That also gave rise to this word: eureka! For while I have been largely impressed with Namewee’s debut effort as a full-fledged filmmaker, I came to realise that buzzkill was probably the best word I could think of to describe ‘Nasi Lemak 2.0′.

Reason number one is fairly technical. I had purchased the film on DVD. One day a study will be done on whether the shortening of the window from theatrical to DVD release helps or detracts a film’s overall takings. For my part it has done more of the latter (I feel less desperate to watch a film at the cinema, knowing that I can catch it very soon anyways), but my approach to watching many films these days is slightly different. I prefer watching a movie several times and have no compulsions to keeping a copy of my own for future (academic?) use.

Polygamy has its benefits...

There was something I didn’t like about the DVD, though. On the top left hand side of the screen is a logo of Sendi Mutiara, the company distributing the DVD. I understand commercial obligations, but there must be a better way of expressing them than plastering it on the screen practically throughout the whole film.

It pales, however, in comparison to the logo of Namewee’s production company. This was positioned over the right hand corner, and it actually got in the way of the mise en scene on several occasions. At one point, it even covered the face of one of the characters. Once again, I understand commercial considerations, but unless Namewee’s company came to an agreement with…well, himself, I see no good reason for this other than stroking his own ego well and proper.

...and its downsides. "Chop!"

It could be argued that given this is a film that was written, directed and starring the man himself (the poster even had the almost-obligatory ‘A film by Namewee ‘tag; once again, a future paper will probably consider the worth and value, commercial, artistic or otherwise of such a marketing tagline in Malaysian films). How much can the non-diegetic influence the diegesis?

It’s not entirely appropriate in a way, given that this film cannot exist without people having the correct amount of cultural capital to make the intertextual references required for a more wholesome experience. The film follows Chef Huang (Namewee) as he tries to learn a secret recipe to improve his business. Not only that, he meets Xiao K (Karen Kong), whose father’s restaurant will be taken away from him unless he can best his sister and her cook, Lan Qiao (Dennis Lau) in a cook off. Cajoled into cooking for her father, and fueled somewhat by his personal rivalry with Lan Qiao, he agrees to listen to imaginatively-named Kak Noor (Adibah Noor). She reluctantly helps him, setting him off on an adventure throughout the country to learn the best local recipe.

It is in Bantin that he meets the Curry Master (David Arumugam) and his daughter, Curry Daughter (Nadine Ann Thomas), and where we pick up our previous point. Putting aside the question of how on Earth did a girl from Bantin pick up the kind of proper English that would make even the most hardened of the Korean diaspora jealous, there was a running gag of her being strongly encouraged to enter the Miss Malaysia Universe contest. Of course, this would only be fully understood if you did know that she was indeed a winner of the said contest. Not that the chance to have a dig at it was passed up, though: “I decided to stay here in Bantin to help my father.” “Yeah, I also want to bring about world peace.” Or something to that effect.

The truth at last: Hang Tuah does exist!

Of course, such considerations should only be considered momentarily, at least because it’s not a film that aims to provide hardened statements about stereotypes. It is a comedy that aims to provoke (witness the insertion of lyrics somewhere along the lines of Chinese people should only ever eat Chinese food). It may even intend challenge or push certain social idioms (such as the national questions brought up by some of the minor characters: “If Malaysia is playing china, who do you support?”). There’s plenty more where this is from, but I’ll leave that for you to find out.

For the most part, however, the film displays a juvenile sense of comedy, one that makes this (re)viewer whether they challenge or solidify. I laughed at the “Walaowei!” moments, but fail to do so at the assertion that Indians can be found hiding behind trees and bushes. I roared when he got hit on the head by David Arumugam for stating at his daughter: “Don’t hit me, your daughter’s hot!” However, my reactions were more muted with the ridiculous bouncing bellies, or one character’s proclamation for a communist country by donning a cap with the red star and walking off with his wife and child in tow, a perfect poster family the Chairman would have been proud of. The apparent changes in character by the Chef (into Hero Huang) also confuses at times, making me wonder about their direct or indirect relevance to the actual story in the film.

Have you heard the one about the magician and the buskers?

The reaction to this film, however, has been overwhelmingly positive. Box office-wise, it made a tonne of money, which made me wonder why. Coming back to the term ‘buzzkill’, I do not wish to be one but I am reminded of a previous 8TV campaign during Ramadhan last year, which provoke a huge uproar over its apparently-negative portrayal of Chinese people. Here, I see negative portrayals of many different kinds of people, yet it is very popular and well-received. While they are not the exact same things, I do see the spirit of fun and satire clearly at play both here and there. I wish for everyone to be more open-minded and considerate when it comes to such works of the arts.

This film deserves to be seen and judged on its own merits, because I believe it is the kind of film that deserves to be read on a deeper level. Further viewings may even surprise you (if you can bear with the dodgy DVDs; it even skips at several parts of the film, which is most annoying), for it may also force you to reconsider certain things held true by many. Conversely, it could do the opposite (is the film that different from a ’1Malaysia’ or ‘Malaysia, Truly Asia’ promotional effort? In other words, does it really break new ground in such constructions?), but I suppose that would depend on you and the cultural capital and links you are able to make.

After all, it’s not only the Indians who can make curry.

Fikri likes Karen Kong.

However, I’m not usually such a big fan of such efforts. For the most part, I believe in storytelling for the sake of telling a story. While I admit that it is not such a strict rule, I do believe that there is a noticeable difference in quality when a film is being made without that being at the forefront of the proceedings. I think you can see such a difference as well, when you watch a film whose existence you know is commercial in nature, and films that has a story it wants to tell.

However, at times, I am myself swayed by the enthusiasm of others. In this case, since I’m the kind of guy who watches pretty much anything anyway, I made the effort to catch this film.

The predator is never at rest...

The story follows Ly (Sirin Horwang), a young woman who is preparing for her friend’s wedding. Of course, a big part of the preparation involves getting drunk. It’s not the best conditions in which to drive home, but drive home she did, leading to an accident. A passerby of sorts, Loong (Theeradej Wongpuapan), helps her out and she manages to find her way back home.
Of course, her parents weren’t happy at the accident, and she is forbidden from driving.

Now we are led to the crux o the story, as Ly would have to go to work using public transport. Wouldn’t you know it, Loong works at the Bangkok Mass Transit System company (popularly known as BTS), the company that runs the sky train in the city. As the story progresses, Ly finds herself becoming more and more attracted to Loong. Given that he’s being portrayed by one of the most popular actors in the country, you have an idea of how not-so-difficult it is to fall in love with this good-looking lad. Of course, complications arise and misunderstandings occur before the film’s end, one which would, in all honesty, be fairly easy to predict.

That is because it follows quite a simple formula to get there. Hapless girl meets prince charming. Throw in a sprinkling of jealous friends (such as Plern [Ungsumalynn Sirapatsakmetha], who, instead of getting Loong’s number for Li, keeps it for herself instead), supportive friends (Ped [Panisara Pimpru], whose wedding it was Li helped with) and even some spectres of the past like old flames (such as Kob Kavita [Taksaorn Paksukjareon], Loong’s ex who is also an actress, a point we’ll return to later), which can help to serve as the ultimate obstacle towards eternal happiness, and voila! You have yourself a romantic comedy.

His attempt at being cool tickled her fancy.

So on that front, it does fulfill a number of requirements, one which will satisfy followers of this particular genre. However, I also find it interesting to take a closer look at how the complications occurred. While it is nothing particularly new, the usage of digital technology always fascinates me. To be more specific, it is the portrayal of such technology. For example, it wasn’t so long ago that I saw an episode of The Simpsons with iPhones being very prevalent. It struck me as somewhat odd: the Simpsons never grow old, but the world around them do.

In this case, it was the technology of film negatives that proved to be key. One of the major misunderstandings of the film was caused by the development of old strips of film negatives, which then led to the publishing of some rather interesting pictures. Further consideration of this leads to an analysis of how technology, both old and new (the posting of such pictures on social networks, for example, though it has to be said: Hi5? Come Thailand, get with the programme ☺), combined to give rise to the current consumer craze for scandals. In such celebrity-mad times do we live, and a by product of the growing lack of privacy suffered by many is the exposure of certain things we do not wish to be revealed. In the case of ‘Bangkok Traffic Love Story’, we do see that happening, and it gave me food for thought. On a more technical level, the prominence of the trains allows for some very nice symmetrical shots with shallow depths of field.

There's a fly on her face...

Beyond that, however, I do not suspect that many will give that too much thought (though her Chinese grandmother is worth a look in that way; a look at the trailer below will explain more). That’s not to say that it is beyond the thinking of many; rather, the film is simply not constructed and shaped as such. It is a romantic comedy, and it should therefore be primarily treated as such. For me, it does not intend to do much, but what it intends to do it did very well. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would have, and I believe that is a testament to the script and development of characters. I would say, though, that the clear splitting of moods (first half comedy, second half drama) might not float the boats of some.

It is, however, all romantic. I don’t know how many of them would ride the public transport more because of this (though it bearing in mind that it is made by BTS, it doesn’t exactly portray all the other forms of public and private transportation in good light; just look at those cars in the opening bits of the film!), but it may help to make the idea less aversive.

Only if their cars broke down, though…

Fikri thanks Paulista for this.

The title of this review is also a very simple way to describe the kind of film this is. I spent half the time watching this film, covering my mouth, and saying, astagha, mashaallah, and (for my Indonesian fans),  “Ya ampun!”

It’s that kind of movie.

****

Jack Sadelstein (Adam Sandler) is a successful advertising executive in Los Angeles. That is, until he comes up a cropper in securing Al Pacino’s (err…Al Pacino) services for an advertising campaign for a doughnut company. This was not easy given Al’s unwillingness to play ball, though he’s willing to play ball with his other later on. No, I’m not talking about Jack’s wife, Erin (the pretty Katie Holmes almost brought me back to her ‘Dawson’s Creek’ days), who is indeed lovely. No, it’s the ‘star’ of the show, the second half of the eponymous title, Jill Sadelstein (Adam Sandler).

Oprah's car giveaway continued beyond her show's end.

There’s only one problem, though: Jack can’t stand her. Erin, however, is more understanding, and following their mother’s death, Jack grudgingly agreed to having her over for Thanksgiving. Of course, Jill is almost the complete opposite of the orderly Jack, which makes things more than just a little difficult for him. That also makes things more difficult when it is her favour he has to curry in order to get Al Pacino to agree to the advertising campaign.

We stay with Al for a bit, because in this film, I believe that the film’s title should have been changed to ‘Al’. He is the real star of the show, and only he could have made it work the way it did. Remember the title of this review? A part of the reason why I said that was because I couldn’t believe the level to which Al Pacino was willing to go in debasing his legacy. OK, so that may be overstating things (upon further reflection, I remembered Robert De Niro doing the same thing for the ‘Meet The Parents’ films, so it’s not that unique), but ‘debasing’ (profitably and undamagingly in a comedic way, I must add) is the word that came to mind.

"OK, I may look it, but I'm not THAT old."

For example, in the scene where they meet for the first time at a basketball game, Al became so smitten by Jill that he gave her his number. Written in sauce and mustard. On a hot dog. This was followed by a shot of him across the floor from Jack and Jill, motioning for her to call him with a smile and crazy hairstyle that wouldn’t look out of place at Tanjung Rambutan. Of course, with a film that stars a film star as the star, this intertextual element was also played up. When Al taught Jill how to hit a baseball, she accidentally damaged his Oscar statue. “Oh, I’m so sorry,” she said, “but I’m sure you have more.” “Yeah,” Al started, “you’d think that would be the case, but…”

On that level at least, this film relies on you having enough cultural capital to understand and get the kind of comedy on display. If you don’t, you might be struggling more than just a little, because as a film itself, it doesn’t feel as strong or as powerful his previous films. I wouldn’t mind admitting that the likes of ‘Mr Deeds’ have a strong ideal delivered in a strong package that, even though it is formulaic, does the business on the emotional side. Hell, I even cried at ‘Click’. Now that’s a cathartic comedy with a capital ‘C’ or two.

There is no try, only do or doughnut. Ho hum.

Here, however, the moment of catharsis did not do it for me. It has a great build up, in fact, for you do identify with Jack more often than not, but the obligatory sudden change in character in these films is not as powerful as it could have been. It may have something to do with the dialogue or the script, it may even be something that got lost within the infatuation with star power in this film (you’ll recognise more than just a few of the cameos in this film).

Unfortunately, I need more than just star power to get me interested. I realise that what I like about Adam Sandler’s is their riff on culture without spoofing it. That may seem like the fine line is non-existent, but it existed in all his previous films. Yes, they had their share of cameos too (what would John McEnroe be doing otherwise?). Yes, in theory, if you like Adam Sandler, then having two of him in a single film should make this an experience to remember. Yes, some of the moments of humour are genuinely funny. However, it is not the kind of humour that stays in your mind, the kind that very few manage to do successfully: strong, cathartic comedy.

And yet this film still made money. A fair chunk of it, too.

Star power. Hmm. God help us.

Fikri can’t remember who paid for this one. Maybe it’s his girlfriend again. Hmm.

With regards to ’23:59′, this film is billed as a horror film. That was the promise made to me (and my girlfriend and my mom and my stepdad): that, in watching this film, you would be scared. It would be nothing more than a simulation of the real thing, an experiment or exercise in exorcising our worst fears and nightmares.

Going beyond that, this is also a Singaporean film. Quite frankly, it’s been quite a while since I last saw a Singaporean film. Surprising, that, because I thought I had seen one recently. Upon further reflection, I remembered that ‘Homecoming’ is also a Singaporean film (albeit at Singaporean-Malaysian co-production). Of course, co-productions are a lot trickier to define, but for official intents and purposes, that was the Singaporean film I saw.

Someone heading up...

Different films, different contracts, but a familiar face pops up: ‘Homecoming’ had Mark Lee in it, and he is in this film as well. Thank God, because otherwise I probably would have ripped my hair out in boredom.

’23:59’ concerns a bunch of national servicemen stationed somewhere in Singapore. The title itself refers to the spirit of a mad woman who haunts the soldiers at that exact time. Of course, the film opens with a bunch of the recruits seated together in a circle and telling each other that story at that exact same time. You’d think that the timing and the actions could be better thought through; after all, when things are already ominous, why on earth would you want to push your luck? If, for example, it is near midnight, then it’s best to be tucked up in bed rather than messing around with Ouija boards.

Mess around they did, and one recruit, Tan (Tedd Chan), is jumpier than most. It didn’t help that he did get pushed around a lot by the resident mafiosi wannabe, Dragon (Lawrence Koh). Luckily for Tan, Jeremy (Henley Hii, also known as the good looking one), often comes to Tan’s rescue. He tries to help Tan even on the final march through the forests before they can graduate, but of course, on the march itself, strange things happened…

Problems start when you didn't pack your compass. Sigh.

…which, of course, should not have happened. This is where the film loses some marks from me. While I can appreciate the tendency to throw realism out of the window, it just doesn’t seem logical that such an event (a final march with quite a number of recruits) would be done in such a haphazard manner. The recruits’ commanding officer, Sergeant Kuah (Mark Lee), serves as the comedy point of the film, and though that may be a blessing in itself (more on this later), I wouldn’t have picked him to be in charge of a whole platoon like this. In fact, his ineptitude, inefficiency and lack of foresight is something I would associate with a more junior officer.

This might be a small thing to squibble on, but it’s exactly what I’m going to do, because…well, because the film gave me ample opportunity to do so. The film nearly bored me into submission. Perhaps boredom is not quite the right word to use (because it doesn’t mean that I only think about the films that are boring), but there probably should be a shorter distance between thinking and feeling.

We come back to the contract: being scared shitless. A horror film should, in effect, render you less able to think things through throughout the film. The focus should be on the feel, but I did not feel enough, unfortunately. Maybe it’s just me, but because of this, I was able to spend more time thinking about the spiritual and the ‘real’. This is somewhat represented between Tan and Jeremy, who, in spite (or perhaps because of) of his personal experiences, strongly favours the latter. Perhaps another ideological divide can be inferred between Sergeant Kuah and his superior Captain Hong (Benjamin Lim). The latter, clearly more fluent in English, perhaps even with a Western education, while Kuah is presented as someone who still believes in hocus pocus; at one point he even wanted to bring in a medium to purge the camp of evil spirits. Throughout this film, it is this (imaginery?) conflict between the West and East, science and local hocus pocus, the elite snobbery of those more fluent in non-ASEAN English and those who aren’t. That kept me entertained.

For the heavy ones, it makes them feel 'lighter'. Ho hum.

Someone who did was Kuah himself. I suppose this is the very quality that settled Mark Lee for this film, but my goodness, he is a very funny guy. Watch it, then, only for Mark Lee. Though he wasn’t exactly supposed to be one of the leading characters, his humour and comic timing was top notch, so much so that I find myself looking forward to the next time he comes into a scene. “

Here, less is indeed more.

Quite frankly, the film is incredibly predictable. It repeats almost every single bloody trick in the book. This is not just me speaking, my mother, with whom I was having a double date (it’s fun, you should try it with your parents), expressed her lack of satisfaction in the drive home afterwards.

She and I kept coming back to the Korean film Guard Post. That had a similar premise, with soldiers dealing with somewhat-spiritual elements. However, that film took a different approach, one that rewards those that remained till the end. Here, it’s a different case altogether. I think the technical package is quite good, actually, and the consistency from one shot to the next is quite alright. It is clear that, on paper, at least, the filmmaking team took a great deal of care with regards to the presentation of the film.

It is unfortunate that the film had little else going for it beyond that. I only wished that Gilbert Chan had thrown the rulebook out of the window. I wish he had made the title more significant. I wish he had actually made a scarier film, one that is actually scary without me willingly lower my defence.

I kept myself going by dealing with issues that I didn’t think the filmmakers really intend for many to consider, but the one job they were tasked with, the unwritten contract signed to scare people out of their wits, was decidedly broken.

Fikri didn’t pay for this film either. He’s on a roll.

“And then I told them, ‘Oh, Cameron Crowe’s directing the film’. And the response was, “Well, why didn’t you tell us earlier?!” And so the film got made. This was how I actually found out that the director’s Cameron Crowe, and this was the moment I got a little more excited about the film.

Though I was wondering why Matt Damon’s head was bald. Was Sarah Silverman too rough on him? (Answer: it was for his film, ‘Elysium’)

*****

The look that will get you free lasagna.

Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon) is not the name for a culinary delight to be found anywhere in Asia (at least, not that I know of). Rather, he is a recently widowed father of two, and in short, his life is falling apart around him. Ever since his wife Katherine (Stephanie Szostak) passed on, he has been reminded of how big a part of his life she was. I suppose that happens when space and memory are constructed as one and the same, and it’s not helping that his son Dylan (Colin Ford), is not being the most helpful of sons either. Rebelling with a cause, he purposely got himself suspended from school. Thankfully, his 7-year-old daughter, Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) is not quite so difficult, being of the oh-so-cute-I-want-to-pinch-her-cheeks prototype.

Upping sticks, looking for a new place, he chances upon a large house which he really likes. However, there is a caveat: the house is attached to a zoo, and whoever who buys the house, must take on the zoo as well, including its keepers such as Lily (Elle Fanning), Peter MacCready (Angus Macfadyen) and the lovely Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson). Not looking for a chance to make out with her, he sees it as the perfect opportunity for a brand new start, even as everyone else around him, especially his brother Duncan (Thomas Hayden Church), thinks he’s losing his head. “If you won’t listen to me, your brother, then listen to your brother, the accountant.” Or something like that. It doesn’t help that in order for him to open the zoo, it would have to pass inspections from the board, represented here in the form of the film’s soft villain in Walter Ferris (John Michael Higgins). Challenge accepted, then.

Oh, Scarlett...

I have to say that the film is ultimately very formulaic. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however, because this film also manages to hit all the emotional spots for me. A large part of the inspiration comes from the book this film is based on, though changes are and have been made for the benefit of the silver screen audience. You know how it goes. The single father, grieving from his wife’s death, eventually heads towards happier endings. He finds love again, the son made in his image does not resist him any longer. In short, all the fuses messed up in the beginning is sparked back into life towards the end. I have no problems with that.

The question, then, comes from how this formula pans out. 1 + 1 could be 2, or it could be 11 (dependings on how far you want to go, of course. If I have a piece of paper, I could show how that formula equates to a window). I believe the one element that drives to set this film out to be different is the director, Cameron Crowe. Though he does not have a perfect record, I feel that his collection of sentimental works can be a positive experience if the timing’s right. ‘Elizabethtown’ didn’t quite hit the spot, but surprisingly, that was his last feature film till now. I had thought of him as a more prolific director than that, but I am glad he is back all the same.

Harimau Muda links up with Hollywood star power.

Examples of this can be seen in the sweetness of the young love between Lily and Dylan. It harks back to a time when people looked out to the stars instead of Googling stars on their Galaxy tab. In a sense, a deeper look at the film considers as well the separation between the urban and the rural, the modern and the traditional. Nostalgia, that sense of longing for something no longer there, is a key thing here. It affects everyone, from Benjamin who’s obviously looking to stop grieving, to Kelly who wishes for the zoo to be opened again, to even the cashier at the local supermarket. Everyone here is looking to fill the gap in their life, whether they know it or not.

One technique I’d like to bring to your attention is the separation between life and the lifeless. The screen here is an important attribute. When Rosie couldn’t sleep because of their noisy neighbours (no, not Manchester City) when they were back in the city, Ben and Rosie sat there on their beds, looking at the happening party happening right outside their window, their gazes reflected in the window’s glass. Later on, we see Ben also going through some pictures of his wife on his laptop. Once again, it suggests a clear separation between something that exists in this world and in your hearts and minds. The difference between them is collapsed at strategic points of the film, and I heartily applaud the director for doing so. Reality and dreams and memories need not exist exclusively from one another.

With that in mind, with all the “20 seconds of insane courage” dialogue, I would heartily recommend this film to…well, anyone. It is a promoted as a family film, breaking, in the process, two of the rules in filmmaking (never work with children or animals). Perhaps like me, you won’t be able to separate Matt Damon from Jason Bourne (at one point, Ben was asked why he bought the zoo. I imagined the long ensuing pause to be followed by: “I’m Jason Bourne, bitch.”). Perhaps, unlike me, this is not necessarily your cup of tea. You might not be happy with your 2, but I’m more than happy with my 11.

Thank you, Cameron Crowe. Welcome back.

Fikri’s girlfriend paid for this one.

Anyways, I picked it up again in preparation for some research I am about to undertake. One word that kept popping out was homosocial. Watching the new Sherlock Holmes film, that word popped up again. Homosocial. Homosocial. Homosocial.

The digital frame of Downey pictures is a nice Christmas gift.

No surprises there, since in this film, we follow the continuing adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law). It might say Sherlock Holmes on the poster, but believe you me: without Watson there would be no Holmes. Unfortunately, that is exactly the scenario Holmes is facing in this film. Having gotten engaged by the end of the first film, Watson is now on the verge of getting married to Mary (Kelly Reilly). In fact, the story picks up in the days before he is due to do so, and continues well after he is supposed to be going on his honeymoon.

The key word there is ‘supposed’, because Holmes managed to rope Watson back in for another case. This time, he goes up against Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), a kind of criminal mastermind that reminded me of the old James Bond villains. Despite his standing as a highly-acclaimed professor involved in the affairs of the world, he is also somewhat hell-bent on starting a war between the nations of the world. It serves as a warning about the events that would take place well after this story (the story was set in the late 19th century), but within the context of the film, I half-expect him to stroke a furry white cat at random points in the film, while shouting: “No, Mr Holmes, I expect you to die!”

"Did he just call us homo?"

Of course, that is a riff on ‘Goldfinger’, rather than an actual line from this film, so don’t go quoting me on that now.

Nevertheless, let’s get back to the homosocial before moving on. The relationship in this film, like I said, is one that reflects and complements each other perfectly. I made a case for such differences in the previous post on ‘MI4′. Here, we see an extreme example of how opposities attract and create spaces within which character can grow, for I’d argue that Dr Watson is already married…to Holmes. We see how Holmes himself is incredibly disorganised if Watson is not around, and while looking at their relationship within the prism of marriage is not a complete approach, Holmes’s position within their relationship becomes visibly threatened with Mary’s presence. This he did not take to kindly, though the act of throwing Mary off a speeding train into the river in order to save her raised a few eyebrows. “Did you just throw my wife off the train?!” “I timed it perfectly!” Memorable.

This girl hid her dragon tattoos well...

Of course, like I said, that is a shallow and incomplete approach, but it is one worth considering all the same. In many respects, we see a number of other films displaying such ‘bromance’ traits that I can’t help but place at least parts of this film into that category. It is not a singular film in its own respects, not by a long shot (in addition to being a sequel, this film is yet another film that can be filed as ‘Robert Downey Jr playing himself and making loads of money doing so’). Moving beyond that, Holmes also crosses several boundaries with his drag outfits at certain points of the film. They’re something to behold, this.

Going beyond all this, this film is as much a Guy Ritchie film as it is a Robert Downey Jr one. He remains one of the more visually daring directors working in Hollywood, in the sense that he’s not afraid to mix and match a number of techniques to get the effects. For example, Holmes’s escape through the forest and the efforts of Moriarty’s henchmen to take them down is visually spectacular. It might help to induce some sort of vertigo effects in my mother, but for me, the ‘style for the sake of style’ approach can sometimes be pleasant for the sake of being pleasant.

He's not happy his kittens escaped. How would he do evil now...

This film, then, hits all the right spots for me. I am especially interested in the strong relationship portrayed between Holmes and Watson, but even a more cursory approach would yield a good time all round for those concerned. It also acts as an interesting precursor and perhaps forewarning to the future, but then again, such events are often seen to be provident with hindsight. A deeper analysis of these might be interesting to do, and Jared Harris portrays a formidable opponent to Holmes, one who matches Holmes in more ways than one (I am particularly tickled by the final battle between the two of them).

It is an action film cleverly told and shown. I enjoy the more intellectual aspects of it, but I think I should give my brain a rest from all the homosocial stuff. To that end I will stop here for now, but at least I wasn’t sitting 5 metres away from the screen now, was I, Vince?

Enjoy what could very well be the most expensive bromance film ever made.

Fikri‘s mother paid for this one as well.

As a blockbuster summer flick…well, it didn’t really make as much money expected.

Of course, with lessons learned, now it is repackaged and released in the winter instead. That seemed to work wonders; at the time of writing, Mission Impossible 4 practically made enough to write the cheque for the next film as well.

Simon Pegged as the main character?

Why is that? Well, the simple answer to that would be that it made a lot of money. Dig a little deeper, however, and like any other spy action flick you come across, you won’t find things to be quite as straightforward as well.

Certainly the beginning of the film asked a lot of questions. “That guy does not look like Ethan Hunt,” I quietly thought to myself. It isn’t; it’s Agent Hanaway (Josh Holloway) falling backwards off a rooftop. He’s another agent within the IMF setup who was escaping on a mission. Unfortunately, he would meet his demise very, very quickly, to be killed as he were by a female assassin, Sabine Moreau (Lea Seydoux). Hanaway’s girlfriend, Jane Carter (a pretty Paula Patton) decided to break Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian jail. What he’s doing there to begin with will be a story unveiled as the film progresses, but with the help of Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), they manage to do so.

Of course, then the Kremlin gets blown up and the Americans get the blame. IMF themselves were considered to be the rogue factions behind the bombing, so with the help of a mysterious William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), the four remaining members set out to find out what’s going on, and why. This involved the discovery of a number of baddies like Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) who has strong intentions of nuking the world. It is up to Ethan and his team, then, to sort things out.

Those auditioning for 'Spiderman' had to bring their own wires.

I have to mention the similarities that I think can be found with this film and a number of others. The ‘Transformers’ series, for example, have the same element of ‘government turning against its own when it should have known better’. While the political impact of such an element is further emphasised in ‘Ghost Protocol’ (I’m tempted to just call it ‘MI4′, but everyone else calls it ‘Ghost Protocol’), I’ll be damned if I didn’t see a similar plot in ‘GI Joe: Retaliation’. Cool trailers with (re)appropriated pre-recorded songs are not the only things they have in common, and I wonder whether Hollywood now is at the stage where the story of ‘eating one’s own’ becomes the formula. Maybe not, but it is worth a thought, I reckon.

Having said that, such a plot does help to heighten the tension for this film on a number of levels. On a more non-diegetic plane, it is a big risk for the director Brad Bird. He has been successful in making animated films, but this represents a complete break with almost everything he has done before. Though I was very excited by the idea of Brad Bird’s first live-action feature film, I was also wondering how much control he would have over such a production, when the actor himself is the main producer of this film. My minor concerns came to nought, because I detected quite a number of characteristics initially identified within his own Pixar oeuvre. I find my suspicions to be misplaced, and was delighted for that to be the case; trust me when I tell you that some of the most tense moments in the film also carried with it its biggest laughs.

"...but this, I learned from 'SWAT'."

The film moved forward at a breakneck speed. It managed to pack in quite a lot of action and laughs within its perimeters, and you do not feel that the film is a long one. Some films feel incredibly short (I felt slightly cheated at ‘The Three Musketeers’), and though that was the case here, I felt somewhat satisfied because there were enough characters you cared about. This is interesting, considering only one of them had any character development worth mentioning prior to this film. The elevation of three (or four) major characters here meshed in well with the action, which is a good thing given that the villains themselves were as 2D as the format the film was made in. In between the bombs blowing up, the espionage bits and the film’s star hanging outside the world’s tallest building, there was enough talking between all of them to get me interested.

For example, I feel for Jane, not just because she’s so pretty, but also because of Hanaway’s death. Being his girlfriend and team leader, that stung more than just a little, and you do see her wanting to get revenge. You want her to get that revenge. The same goes for Tom Cruise, who did not reveal as much, but the film rewards those who stuck with him through not only this film, but previous ones as well. He shared enough moments in between to make you wonder about the events that happened between this film and the last.

I also thought William Brandt (a character rumoured to be replacing Ethan Hunt as the lead of the series in the future) as an interesting guy. Once again, he obviously has a past that would unspool as the film went on. I have to admit, though, that when he and Ethan faced off in the film, and everyone wondered where he learned his obvious military skills, I had expected him to coolly disengage his weapon, flip it back into his holster, and say, “I was in ‘The Hurt Locker’, bitches.” Yay for another ‘Wing Commander’ alumni.

Pretty Paula does her best Jeremy Renner impression.

I saved the best for last, and that is the surprising character anchorage performed by Simon Pegg. No, I just came up with that word off the top of my head, though I’m sure a Google search will turn up a pre-existing definition somewhere. Yes, Benji was supposed to be the comic relief of the entire film. This he performed to a tee, because every other thing he does or says helps to bring a smile, a laughter or at the very least lighten the mood. Remember what I said earlier about the tense moments being the biggest release of it? More often than not, you would find Benji to be at the centre of that.The Burj Khalifa scenes would illustrate this well.

More importantly, however, is how his character becomes the guy who enhances everybody else. We see him in enough moments with the other characters, to make Jane seem more angry and hurt, to make Brandt seem more unsure and insecure with his abilities during one stunning action scene, and to make Ethan seem more serious. Serving as the foil to reflect all this helps to make the other characters seem more serious, credible, more human. I’ve often told my students of how characters should complement each other, rather than take away from one another. They should not be the same or similar, though that may bring with it its own benefits, but the differences are the sources of conflict and credibility. In this case, Benji’s difference (and sometimes, indifference) helps to make him more than just a comic relief character, but also as the one guy who served as the character center of this film: character anchorage.

Beyond all that, however, this film is a fun film to watch. There are plenty of action sequences that is simply astounding (though the Kremlin bit seems a bit fake, for some reason). Everything else is as you would expect it to be: Michael Giachinno’s score mixes the old and the new well enough to get your juices flowing, and the film itself is just…fun. At the end of that day, it doesn’t matter what kind of characters you have, so long as the movie is enjoyable enough. In this case, it was a nice and easy film to get into, and I enjoyed it very much.

And how could you not get excited by Eminem’s song in the trailer, oh…

Fikri‘s mother paid for his ticket.

Interesting, then, that that would be the opening for this review, for ‘Gadoh’ looks at specifically the kinds of things we have in our minds, but rarely speak out loud. Following the troubles brought about by the clashes between two groups of racially-divided students, the school they attend starts to consider options save their collective asses and reduce the bad publicity. As an attempt to go further beyond the norm, Cikgu Anne (Maya Tan Abdullah) asks for a chance from her superiors to correct this behaviour. She ropes in Azman (the film’s co-director Namron), who was sceptical to begin with. Being a drama activist (which is not necessarily the same as being a dramatic activist, though I now feel that the term ‘dramatic’ may be redundant), he did not really see how he could contribute in a positive way, but contribute he did, after being persuaded by Cikgu Anne. The idea of the project is to have a production that could be put on as a way of convincing others of the healed rifts.

The AGM for the theatre club was volatile.

However, to simplify and simply say that the film considers the education system to be the main cause of the issues raised is…well, too simple. While the film was largely set in a public school, I see the film making attempts to leverage some of the blame to outside forces as well. We see, for example, the pressures that happens to these boys beyond the school gates; the Chinese boy, for example, is constantly courted and tempted by the life of a gangster. Similarly, brief but important scenes at Khalil’s home highlights the tendency by many to uphold the hierarchy, rather than to consider the future; remember, the theatre production was put on as an attempt to cut back the bad publicity for the school. It isn’t exactly the most altruistic of motives, but perhaps if one would read the school as a representation of a structure and system that is bigger than a mere national school, you might be able to get something out of it.

Then again, perhaps I am running the risk of reading too much in between the lines, because there’s quite a fair amount of those lines to begin with. ‘Gadoh’ doesn’t beat about the bush. It says what it means, it means what it says, and it says it in a fairly authoritative manner. Sometimes I wish that they would hold back a bit on the vitriol, but it is not my place to consider how realistic that may have been. I left the national school system a long time ago, and while I wouldn’t swap the experiences I did go through, I do believe that it has placed me in a position where I am less able to judge how realistic it is, and perhaps just as importantly, how intensely the anger these issues may have provoked for some. Then again, it is a film produced by Pusat KOMAS, who, in addition to being my first official paymaster ever, is fairly dramatic and active when it comes to issues concerning human rights, an umbrella under which race can be found. As the advert goes, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Sunat operations can be unorthodox.

I will, however, have a bit of a go at two things. The first, on a more minor note, is the script. The script refers not only to the dialogue, which I have covered briefly, but also the ordering of the action. In this case, I am not entirely satisfied by the order of the action, and the ease with which certain things occur. For example, Azman appears to be incredibly reluctant to be involved in the project, but the ease with which he chances his mind suggests that either Cikgu Anne has an incredible power over him, or that he agrees for the sake of agreeing. It occurs throughour the whole film, and I do feel that a little more attention paid as to how people actually do change their mind would, interestingly enough, make the whole film more convincing.

The second issue is the technical package of the film. I understand that it is a low-budget film made with the volunteer assistance of many a person, who may not have been able to dedicate as much as they would have wanted. That being said, Pusat KOMAS is an organisation that is supposed to specialise in this field. Furthermore, Brenda Danker and Namron are not first-time filmmakers. I had expected better technical solutions, however low the budget may be. I don’t expect many to share the same sense of aesthetics, but neither do I expect horribly inconsistent lighting solutions from one cut to the next. It is minor issues such as this that distracts me that is the biggest drawback of the film for me; with a more competent package, I believe ‘Gadoh’ is the kind of film that would have at least travelled to a few of the festivals on the circuit, given the subject matter. A little more attention might have brought it a lot further beyond these shores.

Representations of society?

That will not be the main thing the target audience will be concerned with. This is a film that seeks to throw all sorts of dirty laundry out there. I do feel that it has made a solid attempt to connect with the audience by airing pretty much all sorts of thoughts and ideas that many would prefer to keep silent. For my part, ‘Gadoh’ is not just a film that seeks to portray, but I believe it tries to be a catalyst, at least for further discussion. It seeks a fight with those who uphold a system, a system beyond the schools, that further perpetrates such extreme prejuidices.

How this fight will end, however, probably will say more about the audience than it does about the film.

Fikri launched into a flying kick in his last fight in secondary school. Hmm.

In ‘Sekali’ we follow the story of several different characters in fairly equal measures. Arman (Shaheizy Sam) is the aforementioned autistic character, essentially someone who is of the appropriate age for marriage but with a bigger likelihood of striking up a strong friendship with a six year old kid. That is precisely what happened, when Amy (Mia Sara Nasuha) comes to his rescue after some thugs tried to rob him. The question of what a six year old kid is doing wandering the streets of KL is not properly addressed, but their budding friendship is encouraging enough for us to be disappointed when it is nipped in the bud.

Sam gets a taste of fatherhood.

The girl with the scissors is Sheila (Lisa Surihani), Amy’s mother. One would have thought that it is a sensible move, partaking as it did after the age old maxim of ‘never take sweets from strangers’. Of course, as it turns out, Arman is not just any old stranger. He’s not old to begin with, but he’s definitely no stranger. As it turns out, he is Amy’s father, and Shiela’s former lover. This throws more than just a spanner into the plans of the major and minor characters, which included Arman’s mother (Kartina Aziz), Arman’s fiance Farina (Shasha Zurazie) and Haris (Bront Palarae), an honest man with an honest love for Sheila.

For the most part, the above is nothing more than a superficial elaboration of the storyline, a factor whose complexity has been highlighted and praised in many reviews I’ve seen of the film. For my part, I believe that there are certain elements that did help to raise this film beyond the usual fares I’ve seen (though it must be known that I pick and choose the fares I did see). I must give credit to the first-time filmmaker that is Hashim Rejab. The story did have enough twists and turns that would satisfy its target audience, and it is braver than most for attempting to push certain things. An autistic main character, a strong-minded six year old, Lisa Surihani as a mother, and even a character like Haris; other films would have played up the jealousy and/or the faux machoisma many males in such positions appear to suffer from. Bront Palarae, however, deigned a maturity that is both surprising and impressive. Though his is a supporting role, and somewhat subconsciously misparaphrase Kevin Keegan, he went up in my estimation when he did that.

The look of love.

However, while credit should be given for the attempt, that is all that remains: an attempt. The attempt by Lisa Surihani to play the role of a mother, for example, is not one I shall remember for a while. I do not doubt that she tried hard, but the simple fact of the matter is that the role has been miscast. I understand that they are trying to, perhaps in some way, display the after effects of being involved with someone at a young age, but in the film, I cannot, at any single point of the film, take her seriously as a mother. She looked like she could have easily been one of my own students, and her portrayal of Sheila betrays this. It is a role that is precious, and perhaps should have been done with greater subtlety, but instead she resorts to tears. We have to resort to Mia Sara Nasuha to come to the rescue with her “Mama, Mama…janganlah nangis.” I am not saying that it is her fault, but I am saying that I can think of actors better suited to the role.

The same goes for Shaheizy Sam. As much as I respect his attempt, I don’t find myself being drawn into his character. There are, in fact, a number of reasons for this, and we do end up seeing several different kinds of Armans. That happens for a reason, one which, like certain reviewers for The Star, I shall not reveal for the sake of ruining your enjoyment. His portrayal does tug at your heart at times, which I attribute to his skill, but given the treatment his character was given, I don’t know how seriously I should take him. This I would clearly attribute to the direction of the film. Simply put, I feel that with the film’s ending, his was a character that could have been someone different, but the feeling that he was played like a fool by many different characters in the film. While that may have been done as an attempt to garner sympathy for him, it runs the risk of undermining the character, and I fear that is what has happened in this case.

Child actors get easily distracted.

Ultimately, as a result of that, I don’t know how to take the film, whether as a serious film that has several potentially strong characters, or as a film that simply played around with the elements of a typical TV3 drama. You rearrange the furniture in your rooms, but it’s still the same room. I have no problems with that, but to portray it as an entirely different room would be a farcical.

Perhaps, then, the trick to enjoy this film is to watch it more than once. If I did, then I can truly claim to have seen the film ‘Sekali Lagi’.

Ho hum.

Fikri thinks Maya Karin would have been an interesting choice for the lead. Then again, he thinks Maya Karin would be an interesting choice for anything. Mia Sara Nasuha won the Best Child Actor award at the 24th Malaysian Film Festival.

Anyways, the surprise for me was the closing film of the festival being ‘The Raid’. Lauded at a number of international film festivals worldwide, ‘The Raid’ is an action film that will soon be released internationally, a mighty fine achievement for a film from Indonesia. However, though I am attracted by the trailer, I am also keen on the film because of the film’s director-actor combination. Gareth Evans and Iko Uwais were responsible for the excellent ‘Merantau’ I had heard of for many years, but only saw some months ago. I wanted to write a review for it then, but it slipped off my mind. Now is the time for me to make amends for it.

Even crossing bridges in Jakarta can be dangerous.

‘Merantau’ is an Indonesian silat film, and you’re not likely to forget it. Given the fact that started out with the film’s star performing some solid moves in a sequence that appears to be outside of the film’s narrative, I conclude that the opening bit is designed to capture the attention of the audience. But capture it it did, and before long, we are thrust into the story of Yuda (Iko Uwais), a young Minangkabau man from West Sumatra, who must leave his home in order to find experience and success. It is a tradition called merantau, which fans of the film ‘Australia’ may associate as ‘walkabout’, but what many Malaysians call ‘cheap foreign labour’. While that seems harsh, that appears to be the fate that befalls our star; upon his arrival in Jakarta, he finds that the address given no longer exists, being nothing more than a house under renovation.

As fate would have it, he has his wallet stolen by a young child, Adit (Yusuf Aulia). He goes off after the perpetrator, and bumps into her sister Astri (Sisca Jessica) having a major argument with her boss, Johni (Alex Abbad). He comes to her rescue, but discovers that she is in the GRO business, and Johni is as good as her pimp and rice bowl. Of course, with that, she becomes angry at Yuda instead. However, his country boy charms, perhaps even naivity, endears him to her, and over time, they become more involved, which complicates things even further for all those involved.

He's so hot his hands looks like they're on fire...

As I watched the film, I was moved to be reminded of the hero’s journey as written and popularised by Joseph Campbell. It is a standard formula that has been used for many stories, and I wondered whether copies of his writing had been left in Indonesia long ago, sparking this tradition of wandering and experience as a measure of being and becoming a man. There are more than just a few similarities between this film and the likes of ‘Gladiator’ and ‘Star Wars’. I find myself being encouraged at the reminder of the universality of the hero’s journey.

Of course, that’s reading a little too much into the story’s structure. This is an action film that deserves to be looked at as such. From that point of view, the action sequences in the film is as impressive as any other film I’ve seen. One must remember that with more limitations, a small film like this had to be smaller in terms of its scale and imagination. Of course, no one told Gareth and Iko, and they bled every single drop of imagination out of their skulls to craft some very eye-catching scenes. As a result of that, though this may be something that flies in the face of the realistic world the film appears to reside in, Yuda comes off looking like Superman. Perhaps to be more specific…he reminds me of Jackie Chan. Action sequences that involve sofas and those taking place in a construction site evokes Jackie’s tendency to use the environment as a character in the fight scenes. A few more smiles and “Ah, that really hurts!” expressions, and we’d wonder whether the spirit of Jackie has made its way to Indonesia. He gets beaten, he comes back for more, giving more credence to the journey that is merantau; experience is the greatest teacher of all, and Yuda is a very, very good student.

He misunderstood the concept of high heels.

Having said that, this is an action film with a heart. As we see in the film, Johni is not the ultimate bad guy, being subservient to Ratger (Mads Koudal) and Luc (Laurent Buson). They’re interested in, shall we say, expanding the business interests. The fact that their business is concerned with trafficking women and enslaving them in the foreign sex trade is the slightly off-putting part about these good-looking goons. A more serious review might even consider the connotations made between the film’s representations of the foreigners in this film and Indonesia’s colonial history, a history that was bloody and brutal in its own nature. I don’t know much about Indonesian history, though, so I shall refrain from expounding a deeper analysis here.

Ultimately, then, this is a film that shows the building of characters in the best way possible. Many would think of martial arts films as action films, requiring nothing more than the most visceral of visual experiences to be satisfied. A film that ‘Merantau’ has been compared to is ‘Ong Bak’, and it is understandable, as the main character also deals with issues of isolation and alienation in a similar fashion. Without wishing to make a direct comparison, I will say that ‘Merantau’ stands strong and tall because the film itself is a kind of journey for us. We see the character growing throughout the entire film; at the same time, the other actors are not particularly neglected either. I challenge you not to feel something by the film’s end.

This guy is really Mads for Jakartan chicks. Ho hum.

Oh, and the gamble I mentioned at the start? Turns out the film screening was on the day of my flight itself. Having considered it, I decided to change my flight ticket and extend my hotel stay, both of which costs several hundred ringgit. I wondered whether I was mad or just a big film buff…or both. Given that I did not have a ticket in hand, it might not have been the wisest thing to do, but it is a gamble I can’t not take, a dice I had to throw.

And a very big part of the reason why is ‘Merantau’.

Fikri didn’t get to watch ‘The Raid’, but he did drink a copious amount of Teh Botol from a botol.