Change Your Image
thomasaaa123
Reviews
The Happening (2008)
Contrived and pretentious
Like most of Shymalan's films, The Happening is pretentious. Don't get me wrong, there's a few stunning sequences (esp. an early one featuring some unexpected falling objects). But the deliberately tantalizing hints scattered throughout the movie, once again--much like in The Village, frustratingly proved to be just a tease and ultimately lead to nowhere. The whole setup and intentional atmosphere in the early part of the movie promised far more than was eventually delivered.
The Happening is not a very bad movie, and it has the potential to be much better. But that would require more honesty from Shymalan. Shymalan is a master creator of suspense. But except in The Sixth Sense and maybe Unbreakable and Signs, he failed to bring satisfactory resolution to the suspense he crafted. Consequently, by the time one leaves the theater, his later movies (The Happening in particular) feel empty, silly, contrived and forgettable.
It is most unfortunate that Shymalan's later movies increasingly bear the hallmark of a director/writer who has got famous and admired too early too fast. Fame and acclaims could lead one to all so easily be convinced that he's cleverer than the rest, and it showed in Shymalan's movies. He might indeed be a very gifted movie maker, but his strong self-assurance has got in his way of making truly good movies--movies with realistic emotional resonance, rather than inward looks of what is in Shymalan's own mind. Shymalan is overdue for a bit more self-confrontation. Until he confesses to himself that he's actually not as clever/intelligent as he believes he is, he cannot be as clever/intelligent as he has the potential to be.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
A cinematic brilliance, albeit one that doesn't provoke thinking
Right off the bat, let me state clearly that I totally enjoyed No Country for Old Men. The craftsmanship is simply amazing. Given the story, it's hard to imagine the movie could have been any better. From the cinematography, to the tone, to the acting, the movie is nothing short of absolutely first-rate. It's a movie that lingers in your head for hours and hours. The screenplay is very efficient--with the slight exception of Tommy Lee Jones's monologue toward the end: not a lot is said, but every line enriches our understanding of the characters, their relationships, and the situations. And of course, the dialogue is sometimes so tastily funny, too.
Watching the movie feels like watching a haunting ballet performance--both elicit feelings so intense but subtle, disturbing but incomprehensible that mere verbal expressions can hardly convey them in full. In the case of No Country, it's how the seeming quietness of our life can be so fragile, so highly vulnerable to randomness. It is to the filmmakers' full credit that the movie feels so real that such feelings simply ooze rather than are jerked out.
That said, it's a movie that does not provoke--though I am not saying that all great movies should. Much like a documentary, the movie describes an incident from a certain angle. It does very well portraying the experiences of those affected. But it is a simple story, one that is a little too linear and straight forward. In turn, the movie is one that elicits feelings but doesn't provoke thinking. Again, continuing my previous analogy, the movie is like a great ballet performance--you go away with tonnes of feelings, but then you gain little insight or new perspective. It describes things, but chooses to neither shed much light on their nature nor offer new interpretations of them.
Of course, it's not the movie's goal to be thought-provoking. And with regards goals that it sets out to achieve, it achieves them remarkably well.
Zwartboek (2006)
Decent movie that tries to do too much
It's a movie I enjoyed: many twists and turns to keep you guessing, and the stunning female lead put in a memorable performance. It's never boring and there's a lot to be liked about the movie.
But at the same time, the movie feels disjointed. The first part--focusing on Rachel/Ellis's and the Resistance's struggle with the Nazi during the war--is gripping. However, the second part--about Rachel/Ellis looking for the traitor--is an anti-climax and feels tacky. A couple of surprises are sprang on us toward the end, but they are not very convincing. Also, the two parts are not well linked together and it requires a somewhat sudden shift of gear on the part of the audience in order to bring themselves back into the movie.
Another thing I have slight problem with is that the movie is a little too melodramatic and unsubtle. A couple of scenes I think are overdone and really unnecessary. And the movie's a little too black-and-white about the characters, hence making them less than realistic.
This movie bears many of the hallmarks of the director: if you have seen "Total Recall" and "Starship Troopers," I guess you would discover some familiar features and styles in this movie. Direct, explicit (or even blunt), melodramatic, and hokey. I think those elements work relatively well in sci-fi movies. Applying them to a more sensitive and real subject like WWII, the result actually is rather interesting. But unfortunately, I think the movie is trying to do/tell too much that it feels a bit unfocused and contrived in the end.
Saving Face (2004)
Another interesting exploration of generation clash
I liked the comic touch of the movie, and Michelle Krusiec delivered the comic scenes admirably well. No-nonsense but with a degree of self-awareness, the very lovely Krusiec captured the character Wil perfectly. Joan Chen, unsurprisingly, gave another excellent performance as a stern mother but a defiant daughter. The movie owes much of its success to casting Krusiec and Chen in their respective roles.
The story is simple, and even a little clichéd. Tension between social pressure and individualistic pursuits of passion, between conservative norm and following what the heart truly desires. Alice Wu--as a first-time director--was competent, though there's still much room to further refine her craftsmanship. Wu is apparently at her best when shooting intimate scenes (not only the romantically intimate ones) with subtle emotional exchanges and silent communications. But she's weaker in sewing together the scenes--especially toward the end, the movie occasionally feels a little clumsy and lumpy.
The late and rather melodramatic revelation of the identity of the baby's father did not help either. The decision to not devote more screen time to developing/explaining the relationship between Ma and the baby's father is certainly a risky one. Depending on perspective, one may feel his/her sympathy toward Ma is taken for granted, or may even feel the very idea the film is advocating is being made fun of. While this subplot is just a subplot complementing the Wil-Vivian relationship, slightly more in-depth treatment is probably warranted especially as a surprise is sprung on the audience.
But overall, the acting and sincerity more than compensated the glitches and shortfalls. Often light and funny, humorous but reserved, the movie is another worthy exploration of generation clash.
Gwoemul (2006)
Not bad at all, but not that great either
It's a decent enough movie. But I got a little disappointed, given that I had a high expectation. After all, it's one of the few Korean movies which got (relatively) wide release in the US, and it is the reigning Korean box office champ. And I totally loved the director's (Bong Joon-ho) another movie -- Memories of Murder (MoM), which is one of my all-time favorites among all (not only Korean) movies.
Like MoM, The Host is a tasteful mix of suspense and humor. The dark and tense background is often peppered with (sometimes utterly unanticipated) hilarious moments filled with irrelevance and quirks of the dysfunctional family.
Also like MoM, The Host's main focus is not really the title matter. Rather, the monster is meant to provide a background against which a more human story could be told and the characters could be exposed more effectively. But in practice, unfortunately, the story is a little loose and the characters are not well-developed enough. As a social and political satire, the movie is a touch too clichéd, unsubtle and melodramatic. As a story on family relationship, it is a bit under-developed. While the monster is understandably not the main focus, I am surprised at how little interest the filmmakers have in developing it. The lack of mystery surrounding it makes the monster rather uninteresting, whether or not it represents any real-life perceived threat (e.g., North Korea). Having said that, I guess I might be a little unfair in that I was comparing the role of the monster in The Host to that of the murder cases in MoM. The latter immensely enriches MoM by providing a shocking trip deep into human psychology. The monster in The Host might be a reminder of some unpleasant historical legacy; but its appearance in the movie provides no deep insights, and from the storytelling's point of view merely offers an excuse for a national emergency situation.
Still, The Host does give plenty of entertainment. The CGI isn't all the great (at least compared to what can be made with hundreds of million of dollars in many Hollywood movies nowadays). But many live sequences are shot and edited with tremendous craftsmanship. Stylish, crisp and full of dynamics, the technical aspects (except the CGI) of the movie remind me of Samsung LCD TVs or cell phones (yes, I meant it to be a great compliment!), though technical excellence is probably what we have now come to expect from a typical Korean movie, having been spoiled by many previous Korean hits. Also, the characters are likable and the acting is generally great.
Overall, I would recommend this movie. But I don't think it's as great as many critics have made it out to be. And if you haven't seen MoM yet, pick that one first!!
The Astronaut Farmer (2006)
Made a mockery of its subject matter
This movie aspires to be an inspirational movie, one for dreamers. It fails quite spectacularly.
No doubt, the whole movie is about dreams; but unfortunately, it's just about that. It totally decouples from any sense of reality. When a movie plainly talks about pursuing dreams, but without paying any serious attention to plausibility (or even possibility!) and details, it is effectively making a mockery of the subject it's dealing with. And, yes, it's unsubtle and cheesy.
The only bright spot is Virginia Madsen's performance. Understanding, supportive and sincere, she seems a perfect embodiment of everything she's supposed to show in the movie.
Space travel is a great theme. It's an ultimate imagination-stimulator. But this movie's maddeningly simplistic/inadequate treatment of the theme is frustrating. There's much more qualified inspirational movies on space travel out there. Like it more intense, try Contact. Like it light, try Space Cowboys.
Fu zi (2006)
Not so good
Like some others who have reviewed the movie, I am puzzled as to why this movie managed to win the awards it did -- except for the best supporting actor award going to the kid playing the "Boy" in the movie. He totally carried the movie -- he's really a major reason why I could sit through the 160 mins of the director's cut version of the movie.
Don't get me wrong. The movie isn't bad, but just that it's really not that good. A few pleasant surprises, besides the fabulous performance by the kid. Despite that his character is essentially a clichéd stereotype, Kwok turned out to be a much better actor than he is a singer. Also, several scenes are funny and the director's humor showed.
But the movie severely suffers from empty script and indulgent direction. The movie's character and plot developments are too light to substantiate the 3-hour duration (or, I believe, even the 2.5-hour duration of the theatre's cut). And the movie drags on and on. Sometimes it's as if the director isn't confident that the messages he intends for the audience would get through, and so he keeps re-sending them, and sometimes in an overly melodramatic way.
Another thing worth mentioning is the director (Tam) seems heavily influenced by Kar-Wai Wong. It's especially evident in the setup where the father gets into an affair with his neighbor in the hotel (reminiscent of "In the Mood for Love" and "2046"). But the movie would have benefited much if Tam's direction were crisper, subtler and more assured.
Musa (2001)
Decent cinematography, shallow story
Musa: the Warrior reminds me of war movies made in the 1980s or earlier. Pretty fun, a little inspiring, but ultimately too simplistic.
Despite the 2 hour plus duration, the story stays on a rather rudimentary level and certain promising subplots are not quite developed. There's some hints of romance, of course. But the movie refuses to sufficiently branch out to be taken as anything other than a pure war movie.
There are occasions when the subthemes of love/infatuation, longing for freedom, loyalty, and honor are given the spotlight. But the focus proves too brief, and the subthemes are never adequately and delicately explored beyond being mentioned with clichés and acknowledged with unrefined lines and grossly unsubtle actions. It's as though the movie tries to touch upon so many subthemes that it fails to treat anyone of them with enough attention.
Having said that, though, the movie manages to offer some good simple entertainment. Movies with obvious ambitions--even when the ambitions are not quite well fulfilled--are almost always fun to watch. Musa is no exception. While the filmmakers didn't lavish on extras and grand scenes, the fact that they made the characters go through an unnecessarily long journey (and war) so that there'd be more opportunities for the characters/actors to impart a deeper impression shows the filmmakers' enthusiasm and desire to make an epic out of the material.
Overall, I'd recommend this movie if you would like to reminisce about the old movies with likable characters in difficult situations--in simple and straightforward exposition. But a deep story with strong emotional and intellectual pull, the movie is not.
Green Street (2005)
Decent movie recommended with a slight wince (some spoilers)
The movie is engrossing. The sort of brotherhood portrayed here is appealing. People's passion for the football game, and love for hatred and violence, are well captured. Charlie Hunnan did a great job playing a lovable hooligan. Most other actors are only OK, though. Claire Forlani is yummy, but she was once in a while caught over-acting a bit in the movie. Elijah Wood... well, pretty much displaying the same sort of innocence we have come to get overly used to with him from Lord of the Rings... and his many other movies.
It's overall a decent movie. I always have a particular fondness for movies depicting the working-class life in Britain. The endless drinking in pub, the biting cynicism, the undying attitude to claim supremacy on every occasion, the unforgiving teasing of the losers, and the sheer compulsiveness to finish every sentence with the word "mate." All these fascinate me to no end. And I am glad that they are in good supply in the movie.
But what the movie does not offer is insights, not even those about hooliganism. Things are taken as given -- characters fight and verbally abuse one another for no other reason than that they are hooligans in the movie and that's what hooligans are supposed to do. To be fair, the movie never pretends that its purpose is to explore "why." But the frequency and audacity with which the movie asks us to also take things as given made me wince.
Who would expect an aspiring journalist (not least of all a son of a supposedly famous journalist) is so timid and afraid of power that he does not even try to fight a wrongful accusation? The head of a rival gang all of a sudden (after just a few instigating words) decided to take revenge for an accident that happened 10 years before? And after he almost killed a person, there's no police arrest and he's free to fight another day and kill another man?
But again, since the movie is never meant to provoke thoughts, we might as well enjoy watching it without doing much thinking.
The Illusionist (2006)
Hypnotic!
Story: The "twist" itself isn't really too much of a twist, especially for the current generation of audience who's been getting smarter and more alert. The overall story itself is rather generic love triangle, a murder case, with a bit of political thrills thrown in. But there's something hypnotic and compelling about the plot a mysterious mixture of magic and reality. If the main character is say an ordinary bank executive, instead of a magician/illusionist, the movie would lose much of its compels and appeals. The uncertainty about whether and when it crosses the realm of reality gives the movie an immense feel of suspense. It's story-telling at its finest it relentlessly grabs hold of your attention till the very last scene.
Acting: Ed Norton is good, Rufus Sewell is great, and Paul Giamatti is simply amazing. What more can be said?
Production: The music and lighting are greatly effective, and the set and costumes are first-rate. Watching the movie is like seeing a wonderful magic show. While you are acutely aware that everything portrayed on the other side of the silver screen is hardly believable, you are keen to get carried away into this fantastic parallel universe and indulge yourself in all the tricks and magic it has to offer. By the time the end credits roll, you might feel reluctant to pull yourself back into the reality.
Oliver Twist (2005)
Underwhelming
The story is told competently, but also blandly. There's no major surprises (pleasant or otherwise) and little about the movie is remarkable.
Ben Kinsley did an excellent job. But other performances are good but not eye-catching. At times the movie feels hasty and mechanical -- it moves along rather smoothly, but at the same time the briefness of the coldness and warmth expressed in each scene leaves the audience rather underwhelmed.
Some bright spots: Great props -- the imitation of the Victorian London was impressive. Loyalty to the original source -- the plot stuck closely to the novel with little melodramatic additions and few omissions.
Superman Returns (2006)
Decent but wouldn't care much for sequels
The movie is not bad. Despite it's 2 hours 40 mins long, there's seldom a moment you'd find yourself checking your watch. But unless any sequels promise something very dramatic (e.g., some really interesting development of the twist revealed in this movie), as far as I am concerned this movie could well be the last of the Superman franchise.
In terms of action, it's fine. But there's nothing new and breath-taking. Swinging up and down (like Spiderman) and showcasing cool gadgets (like Batman) can be fun. But flying and lifting (what Superman does most often) cannot be said to be spectacular from audience's point of view, I am afraid.
In terms of romance, I am glad that the story has Lois Lane engaged to someone else. That at least presents a cross-road and makes things a little more interesting. But I think it's a missed opportunity. Nothing in the movie suggests to me that Lois Lane's love for her fiancé is anywhere close to what she has for Superman.
Most of the joy of watching the movie comes from the villains. Most scenes with Lex Luthor and his sidekicks in them are fun. Unfortunately, overall, there's little in the movie to merit anything more than a "decent" rating.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Great movie. Some minor points
It's a very good movie. The cinematography, setting and performance combine to create lasting emotional impacts. Indeed, there's already many reviewers who have said enough good things about the movie and I agree with most of them. I would rather point out certain things about the movie which I don't feel 100% happy with.
1. The movie is much about the tension between what one feels inside and the constraints imposed by the outside. Heath Ledger did an amazing job embodying such a tension. Bravo! But the same cannot be said of Jake Gyllenhaal's performance. To be fair, Gyllenhaal's character Jack Twist is likely to be less mentally tormented by the social pressure. But what's troubling Jack more is the frustration of not having the life he DARES to have. At times I feel Gyllenhaal could have done better expressing this kind of frustration.
2. The most romantic scene, to me, was the one that's shown near the end a flashback where Ennis was holding Jack from behind and whispering to him soothing words. Of course, their feelings for each other were sown when they were sheepherding. But I was not sure how emotionally intimate they actually were and how the feelings were developed back in Brokeback besides a couple of sex scenes (one of which happened when they were kind of drunk), we were only shown that they were talking like friends. Only during the flashback near the end did I get a slightly better idea.
3. It's related to the previous point, and is not really a criticism. I am not sure whether it was each other or actually the environ free of social judgment that Ennis and Jack longed for. Put another way, is this movie more about the love between the two leads, or people's love for transitorily breaking away from convention and expressing one's true feelings? Maybe it's both maybe the two kinds of love complement each other. And maybe it's not important to distinguish the two. It seems to me that Jack truly loved Ennis, but Ennis might love the freedom more than he loved Jack.
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Skip the drama, look only at the action
The plot could not have been any more generic. At times it's not even remotely plausible/logical. The story "twists" are mostly excuses for having Tom Cruise running and jumping in different locales. Indeed, as if the movie mocks itself for being nothing more than a showcase of a series of action sequences, the audience is deliberately not told what the all-important canister that has caused so many lives and so much anxiety is actually for -- even right at the end of the movie.
But hey, it's still a very entertaining movie. The whole movie is filled with action. It feels much shorter than its actual running time.
Yes it's true that the movie doesn't bring much new to the table. By today's lofty standard, the movie cannot be considered as slick. But to me, the counteracting factor is Tom Cruise's give-all performance. At least on screen, he worked harder in this movie than in any other movies. There are a couple of scenes where Tom Cruise is even doing some Jackie Chan-style stunts.
Well, just keep your eyes open but switch off your brain. What's on the screen would likely keep you entertained.
Saw II (2005)
An okay effort
I think the movie's okay but definitely not very interesting. While many people talked about the twist ending, I can't share as much enthusiasm as some feel. I was not too impressed with the twists, and even less so with the story, if there's one.
1) The people locked up in the room were totally 2-dimensional human-shaped cardboard. Besides furnishing us with the minimal info about the criminal background of the captives, nobody bothered to seriously treat them as "characters" instead of anonymous guinea pigs used to demonstrate how lethal each trap was. 99% of the lines they said was generic. And it's unfortunate that in the other space-time, the lines delivered by the detectives and the SWAT team captain were equally boring.
2) There's close to zero story in the movie. It's entirely based on the same premise of the original Saw. No new concepts were brought in. The sequel resembled more a long "deleted scene" from the original than a new movie.
3) The most surprising development that happened among the captives was the utterly unbelievable behaviors of the Latino guy. Oh well, who would have thought instead of trying to cooperate with all others on the same boat, the Latino guy would get so irritated by the sight of other life forms that he start slaughtering them one by one? What did he gain by shedding blood instead of politely asking the fellow captives to turn around and show him the number?
4) I didn't see the twist coming. It's unexpected, but that unfortunately does not mean it's appreciated. Yes, I didn't expect that the feed was prerecorded. Yes, I didn't expect that Amanda was an accomplice. But did the revelation help explain anything? No. And it's largely because there's no mystery to begin with. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see much difference whether Amanda was in on it or not. Likewise, what's the point of the whole charade of showing us the feed as if it's taken real-time? If Jigsaw just wanted to trick the detective, wasn't it enough to tell the detective that his son was kidnapped? Why bother with all the video? A good twist might also just re-orient the audience's perspectives and reformed our understanding of the story. In the case of Saw II, the "twists" neither added anything to the plot nor showed me a new way to look at what's on the plate. They felt unnecessary.
5) Why nowadays no horror movies could do without fast cuts? A small amount of fast cuts might attenuate the atmosphere, but an excessive amount of them inevitably makes matter worse. On the other hand, of course, a director using lots of fast cuts is a pretty good signal that he's lacking innovative ideas and skills to scare and engross the audience.
Having said all these, I should also add two more things.
First, I'm not against the Saw concepts. I liked the original Saw. It's suspenseful I was literally on the edge of my seat most of the time I was watching it. Yea I knew the twist was not very credible but I liked how it resolved the whodunit puzzle in a surprising fashion. I applauded the movie makers making a very notable addition to the much-exploited subgenre already crowded by the likes of "Scream" and "Phone Booth." Second, despite my complaints, I still think Saw II made an okay entertainment. It'd not be memorable, but the occasional thrills would not make the 2-hour viewing time totally regrettable.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Great CGI, but weak story and acting
There are scenes in the movie that would surely leave a lasting impression: e.g., a barren landscape filled with gloom and blood, giant tripods destroying whatever in sight. The CGI-induced atmosphere is often fantastic.
But characters are either underdeveloped or too conveniently stereotyped in the movie. What's with the son's ridiculously immature attitude? The constant screaming of Fanning Dakota's character is almost cartoonish.
Moreover, Fanning Dakota seems to be over-acting. And Tom Cruise in this movie is more reminiscent of his character in Minority Report or Mission Impossible than a redeeming father.
The family subplot in the movie is clichéd, which is actually okay given the focus of the movie. But I had expected more story-telling about the aliens' plans and the governments' responses, which of course are conspicuously absent in the movie. In the end, the movie feels like a uni-dimension bad dream, which is remembered far more for the fear it strikes in the visual sense than for most other things one would expect a good movie should deliver.
King Kong (2005)
Fun ride... but not much magic
It's handsomely spectacular. There's countless exciting action sequences, basically encompassing all a fan of this genre can seriously hope for. There's a giant ape, various types of dinosaurs, big bugs, and many other different sorts of disgusting creatures. Chasing, fighting, falling, jumping, crashing
name any kind of action and you'll find it in the movie.
Then on top of all these, there's emotion side as well. Naomi Watts is fantastic, Jack Black and Adrien Brody are reliable. However, the best actor in the movie is the ape. It's hard not to have any sympathy for the animal with its soft expressions on the face and after it risking everything to save its loved one.
So this movie really seems like the ultimate package, and I am not surprised that so many people compare it to Titanic.
But while I like this movie and do not regret paying the admission to see it, I don't think it's a great movie. There are two particular reasons why I think the movie is not better than "good."
First, to sustain a movie that's 3 hours long, strong emotion elements are essential. However, there's not really any hero in the movie and the story is not something that most people can easily connect with. Of course, many movies can be great even without any heroes. But movies of the action/adventure genre need heroes. Is Adrien Brody's character a hero? Not really. He's brave and kind. But at the end he does not achieve much common good. (BTW, I don't understand why Watts's character doesn't simply run away when the ape is asleep, but escapes only after Brody appears
). Is the ape the hero? Sort of, with all its acts to save Watts's character from the dinosaurs. But of course it's also very selfish. So when the credits roll, I thought "hmm
it's a good movie and a good story," but I was not in the least inspired. Moreover, while the ape is very human-like, it's after all a computer generated creature. Yes, it incites our sympathy, but only to a limited degree. The ape is not one of us and it does not epitomize any sort of characters we really care about.
Second, while the action sequences are numerous and generally excellent, they are unfortunately really nothing new. We have seen them all before. The sorts of creatures we see in the movie look familiar. The jungle setting is not new. Except for a couple of scenes notably the one with the stampede of dinosaurs, the way the action is presented is pretty standard and does not create any more sense of realism than many other action movies.
At the end of the 3 hours, I felt more tired than refreshed or awed. It was a fun ride and thrilling journey. But there's little magic.
Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo (2004)
A bit too sentimental. But still a great movie
This is a great movie. The action sequences are spectacular and real. The acting is generally good. And of course, for a non-Korean like me, the movie does a little to educate me about the Korea history.
The only complain I have is that there are quite a few scenes that feel overly sentimental. The early scene introducing the two brothers and the scene where the brothers tried to get the last glimpse of their mother from the train before leaving for the frontline are some examples jumping into mind.
But I also have to say that I found myself crying a little at the last scene, when the elder brother's dead body turned to a set of skeleton. So overall, I think the movie does deliver what it sets out to do. A poignant story complemented with many excellent action sequences that show the war as it was. For ordinary people, it's not about ideology or even national pride. It's an extreme manifestation of deep lying human instincts of violence and survival.