I find him a bit too dramatic and his English is also a problem.

Leonardo Di Caprio is a good actor but I think he is a miscast in this movie. He can't do angst well and his character is full of it. Rumour has it Christian Bale was supposed to be in this movie but of course the director said Leo was his first choice. Christian Bale is all about angst and he will do great in the role as Cobb, on the condition he losses that breathy way he speaks ever since he plays Batman. Some viewers say the movie does not have an emotional connection, it felt cold, I disagree. I thought what more connection you want? Cobb is a tortured soul, he is angst and guilt and conscience all combined together and coupled with desperation and grief, what more? But rather it was Leo who didn't convey all these well. He sported that I don't know, that serious look throughout and nothing much. I just feel he was not Cobb and the fact that the movie felt cold was because he didn't deliver as he should.

Ellen Page plays the architect and frankly how she actually creates the dream world is skipped altogether so she spends time walking around in the movie looking like she is doing something. Then action kicks in and she is doing something and she is one character that connects with Cobb and found out his secret which I shall not reveal here. Not a secret really but how he spends his time in his dreamworld with his captive wife. And yet she manages to escape each time. Anyway Ellen Page is wasted in here.

I enjoyed Tom Hardy's role, probably one of the two "funny" ones in here that provides the lighter moments. Again exactly what he does I am not sure.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is so grown up! I remember him as the smart aleck kid from 3rd Rock From The Sun. How time flies. He has a huge role as Cobb's assistant, even if he has very little dialogue. I enjoyed his performance. Even if he looks skinny and all, his fighting scenes, and only one that fights against gravity in this movie was very entertaining.

Pete Postlethwaite and Michael Caine both have very small roles in this movie but both did what they are paid to do effectively in the few minutes of appearance. And that was Tom Berenger? The one looking oily and sneaky? Haven't seen him in a long time, could hardly recognise him!

The one actor and one character that I was absolutely fascinated with is to me the rarely seen strange looking actor, Cillian Murphy. I didn't detect any accent at all! Anyway he has I must admit a very cold sort of face with even chilly eyes but gorgeous eye colour if you ask me. Frankly I didn't follow his career much but am glad to see him having an important role in this movie. In fact his portion of the story is the most fascinating one. The entire story is built on his character and how Cobb and gang had to plant an idea in his mind and I like his relationshiop with his father and how Cobb and gang reasoned the best way to plant the idea is to effect a reconciliation with the father in the dream when in actual fact his father couldn't care less about him. He did the dramatic bits well and his scene of reconciliation with his father was definitely the highlight of this movie with some exceptional performance from this strange looking actor. He also handled the action scenes well.

I must admit Christopher Nolan is a very good director. He brings to us fascinating stories that is not some boring rehashed stuff from other boring rehashed stuff and he always make good use in his actors and prefers casting those he has worked with. I may have my grouses with this one, calling it confusing and at times boring or rather too long on one focus until I became restless but it is nevertheless a refreshing sort of movie which emphasise on storytelling as well as presentation. Whilst Inception is not the most important movie or best movie as it has its flaws and some questionable casting decisions, no doubt it is a very enjoyable movie that makes you think. Ignore the technicalities and just go with the flow and join the debate as to whether in the end is Cobb still in his dream?

Verdict
A must see. The name Christopher Nolan itself deserves at least a view at the trailer and with such a cast, whatever I may say about them, one of them must intrigue you somehow. The story (not the technical stuff) to me is the true star of this movie. Clever stuff I must say.

free hit counter

Read More

TWILIGHT [Mov]

Written by Funn Lim

"If you must know, no, it is not good enough for me."



SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

Released In

2008

Director

Catherine Hardwicke

Writers (WGA)
Melissa Rosenberg (screenplay)
Stephenie Meyer (novel)

Cast List
Kristen Stewart ... Bella Swan
Robert Pattinson ... Edward Cullen
Billy Burke ... Charlie Swan
Ashley Greene ... Alice Cullen
Nikki Reed ... Rosalie Hale
Jackson Rathbone ... Jasper Hale
Kellan Lutz ... Emmet Cullen
Peter Facinelli ... Dr. Carlisle Cullen
Cam Gigandet ... James
Taylor Lautner ... Jacob Black
Anna Kendrick ... Jessica Stanley
Michael Welch ... Mike Newton
Christian Serratos ... Angela Weber
Gil Birmingham ... Billy Black
Elizabeth Reaser ... Esme Cullen


Plot

Taken from imdb.com. If only the movie turns out like how the plot written for imdb.

Isabella Swan moves to gloomy Forks to live with her father. As she starts her junior year in high school she becomes fascinated by Edward Cullen who holds a dark secret which is only known by his family. Edward falls in love with Bella as well but knows the further they progress in their relationship the more he is putting Bella and those close to her at risk. Edward warns Bella that she should leave him but she refuses to listen and to understand why he is saying this. Bella learns his secret. He is a vampire, however she is not afraid of his blood-thirsty needs and the fact he could kill her at any moment. Bella is afraid of losing him, the love of her life. The thrill begins when a new vampire finds it a challenge to hunt Bella down for her irresistible blood. The game is on and James will not stop until she is killed.


Comments
I read the book, wrote a review of the book and came to a conclusion that the movie will be better than the book. And quite smugly I shall declare myself as brilliant reviewer because the movie IS better than the book but after that I shall bury my head in the sand because it is NOT THAT MUCH BETTER than the book. A quick summary of how I feel about the movie; better than the book but considering the source is crap, the movie is in its own way crappy as well. You can see that the director tried her damnest best to make the movie credible with some interesting filming techniques and inclusions of certain scenes that were mentioned in passing in the book so as to make the movie more dreamy. You can also see most of the budget must have gone to the Cullens' amazingly beautiful home in the forest as well as the cars. You can certainly see huge effort given in casting, with some the characters cast looked the way I would envision them when I was reading the book eventhough the book hardly described the characters at all, the case in point is Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black. He really looked like animalistic-ish with his fangs like teeth and unique eyes and nose. He already looked like a werewolf even if he was smaller than the character described in the book. I thought he was rather handsome eventhough he hardly had any scenes and the scenes he had, he was smiling. Not much acting required. There were misses in the casting department which I shall elaborate further but most were perfect even if the acting is a bit not up to standards. But for all the goods that I highlighted about the movie, there are unfortunately many bads that in the end would bring the movie down, the primary being the source material. If you have a crappy source material, no amount of scripting wonder can do any good if the entire movie is faithful to the source material. This movie would have been the perfect opportunity for a scripwriter and a script doctor to make something coherent and cinematic out of it, by simply rewriting the entire story but keeping the basic "vampire falls in love with human being" story. I assume the writers' were being much too nice to Stephenie Meyer to suggest rewriting her story because no doubt if they had, the fans would boycott but the movie would have been so much better.

Is the movie entertaining? In a strange "Sweet Valley High" way, yes it was entertaining, in parts. Like the book, there were moments of utter silence and where the characters simply did nothing except to romance one another and towards the end, some drama and finally some action but too short lived. The book didn't quite spell out nicely the blossoming love between Edward and Bella, in fact they met, he wanted to suck her blood, she intrigued by his rejection, he intrigued by his inability to read her mind, she fell for his cool hotness, he fell for her so drinkable blood and boom, they're deeply and unequivocally in love. How they reached from A to C without much of B was never explained in the book and in the movie, B was never even mentioned. In fact much of A was never mentioned but we do get an overdose of C, unconvincingly. The problem with a romance movie such as this is I am not into their romance. The movie seems to be moving in a snail pace and felt very very long, like how I felt watching Quantum Of Solace and yet nothing much ever happens in there, or at least anything of much urgency happens. Like the points I highlighted in the book review, I can't feel the Cullens closeness. I felt like they were lodging with one another rather than really being a family. The supposed calmness and wisdom of Carlisle Cullen is lost in the cinematic translation but no fretting; he wasn't that all encompassing wisdom or voice of conscience. He was just this incredibly youthful handsome pale looking doctor who could never have been able to adopt such grown up kids in the first place and he walks into a scene, does something, walks out, and his role is of no significance, even when at the end he was the one who quietly advised Edward to control himself when Edward couldn't stop himself sucking Bella's blood. Even then it felt weird; I never felt the paternal love between them and in a way this is because of the lack of on screen time. Worse for Esme if you ask me. As for the other Cullens, I was rather shocked at how not so gorgeously awesomely perfect Rosalie or skipping happy perky Alice was. I find the casting for these 2 were way off, especially Nikki Reed as Rosalie who was a total miscast based on looks alone. Acting wise, amongst the amateurs, she was the better one and even that she wasn't entirely memorable. Let me put my thoughts in simple terms. The Cullens were very young when they became vampires but none of the actors even remotely look the age of the characters. They were described as Adonis and Athena perfection in the book and whilst there is no denying these are pretty people, they're no way awesomely gorgeous. Maybe they should just look at Lord Of The Rings and the elves especially. Make up makes them look beautiful and I suspect some catwalk training make them graceful. None of the Cullens were as graceful as described in the book. In fact, in the book they were described as so still that they're almost inhuman which they are by the way. During lunch they never move, when they talk they hardly move their lips and they whisper rather than normal talk. This movie however got that all wrong. The way they chit chat during lunch time shows they are of no difference than normal teenagers, they speak normal tones and they don't move lightning fast or gracefully as they should. In other words, whatever makes them a bit not human in the book were removed completely from the movie except they look pale and when I mean pale, I mean 10 inches of foundation and powder instead of real pale. A shame really because these factors are the only one that ever indicates they are not human, although none to indicate they're vampires. The movie removed all those elements so to me what's the problem with being a vampire? No harm, no problem at all and no stigma. Just like in the book, except different way to the same conclusion.

The story itself as in the movie is a laborious thing to watch. For those who haven't read the book may be intrigued but will ultimately be very confused with all those glitter, no fangs and forever stuck in high school stuff but for those who have read the book, it will either be satisfaction but still not quite happy some elements were not in the movie or total dislike simply because the book is awesome. I belong to the former simply because I felt the book was worse but I am not happy some elements were not in the movie or not properly represented in the movie. Even if these were properly represented, let's just say the movie still has a lot to be desired. You just have to read the book to know why. And of course it has a lot to do with the fact the movie tries to be artsy, tries to be mainstream when it should just stick to what it is; a teen romance from a material so thin that it is transparent. The movie tries to take itself too seriously and in the end it became like a child pretending to be a grown up which is all wrong.

That being said, I have a few favourite scenes. The Cullens house is nice, the Cullens cars are nice, the weather looks positively depressing which is nice. The forest scene is nice and the whole glitter thing is well done. Some complained not enough glitter and for awhile me too because I was expecting like huge sunbeams reflected from Edward's body but you know the effect may be subtle but yet noticeable and I thought well the glitter was nice. Robert Pattinson's hair is the real awesomeness of this movie, Taylor Lautner's looks are also awesome (he does look unique) and I quite enjoyed the silly baseball scenes, like all the pretend drama when there isn't any actually. In fact I still find the baseball scene weird, like it didn't belong in there or even in the book. Charlie was good, I enjoyed his scenes and I also liked the scene where Edward expressed why being a vampire ain't that good and how he revealed his glittery looks. Full of angst but after that notice how he leaned towards Bella, as in Robert Pattinson quite uncharacteristically fumbling to place both his palms face down on the rock that Kristen was leaning on, very clumsy and clearly a 2nd take would have been better than just settling for this bad NG take. But my most favourite scene is actually the scene when we first meet the Cullens, when Bella first saw them walking slow mo into the cafeteria, all 5 of them ending with Edward looking sullen and yes, handsome. I thought the introduction was great. Everything else was however not that great. Now that I look back, I don't think poor Jasper even had any lines at all.

Effects wise, not much. You can see not much budget on the effects so all those super fast running, super strength and super agility didn't look so super.

Acting wise, I have nothing much to say except surprisingly not much acting is involved since many scenes are like cuddle, chit chatting and not much dialogue. Any dialogue is cringe worthy but give the actors the credit for delivering them with conviction, so if they may sound silly, it is in the end because the lines themselves are silly and not the actors delivering them.

Robert Pattinson did well, despite the awful lines he had to deliver. So he failed in the hissing department, so he didn't look threatening but he did get the manic depressive side spot on. He looks depressed and yet when he smiled he has the prettiest smile, next to Taylor Lautner. I like him, and I felt amongst all his performance is better than the rest but that moment he was crouching and sucking Bella's blood was a tad overacting. American accent wasn't convincing though. Why not make Edward English? More exotic.

Kristen Stewart looked the part but her acting was like frozen look acting. She tries too hard being Jodie Foster you know. Her deep voice reminded me of Jodie Foster and she did play her daughter in Panic Room and she was annoying in there. In this movie she was annoying without even really being Bella. Bella is annoying. And terribly clumsy, an element that was not emphasised in this movie so nothing to make her loveable. I just find her Bella irritating, sulky and terribly moody. As in the book, yes I know so I suppose no more, no less than the book. She could have made Bella better, nice or maybe shy or quiet but none of these. I don't see what Edward sees in this movie version of Bella. There must be another young actress who could bring out the better qualities of Bella. Can't she make Bella shy but approachable? Clumsy in a charming way? Innately charming? Something like that?

Billy Burke was the saving grace of this movie. He had some funny scenes, and thanks to him the movie was slightly less than crappy.

Taylor Lautner, a name I shall remember to infinity and beyond has the most beautiful smile and the most unique look. Unfortunately he also has very little scenes and from what I can see, his performance leaves much to be desired.

Kellan Lutz did look like a credible Emmet Cullen but not big enough. Handsome though.

Nikki Reed is not pretty nor graceful enough to be Rosalie.

Jackson Rathbone looks weird as Jasper and later in the books Jasper will play a significant role and I feel the actor may have a hard time convincing the audiences his Jasper was a vampire tracker. He simply didn't look like one.

Ashley Greene is a miscast as the playful and super agile Alice because she looks too old. I always imagined Alice as someone in her mid teens, very young so Ashley to me didn't look the part. Worse, she didn't look playful or even a seer.

Elizabeth Reaser is too old to be Esme who wasn't that old when she became a vampire. I can see wrinkles which is not good. If Carlisle Cullen is so youthful looking, Esme shouldn't look so much older even if she was I think 2 years older.

Peter Facinelli as Carlisle Cullen is handsome but unfortunately does not have the gravitas to be the wise and dependable and calm and paternal Carlisle Cullen. Some actors have that but this one doesn't.

The rest are either just there or not there at all. What I mean is performance wise nothing worth commenting and most are a miscast eventhough the vampires seem rather hip. Again I ask, what's the stigma?

Verdict
Twilight the movie (or even the book) is like Sarah Palin. Nice to look at but of little substance. And worse of all, people as in voters accept her to only not faint during debates and will then consider her a success. Like this movie, they expect total disaster and was pleasantly surprised to find out that the movie was not as crappy as the book and so they declared the movie as in not bad at all and so the conclusion is the movie is good. As long as it follows the book, it will be great. That to me is lazy adaptation. Directing wise, the director whilst made such an effort in making Twilight no crappy didn't help much by making the movie into something it isn't. The books call themselves The Twilight SAGA and I suppose the movie would describe itself as an EPIC of star crossed lovers. Total B.S if you ask me. Watch the movies like how you would hear Sarah Palin but please do not take it seriously like how some would take Sarah Palin's words seriously. The idea of Sarah Palin running for presidency and becoming one and like Twilight running for Best Oscar Picture and winning one will elicit the same response for me; it will be doomsday, the day when good taste becomes extinct. Twilight in the end isn't a good movie to begin with. If the book had been better, I would have declared the movie a bad boring crappy movie but since the book was worse, I shall repeat my sentiments; the movie will be better than the book, and it is better. Is it good enough is really in the end up to you as the viewer. If you must know, no, it is not good enough for me.

Interesting Fact

Stephenie Meyer was in the movie, in the cafe scene where Bella was having lunch with her father Charlie. She was the customer.

Read More

QUANTUM OF SOLACE [Mov]

Written by Funn Lim

"I went into the cinema expecting to see a worthy sequel to Casino Royale and what I saw was a total mess."



SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

Released In
2008

Cast-Characters
Daniel Craig - James Bond
Olga Kurylenko - Camille
Mathieu Amalric - Dominic Greene
Judi Dench - M
Giancarlo Giannini - Mathis
Gemma Arterton - Strawberry Fields
Jeffrey Wright - Felix Leiter
David Harbour - Gregg Beam
Jesper Christensen - Mr. White
Anatole Taubman - Elvis
Rory Kinnear - Tanner
Tim Pigott-Smith - Foreign Secretary
Joaquín Cosio - General Medrano

Summary
Seeking revenge for the death of his love, secret agent James Bond sets out to stop an environmentalist from taking control of a country's water supply.

More info
Check out other reviews, plot, pictures and full cast list at IMDB.com

Comments
I went into the cinema expecting to see a worthy sequel to Casino Royale and what I saw was a total mess. It was then that I realised action films are not easy to make and the number 1 rule is never get a director who is good at those artistic drama or such movies to direct an all out action movie, because what you have is between a really bad action film and an inadequate artistic film. I know the producer wants to make Bond a relevant movie, both capable at mindless entertainment and thinking man's film. But it all just gives a very bad vibe; pretentious (oh those never ending interchange scenes of running on rooftop and opera! those wasted beautiful scenes of an underground chase with lots of horses on the ground! the early chase scene which was confusing since 2 cars looked alike!), confusing (who is fighting who?). Everything that is Bond is wiped out in this movie and left with an empty shell that reminds me all too much of a Jason Bourne movie and I hated all 3 Bourne films. The obsession and insistence of filming action sequences close up, jittery hands for camera and indistinguishable hero-villain during a fight is to me the trademarks of a bad director who doesn't know what he is doing. Of course Marc Forster must start somewhere but to start with a Bond film perhaps may be too ambitious. The same reason why The Golden Compass failed is the exact same reason why Quantum Of Solace fails to deliver what should have been an amazing experience expected of any Bond film. Locations after locations, seems more like a show off with no substance. That scene where M and Bond was briefed by fellow agents with what looked like awesome touch screen computer or whatever your call it was rather surprising. I expected that in a CIA movie or in an American setting but in a Bond film? No doubt the technology looks good but in the end it also looks pompous and un-SAS like. I don't expect typewriters but I expect the British to have more practical effective sense than glamour arrogance. It almost reminded me of that invisible car in that worst Bond film ever, Die Another Day. The script is also terrible. Absolutely devoid of any memorable lines, the script is a mix of awful unmemorable lines, confusing lines or lines that absolutely made no sense. Gone are the witty exchange. Even the drama or heartfelt moments in this movie is spoiled by a less than sincere effort of a script. Maybe the scriptwriter had no time to vet through it, since the writers' strike was nearing the deadline so that script had to do. But what a terribly confusing script. If you felt Mission Impossible the movie was impossible to decipher, Quantum Of Solace has a premise as difficult to explain as its title. In the end I still don't know what, who, where, why is Quantum. Characters from Casino Royale, such as Mathis were introduced again just to die a senseless death and when I say senseless, I meant I can't understand what happened. Was Mathis a double spy? I still don't get it. Then Felix Leiter, the CIA agent became rather shadowy or rather an implication that CIA is shadowy. And then? Nothing. A character gets introduced, a plot gets introduced and then suddenly the tone shifted and the plot nor the character never get a satisfactory end explanation.

Casino Royale had the alluring Eva Green as Vesper and only in this movie did I realise how alluring she was and she was only said in name and seen in pictures. Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields is rather pointless, introduced merely to have sex with Bond and die a terrible death. Whilst the gold covered corpse in Goldfinger was iconic and relevant to the plot, Agent Field's death by oil is simply a waste of film. There is no relevance (she should have drowned or died of over consumption of water because the water is the main point in this movie) and the way her body was filmed was like as if the director did not know whether to focus or not focus. It was neither shocking nor memorable. In the end it was just another dead character and her character is as pointless as Teri Hatcher's character in I believe Tomorrow Never Dies. Gemma Arterton did not have enough to make an impact and I thought the way her character was introduced was rather weird.

Olga Kurylenko plays Camille and I thought she looked over tanned. Poor girl,hardly any budget to look as glamorous as any Bond girl should, not even at a fancy party. Her performance consisted of pouting and looking dead serious. She wasn't even alluring but looked over baked. Her acting was inadequate and amateurish. Her character irrelevant and I can't see the connection, except for tremendous loss of a loved one,which is in the end rather forced.

In the end this movie failed because everything Bond is stripped and what we are left with is a crazy killing machine. Daniel Craig was good as ever but too slim to look believable as a killing machine and too serious that somehow I wonder where had the witty sarcasm gone. The villain was the worst. Mathieu Amalric looked like a really poor version of a villain, given neither credible storyline nor a memorable line to be considered a good Bond villain. He simply fell flat looking like a rat rather than a powerful sinister whatever he was. He wasn't even scary and what his role do exactly is as confusing as the entire film. He is probably a very good actor but in this movie, he seems like a fish out of water. Even the main story point about water was lost in the confusing plots, subplots, double plots and no plots. The theme song was as awful as any other and the opening sequence seems like a throwback to the old Bond films which is embarrassing to watch. I love Casino Royale and this movie made me love Casino Royale and the past Bond films more. The producer should have demanded more instead of giving us this half baked, badly acted, badly scripted and worse badly directed mess. Get a director who know action films, perfect the script and spend more time on casting. Not everyone wants a Bourne film. I want 007 back. I just pity Judi Dench, excellent as she was as M, she seems overran by the awful mindless witless plot. Even for a drama it was terrible. Maybe it is time to reintroduce Q and Moneypenny. No doubt this one will make tons of money but in the end it does not deserve a place in the long line of excellent Bond films. And it manages to make an under 2 hour film seems more than 2 hours and that is quite an achievement. We need Bond, not another action superhero.

Verdict
A complete and utter nonsense. Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, fans and Bond himself all deserve better than this boring crap. You will watch it I am sure and you will probably be entertained but after you left the cinema answer me these;

1. do you remember the plot?

2. does it strike you as a Bond film?

3. would you even bother to watch it a 2nd time?

I would bet at last 2 nos.

Die Another Day was the worst but it was still a recognisable Bond film. Quantum Of Solace is like an oddball and the sooner the next Bond films is shown at the cinema the better because I certainly do not wish to remember the world's favourite spy with this nonsense. Bond, James Bond deserves a better movie. Blame it on the script and blame it on the director and most of all blame it on the producer for letting a bad script and an inexperience action flick director bulldoze over Bond and making this movie, even with all the THX sounds and car chases all a snooze fest.

Read More

The Dark Knight

Written by Funn Lim




"I do feel because all the attention is now on Heath Ledger flamboyant Joker, Aaron Eckhart may not be given the attention he deserves for an excellent interpretation of this sad pitiful character (Harvey Dent)"





SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

Released In
2008

Language
English

The Cast - Character
Christian Bale ... Bruce Wayne / Batman
Heath Ledger ... The Joker
Aaron Eckhart ... Harvey Dent / Two-Face
Michael Caine ... Alfred Pennyworth
Maggie Gyllenhaal ... Rachel Dawes
Gary Oldman ... Lt. James Gordon
Morgan Freeman ... Lucius Fox
Monique Curnen ... Det. Ramirez
Ron Dean ... Detective Wuertz
Cillian Murphy ... Dr. Jonathan Crane / The Scarecrow
Chin Han ... Lau
Nestor Carbonell ... Mayor
Eric Roberts ... Salvatore Maroni
Ritchie Coster ... The Chechen
Anthony Michael Hall ... Mike Engel

Summary
Taken from IMDB.com

With just one year passed after taking out Ra's Al Ghul's plan to have Gotham eliminated and the mysterious disappearance of Dr. Jonathan Crane AKA the Scarecrow, after the city was nearly plundered with his toxins, Bruce Wayne and his vigilante alter-ego the Batman, continue the seemingly-endless effort to bring order to Gotham, with the help of Lt. James Gordon and newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent, but a new threat has now emerged into the streets. The Dark Knight faces a rising psychopathic criminal called The Joker, who's eerie grin, laughter, and inhuman morality makes him more dangerous than what he has yet to unleash. It becomes an agenda to the Batman to stop the mysterious Joker at all cost, knowing that the both of them are in the opposite line. One with no method at all and seeks to see the world plunge into the fire he has yet to lit. One who represents the symbol of hope and uses his own shadow to bring the peace and order he has yet to accomplish on doing.

Comments
Watching The Dark Knight at the cinema the other day left me feeling ... incomplete. What I mean is there is a certain sense of sadness, a sense of what could have been, a sense of incompleteness if you get my meaning and it is all because Heath Ledger. He died, as you all know. He was never my favourite, never liked his performance in Brokeback Mountain but as the Joker he showed tremendous gutso at playing someone so evil, someone so ruthless, someone so ugly having his face hidden behind heavy makeup, almost unrecognisable. What could have been I wonder? Well all that is moot point and for that I felt rather sad when watching the movie. He was much too young as with all those who died much too young, from a death that could have been prevented. I was glad Warner Bros did not water down his role or the promotions surrounding the Joker. Those who thought this movie was a success riding on his death or the promotion sickening because the 2nd lead actor is dead must be totally delusional and disrespectful of the dead actor himself. What better way to celebrate the actor's accomplishments than to proceed with the promotions and the movie as if he had been alive? Christopher Nolan paid him the greatest tribute by leaving the movie as it is and whilst it is creepy to see him so creepy on screen when you realised he is so dead, I felt the creepiness was essential. Would the movie have made such huge bucks and garner such huge buzz if he had been alive? OF COURSE! Batman Begins was very successful and running up to the release even before his death the movie was garnering buzz after buzz, even the Oscar buzz. And the posters were gorgeous. I felt the marketing for this movie was brilliant.

The movie itself was strange. Nolan was eager, perhaps too eager to make Batman a possibility in our real world and in a way he succeeded. We see Hong Kong, so we are told Gotham City exists in the US in a real world. The buildings look real and any traces of the old Batman movies were wiped out and replaced with realism in its surrounding. The Joker was no caricature, he was in fact a real man hidijng his scars and identity behind the mask of a clown and frankly you may find it funny at first, I mean a joker as a terrorist? Can you imagine Al Qaedas in costume like cartoon characters? But Nolan made it believable that a man can fight crime wearing a bat suit and a man can be a scary terrorist even if under heavy make up looking like a clown and calling themselves the joker. The main cast returns except for Katie Holmes who insanely decided not to do the sequel and she was replaced by another actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays the same character. We even get to see the Scarecrow in a brief scene.

Whilst Batman Begins was on mass fear and hysteria, the Dark Knight explores further into the notion of good and evil, hero and villain, fear and respect and what makes a good man bad and a bad man good and a human simply a human. It is a heavily themed movie that makes you question your inner concious self, which category you belong too. The movie relied heavily on the Joker as he was in every scene from the beginning till the end. The Joker is the clear cut villain. Batman is the not so clear cut hero since he sometimes uses illegal means to do good. In fact he was branded a vigilante which is strange since Lieutenant Gordon has a big huge spotlight on a rooftop to be used whenever Gotham City needd Batman. So I was wondering in the 1 year has passed, why Batman suddenly became a vigilante? Then there's Harvey Dent, an eager District Attorney who really genuinely is fearless in fighting crimes even at his own expense and he is the direct opposite of Batman. Whilst Batman is the Dark Knight, as in a hero who rescues people but literally and figuratively in the dark, the unseen and misunderstood good who uses tough measures to exact justice and so Batman struggles with his conscience, Harvey Dent is the White Knight, the gallant hero whose identity is known and his tactic is based on fearlessness and respect. Batman's method is based on instiling fear, much like the Joker, but the Joker did what he did simply to create chaos. He is not interested in money or even recognition, he just wants to see the world burn, like Alfred said to Bruce Wayne in one scene.

This theme of hero and villain has been explored to almost philosophical level by M Night in Unbreakable. Bruce Willis was the hero but he didn't know it. To have a hero, there must be a villain in the form of Samuel L Jackson. A hero exists because a villain exists and for as long as a hero thrives, a villain will continue to exist. The relationship is linked in that twisted sense I suppose and The Dark Knight continues where M Night left. In some way I thought the Joker was in awe of Batman. It explores further the difference between two types of heroes, one in the dark and in the open and what happens when the white knight is being forced into a situation that questions his faith in humanity? Will he thrive on like the weary dark knight or will be turn? What makes a hero a hero? What is the definition of a hero? This movie poses these questions and tries to answer it to some degree. At times the movie felt too slow, sometimes too quiet, sometimes a little too artistic, always very dark and at some point the story keeps having an end and then continuing with a twist and then end and begin again for several times. This movie is long though, that is for sure. Story wise, nothing much I could add to what you could read out there. However I like to add one thing though; this movie's theme is really about fear. Both Joker and Batman instils fear but from different angle using different means.

One of the best scene had to be Batman extraditing a criminal from Hong Kong. I wish all criminals are illegally extradited with such efficiency and style. I also like the scene where the Joker utters his two famous lines, "Why so serious?" and "Let's put a smile on that face!", which were scary and yet funny in a morbid way. I love the Batpod although many said it looked clumsy but I didn't like the sonar eyes for Batman, too clumsy, noisy and confusing. I love the scene where Batman jumped onto the top of the car, crushing it and he looked every bit as menacing as he is heroic. I felt Batman was more menacing than heroic though. I love the fact that Bruce Wayne gets hurt and Alfred gets worried because after all Batman is only human and could be killed. It makes every of his decision vitally important for own self preservation and how much he is willing to push himself to achieve something.

The next best scene had to be the one where Joker wanted to prove the world, the people is naturally hypocrites and therefore selfish. He seems convinced by this and he placed two bombs in two ferries loaded with people being evacuated from Gotham City. One has a shipload of criminals with guards whilst the other oridinary citizens. The question is simple; At midnight the Joker will blow up both ships unless one of the ship blows up the other first. Each ship has a detonator. Batman's faith in mankind was dwindling and so as he fought the joker, the people squabble. The prisoners forcing the warden to turn on the switch, in the other ordinary citizens said those are criminals, they had their chance. Near midnight, in the ship with the prisoners, one mean looking prisoner walked to the warden and convinced the warden to let him switch it on because the warden wanted to survive but his conscience stopped him from doing it. In the end with trembling hands he gave it to the prisoner who promptly threw it out of the window and into the sea. Quietly he sat down again, and so the matter has been solved. I loved this scene because even criminals have conscience, something Joker was proving otherwise. They too have compassion. In the other ship, one man volunteered to do it. He took the device, and then he couldn't do it. With trembling hands he put it down and sat down. Everybody else didn't have the guts to be a criminal, to be a murderer and so they sat quietly, hoping the other ship has compassion as they did or rather didn't want to kill a shipload of people. Past 12, nothing happened. Joker was disappointed, Batman's faith in the people of Gotham was renewed.

The third best which is a character is Harvey Dent. Golden blonde boy of Gotham, he is the White Knight of Gotham, fearless in his pursuit of criminals, a good guy. His fall from grace was terrible and very sad and Batman lamented Joker won in the end when Harvey Dent became Two Face and was so angry with Lieutenant Gordon because his men betrayed him and so incensed with grief with what happened to someone he loved that he lost sense of right and wrong and his ethics and moral compass was lost forever. I am not sure if his ending was his death because it wasn't explained and since Two Face will become Batman's nemesis, I suppose he didn't die. But Harvey Dent did and it was a sad sight.

The fourth is of course the batsuit which has less emphasis (no longer any long shots of the pecs and everything else) and of course the make up. Two Face's makeup was beyond excellent, it was scary as it should be. Notice the suit too, one side nice, one side burnt. Bruce Wayne's room deserves a mention. Great. And Bruce Wayne's cars, all of them were fantastic. We still have some way before we see the Bat mobile proper.

Finally, last but not the least is the absolute ending for the awful inadequate character of Rachel Dawes. I disliked her in Batman Begins, mainly because of Katie Holmes' Parkinson induced performance and also because Rachel Dawes was so judgmental towards Bruce Wayne. This time around I hated her mostly because of Maggie Gyllenhaal. She received much praise and I wonder why. Just because she is ugly doesn't make her naturally talented. Look, why is Christian Bale always stuck with ugly women as his love interest? Give him someone pretty and can act better. Looks may not be an issue (well when Joker said "Hello beautiful!" and I was like excuse me?) but her mannerism, the way she stands, the way she talks were all terrible. She talks with this whimsical girly voice in the most serious scenes and it was irritating. Her performance was lightweight, like be there, done it and go home. There's no seriousness in her performance and I hated it when she smirked more than the joker did. And what got me confused was her interpretation of this character. Rachel knows Bruce is Batman and yet when she saw those gossip fodders that Bruce was away with the entire bellet troupe, she looked... well she smirked as if saying "And here you go, Bruce the playboy!" but yet she knew, she knew Bruce was waiting for her because he said he is waiting for her to come back to him when he lets go of Batman. So isn't that a contradiction? And the way she stands with her arms crossing was annoying. She didn't look like she got the balls to even fight the mafia. She didn't look strong enough. I hated her performance and all those that praised her is simply blinded by their hatred for Katie Holmes or in awe of the movie itself. Maggie Gyllenhaal, sorry to say is an overrated actress that quite nearly killed this movie. And I was so happy when her character got blown up. Sorry for the spoilers but I must get it out and I am looking forward to a new love interest for Bruce Wayne. I find both the character and the actress irritating.

The worst aspect of this movie though is the ending. I am not talking about the movie but the comic book ending; as in Hero walking (in this case running) away and another character narrates the ending. In this scene it was Gordon who said something like "Batman is a hero that Gotham City deserves but doesn't need". I was like HUH? To call Batman a vigilante and still have that big spotlight calling Batman whenever he is needed only makes Gotham City ungrateful! I would say "Batman is the hero that Gotham City needs but doesn't deserve" and I will NOT ONE BIT AT ALL! That was truly awful way to end this movie.

Performance wise, surprisingly Christian Bale had little screentime in which we see his face. For those few moment even as Batman he was excellent as always but the focus was more on the Joker and Harvey Dent. Even Lieutenant Gordon got more emphasis. He looked handsome though but his Batman voice was a bit too low, almost too put on.

The old guys were excellent, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman can just stand there and still be excellent. Eric Roberts was well, Eric Roberts. I really have no comment though I was surprised to see him in here.

Maggie Gyllenhaal as I have explained was awful.

Heath Ledger was really good but was he that great? I am not sure. I find his Joker manic, scary and sometimes twisted self righteous type of criminal. The new breed that we know as terrorists. But I didn't think he was that great to the point of super greatness. Oscar nomination? Probably. Personally I thought he was effective, funny at times and at most times menacing by playing the clown. In that sense I suppose he did give the best performance of his short lived career. The idea of where he could have gone after this performance is the one that made watching this movie sad.

The biggest surprise was Aaron Eckhart. Chiselled good looks, blonde hair to boot, he looked picture perfect as Harvey Dent the fearless knight of Gotham. I read Matt Damon was the first choice and I think Matt Damon would be a great choice too since he has this naturally good guy looks. But Aaron Eckhart is a fantastic actor and he played Harvey Dent with such earnestness and enthusiasm you can't help but be swept by his gallantry. And then he played Two Face with such pain and anger you can't help but feel sorry for him. In fact my feelings for his end was like how Batman felt about Harvey Dent; a great pity that he fell so hard that he can't pick himself up again. I do feel because all the attention is now on Heath Ledger's flamboyant Joker, Aaron Eckhart may not be given the attention he deserves for an excellent interpretation of this sad pitiful character. I hope to see him in the next instalment because Two Face is a very interesting villain.

For such a big movie, there are very few main characters.

Overall this movie is really good but is it that great? It was a risk to make a superhero movie so down to earth and I do think Nolan succeeded in erasing the memory of the campy terrible sequels of Batman movies forever and present with us a movie set in a world where a vigilante dressed as a bat and a terrorist dressed as a clown was a possibility. However I do miss Tim Burton's version of Gotham City because sometimes too much realism isn't my cup of tea.

Verdict
A really good and worthy sequel to Batman Begins with strong performances except for that one I mentioned. It has its weaknesess but overall the good moments erase the bad ones thus making this movie worth every penny I paid to watch it in the cinema. However I must agree with the minority; it isn't a masterpiece. But I have no doubt the next one will be.

Interesting Fact
I noticed in the list a Chin Han in the cast. Definitely not that Chin Han we know!

By the way I didn't see Edison Chan in here. In fact if the villain didn't say Hong Kong I wouldn't noticed it was Hong Kong!

Interesting Mistake (?)
One scene was confusing. Joker was irritating a policeman in the interview room and then it showed the policeman walking towards the joker menacingly. Next scene joker had a knife or gun or whatever to his throat dragging him out of the interview room. Where was the scene in between? What happened? Bad editing perhaps?

Interesting Posters
Each teaser poster was excellently made, never seen this kind since... since.. forever.

This is the scariest poster of the lot. Creepy!

Read More

THE BAKER [Mov]

Written by Funn Lim



"Somehow the entire movie comes across as half-baked"



SPOILERS ... SPOILERS ... SPOILERS

Released In
2007

Written & Directed By
Gareth Lewis (yes Damian Lewis' brother)

Cast-Character
Damian Lewis ... Milo
Kate Ashfield ... Rhiannon
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau ... Bjorn
Michael Gambon ... Leo
Annette Badland ... Martha
Aimee Cowen ... Checkout Girl
Gwenno Dafydd ... Mrs. Edwards
Dyfan Dwyfor ... Eggs
David Garfield ... Griff
Michael Geary ... Dai
Brian Hibbard ... Bob
Philip Howe ... Gareth Llewellyn
Margaret John ... Anne Jones
Rhodri Meilir ... Owain
Anthony O'Donnell ... Rhys
Robert Page ... Stan
Laurence Richardson ... Businessman
Nicholas Rowe ... Businessman
Boris the Sheep ... Himself
Steve Speirs ... Bryn
Dorien Thomas ... Old Williams
Dyfed Thomas ... Huw Edwards
William Thomas ... Alun
Valerie Vaughan-Williams ... Mrs. Thomas
Simon Winkler ... Bodyguard
Gareth Wyn Griffith ... Fish & Chip Man

Summary
From imdb.com

"A hit man has second thoughts about his career and seeks refuge from his boss by finding work as a baker in a rural Welsh village."

Not really accurate. More like "A disillusioned professional hitman named Milo could no longer kill and was therefore on the run from his organisation. He sought refuge in a small Welsh village arranged by his mentor/friend, Leo and after he was mistakenly identified as the new baker in town he opened a bakery in disguise and realised he loved baking despite being not very good at it and whilst there found love with a local vet, Rhiannon, met quirky villages who have their own personal agendas whilst avoiding an assasination attempt by fellow hitman Bjorn who harbours a deep feeling for Milo."

And that is the entire movie's synopsis actually.

Comments
My fascination with this movie is simply a result of my fascination with Damian Lewis, an actor whom I have always liked but has never really seen his other works other than Band Of Brothers, Dreamcatcher, Much Ado About Nothing and the TV series, Life which I shall credit for reigniting my interest in this actor. Not that I was ever not interested in him. It just that between Dreamcatcher (a movie that I really liked eventhough I really shouldn't since it wasn't that great), Much Ado About Nothing (which I really loved) and Life, I missed out on a lot of his recent works and news on his personal life. He is now a father of 2, married to an even more respected fellow British actress who seems to share a similar background as him but certainly not as famous worldwide and has acted in TV movies, stage and of course some movies that frankly I can't name since I am oblivious to how much has occured since... well since Much Ado About Nothing. Like Daniel Craig, I don't know much about Damian Lewis, I didn't even know his real voice/accent (Much Ado About Nothing notwithstanding) prior to some digging at youtube. What I found in Youtube both amazed and shocked me. His posh upper English accent, his voice somewhat different from his acting voice and his shocking red hair. I know he has red hair but it still shocks me how red it actually is. I found clips of him playing golf, reciting poems for BBC's Essential Poems and of course hosting a comedy/political satarical show Have I Got News For You where he was basically hammered by a regular on the show which was very funny to watch. And through all these clips I realised why I like him so; he is not exceedingly handsome, with a mouth that is too small, a face that is too long, hair that is too red and yet his face grows on me probably because the camera loves him. He has a photogenic and classical look, those that belong to the old glamourous Hollywood of the 1940s. He has in fact a very distinguished look that even when he played villains, you will somehow empathise with his villain. And he is charismatic. You just somehow have to look at him.

So when I found out about The Baker, a highly acclaimed movie written and directed by his own brother and won some awards that I am not very familiar with, I went hunting for it and couldn't find it. But it is popular enough to be ripped and uploaded as a torrent so I suppose there are torrent uploaders who like the odd less popular movies out there. Downloaded it and took a few days to actually sit down in front of my computer and actually watch it. How was it?

You can call it quirky. In fact it aims to be quirky, like those oddball quirky small British films, not unlike The Full Monty regrettably without the full monty if you know what I mean. It is far far away from those big Hollywood blockbuster or even comedies, so if you ask me to describe it, I can only say quirky. I can't find another word for it because even the soundtrack, with background music playing at the right time just makes it feel, sound, look and spell quirky. What is quirky? "Strikingly unconventional" as defined by the online thesaurus. Quite apt.

I didn't know any of the actors in this movie except for the obvious and Michael Gambon but the actress who played Rhiannon was very familiar and some digging tells me she is the lead actress in one of my most favourite movies of all time, Shaun Of The Dead. The way she talked with that perpetual frown on her face tipped me off so yes, I know 3 and the rest I am not familiar with although I won't be surprised if I have seen them somewhere before since the British film industry is very small.

Back to the movie. How was it you may ask?

Frankly, in all honesty and with a heavy heart I have to say it is not as good as you may think it is but am quite pleased to say it is not as bad as some online reviews said. Basically it is mediocre, with a possibility that it could have been so so so so much better but somehow falls flat. If you watch it with high expectations you will be very much disappointed but if you watch it without much expectations you might actually enjoy it. I watched it for Damian Lewis and in that respect I enjoyed it. But since I can dissect a movie into several parts that can be assessed seperately without having to look at the other parts, which is something I am pretty good at, I have to say overall the movie falls flat on expectations because there are more bad than good.

For example, the story itself.

It starts off with Milo, a professional hitman who has had it with being a professional hitman. He wants an ordinary life, he wants love, a family, friends, a permanent place in this world. So he botches a hit job and had to make a run for it. His organisation sends Bjorn, a fellow hitman after him. With the help of his friend Leo who is supposedly in retirement (I suppose he was a former hitman himself with the same organisation) he went to hide in a small Welsh village. He was mistaken as the new baker because someone saw him walking out of the closed bakery but one young man, Eggs saw him burying a suitcase full of guns so Eggs knew and Eggs told everyone else who in turn tried to hire Milo to kill off someone by a cryptic order of chocolate cake which Milo genuinely thought it was an order for chocolate cake when an old henpecked husband who runs a fish shop ordered chocolate cake (a cryptic order to kill his nagging wife) and his wife died in an explosion through no help from Milo. Mistaken identity kinda storyline.

Pause here for a moment. There is no background for Milo. I don't know him and in the end I still do not know him. I suppose some storyline are not meant to be detailed and one can assume that Milo had no family since he is such a lonely guy seeking love. But there is actually no background whatsoever for Milo. This movie opens with the assumption that the viewers will assume all the assumptions. It is built on assuming certain facts so a little suspend of your logical deductions here. I have no problem with assumptions since decades of watching TVB series with its illogical plots especially with detective dramas has built in my mind an ability to make assumptions and believe in them. So whenever a movie opens with a character that has no past, I have no problem with it. Moreover Damian Lewis' performance had me believe in my own assumptions; Milo is probably an orphan, Milo is probably very good at his job but is fed up with the loneliness, the secrecy, Milo probably has had a few relationships before but probably all failed because of the confidentiality clause, Milo now is very stressed because he feels he is burning out and he is having a career and personal crisis.

My problem with the story begins when he reaches the village. There is the present and there is no need for assumptions anymore since the character begins the journey as the story begins. Here the movie tries to capitalise on its quirkiness by introducing various characters that just either spell weird or quirky. Since hiring someone to kill your wife/neighbour/competitor is not really that quirky, I suppose weird is more like it. The problem with the quirky/weird characters is that none of them are endearing. I find them all a bit of a loser, those who simply failed in life. Even the henpecked husband who wants his wife dead. I don't find his wife annoying enough, in fact I find the husband more annoying than the wife. There's the Shakespeare quoting guy who well is the Shakespeare quoting guy. Many other characters but none has more screentime than the young man,Eggs who was the first to know of Milo's true identity and admired him for it. Again an assumption; this boy has no parents or maybe good influence from a parent so he look to Milo as his big brother, admiring him and hoping to emulate him. The problem is I find this boy annoying as well. Towards the end there is supposed to be a comraderie between Milo and Eggs, an unspoken bond between brothers I suppose but I don't feel that. In fact towards the end the villagers actually banded together to save Milo, after a speech by I think Eggs who questioned why the villagers forsaken their loyalty for one another and became such strangers. But never had at any point in this movie had the villagers ever been friendly or brotherly like with one another. From the get go we see a neighbour destroying the garden of the other neighbour so that speech questioning theor brotherly love for one another is misplaced. This is a village where everybody is pretending to be nice to the other. Anyway, maybe it shouldn't have been that case or maybe the director was trying to show a change in attitude thanks to Milo. And that is what makes it fall flat. It all just feel underdeveloped, like more could have been done but yet so little was actually achieved.

But none is worse than the forced romance between Rhiannon and Milo. From how they met to her very inquisitive mind, asking him all sorts of questions. Is inquisitive the new cute? She is supposed to be cute right? I suppose that is supposed to spark Milo's interest in this woman seemingly so interested in him. Frankly I didn't even know her name until towards the end. And it is not difficult for Milo to fall for her, since she is like the only young available pretty female in the village. The rest are old white men with old white women. I am not bringing in the race issue but it is merely to describe, not really to criticise. Anyway with one pretty young female in the village, it is not hard to conclude "yep, she's the one". And between knowing one another and asking her out on a date, in between not enough is done to show the attraction. I just find them like 2 strangers suddenly agreed to go on a date and on the 1st date, they had wild messy sex in the kitchen of the bakery with Eggs, drunk after wrongly assuming he assassinated a villager. And even the sex scene seems forced with eggs, butter, jam and flour involved with the act of sex of course. I just find the scene un-sexy when it should have been. I don't feel the romance, I don't feel the attraction and frankly I find Rhiannon a very boring annoying character. If inquisitive beautiful women are attractive, yes I get it. But she lacks one thing that makes a pretty inquisitive woman attractive; personality. The actress, Kate Ashfield is perpetually frowning. It didn't help her face registered the emotive range in the negatives. She could stand there and I still wouldn't notice her. Same in Shaun Of The Dead, same here. Worse here actually since her role is very badly written and really underdeveloped.

Even Michael Gambon is underused here. His character again is built on assumptions and in the end he could be played by anyone who has 10 minutes to spare. Who is Leo? I don't know and I don't care.

The character of Bjorn is interesting because he is possibly the funniest in here. He has little screentime but whenever he appeared, there are subtexts; from his gentle stroking of Milo's face on the screen to his preference of sausages which lingers in his mouth before he takes a bite, to his often referred location, Amsterdam, under the bridge had me in stiches. Milo had to keep reminding him what he was thinking of was impossible. Although the movie never really said it loud and clear, it is obvious Bjorn harbours a feeling deeper than that of a fellow colleague for Milo and Milo knows it. What happened in Amsterdam? No one knows so I suppose Bjorn waited for Milo under the bridge in Amsterdam or somewhere near a bridge but Milo never showed up, thus breaking his heart. Quite touching actually.

One character that is most developed in this movie and still feels underdeveloped is of course Milo. Like I said, many assumptions have to be made and if you push aside your doubts, Milo is a pretty interesting character. A hitman who wants to be a baker? How far removed from his old job is that? Trading guns for a spatula? Machine guns for a blender? Bullets for chocolate chips? That in itself makes the entire premise quirky. A pity not much of actual development of the character is put into the script itself.

The story and Kate Ashfield aside, the performances in this movie is what make this movie enjoyable.

Leading the pack is of course Damian Lewis, probably the reason why this movie was made successfully in the first place. Damian Lewis can be funny, he can be witty, he can even look so boyishly charming in a very earnest way which is why I can't help but like Milo. Well there is nothing not to like about Milo actually. Damian has this likeability factor in him and everytime he is on screen, he takes up the entire screen. His presence is all consuming, that sometimes a pity to his co-stars standing next to him because probably no one will notice them. His performance is top notch and is only hampered by the underdeveloped script and his underdeveloped character.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau who plays Bjorn is very effective in this role. His Bjorn comes across as a lovelorn jilted lover who can be quite manic sometimes. Very little screentime but is probably the best character in this movie other than Milo.

The rest are competent and effective in their respective roles despite the fact that all are not very well written. Seen in a good way you can call them underdeveloped characters. But honestly speaking I feel they're more badly written than underdeveloped.

Frankly I do not know what is wrong with this movie. For a comedy, it is not that funny. It is long, as in the standard length for a movie and yet so much wastage, so much underdeveloped characters eventhough so little plot. It is like a movie with bad time management and whilst the potential is there, perhaps something went wrong in the editing room. Somehow the entire movie comes across as half-baked (pun is intended).

The one fully baked part is of course the background music that gives this movie a personality that it badly needs and which helps to define it as quirky. I like the music, comes during the right moment and ends at the right moment albeit a bit too loud sometimes.

A pity the movie itself doesn't have that perfect timing, comic, drama or otherwise.

Verdict
Good for a boring rainy Sunday and of course Damian Lewis' fans if you can ignore all the question marks.

Interesting Site
For more pictures and screencaps, try this website, The Bakery. Look for Gallery > Movies > The Baker. Check out the other high resolution candid and photoshoots too! Excellent website, lacking only in nice wallpapers.

Read More