Ip Man 葉問2

沒有突破的商業電影

電影海報打著"打動人心"的口號，勢必衝著觀眾那胸湧澎湃的心而來，
但對我而言，葉問2純粹是部商業電影。

看葉問2看到一半，基本上我已經失去耐性，也幾乎斷定這部電影無法在來屆影展獲獎，
當然在武術指導方面葉問2還是有閃耀的機會，
只是我覺得整部戲根本沒有要求突破的意願，
拿不拿獎對導演葉偉信來說是不重要的。

寫電影評論難免會拿其他相似的電影作比較，
寫續集電影更是難免需與首部電影作比較。

續集電影難破宿命，
一般觀眾看完整個電影系列後依舊懷念首集，
是個可以理解的。

但我說葉問2沒有突破，
並不是根據"續集電影難破宿命"的定律而言，

反之，
葉問2根本就沒有尋求突破的意思，
這是令我相當失望的。

我看葉問2前其實沒有抱著期望太高的態度，
更是迫切希望葉偉信可以證明我的預測是錯誤的，
但看了過後我絲毫沒有覺得他想突破的意願。

請別誤會我的意思，
葉偉信是我最喜歡的動作片導演之一，
這次我並不是為了抨擊而抨擊，
而是看穿次集與首集有太多相似的地方。

話說"看穿"，
並不是為了證明眾人皆醉惟我獨醒。

其實，許多人在太沉浸於動作場面時，
難免會忘了故事情節以及文戲的重要性。

而我，是因為太過喜歡首集而無法接受續集的馬虎，
所以請你容許我對葉問2的不喜悅。

葉問2普遍的反應都很好，
有人喜歡動作場面，
有人喜歡中國情操，
有人喜歡甄子丹出拳快但面無懼色的表情。

其實，這3大點正是我所謂的沒有突破。

忠於真人故事是一回事，
尋求突破是另一回事，
我相信兩者兼具很難，但並不是不可能。

如果"黑暗騎士"和"教父2"可以做到，
為甚麼港片不能?

為甚麼我說葉問2沒有突破，
我想大概舉些例子便可以證明了。

故事從頭到尾的構架簡直就是抄足首集的藍本，
根本沒有加入新元素。

電影開場便讓觀眾看到葉問置身於江湖之外，
生活平平淡淡。

後來出現了幾個驕傲的對手，後來都被葉問教訓了一頓。

故事進入正題，
英國人(上集為日本人)侵入並欺壓中國人。

當然，與上集相比，日本人搞到華人民不聊生看了還真的令人感到非常心酸，
這次英國人只是侮辱華人武術精神，
我看得還不是很過癮。

李連傑在早期作品黃飛鴻系列中已經打出了味道，
個人覺得還是他打得比較好。

並不是說英國人侮辱華人武術就感動不到我，
而是化學作用的問題，
個人就是覺得看李連傑打鬼佬爽一點，
看甄子丹打日本人爽一點。

因為印象實在太過深刻了，會讓我覺得，
日本人是留給甄子丹打的，
洋人是留給李連傑打的。

言歸正題，
洪金寶從武術指導再晉身大螢幕，
玩的其實還不是噱頭!

可能大家太過懷念肥洪和子彈先生在電影"殺破狼"的經典高潮對絕，
倆人不管是電影內或電影外都那麼好打，
現在在葉問2來顯兩手玩玩肯定可以吸錢。

憑心說，
洪金寶與甄子丹在葉問2的對打戲，
相當令人失望，
在台上打連環拳根本就像是小孩子打架，

從電影的角度來說這純粹是以音響來灌醉觀眾，
讓他們看完了後說，"哇，好犀利喔!"

其實，悉心觀察，真的不知道他們在打什麼!

葉問首集拳拳到肉的感覺流失了，
洪甄倆身形對照的動作場面美感沒了。

兩人在桌子上的對絕結果，
其實我早就預料到了，
"打成平手"這結果肯定是這場武打戲的宿命。

試問大家，洪甄兩人螢幕內外同是好打之人，
首次對決那有可能分出勝負呢?

從他們開打的第一刻，
我只是在猜測這場戲會怎樣結束，
想不到的是那擂台桌子會被分成兩大半，
意料之中的是打成平手。

洪金寶先邪後正的角色，其實也不難估計，
最後被鬼佬打死然後由甄子丹復仇，全部都好像看手掌那樣輕易被算到。

葉問的感覺去了哪裡?
暴力美感趟然無存!

看完我的影評，
若你覺得我是在馬後砲，

那我，
實在無言。。。

Chevaliers de Sangreal

Hans Zimmer at his best.

It is not easy to write a review on a movie soundtrack.
Too many perspective, too wide, too many imagination and inspiration.

Chevaliers de Sangreal is best piece of film music I have ever heard, no doubt about that.

I have been saying how much I like Hans Zimmer before, but words cant express how I feel really.

Yes, Chevaliers de Sangreal is the main theme for Da Vinci Code, but that does not create a barricade for me.

Da Vinci Code receive negatively review even from the film critic and novel fans,
but I was amaze by the setting and music.

In my review last year I had stated how much I dislike Da Vinci Code,
but I think it is fair enough to say that Chevaliers de Sangreal is a masterpiece,
ironic isnt it?

Come on, if you never (or ever) listen to this music, plug in your earphone and close your eyes,
you will know what I meant, who the fuck don't like this track?

This is masterpiece!
It is irresistable.

In the right frame of mood and emotion, this can easily bring tears to your eyes.

The music begin in an intensify mood and faster your heartbeat,
then the pace maintain and fasten your emotion,
then Hans Zimmer open up your heart layer by layer,
he inject multiple dose of drug in the correct time to excite your sentiments.
which brought you to the next level, and further up, and you could imagine how's heaven looks like.

You really have to listen this particular track from the first second until last,
otherwise you will miss out something.

The unique element of Chevaliers de Sangreal, is that it dont give you mixture of emotion.
It dont lead you to heaven and hell, then bring you back to ground, to let you feel multiple satisfaction.

The level of ascending can be heard in the maintainability of music pace,
every single level is important, and there is no 'best part' or 'favourite part' in this track, because every single second in the track is irreplacable.

The soundscape is religious, you can imagine yourself is in the setting of Da Vinci Code,
Hans Zimmer used his favourite orchestra and vocals to create a dramatic piece of music,
the music is so pure, so smooth, so real, and it's simple.

Listen to the rhythm and you will know,
this track is so simple,
it just keep on repeating and repeating the same rhythm,
very solid!

Ofcourse, one might asked,
did Hans Zimmer inspired by the movie and novel?

I say,
why not?

In fact, this track is inserted into the ending scene where Langdon discover the tomb of Mary.
It open up our heart layer by layer, just like the movie and story do wasnt it?

It is nearly impossible not to talk about the role of movie when one would like to praise the track, but I really think that this movie is not a good movie from a regular audience point of view.

However, Hans Zimmer's music definitely add value to this movie,
otherwise Ron Howard will never success to create a cathedral feeling by his picture alone.

Whatsoever, I like Chevaliers de Sangreal because this track allow you to appreciate it in two ways, relate back to the movie, or take your own journey.

Not many much other film tracks can perform this function, trust me.
Not even Hans Zimmer's own track.

I like Batman and Gladiator's soundtrack, but when I listen to these music, it is inevitable to think about the movie, and the film picture capture a majority portion of my mind.

Chevaliers de Sangreal?
it's different.

and how can you not like this music once you have visited Louvre and saw the pyramid?

Clash of the Titans (2010)

To win the right to marry his love (Andromeda) and fufill his destiny, Perseus must complete various quests and battle both Medusa and the Kraken monster in order to save the Princess Andromeda.

Based on this simple plot description, what do you think?
Like Super Mario from the Middle Age right?

Allright, let's put this story into a bottle, which is wrap by the Greek mythology charcters, the Gods, the Titans....
The anticipate Zeus, Apollo and Poseidon,
How cool?

Personally I really like Greek myth, not to say that I am a historian or someone,
but I always believe that Greek culture is a high culture.

Two reasons,
Greek saw the value of immortality,
and they also realized the importance of education.

I think I have stated many times in my previous movie reviews, saying that some of the movie lately doesnt inject the needle deep enough into the heart of the story.
This movie is another failure.

Legion talk about battle of Angels, Book of Eli talk about the characteristic of Bible,
and Clash of the Titans talk about the defiance of human to Gods.

There are too many weaknesses and holes in the movie, despite the effortless CGI and effects.
The scriptwriter is too greedy to mix all the characters into the story, like a sardin can.

Yea, you can argue about the loyal reference of originality, thiz and that.
I dont really care.

But the movie itself is a mess,
though it is quite predictable and easy to digest.

Yes....
with the music pace they used and the non-stop action packed they shown, it is quite easy to grab the audiences emotion through out the whole movie.

Frankly I was quite amaze with the scene where the Argos soldiers pull down the big Zeus' statue and Hades then rise from the ocean to teach them a lesson.

The mood is there, it was well-created.

But the rest of the action scenes are quite dissapointing,
no surprise, no nothing but a boring fighting scene.

The worst thing is the ROCK music they used,
it's so uncomfortable.

If you know the director of this movie you wont be surprise really.
Hulk, Transporter 2, Unleashed...

I wont say he is a bad director,
but he has no quality and his own style but the boring action scene,
so far he didnt prove me wrong.

How could you simply put Rock music in this kind of movie,
I mean I have seen a successful example like Frank Miller's '300' ,
but that doesnt change the principle wasnt it?

It was the Great Greece, with interesting myth and fantastic civilazation history.
But the music spoiled the movie, no doubt about that, totally spoilt.

Not forget to mention the effortless scriptwriting.
After all, what they really want to give us, are the two anticipated villains,Medusa and the Kraken monster.

Previously, all those journey they went thru, is like a brief...packed....and shortened version of Lord of the Rings.
The characters come in and go out, come in and go out, like an extras.

The scorpions can attack Perseus like one minute ago, then in no further explanation it was tamed by the Grey Witches who show no welcoming sign to him as well.
Worst part of the story really!!!

The scorpions then were ride by the two Argos comedian,
and then the horrific Grey Witches (not forget to mention their effortless make up, only with a simple mask) suddenly all 'lost is space' and left one and the only witch, who join the 'Fellowship of Perseus' in the end.

And then again after another boring battle scene (~I am not sure which one, coz I hate to recall it~),
the scorpions left the fellowship (again for no reason!!!) ,
after Perseus said a stupid quote( I dont know what's that...)

I mean, it was so obvious lor, that the director or scriptwriter are doing this just because they want to 'CHASE AWAY THOSE CHARACTERS' when they dont need them anymore in the story.
You can always do that ofcourse, but please, do it neatly and atleast try to cheat your audience lar, don't make them looks like a fool.

In fact I like the conversation of Zeus and Hades,
Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes shown their top class acting quality,
but it was trapped by the beards and hairs.

And I thought Fiennes is more charming than Neeson did in terms of acting,
he is much more natural, and much more convincing.
But in the other hand Neeson is pretty exhausted in playing the role of Zeus.

The relationship between the Titans, Kings and human are well-explained but still,
it doesnt fill up the hole of the movie plot.

How could Perseus not angered when he confront Zeus for the firstime?
Zeus is the reason why he is there...

and the scene where Perseus falled on (I mean his body) the adorable Gemma Arterton, the scene looked so disgusting but not romantic at all.

and the gorgeous Alexa Davalos was being tied up like Naomi Watts in King Kong (2005),
look at the camera angle, look at the Greek costume she wore, the mild taboo image is there really.

So, 'PURPOSELY' lor........
out of adjective words in my dictionary liao........

Allright, I think that's all,
after all my criticisms to this movie will never finish.

A not so anticipated movie, but still it doesnt prove me wrong.

The Passion of the Christ

"This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness.
He died for all mankind, suffered for all of us.
It's time to get back to that basic message" (Mel Gibson)

To write a movie review for The Passion is not easy,
in fact it is very unconvincing to hear from a Christian point of view.

But, it would be a huge waste if you expect one movie review writer,
to talk about his/her opinion only from the movie's perspective.

Because what so different about this movie,
is the visual storytelling through an artistic expression.

But one can only feel the expression if he/she has a biblical knowledge background.
Otherwise, it's just a well-made CGI movie used to attract viewers by taboo image.

Allow me to write this review from a Christian point of view,
because, no one single professional movie critics is gonna analyze each characters scene by scene with you.

Well, atleast I try.

Mel Gibson only brought us the last 12hours of Jesus crucifiction, by rejecting standard storytelling conventions such as introducing his characters.
He is assuming his audience already knows everything he's about to tell us, is that a mistake?

It depends....

But it is a two-hour regular feature time film, it's not gonna make everyone happy and satisfied you know.
So, basically I think Mel Gibson did a fantastic job to inject the needle deep enough into the core of the movie.

I wont say this is an absolute honest reference to Bible, no it is not,
Mel Gibson actually humanize the Satan.

But there is no need to follow the Bible sequences because this is not a documentary,

and he did a good job here to insert some flashback scenes in between the whole movie,
the editing, the scene's dissolve technique, the dialogue, the expression, everything is inserted just on time.

Talking back to the main figures here, Jesus Christ.

The best thing about this movie is, Mel Gibson remind us Lord Jesus is a man, 100% He is a man, 100% He is God.

I think many Christian tends to remind themselves all the time, Jesus is God, Jesus is God,
but very often they already forget the human dimension of Jesus Christ.

It is very important the recognize not only the God dimension of Jesus, but also His human form.
Otherwise, it would be naive to think that Jesus as a God, doesnt (and wouldnt) feel any pain when He is being crucified.

Then this could be a biggest conspiracy ever happened, that God actually has cheated us for 2000years.

But, if one can always recall the human form of Jesus, it explained everything really.

Mel Gibson did not neglected this important element, which make this movie so powerful and close to people heart.

Look at how James Caviezel (who played Jesus) walk with leg and hands being chained,
how he carry the cross, how he feel the pain, how he feel tired, how he feel scare of facing the challenge ahead.

Jesus was a human, no doubt about that.

The scene where He falled on the road to Calvary,
flashback scenes inserted where the little Jesus falled and Mother Mary run towards Him,

it is such a beautiful scene.

Very simple, very pure, it's understood.
Mel Gibson is good in creating feeling by using slow motion, close up and music.

Pontius Pilate and Herod are another two characters worth a discuss.

When Jesus was brought to Herod for trial, He didnt answer one single question by Herod.
Herod say 'Get him out of my sight, he is not a criminal, he is just a fool'
It shows that Herod dont even care to understand who is Jesus.

But in another case, Pilate shows that he is a reasonable man who admit and declared he has found no sin of Jesus Christ.

I am not saying he is reasonable because he admit that, but he is indeed reasonable because atleast he try to understand Jesus, and he wish Jesus can defend Himself for the sake of His own life.

Pilate wife tried to advise him not to execute Jesus, but in the end, Pilate could not escape the opposition voices from the Jews, because the Roman always see the Jews as the most problematic troublemaker.

He wash his hand and say this has nothing to do with him.

The whole conversation scenes between Jesus and Pilate is very exciting, very active.

Pilate was so close and so near to understand the Truth, but, he cannot resist the rebel voices of the Jews.

He need to make a wrong decision that he is gonna feel regret.

This scenes, has well-reflected the current situation in many country's political system.

The country leader know exactly what is right and what is wrong, but still he has to do something wrong to please some particular group.

Agree?

Now, this has lead us to a very very important question here.

During the whole trial scenes, Jesus never say a single word to defend Himself, but all of His word is to testify the Truth.

Let put yourself in Jesus' shoes, the only difference is, you're not a God,

~You are Jesus, but you are not God~

so, you're a fake God, you lie to the world saying that you're the King of Jews and Son of God.

OK.

Now, if one judge, who has the power to execute your crucifiction, and also release you, stand infront of you and ask you, one last time, "Are you the Son of God?"

What would you say?

Tell me, at this crucial moment, who have the guts to say that 'I am God!' ???

Only three parties in the world can....

1. A cheater

2. A fool

3. God

Now you ask yourself, if you're Jesus, and you're a cheater,
what would you answer the judge when the moment he want to decide your execution?

If you say 'Yes, I am God' then you gonna die, but if you say 'No, I am not' then he gonna set you free.

I think a cheater would definitely unveil his true face if it is the matter of life or dead right?
So, since Jesus insist that He is God, this would translate us to

~Jesus is not a cheater~

hence, it lead us to....

~ Jesus is either a fool or God~

This silly question, I throw it back to you....

Jesus never curse the Roman soldiers when they crucified Him, instead He prayed for them.
He never say a word to defend Himself, instead He allow the Roman soldier to drag Him like a goat.

This is my Lord, Jesus Christ.
Good Friday 2010.

Mel Gibson explains one of his appearances in the film, the close-up of his hands nailing Jesus to the cross: "It was me that put Him on the cross. It was my sins [that put Jesus there]."

Jesus Love You.

Green Zone

The reason of the invasion of Iraq has been revealed yet another time.

The 90s war movies often used VietNam War as their topic,
then in year 2000 on, WW2, Holocaust and Ancient war has become another hot topics.

Recently there was this Hurt Locker that won Oscar best film,
now is Green Zone .

It that an Iraq War wave roll-out in the war film genre?

I have never watch a good and real action packed movie since Die Hard 4,
Green Zone is pretty near.

I wont categorize these pop-corn movies as a great film, but I think it is fair enough to say that Green Zone is indeed very exciting.

The action, the explosive scenes, and the music.
It's been a while, really.
The mood and the pace is so quick,
and not much of CGI used.

Ofcourse the visual effects is there,
but frankly the action scenes are so pure, so original, like the classic 90s movie.

The movie has already catch my eyes in the first scene where Matt Damon and his men take down the marksman and then broke in to the empty warehouse which they believed WMD is there.

The cameraworks remind me of the first-person shooter video game 'Counterstrike',
the director from The Bourne sequels has shown his videography skill for handling the balancing of 'shaky' and 'clarity'.

One of the worst mistake in war movies, is that director do not shoot the movie from the audiences' perspective, that's why very often the audiences could not recognize the movie characters in the entire film.

The soldiers, all look like the same, their hair are all bold, their face are all dirty,
how can you expect the audiences to distinguish these characters if they are not the superstars.

At this point, Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down get fucked up the most.
Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Josh Harnett, and Ewan Mcgregor were in the movie, who cares anyway? they were not a superstar yet that time.

I like the movie in fact, in terms of the feeling, it's better than GreenZone definitely,
but when we are talking about mistake, I think Black Hawk Down is a mess.

By far, Hurt Locker and Green Zone the both war films that were introduced worldwide lately had step away from this shadow.

The characters, are all introduced with crystal clear of clarity.
That allow the audiences to follow the story easier.

Well, story wise,

Michael Moore labelled it as the most HONEST movie about Iraq War, and he think it is stupid to label Green Zone as an action movie.

But I think an honest movie doesnt mean that it would become influential,
an influential movie is a movie that strike people emotion and makes them think deeply, even after they finish the movie.

and at this point,

I think Passion of The Christ is an awesome movie to hit people emotion,
that's why seldom people praise the movie as an honest biblical referenced movie,
but most people were instead shocked and amazed by those cruel scenes, it was so real, and the music add the feeling then.

Which is why, if you asked me,
ofcourse I will tell you Green Zone is an action movie, in fact it is a popcorn movie, atleast the intention it is,
it doesnt surprise me in terms of story,

I mean, Michael Moore has told us this conspiracy before,
whether you believe it or not,
I dont think it would become a sensational story anymore.

We all know what is the reason America is there.
It's clear.

But one thing I wasnt so sure, which is the scenes where Matt Damon pointed the gun at Al-Rawi, and then Freddie appeared to take Al-Rawi down, saying it is not Matt Damon's choice.

Ahem, is that a true incident?

Im not sure.
But if it isnt, well...

How could you say the movie is honest?
The egoism of Big America can be detected in that scene in fact.

Matt Damon could have kill Al-Rawi to the death,
but it was Freddie who did his job in the end.

Does it hint us that the American can run away from this responsible since it was the Iraqi who pull the triger?

The movie can't be ended by watching Matt Damon kill Al-Rawi, it can't be.
But Al-Rawi has to die, he has to.

Okie, whatsoever, that's just a point I would like to raise,
perhaps it really happened.

Let's talk about acting,
Matt Damon is Matt Damon
typical, same old Matt Damon,
solid Hollywood actor, but nothing to shout, he just can't shine.

But the actor who played Freddie is awesome,
he is Khalid Abdalla, the same actor who played the adult Amir in Kite Runner.

His love to the nation, his desperation, and his frustration when he get insulted,
it's all shown on his facial expression, and I dont even need to mention the scene where it was revealed that he has lost his leg.

I cant believe that many audiences in the cinema actualy laugh at him when he keep on jumping on the ground by a single leg.

I mean, THAT SCENE is the best scene through out the whole movie, very impressive, very powerful.


Freddie has just spoken out the essence of what the movie is all about ,
what the Iraqi today would like to slap and spit on the American face.


And the way he ask Matt Damon, 'why are you doing this to me?' , 'why are you chasing me?', 'what do you want from me?'......many many more.....
again.....I used the word FRUSTRATION....


Khalid Abdalla shown this feeling at its best.
His English with the Arab slang, perfect!!!


and I tell you what, without that scene,
Green Zone is just a dead movie with nothing left for us to think.


Laugh? how naive the audiences are...
The more they laugh, the more I found Khalid Abdalla is awesome.


That scene, is suppose the most sadistic scene of the whole movie.

The Book of Eli

Some will kill to have it,
he will kill to protect it.

Same mistake like Legion,
this movie doesnt inject the plot deep enough in order to attract the viewers.

What a waste really, what a waste.
Book of Eli is not just another Post-Apocalyptic movie,

the message of the movie is there, it makes people think, but only for those who have the idea what end of civilization and armageddon are all about.

Okay, make it simple.

For those who believe in monotheism,
armageddon is about once last final battle between God and Satan.

For those who believe in multiple-gods,
it's about the judgement days.

For those who do not believe in any form of god,
it's about the extinct of human race.

You can list many movies about doomsday or armageddon,
but I tell you what,
most of the movie's ending shows that human live and mankind survive.

This has lead us to another sub-genre of the movie,
the post-apocalyptic story like I Am Legend or 28Days later.

A vacant city,
an empty street,
one man walking

That's post-apocalyptic.
Most of the movies play their story before and after the timeline of this event.

As most of these movies are made by Hollywood,
the filmmakers already assume that the viewers who watch these movies have the basic knowledge about armageddon,
and they shoot it from the Christianity angle always.

They dont tell much really,
no explanation, this and that.

It's not necessary.

After all, people are looking for the disaster scenes in armageddon movie,
~huge impact~

simply amaze to see Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty falls and drown.
and then people talk about how much they learned about ~love~ from the movie.

How naive?

Go back to the movie Book of Eli,
my comment to this movie is short and simple actually.

The story is nice but not powerful enough,
the movie is boring but the acting is good.

As I said, this is not just another post-apocalyptic movie,
this man, Denzel Washington a.k.a. Eli has a mission to complete.

Eli would kill and survive for the sake of Bible,
others live for the sake of extending their life.

Eli dont need a partner,
others are seeking for the survivors.

That's the different.

The interesting thing to discuss is the role of Bible in the movie,
it's being portrayed as a powerful food for Denzel Washington to survive,
it's also being portrayed as a disastrous weapon for Gary Oldman to rule the world.

Does it hint us that the American is using this weapon nowadays?

When the naive civilian are fighting for the food and fresh water,
Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman realized the power of Bible.

But it's ironic to reveal that Gary Oldman had read thousands of books which include DaVinci's Code,
but Denzel Washington only have to read one book~the Bible.

Obviously, this idea is showing the supremacy and sufficiency of Bible alone.
It doesnt really matter how many books you have read,
because the function of Bible is incomparable.

And if you realized,
the story did tell us another important message.
which is the activeness of God.

Some people think it is their own choice whether or not to believe in God,
and it is their choice whether or not to read the Bible.

Some might challenge and say,
'I refuse to believe in God, so what can You do about that?'

but they had forgotten the activeness of God.
in fact it is up to God to decide whether or not He want to show His mercy to save us.

He is the one who take the active role,
we are the one who take the passive role.

He is the one who give us chance to listen gospel,
but we are the one who have the freedom to believe in Him, or not.

Can you see that?

That's why,
if we do not doubt the activeness of God,
one should realize a fact.

When he/she refuse to listen gospel and thought they are controlling the game,
God on the other hand is the one who refuse to give them chance to listen gospel.

Ofcourse, ego people often cannot accept this hard fact,
they always think that they are in control,
no other people, not even God can affect their decision.

That's what happen to Gary Oldman in the end,
he get the Bible but it is written in Braille,
he couldnt read it eventhou he can touch it with his own hands and see it with his own eyes.

Same thing happen to us today, some naive people thought reading Bible only require knowledge, and their intention is bad.

But a child can probably understand The Bible more than a PHD do,

a PHD might have read it but he might not understand it.

just like Eli who only read one book can understand Bible more than Gary Oldman do, who have read thousands of books.

PRIOR element is

~whether or not God allow you to understand it~

You see,
it is not you to decide.

Okay, I've talk about the message of the movie,
but personally I think the movie doesnt inject this message into a certain depth.

Which is why,
people might get lost in the movie,
or dun even care to find the meaning of the movie.

Overall, it is boring.
But I admit, some(not all) of the brutal scenes are well-done.

When we are talking about acting, Denzel Washington maintain the quality as he always did,
no surprise frankly.

Gary Oldman is like an elder version of Johnny Depp,
you simply cant recognize him,
another nice move to hide yourself after you cheat The Joker once , Lieutenant James Gordon!!!

Legion

After God loses faith in humanity, Archangel Michael (Paul Bettany) chooses to become a fallen angel to defend for mankind against Armageddon.

Legion is either a good C-movie, or a bad B-movie,
The concept of Angel Michael disobey God's order is something interesting,
but the idea of angels possessed into faith weaken human's body and turn to become zombie is really mindless.

I mean, look at the make-up and effects,
if you take away the concept of the story and say this is another zombie movie,
it wasnt a hundred miles away definitely.

The Bible say God will use fire to destroy the world in the next Armageddon,
even if you do not believe in this,
you could have list out another 100 of ways I dont care,

but one who suggest God will use a zombie, or a thousands of zombiesssss...
IS DEFINITELY DUMB!!!

well, one might argue,
it's just a movie anyway,
but....

personally I can't accept this dumb idea as a regular movie goer,
even if I treat it as yet another dumb ass movie.

Once again, put aside the Biblical reference,
this movie still consists alot of weaknesses and holes.

Cheesy question:
If God (no matter which one you believe in),
want to destroy the world,
what takes Him so long?

To test the mankind patience and survival strength?
After He had decide to destroy them?
It doenst make sense.

Why start from a small restaurant in New Mexico?
The reason is simple, to save the production budget lar....
I mean, the location...the setting...the story...
everything would be easier to handle what....

What is the point of ensuring the infant live?
Does they hint that he is another Saviour?

If he is, why is the movie does not explain and clarify more about that?
I mean, what is the purpose of touching the line but you dare not to cross it?

If they really cross it,
it could become controversial in view of religious group perhaps,
but I wont discuss more about that except criticizing their effortless scriptwriting in reference to Terminator series.

In fact, they already did.
Can you see that?
whatsover,
they will fail.

That's the problem of the movie,
Because they have touch the wrong line,
but the worse thing is,
they dont even dare to make it worst.

It is Legion's destiny to become a critically bad movie.

And what happen to the ending???
It made the movie relegated to a C movie.
No doubt about that.

Even if I insist to watch this movie without viewing too much on the critically element,
I cannot pretend myself to ignore the effortless of the movie ending.

I really like the concept of the movie,
but the dissapointing thing is,
the movie doenst fully utilize its potential to make it as a sensational one,
which it definitely could have done so.

Whatsoever, generally this is an exciting action-pack movie,
the gun fight, the mood is there....

Some really cool scenes like the ice-cream car approaching,
the sweet nanny crawled on the ceiling....
it add colors to the movie.

The plotless dialogue is terrible,
but Archangel Michael did mention some interesting points out there,
saying that mankind fought the war because of the old books,
and bla bla bla....

I simply love Paul Bettany!!!
look at his supporting character in Beautiful Minds, Knight's Tale, Da Vinci's Code...
He is awesome....

In Legion,
His eye's contact with the audiences had successfully shown Archangel Michael's both dissapointment towards mankind's past and faith towards mankind's future.

and when the well-known Archangel Gabriel arrived,
how can the so called B movie or C movie not boost up to its highest climax?
but then, the mood is predictable anyway.

This Is It

'This Is It' is neither a good movie nor a good documentary,

but it is a nice piece of work to show that MJ is a perfectionist anyway.

What we can see in the movie 'This Is It' is not actually something precious before MJ died.

It's just a video footage anyway, without editing and sound mixing, this is just a rubbish for many people really.

But MJ's dead has add value to these footage,

in fact, he dont even intend to use these footage to say goodbye to his fans.

The director manipulate audieces' feeling in this movie,

and he propagate the content definitely....

With not much of mentioning about MJ' dead and his negative scandal,

this movie is purely a well-edited documetary to watch.

In fact, it's not even a movie or documentary,

it's a video.

The editing is good, but there is no surprise through out the movie,

the style is keepin consistently....

Anyhow, it's still a nice video (or movie? or documentary? who cares?) to watch,

with no narration, with not much of mentioning about MJ's dead....

It is really far away better than wad I expect.

Seeing these video footage and the modified MTV ,

(the so called unseen footage that probably wont shown to the whole world if he wasnt dead),

it really prove that MJ was an artist who is demanding on the quality....

He love his fans, and he always want to do his best for them....

That's a nice spirit really....

Yet again it was propagated showing that he is a perfectionist,

is('nt) he?

Whatsoever, the possibility where the director had propagate the personality of MJ is questionable.
The movie shows that MJ is a perfectionist,

and he always has the patience to bear with his crew....

Three memorable quotes he always said in the movie,

Im not so sure in reality if it is:

1. This is it

2. I love you

3. God bless you

For me, a person that always speaks like this,

is a nice person really....

A simple word to show that you love and and you care,

but not many much of us can say it often....

After all,

watching this movie can really make one to change their perception towards MJ,

and put the media circus funeral, child abuse scandal and changing appearance issue behind....

MJ is a legend,

he is a (not the) King,

he is a gifted artist,

he cant be replaced by anyone....

It is a lost for London people as they missed out the MJ's live in O2 Arena,

but certainly MJ's dead has made a final opportunity for the whole world to enjoy his performance once again.

In memory of Michael Jackson,

'This Is It', along with his death,

has bring his legacy back to the world history once again.

RIP Michael Jackson,

This is it.

2012

We were warned,
so what???

First, he send the aliens to attack our earth,
then, he adopt Godzilla from Japan to destroy New York,
years later, he froze the world.

After a huge failure of '10,000 BC' , Roland Emmerich use his trademark movie 'Independence Day' and 'The Day After Tomorrow' again to promote his new movie.
Another action disaster blockbuster,
this time he apply the 2012 phenomenon which is predicted by Ancient Mayan.

I knew Roland Emmerich style, always wana make American looks patriotic, and he likes to inject family values in his movie.
I like 'Independence Day', the story is so fresh, it was a classic!!!
But 'The Day After Tomorrow' is totally plotless, he just want to destroy the world for the sake of satisfying his audiences.

Hey, I know not everyone cares about the story, moral values and message.
Some people just like to see disaster movie, they just want to get viewing pleassure, and I understand that.
But come on, atleast put some effort in scriptwriting please!!!
THIS IS LAZY!!!

Same old shit in 'The Day After Tomorrow' and 'War of The World', another divorced or broken family unite together again because of the end of world.
THIS IS BORING!!!
2012 pheonomenon is something big, it's gotta be something sensational.

It is so near from us, like it's going to happen tomorrow.
Mayan prediction and Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar, are some really interesting issues!!!
This is the only reason why I want to watch '2012', because I wish that this movie would has a distinction with other disaster movie. (well, atleast with other Roland Emmerich's movies)

In the end, I am dissapointed, but still, I knew this is going to happen.
165minutes feature-time is too long, too draggy for a boring story like this.
He spend too much time to build-up the characters and plot, but in the end, the characters development are still weak and the story still sucks!!!

After I watch the movie, I really think that movie like 'War of The World' and 'Knowing' wasnt that bad you know.
'War of The World' has been criticized for its ending, but atleast Spielberg's skill is still maintain in many scenes.

'Knowing' has been criticized for its ending too, and the sudden 'application' of aliens to dissolve the myth.
But atleast the plane crash long take scene is massive, the ending scene with the great Beethoven's Symphony 7 is absolutely beautiful....

But '2012' is effortless, and it doesnt make any sense.
I know no one can predict the future and the end of world, I can't really describe the picture, but I am sure that it is not going to happen in this way!!!
Come on, great flood???
Animals aboard???
Vessel???
NOAH's ARK???

I think Roland Emmerich has forgotten the sign of rainbow, haha, he is gay anyway....
Ok, no personal attack, but the great flood's idea is really stupid.
It proved that 2012 phenomenon is just a tool for Roland Emmerich to destroy the earth.
The whole movie has nothing to do with Mayan's prediction and 2012 phenomenon!!!
If you insist you want to watch another disaster movie (with no surprise), you will not be dissapointed perhaps....

I saw and heard the crowd response in the cinema, and obviously, they did not pay attention to the movie when the characters are talking.
They only enjoy the movie when they see the massive disaster scene with crazy CGI (which I admit it is very good, well....atleast better than 10,000 BC).

The moment John Cusack hug his children and kiss his ex-wife, I feel nothing at all....
Don't get me wrong, I am not cool-blooded mammal....
But seriously, the feeling and mood is NOT THERE!!!

All the filmmakers want, is to give viewing pleassure,
and all the audiences want, is to receive this plessure....
No point!!!

In future, we don't even need real filmmakers to make movie,
all we need is graphics, computer and effects genius!!!
After all, I miss Michael Bay's 'Armageddon'.
I know Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler sucks, but still, the whole movie is so exciting.

and one last thing,
Michael Bay use fire!!!

Inglourious Basterds

Two assassin plans to kill Nazis leaders,
one by a French Jewish cinema owner,
another by a group of American soldiers called 'Basterds'


An anticipated new Tarantino's film, as I am a huge fans of him.
I can watch Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill again and again but never get bored.

Inglourious Bastreds is pretty good, but if compared with Tarantino's previous movies,
there is no surprise, and there is nothing to cheer.

His style is still there, but the brilliant non-linear story-telling technique is gone, very dissapointing....
No iconic trunk shot, no long take in close-up shot, and....

No Uma Thurman,
which I believe her role is being replaced by a young French actress Melanie Laurent.
I guess if Uma Thurman is going to act in Inglourious Basterds, Melanie Laurent's role is definitely hers.

Whatsoever, Melanie Laurent is younger,and she did a good job in the movie,
especially in the scene where she holds her tears when she is talking to the 'Jew Hunter'.

The feeling of sadness and revenge, Melanie Laurent handle the expression better than Uma Thurman in Kill Bill.
But regarding to the character development, Tarantino definitely put more effort on Uma Thurman.

Christoph Waltz, who act as the 'Jew Hunter', a clever and charming detective,
present an awesome show for us!!!
Tarantino's claims that his character, Hans Landa, is probably the greatest character he ever written. ( I think it is)

He steal the show everytime he appear, he control the situation, he manipulate the scene!!!
He deserved Cannes Best Actor Award.

Another man to watch~~~Brad Pitt~~~the Hollywood superstar.
Okay, nothing much to comment on his acting all this while, but I really like his show in this movie.
His funny American accent, and his character....very well-done!!!

Diane Kruger's acting is.....poor???
well....average lar.....okie???
Mike Myer's cameo doesnt really boost up the excitement....

Back to Tarantino,
oh I miss the brilliant messy plot,
I miss the violence art,
I miss the fantastic title for each chapter....

Anyway, he still maintain his strength to handle a scene, everything is well-planned.
The script, the mise-en-scene, the gun-fight entry.
He can really drag a single simple scene to become very entertaining and interesting.

The conversation is long, and mindless.
But I like it!!!
That's Tarantino film, I simply can't resist his charm in the movie,
for no reason, and I just can't explain why....

And also, Tarantino like to do something unexpected....
We didnt see much in this movie, but personally I didnt expect Hitler will die....

After Brad Pitt is being captured and Melanie Laurent is being killed, I really thought that this is gonna be another failed attempt to kill The Fuhrer after 'Valkyrie', starring by Tom Cruise.

Lastly, is the music he used,
I can't tell you how much I love it....
you'll know why if you watched Kill Bill before!!!

So far, Inglourious Basterds is the best movie in 2009.

The Pianist

Music has his passion,

survival has his masterpiece.

The Pianist is one of the most incredible holocaust movie I have ever watch.
Powerful plot, massive setting, and great cinematography.

Adrien Brody act as a Jewish-Polish pianist, Wladyslaw Szpilman,
who suffer in WW2 when Nazis Germany occupied Warsaw.

Polish director Roman Polanski is a master in this movie, he really create a terrify atmosphere in order to allow audience to feel the cruelty and merciless of Nazis, and I am sure you will be amazed by many shocking scenes in the movie.

A well-written script gives Szpilman a good character development.
The opening scene has just shown us the passion of Szpilman towards music, he keeps on playing his music even when the radio station is bombed and the technician has left the building.

Szpilman's respect to the music can be seen in the scene where he was interupted by the restaurant's guest, his reaction has shown us how much he loves music....and piano....

The scene where he saw a piano in the hiding place, he dare not to play the piano because of afraid being discovered.
But he played the piano in his mind and imagine himself is in an orchestra performance.
This is really heartbreaking....as we can see his passion keeps him alive....

Szpilman's character is so real, he is just an ordinary man that afraid of Nazis, he could not fight with his fellow Jews rebels.
He apologize and beg to the Nazis when he need to, he just want to live....
He looks like a coward, but no...he is not....

His conversation with lady actress shown that how much he wish to join the rebels....
but he always remain rational and realize his own capability...
he is a musician....he cannot fight....

The scene where he attempt to open the canned food is so pitty....
Can you imagine how hungry he was at that moment?
He got a canned food, but he couldnt find a can opener....

Now, the Nazi officer Wilm Hosenfeld see the inhumanity and the pointless of war....
right in front of him, stood a Jews....
both of them were stunned....because they do not know how to react and what to say at that moment.....

Then, Hosenfeld ask Szpilman to play a music....
its funny to see Hosenfeld's reaction when he realize Szpilman is playing Chopin's composition, as later it was revealed that he is the one who played Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in earlier scene.

Now....we can see the idea of juxtaposition from their selection of music composer,
because Szpilman choose Chopin's (Polish) and Hosenfeld choose Beethoven's (German).

If you noticed, the second lady who helped hiding Szpilman, played Bach's music as well by cello.
In that scene, Szpilman expose himself to German composer's music.
But now, it is Hosenfled's turn to expose himself to a Polish composer's music.
Both of them tends to accept each other's culture, art and music....
Roman Polanski is brilliant here in giving audiences a hidden meaning message!!!

Another fantastic scene is where Szpilman found that Hosenfeld has give him a loaf of bread, strawberry jam, and can opener.
The way Szpilman taste the jam and lick his finger, its like he is having orgasm....(sorry being rude here....)

But my point is, Adrien Brody is fabulous here....
he can really act!!!
Oh God....
the satisfaction of tasting strawberry jam!!!

How wondeful...
Now I can always remember this scene when I eat my bread with strawberry jam....

There are many many other fantastic scenes in the movie....
I really cannot mentioned everything here....its TOO MANY!!!

Anyway, this is gotta be my favourite holocaust movie....
A must watch!!!

The Man Who Wasn't There

The last thing on his mind is murder.

2001 film by Coen Bros.
This is a must watch noir because it is nearly perfect.

It is not difficult to recognize Coen Bros. style,
because their story-telling technique are always brilliant.

I watch No Country For Old Men and Paris Jet'aime before, I like it.
But, I have to say, I prefer The Man Who Wasn't There very very much more.

The highly praised No Country For Old Men is a boring movie for average audience, most of the scenes are silent and Coen Bros minimize the use of score.

But The Man Who Wasn't There is a beautiful movie,
Beethoven's Piano Sonata sounds just fine and fit to every single scenes in the movie.

One thing that impressed me the most is the cinematography.
I never see a movie that the camera works so clean and neat.
The movement, the angle can really capture your attention.
Very straightforward, very smooth, very masterful.

Billy Bob Thornton's acting is fantastic in this movie,
and his voice is really sexy (I hate to use this word) for a film noir narration.

"Me, I don't talk much....I just cut the hair."

How cool?

Yeah, he act as a barber in the movie,
and it is memorable that he was smoking everytime he appear in his scene.
He did mention some great metaphors about hair, very meaningful.

Tony Shalhoub (Monk) who acted as the expensive lawyer, has steal the show everytime he talk.
It's like Edward G.Robinson's character in Double Indemnity.

Scarlett Johansson takes a supporting role in the movie, not bad.
Everytime she plays the piano, and the music come in, it takes your breath away.

UFO are mildly shown in the movie.
Frankly I am not really sure what is the intention and motive behind that, but for a black&white film noir, this is something unique, something exaggerate, which gives a big contrast with the rest of the scenes, and it add color to the movie.

This movie is originally filmed in color and transferred back to black&white.
I am not sure how did they do that, and why did they do that.

Did Spielberg filmed Schindler's List in color during shooting process?

Anyway, for me, this movie is a must watch, it is excellent,
everything you can see from the movie, the props and set, are so accurate to the time frame.

If I tell you this is a 1940 film, I am sure you will believe that!!!
But well, unless you can recognize the movie stars.

Another great film comes in to my favourite movies' list,
this is very stylish and amazing!

The Butterfly Effect

A young man who suffer memory black out,

is able to travel in time supernaturally everytime he read his diary.

It is always a bad idea to 'travel in time', you can easily found weakness and hole in the plot.
Lake House starring by Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves is the best fucked up example.
But Heroes did it brilliantly!!!
Scriptwriting for these kind of story is very hard, it kills your brain cell, and it usually end up in a big mess.

But what so brilliant about Butterfly Effect is, the movie success to avoid these complex concept but yet remain the excitement of 'travel in time' idea.

The story put the characters into a painful childhood, a fucked up teenage life.
By doing that, the director have a very huge space to spin here and there, twist here and there.

As we can see, there are many childhood and teenage memories that allow Ashton Kutcher to move forward and move backward freely.
Oh yeah, this movie is starring by Aston Kutcher, my favourite actor, I simply love him.

It is hard for me to put aside his comedian image, but damn....
He can really act in Butterfly Effect!!!
In my opinion, this is his best movie ever.

Back to the story, basically it's all about how a young man trying to clean up his mess cause by his teenage life.
He has a supernatural ability to travel in time, and he is able to redo his past and try to fix things in order to please everyone he had hurt.
But things never turned perfect, everytime he changes something for a good intention, someone he love (his mum, his friend, his childhood sweetheart) have to suffer.

The story drag Ashton Kutcher from one miserable situation to another,
and it is really sad to see the person you love suffer so much,
but you can't play the role as God to rescue them.

But one thing very special about his character is, he is able to 'possess' his own body when he travel back to the past, and travel back to the present.
What I am saying is, when he travelled back to his childhood, he is still he himself, the young and mature man.
And when he travel back to the present days, he still able to keep his memory for what he have changed and done.

Does this contradict to his memory black out background?
I am not really sure.
If Im not mistaken, in the present days, he mentioned that he has 7 years without memory black out.
Has he fully recover?

But the thing is, his character himself does contradict to the butterfly effect.
If you have change something in the past, you should remember the past, but you definitely wont remember that you have fixed the past, right???

But after all, the female fortune teller told us, Ashton Kutcher's character do not have a soul, and he do not have a lifeline in this world, right???
Does this make the story reasonable???

Well, this is just a movie, ofcourse it is fun to think about it,
but even if you didnt, that does not spoil the entertainment.

All of these concepts and ideas, screetching back and forward, consequences and situation,
are simply a naughty story-telling technique by scriptwriters to play around with audiences mind and brain!!!

There are several alternative ending for the movie, I am not sure which one is the theatrical's version.

Spoiler alert:


First ending ,I like it where Ashton Kutcher kill himself when he was still a fetus.
This is clever. It shows that everyone in his life can live happily without him.

But back to his mum, she lost her baby once again,
does this pain equal to her pain to see his son lost his arms?
What I am saying is, this does not make any differences you know....
His mum could feel bad and get sick again.

But the director quickly end the movie by showing montage of happily ever after.
This does not allow audiences to think.
So, it seems like the ending is perfect, but frankly I think it is not, anyway I still like it.


Second ending is Ashton Kutcher travel back in childhood to break up with his childhood sweetheart.
This is a very logic ending. Nothing special.
But well, does that resolve his childhood sweetheart from being abused by her father?
You see, things can't be perfect, but the movie can make it happen.

Others ending are basically caused by this incident, where Ashton Kutcher meet his childhood sweetheart again on the street....and this is what going to happen....

1. He stalk her.
2. He ask her for a coffee.
3. He does nothing and continue walking.

All of these ending suggests that he still remember the girl, but he is not pretty sure about that.

1492: Conquest of Paradise

A 1992 Ridley Scott's movie,

tells the story of Christopher Columbus's discovery of New World.

500 years after Columbus' voyage, director Ridley Scott present this movie to gave us a breathtaking adventure's experience!

Ridley Scott is one of my favourite director, since I have watched Gladiator.
His movie is always beautiful and glorious!!!

Once again collaborate with Greek gifted composer Vangelis, since Blade Runner.

His concern to the score and music theme shown the role of sound in his movie.

From Vangelis to Hans Zimmer, from Blade Runner to Hannibal,

Ridley Scott often care about the music used in his film.

'Vide Cor Meum' has been used in both Hannibal and Kingdom of Heaven.

This shows how stubborn Ridley Scott is, his principle, his style, his passion....

The movie had a poor box office performance, I'm not sure why.

But personally, I like this movie so much.

Ridley Scott presents his visually beautiful and unique surreal cinematography technique!!!

I would say this movie is one of the most underrated movie ever.

One of Ridley Scott's earlier film, but his directing skill is very mature.

Story-telling and character development is very good.

People might argue that the feature time is too long and the plot is weak and overall boring.

But I think it is really difficult to tell a story of one great person in a movie.

The only weakness of this movie is the poor acting.

Wrong casting for Columbus.

I can see the main actor's effort, but it is just not enough to credit him as a great actor in this movie.

When you ask people about '1492: Conquest of Paradise', I bet most of them will think about Vangelis and his soundtrack, instead of the movie itself.

This music is absolutely a classic, a superior and powerful theme, a masterpiece!!!

The choir's voice and Vangelis's music weapon can take your soul away....

The effect and influence of this main theme is undeniable.

The music even guide us to construct Ridley Scott's shot, and allow us to imagine Ridley Scott's surreal scene.

A great music that beat a great movie!!!

A great composer that beat a great director!!!

This is how I'm gonna conclude my review.

Angels and Demons

Battle between Angels and Demons.

Conflicts between Catholic Church and Illuminati.

Dispute between Religion and Science.

A less controversial film adaptation from Dan Brown's novel.
Ron Howard treat the movie Angels and Demons as the sequel to the movie Da Vinci Code, although the book Angels and Demons was published before the book Da Vinci Code.

But throughout the whole movie, you cannot find any cliffhanger or bridge that reminds you about Da Vinci Code.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Robert Langdon, is the only character remain.

Ofcourse, there are still some controversial issues in the story, but the way these issues present is not as harsh as Da Vinci Code.
As I always said, it's about questioning the fundamental truth of the religion, or not.
Da Vinci Code did that, but Angels and Demons did not.

So, personally I think it is fair to say that Angels and Demons is not an anti-Catholic film, because Robert Langdon never denied the existance of God.
The funny thing is, it is Robert Langdon who proved the conspiracy of Jesus Christ; this time comes to protect the church and pope, along with a beautiful scientist.
Moreover, the priest (Ewan McGregor) made a fair comment to support both science and religion.

Allright, let us now put aside the religion issue and just compare the movie Da Vinci Code, and the movie Angels and Demons.
Even though I do not see this movie is a direct-sequel to Da Vinci Code, but I think it is usual to compare these both movies, since they were film adaptations from the same novel author, directed by the same movie diretor, and lead by the same actor.

Novel fans think Da Vinci Code did not success to capture the interesting details of the novel.
I think the plot is very messy, too much of unnecessary story-line.

But, Angels and Demons is a harmless, comfortable, and entertaining movie.
After the failure of Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard learned from the lesson and makes Angels and Demons become a face-pace movie.
All of the important details and the essence of the novel remained in the movie, which is a good thing I believe.

The plot is solid and smooth, more action sequences....
There is no time for you to take a breath, because the clock is ticking and the bomb is going to explode in Vatican.
Tom Hanks (with a better hairstyle) do not have any room to flirting around with the pretty actress, and he simply do not have any extra time to meet an old friend and argue with him.

One similiar thing between Da Vinci Code and National Treasure (as I mentioned in January's entry) is how the way the clues being discovered and how the secret being revealed, it is very entertaining.
But this time, Angels and Demons did not surprise me or WOW me, perhaps these techniques are not fresh anymore.

Everyone around Tom Hanks looks like a fool and idiot, he got a team formed by Swiss Guard and Catholic Church to back him up.
But in the end, we can only see a Robert Langdon one man show.

*spoiler alert*

The worse thing is, priest Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor) can alone direct the whole conspiracy drama, with just a little help from an assassin.
He can cheat the whole Catholic Church by giving them an old enemy, Illuminati.

Now what? Tom Hanks VS Ewan McGregor?
I mean, how can he do that???
he is too brilliant, which is very ridiculous....impossible....

Worse come to worst in the twist,
his plan moves so smooth all this while and he nearly success, but in the end he is defeated by what you know?

Not Holy Grail,
not ancient scrolls,
not Robert Langdon's brain.....

but is CCTV....what the hell....

I don't know how the novel ends the story, but personally I think this idea is very stupid. (no offense to novel fans)
Come on, you knew hell a lot of Catholic Church history and you got the whole Vatican Library to back you up, but in the end it is the CCTV to fuck you up?

What Dan Brown wants to prove? Technology can defeat religion knowledge???
:D

CCTC? omg....this often happen in HongKong's cheap and low cost TV dramas.
This does not show how clever Robert Langdon is...to discover a CCTV....

Come on, this is Dan Brown, his fans think he is the most creative author of the world, I think he is a clever person too. But how can he ends the story just like that???

Anyway, frankly I don't know is this Dan Brown's idea or Ron Howard's idea, scriptwriter perhaps? anyone care to correct me???

If you really like Da Vinci Code (regarding to any elements), and you tends to find something similiar in Angels and Demons, you will be dissapointed.

Once again, music plays a vital part in Dan Brown's film adaptation.
Hans Zimmer develop the "Chevaliers de Sangreal" of Da Vinci Code as the main theme in Angels and Demons.
Not as epic as last movie, but it is much more peaceful and sorrow.

Pearl Harbor

2001 war film based on true event--
Empire of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Directed by Michael Bay
Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer
Music by Hans Zimmer

My friends who know me well, probably knew these three fellows are always my favourite filmmakers.
The chemical effects between them is clearly seen in "The Rock".

Jerry Bruckheimer pair up with Michael Bay for the third time since "The Rock" and "Armageddon".
But "Pearl Harbor" is a huge dissapointment.

This movie proves a fact that action movie director should not direct a war film.
Same mistake repeat by John Woo in "Windtalkers".

Two worst things in this movie is the screenplay and acting.

The essense of history in Pearl Harbor event is totally gone.
It's all fucked up by the triangle relationship between Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale.

If you divide this movie into parts according to plot by feature time, you will find how draggy the script is.

First part, it's all about romantic and "touching"(not for me) love story.
Feature time: 90minutes
Comment: Boring!!!

Second part, attack on Pearl Harbor.
Feature time: 30minutes
Comment: Michael Bay showed his character. Not bad....great sounds effect and editing!!!!

Third part, American revenge....and.....unresolved love conflicts.
Feature time: 60minutes
Comment: Oh no, not again!!!

There is lack of historical facts, truth and real characters portrayed in the movie.
The footage is a waste and doesnt really concern with the plot.

The love triangle itself can already be made for another movie independantly.
It is a waste because Pearl Harbor's attack is a huge event in world history, but unluckily audiences cannot get any meaningful message from the movie.

3hours is absolutely draggy, and suffering.
The 30minutes bombing scene is well-done but it didnt advance the plot.
It can only shows how talented Michael Bay is to explode buildings and ships.

Another poor thing in this movie is the bad acting.
Ben Affleck is one the lead actor that I hate the most.
I really don't know what the hell is going on to his acting skill.
He just, won't improve.

But ofcourse, there are still some good things you can find in this movie.
The soundtrack is good, Hanz Zimmer remains his quality in Pearl Harbor.
The music makes the movie beautiful and it fits well to those nice scenery at Pearl Harbor.

Some of the scenes' cinematography is great.
I like how the first armor-piercing bombs drops on the ship.
Very memorable!!!

Overall, Pearl Harbor is not a great movie.
Feelike vommit after watching....

Sorry Michael Bay!