Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
12 Lotus (2008)
9/10
Both a Visual & Schmaltz fest
17 August 2008
I have to admit that the script is barely passable. A thin plot with a super-dramatic storyline that does not flow very well, especially towards the end. However, the lacklustre script aside, this is a throughly engaging film musical. What makes this film tick for me is the presentation: Lovely art direction/set decoration, ravishing costumes and make-ups, appealing musical numbers, good editing, and fine performances by all. In fact, much of characters emotions, feelings & thoughts are effectively reflected in the songs.

If you can overlook the schmaltzy script like I did, you will enjoy this cinematic celebration of Getai, a Singapore cultural event. Or else, you will be put off by the storyline.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Platoon (1986)
10/10
Painful past
28 July 2006
This solid masterpiece from Oliver Stone depicts the dehumanization that occurs among platoon mates (soldiers become obsessed with killing and losing self-control), as well as the horrific effects of waging a war (Innocent getting killed, unnecessary destruction). Realistic and emotional, this film serves as a reminder of how the soldiers paid for the price of freedom and the sacrifices they made, and offers an interesting view on war. Though painful to watch, it is ultimately rewarding.

Well-crafted and featuring casts giving their best to their respective roles, this is one of the best war classics I have seen as of this writing.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Elephant (2003)
10/10
Unique and impressive
28 July 2006
The plot of this movie is this simple: A violent shooting took place in a high school. It is practically tough to develop such a simple plot into a feature length film, as this movie shows. I thought the only way to make a feature length film on such topic is to make a documentary, where I can insert tedious interviews and narrations of various incidents, etc.

Nonetheless, Gus Van Sant managed to cross this barrier. He turned the plot into a work of groundbreaking film-making. Do note that most of the film was improvised. What is so impressive about this movie is that it does not simply portray the shooting such that the movie ends up becoming an action-packed thriller. Instead, he slowly developed the movie by beginning the film with the depiction of a typical school day.

This is done with expertise. The short script consists of subtle and natural conversations, gossips, and dialogs. This is greatly helped by the natural acting from the non-actors. As if this is not satisfying enough, the excellent direction and fantastic film editing make this film a masterpiece. The sequence of the scenes is sorted such that it creates surprises for the audiences.

This movie also plays with mood. For example, there is a long scene that depicts a student walking around the school. What make that scene engaging is its score, and eventful background happenings. After the slow but rewarding plot-development, the movie ends with a loud bang. The shooting was suspenseful and thrilling.

However, this great movie is not without flaws. The screen was so narrow and small that I wonder what difference would it had made if I watch it on TV. Also, the sound effect was below satisfying. Do expect to be interrupted by the slightly distorted audio occasionally.

This movie is highly recommendable for its uniqueness. However, do watch it with patient. Do not allow the running time of this film to give you false expectation on the pacing of this film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Left me wanting more......
28 July 2006
Stage legend Ethel Merman is one of those acclaimed stage actors that never made it big in Hollywood. In fact, most of her successful Broadway roles were given to other actresses for the film adaptation. Fortunately, "Call Me Madam", her film comeback after 15 years of absence from screen, and one of her 2 Broadway roles she reprises(the other being "Anything Goes"), gives audiences the best idea of how she would look like on stage.

After the successful "Call Me Madam", this film was suppose to recreate the magic by re-teaming Ethel Merman, Irvin Berlin, Walter Lang, Donald O'Connor, and choreographer Robert Alton, among others. However, this film feels half-beat off, perhaps due to the intrusion of Marilyn Monroe(she was hired just to boast its box office potential).

The altered storyline manage to come off well, but it sometimes felt like she was a miscast, since she could not pull off a musical number like the way Ethel Merman does("Heat wave" was meant for Merman), and she makes an ironic love interest of Donald O'Connor. In contrast, the pairing of Donald O'Connor and Vera-Ellen in "Call Me Madam" was one of the key things that people praised about the film. Also, anyone familiar with Johnnie Ray, in his only notable film appearance, may find him playing a priest weird. Dan Dailey and Donald O'Connor are very likable in their respective roles.

Still, the film is worth watching for the fine Irvin Berlin's songs(I would love to cut out "Tattoo" though), great choreography, and the talented cast(despite of my casting issues). It is shot in widescreen format and is very well transferred to DVD. Proceed with caution, though, as it is rather corny.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Funny Face (1957)
9/10
Beauty of France and Audrey Hepburn
28 July 2006
Though it occasionally suffers from high sugar content, it is a very diverting film musical. Afterall, how often do you get to see Audrey Hepburn sing and dance? This the first of the 3 films that Stanley Donen collaborates with Audrey Hepburn. Not sure if this is a coincidental, but all of these 3 films are shot in France.

Here, Stanley Donen successfully captures the beauty of France, as well as Audrey Hepburn. One of the highlights of this film is "Bonjour Paris", where all the major characters sings as they explore Paris. In this sequence, Stanley Donen uses his trademark split-screen technique(see also "Indiscreet" and "The Grass is Greener"). Another highlight is Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire's dancing duet "He Loves and She Loves". The couple don't just romance with each other, they romance with Paris. The scenery was very beautifully shot and the intrusion of the ducks and swans only add to the scene.

With the help of Stanley Donen, Audrey Hepburn redefines modeling. Like Jo Stockton said in the beginning, I initially think that "modeling is chichi and is an unrealistic approach to economy". However, this film rediscover modeling. A model full of live and spirit, and speaks with intelligence. Here, Audrey Hepburn's love for dancing is apparent. She did a wide variety of dances. Being a trained ballet dancer, she did the ballet sequences the best.

As usual, Fred Astaire plays his role with perfect comic timing and dances like that way he always has. However, one of the drawback of this film is his romance with Audrey Hepburn. He is old enough to be his father. Fortunately for me, I found that chemistry sizzling enough to forget about their age difference.

Many people pointed out the the plot is too thin to be worthy of being a classic. Sure enough, it is very slight. Still, being a comedy that is endlessly filled with funny dialogs, adding to the film is the great score and songs An under-appreciated gem.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Passable entry of the Francis series
10 June 2006
It lacks the warmth found in the original film, but it is certainly funnier and has a better storyline than the second installment. Some audiences may be put off by the military setting considering that this film is supposed to be a light family film, but it does add some tensions to the story.

Francis the Mule is not quite the center of attention (It is as though the film should be called "Peter Goes to West Point"), but his role is much more involved here than it was in the second film. In fact, the film shift the attention away from Peter Stirling to Francis towards the end of the film.

On the whole, this film is worth your time whether or not you are a fan of the series.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Call Me Madam (1953)
10/10
Not meant to be obscured from the classic film musical collection
9 June 2006
As the new generation of film musical fans are catching up on their next Judy Gardland vehicle, how many of them know of the powerhouse singer Ethel Merman? Best known for her great dancing duet with Gene Kelly in "On the Town" and Danny Kaye in "White Christmas", who would even think of Vera-Ellen and Donald O'Connor as a dancing pair no less worthy of praising than Fred and Ginger? Those who saw George Sanders in his better known films, which one of you knows that he has a pleasant singing voice and is capable of playing gentle role with inviting charm?

For a film as captivating as this, it is no surprise that it was a hit when it was first released. It is therefore deeply regrettable that such a wonderful gem was buried away from the public for decades due to copyright issue. Now finally available on DVD, will it find its new batch of fans? It deserves to. After 5 decades, it has indeed ages very well. It has no deep plot or provocative themes. It is sheer delight and entertainment from the start to the end. Every songs are sweetly memorable for me and the music is constantly melodious.

The moment Merman appears in the first scene, her loud and vibrant personality will grab the attention of her audiences. When she starts singing, Merman dominates the screen. It is no wonder why she was such a great star on Broadway. Sadly, this is the only time she won massive favour from the public. One wonders why.

Merman may be the center of attention of the film, but all the supporting casts play well against her. She has such lovely chemistry with George Sanders and, oh, how well they sing together! Donald O'Connor makes a good companion of Merman, but more importantly, he makes a perfect lover of Vera Ellen. The way they dance is pure magic. Inspite of their different dancing styles and personality, they compliment each other technically and emotionally with such perfection.

Story wise, certain things may be hard to understand. It is recommendable to listen to the DVD commentary by film scholar Miles Kreuger before actual viewing to have a better understanding of the story. With or without the commentary, this is a film not to be missed.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hardly worth the time
5 June 2006
I have to agree with JoeKarlosi on this: This second installment of the Francis series is inferior to the already ordinary first installment. While the film does have its moments, they are far too few and far between.

The first film was more interesting as the entire film presents the curiously absurb encounter of Peter Stirling's with Francis the Talking Mule. The plot also pays more attention to the progress of their friendship which makes the film more heartfelt.

Here in its sequel, there are less laughs and the story just drags on and on until it ends conveniently with a similar conclusion in the first film. Donald O'Connor, who plays the central character Peter Stirling, was given almost nothing to work on here. Even more dreadful is the fact that Francis, the title character, was delegated to a supporting role here. Not that Francis enjoyed a lot of screen time in the first film, but he appeared in all the key scenes and his role was crucial to the plot. Here, his screen time was cut down to a quarter of the film's running time and his role was not even substantial to the plot: He was merely tagging along.

My disappointment not withstanding, I did not regret watching the sequel as I enjoyed the first film very much and would like to see how the friendship of the 2 main characters would progress in the next film. I would still watch the rest of the series as this film wasn't so bad as to spoil the first film for me.

P.S. My rating for the first Francis movie is 7 out of 10.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Francis (1950)
7/10
Endearing family entertainment
3 June 2005
It is not hard to see why this film was so popular when it was released theatrically, and easy to understand why it failed to create a new generation of fans. Apparently, it is not a film worthy of being a classic, since there is nothing special about this film. In fact, it is inferior to a similarly-themed family classic released in the same year, "Harvey", starring James Stewart. In both films, the central character is accused of being mentally unsound for communicating with animals.

Still, this is a well-made movie with reasonably good writing and direction, featuring talented casts which elevated the film. In particular, Donald O'Connor displayed as much acting range here as James Stewart did in "Harvey". Both of them have this rare ability to emit boyish innocence, something which is even rarer nowadays. Best known for his comedic second-banana performance and exuberant dancing in "Singin' in the Rain", he has the opportunity to display his dramatic acting ability that is sadly overlooked.

This film is definitely a good option if you want to have an enjoyable time with the young children.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Light and airy biography of Annie Oakley
16 March 2005
The only reason to recommend this fluffy film is the great works of Irving Berlin. The fact that Berlin wrote the score and songs for the musical makes it the more impressive. Some film musicals pick the ideal songs from the existing works of a song writer.

Other than that, there is not much to the film. The art direction is disappointing for a MGM film musical, despite of its huge budget. The film provides some mild humours.

Betty Hutton is a talented actress and singer, but she don't have the right acting range for the role (Her over-acting gets annoying sometimes) and the perfect vocal range for the songs (Her rendition of the songs is slightly below satisfactory. Comparing her with Ethel Merman and Judy Garland makes the casting of Hutton for the title role more regrettable). Beside, she don't have much chemistry with her co-stars. Howard Keel has a great singing voice, but doesn't display much of his acting talent.

Give this film a try if you like musicals.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An experimental success!
16 March 2005
I am new to Jean-Luc Godard. This is the second of his second film I saw. The first is his most acclaimed film "À bout de soufflé" (1960), a.k.a. "Breathless". Both movies are experimental. "Breathless" is semi-successful in my book. The first half of the film is sophisticated and soulful, but the second half has hardly any plot progress. It was co-written by my favourite director Francois Truffaut, so I suspected that the first half of the film was written by him. The direction was constantly good though.

With that in mind, I was hesitant to look at another Jean-Luc Godard film. Eventually, I decided to give this film a try. Afterall, the short running time is persuasive and it is one of Godard's most acclaimed work. As it turns out, it is thoroughly absorbing and diverting. The character study is a lot more effective than that in "Breathless" and makes a good social commentary.

The first hour of the film sustain a light tone of romantic-comedy, which appears to be about a weird love-triangle. The next half an hour heads into a darker tone of suspenseful crime-drama. As the story progresses, Godard makes careful observation of the characters, which, more likely than not, makes audiences feel for the characters. The story is nothing complex. In fact, its lack of clarity may confuse audiences. However, you may not be too bothered about what is going as you are more concern about what the characters are thinking and feeling.

This great film change my viewpoint of Jean-Luc Godard and makes me more willing to see his other works.

P.S. My vote for "Breathless" is 8 out of 10.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Ground-Breaking and enduring film
13 March 2005
M. Night Shyamalan intelligently wrote the script for this film and brilliantly directed it. He carefully made the film which causes many audiences to misinterpret the storyline before being surprised by the plot-twist ending. It is not just the shocking ending that made the film. It is the solid character study and good social commentary that makes the film a timeless cinematic gem. After repeated viewings, the surprise is long gone, but it still manage to move me.

Some complain that this film is not scary. I admit that the scare factor is minimal, and there is not much suspense. However, though marketed as a horror-thriller, it is not really meant to be scary. In fact, I feel that the chills are just a bonus. The key genre of this film is drama-mystery. A story which deals with the agony of a child psychologist (well played by Bruce Willis) over his marriage, a career failure, and a difficult patient which reminds him of his failure. A story of how a boy (Haley Joel Osment) having to survive emotional and physical torture, and coping with his worried single mother's (Toni Collette) suspicion over his well-being and abnormalities.

After my careful observation, certain scenes are not just meant to trick audiences or drop hints for the now famous ending. Each of them mean something. However, I am not going to analyze how I interpret them to avoid spoilers. I will just say that this film deserves multiple viewings. Not just to fully comprehend it, but also to appreciate the powerful performances by Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette.

Their Oscar nominations are well-deserved. Osment portrays the emotion of Cole Sear to perfection. Not only does he bring life into his role, he also effectively controls the atmosphere of the film. It is no wonder that this film earns him international recognitions. Toni Collette, in a relatively small role, plays Lynn Sear with complexity. Her screen time is limited, but her portrayal of the character speaks a lot. The rest of the cast are also good. Bruce Willis is humorous and has great chemistry with Osment. Olivia Williams convincingly double-play her role which is very crucial to the plot twist. Greg Wood is also subtle as a father who lost his daughter.

All in all, an influential masterpiece which, I strongly believe, inspired the well-crafted but inferior "The Others", and many other pretentious films.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An interesting film which did not reach its full potential
12 March 2005
From the filmmaker who made the acclaimed "About a Boy" and the profitable "American Pie" movies, "In Good Company" is a social commentary which deals with modern corporate world and family values. How does it compare with Paul Weitz's other works? The good news is it is not a pointless time-passer like the "American Pie" movies, and it is no less entertaining. The bad news is it is no ground-breaking film-making like "About a Boy", and it had the potential to be even better than "About a boy".

Initially titled "Synergy", the official title was laterally changed to "In Good Company". "Synergy" is not a bad title, but "In Good Company" has a broad meaning. Many associate it with a corporate organization, which is why many consider this film to be a movie about the corporate world. However, the word "company" may also refers to groups of people, and the title may refer to the Foreman family, which appears to be a good family. Because of its meaningful title, the story can touch on a wide variety of issues which it did, such as the meaning of life (through Carter Duryea), learning to live independently (through Alex Foreman), and coping with difficulties in life (through Dan Foreman).

However, this film seems to be lacking in depth. As a social commentary, it does not really say much. As a character study, it does not have enough character development. In fact, there are clichés which are thankfully overcome by the great cast. In particular, I wish there is more emphasis on the romantic subplot between Carter and Alex. It is an interesting relationship and there is great chemistry between Scarlett Johansson and Topher Grace.

Dennis Quaid and Topher Grace play the leading roles with great effect. In fact, the story is pretty much about them. Quaid seems easy in his role, and Grace has the right personality for his role. However, Scarlett Johansson gave the stood out performance as the daughter of Quaid and the love interest of Grace. Tangling between the 2 key protagonists, she is the only supporting player with substantial screen time. Not given much to do, she managed to bring great emotional depth to her character and give the film more vibrancy.

After watching this film, I lament the fact that Paul Weitz overlooked the opportunities that he created in his own script. Nonetheless, his swift direction brought everything together smoothly and places some nice touches on his work (I love how he uses extreme close-up to build emotional climax).
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Holiday Inn (1942)
6/10
Unambitious little Christmas film musical
6 March 2005
The script is barely usable, with a totally meaningless plot. Apparently, all this film wants to do is to entertain. Even then, it is less successful than what I expected (Perhaps due to the high 7.4 rating on IMDb as of this writing and my love for Hollywood musicals).

Most of Irving Berlin's score and songs are good, with "White Christmas" being the stood up. The musical numbers are well-performed by Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, and Marjorie Reynolds. The highlight of this film, however, is the great choreography. Without all these key musical elements, this film would never become a classic. Already burdened with a poor script, everything falls flat on Mark Sandrich's weak direction.

This film provides very little laughs, and there are political elements in it which I was not comfortable with. Irving Berlin came up with the idea for this film, and his very idea appears to be flawed. There is no point to this film and it is not as entertaining as I wanted it to be.

If you are a fan of Fred Astaire, and Bing Crosby, you will certainly enjoy the stuff they are doing in this film. Bing Crosby grows on me, but seeing Fred Astaire dancing is pure joy. Passable.
0 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fairly engaging
4 March 2005
Marketed as a family-comedy, and starring comedy guru Jim Carrey, one may be made to believe that "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" is a typical starring vehicle for Carrey. Personally, I have not read the book and don't really know what to expect. However, I decided to give this film a shot since the book it was based on seems reputable, and the overall reviews recommend this film. Beside, I have always like Liam Aiken and thought Jim Carrey is an under-rated actor, even if he is an over-exposed celebrity.

Though received top billing, and the marketing of this film is highly dependant on his star power, Jim Carrey is not the key character of this film. In fact, his role pretty much supporting. The real leading actors are Liam Aiken, Emily Browning, and the Hoffman sisters, playing Baudelaire siblings. Nonetheless, I do think that Jim Carrey gave the stood up performance. Equally impressive is Meryl Streep. The rest of the cast are fine.

As for the film, it is a dark film with a few violent scenes. Certainly not as family-friendly as it may seem. Also, the film has a higher genre-weighting on drama than on comedy. At the beginning, the film sarcastically warn the audiences that this film is not going to be a fluffy fair, and the warning is, to an extent, for real. In fact, at the end, the film provoke guilt in audiences for watching light and airy films.

Thanks to my low expectation, I wasn't too bothered by these genre conflicts. It is well-crafted and moderately entertaining. It is not highly accessible though.

To Dustin Hoffman's fans: His cameo appearance is very brief. So brief that he is barely noticeable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed