Change Your Image
diviner
Reviews
The Stone Angel (2007)
Is Hagar supposed to be funny?
Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.
While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.
Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.
There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.
Ah fei jing juen (1990)
Non sequitor experimental film seemingly translated from English
Wong Kar-Wai's "Ah Fei Jing Juen" can best described as "experimental", and experimental it is, as it is stylistic, but neither entertaining nor provocative.
The story loosely surrounds the interaction of (mainly) five different characters. The camera angle appears to be in complete discord with the characters, which may be intentional on the director's part to reflect the inner space of the microcosm. Unfortunately, this the the extent of intrigue that Wong could muster.
First off, the interactions between characters are contrived, crass, and inconceivable. What the characters did in "Ah Fei" defy any logic, even by film standards? Their course of action were simply so far fetched, even non sequitor wasn't enough to describe them The other has to do with the dialogue. Native Cantonese speakers will not talk like they do, even in the sixties. The whole script reads like it has been translated from English. In fact the it was easier reading the subtitles than to listen to what they said.
I think, in the end, Wong did try to break the mold of the Hong Kong film industry. I am no big fan for kung-fu or slap-stick comedy, which the industry seem to cater. Like the gravity defying acts in Kung-fu movies, Wong stretched the limits of human logic and sensibility in "Ah Fei".
28 Days Later... (2002)
Trainspotting is just a one-hit wonder
I went into the theatre, convinced that "28 Days" would offered something different and provocative. Boy, was I wrong.
First, the camera work was, like, done my someone who just came out of film school, trying to cram as many tricks and angles as possible. Once in a blue moon, they seemed somewhat intriguing, but most of the time, it just looked plain awkward if not annoying.
The acting, I think they did the best they could. The interaction between all the characters consist of strategically placed one-liners. The producers might as well make them all non-speaking parts so that they can save a bundle.
Like the Impostor (2001), the 28 Days Later could have been easily boiled down to the first and last 20 minutes. Unlike the Impostor, however, the omitable portion doesn't advance plot or character development. One just sees people going from one (easily preventable) situation to another.
There are just so many things I either don't get, or they just simply don't make any sense at all. For instance, without giving away too much movie, how does one survive a gun-shot wound in the stomach with little medical attention? And what is with all those in-your-face product placements. "All I have is Pep$!, and Sunny-D. What do you prefer". C'mon, this is just rediculous.
Bottom line: Danny Boyle must be very bitter, and desparate for a comeback. It's good that he has still some friends in the right places. Otherwise, I have no idea how this even gets on screen and receive good reviews. He has to realise that Trainspotting was just an one-hit wonder and move on.
Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
A festival of Clichés
Guirinder Chandha's number is the first of its kind. She tackled the issues of ethnicity, gender roles, football, and coming-of-age in a 90-minute movie. This is also where the problem starts, however.
With only 90 minutes to boot, Chandha only caressed each of the four heavy-hitting topics. The issues were shallow, and the jokes were consequently very pragmatic and repetitive. They were funny because the audience already knew the punch-line and they knew when to laugh.
The characters, aside from Jesminder (her performance is excellent in this film), are one-dimensional and stereotypical. (A suburban mother concerned with her daughter's femininity, a gay "best friend", and a Prince Charming who fancies "dark" meat ... pla-eese).
The bottom line: How many clichés can you cram in a 90-minute movie? I od'd before half time.
Chocolat (2000)
The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable
Oscar Wilde wrote in one of his plays, "The English country gentleman galloping after a fox - the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable." This is what exactly Chocolat is all about - an attempt to sugar-coat an English novel.
Here is a mini-lecture on 19th century English novels - you read one and you read them all. All the high-school teachers will try to convince you that there is a literary point to each novel. The only literal point I can see is to bring food on those poor novelists' tables.
Here is how things go: Some bugger comes to town and manages to turn it up-side-down despite ample resistance. Yet everyone still thank him for screwing everything up and, guess what, the novel ends here so we won't see the poor folks cleaning up after him!
Joanne Harris is no 19th century English novelist; she's from 20th century England. Neither is her work a stereotypical English novel; it's actually two English novels in one. Speaking of bargains!
Meanwhile, you have the directors like Hallström, who think that you haven't been listening to your high-school teacher. Hey, this work is absolutely pointless, but I will make it looks like a social commentary. So here it is, a two-hour epic. Now swallow whatever it has to offer or be labelled "insensitive" and "old-school" for the rest of the night.
Why this work is Oscar-worthy? I still have great trouble understanding this.
Wo hu cang long (2000)
Chop-Suey of Kung-Fu Movies -- A Festival of Clichés.
Imagine that you are from a small town in the middle of nowhere, and the only Chinese restaurant is a chop-suey house on the cross road. Everybody raves about it, even though its menu consists of only sweet-and-sour chicken balls, fried rice, and won-ton soup.
This is the feeling I got after getting out of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." There are lots of eye candies, and I must admit that the scenery is simply breathtaking. The acting were very well done, though I had trouble with most of the dialogue (I don't speak mainland Chinese, and I make a point not learning it.) Well, sometimes you *do* come across a chop-suey chef who actually cares about taste.
Taste alone, however, does not cover up some of the movie's fundamental flaws. First, "Hidden Tiger" goes way off tangent with certain characters so much that there is almost no time to develop other's. This leaves the film very unbalanced. Second, the fight scenes, the scenes which make "Hidden Tiger" a kung-fu movie than anything else. It almost looks like there is only enough budget for guy-wires and nothing else. In other words... people fly all over the place, most of the time. Finally, the plot elements themselves are very cliché, and the pace in exploring these elements is nonetheless too slow for what they are worth. For a veteran kung-fu movie viewer, this only spells frustration.
This is not to say that "Crouching Tiger" is poorly done. In fact it is quite tasteful, and its quality surpasses most kung-fu films I have seen. But everything else is as creative as any 19th century English novel. The only reason people are giving "Crouching Tiger" raving reviews is because most of them have much experience in kung-fu movies, like the way people rave about that chop-suey house in the middle of nowhere.
Joan of Arc (1999)
A simple, realistic portrayal of Jeanne d'Arc.
If Luc Besson were a door-to-door salesman, I would be his sucker any minute. His film, The Messenger, may yet be the most psychologically accurate account of the story of Jeanne d'Arc. Besson attempts to rationalise her actions and with stunning reality.
Behind her armour, Besson speculates that Jeanne d'Arc is simply another victim of war, so tramatised that her questionable sanity led her country to victory, at least for a while. He also went on and modelled the other characters as people who care about nothing but themselves, not common even by to-day's standards.
Beyond its value as a psycho-drama, however, the film is simply supported by a series of fight scenes with lots of armour, impressive siege weapons, and blood and gore. Besson focused too much into Jeanne's psyche that there was not enough time for the characters to develop, including Jeanne herself. As a result, the film seems empty, the plot linear, and the acting mechanical.
The way Besson divided the film, I often could not help myself but to associate it with George Orwell's novel "1984." There are striking similarities between the two work, both in structure and context which makes me wonder if this is where he drew his inspiration.
Despite the use modernised language (that is, fudge, sheet, etc.,) The Messenger is reasonable entertainment for those who thrives on realism, but are not too interested in any in-depth post-movie discussion.
Dogma (1999)
An uncreative and pretentious attempt to satirise religion.
Kevin Smith's Dogma is an uncreative and pretentious attempt to satirise religion. His "disclaimer" prologue was nothing more than grade-school smart-alec humour, the same attitude carries on until the film closes.
Dogma is about two fallen angels who have found a loop-hole which would get them back to Heaven. In fact, the whole movie is about loop-holes. Smith frequently uses obscure Biblical passages to advance the plot. As a result, the film quickly loses its momentum, and I could not help feeling dragged.
The issues raised by various characters throughout the movie (e.g., Is Jesus black? Is God female, etc.,) are nothing out of the ordinary if not trivial. There is absolutely no intelligence or inspiration to them. Sunday school teachers probably get questions like these almost every other week.
Finally, there is the ending. I won't give anything away (I am quite sure you'd know by now,) but it simply has the word "Hubris" written all over.
All in all, Smith's portrayal of religion in Dogma is not only immature. It also shows that, like his wallet, his wit is growing thicker by the day. Even a quasi-all-star cast won't save the world of Dogma from Armageddon.