Due Date

Now I love a good stupid-guy movie. ‘The Hangover’ was awesome, I lol’ed all through ‘Superbad’ and still randomly shout out ‘McLovin!’, and you all know how I raved about ‘The Other Guys.’ So I thought that the formula had been mastered by now. Obviously the two Alans (Cohan and Freedland, screenwriters) have not been hanging out with the cool kids, because they have no idea how it’s done!

Starring Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis, ‘Due Date’ is about hot-tempered father-to-be Peter (RDJ) being put on a ‘No-Fly’ list along with weirdo aspiring actor Ethan (Galifianakis). With no wallet, ID or cash, Peter is forced to endure a cross-country drive with Ethan and his masturbating dog. And to make things more pressing, Peter must get back to his pregnant wife who is due to have the baby any day now. The predicaments they find themselves in, mainly caused by the idiocy of Ethan, are what then transpire throughout this over-the-top road trip film.

That’s the best way to describe this movie; too much, without achieving anything. It’s like the creators sat down one night with a bong, some booze, and a scrappy piece of paper and said to each other, “What’s the stupidest, most craziest stunts/scenarios that we can come up with?” With the hard part out of the way, they then proceeded to wrap it all up in a sloppy storyline, some random and unnecessary cameo appearances (another cheap trick), and call it a comedy. While the lead actors do appear to be working with what they’ve got, the lack of any substance in this movie means that both performances virtually fall flat. Particularly Galifianakis, whose character Ethan is supposed to be a dopey, but lovable, simpleton, but really just comes off as annoying and overly idiotic to the point that you just want RDJ to whack him over the head and end the whole thing!

The film has given up comedic integrity for brainless stunts, lame punch-lines, shallow sentiment and the most implausible scenarios. Inadvertently crossing the Mexican border with weed, a car wreck caused by a sleep-deprived Ethan, an accidental shooting, mistakenly drinking the ashes of Ethan’s dead father and possible infidelity are just some of the unoriginal, half-witted gems that are doled out in this 1 hour and 40 minutes of nothing. Even the mateship that predictably forms between the mismatched leads is a confusing progression. And when it manifests, it’s abrupt, weak and unconvincing.

Finally, there is no saving grace, no moment of redemption as the movie concludes. Instead, the cheap comedic stunts persist until the end; and like the rest of the movie, they disappoint. Overall, eye rolling and cringing were frequent, but laughs came few and far between, and even then they were the small pity laughs that you give yourself to maintain your mental state and convince yourself that it’s kind of funny in order to just to get through the movie. And of course, ‘WTF’ was uttered so many times that it lost all meaning. [Image from http://www.filmofilia.com/]

Gran Torino

Clint Eastwood is the coolest old guy ever! Well, that’s the impression I got after seeing him in ‘Gran Torino’, a movie which I believe will introduce him to a new generation. Here Eastwood produces, directs and stars as the crankiest of cranky old men Walt Kowalski; ex Korean War veteran whose wife has just died and who’s estranged from his two sons and their families. Around him, Walt experiences a very familiar phenomenon of suburbia – the encroaching of a different cultural group of people, as the current group become increasingly displaced. In this case, it is the Hmong people who are moving into Walt’s formerly white neighbourhood, and finally right next door to him.

The first hour of the movie is a strange concoction of awkward, cringe-inducing, jaw dropping, politically incorrect humour, as Walt doles out racially inappropriate gems on his neighbours – of all colours. The unapologetically racist, gun toting old man has no qualms about telling everyone he meets exactly what he thinks of them, perpetuating every negative racial stereotype under the sun.

When one night a Hmong gang comes to force Thao, the teen next door who was peer-pressured into trying to steal his prized Gran Torino, to join them Walt comes to the rescue, so to speak. Wielding a shot gun, Walt demands that they all get off his lawn. So begins the old crone’s slow and hesitant bonding with his neighbours, as they make their way into his life and he develops a begrudging acceptance, realising that he has more in common with these ‘zipper heads’ than with his own family. And of course he is eventually won over by the rich culinary delicacies of the Hmong culture, or what he calls ‘good gook food.’

Before long Walt finds himself developing friendships with Thao and his sister Sue, as well as a fatherly protectiveness as they are continually harassed, and eventually attacked, by the neighbourhood gang. This is where ‘bad ass’ Eastwood shines as Walt steps into the role of the hero, intent on bringing peace to the children. He takes on guys young enough to be his grandchildren with a fearless disregard for consequences and the skilful fists of a hardened soldier.

From grumpy, cantankerous, unabashed racist to reluctant, but indisputable, hero, Eastwood is magnificent as Walt. With a shamelessly acidic tongue and the raspy croak of age and bitterness, Eastwood delivers racial slurs that would make even Mel Gibson blush – without batting an eyelid, and with the most intimidating of snarls. Even when he eventually warms to Sue and Thao, Walt remains his cranky, offensive self. And when it comes time to step up and save a neighbourhood that is no longer his, Walt undertakes his mission with conviction, culminating in an intense and shocking final showdown.

Apart from the brilliance of Eastwood, the rest of the movie is fantastic! From the dreary, dilapidated sets which present a community in distress, to the duel innocence and resistance (against the gang) of Thao and Sue (played by Hmong actors Bee Vang and Ahney Her), to the insistent young priest, determined to keep peace in the neighbourhood, the film tells a compelling and all-too familiar story of gang violence, crumble-down communities, and racial prejudices with originality and integrity. Far from the didacticism that movies of this subject matter can easily slip into, ‘Gran Torino’ simply presents one individual’s very unique way of dealing with the changing world around him and his indoctrinated bigotry. It is a must watch! [Image from http://thecinemaguy.comn/]

Black Swan

Who would have thought that a movie about ballet could be so scary? Forget about the fact that I’m naturally a jittery person, ‘Black Swan’ had me squirming in my seat and watching through the slits of the fingers that covered my eyes. The story is about meek and mild-mannered Nina, a back-up dancer in a large ballet company who suffers from a dangerous combination of shyness, ambition and psychotic delusions. Nina’s big break comes when she is cast as the Queen Swan in the company’s production of ‘Swan Lake’; and while she is well-suited to the role of the white swan, she must overcome her timidity to play the sensuous and aggressive black swan.

The production’s rehearsals, and the small cast of characters who surround the heroine are the backdrops for Nina’s escalating psychosis. Thomas Leroy is the stereotypically misogynist company director, who seduces Nina and takes advantage of her apprehension in order to get her to ‘loosen up’; Erica Sayers is the overbearing, controlling, jealous mother whose attitude oscillates between joy for her daughter’s success and resentment that it came at such a price to her own burgeoning dance career; Lily is the free-spirited new recruit whose confidence and precarious nature both entice and threaten Nina; and finally there is Beth, the veteran dancer whose position Nina has unwittingly usurped, and who the young dancer desperately wishes to become. These characters, and the protagonist’s increasingly unstable mindset, push Nina further into an abyss of fatigue-inducing training, paranoia, and finally self-destructive psychosis as she struggles to become the ‘perfect’ ballerina.

Nina’s snowballing descent into insanity is underscored by a bleak, yet crisp, palette of grey and monochrome tutus and dance studios, a beautifully dramatic orchestral soundtrack, some very creepy and spine-tingling special effects, and camera work which spins with the dizzying swiftness and grace of the passionate dancer and her confused, ambitious psyche. The film reaches its crescendo at the opening night of the production, where Nina’s shyness, ambition, fatigue and hallucinations all dramatically collide in a tragic conclusion.

In this film, director Darren Aronofsky captures, with chilling realism, Nina’s psychotic unravelling. As does Natalie Portman, whose performance just this week earned her the Golden Globe for best actress. Separately, the individual elements of this film – music, special effects, acting, cinematography – were excellent, and really added to the texture, tension and thrill of watching it. But together, they did not quite mesh completely. While it was visually and musically stunning, there was something slightly off about the story that I can’t quite articulate. Perhaps it was Nina’s unexplained delusions, the two-dimensionality of characters like the company director, or the haphazardly-developed (non)relationship between Nina and Lily. Either way, I’m not entirely sure that I like the movie. I certainly don’t hate it, but it was missing a crucial something that would have made me like it. But still it is worth a viewing, not for its realistic insight into the cut-throat world of ballerinas, but for its disturbing depiction of the deterioration of an already-weak mind. [Image from http://www.washingtontimes.com/]

The Other Guys

This movie is HILARIOUS! It is one of the funniest and cleverest movies I have seen.

Narrated by the authoritative voice of Ice T, the film is about ‘The Other Guys’, the less-than-competent law enforcers whom most cop shows and movies are not about. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg’s partnership is the inept antithesis of Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson’s (the Rock) heroic and arrogant team. When the latter die in the line of duty Terry, Wahlberg’s character, wants to fill the opening slot for top cops. Meanwhile, his passive partner Allen (Ferrell) is content with pushing papers and filing reports. The partners then get embroiled in an elaborate fraud case, which Terry keeps insisting is really concealing drugs, and the full extent of the incompetence of the police force is revealed.

The plot is far from original, or intense. But take a stock-in-trade storyline and immerse it in a pool of clever satire teeming with great actors, and awkward situations, and you’ve got a winner.

Here, Wahlberg channels his usually intense and serious acting into a hyperbolic presentation of an ‘angry cop’ with some hilarious outcomes. Declaring throughout the movie, “I’m a peacock, you gotta let me fly!’ his character is demoted for shooting Derek Jeter, prized New York Yankee, right before the World Series, and is therefore stuck at a desk playing Solitaire. Allen, on the other hand, has a “plain wife” in Eva Mendes, is relegated to a wooden gun and then a rape whistle as his police weapon, and takes pride in his Prius which his irate partner feels is “like we’re literally driving around in a vagina.” Together, the two are out to bring down an equally incompetent investment banker David Ershon, played by Steve Coogan, who must embezzle $32billion in order to cover his losses. Of course, Allen and Terry keep getting sidetracked by Ershon’s not-so-subtle attempts to buy their cooperation, which they only realise in retrospect is bribery. The cherry on top of this unlikely comedic cast is Michael Keaton’s role as the police Captain who also works at a manchester store and inadvertently quotes TLC lyrics.

This mish-mash of over-the-top characters, improbable situations and side-splitting one-liners can only be described as random. But in the best possible way! It’s not often that a piece of satire really hits the nail on the head in terms of effectively parodying clichés and exposing unlikely realities while still being funny and light-hearted. ‘The Other Guys’ does just that and it is brilliant! [Image from http://www.thefilmyap.com/]

Unleashed

This is an oldie but a goody. Released in 2005, ‘Unleashed’ is set in the grimy underbelly of Glasgow, and shot in a contemporary film noir style that captures the character of 21st century organised crime and the disturbing nature of barbarity in a modern, first world context.

The film tells the story of Danny, a young man who has spent most of his life as a slave and ‘attack dog’ to a small-time mob boss. Jet Li is Danny, who knows nothing of life or love, and spends his days on a leash. Around his neck is a collar which keeps him obedient and docile, until it is taken off at his master’s will and Danny is ordered to ‘Kill’. Only then does he jump into action, having been trained his whole life to attack and kill on demand.

When an attempted murder of his boss leaves him stranded and alone for the first time, Danny finds salvation with a blind piano tuner, played by Morgan Freeman, and his step daughter. Together, this small family introduces Danny to the world; from simple delights like an ice-cream brain freeze, to the delicate tunes of the piano that will bring him back to life. Most importantly, Danny’s new family shows him love, and helps him to remember his past and how he came to be in such a cruel situation.

When Bart, the mob boss, finds his prized fighting dog, he stops at nothing to get him back. And of course, the martial arts action and stunts kick in as Danny tries to protect his new family and save himself from returning to a loveless life of degradation.

Yet this is not an ‘action film’ in the popular, blow-things-up, break-bodies-for-the-fun-of-it kind of way. It actually tells a compelling story with a very unique protagonist. Indeed, while Bob Hoskins is sufficiently menacing and terrifying as the mob boss, and Morgan Freeman encapsulates compassion and whole-hearted acceptance, it is Jet Li, as Danny, who gives the stand-out performance. In this film, Li really flexes his acting muscles, embodying the paradox of a naive and innocent killing machine. His naivety of not realising the horrendousness of his life as he lives it, because he knows of nothing else, is heartbreaking and exceptional at the same time. As Danny’s small and gradual discoveries of the world bring him peace, he continues to resist the viscous training that has been engrained in his psyche. It is a struggle that Li executes with nuance and meticulous skill, and it was a delight to watch. This is definitely the best and deepest role I have seen Li in. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the film! [Image from http://www.smh.com.au/]

Revolutionary Road

This is one movie I can’t make up my mind about. I don’t like it and I don’t completely dislike it, but there’s something about it that is not letting me write it off as just another mediocre movie that I have nothing to say about. It’s been in the back of my mind for two weeks now.

The story behind ‘Revolutionary Road’ is different – something that hasn’t been explored before, that I know of. It follows the mundane and compromised life of an average 1950s suburban couple who had dreams of so much more. But due to, what seems to be the ubiquitous catalyst for compromise, the arrival of children, Frank and April Wheeler find themselves living the stereotyped American nuclear family story. As the suppressed housewife, April, played by Kate Winslet, devises a plan for the couple and their two children to move to Paris and live a more interesting and exciting life. Frank, Leonardo DiCaprio, reluctantly agrees and things seem to become more promising for the family, until the arrival of another compromise – April is expecting another baby. From here, the trappings of comfort, stability and a steady pay cheque become too tempting and secure for Frank to turn his back on, and so their hopes, again, are dashed. April quickly spirals into a well of depression, trapped and overwhelmed by the inescapability of her monotonous and sole-destroying situation.

Though it is an interesting concept to explore, the movie didn’t seem to delve far enough into the psyches of the characters in order for us to empathise with them. Particularly in the character of April, one wonders why she is so unhappy – more so than any housewife at the time may have been – and why she goes to such drastic measures to escape her miserable existence. Though it is entirely plausible for a woman to have felt as trapped and isolated as April did, the movie itself did not facilitate the psychological connection between her situation and her mindset. This is just one example in what I would call a dramatically ambiguous movie. It felt as though director Sam Mendes took the audience to a certain point in the sporadic and abruptly-arrived-at dramatic moments, but wasn’t able to take us all the way to the peak of these moments – something was definitely lacking.

And yet, there was still something about the movie which I found intriguing. Perhaps it is the steady downward spiral of April, or the parallel settlement into complacency that her husband takes as they both fail to take charge of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Or the way in which such a story has relevance and familiarity to many who still feel the pressures of family life and the continued compromises this demands.

This is why I can’t figure out this movie – its ambiguity has cast a shroud of indecision over my judgement. Perhaps if anyone else out there has seen it, and has more of a solid opinion, you can cast some light on this movie for me. [Image from http://reeldebate.wordpress.com/2009/10/]

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The movie ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is a case in point of how screenwriters will often take a classic story, written by one of the great storytellers of all time, and shat all over it in some feeble attempt at ‘revisionism’. In this case, the creators seem to have gone that one step further, and have revised Roald Dahl’s classic in the name of (post)modernising the story for a contemporary audience. Well it didn’t work. The postmodernising of the story which I refer to came in many forms, in fact, the movie was saturated with these ill-conceived notions of social commentary. From the weak existential moments, as Mr. Fox questions his fox-ness, to failed commentaries on consumer culture, and finally to the lame attempts at demonstrating swearing by replacing swear words with the word ‘Cuss’ – obviously some obnoxious comment on the amount of verbal violence in the media today – the whole film came off as nothing more than a try-hard pastiche, stripping the story of its original innocence.

In fact, it was insulting and uncomfortable to watch as one of my favourite childhood characters went from sly, clever but altogether loveable fox, to obnoxious, self-centred, and overly-ambitious for no other reason than self-gratification fox with Clooney’s voice. Even more vexing is the fact that way too many other scenarios/events/things in general were unnecessarily added to the story. The confusion caused by this was exacerbated by jerky camera work, too-quick dialogue, and an overall speed of unfolding action which doesn’t allow for the audience to have any time to actually empathise with the characters. This inevitably made them simply annoying and two dimensional.

I don’t understand why people will massacre such a great work. Obviously the original story is good, otherwise why would anyone get any funding to turn it into a film? So why, why would the same people who agree (and probably fight) to get the story retold on screen then turn around and, for lack of a better term, fuck with it? It makes no sense to me. And this time, it was extremely personal to me because, one, Roald Dahl is still one of my favourite authors, and two, ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ was one of my favourite childhood stories, I must have read it about five times. I’m probably not the only one who has such fond associations with this book, and hence I’m probably not the only one who is insulted, embittered and altogether pissed off at yet another Hollywood fail which has slaughtered another classic children’s story through some intellectually snobbish, yet altogether wrong, attempt at ‘revisionism’. For those of you who haven’t subjected your kids to this try-hard movie yet, don’t. Stick to the book, it’s way better.

Mamma Mia

‘Mamma Mia’ the movie is nothing more than a high-budget song-and-dance routine that has nothing to offer, and nothing meaningful to say (or sing). Not only did I have to sit through Pierce Brosnan’s terrible ‘singing’, and Christine Baranski and Julie Waters’ cringe-worthy displays of stunted adolescence, there was also Amanda Seyfried’s over-over acting to contend with. Yes, there is such a thing, the experience of which leaves one exhausted, uncomfortable and feeling slightly ripped-off for having to watch a performance that was simply trying too hard without actually achieving anything. Such is the case with Seyfried who plays the naive, soon-to-be-married Sophie who sets out to discover who her real father is so that he can walk her down the aisle. Her face literally goes red as a tomato during the over-over acting of a ‘confrontation scene’ that, in any other half-decent movie, would have been nothing more than a heated discussion.

Try-hard acting and terrible vocals aside, the actual movie adaptation of the Broadway musical added nothing to the original show. Though I have not watched the musical myself, the movie played like a direct copy of a live performance – just stick these people on a stage and nothing would have been different. This may be sufficient for some viewers, but to my understanding one of the purposes of adapting a story from one format to another is to add something new to the narrative – another element, a deeper layer of meaning, another way of seeing the story even. Otherwise, what’s the point? Nothing of the sort was achieved in this movie. The performances were shallow, the characters were shallow, the storyline was shallow. The only depth was in the ocean surrounding the Greek island setting.

The single saving grace of the film is Meryl Streep, whose role as mother-of-the-bride Donna was engaging, sincere and humorous without the pitfalls of amateur try-hard acting. Streep’s climactic solo, singing ‘The Winner Takes It All’, was superb and is the only moment of dignity in an otherwise obnoxiously-melodramatic film. That was two hours that would have been better spent playing Scrabble, which at least would have required some depth of thought.

Mao's Last Dancer

I finally watched ‘Mao’s Last Dancer’ and am happy to report that it is actually quite true to the book and does not take too many liberties with the story. I am even happier to report that the creators did not do that silly thing where the provincial Chinese people speak English. Instead, they have given viewers a little more credit and decided that it wouldn’t be too hard for us to read subtitles, and have therefore put all the relevant dialogue in actual Chinese – adding that extra bit of authenticity.

As for the storyline itself, screenwriter Jan Sardi has thankfully not veered too far from Li Cunxin’s original autobiography. Instead, Sardi has focused on what, I think, are the most important themes, issues and events of the book. As mentioned in a previous blog, the story is underpinned by Li’s constant love and devotion to his family. This universal theme has been successfully transferred onto the screen, as has Li’s quiet determination in his dancing, his awe at Western culture and his dramatic deflection from China; and of course the background of oppression shrouded under the incessant mechanisms of political propaganda.

As the adult Li, Chi Cao plays the role just as I had imagined it would be played; with a telling display of humility, humble resolve, inner strength and that sense of tortured freedom which comes when it is gained at such a high price. Considering Cao is a professionally-trained ballet dancer, his acting is superb as he is able to subtly demonstrate Li’s emotional turmoil, and joy, beneath the mask of staunch masculinity that pervades Chinese tradition. Even at the most emotional moment in the film, when Li breaks down in tears of joy, that stern detachment that has been indoctrinated in him from childhood is still present along with the overwhelming happiness at being reunited with his parents. It is a juxtaposition of emotions that is more difficult to portray than it is to explain, and yet, Cao has done it with ease and realism.

Only one other book-to-film adaptation, that I know of, has stayed so true to the story – that is the ‘Godfather’ in which Mario Puzo, the author of the book, is also the screenwriter of the three films. ‘Mao’s Last Dancer’, the film, is a great companion to the book and only adds another layer of understanding to Li’s story, instead of confusing and undermining the events of the book, as so many film adaptations have done. This is a great film! [image from http://blogs.smh.com.au/]

This Is It

‘This Is It’ the movie is the closest any of us are ever going to get to seeing the concert, and after watching it, I am extremely disappointed that I will never have the opportunity to see the live performance.

I must admit, I had quite a cynical approach to the movie, thinking that it was just a way for the organisers of the concert to recoup some of their losses. But having watched it I can see why the movie was made. Not only did it show MJ in his final days, but the movie also promised what would have been the greatest live performance ever! And it is understandable for those involved, who had invested so much time, energy and passion into the project, to want to share it in some way with the world. It would have been a waste to have let so much work just be buried in masses of MJ archive. The movie gave a peek into what would have been an elaborate, hi-tech, boundary-breaking show in which meticulously-staged 3D vignettes transformed seamlessly onto the stage, and the man himself would be dressed in millions of dollars of Swarovski gems ornately woven into specially-designed costumes. These, of course, are just two of the impressive features of the show that will never be.

Beyond simply showing what the performance would have been, the movie also systematically works to not only restore MJ to his superstar status, but also to add a deeper, more meaningful, layer to his public persona. ‘This Is It’ revealed the portrait of a man who was so immersed in his work, and so dedicated and invested in every facet of his art. Watching the movie, I could practically see the processes of creativity emanating from MJ; I could certainly see the genuine respect and appreciation his peers had for his knowledge of every part of the stage and sound. Beside Jackson, Kenny Ortega was more a personal assistant than the director of the show.

Whatever controversies that have surrounded his life cannot diminish the fact that MJ was a true artist of the highest calibre; ‘This Is It’ has simply cemented that fact.
[Image from http://au.movies.yahoo.com/]

Whatever Works

This movie is hilarious as it follows Boris Yellnikoff through his bohemian existence as an under-appreciated genius-turned abusive children’s chess instructor who genuinely believes that all others are intellectually inferior. Larry David (aka. George Costanza, aka co-creator of Seinfeld) plays the eccentric, self-titled genius whose vast understanding of the human condition has turned him into a cynical, self-righteous hypochondriac. Written and directed by Woody Allen, the lead role in ‘Whatever Works’ seems to have been created specifically for David, as he plays a more high-strung and odd version of his autobiographical character in the TV comedy ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm.’

After Melody, a young and impressionable ‘nitwit’ from the Deep South, enters his life, the assumption is that her overly-enthusiastic presence will bring Boris out of his dark, self-imposed, semi-suicidal existence. In fact, the contrary occurs, and the young girl is so entranced by his intellectual magnificence that she falls for him, despite his disdain, repulsion and downright resistance to her advances.

For a 90-minute long film, a lot happens as more ‘idiotic’ characters appear and complicate the simple life Boris has built for himself. They interweave themselves in each other’s lives, ultimately proving (according to Boris) that humanity is a failed species. Really, what Allen has demonstrated here is the complexity of the human condition, and the ability for even the most rigid and indoctrinated of people to discover their true selves despite a lifetime of conservatism and sublimated passion. Boris, of course, does not change, and is just as jaded at the end of the film as he was in the beginning.

This film is a must-watch, if only for the clever, witty, side-splitting, monotonously-delivered one-liners from David’s character.
[image from http://www.nypost.com/]

The Blind Side

‘The Blind Side’, another Oscar contender this year, tells the remarkable true story of Michael Oher, a homeless African-American teen who becomes the most sought-after college footballer ever. As the ‘token black student’ at a Christian High School in Memphis, Tennessee, Michael has nothing but a practically zero grade-point average, the shirt on his back and the spare one he keeps in a plastic bag. Found roaming around on a cold winter’s night, Michael is taken in by the Toueys, an affluent white family who have never even been to his side of town, for what was supposed to be one night. One night turns into the remainder of Michael’s High School career, where, under the protection and support of his new family, he excels as a footballer and dramatically improves academically. He is now a professional football-player for the Baltimore Ravens.

As the big, but vulnerable and heart-warmingly naive Michael, Quinton Aaron encapsulates the term ‘friendly giant.’ His performance as a humble, unjaded and hopeful child of a broken home demonstrates the fact that violence and hostility are not synonymous with a bad childhood. I absolutely loved Aaron’s portrayal of Michael, and felt instant warmth from his character, despite his initial lack of dialogue. On the other hand, Sandra Bullock, as Leigh Anne Touhy, dominates the screen and story despite her diminutive size beside Aaron; a comical juxtaposition which actually works. Bullock plays Leigh Anne with the type of maternal pragmatism necessary to be an efficient and effective working mum. She fights and cares for Michael as she does her own children, and her genuine love for him is unquestionable in her pursuit to help him fulfil his potential.

This movie was excellent, and made all the more poignant and inspiring by the fact that it is based on a real person, who is actually my own age.
[Image from www.daemonsmovies.com]

Precious

The contradictory themes of hopelessness and resilience are the bases of the film ‘Precious’, and are played out beautifully through the protagonist of the same name. As an illiterate, overweight and poor teenager living in Harlem, Precious’ life has been marred by all kinds of abuses emanating from her parents – verbal, physical and mental abuse from her mother, Mary; and sexual abuse from her father. The movie actually begins with the result of her latest abuse – Precious is pregnant with her second child by her father. And just as one has finished wincing in discomfort and disbelief at such a situation, the young woman is then berated and beaten by her mother, a cold, heartless welfare cheat who blames her innocent daughter for the woes of her life. Precious’ only escape is through her imagination, where she dramatises fantasies of a glamorous life, but even these short intervals are interrupted by an object to the back of the head, compliments of Mary.

Yet while the hopelessness of her situation seems to engulf not only Precious, but the viewers, it is her resilience, the way in which she finally takes charge of her life despite the continual setbacks, which makes Precious the heroin of the story. Through Precious, the human capacity to not only endure pain, abuse and abandonment, but to then emerge from that suffering without losing the ability to love unconditionally is realised. Despite being the results of her abuse, Precious bestows on her children the unconditional maternal love which she so lacked in her life. And it is through this juxtaposition between Precious and her own mother, both underprivileged mothers who deal with their circumstances very differently, where the different facets of human responses are displayed. Mary sees herself as a victim, who must in turn victimise the only individual over whom she has control, while Precious is a fighter, refusing to give in to her victimhood and striving instead to give herself and her children a better life.

As for the performances, Gabourey Sidibe elicits empathy, compassion and finally pride from the audience in her portrayal of Precious, and as the abusive, loveless mother, Mo’Nique can scare even the toughest of viewers into submission – their recent Oscar nominations are well-deserved. Yet, while Mariah Carey’s much-hyped performance as the dowdy social worker deserves kudos, the role itself was minimal at best, and had it been played by anyone else, would not have received the kind of attention it has.
[Image from oscar.com]

Public Enemies

Public Enemies; what a disappointment. I was wondering why the hype of this movie suddenly disappeared while it was still showing in cinemas, now I know why. As a Johnny Depp biopic, I had high hopes for this movie, as other Depp biopics I have seen are fantastic – Blow and Donnie Brasco. In Depp’s defence, his performance as the Depression-era bank-robber-with-a-heart John Dillinger was exceptional, as most Depp performances are, but an actor can only be as good as the screenwriter, director and producers who work on their storyline before shooting, and with their image after they have left the set, and in this case, that’s where things went wrong: somewhere in pre-production, and again in post-production.

Film makers of the new century have succeeded in telling ‘both sides of the story’ in that they have given both the good guys and bad guys that dualistic element which makes us all human, and from which audiences can connect with the characters. Whether it be a hero with a dark past, or a self-destructive addiction; or a villain who is perhaps misunderstood, or started out with good intentions and through circumstance has found themselves on the ‘bad-guy’ path. Either way, characters are no longer as two-dimensional as your clichéd ‘good guy’/’bad guy’ and that’s one of the best things about watching such movies, to try and justify and understand the motives and behaviours of these characters.

In Public Enemies, director Michael Mann has taken it one-too-many steps in a direction that’s not completely in the past, but definitely not one that should be trodden in the future. In the film, Mann’s Dillinger is clearly the bank robber we love to love. He is presented as the ultimate vigilante with no room for even questioning whether or not his actions are wrong, which according to the law and social standards, are clearly wrong. Here, Dillinger is completely celebrated to the point of martyrdom – he’s a two-dimensional good ‘bad guy’, which is just as uninteresting as a two-dimensional purely ‘good guy’. Meanwhile Christian Bale, an actor of whom I’m a fan, plays Melvin Purvis the J. Edgar Hoover-selected agent appointed to capture the movie’s ‘villain’. Bale’s Purvis comes off as no more than an annoying pest, with no real personal motive for capturing Dillinger. The banality of this character is tiresome, and one cannot find themselves sympathetic to his cause, despite his being the ‘good guy’.

All-in-all the movie seems to be a case of mistaken character identity on the part of the screenwriters and director. It could have been good had it delved deeper into the psyches of both men – not a completely new phenomenon in cinema-storytelling, but a direction which seemed to never even occur to the moviemakers. And while I will definitely watch another Johnny Depp and Christian Bale movie, I will never again watch another Michael Mann movie.