With the better half back from her travels, I finally managed to get myself into a cinema and watch a film, albeit a chick flick. We ended up watching The Proposal with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. Which surprisingly wasn’t bad – it had an engaging storyline (predictable, I’ll grant) but the characters did develop nicely and more importantly, the comic timing was spot on so there no complaints there. Of course, as a guy, I should say it was crap.

2008 Remake of Bangkok Dangerous with Nicholas Cage

Synopsis

Nicholas Page plays Joe, a hit man at the end of his career and he decides to do four more jobs before disappearing. Bangkok sets the stage for his closing act given its corruption and competitiveness. He recruits a local by the name of Kong (Shahkrit Yamnarm) as his runner for things like logistics and receiving details of his mark, while Joe’s employers use Aom (Panward Hemmanee), a club hostess, as their go-between.

Things get complicated when Kong falls for Aom and Joe breaks his rules and begins training Kong to be his successor, while at the same time indulging in a romance with Fon (Charlie Yeung), a pharmacist who shows him what life could be like. Joe has to deal with betrayal, lost love and ultimately his own conscience before he can be free of his life as an assassin.

Review
(Thar be spoilers ahead)

Bangkok Dangerous is a remake of the Pang Brother’s film by the same name released in 2000. In its Hollywood incarnation, it receives a plot rewrite with nods to the original and a top Hollywood star in the form of an aging Nicholas Cage. It is still done by the Pangs and the cast, with the exception of Cage, features Thai actors.

The film sort of makes sense when you consider it a remake of an Asian hit man film. I always find that the depth and strength of the plot is often diluted when they translate these things. In the original, a deaf assassin makes the perfect hit man since he is immune to the sounds people dying and pleading for their lives. He is employed by a minor mob boss who uses his girlfriend, again a club hostess, to transmit instructions to him. Along the way, he meets a pharmacist who specializes in communicating with the deaf and as expected he forms are relationship with her that will lead him on the straight and narrow. I have not seen the original but even reading about it makes me feel that there was so much more to explore about the characters than there was in this remake.

Cage’s performances in recent years have left a lot to be desired and this performance will be probably go down a similar route with the critics. I am still on the fence about this one since I think that art imitates life and Cage’s portrayal of a hit man that needs to get out before he gets washed up worked in a small way. Although he shouldn’t expect the Oscars to be calling. He is pretty much dead face through out as the mostly brooding and dangerous silent type although it offers its comedic moments whether intentional or not.

Cage’s character, Joe’s relationship with the pharmacist Fon is endearing and amusing at times. Most male expats having dated local girls who don’t share a common language can probably relate to this. It was expected that a foreigner will fall for local girl in some form but the twist is that the girl is deaf and mute. I think this helps stave off the usual criticism of the stereotype in that a deaf and mute girl probably also has difficulty communicating with anyone so a foreigner might as well work just as well as a Thai. Thankfully, the film shied away from the typical farang/bar girl relationship and is presented as a local scam artist/club hostess relationship through Kong and Aom.

In terms of character development, again this is weak. Cage’s character Joe goes through some developmental arc but it is predictable – hardened killer wants out and has no friends, befriends local guy and local girl, girl breaks his heart, hardened killer returns, moral crisis comes along and he realizes he can become the hero again and does so for the last fifteen minutes of the film. The character Kong begins on a character development arc that we don’t quite see the end of so it feels incomplete. He begins his training as an assassin but rather than become a ruthless assassin, it seems he’s out to acquire the killing skills to do justice in the world.

A few plot holes. Firstly, Cage should have cut his hair. I’m sure blending in means not looking like a drugged out left-over from the Vietnam war. Secondly, would a professional killer need meds for that graze that he suffered? Surely he would have this with him and really, it wasn’t that big of a scratch. Thirdly, would Fon really be all that disgusted with Joe having dispatched two people that tried to mug him? It is quite a big jump from winning a street fight to figuring out he’s a professional killer.

The film was entertaining but a great film it is not.

A man arrives in New York only to find that while he was in the air, his country experienced a civil war. He is left in a state of limbo where the passport he travels under is no longer recognised by the US government or the his own country. As a result, he lives in an abandoned gate at JFK airport, finding ways to have fun and to earn money.

Rumour has it that this was based on a true story and I suspect that if this story had been true, it would have been set in a pre-911 period. I doubt very much that the US would allow a man to happily roam around the abandoned corridors of New York’s international airport. While they would happily deny you entry into the Land of the Free, I’m sure that they would have no problems, passport or not, repatriating you back to your country of origin.

There is not much to say about this film. I enjoyed watching it but at the end of the day, it’s a no-brainer comic feel-good movie. Perhaps it’s a timely Hollywood reminder to Americans and the rest of the world that the US hasn’t entirely closed its borders with a stormtrooper zeal that would do Bush proud. But that really is stretching.

Should I go into the stereotypes, particularly the racial stereotypes? The Chinese illegal immigrants, the Russian who managed to fly to Canada to buy medication for his father yet goes crazy at US customs and can’t speak English, and the comical Ghandi-type character are the usual suspects. All we needed was some Jihadi to walk in and the cast would be complete.

The plot line was predictable. You knew the bureaucrat was going to be an asshole. You knew that the main protagonist was going to fall in love with the flight attendant (although there was a stab at a bitter sweet ending). You also knew that the man would accomplish his mission somehow. You knew that the big hulking black immigration officer was actually a big softie at heart.

If I’ve spoiled the film for you, don’t worry. The plot isn’t why you’re seeing the film and probably liking it. The writers have no doubt spent more time crafting the interwoven episodes than on the storyline which makes for a film that simply amuses.

Worth a look. Earth shattering it ain’t. Life changing it ain’t. Expect better from Spielberg? Yep. An amusing two hours? Yep.

Besides, it’s worth it to see Catherine Zeta-Jones as a flight attendant. Although, I doubt she would have been impressed with a dinner date at an aiport.

Alien vs. Predator had the potential to be big since it already has a rich comic book heritage to draw from. The film wasn’t as great as I was expecting nor was it as bad as I was expecting. The Alien franchise lost its way after Aliens and the Predator never made a third sequel. This should tell you something about what essentially amounts to Alien 5 and Predator 3.

It felt like I was watching a trailer rather than a whole film. The concepts, characters and storylines were not developed to any great extent and it was a little rushed. One suspects that it’s a case of too many cooks spoil the broth too. You probably had the two franchises duking it out to make sure that their elements, genre and styles for their monsters made the right showing. Combined with the need to include those pesky humans in it all, you had a three-way dilution of sorts rather than a single masterpiece that was contributed to by three rich sources.

It wasn’t an Alien film with the necessary suspense and fear woven into the atmosphere. They did what they were supposed to, but there wasn’t the right element of fear. Of course, after four previous films, the Aliens have become too familiar and it would have been hard to recreate the glory of Alien. More deadly than the Predators, this didn’t seem to quell the notion that they were still weak and reduced to nothing more than cannon fodder.

It was perhaps more of a Predator film. Probably a Predator 2 film. Nice idea but crap execution. They took certain elements of the two Predator films and made them into gospel in this film. Almost fifteen years from the first film, the Predators seemed to be more powerful. They seem to have learned from the ass-whooping they got from Arnie and Danny and actually improved their technology. They also seem to have a more rigid code of honour, in that they won’t kill unworthy prey. It’s taken to the extreme in some instances. One of which is the notion that they can only kill when the prey is armed. But it takes away from the awe that the Predator generates when you pump him full of strange “human” emotions like compassion and sympathy.

The biggest gripe of the film is the predictability. The film was painfully cliched with phrases like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” being hashed out. From the moment that the first Alien was revealed, the storyline became all too clear and this was all confirmed in the film way too early on. Essentially, there were no surprises. Conceptually, atmospherically or anything. Part of the problem was that there were too many Aliens and Predators. One Alien and one Predator would have been sufficient to create the right amount of suspense.

Somehow I did enjoy the film. I only wish that they took their time to make a decent film.

Set in the year 2035AD, Detective John Spooner (Smith) is brought in to investigate the death of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), a robotics pioneer, at the USR conglomerate who has a monopoly on the sale of robots. His prejudice and his investigation leads him to suspect a rogue NS-5 robot, USR’s latest robotic offering, of the murder. Of course, this is inconceivable given the sacred Three Laws of Robots. The far reaching implications and potential danger to a human society so dependant on robot labour is almost impossible to imagine. Yet, in a film where 21st Century storytelling hits a 1950′s original story by Isaac Asimov, the impossible becomes all too likely.

I wasn’t expecting much from I, Robot, but I can say I am pleasantly surprised. Maybe it’s ’cause I haven’t been to the pictures for a while. Oo-er, aren’t I feeling like an old codger using words like the “pictures”. Marvellous. Indeed.

I guess the Asimov fan base will be divided, very much like the Lord of the Rings groupies. Some will applaud it as a story that finally should have been told. Others will scoff at the Hollywood make-over. To be honest, and don’t tell anyone this as they will revoke my SF/F Membership Card, I have never read any of Isaac Asimov’s novels. I think for me, like many, Asimov’s genius in robotic morality was always acknowledged but never really explored. I suspect there are some out there that will never have heard of the author at all.

But this film has showcased his genius to me and has encouraged me to actually explore his works further. Sitting in the film theatre, it wasn’t the fact that this was Will Smith back after a brief hiatus or even demonstrating that he can do serious; it wasn’t the cool fact that Audi had survived looking like an iPod or that those frightful 2004 black leather Converse shoes had survived so long (Converse, in my opinion, should always be made of canvas and the company should stop pandering to celebrity and fashion); nor was it even the shooting and the brilliant CG/FX that were sexy enough to draw the crowds.

Nope, for me, it was the storyline. The concepts that were presented. I’m accused of tiring easily about rehashed storylines and concepts. And I am in my right since most of the crap out their hitting the screens is nothing but same old concepts packaged up with new stars or new locations. I, Robot can be accused of being the same. We’re all familiar with the concepts. Nothing in the film remotely suggested some mind-blowing new concept. I’ve seen it all in Terminator, Robocop, 2001, Ghost in the Machine, The Matrix, and slew of other science fiction and anime films.

But you know what was the deal closer for me? It was the fact that Asimov was the first. The aforementioned films can probably all trace their concepts back to Asimov’s works, of which I, Robot was published circa 1950. Robocop had his safety protocols hardwired into him. They are surprisingly similar to Asimov’s Three Laws. Terminator and The Matrix all lend their concepts of a man vs. machine showdown to Asimov’s questioning of issues concerning robotics, technology and science as a whole. In my mind, I, Robot was about the moral responsibility of science and technology. Just because we can, should we? Fine, maybe not a new concept even by Asimov’s standards since we, as a civilisation, were discovering the social issues around an increasingly mechanised world.

The fact that over reliance on science and technology is potentially dangerous despite the benefits it brings is obvious. What was less obvious was the main point of the film in my opinion.

Ghost in the Shell and other anime works all lend their ideas of something or someone being more than just a sum of their parts, and their programming. This was already an explored possibility by the grand-daddy of science fiction back in the 50′s. This was perhaps the most profoundly insightful aspect of the film. As we blindly unravel the genetic make-up of life and discover that DNA programming may be responsible for certain behaviours and characteristics, I, Robot’s suggestion that a mere robot can be more than just it’s programming should serve as warning to us.

While the film demonstrated that a robot can become more than the sum of its programming (essentially protocols based on human experiences), humans too should not sell that birthright down the drain. Just like our DNA programming contributes a lot to our behaviour and existence, so too are our experiences part of that programming of behaviour. Will Smith’s character too demonstrates that he too can be more than his programming. Mind-blowing in that Asimov probably had no idea about DNA or it’s science back when he wrote the book.

When you watch this film, you might think you have already seen this film. You have. Just remember, these concepts were hammered out long before Arnie was sent back in time to kill Sarah Connor; even before Mr. Anderson become Neo; or even before Masamune’s Kusanagi explored the possibility of robotic conscience.

Scientist Jack Hall presents his findings on global warming to an international chorum on the matter. Little does he realise that his catastrophic predictions about the radical onset of an ice age will happen in his lifetime. As the polar ice caps melt, the northern hemisphere bears the brunt of the oncoming ice age as extreme weather systems and deadly natural disasters play out in the cities. Hall’s son Sam is trapped in New York where the lethal eye of the storm, capable of freezing to death anything and anyone, will hit. Forgoing evecuation, Jack Hall races to the city to try and find him… if he hasn’t frozen to death.

It’s been said about my reviews that I’m opinionated and hard to please when it comes to films. Maybe I watch too many of them so I’m not so easily impressed. The Day After Tomorrow (TDAT) will be no different since it didn’t impress me beyond the big effects. I just calls ‘em as sees ‘em. On the basis that this was going to be a no-brainer, you shouldn’t expect much. But you should expect to be getting something.

At best, the film was a great showcase for the awesome destructive power of nature. At worst, it’s nothing I couldn’t have seen on the Discovery Channel but without the bad storyline, poor acting, overplayed drama and the usual wave the “American” flag sentimentality. I’m sure all the eco-disasters that were portrayed could actually happen, whether they will is a different matter. I won’t take away from the emotional impact that the CG portrayal of these events had on me and probably the rest of the audience.

The biggest problem was that these only lasted for one quarter of the movie. The rest of the movie was overlayed with what passed as the storyline. These storylines were predictable and somewhat cliche, drawing on old tried and tested heart-wrenchers. The father who’s estranged from his son, the system that won’t listen, the maverick scientist, the faithful buddy, the love triangle. And on it goes. These work if done well but woe to the script writer who fails to sell homogenous goods without properly packaging it up before charging a premium price for them.

In the case of TDAT, the packaging job was the CG weather systems and the dramatic music score that underlies most of the “human” moments of the film. It’s the same sort of ID4 euphoric tat that gives you the audio cue of when to give a damn.

The human element was perhaps too implausible. The only ones that seemed to be going through anything of an emotional transition were the main protagonists. Admittedly, the film should center around them but it doesn’t mean that the rest of the characters’ emotions are also tied with the main characters. In fact, they should very little regard for their own concerns and worries in most cases. While I can’t say I was expecting a human psychological film, I felt the reactions of the rest of the people were perhaps subdued. Maybe they were in shock but they behaved more like they were in a subway disaster rather than what a civilization destroying eco-disaster.

The film had some strange things going on too. Like why Sam Hall would fail to open a interior door on a ship, which looked really flimsy, find an axe and then decide to instead climb outside in the cold, and break a window instead. Surely, the windows of a tanker would be reinforced for ocean-going travel? Strange. Don’t get me started on the wolves.

As for the point of the film, was there really a point to the film? Sure, it told mankind that it’s voracious resource consumption behaviour is likely to lead to a situation that going to screw us. According to TDAT, the northern hemisphere looks like it will receive the brunt of it. While catastophic for human civilization in general since most of us live up here, this of course equates into “western civilization”.

What definitely makes the film worth seeing are the US refugee camps in Mexico. It’s always nice to see a little bit of humble pie served out. Of course, that premise is flawed since the US would most likely invade by military arms if it couldn’t cross the border, nor would the Mexicans or the rest of South America care if the US cancelled their debt to let them in the country. By all intents and purposes, the US doesn’t exist any more economically. Nature cancelled those debts in effect.

The choice is yours whether you want to go and see this film. It’s entertainment but it’s cheesy. And on that note, I’d rather watch Matrix Revulsions for it’s predictability than TDAT sentimentalist approach. The CG effects and the “future scenario” portrayal should have carrried the film but they didn’t.

Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz return to the big screen to reprise their characters in Shrek 2. In this sequel, Shrek and Princess Fiona are invited to the land of Far Far Away to meet the princess’ parents. Only thing is that they expected their daughter to be, well, human and their son-in-law to be Prince Charming. Definitely not an ogre. The King, Fiona’s father, sets out to seperate the two and Shrek must set out to prove his love for Fiona.

Shrek 2 is wonderfully funny film. Like it’s predecessor, it features cameos of numerous characters from all our favourite fairy tales, giving them a modern day attitude and behaviour. The original cast members are back (Murphy, Myers and Diaz) and this time they’ve brought along the voice talents of heavy hitting celebrities like Antonio Banderas, John Cleese and Jennifer Saunders. Perhaps the presence of such recognizable voices could have detracted from the fantasy that is Shrek 2 but they seemed to work well with the animated characters on the screen. Thankfully, the animators had chosen to keep the characters themselves rather than introduce small elements that visually brought the voice actor through.

Visually, in terms of CG, there was nothing that impressed me sufficiently. I’m not the expert on these things but I don’t think there was anything that should have made us sit up and notice. The visual hit was more from seeing typically fantasy elements being equated into modern-day references. This is where the humour and the amusement lay and I believe that Shrek 2 is well worth watching twice since you’ll always discover something new that the film parodies.

The humour was at times very hilarious and had me and the rest of the audience in stitches. The only thing was that it wasn’t thought out that well. So there was often something absolutely funny on the screen, yet a split second later, the humour had gone. Not really emotioneered for a continuous “please stop, you’re killing me” type of amusement.

You could do worse than to go and see Shrek 2. I enjoyed it, if only for the Puss in Boots. You’ll see why.

As the effective head of the Chinese underworld (Jiang Hu), it appears that Hung (Andy Lau) must re-evaluate his priorities after his wife gives birth to their first child. The possibility of his abdication sets in motion a power play for the prime position of power by his sub-bosses, including his closest and most trusted lieutenant, Lefty (Jacky Cheung). Even if he doesn’t choose to abdicate, they may yet force him.

Wing (Shawn Yue) and Turbo (Edison Chen) begin a quest that will help them to rise from the mediocrity of foot soldiers in the underworld to a new levels fame. Wing must assassinate one of the bosses or die trying. To prepare for this task, his boss kindly gives Wing a cleaver and a hooker for the night.

What to think of Jiang Hu? It’s good to see that the Hong Kong gangster genre still has a faint heartbeat even if it isn’t exactly pulsating with life. Jiang Hu is perhaps continuing along the path laid out by the Infernal Affairs films. However, it’s certainly not on the level of any of the 80′s and 90′s HK triad films, and perhaps pales in comparisson with the original Infernal Affairs.

Jiang Hu had top calibre actors in it featuring Andy Lau Tak-Wah, Jacky Cheung Hok Yau and Eric Tsang Chi-Wai. It had upcoming heart throb Edison Chen Koon Hei in it. These were enough to make the film a crowd puller. The producers could have stopped there since these names alone would have made the film a crowd puller in itself. It appears that they did.

The storyline offers nothing new which isn’t necessarily a bad thing if executed in an suitably emotive way. But Jiang Hu fails to even provide that right framework through which we actually give a damn about any of the characters. Sure the film is clever temporally to provide depth to the characters, but constant flitting around diminishes from the story at hand and building a real bond between the audience and the protoganists. Stay in the present, and tell the main story. Sprinkling a few poignant memories in that accentuate the brotherhood and betrayal in question in the present rather than ladening it with what is essentially another storyline, where the audience no longer cares about one or the other.

Maybe I’m missing the point since I can’t follow in Cantonese but perhaps that is the point. Somewhere in my gut I’m feeling that the heart and soul has been ripped out of this genre of movies that Hong Kong did so well. There is no emotion. The film tries to be clever in its execution of the plot but there is not engineering of emotion through the film that makes me feel I give a damn. Again, perhaps a language problem but emotions, which lie at the heart of the film experience, should be able to transcend pure language.

What I missed in Jiang Hu is the ability to identify with the characters. Infernal Affairs had a certain resonance about the main protagonist played by Tony Leung. It was about being at odds with the system while also wrestling with the concept of not ever being or having existed. The early Young & Dangerous films resonated with the audience since it gave them strength during a period of uncertainty and financial instability.

And now, as the film makers, actors, and audience gets older, we get fanciful gangster storylines that suggest that the head triad in all of Hong Kong should leave simply because he has a child. Fatherhood and questions of brotherhood. Perhaps my generation and older are getting more mature and these are the issues of our times with which we might be able to identify. But it sure as hell doesn’t make it any more interesting for a ganster flick.

For me, the film represents the gangster genre in Hong Kong adequately. Those at the top are getting stale. Hand over the reigns to a new younger generation or suffer the death of this genre.

Set against the backdrop of a series of kidney thefts, Chi Ching stumbles upon one hapless victim in the hotel room during a wedding reception. She identifies a possible suspect in the form of Suen Ling (Karena Lam) and when she identifies her in an identity parade, discovers that Suen Ling is her boyfriend’s lover. She becomes convinced that Suen Ling is out to kill her although the relationship between the two women takes some surprising and unexpected twists before the final endgame is played out.

I knew I wanted to see this film (not just for the two pretty ladies gracing the promotional posters and starring in the film) but I’ve always had a thing for Hong Kong horror films. I perhaps should have done some reading up on this film since it isn’t a horror film at all but a thriller/suspense film. Nonetheless, it was a good film if a little comical at times.

Like all good Chinese films, there is a complicated love triangle at the heart of the story. The fear and tension are built by identifying with the vulnerability of the victim, Chi Ching, who suffers from renal failure and has only one kidney left. The possibility that Suen Ling, her rival for Andy Hui’s affections, can cause her real harm is heightened by the fact that she is a medical student and was spotted at the scene of one of the kidney thefts.

Karena Lam portrays the role of scorned mistress through an intense quietness about her character that is accentuated with a good layer of indifference to her lot in life and her role in the relationship. Lee Sin-je, whose character is the main protagonist and the one through which we identify the world we are taken to, gives a performance that plays second fiddle to Karena Lam. Both characters undergo a tranformation of sorts during the film through which they develop and cast off the initial impressions that we have of them, but Karena Lam makes much more of a convincing transformation with Suen Ling. She also does a great job of selling us on the almost childlike innocence of her femme fatale character.

The cinematography of the film can either be taken as being done really well or really badly. By this I mean that it was beautifully done and each scene conveyed the right sense of tension or warmth as was appropriate to the story. Where it fell down was that it was so accurate that at times the scenes gave themselves away. I knew when to brace myself for the shock. I knew when to relax and, for this is bad for a thriller, I could relax.

Some scenes were quite formulaic with old hashed up mechanisms such as the possible shock never happening, then letting the audience think it’s over and then shock them. Small details like these made the film almost predictable. However, there were times when the film used tired themes and presented a new spin on them. The film’s strength definitely lay in the clever unfolding of the truth.

The film is probably worth watching on the big screen where you can let the collective terror and suspense engulf you in the story. Perhaps on the small screen the right emotions might not be conveyed accurately enough although I have yet to see it on DVD. This isn’t necessarily the fault of the film itself but any thriller type of movie, which this film definitely was. Chinese horror films have the ability to intimidate you on a more conceptual level rather than an emotional level. Koma is definitely a thriller that tried to work on an emotional level and conceptually, it was perhaps a little weak.

Henry Roth (Sandler) is a veterinarian living in Hawaii who enjoys the company of vacationing women. He leaves the playboy life behind after he falls for Lucy (Barrymore), who suffers from short-term memory loss. Since she can never remember meeting him, Henry has to romance Lucy every single day and hope that she falls for him.

I have to confess that I’m somewhat of a Adam Sandler fan. His offerings aren’t always the most intelligently comic offerings that can be had for a laugh, but he amuses none the less. I find him more amusing than Ben Stiller who doesn’t really hit the funny mark for me. Sandler’s latest film, 50 First Dates, offers an interesting and well-thought out premise for the main protagonist.

What would you do if you only had one day to spend with the woman of your dreams, and that one day would always be the first day that you met her. That’s right, you’d have to chat her up over and over again, succeed or fail, and enjoy the day knowing that the next day you would have to start from square one again, with trying to chat her.

Essentially, it is a romantic comedy although don’t let dissuade you from seeing this film. The lighthearted comedy and humour helps to keep it from getting dragged down into a soppy love story. The only reservation I hae about the film is that at one point it made fun of the mentally disturbed (in fact, if you think about it, the whole film is based on that). I don’t believe that any of the conditions they bring up in the film are real life conditions, but if so, then it’s a little cold to be laughing or making fun of that shit.

All in all, it’s a film that’s worthy of the Adam Sandler title. It ends on a positive note even if a little surprising for the usual Hollywood crap endings that dog romantic comedies. It ain’t brain surgery, nor thought provoking, but it will amuse for a suitable 90 mins.

The film is definitely worthy of the Adam Sandler name to it.

The Passion of The Christ focuses on the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth’s life. The film begins in the Garden of Olives where Jesus has gone to pray after sitting the Last Supper. Jesus must resist the temptations of Satan. Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is then arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem where leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his trial results in a condemnation to death.

(Summary written by James Hutchinson.)

I was interested in seeing The Passion of the Christ because it holds relevance to me as a Christian and my recent readings into the loss of the sacred feminine, explored in books like the Da Vinci Code and the Woman with the Alabastar Jar. Actually I hadn’t really read up much on the film and I think my expectations were set a little differently to what the film actually was.

The film depicts the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ which is essentially when Jesus was betrayed in the gardens by Judas Iscariot until the breaking of the temple. I believe Mel Gibson’s intention was to create one of the most realistic representations of these last twelve hours of Christ as a mortal. In this, he succeeds and gives us a version that is unique unto itself and gives new meaning to a story that has been told countless times through word and film. It is a version that is disturbingly graphic as a result and could quite have easily been called the Suffering of the Christ.

What amazed me about the film was that there was very little Hollywood influence in this film. The dialogue was all in the original context being either Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin. There were no sudden misplaced miracles to make you feel better in it all. The people, including Jesus, were surprisingly human in that they loved, hated, feared and doubted as real people. The film was dramatic but these human emotions displayed weren’t glossed over with simplified dramaticisms. The only real sign of Hollywood trappings was the music score which accentuated the feelings that you should have been feeling at the time.

While the film focuses on the suffering of Christ, there are flashbacks to put certain things into context. While short, as the film’s main theme wasn’t about the life of Christ, in most cases they are appropriate footnotes for the viewer.

I loved the film and this modern day, realistic enactment of the suffering of Christ was what was needed for a Christian world that is losing rapidly losing its way. This film should help us to understand the extent of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. I do not want to send people packing to the Church since I don’t believe in institutionalised religion but it should serve as individual spiritual reminder if you do believe in Jesus Christ.

On a personal note, I have always worn my crucifix each day letting it serve as reminder of the suffering that Christ went through for me yet this film helped me to open my eyes to what exactly that suffering was.

Apparently the film has generated some controversy as being anti-Semitic. One might feel that this an overly sensitive claim by the Jewish community on this but the spiritual effect that this film might have on some people might incline them to continue the blame to the Jews for being responsible for the suffering of Christ. Scoff at that at your own peril. The Jewish people have been persecuted and punished for what it was believed that they did to Christ throughout European history. All I can say is that midway through the film, after I had gritted my teeth and hated those that persecuted Jesus, an appropriate flashback was inserted. It was the sermon where Jesus taught us that it is easy to love your friends but so much more rewarding if you can love and forgive those who hate and persecute you. Think about that before you go on a crusade to make the Jews pay. Remember too that Jesus, his disciples and those that followed him were essentially Jewish too.

James Caviezel was an excellent choice for the role of Jesus. There was something about his performance that just made it feel right. He portrays the right amount of doubt, nobility, strengths and weaknesses that one would assume that Jesus, the man, would have had. Before you go harping on at me about the divinity of Jesus, God sent His Son to earth as a man. His divinity came later.

Alright, enough praise, what are my gripes?

While the film was an excellent and much needed depiction of the last twelve hours of Christ, it didn’t offer anything new other than a realistic depiction of the suffering. This is okay itself for the reasons that I have talked about earlier and the film remains a great film because of that. However, it would have been nice to have something more to chew upon.

One particular complaint that I had about the film was that it continued the myth, and the lie by the Catholic Church, that Mary Magdalene was the repentant sinner. There is some confusion to the different Mary’s and women that were involved in Jesus’ life but it is highly doubtful that the Mary Magdalene was the Mary who was the redeemed prostitute. The Church has since officially apologised for making this assertion.

It was a shame that the relationship between Mary of Magdalene and Jesus was not explored more fully. There is new evidence to suggest that the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdalene. This idea is put forward by writers such as Baigent and Starbird in their various works. This is what misled me about the title, believing that the Passion was about His relationship with Mary. Of course, now it is clear that the Passion was His love for mankind yet one can’t help but wonder why Mary of Magdalene is featured so prominantly in the film as she was and despite still being portrayed as the sinner repentant. Is there perhaps a subtle suggestion that they were more than just companions?

Another problem that I had with the film was that it portrayed Judas Iscariot in a stereotypical manner. Unsurprisingly, this man has got some bad press for the last two thousand years or so and it quite rightly, he is going to be demonised as a turncoat and a betrayer. But another possibility that is making the rounds is that Judas was not the weak-willed man that he as depicted but a completely different character.

One has to understand that Israel was an occupied land at the time of Christ and that there were Jews who were ultra-nationalistic (zealots) in their intentions. Judas, before entering into the service of Christ, was from one of those hardline sects. I’m not making excuses for Judas but merely offering a new take on his motivations. Imagine a hardliner who is expecting his messiah to overthrow the Romans and expel them from Israel, and instead He preaches about loving thy enemies, being the Son of Man, and promising rewards in an afterlife. There has to be more than just thirty pieces of silver to make Judas betray Jesus. The man had motivations just like you and I. What were they?

Having said that, the film’s realistic portrayal, which has limited Hollywood “miracles” happening, begs the questions that are not often asked. Why exactly did the Jewish authorities not approve of Jesus? Why did a Jerusalem who welcomed Jesus with open arms and affording Him the welcome of a royal king suddenly turn so soon against him? Again, the answer may lie in understanding the politics of Israel and the bloodline of Jesus at the time.

If one understands that Jesus was of the royal lineage of the House of David, then Jesus had a rightful earthly claim to be King of Israel. Herod, for all intents and purposes, was a puppet king and one that could get along with the Roman occupiers. I don’t think the depiction of Herod was far from the truth in the film. The disgust of the Jewish farasees at Herod even when they brought Jesus to him to be judged is telling. They never wanted to bring Him to Herod, rather they wanted Him to be tried by Roman law and they were only forced to bring the matter to Herod when the Roman governor forced them to.

The encounter between Herod and Jesus is an interesting one. Herod takes a look at the abused Jesus and contemptously laughs in His face, questioning whether He is the one to usurp his position of king. For Herod, this was probably a very real threat that he had to live with during his life. Herod was the one that threatened by the portenses that someone who had more claim to the throne would usurp him. I believe that is why Joseph and Mary went into hiding when Jesus was due to be born yet Joseph still obeyed the demands of the Roman census that was issued.

The whole point in Herod’s, the Jewish farisees, and Judas Iscariot’s behaviour in condemning Jesus was removing Him from the earthly political sphere that was in effect in Israel at the time. He claimed a spiritual dominion not an earthly one. Herod feared the earthly dominion and laughed at the spiritual dominion Jesus claimed. Yet he would have done anything to get rid of Jesus knowing that the danger of the earthly claim was still very real and valid. The Jewish farisees were already angry at Jesus for He would not side with them since He viewed them as corrupt. Along with Judas, they were disappointed maybe with the failure of Jesus to be the earthly deliverer of Israel from the Romans. Instead, He had, what to them seemed fanciful notions and ever increasingly popular preachings of a spiritual deliverance. Not something you want someone who has a rightful claim to the kingship of Israel to have when you want them to be kicking out the Romans.

The film, the Passion of the Christ, rightly accentuates the suffering of Christ but also offers up new questions to be asked by myself and others. These are all questions that no longer can be answered with concrete proof. History has since clouded the issue. What remains is a riddling story that has been told through the ages and one which can only be answered with the substance of what is at the heart of anyone’s spirituality. Faith.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised with The Last Samurai, starring Hollywood’s golden boy, Tom Cruise. Having said that, it’s not such a great compliment since I wasn’t expecting much from this film anyway. What can you expect of an American film that stars Tom Cruise in the land of the Rising Sun.

The story centres around a young Union officer, Nathan Alrgen (Cruise), who is disillusioned with being the great war hero that his people make him out to be. We discover that he spent much time studying and learning the ways of the Native American people before being ordered to slaughter them all. His commanding officer orders him to take a contract in Japan to train the Japanese army of one Japanese politician Omura (played by Masato Harada).

Algren finds himself training the Japanese peasants in the handling rifles and modern day infantry tactics. His role is to prepare them for combat against one samurai lord by the name of Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe). Katsumoto is considered a rebel lord in the eyes of those who run the government in Japan, claiming he is being too backward and clinging to the old ways too much. Katsumoto, on the other hand, believes he is serving his emporer with his rebellion.

Needless to say, the first confrontation between Algren’s fresh recruits and Katsumoto’s seasoned samurai goes in favour of the samurai, despite some heroics from Billy Connelly, who plays an Irishman. With Algren’s troops routed, the only one who is able to stand up against four or five samurai, and even succeeding in killing Katsumoto’s brother in law, is Algren.

Katsumoto, working on a dream vision, sees something in Algren that is tied to his destiny. He decides to capture the soldier, and in a little bit of clever matchmaking, forces his sister, Taka, (whose husband Algren just killed) to caring for the wounded soldier (yeah, he did get some scrapes in that fight with all those samurai).

Anyway, cut a long story short, Algren spends his time with Katsumoto in his winter retreat, starts to learn the old ways of the Japanese warrior and feels at place amongst them. He even manages to save Katsumoto’s life. With the spring upon them, he and Katsumoto return to the capital and the political wranglings begin. A law forbidding the samurais¹.

1. As yet another unfinished post from earlier. I don’t think I’ll ever finish it which is probably just as well considering the film was quite long winded

The final installment of Peter Jackson’s adaptation of Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King. An award winning conclusion to the Lord of the Ring trilogy that faithfully depicts the timeless Tolkien classic supported by original artwork by Alan Lee. The scale and grandeur of Return of the King has defined a new era in the fantasy movie genre.

This installment sees Frodo and Sam near the completion of their quest to destroy the Ring, which threatens to overcome Frodo and Gollum with it’s promise of power and evil. In the meantime, Gondor is threatened by the forces of Sauron and the final defence on Osgiliath looks desperate. Will the help of reinforcements break the seige and will the rightful king take his place at the throne?

I wasn’t expecting much from the third installment of Peter Jackson’s interpretation of The Return of the King. It wasn’t that I didn’t trust his creative ability to bring Tolkien’s epic to life, it’s just that so far, third installments have failed to deliver this year. Matrix Revolutions disappointed and I expect Star Wars III to disappoint too. So I entered the theatre with subdued expectations, not wanting to be disappointed.

Thankfully, I was disappointed with being not disappointed. The film was great. I thoroughly enjoyed it. For me it was watching my childhood being played out on screen. This was the LOTR that I grew up with, that formed my early creative ideas when building fantasy worlds for my own book and my RPG worlds. Perhaps in part this was due to Alan Lee’s work evident throughout the film.

It’s sad too because it will also spell a lull in the fantasy genre since, in my opinion, it’s the film to end all fantasy films. There will not be another film that can top this one in the fantasy genre. They will try, and they will fail. This is because no book or sub-culture is out there to warrant the same budget or the same budget to create an epic film of this magnitude. Nor is there likely to sit through a trilogy that spans over eight hours of screen time, with the bulk of the time spent in this last film, which took three hours to tell.

While Tolkien, and I’m sure this will be heresy to die-hard Tolkien fans, has been topped in terms of fantasy storytelling in the literature world, Peter Jackson’s film is a masterpiece unto itself. I remember that Stanley Kubric once said,

“A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.”

Jackson has stayed true to great film storytelling. LOTR3 is definitely a rollercoaster ride of emotions. Anguish, despair, and fear go hand in hand with hope, joy, nobility and heroism. Even for Tolkien fans, the film brings to life the ancient citadels of Minas Tirith and the darkness that is Mordor.

Okay, so shall I stop with the hero worship? Not really. I can’t find much fault with the film. Sure, it detracts at points from the book at points. Sure, I’m sure if I re-read the book I could find points where I could whine about accuracy. But, like I said, Jackson has done his job as a storyteller with the medium that he is using. He’s also been blessed with the budget and the trust to do what he needed to do and in that we, even Tolkien fans, have been treated to film worthy of the book. We haven’t been hoodwinked with a film that is half-arsed and heavily abbreviated. We probably won’t see another interpretation of the LOTR on screen. Most likely we’ll get a TV mini-series that won’t live upto the same standard. So for me, I appreciate Jackson’s interpretation of the LOTR3. At least there were no shield surfing elves in this one.

Even where Jackson indulges in his own storytelling loop, you can’t really blame him. Arwen features again as the love interest. It sort of stands to reason that Jackson would need to tell that story to illustrate the love that Aragorn and Arwen felt for each other. The movie, while it would make sense if it was left out, wouldn’t be whole for understanding the world that Tolkien created.

I guess the way that elves and the dwarves were handled are one of my few gripes with the film though. Firstly, the elves do not suffer the effects of weather. They feel neither cold nor heat. So Elrond’s observation that her hands were cold spelt the first inaccuracy for me that jarred a little. Secondly, elves, while wise, were not future reading creatures that film makes them out to be. While Elrond does admit that the future is uncertain, it’s a little late for that observation in my opinion. Thirdly, while amusing, Gimli is still reduced to a comical almost stupid figure. The dwarves of Middle-Earth were fierce warriors and humour forged from a hardy background.

The romance between Eowyn and Aragorn didn’t really sit well with me. I don’t believe it was a strong theme in the book. The Eowyn, in my mind, was more of a headstrong girl, younger than the Eowyn in the film. She might have had a childhood crush on Aragorn but it wasn’t a theme that should have been addressed in the film.

They left out the corruption of the Shire and the hobbits return to set things right. But given the length of the film, it probably wasn’t a bad thing itself. Perhaps the extended version will cover this but I doubt it.

The ghost army was a nice touch although I did feel that the relief of Gondor was a little too easy. Some more action and struggle would have been nice.

I’m writing this fresh from watching the film. No doubt if I read the book again, plus all the other books I have on Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I will find more inaccuracies. But like I said, it was a great film unto itself. I’ve long since passed being a true die-hard about LOTR and enjoyed Jackson’s interpretation for what it is. It’s it’s own piece of art to be honest.

And the sight of six thousand Riders of Rohan sweeping through the host of Mordor was enough to satisfy my heroism fix.

The final installment of the Matrix series by the Wachowski brothers. Neo finds himself trapped in dangerous in-between space called the “train station” while Trinity and Morpheus confront the Merovingian in an attempt to free Neo. In the meantime, the machines continue their assault on the city of Zion and Mr. Smith is able to break-out of the Matrix and manifest himself in the real world. Can the machines and Mr. Smith be stopped?

A poor sequel to the original Matrix film but serves as a conclusion of sorts. Good CGI work that doesn’t make up for the poor plot and storyline.

Right, I went to see the Matrix last night. I realize that some of you haven’t had the opportunity to see it yet, so I’ll try to keep this review as obscure as possible to prevent spoiling for you. I didn’t like Matrix Revolutions. There I said it. I’m ashamed almost to have my site in the style of the Matrix anymore after seeing the third installment of the Neo and Trinity’s saga.

From my point of view, the Matrix trilogy went from “Great, what a mind blower” to “Hmm, okay crap effects and some really piss poor cliches but it leaves enough questions unanswered to merit a viewing of the final saga.” to “Oh my God, you’ve just lost the plot.”

The film did better in the action department and special effects. It had a big battle scene in there that was worthy enough to be called interesting. But this was probably the highpoint of the film. It was climatic and exciting which an end battle should be in this sort of genre. But as the film’s only saving grace, it meant that the film lost the point of the original Matrix and that was to challenge our thinking and concept of the world. The second film was beginning to show this loss of focus but the third film was the coup de grace.

My biggest beef with the film was that the dialogue was atrocious. No really, it was one cliche after another. Whoever wrote it should seriously consider another line of work because I would be embarrassed to even claim I had a hand in it. Or maybe was that the point? Deja vu was rationalised in the first film as a glitch in the Matrix. In Revolutions, too many times you would know that what the next line was going to be. It was just too predictable. Where it wasn’t predictable, it was almost comic. I couldn’t keep myself from pissing myself in the cinema with laughter. I’m surprised no-one else did.

Ignoring the cheesy dialogue, the concepts presented to the audience were almost like a side note, one believing that they’d spent most of their time and budget on the effects rather than actually sitting down and getting a good story out with some thought provoking stimulus. Maybe I expected too much from Revolutions but to be fair, they did raise my expectations with one and two. The producers should have known that after the first two, people would have been smart enough to come with some clever speculations to what it was all about.

Alas, the whole ending and questions answered were a let down on appalling levels. My own speculations at the end of Reloaded and the speculations of one of my friends, Gottfried, before seeing Revolutions were more of intelligently thought out. Instead of giving us some interesting observation on life, I found myself letting out a sigh of relief that the film had finally taken it’s last breath on its tortured existence.

Revolutions should have focused more on concept development and good storytelling rather than tried to impress us with heroic acts and impressive graphics. This is not what impressed people when they first walked out of seeing Matrix 1. It was a clever observation of our own real world that we are all slave to a machine or system, and that sometimes we need to go beyond what we know as truth and reality. Not the martial arts. Not the clever slowdown effects. Not even the love story. Reloaded and Revolutions were definitely an opportunity wasted to do some great work. Animatrix is the closest thing that came to qualifying as a sequel.

Redeeming factors include two things. SEMI-SPOILERS TO FOLLOW.

One, the idea that one of the most powerful weapon in mankind’s psyche is the concept of choice. This was alluded to in Reloaded and suggested again in Revolutions. But instead of playing it out as a concept or even as the ultimate winning point, it was summarily dismissed. Again, focus too much on the special effects and fight scenes rather than make a point.

Two, in the fight scene between Neo and Agent Smith, a whole ton of of Smith’s sit there watching passively while the fight plays out. (Okay, that’s not much of surprise is it?). While I was watching it on screen, I actually panned out in my own vision and realized that everyone in the cinema was doing exactly the same thing as all the other Mr. Smiths. You have to watch the film to understand my point, but I realized that in a way, it still made the same point about mankind being a slave to the machine. But I somehow doubt that the film makers, writers and producers intended that to be profound spark of that scene.

So, by all means go and watch the film. You really have to if you like to know the end to things. However, I remain firmly rooted in the idea that it was a shameful piece of work.

Uma Thurman stars in Quentin Tarantino’s fourth film venture, Kill Bill. Thurman plays a character known as the Bride, a pregnant assassin who is shot by her boss, Bill (David Carradine), on her wedding day, leaving herself and the wedding guests lying for dead. She survives and after being in a coma for five years, she wakes to seek revenge on her co-workers and boss who had attacked her. She sets out to strike down her once fellow assassins, leaving Bill for last.

(Summary written by Berkeley)

I don’t know what to say about Kill Bill. I was amused by it but I did feel it was over indulgent. I do recommend you go and watch it though.

Why do I say over-indulgent? Well, it’s probably all the cliches and stereotyping that goes on. I mean, Tarantino is out on a Asian-phile spree with most of his references. Some critics would say that it’s a salute to his favourite Japanese and Chinese cinema, especially with the number of Asian talent pooled into the film. I personally would have to say that I probably need to watch more Asian films to be in a position to truly judge it on those merits.

So what’s my beef? My beef is, well, that it draws upon the stereotypes of Asia and Asians that have already been played out before and, to be honest, are wearing thin. He skirts on the borders of accuracy and Asian cinema storytelling. On the one hand, he is accurate in that a Japanese-Chinese woman would probably not be accepted as the head of all the Japanese Yakuza. Yet on the otherhand, he indulges in the lolita-esque killer schoolgirls that only exists on screen (debate on this could take forever though).

I guess its the violence in the film. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a violence consumator as much as the next guy. I’m not bemoaning that there was too much violence in the film. I’m just saying it got a bit pointless and too much to the point that it was boring. In Tarantino’s other films, the violence was done stylishly and there was a point to it. The violence in Reservoir Dogs where Michael Madson’s Mr. Blonde dances to the Stealer’s Wheel hit “Stuck in the Middle with You” while torturing the cop, while grotestque helps to drive home the point of the psychotic nature of the character.

In Kill Bill, the violence was just there. It was almost as if Tarantino believes that excessive gore is his trademark rather than using the bloodspilling for a storytelling purpose, which is his style. The violence left me with the three things on my mind.

First, so what? I’ve moved on, as has much of the audience, with seeing gruesome shit played out in front of us. The world has moved on, Mr. Tarantino. Use the maiming and pain better. Show us the way forward rather than dwelling on the past.

Second, get on with the story. I know you are earning a big fat cheque for Kill Bill Vol. 2 but you could have told the story in one movie. I’m getting a little pissed at movie companies for producing films that need sequels and delivering sub-standard fare.

Third, get on with the story. The violence had no point for me, so it wasn’t an intricate part of the story telling that you are reknowned for. The violence in the disco at the end was too long and indulged pointless in a killing spree. And, here’s where I think you’ve missed the point. The duel between Ishii and Black Mamba was too short. While it did depict the deadly nature of the combatants involved, more of a struggle and then respect needed to build between the two characters. Especially when you have the likes of Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu getting in the way of the portrayal of the characters.

At the end of the day, Kill Bill was a salute to Asian cinema. While it did salute it, it was almost like a clumsy salute that a civilian might give a military man because he thinks he knows how to salute. Anyone who has spent some time in the military or military institutions will know that there is a specific way that a salute is executed, and that it is more than just a salute. It is a sign of respect, a sign of heritage and a sign of honour. Saluting incorrectly is often worse than not saluting at all.

In ancient times the Rings of Power were crafted by the Elven-smiths, and Sauron, the Dark Lord, forged the One Ring, filling it with his own power so that he could rule all others. But the One Ring was taken from him, and though he sought it throughout Middle-Earth still it remained lost to him. After many ages it fell, by chance, into the hands of the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. On his eleventy-first birthday, Bilbo disappeared, bequeathing to his young nephew, Frodo, the Ruling Ring, and a perilous quest: to journey across Middle-Earth, deep into the shadow of the Dark Lord and destroy the Ring by casting it into the Cracks of Doom.

(Summary written by The Tolkien Society)

The Fellowship of the Ring depicts the first part in Tolkien’s trilogy The Lord of the Rings. Frodo Baggins is entrusted with the responsibility of a powerful ring that threatens to cause the destruction all that is good in Middle Earth if it falls into the wrong hands. In this case, the wrong hands mean Sauron, a defeated bad guy wanting to get back what was his. He sends out his forces – Orks, Black Riders, and other nasty things – to retrieve aforementioned ring. Frodo journeys to Rivendell to see what is to become of the ring.

Fellowship centers around creating the backdrop for what comes later in the trilogy…establishing the friendships, history, mythology and what I’d like to call, general world knowledge. This film, with its huge following and fan base means that there is already a monolithic imaginary institution in place. Any film, or even any media, faces a daunting challenge of satisfying the fans, the attention of newcomers, the vision of the director and of course, the book itself. The previous animated version of the Fellowship of the Ring was received lukewarmly by the public. The fact that it was never completed might give it some excuse to the poor reception it received. So what about this new blockbuster film?

My first impression was wow. The locations, the make-up, the special effects, the rendered backdrops were all very, very good. It’s amazing for me that they so accurately portray what was already in my mind’s eye. Too many times in that film did I say, “Shit, that’s exactly how I pictured it.” Maybe I am cheating a little. The producers had a wealth of material to draw ranging from artwork, roleplaying games, and secondary books. Most of which I have seen. And there is official artwork that is done so its hardly surprising. But this makes it no less impressive.

The characters were always considered sacrosanct by Tolkien’s fans. We all have a different image of who looks like what. Casting for each role would be a tough task to maintain the delicate balance between the images embedded in people’s minds while also rationalising it with real life available people. One of the good features about this film is that the casting director chose to go with non-mainstream stars. So no Tom Cruises, Brad Pitts or George Clooneys. Nor are there any Julia Roberts, Sarah Michelle Gellars, etc. You get the picture.

I was happy with the choice of each of the actors chosen to play each role. They did seem to fit well into their roles and managed to bring a human and relatable dimension to each of the characters they played. Too often, when books are taken to film, are the characters slavishly facsimilied into visual versions. Not so in this film. For example, Aragorn was always a strong, quietly confident warrior that was larger than life. In the film, he become human – a competent warrior that is just as heroic as his book counterpart, but also with the added dimension of frailty – he is uncertain that he wants to take power that is his to take. This is underplayed in the book.

This accuracy in capturing the essence of the characters works well in this film. Budget and time constraints mean that an audience does not have the luxury to get to know each character like they do in the book.

What I also liked was the drawing on the wealth of information that Tolkien made available in his other works. This is used in both the storytelling aspects of the film and the visual elements. For example, the reason why Orks exist is because they were Elven spirits captured and tortured by the evil Sauron. I believe this is not covered in the book trilogy but it is mentioned in the film.

Despite a few niggling points, all in all, this is a good representation of a classic piece of literature. What might bother some is the ommission and changing of certain elements of the book into film. For example, Arwen does not save Frodo or meet the party at that point in time. And when Frodo meets Galadriel, Samwise Gamgee is also present. My personal dislike too is that I was laughing at the film in sometimes wrong places. The guy who played Elrond also plays the bad guy in The Matrix. While yes, I can see the merits in using the actor to play the detached, almost cold nature of the Elves, he sometimes just cracked me up. Which was not good. These two points sufficiently disturb the viewing experience for me as a Tolkien fan.

However, I still rate this as a great film. Go watch.

Went to watch Bulletproof Monk on Saturday. It was good entertainment – interesting fight scenes and made me laugh in places. I love Chow Yun Fat and his online persona’s English seems to have improved. Unfortunately, I think he was let down by really poor lines in places and his character seemed to fall into the “wise old man from the east” role. His lines weren’t THAT funny and nor were his co-stars. As I said, amusing but sidesplitting it ain’t. The fight scenes too were good, but there was too much of evidence of post-production tampering and a director who had seen too much of The Matrix to make me buy into the martial arts. At least in Flying Bunnies, Hidden Pussies, while the characters flew around, there was an element of wow, maybe they could actually do that shit. Too much rendering destroys the fantasy.

In fact, the film tries hard to be so many other films that it had no consistency – comedy, martial arts, serious at times with the death of loved one, a romance. In some films, it all works out and you come away feeling that there was something for everyone. If the chemistry doesn’t work out right though, you just end up with a mediocre film. I wonder if the empty cinema hall on a Saturday night was because of the film or SARS.

Watched this strange film last night called The Guru with Heather Graham and Marisa Tomei, and some Indian guy called Mistry. For those who haven’t seen it, its about an Indian guy who goes to America to fulfill his dream about becoming a star. Needless to say, usual plot of he finds out its not quite so easy but despite all odds he does succeed. And he gives it all away for the love of a girl. Anyway….usual story line. The guy gets away with being a guru, or ramu (?), of sex – using sex tips from a porn star he’s befriended and rehashing them in “authentic” guru/indian speak. Soon the socialites of NY are hailing him as a hero and he soon gains fame and wealth. Anyway, the point I mention it, although a good film and on the surface looks like its poking fun at Indians, is that I look at it and thing that this could actually work in America – with all those so intelligent people. That’s the funny side for me.

I went to see The Bourne Identity last night with a friend. I believe its Matt Damon’s first outing as an “action” hero and the film is definitely approached in novel way. Essentially, the premise is that Matt Damon’s character, Jason Bourne, awakes on a fishing trawler with no recollection of who he is. He then embarks on a journey across Europe (Switzerland and France actually) trying to find out where he’s come from, who he is, and what he needs to do. In the mean time he hooks up with drifter in the form of Marie Kreutz (Franka Potente), who manages to get involved in the tangled web of Jason Bourne’s history.

(N.B. Film Spoilers Ahead) Okay, I’m going to cut to the chase here. The film plot line was weak and although I haven’t read it, I have a feeling that the film has probably very little reflection on Robert Ludlum’s book of the same name. Essentially, the film already told us all we needed to know about Bourne in the first half an hour. Actually in about five minutes, much of the “thrill” and tension the film was alleviated. We knew he worked for the CIA, we knew who he was meant to assassinate and we knew that he’s trying to be killed by CIA people trying to cover-up their mistakes. All Bourne needed to do in the film is find out what we already knew. Oh, and run away from the bad guys, which of course, was less menacing considering that we knew he was going survive, was shit hot and what he did, and well, we knew that essentially they worked for the CIA. Also, once we knew who he was meant to assassinate, the target was taken out and it took at another possible ending for the film.

This film may have worked back when we were still able to be shocked that the CIA could do bad things (like stabbing each other in the back), mind-conditioned black-ops agents existed and the world was a suspicious place. The premise of the film and the execution of the film left very little to the imagination. Essentially, at times, you felt that you were just sitting on a train waiting for it to get to the end of the line, very quickly.

Having said that, the film did have one or two redeeming aspects of it. It was beautifully shot, and the film style captured the essence of the dark gritty feel of Paris. A good old Mini was used in a car chase scene which, although cliche since the times of the Italian Job, is still great fun to watch. Also, I liked the idea that despite these modern times, the producers and director refrained from an over reliance on special effects. There was only one explosion in the film, and it was necessary and believable. Refreshing.

The casting was uninspired, but then again, this was a good thing given that films shouldn’t always be about the stars themselves. Matt Damon, I would have to say, is a great choice for this role. His acting ability does come from a genuine talent, which originates from a pre-American Pie era. His move into “action” roles is a good move, although this role isn’t necessarily altogether action in this film.

All in all, not a film I’d recommend to see if you had something better to watch. But if you do have some time to kill, do go and see it. You probably have to appreciate where the film was coming from, the genre it hails to and make allowances. In this day and age, that is easier said than done.

This is Mike Myers third outing as the reknowned British spy Austin Powers. The plot, which is not exactly the main focus of any of Myers’ films, hasn’t changed from the first two. Austin Power must stop Dr. Evil from bringing certain havoc to the people of Earth, and in the process engage in a little time jumping along the way. The chosen time destination is the 70′s although most of the action happens in the present.

This film was not as good as the first two and I have a feeling that this will be the last and final Austin Powers installment. As one of my friends said after the film, there was enough to carry it through. But only just. Most of the really funny stuff happens at the start (and I really mean the start). It loses steam towards the end.

It also pokes fun at the Dutch for some reason which is really unclear (maybe because everyone loves us?). Myer’s accent is funny and quite accurate. It’s amusing if not a little bizarre. At least Dr. Evil was raised by evil Belgians.

Not much to say on this film. Go watch it. You know everyone will have seen it and you should to. It’s an evenings entertainment.