The Year of Living Dangerously

B

The Year of Living Dangerously is a conundrum to grade. It's a decent movie, that's for sure, but it could've been great. And while the movie works as a whole, certain parts obviously misfired, and leaving the audience with unquestionable disappointment.

The year is 1965, Indonesia is in the brink of turmoil. Australian journalist Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) is assigned in Jakarta, and he is hungry for a story. Helping him out is Billy Kwan (Linda Hunt), a physically stunted but loyal cameraman and friend who helps him out with contacts and stories. Kwan then sets Guy up with a British Embassy attache Jill (Sigourney Weaver) who is to leave Jakarta in 3 weeks. Then the revolution started - the communists attempted a coup d'etat to topple the government, and Guy must choose between going away with Jill or risk his life for the biggest stories of his life.

Despite being a little too many things at once The Year of Living Dangerously pulled it off admireably. Like all Peter Weir movies, this one starts off slowly and (just like every other time) I didn't really know where he was actually going with all this. At one point, the movie's determined to recreate Jakarta of the 1960s, quite unsuccessfully most of the times. Then we spend a surprising amount of time with Billy, a fascinating character, indeed. He's a dwarf, and so he tries to live through Guy by matchmaking him with Jill, whom he loves. It's fascinating that Billy was played by a woman, Linda Hunt (she's the headmistress in Kindergarten Cop), who won an Oscar for her performance.

The romance between Guy and Jill never really soars, though. I get distracted by Weaver's on-again-off-again British accent too. Some parts of the movie seem detached from the main theme and hence they often serve no purpose, such as the scenes with Guy and Billy hanging out with fellow journalists.

Meticulous care has been put into creating the Indonesian atmosphere just right. The look of the tropical air is captured perfectly. There are big scenes featuring angry mobs demonstrating and purges, but they feel like Weir is shy to show us the bigger picture (because the film wasn't allowed to be shot in Indonesia). Establishing shots are rare, and they don't show much except the throng of people on a big concrete road. We do get numerous shots of the people in slums and squatters of Jakarta (or at least they are close enough in resemblance). In terms of a historical period piece, this movie is nothing compared to (to just name one off the top of my head) Farewell My Concubine.

Alas, this is just an Indonesian's point of view, who's spent most of my life in Jakarta and among its people; so I'm entitled to be a little critical about the details.
~

Annie Hall

B+

I read a review of Mike Nichols' Closer, "Finally, a romantic story for adults." I agree to disagree. Closer was for adults, but it wasn't a romantic story (at least I hope not), and had he/she watched Annie Hall, he/she would've left out the word "finally".

Annie Hall is truly a love story for adults. It's not sugar coated like so so many romances we see today, at the age of 20, I cannot possibly claim that I even begin to grasp half of the depth of this movie. But even half of it is more than enough.

Annie Hall opened with Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) monologing about how he had just broken up with the love-of-his-life Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). The next hour and a half consist of flashbacks on how Alvy and Annie met, how their relationship blossomed, how he's paranoid about everything and how she can't have sex without smoking some weed first (talk about self-esteem killer), and how they went on-and-off in the space of a year. Finally, it all comes down to whether Alvy would put all his fears aside and fight for love. You might think you know what's coming, but you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Clocking in at 90 minutes, Annie Hall is lean and mean. It packs alot into such a short time. As I said, most of Allen's humor went over my head (and I felt it like with a swoosh) - I think you'd have to be at least familiar with that 70's mindset to understand most of them - but still there are many genuinely funny moments in the movie. The banter between Alvy and Annie, I cannot understand; and their sexual innuendos are often too raw for me to grasp (I repeat, I'm not even 20 yet).

I cannot grasp Woody Allen the actor. Don't get me wrong, Manhattan and Annie Hall alone would've sufficed to permanently seal his fame as a story-teller. But as an actor? How is it that in both movies, many women fall head-over-hells, sex-on-the-first-date in love with a balding guy that talks funny? He's good with dead-pan humor, but Albert Brooks would've been funnier without trying. I wonder how much a better movie Annie Hall would've been with Allen at the helm and a young Tom Hanks as Alvy.

Despite that, Annie Hall is a genuinely touching and real motion picture. It's not manufactured or sugar-coated, but it's raw and genuine. It's probably Lost In Translation for the people of the 70's - that's just an amateur movie-addict talking. Though I don't think I'll be touching another Woody Allen movie anytime soon (Match Point being an exception) I'm glad I've caught Annie Hall. It's one in a million.
~

Manhunter

B

Watching Manhunter was less about watching a film, than watching a Hannibal Lecter film. Worse, the only reason I watched Manhunter was so that I could have a basis of comparison for Brett Ratner's much-ado-about-nothing Red Dragon. So I felt a little underwhelmed by Manhunter, constantly being ahead of the story and the characters. Even so, Manhunter evoked a chill that surprised even me.

A serial killer, nicknamed The Tooth Fairy, is on the loose. He kills families during the full moon cycle. The FBI calls for it's leading ex-agent, Will Graham (William Petersen), to assist in the investigation. Graham has the uncanny ability to peer into a killer's mind, and in his last assignment he caught the evil-genius Hannibal Lecktor, getting himself fatally wounded and trapped by the evils of Lecktor's mind. Now, he must peer into the mind of another murderer, and he risks death or insanity or both. Worse, he has to face his past-demons once again as he needs to use Lecktor's genius to gain perspective on the Tooth Fairy, and he later he discovers the evil doctor has a plan of his own.

Thematically, there's something odd about Manhunter. Like watching CSI Miami (ironic since Michael Mann's next movie is Miami Vice), the canvas is filled with unfiltered colours and the heat seems to seep through the screen. At times this is an irritant since we are presented with latent energetics instead of a cold and spooky atmosphere; and this combined with the claustrophobic and rigid angled camera-work makes the aundience restlessly uncomfortable.

As I previously mentioned, it's impossible to watch this movie and totally separate this from the elements of Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon (that is if you have watched all three movies). This is especially true when some parts of Manhunter and Red Dragon are identical, and it's unfortunate that I watched the inferior Brett Ratner movie first hence imbuing a pre-emtive bias on Manhunter. Then there's Hannibal Lecktor/Lecter. After watching Anthony Hopkins getting under the skin of the cannibalistic psychopath in three movies, it's hard to see Brian Cox's performance as anything but derogatory and ultimately unsuccessful. Furthermore, Lecktor was never associated with cannibalism, making us feel betrayed that the best part of our favorite villain has been incompetently taken away from us.

Despite these "flaws", for which it would be unfair to lay blame on anyone involved in Manhunter, Michael Mann had crafted a taut and often chilling thriller and psychological drama. It is not as haunting as Silence of the Lambs nor as thematic as Hannibal, but, to be fair, Manhunter is not that kind of movie. This is a crime drama first and foremost. And hence it is able to stand alone and be judged and be praised.
~

Casablanca

A

So it is mt favourite movie. I don't say that with much enthusiasm because I am aware that I've only barely scratched the surface when it comes into movies. But I know that even if I do find a movie that manages to displace Casablanca off the top spot, I'd still hold it close to my heart.

Regarded as one of the most endearing movies of all time, Casablanca is a love story with the backdrop of World War II. As Germany unleashed its forces over Europe, many flock down a trail across the continent to find a safe haven in America - a trail that ends in Casablanca. In this town of bandits and refugees, everyone goes to Rick's, a saloon ran by Richard Blain (Humphrey Bogart), a heartbroken shell of a man who "sticks [his] neck out for nobody". One night the woman who broke his heart, Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman) entered his saloon with the leader of French Resistance, Victor Lazlo (Paul Heinreid). With the Nazi's noose tightening on Casablanca, Rick must choose between his happiness and doing what's right.

It's quite obvious how Casablanca can end in most critics' top 10 lists. A story with so much intrigue and ingenuity doesn't come very often. It is a coup for director Michael Curtiz (who is somewhat unfairly uncredited) who is able to tell a simple story an enrich it with so many layers. The apt description is that most things about Casablanca seem to have been divinely constructed.

As much credit that goes to Curtiz, equal ovation must go to screenwriters Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, and Howard Koch who managed to pepper the screenplay with the most memorable lines in celluloid; it holds 7 positions in AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes. If ever there's a reason for Casablanca to get so much acclaim, the script's it.

Humphrey Bogart was born to play Rick. I can think of several Hollywood actors today who can play Richard Blaine, they will perform well, but none of them would be half as good as Bogart. There's a delicate balancing of cynical temperament with quick wits and intelligence in Rick that he keeps us fascinated by the character right until the very end. Ingrid Bergman received a well-deserved Oscar nomination for her role as Ilsa Lund, a woman torn between her duties and her heart. Paul Heinreid also received a nomination, though I would think Lazlo has become a secondary character and his presence on screen just wasn't natural. I would argue that Lazlo's character is the sole weakness in the movie - he is more like the third-party between Rick and Ilsa than anything else.

That said, I would also point out why inspite of such acclaim, Casablanca seldom receive the top spot in any critic's list. It lacks the grandeur or sophistication. Some can say that Casablanca is story telling at its best since it dwelve into so many elements so well and portraying so many different characters so colourfully. And while I agree with that, Casablanca shows these things as if they are happening in an alternate dimension - or at least not quite close to the earth. The story plays like a dream - a magical one - but distanced from reality.

Watching how the circumstances between Rick, Lazlo and Ilsa unfold, we often miss the bigger picture that so many lives hang in the balance. We are so drawn to Rick that we fail to see the extraordinary predicament that he is in - a saloon keeper with the fate of Europe in his hands. Though touched on, these points are never emphasized, hence it is too soft for its own good. In short, Casablanca doesn't lack a punch, it doesn't have any.

Yet, this is not really a flaw. It's just different. What it lacks in bite, it makes up for in grace. Rick says it best at the end of the movie, "The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." Maybe someday there will be a remake of Casablanca that can offer the darker side of things, and I'd be in line to see it.
~

All The President's Men

A

I first became aware of All The President's Men just prior to watching JFK on video when I was 13. Already excited about the Oliver Stone's political thriller, I was given a double treat. I realized that I can expect to find at least one more thought-provoking, well-made movie. It took me a couple more years to get my hands on All The President's Men, but it was worth the wait.

The then-rookie reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to the Washington Post was assigned to do a piece on the break-in at the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Building. Expecting to find a bad burglary, they found out that things might not as simple as they seem. Revelations upon revelations led to a trail of money and cover-ups that implicate "the entire intelligence community", the Republican Committee to Re-elect the President, and ultimately the White House. The story of underdogs against a power-hungry administration, with the whole country against them; and how they ultimately drove U.S. President Nixon from office.

One part lesson in politics, one part journalism drama, one part thriller and two parts exciting detective story, All The President's Men is a collage of many things that mesh perfectly into a whole satisfying movie. This was director Alan J. Pakula at his best. Telling a story as complicated as this needs much skill and alot of dexterity. A less able movie-maker would have easily fell into the many pit-falls that follow such a complicated piece. Compared the JFK (I always link the 2 movies together), All The President's Men is less showy and made-up. Pakula avoids over-the-top cinematic flourishes. Hence, when Oliver Stone romanticised, Pakula brought us down right into the sweats of the investigation. Of the two, I believe Pakula's call was better; unfortunately he's never been able to rise above mediocrity ever since, with his last work 1998's The Pelican Brief.

All The President's Men brought home a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Jason Robards as Washington Post's executive editor Ben Bradlee and a Supporting Actress nomination for Jane Alexander (for an easy 20-minute performance). That's a testimony that even with a plot-based movie, characters are still important. And Pakula and screen-writer William Golding managed to create a balance between the drama between characters and the driving of the plot. We are offered glimpses of Woodward and Bernstein as persons rather than just our alter-egos in this story. Some of the best scenes in the movie happened in the Post's boardroom when the editors and reporters make their cases against and for the story, facing their fears of losing their jobs while relishing in the feeding of their journalistic "hunger".

All The President's Men is not the best of it's genre, it is a tad too long and at times the pace slows to a crawl. However, it is still a hell of a movie and one that deserves to be watched. It's movies like this that makes me feel that there's still some brains in Hollywood, and hopefully they die-hard.
~

A Shot In The Dark

C+

In this sequel of sorts to The Pink Panther, Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) is back on the beat. The difference is that while the former movie is rich in plot where Sellers shared the screen with the likes of David Niven in a hilarious showcase of twisted double crosses and entangled relationships, A Shot In The Dark is closer to a character piece - that of the bumbling Clouseau - with traces of a whodunit. As far as British comedies go, this is a brilliant idea (Fawlty Towers applies the same formula), but A Shot In the Dark too tame to offer more than a few chuckles.

A murder has occured in the home of millionaire Benjamin Ballon (George Sanders), a chauffer has been shot dead and the parlormaid, Maria Gambrelli (Elke Sommer), is found with a smoking gun. One look at Maria, however, Clouseau's dim wit is caught up by something far more detrimental - love. Clouseau would not even think her guilty, even as the body count grows in the parlormaid's wake (one when she is relaxing in a nudist colony), and he is willing to see his career go out in flames before seeing her in prison - both prospects are equally probable.

As I said, A Shot In The Dark is a character piece. We follow Clouseau throughout most of the movie and follow his clumsy pursuits with as much sympathy and angst. Sellers thread a fine line in making the Inspector real, he is one character in everything he does. However, as we can expect, Clouseau's investigations seldom bring out fresh evidence and hence the story goes to a complete standstill - and we are stuck watching an idiot repeatedly shooting billiard with a bridge. The dialogues do not offer anything worth thinking about, they are mostly banters between characters that do nothing to give the much needed boost to the plot.

British comedies are ripe with dark humor and inaffable characters - it is sort of their speciality. Yet, A Shot In The Dark is glaringly plain and unadventurous and hence lacking an edge. The saving grace of this movie is Sellers, whose potrayal of Clouseau is pitch-perfect (if you want to see how bad an actor in this role can get, you don't have to wait long for the Steve Martin's interpretation). However, it is still, to me, an unworthy follow-up to the original Pink Panther movie.
~

Hearts In Atlantis

C+

The first Scott Hicks' film that I saw is Shine, starring Geoffrey Rush in a role that won him an oscar, and the film multitudes of recognition. I didn't like that movie because I felt it was boring. Of course, I've come to appreciate it over time - 4 years and alot of truly boring movies later. It's ironic that Hearts In Atlantis is among those movies that have made me discover and appreciate Shine as daring and heartbreaking, none of the qualities that this movie is.

The movie opens with Bob Garfield (David Morse), an acclaimed photo-journalist, who had just received the news of the death of his boyhood buddy, Sal. Hence he sets out to his childhood home in small-town Connecticut. The film then cuts to a summer in the 1960s, when Bob (now by Anton Yelchin) lives as a 11-year-old with his depressed widowed mother (Hope Davis) and spends his days with his pals, Sal and Carol (Mika Boorem). Then a stranger walks into town, Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins), and becomes the guide that Bobby needs the most. Ted seems to have a gift of sight to see what people cannot. Unfortunately, Ted warns of the coming of "Low Men", who will take him away.

The first half of Hearts In Atlantis is a string of cliche-ish turn of events that we've seen time and time again (the irresponsible mother, the wise old man, the shy boy-girl crushes), and they are not very exciting or interesting. The whole cast, except for Hope Davis, seems to have fallen into a daze, thinking abnormally and talking half-baked lines. Not even Anthony Hopkins could cover the dirt from his dialogues. The movie goes in a slow nostalgic mood that isn't touching, but boring. Things improve come the 2nd half, when the plot starts to move faster with the looming threat of the "Low Men". This is when the characters, which were mostly caricatures before, come to life. There is a feeling of urgency here and the more the characters grow on you, the more you are aware of the threat that awaits.

Anthony Hopkins is still one of the best actors of our age. As I have mentioned before, his performance in the 1st half was perfunctory - so much so that I thought he was a miscast. But he recovered sure enough and recovered lost grounds. By the end of it, you can be sure he was the only person who can portray Brautigan with just the right amount of larger-than-life and human. Hope Davis is adequate for a character that we have seen many a times, but she pulls it off well enough that we are still sympathetic towards Elizabeth. Anton Yelchin is also adequate as an actor his age, though there were times when I was very conscious that he was acting.

Hearts In Atlantis has its bright moments - though none of them brilliantly sparkling. It is adequate entertainment if you have nothing better to do, but expect nothing uplifting or emotional from this movie, since whatever feeling you leave the theater with after seeing this, it will not last long.
~

Constantine

B

Some stuff that I'm writing in the this review would be because of the initial impression Mr James Berandinelli gave me upon reading his review more than a year ago, which was that this movie is as bad as Underworld (which was excruciating for me). But I probably was a different person when I watched Underworld, and I watched Underworld in the cinema, while Constantine just minutes ago on DVD.

The only thing that I can claim about my experience watching Constantine - every other factors regardless - is that I totally enjoyed it. I think it's one of the most entertaining movies I've ever watched, and that I don't think watching it in the cinema, or whatever, would have changed my opinion.

John Contantine (Keanu Reeves) is fighting his last battle with lung cancer - the cause of which is smoking 30 cigarettes a day since he was 15. He's going to hell, however, because he tried to commit suicide when he was a teenager. So now he's a demon hunter, buying his escape from eternal damnation by - as afore mentioned - killing demons. That's when our fun begins.

Angella (Rachel Weisz) is convinced that her twin sister was murdered while in fact her twin sister jumped down from the roof of a mental hospital. Turned down by the church to allow for Catholic burial, she seeked help in John Constantine. At the same time, the Spear of Destiny - the one that stabbed the Christ - is found in Mexico. All these events would inevitably lead to the rising of the son of Satan.

From what I've said so far, you'd probably figure out that much of Constantine is a bunch of crap. Inspite of the religious undercurrent, Contantine is not The Exorcist. As such, it is not thought provoking. I'm not dying to watch Constantine again, because it really doesn't offer much in 2nd viewings. But what it lacks in intelligence, it makes up for in everything else.

This is one visually sumptiour movie. The special effects are to-die-for, their as good as it gets. The plot may be thin, but director Francis Lawrence creates a detailed and colourful world of the comically occult and fascinating. So while the overall impression is that the movie is crap, you can tell that much thought has been given into this piece of art inspite of the script.

That's how I felt throughout most of the movie anyway, until 20 minutes til the end. Then I saw a misstep. But the movie recovered itself admireably 10 minutes later. But 1 second before it finishes, it again made another misstep, a minor one, I might say, but still rather important nonetheless. If you haven't watched the movie, you won't know what I mean. But that's how it is with Constantine. To me it's a fine movie with some give and takes. But it's better than alot of movies I've watched so far (Aeon Flux comes to mind). And I'm looking forward to Constantine2.
~