tripwires Reviews

Hidden Track (2003)

A poor excuse for a movie.

[3/10 · 25 January 2005]

I can honestly say that this 'movie' was one of the worst I've ever seen, and this is coming from a rabid Jay Chou fan who is convinced that she is his long-lost soul mate. The only good thing about this movie is those three sacred minutes during which Jay Chou finally made his long-awaited cameo appearance, as well as the expectedly beautiful songs that he penned. The rest of the movie was, quite frankly, a waste of film whose sole purpose was to prolong the agony of Jay Chou fans in the theatre waiting for their idol to appear (and when he did, some members of the audience actually screamed).

The movie was excruciatingly pretentious, shamelessly plot less, and obviously trying to cash in on Jay Chou's fame, considering how he's THE biggest song-writer/singer in Asia. This soundtrack-of-life dribble takes pointless meanders into places whose purposes were never really quite uncovered, but you really cease to care after thirty minutes into the movie, all thanks to Po Po's terrible acting. Obviously marketed as the next Faye Wong (excuse me while I puke), she went for acting cute a la typical Chinese pop stars with sweet faces but bland voices and hence, you never quite take her seriously either. The oddball characters that showed up were more annoying than intriguing, and they served no real purpose in and to the plot, except to fill up the ninety minutes, perhaps.

But the worst crime that Hidden Track committed was that it didn't even attempt to be entertaining. I lost track of how many times I checked my watch and I fidgeted throughout the movie. It was flat, it was dull, and it was an absolute bore. The only moments during which I perked up were when Jay Chou's songs were playing in the background. It's pretty obvious that the people behind this non-film were aiming for an avant garde, deep and philosophical film, but sadly, they never had material that was credible enough to come remotely close to their target. The script - a primary school kid can write something like that, and the movie is so all-over-the-place that its point is lost in all the turns that the female protagonist took in search of that rare (and non-existent in real life) Jay Chou album with the hidden track in it. Clearly, what is obviously missing from this poor excuse for a movie is a story worthwhile enough to sit through while waiting for Jay Chou to appear.

Strictly for Jay Chou fans. I may have hated the first 87 minutes, but I definitely enjoyed and loved the last three. Long live Jay Chou and his brilliant songs.

Elektra (2005)

Expectedly B-grade

[6/10 · 25 January 2005]

The only reason I even bothered with this, even though I knew that I wouldn't like it, is Jennifer Garner, whom I think is totally, totally, totally hot. Too bad for her: she deserved a much better script.

Elektra has its share of gripping moments, but on the whole, it was awfully silly. First of all - and this really irks me - they shamefully got a Korean actor to play a Japanese. How many times must Hollywood commit this kind of stupidity before they realise that the different Asian race aren't substitutes for each other? (Admittedly, the Korean actor is hot, but that is not the point.) Secondly, Elektra boasted some of the worst special effects I've ever seen; they looked like something out of a computer game or a low-budget, locally-produced gongfu television series. The constant usage of slow motion went heavily into overkill territory, such that some of such moments became so cheesy that they completely lost their credibility and the semblance to depth and meaning the film-makers were obviously aiming for (an example would be the fight scene between Elektra and the pseudo-Japanese dude with the sword).

Thirdly, the plot, or what was supposed to be the plot. I'll just say this plainly: What the hell was that? The ending left much to be desired; not only was it extremely anti-climatic and "that's it?"-inducing, it was also blatantly obvious that the people behind it were already gearing themselves up for a sequel. Questions which you'd expect the movie to answer upon its conclusion were hardly dealt with, hence cheating the audience out of a holistic cinematic experience. Save for Elektra, there was also a grave lack of character development. The only reason I cared about Mark whateverhisnameis was because it's Goran Visnjic, who is deliciously gorgeous; other than that, I couldn't care any less about the other characters.

The plus points: Elektra was halfway understood and Jennifer Garner portrayed her nuances with tremendous efficacy. And then there's Goran Visnjic, who is - have I mentioned this? - deliciously gorgeous; hence, it's too bad that he had such little screen time. I believe I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if there was more of him. In addition, Elektra was marginally better than Daredevil, which was the most boring and pointless action movie I've seen in quite a while. And one last plus point: Elektra did not have the insufferable Ben Affleck. That's a cause for cheer and celebration, whatever the occasion.

See this only if you like Jennifer Garner and Goran Visnjic.

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Bland.

[3/10 · 25 January 2005]

Meet the Parents was good; I liked the De Niro/Stiller combination, and it made me laugh. Unfortunately, the sequel was boring. The only thing that saved it from the trash bin was the impeccable casting, ie. Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand. The chemistry between the pair was very palpable and they were a joy to watch. Scenes between Hoffman and De Niro were rather entertaining too, and they induced a few laughs in me.

Still, the movie's strategy of recycling tried-and-tested sex jokes ultimately failed it in my opinion. It got to a point where it became so predictable that it descended into the fiery depths of banality. Meet the Fockers is a great piece of evidence that illustrates the vast difference between American comedies and British comedies; just compare this to, say, Love Actually, and you'd get my point. Perhaps Meet the Fockers will score with people who don't really like to think, but its low-brow, un-intelligent brand of toilet and sexual humour is something I've seen so many times already that it failed to hold my interest for a significant period of time.

In short, a waste of talent and money. The original is so much better.

8 Mile (2002)

Painfully mediocre

[17 November 2003]

I didn't think that '8 Mile' was going to be great. Eminem doesn't impress me, and neither does his sad life story. In fact, I couldn't care less. I went to this movie because my mate likes Eminem and she dragged me into it. Fine. I did, however, expect to be entertained, since that's about all that Eminem does. Unfortunately, I spent the entire movie waiting for something to happen, but of course, nothing really did. The climax didn't feel like a climax (didn't even know it was a climax until the movie ended) and maybe it was the direction or the script, but I couldn't get into the movie at all. There wasn't a single moment in which I felt like I was part of the story; in the entire time, the movie remained a movie, and I remained very, very detached.

Eminem's acting was surprisingly good. He has incredibly expressive eyes and he used it to his full advantage. Brittany Murphy was wasted, and I can't remember who else appeared but they obviously didn't make an impact. The rap scenes (yeah, whatever) didn't do much for me either. Sure, I don't like rap, but I did expect them to be more exciting than... that.

Like I said, I kept waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever did. The script felt way too disjointed and disconnected. The only thing that I took away from the movie was that Eminem can kind of act.

In short, '8 Mile' is horribly overrated.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

I didn't get it

[5/10 · 17 November 2003]

(Possible spoilers ahead)

Maybe there was nothing to 'get', but I didn't get it anyway. 'Revolutions' made close to no sense to me, partly because I forgot what 'Reloaded' was all about, and also partly because I was too busy laughing at the movie to attempt to follow the plot. Granted, the movie was better than I'd expected, but then again, I didn't expect much, if anything at all, in the first place. 'Reloaded' left me very, very cold and angry, and thus I thought 'Revolutions' wouldn't be much different. While the last installment is a lot better than the second, I still contend that this is a 'trilogy' that should've never be.

First of all, I don't think there was even a plot to follow. Ask me for the story and I couldn't tell it to you. Thanks to its two sequels, 'The Matrix', to me, is merely a 'trilogy' of visually-spectacular effects, bad acting and a whole mess of pretentiousness that I would like to have done without, thank you very much. The first movie was fantastic, the second total nonsense, the third a continuation of 'total nonsense' and since I've already forgotten what 'total nonsense' is all about and wasn't keen on sitting through 'total nonsense' again, I was clueless about 'Revolutions''s plot right from the beginning.

Still, any intelligent person would glean from the first few minutes that Neo is going to save the world. Or something. I didn't know what he was doing half the time, and frankly, Keanu Reeves is such a wonderful actor that he makes me NOT want to even ATTEMPT to care, sarcasm fully intended. There were a few intriguing scenes in the movie, especially the whole thing about the train, but the film-makers' solution to that problem, for lack of a better word, felt as though it was resolved too quickly. And thus, whatever interest it managed to arouse in me also quickly dissipated along with the dismissed idea that the annoying Oracle was going to lose her eyeballs (THAT would've been something!).

(spoilers ahead)

This movie also produced one of the most drawn-out, melodramatic and downright silly death scenes ever. Just how long did Trinity take to die, anyway? And I thought I'd seen enough of those in cheesy and horribly-dubbed Hong Kong flicks. I lost track of the number of times I started laughing, only to be silenced by annoyed members of the audience, but who could blame me? It was funny!

One thing I did like about the movie: The battle scene in Zion or whatever. It was exciting, although awfully predictable (we all know that the commander or whoever was going to die. Like, duh). This time round, the effects didn't make me laugh as much as I did during the previous movie, and that part with the water droplets was breath-taking.

That's about all the good things I can say about the movie. It was mildly entertaining, both intentionally and otherwise, but on the whole, it was also very silly. Keanu Reeves, in addition, is hardly a convincing superhero, so I was glad that he was left out in half the movie.

And can I just add that I did not get the ending? I went to see this movie to know how it all ends but I ended up not knowing anyway.

Somehow, I'm not surprised at all.

How to Deal (2003)

How could Sarah Dessen have possibly endorsed this?

[5/10 · 3 September 2003]

(may contain spoilers)

When somebody tries to merge two equally powerful books into one 90-minute film, somebody is being utterly stupid. "How To Deal" - based on Sarah Dessen's "That Summer" and "Someone Like You" - did not have the poignancy, the excitement and the empathy of the novels that it was supposed to bring to life. The movie left out so many important scenes and metaphors in both books that ultimately, the finished product has missed the point.

"How To Deal" is basically just another typical teenage flick that tries to justify its redundancy and its wastage of celluloid by appearing to be "important". Want an important teen flick? Try "crazy/beautiful" instead. The issues that "How To Deal" tries to deal with - teen pregnancy, pre-marital sex, divorces and the effects it has on children, teenage romance, teenage cynicism, teenage drinking, etc - unfortunately fell flat, because it refuses to beat of the teen flick template that it has imposed on itself by default. My impression of Scarlett Thomas was definitely NOT an annoying, oversexed teenager who doesn't know how to take care of herself and who whines with unsympathetic pathos whenever her boyfriend is not by her side. Dessen's character is supposed to be a mature adolescent, grappling with her boyfriend's death and her unexpected pregnancy, sometimes fumbling, but nevertheless maturing into an adult. In the movie she was just plain irritating. Her pregnancy was supposed to be a main focus of the plot but the script chose to chuck it aside and bring it up as a space-filler instead. I'm sorry, but this is just really stupid. Why bring in such an important issue if you're not bothered to really, truly deal with it? And we still wonder why annoying pro-lifers are screaming their lungs out to ban abortion.

In short, this movie tries to pack too much into too little time so that the end product is one disorganised mess. Some characters should never have been included at all as they seem to serve absolutely no purpose. Michael died and nobody cared, and why did nobody care? Because so little was known of him. In the book Dessen created empathy by relating the story of how he and Scarlett got together, and I think it spanned a few chapters. In the movie all of it was axed. If it weren't for the fact that this movie (was supposed to be) based on Dessen's books, I would never, ever have seen it.

On a brighter note, Mandy Moore did a pretty good job, though her acting is still pretty raw.

And that's about the only positive thing I can say about the movie.

Go read the books. They're so much better and more meaningful.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Shames the original

[6 July 2003]

"The Matrix" was a brilliant film that was almost prophetic of the future in its message to viewers around the world. I could draw parallels between it and Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel set in the near future, "Brave New World." In my book, a film that can be compared to a novel, a great novel, is a film worth watching. "The Matrix", the original, was such a film.

Unfortunately, "Reloaded" isn't. Not even close. First of all, I don't see any elements in the first movie that actually garners it a sequel, one that isn't only unnecessary but also undermines the impact of the first movie. Second of all, "Reloaded" was - gasp - painfully and utterly boring. I slept through the first half of the movie and was only kept awake during the second half because I decided to keep myself awake by chewing on a Mentos.

"Reloaded" was pointless and pretentious in its futile efforts to pass off as an intellectual action movie. Somebody should've told the film-makers that such a formula hardly ever works, and when it does the first time round, they should be counting their blessings and be happy with the state of pinkish health their bank accounts are in. While its predecessor managed to mix quality action sequences with thought-provoking philosophical truths, "Reloaded" fell flat in that aspect. Its action scenes, for one, were too incredible, the special effects so overdone that they appeared fake. And the philosophy part? It was a noble attempt on the film-makers' part, I will admit, but unfortunately, whatever they were trying to convey got horribly lost in the mess of flying bodies and constant sprays of bullets that nobody could actually get what they were trying to put across in the end. One scene featuring some holy person spewing some philosophical gibberish that lasted for about fifteen minutes out of the two-hours-and-something-minutes of the film cannot possibly be powerful enough. After two hours' worth of an assault of the sense of sight which was also practically a lullaby for the brains, one simply cannot really bother to figure out what that man in the TV room was saying to Neo. Personally, I didn't even care.

The plot was also a problem. The love angle between Trinity and Neo was redundant and boring, and the lack of chemistry between Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Fisher didn't help matters much either. It was too overplayed and the time they spent kissing on screen could've been saved for bored members of the audience like me to do more productive things. The mass orgy/whatever scene at Zion was, too, an incredible waste of celluloid and screen time. It served no other purpose, it seemed, other than to please stereotypical male members of the audience. And the rest of the plot... wait, plot? What plot? I highly doubt a plot existed in the first place.

In addition, Keanu Reeves becoming Superman only made me laugh out loud and his usual bland as plain water acting only added to the hilarity of it all. Reeves is a bad actor through and through, but he somehow managed to overcome that intriguing handicap in the first movie. Here, the lack of character development and his lack of anything else to do but fire guns, save Trinity from the evil clutches of the awesome Agent Smith, and fly like Superman, only made clearer his immense disability to say a few simple lines with that tricky thing called emotions. He expressed his love for Trinity, and I thought he was ordering a pizza or asking directions to the toilet. Reeves would be much better off without seemingly complex emotional scenes for him to handle, scenes that would other be handled with ease by a better, more profound actor.

The rest of the main cast, fortunately, were okay, although they seemed to have got slightly more pretentious and annoying. Still, Agent Smith was the highlight of the movie (although that scene with hundreds of him was a huge joke to me), and the direct element that made me stay on and not walk out after I fell asleep for the 20th time. There is just something so compelling about the way Hugo Weaving snarls at Neo and morphs into people that it makes you rather excited to see the kind of havoc he'd be up to next. If there were to be a movie with Agent Smith as its protagonist, I'd definitely pay to see it.

Keep Keanu Reeves out though. And while we're at that, keep the overall senselessness of "Reloaded" out, too.

A sorely disappointing sequel, even worse than what I'd originally expected. A shame to the first movie.

Final Destination (2000)

Silly and unintentionally hilarious

[6 July 2003]

When this movie was screened at a movie marathon held in my school I laughed out loud, garnering me a few weird stares from my fellow schoolmates, who were actually pretty terrified by the nonsense that was going on on-screen. I laughed for that reason too, but more importantly, I found this movie extremely hilarious.

Perhaps it is my sadistic sense of humour, I don't know, but it's funny how the producers of this stupid, brainless "horror" movie could think of such creative ways to kill off their irritating characters whom nobody really care about. A good example would be the death of the teacher, whatever her name is. That scene nearly killed me, pun fully intended, especially when she needed help to actually get herself totally killed.

"Final Destination" had a great premise. It just had an extremely lousy and predictable execution. What could've been a truly terrifying movie about the inevitability of death and the suffering one goes through living with that knowledge became a rehashed, one-dimensional joke of a movie that had elements of previously and equally bad slasher movies in it. Its greatest flaw was its cardboard cut-out characters. With the exception of Devon Sawa and Ali Larter, the cast looked like they were picked from unwanted extras who failed to make it to the latest teenage flick. The characters irritated the living bejesus out of me because they were whining so much that I just wanted them to get killed already and put me out of my agony of watching such stupidity. The jock was predictably cocky, his girlfriend predictably bitchy, and the rest of them? Don't even remember.

The only good part about the movie is Devon Sawa and Ali Larter. Sawa is a good actor whose talent was wasted on playing a silly character, while Larter, whom I've never seen before prior to this, was surprisingly convincing as Clear Rivers ("Clear"? What kind of a name is CLEAR?!). She was pleasantly understated and provided a nice break from Alex's perpetual high-strungness, so to speak. The chemistry between them also helped to make the love angle that just HAD to be present a tad less sickening.

Still, it was obvious that this movie existed for no reason other than to rake in the cash at the box office, which should explain the extreme gore factor. Somebody should tell the producers that sometimes, the thing that scares most is not what one can see, but what one cannot see. Our imagination is a powerful tool. They should learn to make use of it.

Wet Hot American Summer (2001)

Pointless, but fun

[13 March 2002]

I got bored of studying "Julius Caesar" so I watched this. I wouldn't say much, except that I found the movie to be incredibly pointless, but entertaining. I liked that guy with the floppy hair who lusted after Katie (I think that's her name?). He is a total loser, but he's really kind of sweet, kind of cute, so...And I have always appreciated Janeane Garofalo's sarcasm. I loved her in "Clay Pigeons" (though no one can detract my attention from the lovely Joaquin Phoenix), and wanted her to smash Uma Thurman's face with a big cake in "The Truth About Cats and Dogs". I think she was the best in this film, right next to Chris Meloni, who was hilarious.

I'm not sure if this movie had a actual plot. Its characters and their motives are completely unclear (example: the Katie-Andy-Guy-with-floppy-hair thing), and I found myself going, "What in the world?" at the TV set many a times. But I did enjoy watching it. It was stupid, and Chris Meloni was hilarious. I don't really care about anything else.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

THE best fantasy epic of all time

[10/10 · 13 March 2002]

I hate Star Wars. Granted, I have never seen any of the films, but seeing clips from it during various awards ceremonies and things like that tell me I never want to see any of them, the originals included. I'm also not a big fan of fantasy films, so it was pretty damn daring of me to make that statement in the summary box.

The thing is, The Fellowship of the Ring just REEKS with brilliance. Every single second of the movie is astounding, from the first battlefield scene until the last few scenes. I don't need to watch any other fantasy flicks to know that this is the best.

Now, I'm not a Tolkien reader. I bought "FOTR" after watching the film and watching a National Geographic documentary on his life. I've owned the book for maybe 3 months now, and so far I'm still at page 94, thereabout. But I have seen the movie 3 times. And each time, it just got better. Peter Jackson deserves all the best director awards the industry could ever give for his beautiful masterpiece. How he managed not to get the Golden Globe for Best Director is beyond me. Actually, how anyone can think that this picture is anything but brilliant is beyond me. 3-hours too long? Hell no. 3-hours too short.

I truly hope the Academy awards Mr. Jackson for his great eye for detail, and all-round awesome direction, and I sincerely think this movie is Best Picture material. The acting is also superb. I've always liked Elijah Wood, but I loved him in this. Not only are his eyes beautiful, he is able to speak volumes with them. I don't understand how the Academy and the rest have managed to overlook him for a Best Actor award. Orlando Bloom is devastatingly gorgeous as Legolas. He has captured the hearts of teenaged girls the whole world over, myself included. You can't blame us. Legolas is the perfect man you'd want by your side in times of danger. His movements are agile, like a cat's, and you couldn't tell in the movie that Bloom has taken only 2 (or was it 3?) months of archery classes. My only gripe about the character was that there wasn't much developement in the movie. I hope we'd get to see more of Legolas in the coming two movies, which I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE. Viggo Mortensen was dashingly handsome as Aragorn, Sir Ian McKellan radiated gentleness and his Best Supporting SAG award was well-deserved, and the hobbits were excellent. You simply cannot fault the acting, or any other aspects of this movie. I love everything about the film, from its breath-taking sceneries to the grotesque appearances of the orcs to Howard Shore's beautiful music. EVERYTHING!

The only -- and I truly mean only -- negative thing I have to say about the trilogy is that they're making me wait an entire year for the next part. It's like feeding me a piece of delicious cake and taking the rest away, and then telling me, "You'd get the next bite next year." The cake is lovely, and I want to eat it whole, all at once.

And to anyone who wonders why "FOTR" is best picture material: it draws you in, it makes you care whether the characters lived or died, and it gets under your skin and refuses to leave until the whole movie is over. It stays in your mind when it's over, and you know you want to go back and relive every moment of that wonderful journey you were a part of. Three times.

All hail "The Lord of the Rings".

The Others (2001)

The chills haven't stopped

[9/10 · 27 December 2001]

I'll admit straight out that I get scared easily. I couldn't sleep for months after watching "The Sixth Sense", and I really want to watch "The Exorcist", but I fear my heart wouldn't be able to take it. "The Others" is one of those movies that I know would scare me senseless, that I should avoid if I want to sleep in peace, but the more I realise that, the more I want to see it. It's a funny thing, human nature, it's almost masochistic. I can never understand why I enjoy scaring myself so much.

(spoilers) "The Others" concludes on basically the same note as "The Sixth Sense". Like I said, the latter film scared me, but I found "The Others" somewhat more chilling and thrilling. In "The Sixth Sense" (a very good film too), I was scared by the images of the ghosts, like the woman in the kitchen. But in "The Others", I was scared by the POSSIBILITY of what haunts the house. We don't get to see who's behind the mysterious closing and opening of doors and things like that until the very end, and it's a good thing, because it allows the viewer to exercise his/her imagination. The film doesn't show the audience its scares; it suggests them, and it's a lot more effective than creating a CG ghoul that floats about and have it boo at the audience every few minutes.

I have another confession to make: I screamed out loud at possibly the scariest scene in the movie, during the climax. The last time I did that was during "Scream 3", which wasn't scary, but everyone in the theatre was screaming, so I thought it would be fun to join in (it was). But here, I didn't scream for fun; tension was building up, and you're dying to see what's behind the closed doors (I wouldn't say what doors), and when you finally do, you see a sight that is so...grotesque that you can't help but scream. Needless to say, I got laughed at by my dad, but even he admitted that that scene sent chills down his spine.

Throughout the whole movie I kept feeling goosebumps all over my body, and in fact, still do now, when I think back to the film. Its geographical and period setting, its small cast, its music, its cinematography, everything contributed to its creepiness. I was surprised to see that Kidman was actually good in this, after her unintentionally comical performance in Moulin Rouge!. She displayed a range of emotions and daringness that I did not expect. Very much like "The Sixth Sense", the truth that was revealed was more tragic than scary (though it did scare me), and Kidman, along with the two kids, evoked a pity in me that almost made me forget how scared I was. That, I think, is a real accomplishment.

The movie boosts some of the greatest props I've seen in a while. I absolutely hated the photographs of the dead. They're old and yellowed and the most important photograph made me want to hide behind my cushion. The film also doesn't have any special effects or elaborate CG images. It's all atmosphere and mood, and it works very, very well. This is a brilliant and subtle horror movie that is well worth watching.

Slaughterhouse Rock (1987)

Great premise, lousy execution

[3/10 · 27 December 2001]

The summary provided by my cable TV guide made it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is. "Slaughterhouse Rock" is by far the worst horror film that I have ever seen, a title previously held by "Urban Legends: Final Cut". From its opening scene I could tell it's going to be really bad, but I was so bored that I couldn't care less. This film contains laughable acting, especially by the guy who's tormented in his dreams, incredible as in not credible plot twists, and some of the crappiest music I've heard, and I'm living in a period when the likes of Britney Spears and Nsync dominate the air waves. The biggest problem with "Slaughterhouse Rock" is that it's not funny. One would a film as dull and boring and so NOT scary as this would try to spice things up a bit with a few funny one-liners here and there, but no. We have Tormented Guy's self-centered friend trying to be funny, but came across as annoying instead. (spoiler) And please, do tell me, who in this crazy world is insane and self-loathing enough to visit a creepy jail in the middle of the night? No one! If you're going to make a horror movie, at least make it believable. This one is anything but.

One Leg Kicking (2001)

Not too bad

[5/10 · 15 December 2001]

Let me just say first that I have not seen another made-in-Singapore movie before this one, and I watched "One Leg Kicking" solely for the sake of seeing it, and because Gurmit Singh (who never fails to make me laugh in "Phua Chu Kang Pte. Ltd.") is in it. My mother laughed at me when I told her I wanted to see it, and my father called it "cheap junk" in Mandarin. Neither of them have seen it; that's just the impression of Singaporean films a lot of people have. And I admit, that was what I thought of local movies for a long time.

Well, I have changed my mind. "One Leg Kicking" is no masterpiece, but it *is* a movie that is supposed to entertain. And was I entertained? Mainly, yes.

I'm not going to recount the plot, as I see that imdb already has a plot outline for it. What I liked about the movie was that it doesn't take itself seriously. Most of the things the characters did were in the name of fun; their putting together a football team was merely to have fun and have a shot at making it to the next world cup (as spectators, not competitors). The story also flowed pretty smoothly, which basically means that it wasn't boring. And I had a real kick out of seeing Singaporeans on the big screen and hearing the local slangs and all that, instead of always seeing ang mos (Westerners) and stuff like that.

Gurmit Singh delivered a fine performance as Tai Po. He is a pretty ordinary character (but the actor is a pretty extraordinary comedian), but his desire to give his children something better than what they already have is particularly touching. His children dream of being on an aeroplane (although why anyone would want to be on one is beyond me), and since he is, to put it plainly, poor, he is financially unable to grant them that. His kids are also not doing too well in school, and there is a particular scene where he tells them to study hard so that they wouldn't end up useless like that. That scene really touched me, which goes to show that "One Leg Kicking" not only has humour, it has drama as well. Which is always a good thing.

The humour aspect mainly comes from that guy who dreams of being a pop star. He is in his 30s (if I'm not wrong) and, quite frankly, unable to dance to save his life, but he wants to be a pop star anyway. The scenes involving his performances with his band are hilarious. Another funny one is Hossan Leong. He plays the scrawny leader (I think) of the football team and Tai Po's daughter's female teacher. His turn as the teacher had me in fits, especially when he put on that posh English way of speaking English, rather than the Singaporean way of speaking the language. Gurmit Singh's response was equally hilarious.

One thing I didn't like about the movie was its two-dimensional and typical characters. Lim Kay Tong plays Tai Po's employer, who is your basic mean and thoughtless boss. His son Gavin (a suitably over-the-top Robin Leong with his irritating American accent) is also quite stereotyped: spoilt rich brat who lives off his father's wealth and bask in the glory of it and doesn't care about anyone or anything but himself. But then, this is a light-hearted movie. Leong's character is supposed to be funny, I believe, but there are times he came off more as annoying than funny.

There is this *spoiler* incestuous angle that involves Gavin and his sister Gwen (Fiona Xie, who was impressive). Instead of adding colours to Gavin, it felt like the film-makers thrown it in from way left field to make Gavin more interesting. I'm sorry, but it failed. Instead of developing on it, they had one scene of Gavin pulling a Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator), and that's it. Hardly what one would consider characterisation. That angle, in my opinion, was not needed at all. *end spoiler*

Sharon Au and Mark Lee make a cute couple. Lee's character's name alone is enough to crack me up. He's called Handsome, but strangely enough, he is anything but. Au is sweet as uh, I forget her name, and I thought she was going to join the football team, but unfortunately, she didn't. It would be interesting to have a female footie player on the team. Fiona Xie had too little screen time, as I thought her character was pretty interesting as compared to Gavin and his stupid father. But, oh well, too bad, I'll get over it.

To sum it up, "One Leg Kicking" isn't a great movie, but trust me, I have seen worse. It was S$6.50 well-spent. Thumbs up to all involved in the movie, I am definitely going to the next made-in-Singapore film.

U Turn (1997)

Joaquin Phoenix is a movie-saver

[15 December 2001]

Okay, so I saw "U-Turn" as a Phoenix fanatic. But I'm not being biased here when I say that Joaquin Phoenix's role as TNT was out-of-this-world-ly hilarious. Who would've thought that he could be funny too? He and Claire Danes who played TNT's girlfriend Jenny are the funniest characters of this otherwise dull movie. Their scenes are FANTASTIC. Whether it's TNT being the jealous boyfriend who thinks he's macho but actually isn't or Jenny being the pain in Bobby's butt, their 3 scenes would make you laugh. I have never seen Joaquin being so over-the-top, and it totally works. Joaquin actually shaved the letters "TNT" into the back of his head, and it's the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life. And his accent! I can crack up just thinking about it!

Having said that, the rest of the movie isn't nice at all. I did not care for even a second what happened to Bobby, though Sean Penn gave a great performance. His character is just those idiots who deserve what they got and I could care less if he died or got screwed over by Grace, played by Jennifer Lopez, arguably one of the most overrated actresses working today. Nick Nolte's character was just twisted. Billy Bob Thorton's annoying mechanic was funny too, but why couldn't he have given Bobby his car back sooner so that I wouldn't have to sit through such a mess of a movie? Not only is "U-Turn" pointless, it's a complete waste of time. Phoenix's scenes don't add up to more than 30 minutes, and I had to sit through almost 2 hours just for his scenes. Luckily I have it on VHS.

If you're a die-hard fan of either Joaquin Phoenix or Claire Danes, then you should see this. But remember to get a tape, not a DVD, and press 'fast-forward' when neither Phoenix nor Danes are on. 3/10.

The One (2001)

Mediocre at best

[7/10 · 13 December 2001]

I was excited about "The One", mainly because I am always excited about Jet Li (god, what a name, can I say it in Mandarin please? Li Lian Jie. That's better). I have heard my cousins say it sucks, though not in so many words but the meaning's there, and many have been calling it a Matrix rip-off. Sounds like the movie to avoid like the plague, right? I would, under normal circumstances, but it's a Li Lian Jie movie. Because of that, I had to see it.

I think I expected way too much out of it. The trailer and TV spots made it look much more thrilling than it really is, and I actually bought it. Pretty stupid, considering the fact that I didn't like Li's previous two Hollywood movies. I'll give "The One" this much: it's definitely better than "Romeo Must Die" and "Kiss of the Dragon" added together. But it's still quite disappointing, for a Li fan who loves his Hong Kong films.

"The One" is definitely too short. If its runtime extended by about ten minutes, then the movie wouldn't feel so rushed. I think the film-makers were too ambitious to think that an idea as complex as it is simple as this one can be completely satisfied and explained in 80 minutes, especially since one has to deduct time for fight sequences and all that. Its runtime contributes to the half-bakedness feel of its plot, which, needless to say, isn't a good thing. But it's an entertaining little action movie, and once again, Jet Li kicked butt (he always does). Great special effects (but then, for a movie like this, if the effects sucked, then it's likely that the producers suffered from temporary brain damage) and fight scenes, but is anyone surprised? It *is* Jet Li after all.

I thought Li did a pretty good job playing the bad guy and the good guy. I really don't care what anyone else says; he can act. He may not be a very versatile actor, but he can pull it off without looking stupid. I think he accomplished that in this movie. Can't remember the rest of the cast, so I wouldn't bother.

I thought the music really sucked though. The metal ones were too distracting and I used to like the stuff, but it's got so repetitive that you can't tell one metal band from another. So sitting through the scenes with metal music was hell for me. But hey, I did have Jet Li to drool over. And speaking of whom, I'm anticipating his upcoming movie "Hero", directed by Zhang Yimou (who shares my surname). Finally, a new Li movie in Mandarin. I must be in heaven.

Traffic (2000)

In my humble opinion, overrated

[13 December 2001]

I'm sure "Traffic" is a film that means well and all, but I did not like it. I was quite excited about seeing it, as so many people have been praising it, but 30 minutes into the film, I began to wonder if I was watching the right movie.

"Traffic" is, in a word, boring. That isn't its biggest problem though; it's filmed in such a way that the audience doesn't really get to connect with the characters. Soderbergh would show you one scene, and just when that scene is getting exciting, he'd jump to another, and another, and another, so that when he returns to the first one, you've already forgotten what just took place. It's original film-making, yes, but is it effective? I didn't think so.

The main reason I wanted to see "Traffic" is Benicio Del Toro. I was quite irked by the fact that he has been winning Best Supporting Actor awards left and right, instead of Joaquin Phoenix, my favourite actor. I was hoping to be somewhat consoled that the awards went to the right person (unlike Best Actress), but I wasn't. After all the hype his performance has received, I would think it's something worth hyping over. I couldn't see at all what was so awesome about his acting. Half the time I couldn't understand a word he was saying, and I didn't follow his story at all, which eventually leads back to the point I made in the previous paragraph. And it didn't help either that I was about to fall asleep in the middle of the movie, and I watched it at 11 a.m.!

Back to point made in paragraph two. I did not care about most of the characters. Del Toro's story was boring, and his acting made me unable to empathise with him. Besides Del Toro, the only other segment I remember is the one with Michael Douglas and his daughter. His daughter was the only character I cared about, and I thought the actress was so much better than Del Toro. Michael Douglas's story could've spawned an entire movie on its own; I think it should've. "Traffic" fails to connect and to touch (which I thought was something 1995's "The Basketball Diaries" starring Leonardo DiCaprio did do), and it doesn't seem to have a clear idea where it's heading. If it didn't jump stories so often, I think I would appreciate it a lot more than I do right now.

I guess I should mention the fact that I did see a pirated copy of it. But if in order to appreciate it means watching it on a better quality disc...I would rather not do it. Not even if you give me the DVD for free.

The Basketball Diaries (1995)

A powerful and adamant message against drug abuse

[10/10 · 13 December 2001]

I saw the movie first, and was inspired to read the book. In the middle of my reading I saw the movie again. Even though the movie is nowhere close when it comes to being faithful to Jim Carroll's fantastic novel, I still regard it as one of the most important movies I've ever seen (and Carroll's novel my favourite book).

Even though the movie made up 80% (if not 90%) of Carroll's life, its anti-drugs message is still strongly and powerfully delivered. Unlike "Traffic", the most recent anti-drug movie, "Diaries" is carefully-paced, interesting and most importantly, it speaks directly to the audience. DiCaprio's Carroll (or the film version) is someone who has to sacrifice his dream -- which is to become a basketball player -- to feed his seemingly never-ending hunger to get high. "Diaries" is not only a movie for non-junkies; it is also a movie for drug addicts. DiCaprio's astounding withdrawal scene is the one you're likely to remember out of the whole thing, and I think it provides a mirror for drug abusers to look into, to see how crap they really look.

(mild spoiler) Anyone who's seen this movie should know that drug addiction would pretty much screw up a person's life. Although Carroll -- both the film version and the real-life figure -- came out of it a stronger person, not everyone has it in them to completely kick their habit. Example: Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) has to use his life to pay for a drastic and irreversible action that happened on a whim of fury, when he got cheated by a drug-seller, and Pedro is still on heroin even after reform camp. (end spoiler) "Diaries" is both touching and sad, but more importantly, it's powerful.

Leonardo DiCaprio was perfect as Jim Carroll, if not a little scrawny for a basketball player. I regard Leonardo, along with Joaquin Phoenix, as the finest actor of his generation, and it's not hard to know why. I read a comment here that said he overacted during the scene outside his mom's apartment. Well, I beg to differ. How else was he supposed to act under such extreme desperation? DiCaprio's wailings and whinings were spot-on, 'cause that is exactly how *I* sound when I cry (and I mean, REALLY cry). That scene was the most memorable one for me, followed by his withdrawal scene, which I felt was worth the price of the DVD alone. DiCaprio looked disgusting with drool all over his face which was bloodied earlier on, and it was completely effective. Mark Wahlberg, Patrick McGaw and James Madio all gave strong support, but the star here is really DiCaprio.

To reiterate: "The Basketball Diaries" is one of the most important movies I've seen, and the book is one of the best and also important I've read. Teenagers should see this one. (I'm 15.)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1993–1996)

I liked the yellow one

[13 December 2001]

I won't deny that I watched this series religiously when I was a kid, because I did. I loved it so much that I even went to see one of the movies, and I dragged my mom along! Needless to say she hated it, but I thought it was cool. I even bought the VHS, and I still have it. "Power Rangers" is strictly made for kids. I saw an episode on TV a few months ago, it was a re-run on this Malaysian channel. I had a really great time laughing my butt off at the cheap effects and the lame acting, and what plot? There wasn't *any* plot! Despite that though when I was around 8 or 9 I really loved the show. So did my brother and my cousins, who are a few years younger than me. Then again, what am I saying? The Power Rangers craze was HUGE! Malls were filled with PR merchandises and virtually every kid I knew watched the show!

But if you ask me to watch it now...I think I would rather torture myself with Britney Spears.

The Mosquito Coast (1986)

Serious and thought-provoking drama with an amazing Harri Ford

[10/10 · 13 December 2001]

I saw this movie because River Phoenix is in it, but when the film ended and the credits rolled, I wounded up thinking about Harrison Ford. Anyone who's seen it knows that he could've carried the entire picture by himself, that if the supporting actors weren't there, it wouldn't have mattered. I have never cared about Ford, but I was really blown away by his amazing performance in "The Mosquito Coast".

The movie itself is fantastic. It dares to explore a human being's quest for a better world and the extents he'd go to to achieve it. "The Mosquito Coast" is an excellent case study of the human psyche and how rapidly the world is giving in to pollution and industrialisation. Allie Fox's disgust with the world he lived in is something I feel myself at times. I find it disgusting that people can dump so much junk onto Planet Earth and still close their eyes to the vast problem that is pollution that's looming in front of their eyes. I cannot count the number of times I have wanted to just give it all up, move to the mountains and be one with nature. "The Mosquito Coast" deals partly with a very big problem that we face, and that our children's children would inevitably face: pollution. The sharp contrast between Allie's old home and Allie's new home is evident of that.

Besides the 'p' word, the film also examines how far a person is willing to go to achieve his utopia, his fantasy universe that can never exist in the world as we know it. In "The Mosquito Coast", Fox is willing to go very, very far to attain what he set out to achieve, and he is so obsessed with it that he doesn't see what it is doing to the people around him, and to himself. "Coast" realises that once a person is overly fanatical about a worthy cause, that cause would turn on him and become his nightmare. Ford's portrayal of Allie makes it very clear to the audience that this is a man obsessed with his utopia and his anti-industrialisation sentiments, and in the end, he has to pay the price. This reminds me very much of Leonardo DiCaprio's 1998 movie "The Beach". While I am a fan of DiCaprio's, that movie is absolute rubbish. I haven't seen the theme of paradise found and lost being executed as well as it has been in "The Mosquito Coast", and when was this film released? 1986? Really says a lot about movies today.

River Phoenix offered more than fine support. He was a gifted actor whose untimely passing would always be lamented by those he had touched in one way or another, myself included. The rest of the supporting cast were spot-on, but like I said before, Harrison Ford is the movie. Major hats off to Mr. Ford for being able to carry a movie as heavy as this one by himself.

When the movie ended, besides being awestruck by Harrison Ford, I felt really sad. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's just a feeling I got from the movie. This movie should be seen by everyone. It is important, and totally relevant to the world as we know it today. 10/10.

Back to the Future (1985)

I enjoyed it a lot

[9/10 · 13 December 2001]

I think Michael J. Fox is really adorable, and I can watch "Back to the Future" and its sequel (haven't seen 3) a million times back to back. I wouldn't take up too much space with my comment, just that "Back to the Future" is very well-paced, well-acted, well-written and very interesting. In addition to all that, it's hilarious. Plainly put, it's the perfect popcorn movie for a boring Saturday night, and just about whenever one feels listless and wants to be entertained.

I really liked Doc. He's like this weird fireball type who's really cute and eccentric in his own way, and Christopher Lloyd has wonderful chemistry with Michael J. Fox. And is it just me, or does he look just a little bit like Einstein...?

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

Not bad, but has deteriorated a bit

[10/10 · 11 December 2001]

Ever since they booted Angel off and came up with Riley, I find "Buffy" harder and harder to swallow. Season 4 was basically awful, what with Riley's secret agency and all that which I could do nothing but laugh at. The first 3 seasons were fantastic. Drusilla (sp) and Spike are very interesting characters, and it's a real shame Dru is no longer part of the show. Spike is the best character in existence on Buffyland right now. I have just seen "Fool for Love", and it was interesting to see Spike's fall from the world as he knew it. James Marsters is a terrific actor, not to mention a sexy one, and I've always thought his scenes are the best ones. I'm in the middle of Season 5 and it looks like it's going to be better than Season 4. But I think I would really love it if they got rid of Riley; he and Buffy are the most boring couple I've ever seen on TV in my life. Even Angel is preferrable to him, and I'm not a fan of his. But of course, it would be very, very interesting if something developed between Spike and Buffy.

"Buffy" isn't the best TV show ever, but it's entertaining. And of course, there's Spike...

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Overrated much?

[1/10 · 6 December 2001]

I don't read Harry Potter and never intend to. I wasn't even going to see the movie but my conniving and manipulative friend tricked me into seeing it (long story; you wouldn't want to hear it). Needless to say, I did not like the movie, although my 11-year-old brother loved it to death.

First of all, let me state a few things. I do have an imagination. I grew up reading Roald Dahl and have seen "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" at least twice. I thought "Alice in Wonderland" was really cool. I have also seen "James and the Giant Peach", among many other adaptations of Roald Dahl's books, and I loved it. I'm looking forward to "Lord of the Rings", even though I wouldn't read the books. As for the "E.T." thing: My mom recommended "E.T." to me when one fine night I was at a loss of what to rent at the rental shop. I was reluctant at first, as I thought it was just another kid movie, and I don't usually watch kid movies anymore. I wasn't expecting anything from it but boredom. When the film concluded though, I was in near-tears. In my opinion, by comparing "Harry Potter" to such classics like "E.T." is a tad insulting to the said film. "E.T." was something fresh, even in the year 2001; "Harry Potter" was just trite and recycled.

"Harry Potter" struck me as a mix of "The Wizard of Oz" and "Hercules" (you know, the TV show starring Kevin Sorbo?) and just about every other fairy tale you've heard. First, there were the cliches. Of COURSE Harry's a poor, abused boy who lives with wicked foster parents! He simply HAS to be, or there wouldn't be a reason why he's such a supposed expert with wizardry. The opening sequences with Harry's foster family totally reeked of the story of "Cinderella" (sp?). The mean uncle in "Potter" is the mean stepmother in "Cinderella", and the obnoxious cousin in "Potter" is the obnoxious stepsisters in "Cinderella". I really could've done without that whole sob-story designated to evoke pity in the audience; I have heard it before, and I have heard it told better.

Another thing that made me squirm in my seat was its length. Unlike another equally hyped movie, "Titanic", 30 minutes of "Harry Potter" felt like an hour. When I saw "Titanic" though, I was surprised to find that 3 hours had passed in the darkened theatre; it felt like an hour and a half. I didn't understand -- and still don't -- why they couldn't have just cut to the chase and dump Harry in the dungeon hole to face-off with the bad, evil guy. On second thoughts, I also don't understand why they took almost an hour in getting Harry's butt to his magical school, whatever it's called. It was a good one hour wasted, and if you add that hour to the time they took to unravel the very unexciting events that took place after that, like the Quiddich game or however you spell it, you get almost two hours. Two hours of oh-so-spectacular events that were mostly irrelevant to the actual finding of the socerer's stone. If you don't call that tediously slow-paced, then I'm not sure if we saw the same movie.

The boy who played Harry was a terrible mis-cast. I can't imagine how he got the gig in the first place; he has got to be one of the most uninspired child actors I've seen. Even little Anna Paquin in "Jane Eyre" (sp) shone in comparison to him, and I didn't think she was all that wonderful in it. His acting was flat, dry and at times, laughable (his portrayal of fear towards the end made me laugh out loud), and even more so when he appeared in scenes with Emma Watson (I think that's her name, she played Hermonie, however one spells it) and Draco, whom I deemed as little Count Dracula. I liked only a few things about the movie, and Draco was among them (another person I liked was Oliver Wood, simply because he's a cute Brit). Emma Watson did well, as did the boy who played Ron and Draco. Child actors are capable of doing their jobs right; it all depends on who we're talking about.

The other thing I liked was its visual effects. I can hate the rest of it, but if I ever want to see it for a second time (probably due to permanent insanity), then it'd be for the effects. The school was pretty, and the floating spirits thingy inside was kind of cute, if not funny, though I don't know if that was the intention of the film-makers. The scene in the woods was also done pretty well; the entire look of the place gave the scene an almost creepy feeling. But it was destroyed when **spoiler** the half-human half-horse character (I forgot what you call them) came out to save Harry. I was just so reminded of the likes of "Hercules" that I started laughing. Beside me, my friend went, "What the hell?" In fact, she did it quite a lot throughout the whole picture.

I would definitely not recommend it to anyone I love. But judging from the amount of positive comments on this site, I guess a lot of people are going to like it. One advice though: if you're sick of the whole Harry Potter hype, avoid this film like the plague, which was what I intended to do. Trust me, you wouldn't want to see it. It'll just make you want to set fire to its many merchandises even more.

Legally Blonde (2001)

I like it better than "Clueless"

[17 November 2001]

"Clueless" bored me to near tears, but "Legally Blonde" didn't. I sat through the whole film highly entertained. Granted, it's bit like "Clueless", but it's a funnier and more entertaining version of the former. No one should see this movie expecting an original plot or original jokes, because you're not gonna get it. The plot's nothing we've not seen before, and the funnies aren't anything we've not heard before, but "Legally Blonde" manages to pull the whole thing off pretty well. And that's mainly due to Reese Witherspoon. She delivered an excellent performance as Elle Woods, and deserve some kind of MTV award for it. As annoying as Elle Woods can be sometimes, you can't help but admire her determination at proving to everybody that she too can make it at law school...although it's unbelievable that she even got in. But it's a light-hearted film that's supposed to entertain people who don't feel like using their brains, and that's exactly what "Legally Blonde" does.

The greatest thing about the movie is that it doesn't take itself seriously. Almost everything it does, it pokes fun at itself. It makes fun of girls like Elle Woods without going overboard to offensive, and it works, because it *is* funny, unless you're a diehard "Clueless" fan. "Legally Blonde" may not be deep or serious or thought-provoking, but it's not supposed to be. It succeeds as what it intends to be, and that is, like I said, a light-hearted and entertaining movie. Don't expect too much of it, but don't expect too little either.

(spoiler) As a side-note, my favourite part was the trial scene, when Emmett was questioning the pool boy. "What's your boyfriend's name?" "Chuck." (I think.) Hilarious.

Fathers' Day (1997)

I couldn't stop laughing

[9/10 · 17 November 2001]

Robin Williams is just hilarious! I really don't care that he does the same thing again and again; everytime he does it, he makes me laugh. I thought that was the whole point, to make people laugh? So "Father's Day" is nowhere near deep and meaningful and masterpiece-y, but it's not supposed to be. I thought it was really hilarious, particularly that part where Robin Williams just heard that his "son" is missing, and he was practicing his greeting to his son in the mirror. When he did that rap thing? It took me ten minutes before I finally shut up.

This movie isn't meant to be taken seriously. It *shouldn't* be taken seriously. It's a comedy, and it's funny. I've never seen Billy Crystal in anything, but that face he makes whenever Dale starts blubbering...cracks me up everytime. Pretty good acting, although the guy who played the son is really annoying. And I could've done without seeing Sugar Ray, but...

I like this movie. It's the perfect way to pass boredom on a dull Saturday night.

Down to You (2000)

I hate it

[16 November 2001]

When you're 14, you'll watch virtually anything. Well, at least that applies to me. I had the terrible mishap of watching "Down To You", and it had got to be one of the most boring and pointless cinematic experiences ever in my whole life. Freddie Prinze Jr. is nothing more than a pretty face, and I don't understand why so many girls find him good-looking. His looks is as bland as his acting, if you could call it that. Another thing I don't get is Julia Stiles. Why do so many people think she's such a fantastic actress? I've seen her in 3 films: "10 Things I Hate About You", "Save The Last Dance" (which I hated), and "Down To You". None of her performances in those 3 movies made an impact on me. Can someone please tell me what her appeal is? Kirsten Dunst is a much better actress.

"Down To You" is something you've definitely seen before, if you're older than 5 years old. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, something happens that make them break up, they discover they can't live without each other, they get back together and live happily ever after. Blah blah bliddy blah. It's the same old recycled junk all over again. Is it really so hard nowadays to find a teen romance with substance?

Well actually, the answer is no. If, like me, you're dying to find a romantic movie about teenagers that has substance, I'd recommend "Crazy/beautiful", starring Kirsten Dunst. Trust me, it's a million times better than this garbage. At least the two leads can *act*.