Review: "Michael Jackson's This Is It"

Two weeks before the movie premiered, I bought my tickets for "Michael Jackson's This Is It". It's not that I'm that big a fan of Michael Jackson that I "die-die" had to watch the show. Rather, I wanted to see him on the big screen and feared that tickets would sell out fast once they became available.

Thus, on its second day of screening, I was seated in a packed cinema hall to watch the last performance by this legendary singer. Going in, I hadn't really known what to expect, aside from his rehearsal footage. Was this going to be a documentary? Would his family members be interviewed? Was it a retrospective celebration?

As it turns out, "This Is It" was what his concert would've been, if he had been alive to stage it. The few interviews were limited to those with his musicians and dancers, who spoke with such awe-struck tones about working with Michael Jackson. Surprisingly, none of the key concert producers or organisers were interviewed directly, apparently preferring to provide a more "lay man's" point-of-view.

What stuck out most from the interviews was their dedication to their work, and it was because of Michael Jackson's direct and intimate touch with how he wanted his concert to be. Throughout the show, and since this was rehearsal footage, we got to see Jackson focus so strongly on his songs and choreography. One part that brought this out clearly this was when he dictated how he wanted the opening notes to (I think) "I Just Can't Stop Lovin' You", and didn't rest till his lead pianist got it right.

It's little moments like this that make me wonder just how his concert would've turned out "live". Going to a concert, one usually experiences the moment in all of its musical and technical wonder. But there's a lot more work that goes on behind-the-scenes, as this movie showed. Like the shooting of the new videos for "They Don't Care About Us" and "Thriller", when I thought about how those dancers were probably cursing and swearing every time they had to get each minute move just perfect for Michael Jackson's desires.

But then, the movie also showed the singer's dedication to his craft. He danced easily like he was in his twenties. The moonwalk, the snappy hand gestures, everything was there on incredible display. In particular, I could feel his energy in the opening songs, like "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and later with "Beat It". However, there were also times when he did a lot of striding across the stage for the entire song, which made me wonder whether those were moments when he was taking it easy due to exhaustion and in anticipation of the next dance. But this was a 50-year-old guy, I'm sure everyone would forgive him if he wasn't thumping for two hours straight.

It's probably fair to say that Michael Jackson was a truly unique performer, and "This Is It" bears this out. There are few singers who could not only sing and dance, but sing and dance memorably. His old songs still sounded modern and his slick moves are still unmatched. The movie is a testament to his genius and poor substitute for what should have been the pinnacle moment of his career.

--

Review: "Coraline" in 3D

Thanks to omy.sg for a free ticket, I and a friend had the chance to watch the stop-motion film, "Coraline" in 3D. Yep, that meant putting on a pair of bulky glasses, but it was worth it.

Right from the start, the 3D experience was mesmerizing. I really felt like I could reach out to touch the objects on the screen. During the introduction sequence, when a doll is being sewed, I thought I could feel the doll if I just stretched my hand out. This is one movie where the 3D experience was definitely worthwhile. Yes, there were some parts when it felt like a normal 2D film, but those did not occur often.

And even if there were some 2D-like portions, you would most likely have not noticed. I certainly didn't, as I was drawn into Coraline's fantasy world. Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, I certainly wasn't expecting a run-of-the-mill children's show. Though this movie had its dark tone, I think children, especially those who can appreciate films other than those that Miley Cyrus appears in, will enjoy this show.

And why shouldn't they? I'm sure every kid has always wondered about escaping into a parallel universe, where they are king or queen and life is superbly comfortable. That's what the heroine, Coraline, experiences. Where her mother and father were workaholics who couldn't give her the time of day, in the "Other World", Coraline gets to indulge in some good home-cooked food from her "Other Mother" and dance and play with her "Other Father".

Of course, life isn't that simple, as Coraline quickly discovers. From then on, the movie follows the tried-but-true "hero's journey": heroine faces a crisis, heroine gathers her allies and weapons, heroine faces down the villain, heroine rescues everyone. For a children's show, this works wonderfully and inspiringly. I don't know how many kids would be willing to fight a baddie who has buttons for eyes.

On the other hand, that's what I found too fantastic about this film: Coraline's quest was too smooth, too matter-of-fact. She just slid from situation to situation, without any feeling of "oh wow, what have I gotten myself into?". Even when she first saw the "Other Parents" with their button-eyes, she didn't appear repulsed. That was simply unbelievable.

So, it's a good thing that the show was saved by its strong but simple plot, and also the performances by its actors. Although there were a few big names in the show, their personalities disappeared into that of their characters. For instance, Dakota Fanning and Teri Hatcher were unrecognisable as Coraline and the mother/Other Mother respectively. John Hodgman, the PC guy in Apple's "Mac vs PC" ads, was similarly indistringuishable from his humorous father/Other Father character.

Which is good, because then I didn't feel distracted from the movie. That's what I wanted and that's what I got. "Coraline" is a movie that is delightful in its simple way. It'll make children feel wishful (if not too frightened by the visuals) and adults whimsical.

--

Review: "The Time Traveler's Wife"

Though I had never read the book, I had heard good things about "The Time Traveler's Wife". Girl falls for guy, but girl has a hard time with guy because guy keeps leaving girl alone, because, you know, it's in his genes.

Normally, that would just be another cliched plot for a romance flick. In "Time Traveler's Wife", it's given a twist in that the hero, Henry, disappears because a genetic anomaly causes him to travel in time. So though he leaves the heroine, Clare, alone, he actually reappears in her life somewhen else. Initially, it made the movie a tad hard to follow, because it jumps in after Clare has already "met" him earlier in her life, so the audience has to quickly catch up to follow what's going on. That probably works in the written form, but on-screen, it could prove difficult for audiences who are more used to a chronologically linear form.

But once I figured it out, the plot actually worked. I could see why and how both of them fell in love with each other and were willing to stick it out, in spite of the trouble that his anomaly caused (besides broken dishes and lonely Christmases). I think a lot of people who live with absent spouses or partners, like traveling salesmen, would really understand how Clare felt about her situation.

However, I thought that both Rachel McAdams' performance was rather flat. She portrayed the pining, whiny Clare rather well, but that was the problem: she was pining and whiny. Somehow, she didn't manage to make Clare able to rise above her predicament.

At least her good looks provided some eye candy in the film.

Eric Bana was, unfortunately, relegated to second fiddle. Which makes sense, since this film was entitled "The Time Traveler's Wife". It's a pity, though, because I thought he played his part quite well. As his character aged and became accustomed to his "gift", I could see his attitude change from one of "oh shit, here it goes again" to "hmm, I'm fading, lah-dee-dah". I also thought that he was able to bring across his character's anguish and hopelessness towards the end of the movie.

And once in a while, I actually expected him to "Hulk out" at any moment, haha!

All in all, this was a truly sappy romantic flick. Its story worked hard to tug at my heartstrings, and I understand that it caused some people to actually cry (I maintained dry eyes!). There were moments when I was rooting for the characters, and others when I wanted to scream, "Oh, get on with it!" And the ending was entirely predictable, if a tad dragged out too.

Maybe the end result was because of its "translation" from print to screen, so some bits did not work as well as they should've. But if you enjoy curling up with your loved one for two hours of romantic escapism, then this probably the movie for you.

--

RIP: Patrick Swayze

Like most people of my generation, I first got acquainted with Patrick Swayze in the movie, "Dirty Dancing". Back then, I didn't really understand what the big craze over the movie was, but I watched it all the same with my sister.

And well, for a young impressionable boy, the sensual dance that led to the sex scene was quite an eye-opener.

But the movie stuck with me, and Patrick Swayze epitomised the kind of guy that I wanted to be: handsome, suave, and chicks dig him. His dance moves also captivated me, since it would seem that I'm born with two left feet.

Years later, I watched him again portray the anguished spirit who had to protect his girlfriend in "Ghost". Besides learning a new use for "ditto", I was again taken in by his tragic portrayal of the man who just couldn't let go of his love. Yes, the pottery scene was extremely fun to watch, but it was his overall performance in that show that made me admire him even more.

And like most people, that's all of his movies that I really watched. It wasn't until years later that I bought the "Dirty Dancing" soundtrack and realised that the man could sing as well! "She's Like the Wind" is my perennial favourite. The lyrics are actually quite depressing, in that he seems to be singing of a love that cannot be (thus, she's like the wind and blown away). But the way he sang it made it seem more like an anthem.

More recently, I watched the pilot of his TV series, "The Beast". It was painful to see this hunk looking so worn and weary during his real life fight with cancer. His performance in that show was gritty and seemed very real. And it showed that he could take on such versatile roles.

And at least with "Dirty Dancing", he gave me a show that has made the time of my life.

--

Review: "Up"

It was only recently that I finally managed to watch the newest Pixar movie, "Up". Though I was still able to watch it on the big screen, I had to settle for the non-3D, non-digital version. Fortunately, Pixar's storytelling strength remained as good as it's ever been, and I found myself thoroughly enjoying this movie.

In my view, "Up" is the first Pixar movie that was purposely produced for adults. Not that there's raunchy sex or random acts of violence. Rather, the story of an old man fulfilling his promise to his late wife's dream is one that would resonate more closely and dearly with the grown-ups. Besides, I don't see how a grumpy old fart could be endearing to children.

I also thought that there were some parts that children would not necessarily understand, like when the kid Russell says that he appreciates doing mundane stuff with his dad rather than their exciting antics. Most kids probably feel that way, but would never express it the way Russell did.

Perhaps this movie was a sign that Pixar is growing up from its kiddie toy roots. Pixar has experimented with old people in its earlier short films, like "Geri's Game". But it hadn't then achieved its current reknown. I'd like to see how Pixar further experiments with the computer animated film genre to reach a more diverse audience.

Of course, there was still a lot for the kids to enjoy. This is, after all, a Disney film. So there are the dogs with their squirrel fetish, the funny looking birds, and basically the grand adventure of being whisked away on a fantastic adventure. Who has never dreamed of floating away on a balloon, let alone a house with a huge number of balloons? This is why I still prefer Pixar's movies. Its themes are more simple and universal, and not the gawdy humour that Dreamworks uses.

Of course, that's not to say that it's a perfect studio that produced a perfect film. Russell, the boy scout, started off as a very whiny irritating character. Even halfway through the film, I still had a desire to wring my hands around his animated neck. Fortunately, he developed well in the third act to save the day.

There was also the gross under-characterisation of the villain, Charles Muntz. His ability to stoop to such low levels showed a very one-sided personality. Or maybe I'm thinking too hard, since this is still a kids film that requires simple characters.

So I should probably stop over-thinking about:

• the ability of the balloons to remain intact after passing through a lightning storm
• the strength of an old man and a young boy in pulling a two-storey house -- with just a hose!
• the dexterity of said old man in clambering over an airship

But don't let these shortfalls stop you from enjoying this show. Especially if you're an adult who's always wished for a marvelous adventure.

--

Review: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

I finally managed to watch "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". This was after it had been out in theatres for about half a week, enough time for the bad reviews to pile up and influence my expectations of the movie. And, sad to say, those negative reviews were spot-on. Michael Bay has really made a mess of the franchise.

Unfortunately for me, I had spoiled myself by reading the comic adaptation first. As a result, I had already known just how bad the storyline was. Even in the comic, Sam Witwicky came across as the whiny boy who refused to grow up yet got handed every responsibility in the world. Optimus Prime appeared less heroic than in the first movie. The major plothole about why the Fallen hadn't discovered the tomb of the Primes when he had millenia to search Earth was never explained satisfactorily. And all of the other robots, whether Autobots or Decepticons, were relegated to second-stringers next to their human counterparts.

Also, the new robots didn't make a difference at all. With more characters, one would expect a diversity of relationships and sub-plots. The only one that I thought would've been cool would be to see some robotic romance between Ironhide and Arcee. However, given Bay's disdain for the female robots, this was a dream that would never be realised.

Instead, Bay's favourites, the Autobot twins, were given too much screen time for their usefulness. As the other negative reviews had pointed out, they were the worst characters ever to make it to the big screen since "Star Wars"' Jar Jar Binks -- and I thought Jar Jar was quite tolerable! In contrast, the twins were just irritating. I hope someone does an edit of this film and calls it "Transformers: Absence of the Twins".

But removing the twins would still not do justice to the "Transformers" part of the title. The story was just nonsensical from the start. Like the attack in Shanghai. After two years of fighting huge robots, you'd think that the Autobots and U.S. Army would have a better idea of containing the fight. (Or maybe not, given how events have unfolded in Iraq.) And the final battle between Optimus Prime and the Fallen, where supposedly only a Prime could kill the Fallen? It seemed like after two punches, the Fallen just basically, well, fell. What the...?!

Even Devastator, the mother-of-all-bad-ass robots, was reduced to a bumbling gorilla for the most part. Where was the menacing robot who terrified the $#!+ out of the Autobots in the cartoon movie? And -- BIG SPOILER -- he was the robot with the testicles!!! DAMN YOU, MICHAEL BAY!! I had wanted to buy the Constructicons toy set (if it ever sees the light of day), but I've changed my mind now. I'd rather lay my hands on the classic green-and-purple ones and reclaim my innocent childhood.

Devastator's transformation, though, was rather cool, especially seeing as how it seemed like he forced the other Constructicons to merge with him. If only it had been shot in a wider persepective or a bird's eye view, so that the audience (and us fan boys) could really grasp the enormity and awesomeness of the combination.

Alas, for a "Transformers" movie, the robots were just pitiful. All except Soundwave. His voice was just... creepy and menacing at the same time. Almost like in the cartoon, but more bad-ass. Too bad he was seemingly absent (or indistinguishable from the other robots) during the final climactic battle.

Okay, and Jetfire too, when he made his entrance with his clarion call, only because it had a swashbuckler feel to it.

Not that his presence would have made a difference, I think. The humans would've still smashed the Decepticons. Yup, the humans, not the Autobots. I thought that this was a "Transformers" movie? Why were the humans doing all of the fighting? And as one would colloquially ask, "Bombs don't need money, is it?" There were too many explosions, enough to distract you from the absence of a storyline.

And if explosions weren't enough, Bay filled the movie with fratboy humour that would be better suited to a "National Lampoon"-type movie. Like the testicles scene. Or the university filled with sex-starved sluts in every nook and cranny. Or the guy caught with his pants down next to another passed-out guy. Or a robot humping Megan Fox's leg (poor Miss Fox!). I was particularly concerned about the reactions from the parents who had brought their preteen children. Parents, this is not a children's movie. It's rated PG - Parental Guidance, and believe me, you'll need to provide a lot of guidance!

This was just a terrible, terrible movie. This is one for the gutter. Now excuse me while I rewatch the cartoon movie and remember how the death of Optimus Prime was treated with so much dignity that children cried when they saw it.

--

Review: "Monsters vs Aliens"

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to catch a preview of "Monsters vs Aliens" on Monday night. Unfortunately, due to last minute delays, I had missed the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film.

As a result, the film felt much shorter than expected. When the final credits came scrolling up, I realised that little more than an hour had passed. In fact, by the middle of the film, I had a funny feeling that this was going to be a short film.

Yes, it's animated. Yes, it uses modern computer graphics instead of the old animation cels. Yes, it's in 3D. And yes, it has some big name voices. But if those were budgetary excuses to make a short film, then I'm sorely disappointed.

But first, I have to say that watching a 3D film was quite an enjoyable experience! Firstly, the glasses provided by Cathay Cinema were quite well designed for comfort, even for a person wearing spectacles. And the 3D effects were very well done, especially in the battle scenes, when it felt like debris was being littered all over the cinema hall. The first time that happened, I nearly wanted to raise my hands to shield myself! Haha, that would've been a very suah ku moment.

Unfortunately, the 3D experience was just a glossy finish. With underdeveloped characters and a penchant for slapstick humour, especially embodied in the buffoon of a president, there wasn't much to like in "Monsters vs Aliens".

The story was a simple one: girl gets strange powers, girl is confined with other strange creatures, US government uses said creatures to defend Earth from an alien attack, girl embraces her powers and becomes a hero. But then, this is a kids' show, so the story has to be kept as simple as possible, you know, unlike that of an old man who flies his house UP to distant lands with balloons.

But then, my expectations had already been lowered even before watching the film, because this is a Dreamworks picture. To me, that meant that it wouldn't have the same level of enjoyment that I get from Pixar films. For some reason, Dreamworks cartoons have always seemed a bit more... adult.

I don't mean this in terms of the level of violence or language (and there's no on-screen nudity either, obviously). Rather, it's the type of jokes that were used. I felt that adults would have been better able to appreciate the funny moments than the children. Which is ironic, since "Monsters vs Aliens" is a cartoon, i.e. targeted at children. Sure, there are the usual sight gags, weird characters and odd body shapes. But those somehow just weren't funny or endearing enough to lift the film.

Here's a very telling anecdote: the adults and children in the audience laughed at different moments of the film. The adults enjoyed listening to the retro "Beverly Hills Cop" theme and caught the relationship jokes. But the kids laughed most loudly when a male character said the word "very" many times. Ideally, I think the filmmakers would want everyone to laugh at the same time and share the humorous moment together.

Or maybe I'm just wrong. After all, I'm an adult, what do I know about children entertainment? Maybe "Monsters vs Aliens" really is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very enjoyable show for those in primary school.

Aside: this time, moviegoers not only got to keep the card stock movie ticket, but also a brochure on Cathay's 3D cinema experience and a set of "Monsters vs Aliens" stickers of Bob. Yay!



--