Lust, Caution

I'm allergic to hype, so I approached "Lust, Caution" with caution, of course (not to mention I've never been a fan of Eileen Chang). And time and again, my cautious attitude has proven me right. The first half of the film, especially the flashback, is dull and boring. The foolhardiness of the students and the pathos of their failed assassination attempt/spy game are not affecting at all, much of it due to the horrible performance of the actors and pedestrian direction (was it done by an incompetent second unit?) The uninspiring and maladroit art department is also to blame, which continues to plague the film with a sense of shoddiness in the second half. Besides, there appears to be a complete absence of social and political tension of the time period, leaving a gaping hole in the narrative There's simply not enough to anchor the characters in this particular era. The flashback could have been tastefully rendered in a monologue or by some clever editing.

Fortunately the film picks up in the second half. The relationship between the two leads takes an interesting turn as the two souls entwine and eventually being marooned in the cesspool of espionage and simmering sexual craving. The buzz surrounding this film is all about the overt, kinky sex sequences which, to my surprise, are extremely well directed and "choreographed" (they're really pushing the envelop in terms of gymnastic sexual positions and putting karmasutra to shame. There's no telling where Mr Yee's limbs begin and Mrs Mai's end, no kidding). We see two people wrestle and battle with their inner demons, vie for dominance in the physical and emotional levels of being, and tread a fine line between love and hate, loyalty and betrayal, luscious intoxication and maddening sober. The distortion of moral and ethic principles by the sheer gravity of lust underpins the absurdity of human conditions and the ambiguity of human experience. My applause to Ang Lee. Tong Leung's performance is very uneven, most of the time marred by his unconvincing Putonghua accent and a small repertoire of expressions. His character is also in desperate need of more screen time off the bed. If you ask me, he has a very narrow range. Lee-Hom Wang is just bad casting, pure and simple. Wei Tang is a bit stiff at times, but overall she's adequate and shows some promise. If only had Ang Lee cut the first half 30 minutes shorter, portrayed wartime China in greater details and developed the two leading characters more fully, "Lust, Caution" could have been another bullet to his impressive resume. It keeps me wondering: What would Wong Kai Wei have done differently?

Heroes Season 1

Heroes sucks! It certainly has its moments, but the overall quality isn't what the hype machine preaches it to be.

First the storyline is silly. Gene mutation can't possibly allow you to do all those amazing acts, can it? Besides, we do use our whole brain! That crap about using only 10% of it is so out of fashion. I'd rather the writer goes with Marvel/DC's traditions: touched by some sort of space rocks or x-energy or whatever. And how do you track "special" people to such accuracy that you have a list of names! I want to puke everytime that Suresh guy mentioned the human genome project in all sincerity. Since the creator tries to stage a superhero drama in a real life setting, at least you can make your basic premise a little more plausible. Looking serious doesn't mean you're convincing. The major part of the plot is plodding and slow with plot holes big enough for an oil tanker to comfortably sail through and the ending is sort of the pinnacle of its mediocrity.

Another thing that bugs me is the characters. They are so unloveable. Peter is bitching all the time (having his hair covered his forehead means that he's a badass? And then a good guy when it's combed back? come on!) Is Nikki/Jessica simply having multiple personality disorder like the shrink suggested? A dopplerganger you can't control is hardly superpower and how can that be linked to gene mutation? Nathan the flying man, this guy has no principle at all, and the season finale practically doesn't need him to be there (I mean Peter can fly, too, so...) And then there's Peter and Nathan's mother - what a strange character! She's a vulnerable widow who has to shoplift to feel the pulse of life in the first episode but by mid-season, she suddenly turns into this stone-hearted super mastermind behind the biggest conspirancy of all time?! Wow, which planet does this psychotic bitch or, her creator, the writer come from? The rest of the characters are boring, stereotypical and forgettable. The saving grace is the Japanese duo and somehow Sylar the sicko.

The production is good, most of the sfx shots are very well done. I just hope that the writing and acting match the same level of quality. Season 2 is officially a no-no for me.

Inland Empire (A Woman in Trouble)

I'm not overly impressed with Inland Empire. Granted, I was not exactly in my best mental and physical state when I watched it (have been losing sleep over the last few months). Besides, I hate movies shot with HD camera, which's lifeless and doesn't register light very well (or maybe too well). Guess Lynch's inclination to HD has a lot to do with budget. He's not a box-office wonderboy in the eyes of the studio suits, and he has his share of the "clash of the titans" with them. In Mulholland Dr and Inland Empire, his profound distrust of the Hollywood system is evident. HD gives him a lot more autonomy for sure.

Going back to the movie itself. I'm ambivalent about it, a somewhat love-hate entanglement. The first hour is sheer brilliance, loaded with tons of typical Lynchian motifs and build-ups: mystical dialogues (how I love that demonic neighbour of Grace, her thick European accent and the "old tales" she recounted), jumbled timelines, multiple identities assumed by each character, convulsive emotional outbursts, parallel stories, retro set design, the return of crazy close-up shots from Lost Highway, so on and so forth. But the problem is, unlike Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr., they never pay off. It's as if these Lynchian devices buckled under the weight of their own eccentricities. Lynch tries to mesh his short films (e.g.the rabbit family) and half-baked ideas (e.g. a cursed unfinished film) into one package. It works to the extent that his signature style is all over the place, but it fails miserably to integrate everything organically. The film is almost plotless, or simply too fragmented for anyone to make any sense at all. It's like Dr Frankenstein's little experiment went horribly wrong: a mish-mesh of rabbit head, human limbs and donkey torso stubbornly remained inanimated after repeated jolts of electricity. It's a bit frustrating. One can call it an experience, surrealistic for sure, but is this merely an attemp to dress up its shortcomings? The film tries too hard to obfuscate and confuse. As much as I still enjoy the style, I'm disappointed that after a five-year hiatus, Lynch simply decided to pull out all his tricks and served them in one plate instead of coming up with something fresh. The subheading of the film should be changed to "A Director in Trouble" (for Lynch to employ a subheading is quite the telling clue to the state of the film). Lynch probably has little idea about what he's doing. Nevertheless, given his cult status, a sneeze from him is good enough to send his fans churning out film readings and creating myths to the proportion of the Lords of the Ring. I'm a fan, too, but I was sorely underwhelmed. Maybe I'm just a nitpicky curmudgeon.

RIP

Ingmar Bergman, the world of cinema doesn't see the likes of you so often. May you RIP...

The Lost Room, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men & 300

The Lost Room is a six-part Sci-fi Channel mini-series. It's what you'd expect to come straight out of a scriptwriting workshop: let's say there are a key, a clock, a comb, a cop, a pawn shop owner and a couple religious cults, now give me a story. The idea is quite refreshing but the scripwriters haven't done the premise justice or they haven't fully explored the potential of their original ideas. It loses steam towards the end and lacking a good closure is surely its coup de grace. Still, I recommend it to fans of twilight zone/outer limits.

Saw Pan's Labyrinth finally. Don't bother to get the Korean DVD if you can wait (till May for R1 release) coz the making-of only has korean subtitles. Si senior, the prodcution gang speaks Spanish only.

The interwined stories are handled by a deft hand, although there're a few lousy plot devices that have stuck out like a sore thumb (like the maid who let the sadistic captain live when she could have gutted him to death easily; why having the maid to give the resistance the store key when they eventually stormed the mill in full force?) The fantasy part is very enjoyable with top notch art design (that child slaughtering monster is CREEPY!).

Pan's Labyrith is a tale of sadness, underlining the cruelty of fasle hope and the endless suffering belies it. One thing that especially piques my interest is how do we tell something is real or unreal. Is everything Ofelia's imagination? Or is she really a princess of the underworld? What if our experience is no more real that Ofelia's? We can say Ofelia find her escape/salvation through a mental recreation of the world of fairies, but can we also say we, being gluttons for punishment, create a world of cruelty and chaos to deliberately steer away from happiness?

Also watched Children of Men and 300. Children of Men is surprisingly realistic. I thought it was going to be some sort of hardcore sci-fi but it turns out to be more of a 1984-esque social commentary. The scenario depicted isn't so far-fetched in a sense. Inequity breeds human follies which lead to all hell breaking loose. The infertility of human species is more a symbolic representation of the present day human conditions then a mere story premise. I've this unsettling feeling that the film seems to support the notion of messianic salavation, which I can't really blame the filmmaker as it arguably constitutes part of human psyche. We're always waiting for someone (god(s), a supreme power, donald tsang, etc.) to rescue us from the shithole we're in. If we don't see one, we make one up, then keep replacing it with another until it's all too bloody late. As soon as Moses led his people to the wilderness, they started worshipping a golden calf shaped by their very own hands. We don't seem to have outgrown this primitive yet instinctive practice. Nevertheless, sometimes I agree there seems to be no better ways to guranttee the survival of humanity than having something/someone to look up to. Everyone needs a purpose to live, and purpose is a rare commodity to say the least. I've strayed too far. The film itself is rather good with solid acting, and the cinematography stands out conspicuously.

300 is a feast for the eyes. Gore, violence, battle-cry, stylish filmmaking - you got it all. Very enjoyable, provided you like those things. It's pure entertainment, so go get your zen-ish inspiration somewhere else.

Oscar! Oscar!

Time to look into my crystal ball:

Best Picture: Letter From Iwo Jima
The Departed is a decent film but we have certainly seen better, especially from Scorsese. Babel is a sham. I won't be too surprised if the award eventually goes to Little Miss Sunshine or The Queen, but my money is on Eastwood.

Best Director: Clint Eastwood
Many people will go for Scorsese in this category. But let's face it, first it's an adaptation that doesn't stray too far from the original, and second, Scorsese was never the darling of Oscar. The political climate in the US seems to favor our good old Clint to pocket that little gold man.

Best Actor: Forrest Whitaker
Oscar has a soft spot for underdogs these days, not to say anything about peculiar roles. It's Forrest Whitaker's turn to receive the Oscar nod. DiCaprio's performance in The Departed/Blood Diamond is solid but short of outstanding. He'll be a serious contender in the future though.

Best Actress: Helen Mirren
Veni, vidi, vici. Helen Mirren rulez! Her onscreen persona overshadows all the regulars in this category. Now, bow before your majesty!

Original Screenplay: Pan's Labyrinth
Torn between Little Miss Sunshine and Pan's Labyrinth here.

Adapted Screenplay: The Departed
No contest.

Best Editing: United 93
Two serious contenders in this category: United 93 and Babel. Babel feels tedious and jumbled at times, so... Did I mention Babel is a sham?

Best Animated Feature: Happy Feet
Talking cars? Gimme a break. I prefer dancing penguins.

Best Foreign Language Film: Pan's Labyrinth
Easy one.

Best Documentary Feature: Any film but An Inconvenient Truth
Can you seriously believe a guy who claimed to have created the Internet and failed to spell potato correctly to enlighten you on climatology? Al Gore is a joke, and this fear-mongering, political propaganda branded as a documentary sucks big time. Anyone wants to have a more balanced view on the state of global warming should read Patrick Michaels instead.

Lady in the Water

Lady in the Water is a fairytale through and through. Sorry, no more startling plot twists - what you see is exacty what you get. The story defies logic, it's unreal, and it's absoultely otherworldly or just plain goofy. A savior of the purest intend is here to rescue humanity from utter destruction by inspiring a prophet? A guild, a guardian, a healer and a symbolist are aligned to assist her? Little do we remember it's all the stuff that fairytales and myths are made of (Joseph Campbell will have a field day with this one). Adults find it compulsory to act like one - i.e. to be rational at all time, sneering at the sight of any out-of-the-ordinary propositions and refuse to so much as comprehend anything that are ostensibly childish or freakishly quirky. It's almost like the lost of innocence is a blessing! What have become of us?!

Lady in the Water has sent sniffy critics around the world arching their eyebrows, not least because the only character who gets killed in the movie is one of the jaded, navel-gazing know-it-all colleagues of them. At one point, the audience is led to believe that the critic indelibly portrayed by Bob Balaban is the prophet-in-the-rough. Obviously, M. Night Shyamalan's cutting those stodgy, pontificating critics, who believe themselves to be the ultimate judge of cinematic beauty, down to size. The film has its share of flaws but since when nit-pick gets in the way of appreciation, since when the mere appearance of innocence makes us squint, since when we lost touch with our inner child, and since when being sarcastic and cynical the birthmarks of film critics as well as the badge everyone prides himself wearing? I know it's the cynics not the meeks who have inherited the world, but it doesn't mean we have to be one of them.

Like Hitchcock, MNS enjoys making cameos in his own movies. But this time around, he's not taking some petty little parts. By stepping into the shoes of a prophet destined to be sacrificed for the betterment of mankind (in real life, the film does amount to a career suicide and it does leave MNS's reputation in tatters which is most unfortunate and unfair. I've read somewhere that he's having trouble securing financial backing for his next movie - The Green Effect), MNS is telling us in our face: I mean what I said, don't call me corny! Lady in the Water professes his faith in the goodness of the world, his doubt about the cult of reason, and above all, his calling for the audience to hark back to their childhood when fanatsy tales are their escape and the sources of hope they can tap into. It's a story about having faith in yourself and the people around you, about how everyone is connected(six degrees of seperation, anyone?), about finding your purpose in the world, and about believing. It's a mortal crime to write off an artist who has a few misfires. The same goes with MNS (The Village really sucks!).