Fong_Chun_Kin Reviews

Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005)

Theatre boss, movie owner

[8/10 · 17 February 2006]

Now now, what would you expect from a movie that starts off with a solemn British upper- class funeral with a very sombre Judi Dench crying on a boat in the middle of a lake? A long depressing hour plus journey through the rest of the film?

How wrong I was! From the moment Madam Dench parted her 'upper-crass' lips, the show was a totally enjoyable ride. How witty the dialogue! How endearing the squabbles! How enchanting the story!

Judi Dench stars as an ultra-rich English widow who has just inherited her dead husband's massive fortune. She passes by a run-down theatre called the Windmill and decides to buy and rebuild it in hope that it'll fill the boredom and loneliness in her life. Bob Hoskins co- stars as the theatre manager whom she hires to run the Windmill, and acts as the perfect foil to the feisty lady of the show. The chemistry is amazing between the actors and their conversations so natural that it is hard to believe that they are actually working on a script. Another actress who left an impression is Kelly Reilly who I personally feel has a splitting image to Julie Delpy. Her somewhat convincing performance as a tenacious young star however, inevitably falls short of the commanding presences from the leads.

Come to think of it, there is only one commanding presence in the film, which makes it easy to understand why Judi Dench is once again nominated for the Oscars. She switches from cheeky sarcasm to dead seriousness with ridiculous ease, which makes it such fun watching her strut her stuff on screen. As Mrs Henderson, she doesn't just own the theatre but owns the entire movie as well, so overpowering her presence that the pace drops significantly every time she is not in the frame.

Without giving too much of the story away, you can expect to hear plenty of good songs (the show's a part-musical), indulge in excellent dialogue, and witness many 'insightful' moments (alright alright, there are many naked ladies on stage). Lovely story, great acting, bright lights, nice music, eye-popping assets, free movie tickets... what more can I ask for?

Be with Me (2005)

Silent Inspiration

[9/10 · 12 September 2005]

Be With Me is essentially a quiet film with minimal dialogue and action, but yet radiates a certain degree of power and influence on the audience throughout the course of the show. Three short stories are interwoven around a real-life docu-drama featuring the indomitable Theresa Chan, who although blind and deaf, displays more strength and hope than any of the other characters in the movie.

Did the film make me cry, as it supposedly did to many critics around the world? No it didn't. So you mean the show wasn't touching for me? Wrong. Do we have to cry when something touches the heart? Many times what goes on inside the heart does not translate to what comes out from the eyes. My emotions were stirred and I felt my heart clench at various moments when the characters suffered through the quiet desperation they went through.

It was an enjoyable movie, though the ambiance and overall darkness of the film may suggest otherwise. I felt most amazed at what Theresa Chan was capable of accomplishing despite her most unfortunate disabilities. Not just the physical aspects, where she showed us her astonishing ability to take care of herself, but also the mental and spiritual aspects of her life, where she is so strong in the mind and the faith in her God. It would be so easy to blame the heavens and let go of life but yet she displays a remarkable determination to make the fullest out of her existence. Her situation puts the other characters' plights in the shade and render our own complaints with everything around us irrelevant.

Be With Me not just provides a silent inspiration to audiences, it also showcases the many facets of local life rarely experienced in a busy world where everything revolves around us at breakneck speed. Take a time out and allow yourself to sit through an hour and a half of peaceful contemplation with what is it that really matters most in our lives.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Smittened with Mrs Smith

[8/10 · 13 June 2005]

There are only three things worth watching in this movie: Angelina Jolie, her right boob and her left boob.

Of course, I'm kidding. The film is more entertaining than one would expect, especially from a movie that banks so heavily on the combined star voltage of Jolie and the 'I look much better than I act' Brad Pitt. The action scenes are expectedly explosive and spectacular, and hits the audience relentlessly. The surprisingly element of the film is the dialogue... non-conventionally humorous and bordering on being dark and slightly nonchalant at times. While not every joke hits the mark, this technique is effective in achieving what the director clearly wants to stress on with his 2 superstars: coolness. Everything about the show is made to make the audience go "woooah..", from the poses they strike, the pouts they make, the gadgets and weapons they wield and the lines they spout. For me, the comedic chemistry between the leads stands out as the most "cool" factor throughout the film. Credit to the stars, especially Jolie (ok, I'm a biased A.J. fan), for sizzling their way through the show with minimal effort. Trust me, you'll understand why Jennifer Aniston (formerly Mrs. Pitt) dumped Brad after you watch the Smiths get it on.

Needless to say, what's there to comment on a plot where the most delicious couple in the world find out that the other half is a top-notch assassin and both are assigned to kill each other? Married for 5 or 6 years without a sniff of a clue of each other's real identity? Some killer instinct I must say. Well, this movie's not about story anyway. So suspend all belief, sit back and enjoy the sexiest couple in the solar system prowl, scowl and make out on the big screen.

Rating: 7.6

Millions (2004)

Mixed bag

[7/10 · 24 April 2005]

Before I watched the show I knew that 'Millions' has generally garnered favourable reviews from tons of critics, with a local reviewer raving about it and allocating it the full 5 stars. With great reviews come great expectations.

Disclaimer: I have yet to rid the disease of reading too many reviews of a film before watching it. Perhaps I'll carry that sickness forever, because I simply love to read about movies, every single one of them, regardless of whether I'll be watching them or not.

That said, the movie did not meet my expectations. 'Over-rated'... the initial thought. But first, the good points. Alexander Etel is perfectly cast as the highly imaginative and innocent young protagonist. Through the many 'appearances' of godly beings throughout the film, the audiences share his holy world, a world of angels and saints which he uses to replace the loss of his late mother. The boy convinces with his doe-eyed expressions and intimate heartfelt conversations with the saints who visit him every now and then.

The cinematography is unique, the settings are interesting and the way the whole movie was shot is very unusual... which could be a double-edged sword in terms of plot development. For me, this style achieves cinematic originality but compromises on the flow required for simple story-telling. There are far too many interjections and interruptions in the story... there are many moments when just as you are about to catch hold of something, the scene stops abruptly and leaves you dangling midway. This is all a little bit frustrating really, which ultimately results in a lack of emotion and inspiration in my mind as the movie reaches it ending.

The film is definitely watchable and deserves to be commended for having many special features not commonly seen in other movies. Whether these features are pulled off effectively is a matter of subjectivity; they didn't work too well for me but may leave a huge impression on you.

Rating: 7.4

Sideways (2004)

A very fine after taste

[9/10 · 31 March 2005]

Having watched it some time ago and now thinking back about the film, I realised that I really did like it. And still do, as a matter of fact. Like fine wine, the show grows on you with time and leaves you with great moments to smile about. Metaphorically appropriate, since wine appreciation is the chosen theme of the movie.

It's great to walk into such a show, with a cast of relatively unknown actors and without any conjured image of how the film will be like. I mean... a road trip with two middle-aged men who meet two middle-aged women who're not particularly stunning, visually at least... what can you expect? Yes yes, good 'o' shallow me. But I have set the record straight; I really liked the show, the cast, the script... yup, I really loved the dialogue. I've since read through a list of quotes and wow, one single movie can have so many verbal gems in it! Credit must surely go to the author of the novel the film was based on, Rex Pickett. Note: I must grab hold of a copy.

The actors, Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church, fully deserve whatever accolades and acclaim they've received for their performances. They were really a joy to watch, an unlikely pair of buddies with very different personalities and agendas, yet such chemistry between them. They didn't even seem like they were acting; they were tailor-made for their roles, not the other way round. The beauty in their characters lie in their flaws. We can all identify with their weaknesses, their perceived failures in life, their desperation for any sort of success. Giamatti should have been given an Oscar nomination at the very least and Church has since snagged a plum role as one of the villains in Spiderman 3. Not bad at all.

Forgive me if I fail to acknowledge the actresses, because they just didn't leave as much impact as the two male leads. I certainly can't see how Virginia Madsen got nominated for the Oscars, hers was a subtle performance at best, a rather forgettable one at worst. A mention though, has to be made about Alexander Payne, the director who seems to have such an innate ability to portray sad lives with such subtle impact. How contradictory and how unique. His previous film, About Schmidt, similarly covered depression in life, was also a joy to watch. I don't enjoy watching the characters go through their periods of sadness, but I'm definitely made to feel for them and feel with them.

Sideways is definitely worth a viewing, even if you have absolutely no interest in wine (that's me), which is besides the point anyway. Let it linger and grow on you.

Rating: 8.2

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

A million dollar question

[7/10 · 23 March 2005]

Million Dollar Baby... a good film? Yes. Good enough to be the year's best picture? I have my doubts. Don't think it deserves the best picture Oscar, although the best director, actress and supporting actor awards were richly deserved.

Clint Eastwood has always been an intense character, whether in his acting or in his film-making. He displays his vast directing experience and channels it out well through his own, as well as his co-stars' acting performances. Hilary Swank once again shows that she is in complete control and command of the tough characters she takes on, snagging another Oscar after Boys Don't Cry. The danger though is that she runs the risk of being typecast for such masculine roles and limits her versatility, thus restricting her from taking on other roles. To me, Morgan Freeman is the one who truly deserves his accolade. It's tough to find such a humble and well-respected actor in plastic Hollywood, and even tougher for him to put in such understated but highly influential and impressionable presence in every show he has been in. His superb touches in gems such as the Shawshank Redemption and Driving Miss Daisy alone more than makes up for the many crap films he has taken a part in.

So why is it that the film, with masterful directing and convincing performances from the actors, fail to stir up my emotions? I hope I have the answer, but even I'm stumped. It's just one of those movies that has almost everything, yet a vital 'something' is lacking and leaves you feeling not completely satisfied with it. Perhaps it's the way the show gradually ended... it could have taken a tad too long, which could have taken away much of the emotional impact it had intended to make.

Who should watch: Fans of superb acting and audiences with the patience to sit through lenghty and intense dialogue

Who shouldn't watch: Boxing fans, because there isn't really that much punching going on

Rating: 7.9

Constantine (2005)

Constantly entertaining

[8/10 · 22 March 2005]

Sometimes I don't understand certain "professional" reviewers. When you watch a comic book movie like Constantine, what would you expect? A solid and realistic plot? Oscar-worthy acting? Come on, it's a freaking superhero movie, for God's sake. For me, it's simple... just entertain me! Cool special effects, mad explosions, crazy fight-scenes... whatever, as long as the film keeps me glued to my seat.

Constantine succeeds as a movie of its genre, because it catches my attention from the start and never lets go of it. The film is well-paced and its action scenes are pretty well-executed. Keanu Reeves is definitely a surprise choice for the lead character, since he is so different from the comic book version. Many die-hard fans may feel that he did not do the 'real' Constantine justice, but to me he is a suitable choice. Who else can personify superhero coolness as much as the post-Matrix Keanu? You can find traces of Neo in his John Constantine, which may not necessarily be a bad thing since John shares the same 'chosen one to save the world' character as Neo. In fact, I find his 'world-weariness' even came across as quite convincing... considering how much of an actor some critics think of him.

The rest of the cast probably do not deserve any mention since acting-wise they're pretty average. But this doesn't stop this flick from being one helluva enjoyable ride. Just concentrate on being entertained.

Who should watch: Casual comic book or superhero movie fans

Who shouldn't watch: Satan... he might get inspired

Rating: 7.8

Collateral (2004)

Tom the Bad Guy

[8/10 · 23 February 2005]

For once, Tom Cruise isn't the good guy. I was beginning to get sick of his typecast American Hero role in every movie, perhaps apart from the dismal Vanilla Sky. Then came the role of Vincent, a hit-man who is ruthless and relentless, yet at times displaying streaks of compassion and empathy towards his hired taxi driver, played by Jamie Foxx.

Sometimes you have got to 'pity' Tom Cruise. Year after year, he's hoping to get a shot at the elusive Oscar, ever since he got nominated for Jerry Maguire. Last year's majestic The Last Samurai saw his hopes of landing an Oscar nod take a blow as he was completely overshadowed by Ken Watanabe, who deservedly landed himself a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nom. Similarly this year sees Cruise taking on an uncharacteristically villainous character in Collateral in hope of fulfilling his wishes, and yet again he gets trumped by the more impressive 'supporting' performance of Jamie Foxx (strange, considering 'supporting actor' Foxx takes up more screen time than Cruise). God, he must really hate Foxx... not one but two acting noms in a year. At the end of the day, what Cruise has are just his 20 million bucks paycheck per movie to console himself with. Poor guy eh? I didn't find Foxx's role particularly memorable, so it is a surprise that he was nominated and will be a shock if he does get the gold for this show. The movie though, is masterfully handled throughout by Michael Mann, who in my opinion, deserves an Oscar nom more than Foxx for this film. A tight story, great action scenes, steady pacing and excellent chemistry between the two leads are all characteristics of this entertaining thriller. Even the much criticised ending, which I found was not that lame and unbelievable, fails to make this overall an enjoyable movie experience.

Who should watch: Anyone who doesn't believe that Tom Cruise can actually act 'evil'

Who shouldn't watch: Taxi drivers who do night shifts

Rating: 7.7

Finding Neverland (2004)

Convincing Co-stars

[9/10 · 23 February 2005]

If you think this movie is made up of only Johnny Depp, then you'll be seriously mistaken. Never have I seen Depp being actually outshone, at times, not just by one, but by two others from the cast. No doubt his presence is commanding, but his performance alone wouldn't be substantial enough to carry the entire movie, definitely not without the outstanding efforts by Kate Winslet and Freddie Highmore.

Kate Winslet has come a long way since her very prominent but not universally "well-accepted" role in Titanic. Frankly speaking, I thought she was crap. But she has really proved her acting credentials since then, taking on one challenging role after another. In Finding Neverland, Winslet touches hearts as a widow struggling to handle her four boys and her true feelings for the married Barrie (Depp). She brings the audiences along on her emotional journey and they in turn emphatise with her in her plight.

Freddie Highmore is even more amazing; a young boy his age overshadowing the famous, Oscar-nominated Johnny Depp is truly no mean feat. Even Depp himself endorsed the massive potential this kid possesses. Forget the "has-been" Haley Joel Osment and the progressively irritating Dakota Fanning... this boy is the real deal. He is so matured and convincing beyond his years that you wonder if he's constantly possessed while acting. Or is he even acting? He is that scaringly good.

I've concentrated purely on the extremely strong cast simply because the film is really just about those characters. Finding Neverland is a simple, uncomplicated and beautiful biopic that tells a story as pure as Peter Pan the play.

Who should watch: Fans of simple story-telling through great acting; day-dreamers searching for more inspiration

Who shouldn't watch: Day-dreamers who have killer bosses; better not unleash the "potential" and risk getting the sack

Rating: 8.2

Wimbledon (2004)

Match begins at love all

[8/10 · 9 February 2005]

Erm... no offence to Tim Henman and his fans, but here's one hell of a sporting fantasy for you: a professional British tennis player actually winning Wimbledon. Wow. Well, as we all tennis fans know it, such a scenario can only happen in the realm of movie magic.

Paul Bettany stars as Peter Colt, a fading tennis player who is resigned to retiring from the professional circuit with the fact that he'll have nothing to show for it. The only time I've seen Bettany was in A Beautiful Mind, which elicited a rather haunting performance from him. And so it was to my delight that he managed to fit into this role with such ease and charm, as if he had been doing romantic comedies all his life. He displays the typical British dry wit and slightly dark humour effortlessly, almost to a fault (excuse the pun). Not the best performance from Kirsten Dunst, but she does give a pretty convincing portrayal as the brash American world number one female player.

Speaking of brashness, it's a pleasant surprise to see the notoriously foul-mouthed John McEnroe in a cameo appearance, as a commentator giving his two-cent's worth during the tennis matches. His presence adds a nice touch, giving a certain "real tennis" feel to the fictitious tennis players in the film.

Despite not having real professional tennis players in the acting roles, the action sequences in the matches do look very convincing, thanks to the amazing cinematography. You certainly realise how far cinematic technology has progressed over the years when you see Bettany and Dunst belt out those groundstrokes and smashes almost as beautifully as the real-life, seasoned pros would.

All in all, an entertaining date flick that holds even more appeal for tennis fans.

Who should watch: Those who don't mind suspending their belief about British tennis to simply enjoy a lovable romantic comedy.

Who shouldn't watch: Tim Henman, all English tennis players and English tennis fans. They may actually believe they CAN really win a grand slam.

Rating: 7.5

Kinsey (2004)

A lifetime of "academic" sex

[8/10 · 31 January 2005]

"Let's talk about sex". The tagline, screaming for attention, in fact leads to a subtle portrayal of the truly extraordinary life of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey.

Liam Neeson takes on the leading role with superb sensitivity, taking us on a journey through the mind of Kinsey the sex researcher and Kinsey the flawed human. As a devoted researcher of sexual behaviour in humans, his dedication is almost peerless; he persists in separating scientific discovery from real emotions. To him, science can explain everything: bisexuality, having multiple sexual partners, and even willingly allowing your own spouse to sleep with another man or woman. In his quest for scientific results, he does not think twice in sacrificing any principle or any partner, which inevitably leads to destructive consequences. You may gradually develop a great sense of pity for him, yet you may also find it hard to blame anyone but Kinsey himself for stubbornly refusing to allow his feelings to get in the way of science. Such is the contradiction of emotions you feel in the course of the film, not unlike the constant turmoil brewing in Kinsey's heart, no matter how strong he portrays himself to be.

Laura Linney puts in a credible performance as Kinsey's wife Clara McMillen, effectively displaying the full range of emotions in her bid to bravely stand by her husband's every decision. My choice of "main presence in the film" goes to Peter Sarsgaard in a supporting role as Clyde Martin, a student researcher handpicked by Kinsey and a key factor in giving both Kinsey and Clara one hell of a emotional roller coaster ride. His performance is daring to say the least, yet not too overpowering that it overshadows the story's main focus.

I would have greatly preferred the film to end with some form of closure, yet it might also seem unfair for it to do so. Kinsey's life is an enigma that will perhaps always be so difficult to comprehend.

Who should watch: People who wouldn't mind having their "beliefs" being challenged and openly put into question.

Who shouldn't watch: People who strongly believe that the ratio of Adam and Eve is strictly 1:1 and that there can't be Adams without Eves, vice versa.

Rating: 7.4

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Have a Focking good time!

[6/10 · 13 January 2005]

Alright alright, the choice of movie has to go "downhill" someday right? Well, everyone needs a crappy movie once in a while, especially when you're in need for some mindless entertainment.

Mindless it indeed was, although not as lousy as I thought it would be. It certainly does have its moments, albeit in sporadic fashion. Some memorable gags aside (think foreskin and fondue), the film sometimes overly rely on playing around with the incredulous family name for several cheap jokes. The movie stars Ben Stiller as his usual loser-being-caught-in-ridiculous-situations self, and a strong veteran cast that includes Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand. The cast does an "alright" job, though I'm sure they are capable of much better performances. Have this sneaky feeling that they are merely going through the motions after pocketing their respective paychecks.

One character who completely stole the thunder and grabbed all the attention from the others is none other than the impossibly cute and talented "Little Jack" as De Niro's grandson, played by real-life twins, Spencer and Bradley Pricken. The 2-3 year old toddlers' performances are nothing short of incredible... you just have to watch it for yourself! The fact that he alone was probably responsible for 30% of the laughs says a lot about how "adequate" the rest of the cast were.

Disclaimer: I've not watched Meet the Parents before, so perhaps my judgment was affected? Decide for yourselves!

Who should watch: Stressed up folks who require easy laughs using minimal brainpower.

Who shouldn't watch: People who think De Niro really belongs to the mob. They should continue to think so.

Rating: 6.7

Big Fish (2003)

Big Heart

[7/10 · 8 January 2005]

Big Fish is a beautiful and sensitive piece of work, combining the trademark weirdness of director Tim Burton with the discovery of their true inner selves by both father and son. The cast is nothing short of impressive.... from Albert Finney as the father Edward Bloom, Ewan McGregor as the young Edward and the timelessly gorgeous Jessica Lange as the mother Sandra Bloom. Not to mention the surprise choice, French stunner Marion Cotillard as the daughter-in-law and the highly versatile Alison Lohman as the young Sandra. Even resident scene stealer Steve Buscemi makes an appearance, which further livens up the already excellent casting.

However, it is the relatively unknown Billy Crudup who left the greatest impression on me. As Will Bloom, his understated desire to be the filial son is often pecked back by his father's insistence of telling him stories that to him are merely exaggerated tales concocted by the senior Bloom. Will yearns for the truth, true facts that will enable him to understand the man he thought he never did. The most touching moment comes in the end when Will finally accepts his old man for the way he has always been. Will conjures up one last story on behalf of the dying Edward, a story befitting enough for the sending off of the master storyteller himself.

As touching as the film was, it somehow fails to reach the level of sensitivity shown in Edward Scissorshands -- to me, still the best effort from Burton. Perhaps it isn't fair to compare them because ES had THE two masters of weird, Burton and Johnny Depp, easily a perfect match to tell a perfect story. Big Fish certainly has the creative elements, if given a more consistent treatment, would no doubt have made it a more outstanding film that would've left a greater impact on audiences.

Who should watch: Those who want to sit through a good touching story with excellent and unique visuals

Who shouldn't watch: Burton fans who have set their expectations way too high since the 1st glimpse of his brilliance 15 years ago.

Rating: 7.5

Kung Fu Hustle (2004)

More laughs needed ^_^

[8/10 · 2 January 2005]

Stephen Chow is without doubt, the greatest comedy actor alive. Having grown up with his nonsense, he's my constant source of inspiration for deadpan humour, silly slapstick and dry wit. So it comes as no surprise that I entered the cinema with mad anticipation; it has been 3 long years since I caught the scintillating Shaolin Soccer.

SC has long idolized Bruce Lee, and so being the director himself, is able to fulfill his childhood dreams to pay homage to his late idol and the legend of Kung Fu. The end-product is a CGI effects laden martial arts comedy fest that leaves nothing for the imagination. Which is of course, not a necessarily good comment.

The fighting scenes are top-notch, no arguments about it. A generous amount of screen time is dedicated to past Kung Fu legends who really do bring out the beauty of fist fights, wooden staff wielding and amazing footwork. Added to the effects, it is one hell of a Kung Fu film. Herein lies the problem: There is simply not enough of SC and his brand of madcap nonsense that he's so capable of producing. The limited times when he flexed his comedic muscles were the most brilliant moments of the film, and not those when he ripped off his shirt to reveal his impressive six-pac or his little-known martial arts skills. I only wish I could laugh as hard and as much as in his previous efforts. Still, SC should be respected and admired for putting himself in a backseat and let his love of Kung Fu take centrestage.

However, to the non-SC fanatics, this is a lovable film that will guarantee a great time in the cinema. Credit must be given to the incredible supporting cast, like the wonderfully casted Yuen Qiu as the colourful loud-mouthed (literally) landlady, who give the film the extra edge in entertainment value. There is no better way to enjoy comedies than to experience the joy of laughing heartily together with fellow audiences in the cinema.

Who should watch: Kung Fu fans and anyone who is dying for some quick laughs

Who shouldn't watch: SC fanatics who'll kill themselves if this isn't as good as Shaolin Soccer

Rating: 7.7

Men Suddenly in Black (2003)

Infernal Infidelity

[8/10 · 15 March 2004]

Combine the HK triad genre with 4 infidel men and what you get is one hell of a mad spoof! Hilarious and refreshing, this film is a cleverly-executed parody of the stereotypical HK gangster movie. Kudos to the creators of coming up with such a novel idea!

Having sent their partners on a holiday together, our 4 musketeers set out to carry out the ultimate mission to cheat on their other halves for that one day. The fact that they're doing it in honour of their 'ninth uncle' (Tony 'The Lover' Leung as the 'big brother', who sacrificed himself to protect these 4 men from being 'caught', and is now being cruelly imprisoned in his home with no access to porn and women) after 5 long years of planning makes the story all the more absurdly amusing!

Seeing Eric Tsang and Jordan Chan spoofing the triad boss roles that they are so familiar with really is great fun. Add the always stupid looking Chapman To into the picture and you really have a barrel of ready laughs. Of course, not forgetting to mention the cast of women led by veteran comedy actress Teresa Mo and a very crude Candy Lo (what a blast!), all taking part in a surprisingly thrilling cat-and-mouse chase with the hapless men. An enjoyable film that is well supported by a unique story, a competent cast (watch out for those cameos!) and a thoughtful closure.

City of God (2002)

City of violence

[8/10 · 29 July 2003]

Perhaps expected too much before entering the cinema. Did not turn out as well as I thought it would.

The story is told through the mouth of Rocket, a future photographer who grew up with the hoods in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. The narrative style is excellent, the best thing about the film. It throws several stories at the audience one at a time, all linked chronologically and eventually leading back to the opening scene of the show. It's pretty clever and well executed. The acting's top notch too, the hoods feels extremely real, right down to the little 'runt' who cried so painfully when he was shot in the foot.

Without doubt, violence is the integral theme in this film. It shocks initially, but numbs you into submission as the film moves along. A friend commented that the only reason why the City of God is named as such is because the people living there get to see God very quickly. It seems inevitable for the boys to succumb to the world of drugs and crime. Admist all these violence it is really a miracle for the narrator to be able to live and tell his story and not get hit by a stray bullet in the frequent gang shootouts. Perhaps this is the fairytale aspect of the movie. The only person who escapes death is the one who has managed not to subscribe to the seemingly unavoidable world of crime.

The film should have left a deeper impression in me, but yet it doesn't. I don't know why, but somehow my emotions are not stirred. Are we living in such comfort and are so remote from real violence that there is nothing for us to associate with?

Whale Rider (2002)

Small girl with the heart of a whale

[9/10 · 24 July 2003]

Slow pace but never boring. Small girl 'Paikea' touches your heart with her quiet strength and determination. Time and again, she faces prejudice from her grandfather whom she never gives up loving. Her grandpa loves her too, but tradition and the single-mindedness that Paikea will never be the leader of their tribe forces him to refrain from showing his true emotions towards his only granddaughter. But young Paikea never gives up; she respects grandpa's decision and masks her desire to become the whale rider of her tribe.

The remarkably beautiful and serene scenery of New Zealand complements the eventual inner peace that Paikea achieves. To save the whales their tribe loves so much, she shows remarkable calmness in guiding the whales back into sea despite death staring her straight in the face.

An inspiring and well-executed film.

25th Hour (2002)

A little too much.

[7/10 · 18 April 2003]

I find this film a little overrated. The incredible cast assembled forms the only backbone of the movie, which is always in danger of being broken by its lack of pace. The drag becomes a little too heavy after an hour into the film, despite the strong performances of Norton and Co. The movie could have ended on several occasions, yet it persists in slowly pushing forward and resulting in a rather unsatisfactory ending, an ending which the efforts put in by the actors do not deserve. As mentioned, the cast is outstanding, with Barry Pepper being my actor of the movie. He outshines everyone with his unabashed attitude and utterly convincing portrayal of one good friend being afraid to show his true loyalty in a society that often cynically rewards good with evil.

He Ain't Heavy... He's My Father (1993)

Tony Leungs excel

[7/10 · 18 April 2003]

No doubt about it, this film is lifted by the outstanding comedic performances of the two Tonys. Their chemistry lights up a movie that deserves better scriptwriting and directing. A rather nonsensical comedy, yet it pulls at the heart strings through the protaganist's yearn to learn more about his father's past and ultimately regretting his misguided hatred for his dad. It brings new life to the classic 'Tell Laura I love her', so simple yet so memorable as the film's title track.

In the Mood for Love (2000)

Moody Mis-en-scene

[10/10 · 24 February 2003]

The most attractive factor that lies in this masterpiece of a film is not the beautiful lead actors. It isn't their outstanding acting and sizzling chemistry either.

To me, it is the mis-en-scene of the entire movie. The settings, the lighting, the props... all add to the mood for love between the main characters. A whiff of smoke from Chow's cigarette tells us his state of mind, the ever-changing tight-fitting cheongsams of Lizhen reflects the constraints of decision-making, the ruins of Angkor Wat ties in with the deteriorating relationship of the two leads.

The excellent use of mis-en-scene gives the film just the right amount of feel needed to flesh out the complicated nature of the characters' relationship. The film leaves the audience fruitlessly yearning for more.