Change Your Image
windfox
Reviews
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
i want to see a FILM, not a recording of the musical
so why the harsh comments? i find it hard to define this production as a musical, but even harder as a film. there is, seriously, not enough wisdom on camera movement (except for the scene where Phantom goes madly shouting after Raoul and Christine sang All I Asked of You), or on montage (except for the scene where Bouquet was chased and killed by Phantom), or on correctness (why the snow does not melt even on Christine's lips? Schumacher made such a great laugh for me on that). but all in all it lacks originality, and the fact that it is a film does not add to its expressiveness at all, given all the advantages of modern movie techniques. if anyone thinks that this is not of importance because only the music and the sets and the costumes are important for a musical-movie, then Schumacher wastes his time and purpose on making it into a film at all - except for selling it to more people, which i suspect to be the secret desire of ALW.
just imagine that in the final scene where the three of them (Christine, Raoul, Phantom) started the trio, they were actually all facing the audience and not singing to each other even they were supposed to be talking to each other. this happens in an opera, not in a film - i personally can't tolerate such laughable bits just because the film is adapted from a musical. i would be better off watching a recording if it was so.
Schumacher's Phone Booth was brilliant filming. nothing like that in the Phantom. in fact, there was almost no filming, simply musicalling.
and even that was spoiled by the voices of the three, mainly the Phantom. i find no seduction or control, but mere pretence of passion. dear carlotta has appropriately over-driven voice and inappropriately over-driven acting, which is better for a comedy - that's why i end up laughing most of the time during the film.
secretly wondering if ALW and Schumacher quarrelled lots on the screenplay, because the film reflects that much.
the only good bit was that of Mdm Giry's reflection on Phantom's childhood sufferings. it reminds me that this is after all supposed to be a film. but then, if the audience doesn't really mind whether it is a film stuffed with ALW songs or a ALW musical sandwiched with film sequences, it might be a good thing to catch for the sake of its fame.
Troy (2004)
Just Another Movie
*lots of spoilers ahead*
I'm a Homer fan. I admit that. I know that the Iliad actually ends at Hector's funeral, and all the stuff about Achilles' death and the wooden horse and the sack of Troy, as we knew it, was from Quintus' THE FALL OF TROY (around 4th century BC). So the writing credits were already wrong, but I'm happy to see that in the closing credits they did have the line 'Inspired by Homer's Iliad'.
Much has been said about how deviated the plot was or how shallow the characters were, and I'm not going to judge on that. Knowing that Benioff basically re-invented everybody's death is enough for me - yes including Hector's, even though he did get killed by the correct person: their actual one-on-one was in fact extremely short, and Achilles never stabbed Hector to death with a sword in the Iliad.
The characters, shallow as they might appear, were more often self-conflicting than anything else. A half-God Achilles talks about how God envies human being mortal (a line that looks more like Lestat the Vampire's); a merciful Hector giving Patroclus a bloody stab with such evil hatred that I can't stop suspecting this scene would be right should Bana took off his helmet; a Helen brave enough to sneak back to the Greeks alone at night didn't mention anything like dying with Paris when Troy is being sacked; the conqueror of Greece, Agamemnon, would shout for his soldiers to charge into death without looking at enemy formation; Odysseus, the only guy who had the luck (or 'unluck') to have some original tongue-wit kept for him, was a brilliant, philosophical joker. One comment actually mentioned that bad scripting was to be blamed instead of bad acting, and I certainly found it so, for even Orlando Bloom got his moment right before engaging Menelaus with a sparkle of being totally lost.
And I don't want to mention the total demolition of secondary characters (Nestor, Patroclus, Ajax etc.) because the movie is trying so hard to 'shine' the major people.
I do love the few huge battle scenes: the Myrmidons hacked and slashed their way to the Temple of Apollo; the defence of Troy; the sneak fire attack to the Greek camp. Pretty thrilling and well-controlled. The best one-on-one goes to that between Hector and Ajax (who should be Aias in Greek, btw, because Ajax is Latin).
Peterson has his shortcoming for having no new tricks: I find in TROY shadows of LOTR The Two Towers (Troy's 1st successful defence), The Matrix (one-on-one between Hector and Achilles), The Gladiator (one-on-one between Hector and Ajax), and even Schindler's List (the sack of Troy, with no sound but a lone soprano chanting away). But this is not the major reason for TROY to fail to be truly epic. I'd forgive the re-invention of the story for the Iliad was no history either, and Peterson got his fluid mastery over the scenes, but I still see that he probably doesn't take TROY as seriously as he should have done.
The sets and settings, so much praised for being 'real', carefully polished and stunningly splendid, are seriously flawed: and that fails TROY from being great. I'll mention a few most prominent ones:
- The golden statue of Apollo as an archer outside the temple looked like a copy of Hercules the Archer made by A. Bourdelle in the 1900's. That's not a flaw, but all the other statues in Troy are in the early Greek style (c. 7th century BC) which is flat, simple, straight-forward and more Egyptian-like, and this statue is like the only one that is in the late Greek style (c. 2th century BC) that is a beautiful, accurately-represented human body.
- The Myrmidons called Achilles 'my Lord', a phrase that belongs solely to the English and nowhere to be found in even the English translations of the Iliad. The Greeks would use things like 'son of Peleus' or 'my King' or probably something that is closer to 'my leader'.
- The technique used by the Myrmidons to breach the Trojan beach, and the Trojan defence formation, is obviously the famous 'phalanx', in which the infantry line up and use the shields as a wall, wait for enemy to close up and stab in-between the shields. This technique for attack was invented by the Spartans (who were among the ones attacking Troy) and was used so well by them that the Spartans took out Athen's army and dominated Greece during the Peloponessian War. In the movie the Myrmidons used it for attack, the Trojans used it for defence (and wonder how they learnt it from across the Aegean), and the Spartans were running blindly into the range of archers, stuck by the Trojan phalanx and getting slaughtered. Brilliant.
So much said, I'm ultimately depressed by what my friends told me - 'Don't get so excited, it's just a movie.' Well, if Peterson doesn't mind a movie that is 'just a movie', I don't either. In fact, this movie sure gives me certain likable treats, and I mind Homer only.
I'll rate it 6/10, for those inaccuracies in the parts where I expected some historical accuracy.
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)
little people
this movie did remind me of this song from LES MISERABLES, although not in the physical sense of 'little people'. i have to mention its similarities with PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (yeah it's all in the trivia but please be patient with me^^). Jane Austin's novel was sweet (still among my favourites) but still it was about a higher clan of the society. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy might be called the 'bigger' people according to their social status. BJ is of a lower caste consisting of ordinary people, and might seem boring due to its simplicity. Yet i like the light-hearted manner of this movie, and i like its simple-mindedness. the way it's brought 'down' the 'noble' feel of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE just tickled my heart^^(but for people with more exquisite tastes, the movie's probably degrading the original idea of the novel - hey, i'm being too serious^^)
casting Renee as Bridget was wise, she did an excellent job! Hugh Grant was a pretty nice Daniel, but he should be given a fuller attention - in the end Daniel simply evaporated, to me this is sorta strange. Colin looked good as Darcy, but as many have pointed out, his transformation was abrupt, and his timing was so 'unnaturally' perfect! (he stepped in just after Daniel was out) besides these i have not much to complain about this comedy, just perfect for laughter and maybe a little bit of thought afterwards if one likes^^
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
say, are we paying too much attention to robots?
i watched it, finally, and it was because i wanted to watch Jude Law. (alright, i admit that he's my favourite actor for the while) but i'll leave him aside first. A.I. was a well-intended film, and it came right in time (in this age of virtual reality, cloning and everything). but as i said, it is 'intended'. the director is trying very hard to get us to love the robot child, because 'he loves genuinely'. so we have a responsibility to whoever loves us...and we have to love them back simply because we cannot break his heart: the director tried to define such a law which is, as far as i know, never written anywhere.
in my opinion the biggest flaw here is 'Isn't this happening all the while in the human world so why is it so different when it comes to robots?' don't we read about abandoned children and deserted wives often enough? (right now Miss Saigon is playing in Singapore) they love and do not get loved back - and we never bother more than saying 'poor things'. so why must we bother if the child is a robot? does that really make a difference? if so are we saying that machines and wires are more lovable than real humans? are we finally concerning too much about robots but neglecting what happens among ourselves? what we shall say if David is just a normal boy adopted by the family (it will sound like a column on the 'Home' section of a daily newspaper, won't it?^^)
A.I. itself is too emotional. throughout the movie i got the feeling that it tried to persuade us to love robots as we love human beings because they have human feelings. true, that Flesh Fair scene sucks and i'll definitely go against it if it happens in the future, but that'll not be because they're robots. it's not like that i won't care if people are torturing cats in the same way (i know some people hate cats, but that's a personal preference) ultimately we treasure the human feeling they have, the pain they can feel. it is a human identity we share with these robots. WE WANT THEM TO BE HUMAN, not themselves. robots are the reflections of the desire to REcreate human beings with 'inhuman' components. it is eventually an obsession with our own species.
to me A.I. is too shallow. it might be a good one if Kubrick did it, for he would have done it in a 'colder' and more detached manner, but sadly it was Spielburg. say, afterall we don't know what the robots are thinking of, and we just imagine what we think they might be thinking of, so it comes back to my point that we're just obsessed with being human. (imagine one day we have an all human-shaped computer? hum...)
apart from the theme (which is, i don't really think it stands out. they say too many cooks spoil the soup, now we know 2 cooks will be enough), i like the effects (at least it's more natural), the tearing lions and the slim alien-like things (they're so artistically shaped - futuristic, so we call it^^)...and for that teddy bear...(say, why we must make everything talk like us?)
as for the cast, well, i got to say Osment was enduring (it's not easy to get through all this long hours). Henry is a wasted character. i really liked him but he's not developed at all, same goes with the Professor. and now i got to mention my fav (those who don't like Jude Law can skip my comments altogether). isn't he a talented actor after all! it's just enjoyable to watch him *jerk* his neck as if he has a bunch of wire inside it^^his role doesn't fit the story...really, i agree, but i liked his line that robots are being wiped out because 'we are developed too fast, too smart and too many'. maybe i shall add 'too human'? (we have realised that robots are actually stronger than us - that's why we are afraid - again a self-obsession.) and - oh well - i loved his windbreaker (remind you of the Matrix, eh?^^)
Petto shoppu obu horazu (1999)
Excellent~~
hey, seemingly i'm the first one here...*grin grin* does this mean that imdb users don't watch anime *that* often? no, no means to offend anyone...but there are very great shows from japan, and POH is one of them.
in my opinion the original manga (the comic) is of a lighter style, funnier, full of humour and wits, but the animators made the show more serious...it was a *dark* anime, quite a bit of bloody things here and there, depressing at times, but the plot was pretty attractive: a mysterious petshop in Chinatown owned by a gorgeous young Chinese, selling all kinds of strange/rare species, all customers must sign a contract with the owner and if the contract is broken, tragic consequences will follow...a young American police investigator starts to pursue the shop owner relentlessly, believing that he was a smuggler, only to unfold the chilling stories of the petshop one by one.
the author ripped off all the mental defence we have and *coldly* reveals our human weakness. the customers, seeking comfort and relief in their pets, often destroy their paradise once again when reason surrenders to passion. love, guilt, friendship, betrayal...the pets seem to represent our desires and feelings, which we often let go wild and bring devastating consequences...(when talking about this anime i always tend to be this *deep*...)
i must mention the artwork and the seiyuu (voice actor) here. as this show only draws 4 chapters from a 10-volume manga, the artwork was done in extreme care, and the effect was splendid as well as delicate, with an air of oriential mystery. the seiyuu for the central character, the shop owner (titled as Count D, and all 4 story titles begin with his initial, D) was flawless with a charming, darkly sweet and somewhat *dangerous* voice...and the *cute investigator* in this movie has an energetic voice which suits nicely with his bursts of blond hair^^
i gave it a 9 out of 10. in one word: excellent.
P.S. just to those who like this movie: the manga is a must-read if you love the story, for the manga is far more interesting with more stories and pet catalogs at the end of every volume...and you get to read about the unsolved mystery of the Count's origin, his family and his personal pet (the animation doesn't have time to answer all these) and maybe a bit about the rather *unusual* relationship between the Count and the *cute investigator* LOL
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
different medias...different
well i've saw quite some arguments comparing the book and the movie...i can only say they are different, and it's hard to compare (sounds cliche, man^^). i like the book better, personally, but the film is excellent in its effort...i like the opening credit much with the great music by Elmer Bernstein, and Mary Bedhem was an excellent Scout (liked her hair style^^), and not to mention that lo~~~~ng but exciting speech delivered by Atticus on the trial (i told my friends that i wanted to be a lawyer after i watched it). this is the first film that made me think about equality and courage...and of course, to know that one must stand upright. i guess some people prefer the book probably because that literature provides a better room for imagination, and it's very disappointing if the movie doesn't turn out as what we expect. but as a movie it is great, and everyone should watch it as a movie, not as reading a novel...different medias, after all.
NB. and on Elmer Bernstein's music...i agree that he's done a great job again^^
Cats (1998)
wonderfully...commercialised
firstly i admit that i'm an ALW fan. my first encounter of his work was with THE PHANTOM, after which i heard about CATS, then i bought the VCD at a sale...well it was wonderful, but one of my friends commented that the show was very commercialised, and i thought she got a point there.
i'm not saying that CATS is not art, in fact as one of the comment has said, it is 'art in every sense'. the costume and the make-up was vivid, and fusion of dancing and singing was simply too great (well i cannot possibly hit a high C if i dance like that^^). and many other little details were also carefully designed (i loved that pipe organ made from a rugby ball - brilliant idea^^). no plot - sure, but there wasn't meant to be one, after all. CATS is primarily a show for laughter and relaxation, so a lot of pop factors were added, and i think that's where makes me feel it's 'commercialised'. but if one really goes into the vague storyline he may discover something there... it all depends on the individual who watches it.
i have to mention a few actors here...(yeah everyone loves them, but i must talk about them^^) Michael Gruber is among the best Munkustrap i've seen, he's an excellent dancer and actor. John Patridge finally found his place as Rum Tum Tugger(he once played Munku...i cannot imagine that^^). Jacob Brent's the most suitable person for Misto so far, he's got an innocently 'sly' look...one other actor i've got to mention is Jason Gardiner who did an amazingly good job as Alonzo the proud and arrogant second-in-command...and in my opinion he dances better than Jacob in terms of power and stability (Jacob Brent is a very *sweet* and light-hearted dancer while Jason is a more forceful one).
well...i love CATS, and i confess that its melodies 'haunt' me and i watch it every week...you can call me a freak but i simply enjoy watching Michael Gruber's smile (he's got a very elegant, warm smile...i wonder why no one mentioned about it^^).
Schindler's List (1993)
A staying film
well, again, it was R(A) here and i really guessed why when i watched it on VCD borrowed from my tutor. (maybe too many slaughters...but SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was not R(A)...) but i'm still glad that i was lucky enough to encounter this film. i've read the novel before so i roughly had an idea about the story, yet the movie impressed me. black-and-white filming is certainly a factor - as in TO KILL THE MOCKING BIRD - and i was totally drawn into the story and the acting, thinking of the scenes from the novel as i watched. and needless to comment on the little girl in red - as she moved down the staircase fading into darkness i was almost crying.
but when i say this film is 'staying' it doesn't only refer to the plot and the camera work. John William's music has to be mentioned for its sheer shattering beauty. years after i watched the movie i could still recall how the violin sang and cried when i played the theme on the piano.
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)
the world of human immortals
i came across Anne Rice's original novel before i caught the movie on TV last year(long enough, huh?^^yeah i know it's rated R(A) here and i was not yet 18 then...too much blood, i guess^^) well anyway, i watched it. it was thrilling, but lacked a certain atmosphere of mystery as the novel, nevertheless they did a good job in bringing such a story to life. i guess the mesmerising quality is in the story itself: immortals, eternally young and beautiful, with supernatural powers, walking in darkness with pride, no longer the appalling monsters with fangs. but they are suffering emotionally, once or now (yes even including Lestat) because they all WERE mortals, and some of them never get free of the past.
personally i like the art design the most: the buildings, the furniture, the costume (lace, lace, lace^^), and my favourite goes to Armand's Theater, exactly as what i thought when i read the book!
the cast was, too, excellent. anyone who says Brad Pitt is not as good as Tom Cruise should go and check the scene when Louis saw the ashes of Claudia and Madeline. i think Brad Pitt was perfect for our most human, tender, weak, guilty (and sometimes fanatic) Louis; Tom Cruise was Lestat the Brat Prince himself, the cunning and devilish boy enjoying his immortal powers; Claudia was an amazing doll-like woman (the performance was almost flawless); Armand, in physical appearance, was not quite the one (he was supposed to be 17 when he became immortal as in the novel), but Antonio Bandreas gave a brilliant interpretation of the experienced yet innocent being (Armand, in my opinion, is the most passionate vampire of all, despite his oh-so-cool looking in this movie^^). as a whole this movie dazzled.
but (as i have mentioned, the book was certainly better) there was too much sentimental stuff. (i guess the director wanted us to pity the vampires, but...?) and a large part of the original novel that describes Louis and Claudia's journey to Paris was cut. i thought that part was too good to miss. the later part of the novel was a bit too fast and the story seemed to end in a hurry...
after all it was a splendid movie. yet still i strongly recommend the novel to those who want to explore the world of the human immortals. the complete CHRONICLES consist of 5 novels, with INTERVIEW as the 1st. personally i like the 2nd, THE VAMPIRE LESTAT, the best, and really hope that it would be made to a movie, too. there's also the NEW TALES OF THE VAMPIRES, which consist of the beautiful THE VAMPIRE ARMAND and PANDORA so far.
and i would like to comment a bit on the *homo* side of the movie that was mentioned in one of the comments...^^well, i guess it was sort of a very strong emotional attachment between the vampires (think of how few there were of their kind). but Lestat and Armand did have some special relationship in the past (no dirty stuff, i guarantee, but very interesting to read) mentioned in THE VAMPIRE LESTAT, and Armand himself was deeply attached to Louis, too. but no relationship parallels the bond between Armand and his maker, the legendary Marius (mentioned in THE VAMPIRE LESTAT and detailed in THE VAMPIRE ARMAND), it was a bit bold, but very touching^^essentially there is NO physical relationship between any vampires, so i hope people get clear of the picture that they are only strongly attached and felt for each other, especially between a maker and his fledgling(s). (maybe not for Lestat: he makes vampires out of fun sometimes^^)
so all in all to those who love the movie: read the novels, and i'm almost sure that you'll fall for at least one of the vampires (mine is Marius, for example^^). they're simply lovable.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
love vs. war
well, i guess that's forever one of the favourite movie themes. it's nice, (think of WATERLOO BRIDGE) but too much of 'fitting' was there in PEARL HARBOR. you can just put the whole thing into another battlefield, (not even necessarily with bombing and carriers and fighter planes) and it might still work out. i've the feeling that i was watching a story 'stuffed' into the picture of the famous event. i'd have hoped that this movie would be more unique.
as for the actors/actress, i gave applause. it's not their fault to be born beautiful after all, and whether attractiveness means they do not act well depends solely on our own points of view. if people would only see the faces, they will only see the faces, no matter how great the actors can be.
and the effect, i would say it's splendid, but really too splendid. it's left people awestruck, wondering how on earth it was done and not remembering the movie itself. it's sort of feeling that effect has become a show-off point for movies rather than to support the theme. well that's my opinion, and people think differently. like it or not, there'll only be more and more computer work (think of FINAL FANTASY...i'm going to watch it, anyway) and well, we shall all learn to get used to it.
i'll give PEARL HARBOR a 6 out of 10.
Gattaca (1997)
a practical sci-fi
i watched this movie during English class at college recently, and was stunned. after all, i thought, i've seen some sci-fi that is practical.
for years sci-fi that i saw, esp. in movies, have been mostly about aliens, transformations and world domination, and i got really bored out of it. now i see that there're more practical issues. think of it: we've never heard reports of a real Godzilla, but we're having numbers of test-tube babies right now. for that i love the opening words of GATTACA: the not-too-distant future. the film actually makes me shudder, as i'm a biology student myself, and knows pretty clearly where bio/genetic technology's can bring us to - a paradox out of our very own wisdom. that's what GATTACA wants to reveal.
GATTACA itself reminds me of THE MATRIX and THE BICENTINENTIAL MAN. similar they are because we more or less have heard of their issues: genetics, virtual reality, robotics. but GATTACA is unique. it is NOT heroic (and i liked it). Vincent had much of courage but his Invalidity haunted him until the end; Jerome was a doomed character; Irene should have been developed further for she seemed only a babe (though i really liked her). but Ethen Hawke and Jude Law had been excellent, they had a sort of dark brilliance. Jude had an especially chilling expression. it felt like he was watching the Valid world which he no longer could enter from an Invalid's eyes. (he deserves his name on the top 50 beautiful people list)
i was far more than impressed by the opening credits. it took me quite a while to figure out what the things that fell slowly on the ground were, but that was sure a very special effect. and Michael Nyman's music was as catching as ever. (think of THE PIANO) i was wondering why this movie was not shown in Singapore when it came out, maybe genetic engineering is too far-fetched for people? GATTACA deserves a place in the best sci-fi. what it's about is not a matter for biologists only. (imagine if one day we must all g.e. our children...)
for those who are really, really not interested in practical sci-fi... watch it for Jude, i shall say.