Random film watchlist: Surrogates, Forbidden Kingdom

SURROGATES

Imagine a world where you don’t have to get up early in the morning, shower, get dressed, navigate traffic, get to work on time, dodge annoying bosses and equally annoying colleagues, avoid being given memos or suspensions for low performance evaluations or for doing such inane stuff as forgetting to turn off the light after office hours or taking too many coffee or bathroom breaks. Imagine a world where you don’t have to be subjected to the daily rudeness of people cutting in during queues, rude people in supermarkets, or groceries, or movie theaters, or inside public transportation. Imagine being spared the kind of physical torture that daily living in the modern, post-industrialized world of pollution, acid rain, excessive UV rays and crime generates. Imagine being able to stay at home, having a substitute who looks and talks like you, being able to do that for you, and all you have to do is jack into a network to be able to keep in touch with your substitute you as he/she goes through the daily rituals of modern living. Would be pretty nifty, huh?

This is the premise of the movie “Surrogates”. Based on a comic book and directed by Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines), this movie takes our growing obsession with virtual reality (SIMS, online RPG games, farmville, facebook, myspace, twitter and so on) to a whole new level: we can have virtual selves, “surrogates” who walk and talk and act like us, doing the dirty work of living our lives while we stay in the comfort of our home viewing it from the sidelines. Except there is growing dissent and the predictable marginalization of people who cannot afford surrogates and thus is the stage set for virtual, and real racial tension between those who can afford surrogates and those who don’t and oppose their use. A series of murders involving surrogates and their owners occur and into this mystery steps in US Federal Agent Tom Grier (Bruce Willis in a freakishly photoshopped face and body…with blond hair no less…and bangs) and partner, Radha Mitchell as they try to solve these crimes. A series of convoluted plots later, Grier discovers that the founder of the company that produced the surrogates (James Cromwell – in a similar role he did in “I, Robot”) had engineered the murders to bring down the company he helped create so that he can destroy not only the company but also the surrogates and their owners. Needless to say, the real Grier emerges from his self-imposed isolation to solve the mystery, destroy the surrogates and save the day.

Verdict: Hmmm….hard to tell. It was entertaining, yes, but not compelling. There is something about a freakishly photoshopped Bruce Willis that is surreal. I doubt if virtual selves can be taken out of computers and online games and software and into real life. Thus, you would have to dismiss plausibility and delve into the philosophical and metaphysical aspects of the story. You already know what this story wants to say: Don’t live like a zombie, live your life authentically, etc.etc. A lot of other sci-fi (and non-genre) movies have already successfully tackled these issues. Perhaps what this film lacks is the same kind of thing that Mostow’s other movie, Terminator III lacked: spirit, soul, sass.

THE FORBIDDEN KINGDOM

Let me just say, Jackie Chan rocks and Jet Li rules. For as long as I can remember, their movies dominated my childhood, along with the movies of such B-level actors as Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme, Dolph Lundgren and Sylvester Stallone (macho Philippines, what can I say?). I have never seen them in one movie before, and to see them in one movie now excites like no other. And this movie, does not disappoint. Forget the plot, I watch Jackie Chan and Jet Li movies for the kung fu.

But briefly: in the days of Middle Kingdom some thousands of years ago, the virtuous Monkey King (Jet Li) wins the favor of the Jade Emperor and thus earns the ire of the Jade Warlord who tricks him into giving up his powerful staff and his power during a duel, thereby making the Jade Warlord win the duel, imprison the Monkey King in clay and allow the Jade Warlord to rule over the kingdom ruthlessly.

Enter present-day, unlikely geeky hero —- who stumbles upon the staff while trying to save a Chinese shop owner from a gang of bullies. The staff brings him to the past, to the Middle Kingdom, where he encounters an immortal, played by Jackie Chan, a monk, played by Jet Li and a young musician hell-bent on exacting revenge on the Jade Warlord. As it happens, our unlikely geeky hero turns out to be the Chosen One, the one who will end the Jade Warlord’s reign of tyranny, free the Monkey King and usher in a new era of peace. Thus, the immortal and the monk train aforementioned hero and helps him defeat the Jade Warlord and free the Monkey King.

Suffice it to say, just watching Jackie Chan and Jet Li fight it out in their scenes together with balletic elegance is awesome. They’re like the Robert De Niro and Al Pacino of kung-fu movies.

ADVENTURELAND

Remember those times in your life when everything just persists on being shitty? When you were young and had a kick-ass degree and upon graduation realize that neither your youth nor your degree can save you from a shitty life or from getting shitty jobs that pay shit wages? Well, don’t look now but somebody came up with the bright idea of making a movie out of your life. And mine, as it happens.

Jessie Eisenberg plays fresh comparative litt major whose father gets demoted and thus has to move with the whole family to Pittsburgh to be able to survive on the father’s salary. Jessie’s dreams of graduate school and of a summer spent in Europe are dashed to pieces, and he must now get a dead-end minimum wage job at “Adventureland” as one of the operators of the games. His life would have been infinitely boring and tedious had it not been for Em (the, must-admit, cute Kristen Stewart), the cool, laidback colleague he becomes mildly interested in and who shares a mild attraction to him as well, but who is, in fact, sleeping with the resident technician cum wanna-be rockstar, played by Ryan Reynolds. Things come to a head when Eisenberg finds out that Em has, in fact, been sleeping with the married Ryan Reynolds, but they make up in the end.

Film watch list: What have I been watching?!?

Back from a long hiatus. What have I been watching thus far? Well…

The Proposal – Sandra Bullock is the fire-breathing, man-eating incarnation of Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly (The Devil Wears Prada), albeit a watered down, less scarier, version. She is a Canadian book editor who faces deportation if she does not fix her visa status soon. Enter nice book editor’s assistant, the secretly rich, quiet Ryan Reynolds who reluctantly agrees to marry her so she can get a spouse visa. Sparks fly. Dogs fly. Guess how it ends? Sidebar: I am sorry. I could not finish this. I just feel that Sandra Bullock is too old to be in romantic comedies. Why can she not be like other fortysomething Hollywood movie stars and star in a movie where she actually acts her age?!?

I Could Never Be Your Woman -  Michelle Pfeiffer is a successful TV executive producer and a single mom juggling between the responsibilities of work and home. Enter Paul Rudd as the young break out actor who falls for her. Sparks fly. Cute one-liners fly. Movie falls flat. Amy Heckerling directed this. So that makes you scratch your head. I do not know why this one has not done better. Perhaps it is because they were trying to pass Michelle Pfeiffer and Paul Rudd off as younger, trying to make a non-issue as an issue, trying to make a conflict out of nothing, trying to make a movie that just does not quite compute.

Garden State – Zach Braff plays a young struggling New York actor cum waiter who comes home for his mother’s funeral. Estranged from his father, alienated from his hometown, the character does not know what to do and I do not know what to make of this film as well. Natalie Portman is thrown in in the middle of the mix as a chronic liar with epileptic fits, but even her charm does not save this movie. The problem? Nothing happens. Literally nothing happens in the movie, the whole entire time.

The Sweetest Thing – I know this is an old one, but since I had to go through it, I might as well write about it. Cameron Diaz and her lady friends spend their time hanging out and hooking up (unfortunately not with each other). Apparently they all have issues. Cameron Diaz’s character is afraid of relationships, and her other two friends cannot just have enough sex (in fact, Selma Blair’s character’s jaw gets stuck in an uncompromising position while doing it) and…well, that’s it really.

The Heartbreak Kid – Ben Stiller has relationship issues. Encouraged by family and friends (note to self: never listen to family and friends), he proposes to the first woman he meets on the street and she turns out to be a total psycho (creepy that). On their honeymoon, he meets the perfect woman (Michelle Monaghan). Sparks fly. Lies fly. Fights ensue. This one is actually funny.

Made of Honor – Patrick Dempsey has relationship issues. He is bestfriends with Michelle Monaghan and is in love with her but does not realize it until she leaves for Scotland and comes back with a rich Scottish fiance. Sparks fly. Montages fly.  Guess how it ends?!?

The Ugly Truth – This one is actually more fun. Katherine Heigl (look how nicely she’s filled out since those “Roswell” days!) is a successful TV executive producer (aren’t they always?) with relationship issues. She has a crush on the neighborhood hottie but can’t quite work up the courage to ask him out. Enter totally un-PC, totally woman-hating Gerald Butler (without the “300″ get-up…so sad!) who teaches her how to play the dating game without looking like a total dork. Sparks fly. Vibrating panties fly (best scene that, actually. This redeems the movie for me). Happy endings for everyone.

Mary and Max – Eight-year old Mary from Australia, and 40something obese man from New York, Max, strike up a friendship as pen pals. The story chronicles how each one go through life. A touching, bittersweet, heartfelt animated film.

Zombieland – Funny take on zombie movies, with Woody Harrelson starring, with funny cameo from comedian Bill Murray. Mixes tongue-in-cheek humor with indie sensibility. Winning formula! Now a hit in the USA.

Movies! in 3 lines or less!

This is escapism I know, but one needs something to cope with all the madness and chaos that is the Philippines. So here are the movies I’ve watched in three lines or less:

1. 17 AGAIN:

Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) – or as we like to call him, Chandler: I want to be 17 again.

Mike O’Donnell (Zac Efron) – or as we like to call him, that guy Troy Bolton from High School Musical: I want to be a high school jock again!

Fans: Trying to suspend disbelief – how can somebody who looks like Zac Efron grow up to look like Chandler?!?

2. ANGELS and DEMONS

Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor): The pope is dead! Long live the Illuminati!

Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks):  The pope is dead! Long live symbology!

Fans: Screw this! We’re just watching it for Ewan McGregor!

3. NEW MOON

(Ok this hasn’t come out yet, but I’ve read the book, so)

Edward: I can’t be with you. I’ll go to Italy and kill myself.

Jacob: I’m a werewolf and while Edward is away, I’ll make my move on Bella.

Bella: I will remain completely self-absorbed. Like I did in the last movie.

4. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

Family: We will vacation in the woods, somewhere away from civilization where of course, a group of psycho criminals will find us and wreak havoc on our picture perfect family.

Criminals: We will take your daughter, rape, torture and kill her.

Family: You missed. Now we torture and kill you.

5. DARK KNIGHT

Bruce Wayne: I am a rich playboy with a lot of issues who has a penchant for bats and for wearing costumes.Oh, I have the hots for the district attorney’s girlfriend.

Joker: I am a crazy man with a lot of issues with a penchant for bats and waring costumes and lipstick.

District Attorney Harvey Dent: You killed my girlfriend! Now I have a lot of issues as well! Oh, and I’m going to kill you both!

6. THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS

German boy: I am a lonely young boy with no playmates whose father is the commander of the Auschwitz camp.

Jewish boy: I am a lonely young boy with no playmates and I am about to die in the camp.

German boy: Let’s be friends! And I’ll sneak into the camp and die in the gas chamber with you and end the movie.

7. FREEDOM WRITERS

Erin Gruwell (Hilary Swank): I am young, privileged, naive, white teacher with an insecure (but really hot!) husband, intent on making a difference in my poor high school students’ lives.

Students: What the f*ck do you know about being poor?!?

Erin Gruwell: Let me tell you about Anne Frank.

8. CLOVERFIELD

Lily (Jessica Lucas): My boyfriend’s brother has been promoted to VP and is moving to Japan. I will throw a party, have my boyfriend video it, invite my boyfriend’s brother’s bestfriend who had a one-night stand with him and complicate things.

Lily’s boyfriend, Jason: I will ask my friend Hud to video it instead because I can’t be bothered with all this.

Hud the Cameraman: I am in love with one of the guests and will video her instead.

Lily’s boyfriend’s brother, Rob: A disaster just struck and I will drag you all over New York trying to rescue the love of my life.

Monster: I don’t care about your stupid storyline. I’ll eat you all and end the movie.

9. THE SPIRIT

The Spirit: I don’t know what I am, but I like saving people.

The Octopus: I hate The Spirit and I hate people. I’ll just make life a living hell for The Spirit and the people.

Moviegoer: I cannot believe this crappy movie ever got made.

10. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE:

Jude: I am a working class lad from Liverpool in search of my father who I believe works in Yale, save up to go to the US, find out my father is a janitor in Yale, befriend a Yalie drop out, meet his pretty (and really hot!) sister, Lucy, move to New York, get deported and try to win his sister back.

Lucy: I will just be the object of Jude’s affection. Oh, and get involved in anti-Vietnam protests.

Prudence: I am the token closeted Asian-American lesbian in love with the New York landlady with a promising storyline that suddenly quietly disappears.

Director: I’ll throw in some other characters and compress all the issues of the 60s into this one movie, plus add in the coolest Beatles music sung with psychedelic backdrop.

Moviegoer: Awesome! (at least for me it was. Who can resist a Beatles’ musical?!?)

11. MAMMA MIA

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried): I don’t know who my father is! I need to know who it is before my big wedding! I’ll steal my mom’s diary, find out my mom slept with three men, invite them all to the wedding and figure out who my father is.All the tune of Abba songs!

Donna (Meryl Streep): I don’t know who my daughter’s father is. I see all three of them before the big wedding and start singing Abba songs!

Three possible fathers: We don’t know which one of us is Sophie’s father. But who cares?!? We’ll just have a ball singing and dancing (rather excruciatingly) to Abba songs!

Moviegoer (mostly me): Awesome!

12. MADE OF HONOR

Tom Bailey (Patrick Dempsey): I am in love with my bestfriend and of course it will take me the whole movie to realize this.

Hannah (Michelle Monaghan): I am in love with my bestfriend and of course it will take me the whole movie to realize this.

Director: Let’s throw in every other cliche into this movie and hope for the best! Oh, and throw in Patrick Dempsey in a really short, short tartan skirt!

Moviegoer (thinking): Wow…crap…but the leads are hot, so I guess I can forgive him/her!

World Cinema review: The Chinese Botanist’s Daughter (Les filles du Botaniste Chinois) (France, 2006)

The story:

Mi Li (Mylene Jampanoi) is a young, half-Chinese, half-Russian orphaned woman who grew up isolated and lonely in an orphanage. A chance to learn about herbal medicines from the famed Mr. Chen (Ling Dong Fu) takes her away from this sheltered life, and into a paradise, a beautiful island garden of Eden.  Here she meets strict, temperemental Mr. Chen,who reigns on the island and his daughter with a temper and sense of entitlement to match. This devoted daughter is Chen An (Xiao Ran Li), who (quite literally), waits on him hand and foot,  from clipping his toenails to washing them, to providing him his meals, his groceries and so on. Like Mi Li, she has lived an isolated, lonely, motherless life. The only life she has known is that of living with her father and his plants.

It is thus a matter of time before Li and An are attracted to each other, an attraction that slowly blooms into love and unquestionable devotion and obsession with each other. The relationship they have is threatened by Li’s apprenticeship ending and by the sudden arrival of An’s buff, bicep-flexing soldier, oaf of a brother, Dan (Wei Chang Wang) who, pressured by their father to get married, decides to woo Li. An grows jealous of Dan’s affections for Li, but Li proves her love by rejecting An’s brother. But An convinces her, against her better judgment, to marry Dan, so that they can never be separated. Dan will be sent off to Tibet and since soldiers are not allowed to bring their families along, Li will be able to stay behind and be with An. Li agrees but Dan finds out she is not a virgin, beats her and leaves her behind. She goes back to the island garden, and lives with An just as they intended. Li’s stay in the island creates a delicate imbalance between the father and the daughter, and ultimately shatters the very rigid life they have beneath this paradise, exposing it for what it truly is.

The verdict:

Save for some melodramatic plot points and inconsistencies, and the sometimes distracting dirge-like music that rises in crescendo-like waves every time the two main characters declare undying love for each other, this film is gorgeous.

This is in shot in Vietnam, even though it was supposed to be set in China, and Vietnam’s beauty is showcased in its full glory. There are sweeping panoramic shots of beautiful, lush rice fields, mountains, the river and the ever-present gardens. Every shot, every scene, is shot in slow, languid strokes, making you stop and enjoy each scene. The film has a lovely, dream-like, illusory feel towards it, that reels you in and hypnotizes you. You can actually almost feel the mist the rises from the river, the rain that falls on the gardens, the steam that lifts up slowly from An’s body as she kneads pine resin or lies naked on a bed of herbs. This is a very sensual, very French film, and you can see this most of all when An and Li are together – those subtle longing glances, that palpable sexual tension, the fascinating chemistry they have with each other -  ultimately what makes this story compelling. This is even made more so by the fact that while shooting the film, neither actors could actually understand each other, as Jampanoi (who is half-French, half-Chinese) does not speak Chinese, and Xiao Ran Li does not speak French. I love how their love story slowly develops, even with little dialogue (which is usually such a part of western mainstream rom-com cinema,gay or otherwise).

I am kind of surprised and not-so surprised that a Chinese-born, France-based man, Sijiie Dai, directed this film. The slow direction and lush cinematography is very Chinese, the melodrama is a bit Chinese soap opera, but more French (and male) in its romanticization of love (especially love between women) as is its off-hand depiction of nudity .  Only a man would be able to shoot a woman, fully-clothed, doing something as mundane as kneading pine resin, as steam rises beneath her, and still manage to make it really sensual and erotic.

Anyway, I digress. I have tried to resist the urge to read other reviews about this film and have found mixed reviews about the film. On the one hand, we are all in agreement that it is beautifully shot and that it is compelling, but we are in disagreement about the story itself. The male critic/viewer did not like this – as they find the male and female characters as stereotypes and the depiction of Chinese culture as stereotypical as well. But that is because they are not armed with feminist analysis at their fingertips.

I watched this and I saw a surprising critique, an indictment of a male-dominated, patriarchal, misogynist society that subjugates  female sexuality and desire and extinguishes any form of female assertion before it gets out of hand – all of it subtly wrapped in metaphor and myth.

For truly what this film is is a brilliant re-imagining of the Garden of Eden story. The father and the daughter live in a paradise where the father lives out his fantasy of being king, living with a young woman who waits on him hand and foot. Li’s entrance into their paradise and into their lives, the exotic outsider beauty (who may also be a symbol of Western influence or threat to Eastern culture, which seems to raise the un-PC question-is homosexuality an external, Western influence?), upsets the balance of this paradise. Li and An’s discovery of their sexuality, their acknowledgment of that discovery and of their love for each other, also help them assert themselves to An’s tyrannical father. This is shown deliberately in the film: where before An buys groceries for her father and cares for his plants, she starts to forget and the father finds himself doing the grocery buying himself. There comes a time when he starts having meals by himself, abandoning his place at the head of the table, his symbol of power, and the couple clearly has won a battle. Li is thus now considered the evil descended on the garden, which might be akin to awakened female sexuality being considered evil as well. Li and An must now decide to leave the garden and in time, when the father finds out, they do. When Li and An are found out, and they are shot for their homosexuality, this is actually akin to society’s response to female sexuality in general: it cannot handle it, so it must shoot it down, re-subjugate it, for society’s sake. Love, especially homosexual love, is subversive, and must be stopped. However, Li and An’s complicity in the father’s death, seems to imply the way forward in female sexuality (a fine line between assertion and aggression).

And thus, viewed in this context, you will find that this film is surprisingly feminist, albeit a bit misinformed about female sexuality. You will also come to realize as well, why this was banned in China and why the Chinese government refused to allow the director to shoot it in China.

At the same time, it raises a lot of other questions as well: since the garden is depicted as mythical, almost illusory, since the women deal with herbs that are sometimes hallucinogenic, does that mean sexuality is illusory as well? But then, if that is the case, then it also raises the issue of cultural and social constructs as illusory as well. Ah, the gorgeous metaphorical possibilities!

Now, on to the inconsistencies: Critics and viewers have balked at how stereotypical the characters are, at how melodramatic it is (it is a bit) and I wonder about the part where they executed: does this really happen? It feels like a cop-out somehow – like the director wanted to maximize the fullest possible melodramatic, emotional impact of the film. In other words,it feels like he sold out for a western audience. I have seen Hu Die (Butterfly), Candy Rain and Spider Lilies, and though the endings may or may not be desirable, you will always notice how strong and positive the depiction of Chinese women are. And nowhere is the execution of women for homosexuality so implausible as in China. If it were in India, where homosexuality, until recently, was criminalized, or in the Middle East, maybe, but China? They are probably as intolerant as the next society, but I have never heard homosexuals being shot for being gay in China. I could be wrong, of course and generalizations cannot account for individual knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Overall, though, this is a gorgeous, gorgeous film, a beautiful, quiet meditation on love, devotion and sacrifices,  and I recommend it – if only because, sans ending, it rises above the drama and turn love into something almost…lyrical.

Trivia:

• Although Mylene Jampanoi is half-French and half-Chinese, she actually only speaks French and English. She had to learn her lines phonetically. This means she and co-star Li Xiao Ran could not, during the duration of filming, understand each other and Jampanoi needed a translator to communicate with the rest of the cast.
• Jampanoi lived with her co-star Li Xiao Ran for the three months that they were shooting in Vietnam, to establish that intimacy and chemistry so prevalent in the film.
• Jampanoi does not wear contacts in this movie: those are her real eyes.
• I suspect Jampanoi might be the next French import to Hollywood. But that’s just me.
• It is believed that this film was based on two Chinese women in the 1980s who fell in love and had been discovered by the father of one of the women. They were accused of murdering the father and were sentenced to death for the murder (something that was omitted in the film, and which would have made more sense).
• This movie is actually Sijie Dai’s indictment of the Chinese communist regime – regimented, disciplined, isolated, stern, rigid, and so on (quite different from my own analysis, it would seem).

Retro-mad film review: Milk (US, 2008)

Usually I have low expectations about popular or famous or well-publicized films. I especially am wary of films that get good reviews from the gay media. I know they play for my team – but more often than not, they give good reviews to some movies that can really be bad sometimes.

So, I watched this film with some reservations and apprehensions – only to be blown away by how beautiful this film is.

“Milk” tells the story of the first gay district supervisor Harvey Milk, played with fearless verve and aplomb by Sean Penn. Directed by Gus Van Sant, the story chronicles the life and times of Harvey Milk – from when he hits 40 and realizes that he has not done anything he is proud of, to realizing that he could change this by running for supervisor, ultimately galvanizing a fragmented gay group into one organized movement that not only helped repeal Proposition 8 – a proposition that would ban gay and lesbian teachers from teaching but passed the first gay-friendly laws in the United States.

I loved this film. It has a documentary feel about it, it feels raw and authentic, very real. It catches the feel of the 70s, from the clothes, to the hair (the hair! always the hair!), the cars, the shops, the streets, right down to the grainy, all-too bright lighting of 70s filmmaking. It calls to mind all the 70s TV shows and movies I used to watch when I was a kid.I loved the editing and how fast-paced the movie is. It drops you right in the middle of the action and does not stop until it gets to Milk’s death.  There are also no dull moments – all the frames are filled with substance, and stylish documentary style filmmaking. The script of the story is tight and inclusive, remembering to include other issues happening during that time as well and managing to make the film relevant, even though this film was set in the 70s.

I loved how it did not paint Milk as neither hero nor saint, but an ordinary person with a strong motivation, a business and media-savvy sense, brilliant and flawed at the same time, and all together human at the same time, and Sean Penn plays him so well. I liked the supporting cast, from James Franco’s Scott (that guy should start winning awards now – he’s officially pushed the envelope on the number of risque roles he’s played), to Alison Pill’s lesbian campaign manager,to Diego Luna as Milk’s lover. Kudos goes to Josh Brolin as the conflicted, tormented Dan White, who manages to convey just the right amount of inner conflict and empathy for a character that would, in the hands of a lesser actor, would just come out as evil.

Milk is one of those films that leave you emotionally drained after seeing the ending – but it is also one of those films that will renew your spirit, inspire you and hopefully make you want to make the world a better place. Watch it. You won’t regret it.

Off to watch “The Chinese Botanist’s Daughter” now.

Retro-mad film review: Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (US, 2006)

Sheetal Sheth: The apotheosis of Hotness

I have a confession to make: I watched this film only because it had Sheetal Sheth in it. And the reason I watched it was because I was wilfing on the ‘net and I saw her interviews and I was struck with how articulate and passionate she was about things (which was in contrast to Lisa Ray’s mild, laidback, neutral interviews). She is actually much more fun in interviews than Lisa Ray (although Lisa Ray uses words like “existential” correctly, and any actor who can use that word in a sentence is hot to me!). If you want to check out Sheetal Sheth’s interviews, click here, here and here. By the way, I have discovered that Shamim Sarif has a blog which is hilarious and entertaining, so I guess I can forgive her for her films, haha! Click here for her blog.

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I watch this film and realize how funny it is! And how very underrated it is.

But I think it is because this subject matter of this film is very controversial and people and critics do not really know what to make of it. Is it making fun of Muslims? Is it poking fun at something else? Is it some kind of propaganda? Well, the best way to approach this film is to watch it first and to assume that it is a political satire – which it effectively is.

Albert Brooks plays a much more exaggerated, egoistic, spoiled bratty version of himself who cannot find jobs and is thus recruited by the government to do a research on what makes Muslims laugh, the end result of which is a 500-page report and a medal from the government. Preposterous, yes, but that is the whole point of the film – how some ideas sound brilliant on paper, but just sound preposterous when you start implementing it. Thus he goes to India fully expecting an entourage, a welcome party, everyone pandering to his every want and need but finds that nobody knows him and nobody cares. After being safely ensconced in his hotel, having two American agents with him, and a young, earnest Indian woman as his secretary (Sheetal Sheth) he sets out to find out what makes Muslims laugh, interviewing Indians on the streets, in clubs, in mosques, even stages a hilarious stand-up comedy show and finding out that he has no clue whatsoever about how to find out what makes Muslims laugh, much less how to connect with them. Finally, he goes to Pakistan illegally and finds an audience in a group of fledging stand-up comedians who does find his routine funny and he starts to get it, except he inadvertently starts World War III when India and Pakistan get wind of his research and mistake it for another meddlesome tactic from the American government designed to disturb the already fragile peace between the two countries.

Sheetal Sheth & Albert Brooks looking for comedy in India

I liked this film. It is smart, understated, subtle and what shines through is the filmmaker’s recognition of the audience as intelligent beings capable of gleaning meaning from a seemingly innocuous film about comedy and Islam and then ending up as a hilarious satire and analogy of America’s seemingly well-intentioned but ultimately ridiculous, pretentious idea that it can call itself the world’s protector of Western democracy and freedom.  The fact that the analogy is so specific – Pakistan and India, for example (replace that with Iran and Iraq, or Iraq and Kuwait or Iraq and Afghanistan, or Palestine and Israel), or the looking for comedy in a Muslim world in a spiritually diverse India (replace that with looking for weapons of mass destruction in the wrong places) and this film makes even more sense! In both situations, the protagonist (Brooks/America) look for something which does not exist,since they are looking for it in their own socio-cultural and politically incorrect context.  Hence Brooks could not find the comedy, because he looks at it from a his perspective, not fully realizing that of course, comedy comes in different forms, and different people from different cultures find different things funny. Hence a joke about Gandhi and halloween in the same sentence to a largely Indian audience for whom Ghandi is much revered will not be a hit, but the same joke would be a hit in Pakistan, for example. Brooks’ realization that he is not the almighty god of comedy or the big celebrity that he is, is a humbling experience for him, and it reflects the kind of experience America probably has when, almost a decade after 9/11, there are still no weapons of mass destruction, nor Osama Bin Laden, anywhere near the countries from which they claimed both were. This is, by the way, effectively conveyed in the film with scenes of Pakistani and Indian diplomats and politicians drawing their own hasty conclusions from inadequate intel. Dodgy intelligence, suspicious distrustful leaders, recipe for disaster – oh,wait, that’s why we  had the Iraq war!

Some of the funniest scenes from this consist of Brooks just having quick verbal exchanges with the people around him. The random interviews with people on the streets, in clubs, in mosques and the hilarious exchanges between him and earnest, eager, secretary Maya (Sheetal Sheth) as he teaches her the virtues of sarcasm are comedy gem. Another funny scene is the one where he stages a comedy show in an auditorium. The conversation with the auditorium keepers (when he asks them to kill the house lights, and since the switches are not working – the person in charge kills the power for the whole auditorium, effectively engulfing them in darkness) is fun as well as the other bits in that scene. Since he is a proper diva, he demands a dressing room, and he instead gets a teepee outside the auditorium, he introduces himself as himself as one of the greatest comedians in the world, and of course, hubris being what it is, proceeds to have his ego dashed onstage when nobody laughs at him. In desperation, he turns to improv, which was an even worse idea, because nobody still gets it, which effectively tells us – he has no idea what he is doing. The improv, by the way, ends up being a bit of  a funny treatise on political correctness.

Brooks’ character is properly belligerent and clueless and this works for the film, and makes it even more hilarious. Sheetal Sheth as the secretary is a great addition to the cast, and watching her match Brooks’ performance is a joy and a revelation: she is actually a good actor, in fact an even better one than “The World Unseen” and “I Can’t Think Straight” will lead me to believe. I like her more now – she seems to have more range (yay!). She also speaks in a passable Indian accent which  made me miss my Indian co-workers and classmates more (one thing I will miss about London – the Indians and Africans I made friends with). In interviews, she actually sounds very New York-ish and comes off as more confident and enthusiastic as well. I officially have  a crush on her now. Elaine Cassidy is so last month!

Anyway, I am encouraging everyone to watch this little gem, if you like comedies that are subtle and more intellectual. Plus it did not make money the first time it came out (a budget of $10M, which is not bad, considering how much money was needed to make crap like “Transformers 2″. “Looking for Comedy” made about half a million only on its opening weekend. For shame!), so I would like to promote it.

The trailer (the trailer alone should make you watch it. On the strength of the trailer alone I watched it):

Retro-mad DVD animation review/s: “Highlander: The Search for Vengeance”, “Justice League, A New Frontier”, & “Superman: Doomsday”

Let me start with the bad one first:

“Highlander: The Search for Vengeance” (2007)  lives up to the cheese and camp that made the Christopher Lambert movies a bit unbearable to watch, including the preposterous premise of a two-thousand year old immortal bent on exacting revenge on another, more powerful immortal who killed his wife two-thousand years ago in the highlands of Scotland. Each time the hero, Colin, meets his enemy, Marcus, he gets defeated – and this is where it gets tedious and excruciating. I myself prefer the Adrian Paul version, but hey, if you’re into this kind of thing, I won’t stop you. Just think of it as “Heavy Metal 2000″ meets “Braveheart” with the anime’d hero channeling “Jackass” and you’ll be fine.

“Justice League: A New Frontier” (2007)  is better than the aforementioned “Highlander”, afterall, it has Wonderwoman, Superman, Batman, The Flash and The Green Lantern in 1950s McCarthy era battling an evil called “The Center”, pre-Justice League. A bit underwhelming though, as the TV series was much more interesting to watch than this one (then again, you have a whole season to explore the characters, as compared to the 80 minutes or so devoted to this one, so I should not complain), and I kind of miss Hawkgirl. Anyway, it’s still entertaining.

“Superman: Doomsday” (2007) adapts to the animated screen the graphic novel on which this story is based: when Superman dies. Superman battles an evil alien, Doomsday, succeeds in destroying it, but dies fighting him.  Lex Luthor steals his body and DNA from his blood sample to create a clone of Superman, and later, an army of Supermen. Lois Lane realizes her boyfriend is not the real Superman (remember Jurassic Park? Same principle: cloned beings always go awry), whilst the real one comes back from the dead and defeats the clone. This is more entertaining than the Justice League movie, but not as fun as the Wonderwoman movie. ^^

World Cinema and DVD review: The World Unseen (UK, 2007) & Wonderwoman (2007)

Bet you’re wondering why I have a lesbian film and an animated film in one review,huh? Bear with me.

See, the thing is I watched Shamim Sarif’s “The World Unseen” in the hopes that it would be a better film than “I Can’t Think Straight”.

I am happy to report that it is better than the other film. There is much improvement on the story telling, much more improvement on the acting (although it still sometimes verges on the camp), there is a little bit more characterization and the tackling of the issues of identity, sex, sexuality, freedom, race, culture, family and relationships in 1950s apartheid-drenched South Africa is a refreshing exploration that is much more realistic than the aforementioned, gaudy, candy-infused “I Can’t Think Straight”.

Lisa Ray plays Miriam, an Indian woman living in South Africa in the 50s,  trapped in a loveless marriage with a man cheating on her with her sister-in-law (which does not make sense to me as who, in his frigging right mind, would cheat on somebody who looks like Lisa Ray?). Sheetal Sheth is Amina, an Indian cafe owner,  channeling Mary Stuart Masterson’s Idgie Threadgood, with the penchant for men’s clothes, allowing black people to illegally dine in her Indians-only restaurant and being rebellious. Basically the story revolves around their getting to know of and their attraction to, each other, with a bit of discussion on what it means to be a woman in their era (much like Deepa Mehta’s “Fire”), with Amina finding ways to get to know her by offering to do her garden for her, teaching her to drive and a giving her a part-time job in her cafe. Along the way, we encounter issues arising from arranged marriages, apartheid, and so on. This is all well and good, and I get the writer/director’s intention, except it falls flat somehow, and it ends too abruptly. It feels like it is a movie used as a vehicle only for the writer/director’s own beliefs or propaganda, forcefeeding or, more like, ramming her beliefs on women’s and civil rights, down our throats -whether we like it or not.

I know we don’t go watch a movie to improve ourselves, but surely if we are going to watch a movie anyway, we would want a movie that would present us all the facts and just let us form opinions based on those facts? It’s called storytelling, exposition and this story lacks it. It just goes on and on to a natural build-up, only to end abruptly with no proper resolution in sight. Plus I feel like it is such a cop out that Amina seduces the vulnerable, unloved Miriam. Sure women fall in love with other women given such circumstances, but Amina just looks really predatory.

On a good note though, I did like Miriam’s story – how she finds the courage to assert herself, as her husband gets increasingly violent, and find herself and the reservoir of  inner strength within her (despite predatory Amina). Plus, it does introduce me to Nina Simone. ^^

Anyway, thus, I resolved to take a break from live action films and watch animation for awhile. The wonderful thing about animation, especially if it is genre animation, is that it frees up its creative team to explore the explosive issues of race, sexuality, sex, power, freedom, rights, and so on without necessarily sounding pontificating. I am a big fan of both the DC and Marvel Comics universe, and I especially love the female heroes. Wonderwoman is a nostalgic favorite – she was there long before Jean Grey and the others came, at least in popular form (TV, for one).

Thus, I watched “Wonderwoman”. This 2007 film goes back to the origins of Diana before she became Wonderwoman.  It therefore starts with Hyppolita and the war her people wage against Ares, the God of War after he destroys their nation. Her defeat of Ares facilitates the beginning of their utopian paradise, with the gods bargaining her to spare Ares’ life in exchange for a piece of mystical island, the child she has long prayed for (Diana) and the peace she has long sought after. Ares’ powers would be controlled and he will be imprisoned and guarded by the Amazons for all eternity.

Diana grows up to be the best warrior in their island, but she grows restless and feels the need to venture in the outside world. Her mother, Hyppolita, forbids it, for she believes the world outside their island to be a place ruled by heartless, war-mongering men bent only on destroying the world. The chance crash landing of an American pilot and Ares’ escape, give Diana that chance to leave the island, winning a competition, through treachery, which sought to decide who would lead him back to the outside world and at the same time be the Amazon warriors’ ambassador. Diana’s introduction to the outside world is both a rude awakening that reinforces Amazonians’ anti-male beliefs, but her friendship with the pilot opens up an inner dialogue within her which makes her see that the male of the species can, despite everything, be capable of love, and thus, by extension, be capable of redemption.

Now, the thing with Wonderwoman is she has always been a postmodern hero. Amazon warrior princess she is, but her appearance, her costume, her lasso of truth (which is really funny when you think about it), her seemingly outdated, naive ideas about men and women, seem very 60s, very women’s lib, and thus, in a modern world, it is very out of place.  Yet her ability to sift through all the lies and hate (on both sides), to process and synthesize and come up with her own beliefs about what it means to be a woman in a new millenium, resonates with some truth. What it suceeds in doing is pointing out that extreme beliefs (extremely left-wing or extremely right-wing, for example) are dangerous, and it is being open to possibilities that humanity can still change and that one can choose to be a catalyst of that change, that makes this film relevant. This is even truer now, especially in light of what I feel to be a regression to pre-civil rights era, with people re-acquiring ignorant ideas about women and gays and lesbians and passing them off as truth (are you listening, Daily Mail?).

Ultimately, what this animated film succeeds in doing, is offering up the possibility of considering a dialogue between the sexes in a new world where the old rules no longer apply. While it may be too much analysis for just one simple animated film, the truth of the matter is, sometimes you find the most interesting things in the most unlikely places. ^^

And thus, where “The World Unseen” fails, “Wonderwoman” succeeds.

World Cinema: I Can’t Think Straight (or, as I call it,”I Can’t Keep a Straight Face”) (UK, 2007)

Back from lesbian film reviewing hiatus!

The review:

From the very first scenes of gaudy sprawling mansions, loud, colorful parties, upbeat Asian music and pompous, wealthy Palestinian and Indian families celebrating engagements at separate ocasions, one might see, at first glance, that this film is both intimidating, ambitious and promising.

Unfortunately it is a film that falls short of its ambition and never lives up to its promising beginning. But the title is right about one thing though: it can’t make you think straight… about the film itself. Or for that matter, keep a straight face.

Lisa Ray (left) and Sheetal Sheth as Tala and Leyla

Impossibly gorgeous and sexy Palestinian Tala (Lisa Ray) is engaged to her fifth fiance while pretty Leyla (Sheetal Sheth) is engaged to be married herself. Their lives are quite literally worlds apart. Tala comes from a wealthy but traditional Jordanian family whose world revolves around socializing with fellow upper-class Jordanians and other Middle Eastern families in lavish parties, charity balls and sponsorships, money, tennis and polo, going to Ivy League schools, ocassionally offering their needless two cents worth about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of course, for the ladies, the wonderfully constricting life of engagements and weddings, with important debates on the importance of snagging rich husbands. Their worldview is effectively summed up by a guest in one of these parties: “Character and looks come and go, only large sums of money last forever”. I smirk. This is hilarious, in light of the global financial crisis, since it has proven that large sums of money DO NOT, in fact, last forever.

A few minutes of watching this world unfold and already I am overwhelmed by the arrogance dripping from the rich’s very pores. I already loathe them.

Leyla is a second generation Indian woman living with her family (doting dad, nagging mom, nosy younger sister) in London engaged to a nice (aren’t they all?), affable professional Indian man who, quite conveniently, is friends with Tala. Leyla works at her father’s insurance firm, where her father is waiting for her to take over the business soon, teaching her gems like, “You do not sell life insurance, it sells itself.”  Leyla harbors a secret longing, however, to write and we see this in her surreptitiously writing stories in her father’s office.

Leyla and Tala meet when Leyla’s fiance takes her to a tennis match with them. After the game, there is the requisite bonding moment in the shower room between the two women (removing dirt from eyelash, holding hurt fingers), and a follow-up meeting between the two in a polo game where they have more time to talk to each other, away from their fiances.  It does not stop there, of course. They get to know each other further (clearly they cannot stay away from each other – they should have just come out now and end the movie!) by having walks in the park, where we find out that Tala has broken off a handful of engagements in the past already (she is so gay!) and that Leyla wants to be a writer. When Tala invites Leyla to Oxford for a weekend getaway, Leyla’s family gets a bit suspicious and she gets too defensive, but astute younger sister figures out that she might be gay when she spots Leyla’s barely concealed stash of lesbian paraphernalia (Jeanette Winterspoon! K.D. Lang! Sarah Waters! The director’s own published works!), because well, when we are in the closet and scared that our conservative, close-knit, nosy Asian families will find out, we display lesbian paraphernalia in our rooms for everyone to see!

In Oxford, there are more walks in the park, there is even a picnic, and a trip to the museum,complete with intellectual discussions on Oxford and Matthew Arnold, because obviously the director wants us to see how intense and cerebral these two are and how so meant for each other they are.

The barely there sexual tension and chemistry are finally felt in the most exciting, un-self conscious, sexy, seductive scene in the film, where Tala, in silky, flimsy lingerie (who could resist a woman in that?!?) talks Leyla into dancing with her to Middle Eastern music and before the song ends they fall in bed together and you can guess the rest.

(This scene has taught us one important thing : Middle Eastern and Indian women know how to seduce…other women.)

Unfortunately it’s all downhill from there.

The rest of the film charts Leyla and Tala’s journey as they finally acknowledge not only the sexual attraction they have, but the romantic connection they have with each other as well, as well as come to terms with their sexuality, come out, face family disapproval, move out, break off engagements and find their way back to each other again. But not before going through and surviving, cliches, cringe-worthy dialogue, unintentionally hilarious  dramatic scenes, and the director’s own conceit and self-indulgence.

For surely the one thing that unifies this film is the director’s belief that since she is the director, she can make this film in her own image.

This would have been alright (directors are afterall, known for that.It’s practically a requirement!), except this is combined with a seeming inexperience with dialogue, set-ups and directing actors. This is novelist Shamim Sarif’s first film, and the inexperience shows: there are scenes and set-ups that are either unnecessary and/or awkward, stilted dialogue and the acting is embarassingly too theatrical to be taken seriously. One can argue though that this is the director’s way of criticizing the class system in both the Indian and Middle Eastern cultures,where the characters are caricatures intentionally and hastily drawn as people obsessed with – wait for it – money. But even if that were the case, I cannot help but snicker at Tala’s over-the-top, haughty, snobby mother and her friends, as well as the Indian contingent, led by the Indian mother, who emphasizes her Indianness too much (because, well, we viewers are idiots and need verbal instructions on a very visual medium).It is a good thing that both Lisa Ray and Sheetal Seth are both gorgeous, since their beautiful faces distract me from the acting and the dialogue. In fact, let me just say,Lisa Ray is hot!

The film does succeed in one thing though: depicting how constricting and paralyzing being stuck in a conservative society is. Which, of course, again, the director delights in emphasizing to us over and over again via dialogues between Tala and Leyla, and between each one and their parents.

For example, Tala and Leyla, after their very hot and sweet love scene the night before, have to endure the morning after conversation: the obligatory processing, with requisite, “I never knew this can make me feel alive” followed by “This is not accepted in Jordan society” or some such crap, and ending with “We can’t live like this”.

The unintentionally cringe-worthy drama and the accompanying cliches escalate to unbearable heights, when the film comes up with lines that are straight out of a soap opera, which, when coming from soaps are forgiveable, but which, coming from a movie that, at the beginning demanded to be taken seriously  – is downright cheesy.

For example, when Leyla finally comes out to her Indian mother that she is gay and the mother does not take it very well, the father comes in and says,”What did I miss?” and Leyla says, “I’m gay!” and the father quips, “But I’ve only been gone two hours!” I thought it was too funny.

But this was quickly ruined by a soap opera-like hysterical, high-pitched, teary-eyed confrontation between mother and daughter about God, religion, homosexuality being a sin versus it being natural ending with mother telling daughter, “You will burn in hell!”

I also take issue with the scene with the books as well – that is just lazy exposition and it is too obvious! And strategically placing director Shamim Sarif’s own book (Despite the falling snow) into the scene just reeks of shameless plugging and vanity. When I saw the Sarah Waters book (“Fingersmith” I recall – you can’t really miss the book spine) I thought it was funny and too obvious.

But that is the thing with this film: it is too obvious. There is no subtlety. So there is no joy in discovering each character. Everything is ready for you to regurgitate, whether you like it or not. It is too processed, like food you can buy at Tesco’s or Walmart. It’s sad that it references Sarah Waters – who at least shows a deft mastery of how a relationship slowly develops between two women revealed, through secret smiles and longing glances – and that it does not take some pointers from her.

Hmmm..I have seen “Fire” and I have seen this. I still do not like either. I do not like this one more.

Probably because it tries too hard. It’s cliched and contrived, pompous and pretentious. I know all art may be contrived and pretentious, (else how would you start anything?) but the best kind of art transcends that initial pretention and turns something mundane into something sublime.

I do not wish for this movie to be that kind of art. I just wish it to be a bit more tied to the ground. A bit more reined in. Because the one thing that this movie is, is that  it is too way in over its own head. I think once the director reconciles the differences between prose and film, she will probably come out with a better film feature.

US Trailer

UK Trailer (because I like this one better)

Director: Shamim Sarif, Screenplay: Shamim Sarif

Indie film retro-review: Sunshine Cleaning (US, 2008)

Directed by Christine Jeffs, written by Megan Holley

The story:

The Lorkowski family is falling apart. Father Joe Lorkowski (Alan Arkin) is a fly-by-night businessman who sells things from shrimp to dodgy kids’ goodies. Daughter Norah (Emily Blunt) is living with him and has just gotten fired from her job. At the center of it all is eldest daughter Rose (Amy Adams) who is juggling her time with self-esteem busting cleaning jobs, a growing son, Oscar (Jason Spevack) that school officials deem a danger to the school and an even more self-esteem busting relationship with a married lover (Steve Zahn) with a spiteful wife who knows about their affair.

All these come to a head when the school officials catch Oscar licking everything, including his teacher’s leg, and the principal and his teacher inform Norah that they intend to provide specialized attention to him, with medications to put him under control. Norah resolves to pull her son from public school and into private school, prompting her to go into a job that pays more than her cleaning jobs: crime clean-ups. She pulls her sister into the business and as she begins to know the ropes about crime clean-ups, so also gains the confidence to leave her married lover and strike out on her own, whilst her sister also deals with the suicide of their mother.

The verdict:

Two words: Engaging  film.^^

If that were not enough, the fact that it has an impressive cast should give one pause: Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada, My Summer Of Love), Amy Adams (Enchanted, Doubt) and Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine). Plus it has a strong supporting cast in dorky Steve Zahn as the married lover, Clifton Collins playing a one-armed, toy plane loving  shop owner and Mary Lynn Rajskub as the daughter of one of the dead victims that Emily Blunt’s Norah befriends and for a moment has an ambiguous friendship with (heh).

So what makes this engaging? Subtle, understated character development for one, the story that keeps you wanting to know what will happen next, and the acting that makes you emphatize with the characters.

Amy Adams is awesome as Rose. She perfectly combines vulnerability, determination and a sense of purpose and urgency into her character.  She shines most when she interacts with the people who make her feel less than herself – the school officials, her married lover, the uptight former high school friends who laugh at her clean-up business, and these scenes expose her vulnerability and that simplest of goals most people have: acceptance and respect.

She plays fairly well opposite Emily Blunt’s Norah, who projects a laidback, goth-inspired younger sister but who is, as revealed by later scenes to still be haunted by finding that their mother had committed suicide in their bathtub.

Emily Blunt (hotness!)

I like that the dynamic between Rose and Norah is perfectly captured (as anyone who’s had a sib will testify)- the bickering, the one-line put downs (you can be the coolest, most famous dude in the world, but your sib will always know how to pull you down a notch), and the fights. I also like that Norah is such a cool aunt as well, and whatever happens she will babysit and tell funny lobster-man stories that keep her nephew, Oscar awake, most nights.  Alan Arkin is of course, always fun to watch as the clueless washed-up patriarch who just gets on with it even though the world has already moved on and does not need his services anymore. Little Jason Spevack’s Oscar is also a quirky little character who has his heartbreaking moments – as when he talks to the heavens on existential questions via  a radio comm to see if his questions will answered.

Overall, it is a good, solid film. I’d watch it again if I could. ^^

Final thoughts:

Let me just pause and gush over the hotness that is Emily Blunt.

Now I am off to scour the ‘ net for Harper’s Island stuff. ^^