Hulk

B-

There's a novel idea behind Ang Lee's Hulk: a movie about a superhero that puts characters and situations first, and fighting bad guys second. Peter Parker became Spiderman to fulfill the dying wish of his Uncle Ben, whose death he was partly to blame; this is engaging material which no Spiderman movie has put in the forefront, which Ang Lee attempts to do with his very own superhero/monster, the mean green killing machine, Hulk. The result might have been engaging and edgy (certainly vastly different from on superhero flicks out there), but bogged down by unrealizable ambitions and a clunky script, what-could-have-been never really happened.

Ang Lee gives us the best-realized telling of the birth of a superhero (maybe other than Christopher Nolan's Batman, which came later). Socially inept, ultra-nerd Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) suffers from respressed tendencies. He had been bottled up since he was a kid, and at the age of four, he witnessed a tragic incident that led to the death of his parents and was left with lingering traumas and nightmares. The only person who he could confide in is his ex-girlfriend and fellow scientist Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), even then, not very much since they broke up because he was "emotionally distant". One day, an accident in the lab caused Bruce to be exposed to a fatal dose of gamma radiation. Instead of being pulverised, Bruce became even fitter; but now when he gets angry, his body morphs into a rampagious green monster. And when he received a visit from a man claiming to be his father, old wounds are opened, and unleashing the green hulk becomes Bruce's greatest fear and at the same time his only way to face suppressed emotional scars.

If Ang Lee had kept the movie simple and sweet like that, it would have been great. For at the core of the story is the release of Bruce's emotional angst, the love-story between him and Betty, the only person who calms him (and the hulk) down. However, the movie's plot meanders, giving, or rather wasting, time fleshing out secondary characters like Bruce's father, David Banner (Nick Nolte), and Betty's high-ranking military general father (Sam Elliott). The movie also took some time explaining how these two paternal figures happen to be archenemies; talk about kismet. Then there's Bruce's love-rival Leutenant Talbot (Josh Lucas), who wants to harness the power of the hulk for the military.

The failure for the Hulk to perform in the box-office never surprised me of course, but it did surprise Ang Lee. He claimed that the movie was unaccurately marketted: he made it as a horror movie, not an action-adventure. As I said, sure, there's a underlying theme of tragedy in Hulk, and we can see that Ang Lee wanted to bring that out, but ultimately he didn't succeed. Bruce's emotional baggage was never properly fleshed out - the dialogue doesn't dig deep, but rather goes over the issues. There's vague references to Jungian-complex or when Betty claims, out of nowhere, "physical pain is finite, but emotional pain goes on and on." It's like we are being told what to think rather than actually experiencing it. Also, Lee's use of comic book panel-like "screen play" is creative, but this obviously isn't fitting in a horror movie.

So there's the best and the worst of Hulk. I love the vibrance brought to the screen. It does feel like the pictures of the Incredible Hulk comic books are coming to life. The use of colours to bring almost a childish quality to the screen is noteworthy, whatever happens on screen is nice to look at. After watching King Kong, the animation that goes to Hulk (though it was groundbreaking at the time) is obviously inferior, but still fun to see. The scenes where Hulk goes against tanks, aircrafts, helicopters in the desert is awesome, though not very thrilling.

Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott and Josh Lucas are all fine actors, but their characters here are, well, crappy. I guess the script is to blame for that. But hey, just because I have alot of bad things to say about Hulk, that doesn't mean that it's that bad a movie. It's still got its moments, and it still gives us a vision, never fully materialized, of a unique telling of a superhero story, but that's all that it leaves us with.
~

The Emperor's New Groove

B

Considering that this is a 87-minute cartoon, a B grade says alot. On the surface, The Emperor's New Groove might seem like a direct-to-video or even direct-to-Disney-Channel cartoon. That's very true. The animation is reminiscence of half-hearted, low-budget attempts that Disney seem to be producing with scary effortlessness these days. But if given a smidgen of chance, it doesn't take long that The Emperor's New Groove offers spark, wit and heart underneath the less-than-glossy appearance; and for some strange reason, some might be tempted to believe that its minimalist approach complements the experience that is, well, groovy.

The Emperor's New Groove is about a spoilt emperor Kuzco (voiced by David Spade) whose life is about him and only him. His advisor, Yzma (Eartha Kitt), who I believe is how Maris Crane would look like if she was ever shown, plots to murder his majesty and take the crown, with the help of her dimwitted assistant, Kronk (Patrick Warburton). However, a poison-plot snaffu caused Kuzco to be transformed into a llama, and upon his disposal, he lands on the hands of Pacha (John Goodman), a kindly peasant whose village is going to be torn for Kuzco's palace. And so, Pacha and the talking llama Kuzco came to an agreement that Pacha would take him back to the castle, and Pacha's village would be unharmed. And they had to hurry, because Yzma is also hot on their trail.

The Emperor's New Groove is a surprisingly good movie because it keeps the plot moving quickly. The visuals, although not fancy by any means, knows its limitations and even makes the use of it, as such, the movie has a breezy quality. Neither does it hurt to have a very funny script which offers good portions of tongue-in-cheek sophistication and wit. For instance, when Kuzco had to dress up as Pacha's newly-made bride to enter a restaurant, the indifferent waitress remarked, "Bless you for coming out in public."

I think the protracted running length of the movie risked insufficient character identification, but The Emperor's New Groove managed to sidestep that pitfall. Kuzco does change, and the change is believable. This is as much due to the well-developed script as much as the acting talent. John Goodman and David Spade give Pacha and Kuzco a father-son bond but manage to keep the interaction on an equal footing, without Pacha becoming patronizing, say. Shining as the voice of Yzma is Eartha Kitt, imbuing her on-screen character with crackles of energy crucial in a production that otherwise might seem too laid-back.

As high the regard that I hold for The Emperor's New groove, I still wonder if a cinema audience from 6 years ago would have came out the theater feeling short-charged. I won't be surprised. One can't help to feel that it's actually a bad movie done well; and therein lies my admiration for it. With a few imaginative flourishes, a good script, talented voices, and an unassuming air, The Emperor's New Groove is a good movie that, while definitely not amazing, is always amusing.
~

The Birdcage

B-

Woody Allen once said that the trick to making funny movies is shorter running length. That's probably true. The longer a comedy movie is, the longer it drags. And that's very true in the case of Mike Nichol's The Birdcage. Trimmed to 90 minutes, this movie would have gotten less scorn from me, if not a recommendation, depending on how they edit it. But at 2 hours, the laughs become sparse, and the movie overstays its welcome before the best parts even begin.

Essentially, this movie is about a meet-the-in-laws dinner. The daughter of Mr & Mrs Keeley (Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest) is going to marry the son of Armand Goldman (Robin Williams). Mr Keeley is a right-wing senator who thinks the Pope "too controversial" and Billy Graham "too liberal". Armand Goldman is a South Beach night club owner, in which the main attraction, drag queen Albert (Nathan Lane), is also his life partner. As two worlds collide, almost inevitably, tragedy (and quasi-hilarity) ensues.

The Birdcage is adapted from the French play (which was later adapted into a French movie) La Cage Aux Folles. One wonders if the earlier movie version is better. The problem with Mike Nichol's interpretation is that it takes too long to get to the point. It indulges in glacial pace, as characters talk incessantly. There's humor in almost every scene, but then they are few and far between. Also, the story doesn't completely gel, so while each scene is enjoyable in itself, the whole is still less than the sum of its parts.

The Birdcage spend more time with the Goldmans as they scramble, with an army of drags, to redecorate the home and find a suitable role that Albert could fit for the night. And throughout the first hour of the movie, Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are given ample chances to show both their comedic and dramatic range. I thought they pulled it off well. Nathan Lane personified Albert almost perfectly, if only resorting to a little over-acting. Robin Williams is at once believable and hilarious, look out for him giving directions for his new act and then springing suddenly into a barrage of dances. Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are fine as the ultra conservative white parents. Callista Flockhart, looking radiant, plays the Keeley daughter, Dan Futterman plays her fiance. I must say I abhor Dan Futterman, he makes Val Goldman unlikable, whether the fault was his own or not. It was important that we want the happy couple to end up together - but why would we want the beautiful and sweet Barbara Keeley to end up with a first class prick?

So as I said, The Birdcage is a mixture some well-made individual scenes, with their own funny moments, but it doesn't work as well when taken as a whole. So despite some good performances, and hearty laughs along the way, The Birdcage isn't as good a movie as it could have been.
~

Children of Men

A

It's 2027, and human beings are facing extinction as women have stopped being able to reproduce. Chaos have overthrown most societies in the world, and refugees flock to the UK, the last bastion of civilized living, wherein the government is forced to persecute the foreigners. A resistance party emerges to fight for the refugees' freedom.

Theo Faron (Clive Owen), once a political activist, is but another person in London succumbing to the hopelessness of the world's end. And he's not the only one, as his weed-growing good friend Jasper says, "They put suicide pills and anti-depressants in the rations," and then adds, "but ganja is still illegal." One day, Theo is kidnapped by a group of masked men, shoved onto the back of a van, and was taken to see the leader of the resistance: his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore). Apparently the resistance has found a living miracle, the first pregnant woman in 27 years, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey). Julian wants Theo to escort Kee to the coast, where she'll be picked up by members of the Human Project, a group of scientist in seclusion trying to find a cure for the infertility. However, Kee is a foreigner, and her fate will not be any different to any other foreigner if she is captured. At the same time, some members of the resistance see Kee as a rallying point to get support from the masses; and to make matters worse, Theo isn't too sure that the Human Project exists at all, for it's only been a myth.

But as Theo and Kee finally start on their perilous journey, Children of Men became the most unlikely of road-trip movies. But because of the script's depth and the surehanded story-telling of Alfonso Cuaron, the movie could be about anything - a futuristic story in the vein of Blade Runner, an apocalypse drama like Mad Max, action adventure, or a human story with the underlying theme of the barbaric nature of men and their humanity that leads to redemption. Based on the novel by P.D. James, this movie is as deep as it is broad, daring and stunning in more than one aspect.

Of all movies about the future, I don't think anything has come close to achieving the cinematic richness of Children of Men. Meticulous attention is given to details - set designs, costumes, all the way down to graffitis on the walls - Cuaron has envisioned and created a world, no less. He borrows liberally from Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, and Children of Men also bears resemblance from some of Spielberg's works, but he has surpassed both his predecessors' attempts in the genre.

In fact, Children of Men is so richly constructed, that halfway through the movie I began to feel the burden the settings seem to put on the main story, threatening to eclipse it (thus is the case for all road-trip or futuristic dramas, but this movie is both!). Yet again, character development happens to subtly, like saving graces in the midst of madness, that they are not immediately noticable. Characters here are as vivid as they are real. Theo is not an action hero but a man who has lost hope but still fights for it for his love for Julian. Kee is a child whose life the world depends on. Michael Caine makes the best of his limited screen time to make Jasper a loveable friend. Other supporting casts include Pam Ferris and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Kee's guardian and the resistance's second-in-command; both were given their moments to contribute to the story.

It wasn't until the end credits rolled that I realized how every element in this movie has converged so well to create a complete experience. It is unpretentious, unflinching, wildly exhilarating, and still manages to channel its underlying message of men's ambivalent nature. And a movie that manage to integrate so many aspects so well, as Children of Men has, deserves commendation.
~

Mystic River

B+

It's rare that we find a movie driven solely their characters. Of course, there are biopics, but even then, only few biopics could drive its story through the strength of its characters so well. But Mystic River is not a biopic, and yet with a superb script and a take-your-pick selection of powerhouse performances, it's a movie that combusts on its characters alone. In fact, one could argue that Mystic River is at its weakest, comparatively, when it focuses on plot.

Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn), Sean Devine (Kevin Bacon) and Dave Boyle are childhood friends whose lives diverged 25 years ago, when they vandalised a sidewalk and were reprimanded by "a man with a badge". Dave was the only one taken, molested, until he ran away from his abducters 4 days later. It's a single incident that changed their lives. So one night, in the present day, Dave come home to his wife, Celeste (Marcia Gay Harden), with blood all over him, claiming he was mugged. The next morning, the body of Jimmy's 19-year-old daughter, Katie (Emmy Rossum) is found, beaten and shot. Sean is the detective that is in charge of the case with his partner (Lawrence Fishburn).

From then on, the characters are allowed to breathe and move their own stories. Each one had his/her own story, feelings and thoughts, and interactions among them move the story forward, inch by inch, with a grim aura persistently hanging over them. Jimmy has connections with the muscles in the area, and he vows revenge. Dave, obviously still dealing with childhood traumas, might or might not have been the killer; though Celeste grows in fear that her husband probably is. Sean too suspects Dave; but evidence point to Katie's loving boyfriend, Brendan Harris (Thomas Guiry). At first glance, Sean seems the most stable of the trio, but in the end he admits to have been affected deeply too by Dave's kidnapping, and it might have been the reason he became a cop; and now he's determined to solve the case before Jimmy takes matters into his own hands.

If a movie is a flat board, the characters in Mystic River are like sharp needles, shooting upwards. The biggest of these are Jimmy, Dave and Sean, and they prick you deep, even from the start. We sympathise with each character from the very beginning, and as the movie progresses fear for their safety, from one another. It's a masterful script that could grasp the viewers' attention without revealing too much. Its depiction of many themes, such as tragedy, grief, paranoia feel very real.

All performances in this movie are terrific, bar one. Sean Penn fuses the screen with intensity, even in low-key moments. He won a well-deserved oscar for this role. Matching him scene by scene is Tim Robbins as the tragic Dave Doyle; using subtle nuances to show the leftover traumas that still haunt over Dave, but still makes us believe that Dave is a good person. It's often hard to bear a scene when Jimmy and Dave are together, since we empathise with Jimmy's loss and we fear for ourselves that Dave might be the killer. Marcia Gay Harden is so convincing as Dave's tortured wife that it's easy to take her performance, so complex but seemingly effortless, for granted. The fact is Celeste could have been over-the-top or irksome, but the thought never entered my mind while wactching the movie. Kevin Bacon is solid as Sean Devine, though he's not given as much to work on as his other co-stars. The weak performance is turned in by Laura Linney as Jimmy's wife. While she could have been strong, if not selfish, she comes across as conniving and repulsive. But seeing how solid the script has been, it's possible that most of Linney's performance were left in the cutting room, hence the character might seem thinner than the rest.

And that too goes for other aspects of the movie: most things are so good that its bad parts stuck out like a sore thumb. There are a few missteps, I believe, arguably the most detrimental was when the movie shifted into a detective murder-mystery. About an hour into the running length, we follow the murder weapon, apparently used in a robbery in 1983. In the end, the story lines sort of converge, but the shift in tone and pace was noticable, if not distracting.

So maybe Mystic River isn't a perfect movie, but it's an exemplary one. It's human drama, raw, emotional and deeply affecting. With a superb script, and a director that knows how to utilise it, Mystic River gives one hell of a cinematic experience.
~

The Rainmaker

B

Well, I guess no movie based on a John Grisham book can ever be so good. I mean look at the candidates. The Firm was a stupid movie based on a very stupid book. I couldn't finish reading The Runaway Jury - and didn't dare see the movie. A Time To Kill was a decent movie. The Rainmaker was a lousy book, but then the movie is surprisingly watchable - thanks to Francis Ford Coppola.

Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon) is a fresh graduate from law-school. Just after taking his bar exam, he signs up to work for "Bruiser" Stone (Mickey Roarke) and gets partnered with ambulance-chaser Deck Shiffler (Danny DeVito). To start of with they are up for three things: drafting Rudy's landlady's will, a domestic violence case involving Kelly Riker (Claire Danes), who Rudy eventually falls in love with. And the most promising one, insurance fraud against the huge corporation Great Benefits for denying claims to a leukimic client. And so, it's Rudy, on his first case, up against Great Benefit's team of top-deck attorneys, led by Leo F. Drummond (Jon Voight).

Now, had this been more of a realistic movie, there's not way that Rudy could ever win this case. But it's John Grisham, so it's more like cartoon. And Francis Ford Coppola caught this, and he wisely set the movie in tune with its incredulous plot - to make it half drama, half comedy. So we have a good time watching it, smiles and occasional laughs, and so we rarely notice how unsound whatever transpires on screen actually are. It's still not very convincing, is it? Fortunately, it gets better.

Ford Coppola adds another element to the formula. As co-writer, he adds a voice-over by Rudy, full of quips about lawyers and lawyer jokes. We hence get another dimension to Rudy, his disgust for the nature of the law system and the lawyers that preserve them as it unfolds on screen, as well as his determination to not be dragged down to be like the "sharks in the muddy water". The screenplay is most times witty and fast moving, and we are entertained and engaged throughout the running length.

I am sorry if I come down harshly initially. It's due to my unsavoury experience reading the book almost 5 years ago - and the bad taste still lingers. But that's a testament, I suppose, how a gifted director-screenwriter could take a mediocre book and make a good movie out of it.
~

Matchstick Men

A-

For me to say that I love Matchstick Men is unlikely, but it is close. I think it's an ingenious movie, not because of the movie itself, but how it was made. Ridley Scott tranformed what could have probably been a standard, if not meager, effort into something special by touching the right buttons and making all the right decisions. Matchstick Men is a movie about a white-collar crook and more.

Roy (Nicholas Cage) is a self-confessed "con-artist", and that's his life. He is an obsessive compulsive, and he spends his time satisfying his need for his environment to be immaculaely clean or working fat, old, lonely people out of their retirement funds with his partner Frank (Sam Rockwell). All's about to change when a visit to his shrink reveals that he has a fourteen-year-old daughter, Angela (Alison Lohman), and the following week, as he attempts to rekindle the relationship with the free-spirited girl and taught her a few tricks of his trade.

Movies about crooks could either go bleak or light. This is definitely in the latter category. But in the deft hands of Ridley Scott, this is a solid piece of crime drama that moves swiftly and never takes itself too seriously but does not drift into the sugar-candy road. Next to this, Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can (which is also another "crook" movie) is much less fun.

Speaking of which, Matchstick Men also resembles Catch Me If You Can in its dreamlike cinematography. And again, it tops the Spielberg sugar-candy flick: it achieves its goal without coming across as self-indulgent. Scott's use of fluid cameras, colours and sharp visuals gives Matchstick Men a fantasy feel, and it ascentuates the pleasantness of the movie.

Nicholas Cage gives Roy the right amount of quirks and reservations. Alison Lohman shines as Angela, delivering her vulnerability and youthful energy perfectly. And the two leads work together pitch perfect. The supporting cast include Sam Rockwell and Bruce Mcgill, the latter as Roy and Frank's latest target.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that Matchstick Men is an extremely fun movie to watch. Perhaps many viewers out there might find it hard to maneuver the tangled plotlines, but repeated viewings makes it clear it's part of Scott's attempts to whisk us past the cliches and extract the essenses of the story, the stuff that makes it more than just another "crook" movie.
~