Cinematic Concerns

This is the thirty-fifth film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

One thing kept distracting me while watching the film - the film kept using music cues from the film Life As A House, starring Kevin Kline, Hayden Christensen and Kristin Scott Thomas and music composed by Mark Isham. It's very jarring, as the music here is otherwise scored by Italian opera or Philip Glass, and Glass' style is very, very distinctive - because it's almost as if he never composes anything new, but just rearranges whatever he's done in the past with the same music instruments he uses over and over and over again.

As for the film itself, the word I'd use to describe it is ineffective. The story is bland, the acting nowhere nearly impressive, the comedy is insipid, the drama is boring.

And this from the director of Shine and Snow Falling On Cedars.

How Good The Film Is: 6.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 6.5/10

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails.

Explore. Dream. Discover.

Spiderpig ... Spiderpig ... Does whatever a spiderpig does ...

OR ... check out how our fat four-fingered friend pulls out the middle finger ...

OR ... the best line in the film, "... I'll let you hold the bomb."

This is the thirty-fourth film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas, and the fourth midnight screening. It was held at the Cinerama Dome, the only showing to be held there, so I was lucky I caught it. Fullhouse, indeed.

When it was announced that they'll be making a movie, finally, out of this most-loved cartoon series, people were at once surprised (but not really), happy, and fearful of it falling into the made-into-movie mediocrity trap.

I'm happy to report that that is not the case, despite inexplicable word leaking out from unknown reviewers that the film might not live up to the series. This movie is an unequivocal success as a comedy, and as a continuation of The Simpsons story.

The fact that a movie takes longer to make, plus the sort of pressures the kind of fandom logged up by such a cartoon series has hanging over the heads of the creators, has made them pull out all stops in creating a good script. Yes, it is a prolonged Simpsons episode ...

Four times as long.

Now, tell me that isn't a good thing.


Add to that, the movie brings us back to the glory days of the Simpsons, back to those seasons where they finally pinned down the art form they were going for and before they got just a tiny bit tired of churning out funny episode by funny episode such that its fan were beginning to notice said tiredness. Those times.

Seriously, the laughs were hitting hard and fast, so much so that I felt hungry ... I assumed it's because my stomach hurt from the laughing. The humour is acidic, and, like many of its episodes, a stark commentary on our very current affairs, as The Simpsons traditionally has been. It even dares to mock Disney and its own parent company, Fox Corporation. It also parodies movies in such a way that most people wouldn't really think of them, completely subtle - think about it, were you consciously thinking of Spider-Man when Homer sings the Spiderpig song in the trailer? (Watch out for Titanic, Independence Day, Austin Powers, An Inconvenient Truth, and so on.)

It's The Simpsons. And every bit that. I'm so glad to see that it didn't lose its roots in its going to the theatres - it stays the same, just ... bigger.

I won't spoil the movie by saying much more, except to say that this time they introduced a new character (which doesn't die or leave by the end of it ...) which I hope stays in the following seasons.

And also, the opening was funny. Downright funny in a way that promises a lot, and the film succeeds because that promise was fulfilled.

And one last note - stay for the end credits. For film students in particular, stay till the very end. Also, I was surprised to see about 500 Korean names scroll up somewhere in the middle of the end credits. I was also surprised to see who got hired as the composer ... not that he didn't do a great job, but just wondering, why not stick with Danny Elfman? Oh well. Oh, and due to the nature of The Simpsons, the cast credit scroll looks ... interesting.


Gosh, The Simpsons Movie is so good I honestly don't know which one to pick to win Best Animated Feature next year. The other being the one with the blue rat of course.

How Good The Film Is: 9.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 9/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: Past the duration of a typical Simpsons episode
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Animated Feature ... and Best Original Song (Spiderpig)

PS - No one in a million years would've been able to guess Maggie's first word. (Which, technically occurred sometime in the earlier seasons rather than in this film ... but we'll leave that to the Simpsons geeks, who will say that technically it's the first word the family hears her say rather than ... anyway.)

This is the thirty-third film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

So. Utterly. Boring.

And completely pointless.

Only thing redeemable is the resolution of the film.

How Good The Film Is: 6/10
How Much I Liked It: 4/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 40 mins

This is the thirty-second film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

I've been waiting for Sunshine for a year now. I've heard about it, then I heard the cast assembled for this and it really blew my mind. First off, Michelle Yeoh from Malaysia ... then Hiroyuki Sanada from Japan (that samurai in The Last Samurai) ... then Chris Evans from Not Another Teen Movie and later Fantastic Four (with this being his first serious dramatic role) ... then Rose Byrne from Troy, who's Australian ... then Cillian Murphy from Ireland ... then Troy Garity who's Jane Fonda's son ... then Cliff Curtis from New Zealand who did Whale Rider and now is doing his rounds in The Fountain and Live Free Or Die Hard ... and also Benedict Wong.

The most eclectic, interesting cast in the history of film. Can't miss this.

I wasn't a major fan of Danny Boyle, simple because I didn't watch his movies that everyone harped on about - I avoid those sorts of movies as a rule, the more people liked it the more I'm suspicious about it - except for The Beach, which even Boyle admits was his worst film (becoz he was given too much). Well, I also saw bits and parts of 28 Days Later, and it was really intense. Still, this is a genre jump for Boyle and I thought this one would be good.

And turns out I liked it quite a lot. Not my favourite film of the year - but I liked it enough. It harkens to the cliches and conventions of the genre while trying to avoid looking stupid. Actually, the fact that it's released later than the rest of the world proves how intelligent the film is - witness what happened to Children Of Men.

The sound design here deserves mention. It uses sound and distortions in the imagery to tell the story, partly because it is hard to imagine what it is like to be near or in the Sun, so by using those tools of the cinema Boyle shocks the audience into submission, into experiencing ... something.

The editing was interesting in one segment which I was surprised no reviewer talked about. When the crew entered the other Icarus, there were subliminal flashes of images which seemed tangential to what was happening in the scene.


For a while while watching the film I thought I wouldn't watch the film again. But the images of the sun and going into the sun were so pretty, I'd probably buy the DVD for the hell of it. Lots of people compared this to The Fountain, due to the concept of progressing towards a star. Between the two I liked this one better. The Sun here plays an important role and is at once beautiful and harsh. Just the way we know it.

Earlier, about a few weeks ago, I actually met Danny Boyle, who came to the Los Angeles Film Festival to promote his film, which was the Closing Night Film. He talks about stuff that you could probably read up on if you search hard enough. He seemed rather gleeful when he talked about getting Michelle Yeoh on board - felt kinda proud of that one - and when he asked her what role she wants to play, apparently she said 'I want to play the botanist'. He also talked about how the first film is probably going to be your best one, and that directors spend the rest of their careers trying to go back to the level of that first movie ... which is the reason why he is jumping genres. He also talks about how interesting it is that directors who do space movies only ever do it once (other than sequels) ... think Ridley Scott. He says he knows why now - zero gravity is a bitch.

How Good The Film Is: 8/10
How Much I Liked It: 8/10
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing

Saw this at a free screening at my film school's theatre about a week ago.

Liked this better than any of the previous kiddie Potter films. And Daniel Radcliffe is finally proving that he has potential - partly due to the hooha surrounding his appearance on Equus at the West End.

This means that the next two Harry Potter has some potential. Especially the next one, which is still directed by David Yates, who directed The Girl In The Cafe, perhaps one of those most heartfelt romantic films of recent times.

Also, great thing John Williams is gone from this one. Yeah, sure, people liked his theme and all, but Nicholas Hooper, who pretty much came out of nowhere, did a really good job at this one and I certainly liked his score more than the previous ones. Less kiddie and more like a proper film.

How Good The Film Is: 8/10
How Much I Liked It: 7.5/10
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Adapted Screenplay

This is the thirty-first film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

The movie plays it very safe, just like the first one. The dialogue wasn't inventive, the action sequences were mildly exhilarating (at least they didn't screw it up), and they committed the cardinal sin of deus ex machina. At least the Stan Lee cameo wasn't lame.

Having said that, this movie was a lot better than the last one. Ultimately still forgettable, but the director has already channeled his inambition in the last one, so I'm not gonna press for more. Many of the jokes and one-liners worked pretty well, and a couple of the action sequences were well thought out - like the fight between Von Doom and Johnny ... Storm. (Gosh, the names were atrocious ... I cringed at the insert shot of Reed's and Sue's wedding card.)

Fact is I felt exhilarated after coming out of the cinema, but strangely, just like my friend Swifty, I've already forgotten much of what happened in the film and what I wanted to say about it. Oh well.

How Good The Film Is: 7/10
How Much I Liked It: 7/10
At What Point Did I First Look At My Watch: ... Sigh, never mind.

This is the fourth time I saw a free screening for a major blockbuster at my film school's theatre.

Editing problems, especially in the first act. Beats seem to suffer discontinuity within a scene. For example, the whole attack at the base was jarringly edited - suddenly this happens, then that is happening, then this seems to be happening but didn't seem to be motivated by anything. Which is weird, considering all those 'happenings' are the same thing, a Decepticon attacking the base. In the other scenes, dialogue scenes for example, it's almost as if they moved on before the scene is over.

And characters seem to do things that are meant to be funny/amusing/stupid (i.e. for us to laugh over) ... which we don't realise until the moment is gone = we're not laughing.

Boom mic dropping into frame. Seriously, they could've spend some dimes to digitally clean that off, couldn't they?

And the scene in the Camaro while Sam drives Mikaela - the view outside the window, is that intentional over-exposure (a la Spielberg style) ... or am I watching an unfinished print?

Honestly, the film didn't get off to a good start.

People who dismiss the film willy-nilly, however, deserves a big f-ing smack on their f-ing head. The fight scenes are too confusing, dunno who is fighting who - hello, do you have eyes? The dialogue is too childish - hello, what do you expect? Too much noise during the finale - you tosser, can't you recognise brilliant sound design when you hear one? Too many plotholes - you moron, you should have recognised that and sucked it up when you saw any number of Michael Bay films long time ago.

Still, this one felt weird. It has Michael Bay's fingerprints all over it ... yet it felt like he sleepwalked through some of the parts, like this isn't him in his best condition (at least not until the climax).


I really liked the story ... or at least, I really want to. Because, whoever came up with the story did a great job at it. They used ET as the template for the first act, and then it slowly becomes a variation of the Terminator 2 template. Now, that is brilliant, becoz Terminator 2 happens to have special-effects laden, intense fighting sequences and emotionally gut-wrenching human drama.

Then someone wrote the script and screwed it up. They delivered opportunities for the fight sequences, alright, and clearly Michael Bay is the ONLY film director capable of delivering the right balance of intense action and humour, without succumbing to self-serious pretention and taking all the fun away. (A friend mentioned Spielberg - but could you imagine Spielberg delivering the sort of action you see in the film now? James Cameron, maybe, but it would be a different film.)

And a different film is almost what I wanted for this. I know, this is made for the Transformers fans - that is why the Transformers are so ridiculously childish in their cartoon dialogue. ("You saved our lives, now we are in your debt.") But, if they had made the decision to make a serious, perhaps more 'realistic' (in the manner that I use the word; you won't know exactly what that means unless you know me personally) film out of the story ...

... I could have declared this my favourite film of the year. That's how close (and yet so far) it came.

What would that mean? It would mean having the Transformers not ever speaking (or jiving, as it were), but communicate telepathically as expected. It would mean having some sort of serious consequence when any one of the Transformers dies or is captured (with this one, nada). It would mean keeping the developments between the characters and between Sam and Bumblebee more serious and not so hokey-jokey. (Sam and Bumblebee came close though.) And not introducing so many characters. (How could they declare Anthony Anderson as some sort of computer god and not have him doing anything more heroic except sending Morse code?)

But of course, it would be another movie. Probably not the blockbuster juggernaut it is in the current incarnation ... damn those yokels and surfer dudes and airheads and ignoramuses among the audience.

The music is great - Jablonsky's style is much too close to Zimmer's though.


Shia LaBeouf has finally risen to the top tier of Hollywood films (err, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle don't count). Yet another young actor that I've spotted before they were famous has moved on to the really expensive actors category. Josh Duhamel - can't you guys see the resemblance with Timothy Olyphant from Live Free Or Die Hard? - had one truly heroic moment ... but what the hell, where did that come from? Note to writers/director: a heroic moment really only works if it fits the context, not some plan that came out of nowhere. They screwed up - but Duhamel saved it.

Action sequences in the third act get an A+. I highly approve of the spinning cars, and also the number of spinning cars (read: excessive) flying in all directions.

And, message to Hollywood: you gotta stop forcing productions to rush for their deadlines. It is simple courtesy. James Cameron had the courtesy to push back the release date for Titanic for six months ten years ago - I long for those days when directors had the guts to do that. (And stop arguing that Transformers ain't that kind of film.)

Missed opportunities. And nothing spoils my day more than missed opportunities.

How Good The Film Is: 7.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 7/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 2 mins
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Visual Effects, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing

This is the thirtieth film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

I was intrigued by the trailer for this when I first saw it months ago, due to the casting. (It's usually casting that attracts my attention anyway.) There's Hugh Dancy, rising young British actor, seeming compelling in however few seconds he appears in the trailer; there's Claire Danes, whom I think of as a very interesting young actress; Toni Collette and Natasha Richardson as sisters, hmm; Patrick Wilson is always intense; and the oldies Meryl Streep and Vanessa Redgrave ... and Glenn Close too. And also Mamie Gummer, a young Meryl Streep look-alike, right down to the way she talks and moves.**

The film is a failure.

Well, the imagery is beautiful in parts.

But the story (and the editing), oh ... the story (... and the editing, sigh). My hunch is that the director screwed this one up.

The story whizzes between the past and the present. The problem is that it does so without rhyme and reason. There are just straight cuts between one scene and the next, without any thought for transition, be it optical or in terms of the context of the scenes. As a result we get a jumbled mess of a film. Scenes just exist in itself. Unfortunately there was only one good scene in the whole film - after Buddy re-emerges from The Plunge and Ann slaps him and scolds him. Well-written dialogue there, and the performances were spot-on.

Which brings me to the performances. All the actors are Oftentimes continuity of the emotions weren't observed. Characters were angry in one scene and then comfortable the next - it wouldn't have mattered so much if the scenes weren't consecutive, but they often are.

And speaking of continuity - in general they screwed that one up too. Very obviously. We're talking about the way characters place their heads, the positions of lips, etc. Stuff that the editor should have noticed and tried to cut around, unless it's the director who didn't give him enough to cut.

It's almost as if the scenes are trying to drum up or dramatise or show the audience emotions that weren't there to begin with. It becomes boring. I was waiting for Vanessa Redgrave to die, towards the end, really.

Hugh Dancy, however, is utterly compelling, the most compelling character in the whole film, even though he's not the most important. Emotions ooze out of him in a way that made me uncomfortable under the context of the scenes, and he is almost the only character that reaches out and touches the audience.

How Good The Film Is: 6.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 6.5/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 5 mins
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Supporting Actor (Hugh Dancy)

** UPDATE: I feel like a fool. Obviously Mamie Gummer looks and acts a lot like Meryl Streep. She's her daughter.

What are these thoughts?

None to pursue,
none to peruse.

Don't mean anything,
don't say anything.

If the world goes round and round, what are we to do? Are we to fight against it? To find meaning? To rebel against it?

What has life taught us? To be bold, to be strong? Or to be weak?

What if you find someone else better than you?
Not in every way, just some way. Some way that actually counts.
Is your whole life redundant then? Isn't it?
Such a terrible feeling. Redundancy.
So terrible that no one notices, because no one notices.

So what's the difference between living and the dead?
But there must be.
And if there must be, so there must be something missing in those of us who feel that way.

Life goes on. Yeah.
What if I need it to stop?
Just ...
Stop.
For a moment.
No, it chugs on.

Why wait?
Why can't I force myself not to wait?
Because I am not in control of myself. Someone else is.
Who is this guy though?
Strange. I shall like to meet him.
And demand my body back.

Why can't I do what I want to do?
After many moons, there is still no answer.
Yet here I am, still waiting. For an answer.

Depression is happiness.
But happiness isn't depression.

Just.
Go.
And.
Write.
A.
Script.
... Yeah, as if it was that easy.

Depressing, depressing, depressing.
Go and die.
Life sucks.
Brain is blank.
I am stupid.
Fuck the bastards.
No longer sane.
No longer sane.

These feelings inside ...
killing me via suffocation.
Not a damn thing one could do about it, innit?

I've been tagged by Swifty to reveal 8 little-known facts and habits about myself.

THE RULES

We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

8 LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS/HABITS ABOUT ME

1. I like to twist the ends/corners of pillows. I never grew out of it.

2. Long-distance cycling is a surprising passion of mine.

3. I don't actually like Hollywood all that much.

4. As of now, I already have 5 movie ideas that I plan to make exclusively in Malaysia.

5. My favourite comic book series is Tintin. It is also the only comic I have ever collected and read.

6. I brush my teeth only once a day.

7. I used to play the Chinese er-hu.

8. I have three best friends from every stage of my life since high school. They know who they are.


I could tag other people but they're not going to answer because, (a) no one reads my blog; (b) a few of them don't have blogs or stopped blogging.

Sheena
Kar Wai
Sarah Tan
Cheng Chun
Jian Yuan
Hern Gene
Phil Lurie
Nick Grills

When I compile the ten best list next January, the following films should be included. (Order to be determined later.) This has been a fairly strong year so far, in the sense that while there are many merely satisfactory viewings (which is enough, really, people are far too demanding nowadays), there are a few nearly-but-not-quite phenomenal films. They are the best of the year without having gone through the end of the year Oscar season, but none has joined the rank of the classics in my mind the way Titanic, Gladiator and The Bourne Supremacy did.

Hors De Prix (Priceless)
Hot Fuzz
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Kabluey
Ratatouille

I saw this at the Los Angeles Film School theatre ... for free.

If Hayao Miyazaki can be singled out as the best animator in Japan (at least in the past couple of decades), then Brad Bird has, with this film, confirmed his status as equivalent in the US. Sure, he's not as prolific yet, but to have people screaming and ranting about the injustice over the mishandling of The Iron Giant, and then having The Incredibles climb higher in the IMDb Top 250 list than any American animation has ever done (second only to Miyazaki's Spirited Away), it's a pretty impressive achievement. (The Oscar almost doesn't matter. Just a confirmation, that's all.)

Well, now, Ratatouille has leaped higher than Spirited Away on the charts. Yes, it will drop ... it's just a question of how much.

I've never said it for any animation before, but the visual graphics here impressed me. In the past, animations strive to one-up the animation technology of the previous year, and of course they are improving. The problem is the likes of Disney or Dreamworks would always tout that as a selling point. Ooh, look how we made Shrek's garments interact with water. Ooh, see how we managed to animate the million or so fur per monster in Monsters, Inc. My point is, we can expect a basic background improvement in animation technology.

So it is when the animation departs from that background noise, either regressing (like, say, Madagascar) or improving (like, say, The Incredibles) that we notice it. Here, it has improved a lot. I noticed how much more realistic the water flows here. And the way water interacts with the rats' fur. And, very significantly, how they rack focussed between foreground and background, and how realistic the defocussed part looks. And the movement of the camera. And the really difficult parts with thousands of running rats in the same frame.


Now, visuals are wonderful, story is just as good. When I first saw the trailer for Ratatouille a year ago, I thought, well, it's Brad Bird, so I trust him. But at the same time - rats, cooking, Paris? It's a very tiny skepticism. Well, the writers certainly made it work. It is an engaging story, unexpected, but true to the flow of the story. And, I'd say that this is a dual protagonist story ... even though Remy is the narrator. I like all the characters here, or rather, I have strong reactions to them. I wanted to see Remy and Linguini succeed, and I find the supporting cast amusing, and I felt genuinely mad and wanted to smack Anton Ego the food critic for his snobbery (which, as it turns out, is voiced by Peter O'Toole). And I love cartoons that take the effort to be longer than a paltry 85 mins (the average).

At the same time, the movie takes a tiny time off to make fun of certain conventions (but not once did it sink to the level of pop culture references). In one rat scurrying sequence, it made fun of the French tradition for melodrama, and dispenses with the cheese-mousetrap cliched without ever returning to it. On the other hand, it takes the scurrying round the kitchen sequence, which we've seen in countless cartoons and movies ... and stretches it out, and stretches it, and stretches it, until we've been round the kitchen three times. An exhilarating sequence, that recalls the breathlessly fast-paced sequences in The Incredibles.

And the score is great. I was never a big fan of Michael Giacchino. He did a good job in The Incredibles. He did a good job in Mission: Impossible 3. But it didn't appeal to me enough to get the score for those. Here, his talents in jazzy music serves him really well, and once again a composer for an animation feature deserves a Best Original Score nomination (last year that would be John Powell for Happy Feet, and previously Thomas Newman for Finding Nemo; Newman was nominated, Powell wasn't). I'm definitely getting this one.

The voice talents are great. Brad Bird is distinctive in always casting the right voices for the right animated character. He doesn't necessarily go for celebrities ... but doesn't rule them out either. (I kept trying to figure out how Brad Garrett managed to do such a convincing fake French accent. Never pegged him as a voice talent.) Patton Oswalt has the perfect voice for Remy - never heard of him. Also, Lou Romano for Linguini, perfect - never heard of him. Janeane Garofalo ... some of you had forgotten about her.

The sound editing and mixing is wonderful. Such as the tumbling that Remy takes inside the sewer. Having gotten a little bit further in my education in sound design, I've begun to notice the extraneous sound (background, design effects, sound effects and foley), but it never takes longer than a few seconds before I sink back into the film.

One more thing the film succeeded - promotion and marketing. Much has been made about how difficult it is to sell the film. One little detail proves that they need not have worried - whoever it was that was smart enough to teach the audience of its trailers to pronounce 'ratatouille' (at least in the American-accented French manner). That, and the fact that word of mouth is really effective when it comes to superior films.

All in all, a sumptuous animated feature that offers interesting and amusing characters in a well-written story and made with such care and sincerity and probably couldn't be done better.

How Good The Film Is: 9.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 8.5/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 3 mins
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Animated Feature

PS - I got the last seat in the theatre. Phew.

PPS - If you get to the end of the End Creditouille, you'll see the disclaimer: "Our Quality Assurance Guarantee: 100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film."

This is the third film I saw at the Mann Chinese 6 theatre.

I, like many others, remember a time when I enjoyed watching the Die Hard movies - in particular the first and second one - on VHS at home, when swear words were censored on the tapes or if it was left in, it didn't matter too much to us coz it was just a swear word (not THE swear word that should never be said or heard). I thought the action sequences were smart.

Now, after years of cynicism education, obviously all those antics in the films look fake and contrived and artificial now. For example, the one-liners (which Hot Fuzz spoofed, of course).

The action pieces here are mostly variations from stuff that we've seen before, rather than really inventive. In fact, the whole movie has that feeling, as if it wasn't able to find any new ground to stand on since the entire field has been taken up. It's really hard to design new action sequences (that plays within the same rules and framework ... after all, each action franchise plays by its own rules) nowadays. So the best the movie can do, is to be innovative - the movie could do better, and be more than just innovative, but then it would have to be aiming to be more than just another summer blockbuster movie (for instance, Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End). In fact, even the titling of the film reveals their frustration in trying to be inventive. They end up coming up with something unheard of, yet completely possible via simple-minded extrapolation.

Having said that, the movie does fulfill expectations. It contains all the elements of a Die Hard film - the yippie ki yay when he kills the bad guy moment, the screaming exchanges plastered with one-up-ing one-liners over walkie-talkies, the technologically-competent sidekick.

In fact, Justin Long plays the sidekick really competently. Partly it's because he is well-casted - he is now the face of techno-geek, while remaining cool about it because he doesn't actually spout too many technobabble stuff while promoting Apple products, thus being far less annoying than a true techno-geek. Here, he is scared most of the time, in an appropriate and un-irritating manner; it's only towards the end that he finds himself doing heroic stuff, as sidekicks are bound to do.


Maggie Q is interesting as well, playing for the good side last year but playing the uber bitch, femme fatale this year. And boy, does she do a good job - so much so that it reminded me that we've been missing such characters in a long time. Oh, there are other femme fatales in other action movies - none of them properly scary though. (Think The Transporter 2 ... blurgh.) Here, she is so efficient in her job, and so cold as well (notice how she never hesitates, never leaves more than a second before she clicks Enter to activate the next stage in their taking-over-the-system plan). When she fights McClane, it was probably the most exhilarating moment in the film, as both are equals but different, and both are just as ruthless.

Timothy Olyphant - amusing in that before the movie began they played the trailer to Hitman, in which he is the superhero good guy, and here he is the insane bad guy. As always, he plays a competent villain - with that look he does with his eyes when not blinking. Speaking of which, the setup for the villain and his plan in the film is credible enough - credible in the sense that it is complex enough to fly over the heads of most audiences, without revealing any significant plot holes.


The problem, though, is the sound. Bloody hell, I've never seen such a terrible patch up job with the ADR; it doesn't take a film student to notice how atrocious the sync-ing of some of the dialogue is. You'd expect it for a student film - but for a film that costs over a 100 mil, its just never been done before. You'd at least try to hide it.

On top of that there are continuity problems. Not so much that some prop is shifting about in the frame or an actor is putting his hands in the wrong place, but just that the editing between shots seems awkward, like the director messed up his planning a little bit here and there. On the whole, the film seemed rushed, like they had to finish it to deliver it for their due date. (Otherwise, really, for a big studio film like this, I'd imagine they wouldn't have hesitated to reshoot the scene they ADR-ed. Not like it takes more than a couple hundred thousand to rebuilt that set exactly.)

And on the other matter, Bruce Willis says 'jerkoff' too much ... when he probably meant to say 'fucker', 'son of a bitch', etc. Blame the PG-13 rating.

So that's that. An enjoyable, entertaining action thriller.

How Good The Film Is: 7/10
How Much I Liked It: 7.5/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 18 mins

On my way home from the cinema, it suddenly hit me why I often felt so uncomfortable on the streets of LA.

People are always asking something from other people, constantly, and in a manner which suggests they think it is their endowment, their (non-existent ... unless politely asked) rights.

Which you don't really get in London. In London, I don't worry that the next person walking towards and past me is going to stop and ask me for something, be it for change, or to sign a petition, or to take a picture with them coz they dressed up as Wolverine in front of the Kodak Theatre ... well, yes, the last part is referring to LA specifically so the sentence structure is technically wrong.

Anyway. In London, if people have something to ask - the time, or how to get to such and such place, more often than not - they do so in the most polite manner, and with a sincere smile.

In LA, I'm scared of everyone who comes up to me for something. I mean, logically I knew that most of the homeless people mean no harm. And the religious types singing on the street ... heck, I'm Christian myself. And the Afro-American clubbers who just like to be talkative ... well, they just have a uncontrollable disposition to say hello.

The main problem with all that is the way people are so presumptuous about the way they ask. I mentioned before in one of my earliest posts, that I think the adjective that applies most broadly to most Americans, as diverse as they are (thoughly strangely conformist in attitude), is presumptuous.

I guess it's just the way the film industry set up the place to be - an exponentially high demand in a moderately abundant supply situation. The economics is so skewed, from the homeless beggar at the bottom to an agent at the higher echelons, the way that everyone WANTS something from someone else within the same geographic location, that money is no longer the sole currency for deals. No, it has shifted into a system where payments in kind (e.g. sex and death) plays a bigger proportion in the exchange of goods and services (mostly services, I'd assume) than is normal.

Whereas in London, no matter how crowded a place gets - and of course, places like Chinatown and Oxford St can be extremely crowded at times - I never get paranoid. I never get scared. Never have to be too aware that someone's going to demand something from me, and concentrate on myself, or talking to friends, and so on.

I guess I just missed London.

Lessons learned ...

(1) Three things about life. Paradox - life is a mystery, don't waste time trying to understand it. Humour - have a sense of humour about things, especially about yourself; "it is a strength beyond all measure". Change - know that nothing stays the same.

(2) There is never nothing happening = "There are no ordinary moments".


(3) "The Power Of Now" message: live in the moment, in the present. Not for the future, not in reaction to the past. Only thing that exists is now.

(4) Do what you love, and give up the illusion of control. One might or might not be able to achieve such and such goal. = The journey is what brings us happiness.

(5) Knowledge is thinking. Wisdom is doing.

(6) When you don't get what you want, you suffer; even when you get what you want, you still suffer, because you cannot hold onto it.


Where are you?
Here.

What time is it?
Now.

What are you?
This moment.