Korny POC

A New Hope

2007-08-01T04:14:00.001+08:00

http://kornypoc.blogs.friendster.com/kornypoc/

An Admirable Vision for Broadcast Media

2006-02-27T23:47:00.000+08:00

Came across this link at Roger Ebert's website:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm

A great speech. Most of it still relevant today, half a century later. Really like the integrity and vision conveyed. Bet it would've been really inspiring to have been at a great oration like that ...

Blunt

2005-12-10T02:42:00.000+08:00

"Did I disappoint you or let you down?
...
...
...
It may be over but it won't stop there.
I am here for you if you'd only care.
You touched my heart you touched my soul.
You changed my life and all my goals.
And love is blind and that much I knew when,
My heart was blinded by you.
I've kissed your lips and held your head.
Shared your dreams and shared your bed.
I know you well, I know your smell.
I've been addicted to you.

Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

I am a dreamer but when I wake,
You can't break my spirit - it's my dreams you take.
And as you move on, remember me,
Remember us and all we used to be.

I've seen you cry, I've seen you smile.
I've watched you sleeping for a while.
I'd be the father of your child.
I'd spend a lifetime with you.
I know your fears and you know mine.
We've had our doubts but now we're fine,
And I love you, I swear it's true.
I cannot live without you.

Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

And I still hold your hand in mine ...
In mine when I'm asleep.
And I will bear my soul in time,
When I'm kneeling at your feet.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

I'm so hollow, baby, I'm so hollow.
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow ..."

- J. B.

KTO: Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Night Out (Marathon)

2005-11-20T16:15:00.000+08:00

This was actually part of an animation film festival (i.e. Animation Nation) organized by the S'pore Film Society (henceforth known as SFS). It was a marathon of all the W&G material ever produced by Nick Park and his Aardman Studios. This consisted of:

1) A Grand Day Out (Oscar-nominated short)
2) The Wrong Trousers (Oscar-winning short)
3) A Close Shave (ANOTHER Oscar-winning short)
[loo-break]
4) Cracking Contraptions (3 ultra-shorts)
5) Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (1st feature-length animation). This actually featured the penguins from "Madagascar" in a separate animation short as a prelude (let's call it item 4.5).

W&G are a great pair. Very innovative, funny, good natured and boundlessly optimistic. Both are unique individuals but are a perfect complement for each other. The kind of match we all wish for in our relationships with our partners actually. Hmmm ... perhaps they work so well together cuz one of them (Gromit) can't speak (altho that doesn't stop him from reading and understanding English perfectly well) AND ... is a dog ;) After all, they are supposed to be man's best friend.

Anyway, by watching the entire W&G collection in one sitting, it allowed me to really appreciate the evolution in the quality of the production. For eg, it's easy to see that (1) was a first time effort. The quality of the animation is less polished. The story is also less cohesive and the pacing could be improved on. But even then, you could see the great potential there. And just like all the subsequent efforts, it's endlessly imaginative, warm and captures that distinctly British humour very well.
By (5), the animation and production quality has improved tremendously. And it's all done without losing all the things that were great about the predecessors. An extraordinary achievement indeed!

Being the 2nd stop-motion effort to be released in S'pore this year (altho it was actually released before "Corpse Bride" in the US), it will invariably be compared to CB. Both are excellent movies and it'd be fantastic to see BOTH of them nominated for Best Animation at next year's Oscars. With that said, the 2 movies are actually quite different. W&G is a claymation (i.e. uses clay to construct it's characters) while CB uses more puppets and models. Neither is superior to the other. Personally, I find that claymation exudes more warmth and looks more organic (perhaps because it's less precise - You can actually see partial fingerprints here and there). On the other hand, puppets give the film a cleaner and more precise look (as I mentioned in my CB review, it could pass off as CGI). I believe both would be equally tedious and painstaking to produce and I salute all involved in both movies just for that alone. That they ended up being excellent movies ... my greatest gratitude and admiration.

An interesting thing to note tho is that Helena Bonham Carter voiced major characters in BOTH movies. That probably makes her the only person to be involved in both productions (at least as far as I'm aware of). Fancy that. Wonder what it is about her (or should I say, her voice) that seems to attract casting agents for stop-motion animations to her ...

Another interesting thing to note is that the villain in (5) is voiced by Ralph Fiennes (a great actor. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets knighted one of these days) ... who's also playing the villain in "Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire". Anyway, am really looking forward to his "The Constant Gardener".

As for the sole non-W&G animation (i.e. item 4.5), it felt very much like the original "Madagascar": high production quality, very well animated, amusing and funny at times, BUT ... kinda soulless and not terribly memorable. A bit too much talking for it's own good and at times it felt like it was just trying to eat up time. Not a good thing. A perfect example of how good production and technical qualities do not necessarily equate to a good movie. I guess it's flaws were especially glaring when juxtaposed against the W&G movies.

Okie-dok. Gotta get ready for an old friend's wedding. Wonder how I'm gonna do reception duty with my increasinly hoarse (and fading) voice ....

KTO: Transporter 2

2005-11-19T22:05:00.000+08:00

This is a fun, amusing and often outlandish movie. In fact, I found it to be one of those extremely rare sequels that were better than their predecessors. I guess a big reason is that there's no Shu Qi to butcher the English language ;) Dun get me wrong, she looked really HOT and yummy in the first "Transporter", but I'm always peeved when an actor delivers dialogue in a language that he/she is obviously not comfortable with ... and worse ... tries to pass it off as if he/she is supposed to be proficient in it. Just like it's incredibly annoying (demeaning even?) when Western actors try to (SUPPOSEDLY) speak Mandarin/Cantonese AND do a bad job of it. Yeesh! Would very much rather they just speak their native tongue and provide subtitles instead. The way I see it, that way you won't be annoying audiences who actually speak the language and you also allow the actor to express himself fully/properly in the language they're more comfortable with ... without the added impediment of trying to figure out a foreign language. If an actor REALLY wants to use a language that's alien to him/her, then they should have the decency to do it properly!
Had the exact same beef with "Tom-Yum-Goong" (which I'll be mentioning again a bit later).

Also, the story/plot for this sequel was more interesting/coherent. It's also alot funnier. The action/stunts are at least on par with the predecessor, if not outright better. The acting is also more respectable (again largely cuz of the exclusion of Shu Qi) with Jason Statham being the obvious standout. He seems prefectly cast as Frank the Transporter and is obviously having alot of fun with the role; acting cool, making wise-cracks, kicking ass and through it all demonstrating that his character has a real heart of gold. Now, who hasn't fantasized about doing stuff like that?!? :p
Actually, Statham's quite an interesting actor. He often portrays variations of this role ... sometimes, he's meaner, sometimes he's abit more clueless, sometimes not as in control. But almost always, he brings an edge and humour to the character that is usually quite fun to watch. First noticed him in Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", followed by "Mean Machine" (with ex-Chelsea player, Vinnie Jones (who was also in "L,S and TSB"), "Snatch" (another Ritchie movie) and the remake of "The Italian Job".

Anyway, now that I've established why I think the sequel is better, I wanna compare it with another movie: "Tom-Yum-Goong" (as I promised earlier). Both are action flicks with leads who can really pull off their own fights and stunts. However, in my opinion, the MAIN difference is that T2 is a proper/ACTUAL "movie" while TYG is more of a 'martial arts porn'. That's cuz the main pleasure and effort is in the fights and everything else is just an excuse for it to be classified as a "movie". (i.e. no coherent plot, weak 'acting', etc). But being 'martial arts porn' also means that TYG has superior fight sequences with much better choreography (for both the fights and the shooting of the sequence itself).
In other words, T2 is a more COMPLETE movie than can be enjoyed from beginning to end ... while TYG should be watched mostly for it's fight scenes only.

The last thing I wanna mention is Luc Besson. If I recall correctly he served as writer (co-writer?) and producer for T2. Personally, I'd prefer that he returned to directing. His "La Femme Nikita" (which spawned a Hollywood remake with Bridget Fonda as the lead, as well as a TV series), "The Professional" aka "Leon" (which featured the indelible debut of Natalie Portman) and "The Fifth Element" (which sorta launched Chris Tucker's movie career and had a minor role for S'porean Ivan Heng) were all very unique, interesting, exciting and often cool movies. My fav would be "The Professional". Excellent, excellent movie. Highly-recommended if you haven't already caught it. Anyway, Besson has since taken a greater interest in producing/writing rather than directing. You still get some of the trademark Besson in these movies (eg. "Yamakasi", "Taxi", "Unleashed") but it would be fantastic if he directed another true Besson classic :)

KTO: Oliver Twist

2005-11-16T00:05:00.000+08:00

I'm pretty sure I've seen other versions of OT but I just can't seem to place when or what they were. I mean, I can vaguely remember the famous "Please sir, may I have some more?" line ... Artful Dodger ... all the pickpocketing ... the FEEL of it ... but not the faces or names or in what form(s) or at which point(s) in my childhood. Whichever version(s) it/they were, it was a looong time ago. Hence, the "dodgy" memory.

What I do remember distinctly is that I really enjoyed the version(s) I saw. Definitely more than this Roman Polanski adaptation. That's not to say it's bad (cuz it's NOT!) ... just ... shrug. Perhaps, it was cuz I was alot younger then and I could relate better with Oliver ... or perhaps cuz it was the first time I had seen it and, as such, it held alot more surprises/thrills ... or mebbe cuz I had lower expectations ...

I guess 1 of the things that I din really like was how Oliver seemed quite ... boring/undeserving? He's not particularly spunky or smart or brave or sharp or interesting. He just seems to get blown from 1 situation to another and gets by mostly on how cute and innocent he looks. It's not like he actively makes his situation better or improves the lives of those he meets. In fact, quite the contrary: Sykes dies, Nancy is killed, Fagin is (or will be) hanged, Bronlow has his house broken into, Artful Dodger and the rest of the street urchins likely ended up in jail (?). He just seems alot more like a victim than someone who consciously endeavours to change his fate. I guess in that way, he shares some similarities with Adrien Brody's character in Polanski's Oscar-winning "The Pianist". In fact, in a way, you could say it's the same theme (i.e. that our lives/fate depends largely on luck and the goodwill of the people around us) transposed to a different setting. I dun entirely disagree with that point of view, but I'm far from being comfortable with it because it tends to make people lazy. Sorta like, if it's largely beyond my control, why bother trying so hard? In fact, why try at all? Now, THAT'S a mentality I'm strongly against.

Perhaps as a result, I actually prefered another recent adaptation of a Charles Dickens novel: "Nicholas Nickleby". The protagonist in that was also afflicted with great misfortunes but instead of being primarily buffetted by the winds of fate, he actively fights to create a better life for himself and his family. He also fearlessly tries to right any perceived wrongs he encounters with little regard to his own personal welfare. In my opinion, a much more compelling and worthy "hero" than Oliver. Of cuz, one might argue that Oliver is alot younger, and as such, is not as aware or as able to shape his own destiny. That might be true, but it still doesn't make him any less boring/undeserving to me.

The strange thing is, I dun remember getting this vibe from the previous incarnations of OT. Again, it could just be that I was too young to notice it. Sigh ... the problem with aging RAM ...

Aside from this fundamental problem that I had with the story, the movie in general is well-made. It's well-acted and well-shot and, from what I've read, is supposed to be one of the most faithful adaptations of Dicken's original novel. The kids all acquit themselves well enough (always a crucial thing in any retelling of OT). The only actor I was really familiar with was Sir Ben Kingsley. He's one helluva actor with some serious range. If you're not already familiar with his work, check out "House Of Sand And Fog", "Sexy Beast" (nominated for best supporting actor oscar), "Schindler's List" and of cuz, "Gandhi" (won best actor). Cool guy. So, of cuz it goes without saying that his Fagin is great work. Almost unrecognisable actually, under all that makeup and with that hunch.

Ok, that's all I've got to say about OT. Feel a flu coming on, so I'd better hit the sack soon. Been experiencing an alarming number of aches and pains of late. Won't be surprised if it stems from all the weight on my mind ...
Anyway, hope to get my thoughts on "Transporter 2" up before the end of the week. Till then ...

The Jackpot Of Coincidences

2005-11-13T22:16:00.000+08:00

Level 1

It's HB's birthday ... and I'm attending a bachelor party for a common friend (all 3 of us were from the same ECA in JC). Let's call this common friend "K2".

Level 2

The attending "brudders" are from 2 distinct groups: those of us who knew him from JC and those who knew him from NTU. The wedding dinner coordinator is from his NTU gang and the following conversation takes place:

Me: So, where do you work?
Wedding Dinner Coordinator: Oh, at company S. (Which just happens to be where HB used to work. In fact, I suddenly realise we're having dinner in the same building she had her farewell dinner when she left company S for it's Aussie subsidiary ... It's somewhere I hardly ever eat at ... mebbe only 1 other time since attending that farewell with her 18 months ago).

Level 3

Me: Oh really? I know some people there. But they're in corporate finance so, you might not know them. You did Engineering with K2 right?
WDC: Actually no, I did accounting and I'm in the tax department. (Whoa! Didn't see THAT one coming!)

Level 4

WDC: So who do you know? HB? (*ding ding!* Jackpot! I believe we have a winner here!).

SIGHZ ...

An Ode To Love Lost

2005-11-12T00:00:00.000+08:00

ODE

KTO: Tom-Yum-Goong

2005-11-09T00:02:00.000+08:00

About 2 years ago, movies-online asked me to review some obscure Thai movie I'd never heard of. FYI, I hardly ever go into a cinema without having some idea of what I was getting myself into. But since I was free, I decided to give it a shot. That movie turned out to be "Ong-Bak". Here's an excerpt from the review I wrote:

"And what glorious action it is. This kid can REALLY move! He’s fast, agile, graceful and powerful and, boy, can he jump! His fighting skills are also highly impressive. He looks like he really knows what he’s doing and he does it supremely well. Never have I seen elbows and knees employed to such devastating effect. And it’s all done old-school style: no wire-fu, camera tricks or blue-screens. Ditto for his other nifty acrobatic tricks like wall-climbing, shoulder-walking and obstacle-avoidance at running speeds. It’s impossible not to be reminded of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan as you watch him perform these physical feats.
In fact, I’m almost certain that’s what the filmmakers set out to do. The look of the movie and the way it’s shot is very much reminiscent of their old Hong Kong productions. There’s even the slow-motion replays from different angles of death-defying (or at least injury-threatening) stunts that’ve become a hallmark of Jackie’s movies. The character of Ting is also modelled after the same archetypical morally upright but naive hero-saviour. The kind who doesn’t fight for pleasure but is forced to do so to defend those dear to him and the downtrodden. Oh, and of course, he never uses guns.

Unfortunately, being such a faithful homage (or rip-off, depending on how you want to look at it) of its obvious inspirations, Ong-Bak suffers from the same shortcomings as well. For instance, the plot is paper-thin and serves mainly as a way to provide reasons for Tony to showcase his amazing physical abilities. The acting also takes a backseat to the action although comedian Jokmok manages to elicit a few laughs as the untrustworthy sidekick. As it were, Ong-Bak acquits itself well enough with a decent effort to keep things fresh. For example, they manage to portray smoking in the most unglamorous way I’ve ever seen on celluloid. You’ll know what I mean when you meet the villain.

With Jackie Chan pushing senior citizenship and increasingly catering his movies to an international (i.e. American) audience, there is a void that’s tailor-made for a star like Tony to fill. All that remains to be seen is whether he will be able to parlay the success of Ong-Bak into an equally successful career or prove to be just another one-hit wonder."

Of cuz, as many of you may already know, it went on to win many fans and even attracted international attention.

So how does TYG measure up? Well, it's better ... and it's worse. Let's start with:

The Worse

1) The quality of the acting. Well actually, the lack of it. Yikes! Why did anyone think it was a good idea to give so much English dialogue to people who can't speak it?? It was SOOO bad that there were English subtitles for the English dialogue!! Imagine that! Made my skin crawl everytime I heard the supposed "newscaster" go through her lines *shudder*.

2) The plot/story. It's about as pointless and inane as it's predecessor. However, I felt that the writer(s) TRIED harder ... and that kinda made it worse. That's because there were STILL many unexplained leaps of logic and scenes that made absolutely no sense popping up periodically. Would rather they just abandon all semblance of seriousness and just focus on the action that we paid to see. Instead, we're forced to sit through banal expositions and constipated looks that (I presume) were supposed to pass off as emoting (unless the catering was holding out on the roughage).

3) Some of the jokes and gags were SOOOO lame! Bad ideas that were executed badly. The most annoying of which was the one involving an obvious Jackie Chan look-alike. Sheesh! Took unprecedented willpower not to groan out loud! :p

So what's the good news?
The Better

1) Ok, to be fair, a couple of one-liners from Jokmok were decent. I must say that he's a pretty natural comedian. His timing and delivery was spot on most of the time. It's quite obvious that the screenwriter(s) tried to play it up to offset the more violent and brutal fight scenes (which I'll get to soon enough. Patience, my young padawan :p). Now, if only they hadn't saddled him with a language he's obviously not comfortable with ...

2) The action and fight scenes. Yup, it's definitely worth the price of admission ;) I bet the foley guys must've had to work overtime to get all those different bone crunches to sound different :p The physical stunts were also equally jaw-dropping and gasp-inducing. Alot more thought was put into the staging of the fight scenes with various distinct opponents (in addition to the usual plethora of 2nd-tier opponents) and "arenas" to keep the fights from growing repetitive. In fact, it kinda reminded me of one of those beat-em-up arcade games like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat (without the finger calisthenics).
The fights also consisted of long takes to really showcase the "actors" incredible skills. None of that jerky, quick-cutting crap that Hollywood is so fond of. In fact, there was a virtuoso scene in the villains' tower/HQ in which all the action and fighting takes place in a single continuous take. Did I mention that the scene involved dozens of opponents, fleeing civilians, the destruction of various objects and spans 4 different floors? Breathtaking! Wonder how many rehearsals and takes it took to get that right. Hmmm ... wonder if the director was intentionally trying to top a similar scene from the Korean movie "Oldboy". That had a stationary camera shooting a narrow corridor in long-shot as the protagonist battled a mob of henchmen. Well, if he was, he'll be glad to know that at least 1 person thot he succeeded in spades ;)

It would seem that Tony Jaa and gang have another cult classic on their hands. Obviously, he's no longer a one-hit wonder ... but rather, more of a one-NOTE wonder. However, I'm sure his fans won't mind if he continues to sound that note again and again ... and again ...

Unfortunately, a large part of the movie takes place in Sydney. Wasn't exactly thrilled to recognise many of the locations (Darling Harbour, Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Chinatown, city tram, monorail, parts of the city and suburbs ...). Took considerable effort to focus on the movie and not let my mind wander off on some depressing tangent ...

KTO: Sky High

2005-11-07T01:10:00.000+08:00

This was a really fun, funny, interesting, refreshing and wholly likeable movie :) The feel/concept is like a cross between an 80's high school movie (like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and "The Incredibles". It feels like the former instead of a regular contemporary teen comedy because:
1) There is no gross-out toilet humour.
2) All the songs used in the movie are covers of 80s tunes.
3) The setting of the movie is kinda retro, evoking an 80's kinda sensibility.

And like the society depicted in "The Incredibles", superheroes are common place (with some having pretty strange and useless powers :p). There's also a sort of hierarchy in place for these superbeings ... from major heroes, to minor heroes to ... sidekicks and the civilian support system (like high school bus driver). Heheh ... really loved their take on superheroes and their place in the world :) Kinda like X-Men but warmer and less angsty.

Altho fairly predictable, I quite liked the storyline. Especially liked the simple summary at the end: (SPOILER) "So, my girlfriend became my arch-enemy, my arch-enemy became my best friend and my best friend became my girlfriend" (END SPOILER). Talk about an interesting permutation :p

The cast is also pretty spot-on. Everyone invests just about the right amount of emotion without taking themselves too seriously. Most importantly, everyone seems to be having a blast and that translates very well onto the screen. Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston (that's Mrs. Travolta to you) are the big name stars and they both set the tone. Especially Russell, who has more to do and is really fun to watch :) Of cuz, the focus is mostly on the kids and they are pretty good discoveries. Rumour has it that they've been contracted by Disney for sequels or a TV series spin-off. Should be interesting to see if they can maintain the same level of fun and charm.

Two other noteworthy members of the cast were:
1) Bruce Campbell (as Coach Boomer). He's been a cult favourite since the days of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" series. He also has a habit of popping up in the least expected roles/cameos (like in Raimi's "Spider-man" movies). Hmmm ... just noticed he's the 2nd "Spider-man" alum I've mentioned today. Was just talking about James Franco (i.e. Harry Osborn) in "The Great Raid" ...
Oh, and I thought he did a great Elvis impersonation in "Bubba Ho-Tep" :)
2) Lynda Carter (as Principal Powers. Heheh ... did I mention that their names are pretty fun as well? :p). She played Wonder Woman in the 70s TV series and she actually has a line in the movie that pokes fun at it. Hmmm ... another link to Spider-man: The line she has is actually similar to the one where Aunt May tells Peter Parker, "You're not Superman, you know?". Incredibly, she still looks really good ...

Was quite surprised that Ebert din review it. I wonder why ...
Anyway, am looking forward to the DVD. Hope there's lots of interesting special features in it! :)

KTO: The Great Raid

2005-11-06T23:46:00.000+08:00

Wars are fascinating stuff. Please do not take that to mean that I support war efforts in general. Instead, I find wars are fascinating things to study. They represent humanity at our abject worst and also at our heroic best. Every single emotion and human trait is evoked. It creates history. It transforms societies and cultures like no other man-made event. And it also serves to advance science and technology at unprecedented speeds. Perhaps, it's because survival is the most primal and powerful of instincts. So, when that becomes the driving force of our actions, we find ourselves capable of unimaginable (both horrifying and wonderous) things.

As such, I'm always interested to learn more about any war and one of the simplest and most digestable ways to do so, is through movies. Of cuz, many of these films have been heavily dramatized and are often historically inaccurate. Nonetheless, I find that they serve 2 very important purposes:

1) They give about as immersive an experience (both visual and aural) as I can get without actually being there. There's just simply no better medium for doing so.
2) They act as a launchpad for further reading. They can also serve as a touchstone since it allows me to relate what I've read to what I've seen on screen.

It goes without saying that not all war movies are created equal. But even the really crappy ones can provide a bit of insight. For example, "Pearl Harbour" was incredibly disappointing, but it made me aware of the "Tokyo Raiders" (no, not that Ekin Cheng/Tony Leung action-comedy).

So how does TGR fit into the scheme of things? Based on the war movies I've watched, I'd say it ranks pretty respectably. Not on par with "Black Hawk Down", "The Bridge On River Kwai" or "Band of Brothers" (yes, I know it's technically not a movie). Perhaps somewhere around "We Were Soldiers". Definitely WAY better than "Pearl Harbour" or "Windtalkers".

As far as historical accuracy goes, TGR is supposed to be pretty accurate. The most significant fictional element is the Joseph Fiennes character. Guess he was created to give us someone to focus on amongst the crowd of POWs and probably to include an element of romance (altho the "couple" never actually meet onscreen).

I liked that the focus of the movie was primarily on the rescue operation and it's significance in the greater scheme of the Pacific Theatre of war. It doesn't try too hard to include too much back-story for all the characters as that would just bog down the entire movie. It was interesting to note that rescuing POWs actually has little to no strategic purpose and was done more for PR and morale-boosting reasons.

It was also refreshing and interesting to see the amount of planning and effort that goes into a military operation. Really gives full meaning to the term "military precision" and truly demonstrates the importance of discipline and the ability to execute a plan of action without hesitation. Also found it interesting to see how their plan evolved as circumstances changed and creative ideas were introduced. The fact that the Filipino resistance was given quite alot of credit and screen time was also a plus. Often, Hollywood war movies annoyingly depict Americans as the only ones doing anything useful.

I also appreciated how the screenplay made it easy for us to follow what was happening. It might sound like a no-brainer, but particularly in the chaos of a military operation, it takes quite abit of effort for that clarity to come through.

Acting-wise, I thot everyone did well enough. From the stars like Connie Nielsen, Fiennes, Benjamin Bratt and James Franco, to the necessarily large supporting cast. All of them were believable and got the job done. An interesting bit of casting trivia: The actor who plays General Kreuger (he's the highest ranking officer in the movie. Only appears near the beginning and at the end to congratulate Franco's and Bratt's characters) is actually a retired captain (Dale Dye). He might look familiar to some of you cuz he's been making cameos in many of the major war movies made in the past 15-20 years. He usually plays a high-ranking officer (often a general) and I only started noticing him in "Band Of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan". He actually serves as the technical/military advisor on many of these war movies and his appearance in front of the camera is more of like a trademark thing he's fond of doing. Apparently, he's actually quite a highly-decorated officer and served in Vietnam as well as in many other parts of the world as an enlisted Marine.
Now, THAT'S what I call a cool career change ;)

KTO: The Legend Of Zorro

2005-11-06T16:15:00.000+08:00

I had pretty low expectations going in. The reviews were mixed and the trailer seemed to suggest an inferior sequel. Fortunately, it was surprisingly funny and that was the deciding factor that won me over. I guess the fact that the movie didn't take itself too seriously helped as well. (I especially liked his running relationship with his horse ;) ).

The action wasn't anything too mind-blowing. Din think the CGI was done particularly well and it pulled me out of the movie whenever it was used. Luckily, it's used sparingly and alot of it looks more like traditional stunt work and body doubles, and they're all very well executed. (Sorry, Antonio, but I had alot of trouble believing that you did all THAT on your own :p Although I must commend you on looking leaner and better than I expected/remembered).

I felt that the plot was a tad more complicated than it had to be. In fact, the overall feel of the movie sorta reminded me of "Shanghai Noon". The humour is there. The fight sequences are there. The setting is also similar. Both featured railway trains prominently. And both had equally forgettable plots ;)

As expected, Zeta-Jones looks FANTASTIC! Hmmm ... in fact, that's probably one of the most redundant things I've ever written :p

So how does it compare to "The Mask Of Zorro"? Personally, I felt that the original was easily the better of the two. It had more class with Anthony Hopkins lending his considerable gravitas. It also had more of an edge with his character's death and the passing on of the mantle of the mask. The clearer plotline was also a boon, as was Zeta-Jones introduction to mainstream audiences. Nonetheless, I enjoyed TLOZ and as sequels go, I've seen far, far worse ...

On a sidenote, the character of Zorro (especially in his current incarnation) has always reminded me of Batman (or vice-versa depending on how you wanna look at it). The similarities are even more prominent with "Batman Begins" and TLOZ hitting cinemas within months of each other: There's the dual-identity, with their civilian persona being that of a rich playboy/don and their secret identity dressing mostly in black, with a mask and a cape (despite Edna Mode's strong admonishments against such a move in "The Incredibles" ;P). Then there's their trusty sidekick/helper (i.e. Zorro's steed vs Batman's bat-mobile+Alfred), their hidden staging area (church underground/Batcave) and how neither of them use guns. Of course there are important differences as well, but it's nearly impossible for me not to be reminded of the "Tumbler" launching out of the Batcave when Zorro bursts out of the back of the church on his black horse ...

Pop Goes The Kunzel

2005-11-01T04:03:00.000+08:00

I guess my interest in movie soundtracks started about 15 years ago. That was around when I first started to pay more attention to the movies I was watching and began to delve deeper into film appreciation. That was also around when I started to discover CDs. That's not to say I only started getting into music then. In fact, I've always loved music. Can remember listening to and liking REALLY old songs ... I dun even know from where (Radio? Records? Who's? Honestly can't recall ...). Sometimes I might hear an oldie on Gold 90.5 (like 50s or 60s tune), and it'd actually sound familiar! I probably have my parents to thank for that. Guess they've always had at least SOME interest in music. In fact, think my dad used to be in a band back in the day :p And my mum would often break out in song whenever she heard a tune she liked :)
I guess you could say that my passion may be for movies, but music is something I can't live without.

As a result, movie soundtracks became a natural draw for me. In fact, in our early CD collecting days, my bro and I bought almost entirely movie soundtracks. Some of the early stuff we bought included "Dances With Wolves", "Jurassic Park", "Star Wars", "Back To The Future", "The Rocketeer", "Ghostbusters", "An American Tale", "La Bamba", "Batman", "Forrest Gump", "Xanadu", "Schindler's List" ... and we've never looked back.

So, when I found out that Erich Kunzel and The Cincinnati Pops Orchestra was performing at the Esplanade, I knew I HAD to attend :p For the unenlightened, EK and the CPO are perhaps THE most famous movie soundtrack orchestra around. Have at least one of their CDs and numerous mp3s. Surprisingly soundtrack concerts are pretty rare. Surprising to me cuz there are SOOO many good soundtracks out there and I'd happily pay good money to attend (and I'd like to think I'm not the only one ... well, at least I HOPE there are other fellow soundtrack appreciators out there!). Speaking of good money ... Yikes! Think I spent more on the tickets than on any other concert or performance I've ever attended in my life! *shudder* But I figured, what the heck ... money's made for spending :p And this was an extremely rare occasion :)

Was quite jazzed about the concert and I "prepared" for it by listening to my "Star Trek", "Empire Strikes Back" and "LOTR" soundtracks in the preceding days :p Oct 26th finally rolled around and before I knew it, I found myself in the 3rd row of the Esplanade concert hall, gleefully awaiting the imminent appearance of maestro Kunzel on stage.

The concert started with, what turned out to be, the highlight of the first half for me: the Olympic Fanfare by John Williams. Nothing can compare to actually listening to a great orchestra performing live ... Gave me chills just listening to it :)

This was followed by a medley of classic Disney themes like "Chim Chim Cher-ee" from "Mary Poppins", "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" and the "M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E" club song. Surprisingly nostalgic cuz haven't heard most of the tunes in quite some time. Nice :) My 2nd fav pre-intermission.

Then came, what was for me, the least enjoyable moment of the whole concert: that annoying Celine Dion theme song from "Titanic". Argh!!! First and foremost, I din think it was a piece of music that benefited from having a live orchestra. What a waste! And of cuz there's the fact that I think it's probably THE most over-hyped and over-celebrated piece of cinema I've ever had the displeasure of coming across!!! No way is it worthy of being the top grossing movie of all time! Makes me wanna slap every single one of those sappy females with too much time who kept watching it over and over and over and OVER and over again!! Yeesh! It's friggin 3+ hours long! Dun they have a life?!? And that ... that song! Double argh!! Till this day, I switch radio channels whenever I hear it on air. In fact, I've been known to switch off radios cuz of the song. Even silence is infinitely more favourable.

Luckily, it was mercifully short. And as if in apology, the orchestra surprised everyone by performing the theme to "Lawrence of Arabia". What better way to cleanse the ears than with an award winning theme from one of the truly great epics.

This was followed by a succession of modern Disney tunes. Started off with a medley of tunes from "Beauty And The Beast" (one of the best modern musicals, animated or otherwise) like "Be Our Guest" and "Gaston". The orchestra was then joined by their guest baritone, Daniel Narducci (Nar-who-ci? Shrug. But apparently, he's well-known enough to warrant an autograph signing after the concert. And yes, there was a sizeable queue. Hmmm ... or perhaps it was just another case of S'poreans partaking in their national sport: queueing ... :p. Anyway, I personally would've much prefered Kunzel to be signing the autographs).
Anyway, he sang "Beauty and the Beast", "A Whole New World" (from "Aladdin" - I remember watching this at Marina Square with my JC class after the S'pore Big Walk. After which, about half the class promptly came down with chicken pox. Luckily (or perhaps not), I wasn't one of them) and "Can You Feel The Love Tonite" (from "The Lion King" - Hmmm ... this is actually a movie infused with doubly bad memories: my previous gf gave me the CD soundtrack for my b'day ... and I caught the stage musical in Sydney with my most recent one ... and BOTH of them ... sigh ... nevermind).

INTERMISSION (i.e. loo-break)

Had higher expectations of the 2nd half cuz the programme consisted of more symphonic and iconic pieces. Could've done without the baritone and instead focus entirely on orchestral soundtracks. Anyway, was getting a neck cramp from being at the corner of the 3rd row. And since a large portion of the most expensive seats ($200!!) weren't taken, we decided to make ourselves more comfortable ;) No point letting the best seats in the house go to waste ya?

The 2nd half kicked off with the theme from "2001: A Space Odyssey". Still remember trying to sit through this movie with my bro ... and failing miserably. And that was despite me being quite a sci-fi buff and both us were really looking forward to this critically acclaimed Stanley Kubrick film. Could anyone who has managed to get through it please explain to me how they managed to do so and what the movie was all about? Think I had better luck with Arthur C Clarke's novels. Nonetheless, the music is great. More chills :)

This was followed by themes from the Star Trek franchise (have this on CD). Even more chills :))

Then an interesting little diversion in the form of the SUPPOSED original recording of Apollo 13's countdown and blast off. Guess it sounded authentic enough. Anyway, it was a lead-in to music from "Apollo 13" (have this CD too). Good stuff!

Next was a selection of musical themes from LOTR (FOTR to be specific). Great great soundtrack. Strangely, they played a instrumental version of Enya's "May It Be". Not the same without Enya. Anyway, thot it was WAY too short. But then again, I wouldn't have minded if it lasted more than an hour :p

Theme from "Rocky". Strange choice, but the trumpets had a field day. Nice :)

"The Godfather" theme. Used to play this on my Portasound like 2 decades ago. Sheesh, I'm old! Anyway, never particularly liked the theme, so found it so-so.

Mission Impossible!! Cool stuff! Chills!

Theme from James Bond's Goldfinger. Haven't heard this in some time. Think I should have it on CD somewhere. Will go dig it out. Nice ...

Nar-who-ci reappears to sing "Memories" from "Cats". Was abit of a surprise and letdown cuz according to the programme booklet, he was supposed to sing that the following nite. And tonite was supposed to be "Music Of The Night" from "Phantom Of The Opera". Would've much prefered it if he hadn't gotten his dates mixed up *grumble*.

The finale was the mother of all soundtrack themes: a medley of John Williams' most iconic and famous tunes. There was "Jaws", "Superman" (my current ringtone :p), "Star Wars", "E. T.", "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" ... MAJOR chills! But again, way WAY too short. Would've been nice to hear the "Love Theme" from "Superman" and the "Imperial March" from "Star Wars". Oh well ...

This was followed by much applause and 3 encores. Can't recall exactly what the encores were ... think there was one from "West Side Story" and who-ci-boy reappeared to do an encore as well. Nonetheless, more thunderous applause culminating in a standing ovation. Excellent! Hands started to sting from all that clapping :p

All in all, a memorable nite. Wish it lasted longer :) Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops are obviously most interested in pleasing the crowd and are unashamedly commercial. Nothing wrong with that cuz I enjoyed myself. Now, if only soundtrack concerts became more common place ....

KTO: Me And You And Everyone We Know

2005-10-30T15:11:00.000+08:00

Another Ebert recommendation. In fact, he was raving about it. To be fair, he wasn't the only one. Have read other critics calling it the best movie of 2005 thus far. High praise indeed. Especially for a first time writer/director (i.e. Miranda July, who also plays the lead role). The movie also picked up numerous awards in the film fest circuit (most notably from Cannes and Sundance). So when I saw the DVD, it was an easy decision to pick it up.

Did it turn out to be 0 of 2 for Ebert? Well ... not exactly, but sorta.

At least this time, I can say that it was definitely a unique and interesting movie. Quite lyrical and poetic at times, and it definitely had that "indie"-vibe. The characters are independent creations and dun submit to an obvious plot. So much so, you have no idea what they'd do next. And the really cool part is that much of what they do are things you probably haven't seen anyone in any other movie do before ;)

I guess at it's heart, it's about how everyone is completely unique but we all want ... no, NEED to connect with someone else. And these 'connections' can come about in the strangest and most interesting of ways ...

HOWEVER ... it just din really resonate with me. I could admire it but it din connect with me and blow my mind. Din make me wanna run out and shove the DVD into the hands of everyone I could find. Can fully understand how critics like Ebert, who watch hundreds (thousands?) of movies yearly (most of which are likely to be quite mediocre), would love such a fresh and unique movie. I would too ... IF I were them ;)

Guess I'll call it 0.7 of 2 :p

Btw, John Hawkes (one of the leads) looks really really familiar ... can't quite place where I've seen him before though. Lemme check out imdb ...
... ah, I think I probably remember him from "Identity" and perhaps "Hardball" (one of the first few movies I reviewed for movies-online). Guess I'll see more of him when I finally get around to watching HBO's critically acclaimed "Deadwood" ...

KTO: Kicking & Screaming

2005-10-30T14:29:00.000+08:00

Picked up this DVD cuz Roger Ebert gave it a favourable review (FYI, Ebert is possibly THE most well-known and respected movie reviewer in the US. He writes for the Chicago Sun Times and was the first movie critic to ever win a Pulitzer Prize for his writing. He's no longer the ONLY movie critic to do so though. A couple of years ago, Stephen Holden of the the NY Times became the 2nd critic to be so honoured). I don't always agree with his opinions, but he does write well and is often quite enlightening. In addition, the movie featured Will Ferrell and Robert Duvall (one of America's great acting icons). And it was about soccer (or as the rest of us call it, "Football"). Sounded good ...

Well actually, it's more about competitiveness and how it can hurt family relationships. It just happens to take place in a kids soccer league. That actually brings up an interesting disconnect I've noticed in American culture. Many of their kids take part in and are exposed to soccer from
an early age. In fact, it's so prevalent that the term "Soccer Mum" was coined to refer to the (often) stay-at-home mums who actively support their kids in these endeavours. I mean, you don't hear them being called "Baseball Mums" or "Basketball Mums" or "Football Mums". So, an unsuspecting observer might be led to believe that soccer would be a high profile sport in the US. But as any soccer fan worth their salt knows, soccer in the US is often considered a "minor" sport. Unlike the passion and fanaticsm seen in almost every other corner of the world, Americans are mostly quite indifferent towards soccer. And that's despite the recent successes of their international teams (their Men's team is ranked amongst the top 20 in the
world I believe, and their Women's team is one of the best in the world) and hosting the 1994 World Cup. Weird huh?

Perhaps the media there just doesn't cover or hype soccer games as much as they do their traditional sports. Probably alot less money in it too and perhaps most of them regard it as a "kids" game. Shrug.

Anyway, the movie itself is so-so. Not particularly hilarious and Will Ferrell over-acts too much in his attempts to be funny. Was actually quite annoyed by him. Can't imagine how anyone in the movie could tolerate him.
Robert Duvall tho, is a class act. He manages to be funny without reaching too hard. And as any casual movie-goer will know, he can play menacing and intimidating as well as anyone.
The kids also dun get much attention. The only one that stood out for me was the diminutive Korean kid. Heheh ... cute kid :p

The story itself is quite derivative. Very Disney/family-oriented. Nothing too enlightening or interesting. The character arcs are abit too sudden to be realistic.

Guess I'll just chalk it up as one of those movies I disagree with Ebert on.

KTO: Flightplan

2005-10-30T13:00:00.000+08:00

Great thriller. The story is pretty original and the acting is convincing. The dynamics between the various characters is also played very realistically (at least for the 1st 2 thirds of the movie). However, soon after the villain becomes apparent, the plot starts to go on auto-pilot (pun intended) and the finale is predictably "Hollywood" in nature. And typical of such an ending, after you have all the answers, the plausibility of what had gone on prior to it gets called into question. I mean, given the resources available to the villain(s), how did he/she manage to do what he/she was supposed to have done? Especially since it had to be done on a crowded airplane without anyone noticing?

Nonetheless, the goodwill earned in the first part of the movie and the conviction of the actors carry it through. And if you don't reflect and ask too many questions when the end credits roll, you would probably enjoy it as much as I did ;)

Something I found quite amusing was the title credits. I'm not sure how many people noticed it, but the credits sorta interacted with the visuals on screen. For example, some had reflections off of the train/subway in that early scene. It was very subtly done and not all the credits were given the same treatment, but there was DEFINITELY some of it going on. Try to take note if you're catching it soon and lemme know if you think I was just imagining things ;) Perhaps, it was the director's way of visually hinting that all was not right in that scene. After all, Jodie Foster's character was interacting with a supposedly dead character (which we din know yet, but would soon find out).

That actually segues nicely into what I wanted to mention next : "Panic Room". PR also had an interesting title sequence in which the text was super-imposed realistically onto the buildings and structures in the visuals. In fact, they were so well done, it took me awhile to realise that they weren't actually part of the buildings themselves!
Of cuz, that's also the last major role most people would've seen Jodie Foster in (although the last I saw of her was actually more recently: in a small part in the excellent "A Very Long Engagement", where you get to see her speak French (convincingly) and get bonked :p). Her character in PR is similar to the one in "Flightplan": a single mother trying desperately to protect her kid(s) from baddies while being confined in an enclosed area. As such, comparisons are inevitable. In fact, there's a direct dejavu moment when Foster runs into the cockpit and locks herself in with the villain in full pursuit.
Personally, I thought PR was more realistic and had a more interesting visual style with the camera going through floors and over walls (courtesy of director David Fincher (of "Se7en" and "Fight Club" fame)). "Flightplan", on the other hand, had a more interesting conceit and, in a way, was more contemporary; dealing with the fear of terrorism, the existence of air marshals (and other recently enacted security measures) and the strong bias that many people have cultivated against Arabs. I enjoyed both movies about as much.
Now, if only Foster would come out of her semi-retirement and make more movies ...

Anyway, on to the rest of the cast:

Peter Sarsgaard is an interesting actor. The roles I've seen him in have been quite diverse ("Shattered Glass", "Kinsey", "Garden State") and he usually does a great job in them. Hmmmm ... come to think of it, his role in "Flightplan" is probably one of the most mainstream ones he's had ...

Sean Bean is great as usual. He usually plays the thankless villain (like his post-LOTR role in "National Treasure") and has a great menacing look and gravitas about him. Was quite surprised by how his character turned out. That's probably part of the strategy employed by the director to keep you guessing, thus maintaining the tension throughout the earlier 2 acts of the movie.

Erika Christensen ... first noticed her in the superb "Traffic". That was probably one of THE best large ensemble movies I've had the pleasure of watching. She's been in other movies since then, but nothing that has caught my attention. Anyway, for a "name" actress, she's quite under-utilised. Kept expecting her to contribute in some substantial way to the plot but it never materialised. Wonder if that's another of the director's tension-causing strategies. Hmmmm ...

Ok, trying to speed up my writing so that I can get more of it done. Hopefully, will be able to get something up on the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra concert and a couple of DVDs before another week slips by!

KTO: Corpse Bride

2005-10-30T02:05:00.000+08:00

Stop-motion animation is a little-seen artform these days. Guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise since it's such an incredibly painstaking and time-consuming process. Especially with the advent of CGI, not many filmmakers would even dream of conceiving such a project. In fact, other that Tim Burton ("James And The Giant Peach" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas"), the only other notable producer of stop-motion animation is Aardman Studios ("Chicken Run" and the Wallace and Gromit movies. (Can't wait for "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit"!)). As such, I am always intrigued by them and eagerly anticipate each new release.

So how was it? First and foremost, it is superbly animated. I had to keep reminding myself that it was NOT CGI. That was how smooth the animation was! And not only was it smooth, they managed to do things I didn't think were possible with stop-motion! Check out Scraps the dog and the Bride's flowing gown. The amount of time it must've taken the animators boggles the mind!

Most of the songs were also very well constructed. Not only were they catchy, but they actually helped tell the story. A pet peeve of mine when it comes to movies has always been musicals that seem to have songs inserted just cuz they had to qualify themselves as a musical. Excellent examples are most of Disney's recent animated movies (like "Brother Bear"), "Anastacia" and the later half of "Moulin Rouge". Hmmm ... seems like mostly animations ... but then again, movie musicals has been a bit of a dying genre in Hollywood (with notable exceptions like "Chicago"). However, I didn't think ALL the songs in CB worked. The one that I found the
most pointless was the Bone Jangles skeleton song (voiced by the composer himself and frequent Burton collaborator Danny Elfman). Altho it did offer some pretty interesting visual flourishes, I honestly din think it added much to the movie as a whole. Besides, it was probably the least catchy of all the songs.

I also thot the voice-acting was exceptional. Was even more impressed when I found out that the actors had to do all the dialogue and singing before much of the actual movie was shot. Usually, the voice actors have some rough visuals to work with so that they can play off of what's happening on screen. But for CB, the actors had to rely mostly on their imaginations. And to be able to do such a good job ... *Respect*. But then again, it is a cast of great pedigree: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter (both frequent Burton collaborators. In fact, Bonham Carter is such a frequent "collaborator" that she had a kid with Burton :p), Emily Watson, Tracy Ullman, Albert Finney, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough (Alfred from the first 4 "Batman" movies. Incidentally, I just discovered from imdb.com that he was born in Malaysia!) ... wow!

The use of music (specifically playing the piano) as a means for the lead characters to bond and fall in love ... I really appreciated that. Very rare to see something like that in a movie. Have always loved music and felt that it had an almost magical ability to connect with people on a deeply emotional level ... often times transcending age, nationality and social background ...
and I guess, in this case, death itself.
An interesting bit of trivia: The first piano that appears in the movie bares the name "Harryhausen" ... an obvious tip of the hat to Ray Harryhausen, one of the great early innovators of stop-motion animation.

Comparisons with "The Nightmare Before Christmas" are inevitable since both have that creepy, other-worldy vibe and both feature a reed thin protagonist. Personally, I thot TNBC was creepier and more surreal. It also had a slightly meaner feel to it. CB is warmer (sounds funny when u think of the title :p) and funnier, and in my mind, the better movie.

On a personal note, the Corpse Bride's denouement at the end ... about how if you love someone, sometimes you just have to let them pursue their own happiness ... even if it's with someone else ... I guess that resonated with me. Especially in light of what I've been going through recently ... But then again, many things (even certain mundane everyday stuff) have taken on added meaning these days ...

KTO: The 40-Year-Old Virgin

2005-10-16T01:20:00.000+08:00

A sample of the official taglines for this movie:
"The longer you wait, the harder it gets."
"The long, hard wait."

And some succinct "reviews" I came across:
"No action. Figures."
"Twoscore with no score."
"Virgin not merry." (my personal fav ;) )

Is it any wonder that it's hilarious? :p

I have to confess, I've never really noticed Steve Carell before. In fact, the first time I heard his name was in relation to this movie. Many critics were touting it as possibly the funniest movie of the year and Carell wrote and stars in it. On doing a little more reading, I realised that he had actually made me laugh before in "Bruce Almighty" (as the news anchor who Jim Carrey "makes" (with his new-found godly powers) spout incredibly inapproriate and gut-bustingly hilarious nonsense) and in "Anchorman" (as one of Will Ferrell's news crew i.e, the creepily dim-witted one). Hmmm ... just noticed both roles were as newscasters ...

Speaking of which, the name/face I was actually most familiar with going into "Virgin" was one of Carell's fellow newsmen in "Anchorman": Paul Rudd. If he looks familiar, it's probably cuz you're a "Friends"-faithful ... he's the guy Phoebe ends up with at the end of the long running sitcom.

So what did I like about "Virgin"?

First and foremost, it is blinking funny :) Unlike countless other vulgar, explicit and gross-out comedies, it's genuinely well-written and well-acted. It doesn't go too much over the top and grounds itself in believability (well, most of the time anyway :p). It's also surprisingly insightful at times and MOST importantly, the characters are real and actually kinda sweet in their own way.

I also really liked the use of songs in the movie. Take the Lionel Richie hit used somewhere in the middle of the movie. That was a genius piece of comedy right there in that scene: no dialogue needed, just Carell going about apparently simple innocuous tasks with the song playing over it ... and it had the audience howling with laughter! Cool huh?
And of cuz, there's the completely unexpected Bollywood-style ending ... heheh ... talk about a gutsy way to end a movie!
But my personal favourite was the theme song from the 70s/80s series "The Greatest American Hero". Have always loved it and it definitely ranks as one of my all-time top 5 fav TV theme songs (Don't actually have a definitive list, but vying for the other 4 positions might be "Moonlighting", "Mad About You", "Taxi", "MASH", "Cheers", "Battlestar Galactica" ...)

Also appreciated the use of action figure collection as a hobby. Not something that's often featured in movies. Guess on some level it's supposed to represent Carell's character's isolation from the world and reluctance to come out of his shell. But for me, I mostly just liked that the concept was featured at all ;)

Oh, and of course there's perhaps the hottest grandma to ever grace the screen ;)

Anyway, if I had to nitpick, I guess there were some scenes that I found a tad too unbelievable (which kinda distracts from the movie's general vibe). Two that really stood out for me was:
1) The scene where Carell picks up the alcoholic girl from the pub. Come on! Being a virgin doesn't mean you can't tell what a breathalyser is! Also, being the good guy that he is, won't letting an obviously inebriated girl get behing the wheel of a car be setting off alarm bells?? Then there's all the ensuing destruction and traffic mayhem ... so where were the cops?
2) The scene where Carell is chasing the grandma in his bicycle ... would an experienced cyclist (it is his main mode of daily transportation right?) get into such an accident? And what an accident it is ... can that ACTUALLY happen? Didn't really think it was necessary to go THAT far over the top ...

However, they really are minor quibbles. The movie works a vast majority of the time and it is possibly the hardest I've laughed in a cinema since Dory's attempts at communicating with whales in "Finding Nemo". And to top it all off, as I mentioned earlier, it has possibly THE most unexpected, original and gutsy ending to a comedy I've ever seen. Excellent stuff ;)
And on a personal note, it's encouraging to see the nice guy get the girl. Furthermore, he did it mostly by just being himself ... without actually having to try TOO hard or perform any grand romantic gestures. Although the realist (pessimist?) in me can't help but be abit skeptical (does it really ever happen?) ... it's still reassuring to see ...

KTO: The Brothers Grimm

2005-10-12T13:15:00.000+08:00

Terry Gilliam is a cool guy. Not only was he one of the original members of the legendary Monty Python, but the movies he's been involved with have a creativity and feel that is uniquely his own. They are about equal parts surreal and whacky, and at times ... just downright weird. One of his movies (12 Monkeys) also has the distinction of having probably the most interesting and unique performances by Brad Pitt till date.

Unfortunately, his attempt to direct Johnny Depp (in a movie about the life of Don Quixote) a couple of years ago ended up in complete disaster. Apparently, like some cosmic joke, the surrealism he portrayed in his movies became a reality for him. From what I've read, bad luck, natural disasters and other factors completely out of his control conspired to prove the theory that anything that can go wrong, often does. It reached such catastrophic proportions that Gilliam finally gave up from pure exhaustion and frustration (and more importantly, lack of funds). The silver lining (if you can call it that), was that his misadventures gave rise to the documentary "Lost In La Mancha". It documents first hand the demise of the production despite the best efforts of everyone involved ... and it ended up receiving much critical acclaim. Now, how many directors can claim such a "distinction"? What an interesting life he must lead ;)
(Btw, if anyone has "Lost In La Mancha" on DVD, I'd be VERY interested in a loan :p)

Anyway, that brings us to "Grimm". The reviews I had read were lukewarm at best and scathing at worse. But I decided to give it a chance nonetheless since it was a Terry Gilliam movie afterall ... how bad could it be? Sad to say, the answer is "pretty bad". Let me try to enumerate the problems I had with it:

1) It is possibly THE messiest movie I've ever seen. It can't seem to decide what kind of movie it wants to be and I'm sure there are continuity errors and logic flaws up the wazoo ... I just couldn't really tell what they were cuz it was just too messy! Characters seem to do things with no discernible motivation. Their behaviour is consistently INconsistent. For eg. I could never figure out whether Heath Ledger's character was supposed to be mad, daft, infantile, nerdy or just plain schizoid.
The plot developments also lacked clarity and often didn't make any sense. It felt painfully obvious that they were just going through the paces of a shoddily written script ... almost like a bunch of kids playing dress-up, making up the story as they went.

2) The acting from the leads was disappointing to say the least. Rarely have I felt such embarrassment for the actors. Again, I'd lay most of the blame squarely on the script but I'd like to single out 2 particular "offenders" who annoyed me more than the others.
The first would be Heath Ledger. I found his performance incredibly forced and grating (on top of his aforementioned inconsistency). In fact, his over-acting could rival many of the local "artistes" in SG ... yup, it was THAT bad.
The second would be Peter Stormare (you may remember him as the devil in "Constantine" or the Russian cosmonaut in "Armageddon"). I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he chose (or was asked) to play his character the way he did. Perhaps it read "retarded" in the brief he got for his character. Whatever it was, I found his performance confusing, inscrutable and just generally annoying.

3) All the throwaway moments which were SUPPOSED to hint at how the brothers got their inspiration for their spooky fables felt completely false. I guess they had to somehow justify having "Grimm" in the title of the movie so .... Oooo! Hansel and Gretel! ... Ahhh! Little Red Riding Hood (and of cuz the big bad wolf) ... Lookie! The Gingerbread Man! ... yeesh! NONE of those moments were intergral to the movie and they could have just as easily cut them out and repackaged the movie as "Dragonheart 2: The-one-where-the-'hero(es)'-con-villagers-with-fake-witches-instead-of-CGI-dragons".
For a better example of an author being inspired by "real-life" events, watch "Shakespeare In Love" or even "American Splendour".

Ok, enough griping. So what did I find amusing/interesting/cool? Well,
1) The production design was generally interesting and very "Gilliam-ish". Disturbing and surreal ... with just a hint of a B-grade kinda feel (dunno if that's intentional, but his period/fantasy movies always have that feel ... check out "Time Bandits" and "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen". It's not necessarily a bad thing cuz it gives them a unique, things-aren't-quite-right kinda vibe). A prime example would the the sequence in which a child starts losing her mouth ... and her eyes ... *shudder*

2) Speaking of "Munchausen", I had another dejavu movie moment while watching "Grimm". The scene in which an unnaturally strong wind is blowing through the French army and things/people are flying all over the place ... it's almost a direct lift from a similar scene from "Munchausen" (which btw, is a better and more interesting movie and features Robin Williams, a young Uma Thurman and Gordon Sumner (that's "Sting" to the unenlightened :p) in small roles).

3) Was quite amused to spot Mackenzie Crook amidst all the dirty faces. He was one of the key regulars in the brilliant BBC sitcom/mini-series "The Office". I've read critics claiming that it has THE most satisfying ending of any TV series they've seen ... and I'd have a hard time disagreeing with them. Check it out if you haven't already ;)
Since I mentioned Johnny Depp earlier, it occured to me that JD and MC have actually shared screen credits on, not one, but TWO recent movies (that I know of). Reward yourself with 10 points if you can name them both :p

Ok, that's about all I've got to say abt "Grimm". Will try my best to get my thoughts on "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Corpse Bride" up by this weekend. And perhaps I should try to include a couple of non-movie related posts as well ...

KTO: Runaway Jury

2005-10-09T23:11:00.000+08:00

Yes, I know this is an old movie, but I only managed to catch it recently on DVD. I was already quite impressed with the cast (John Cusack, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman) but as I watched the movie, I was amused to find that I actually recognised quite a few other faces:

1) Orlando Jones ("Evolution", "Drumline")
2) Bruce Davison (most people will probably remember him as the senator who wanted to enact the Mutant Registration Act before he "melted" away and was replaced by Mystique in "X-Men" and "X-Men 2")
3) Luis Guzman (appears often in many supporting roles. But the role that I remember him most in was in "Punch Drunk Love" ... possibly the best Adam Sandler movie till date).
4) Jeremy Piven (can't remember off-hand what other shows he's been in, but any semi-regular movie goer would recognise him).
5) Bruce McGill (actually, he's a great example of how I often remember lesser known character actors : I just happen to watch 2 or more movies with them in it within a short period of time. In this case, I had just seen him in "Cinderella Man" (he was the big-time boxing promoter). Actually, now that I think about it, I remember him in "Matchstick Men" as well (which btw, was an exceptional but under-valued movie)).

But of course, the casting news that was grabbing all the headlines back when the movie was released was that it'd the first movie Hoffman and Hackman would be in together. Considering the number of movies they've been in and the amount of acclaim both actors have garnered, it was quite a surprise that they've never actually been in the same movie before!

Ok, so what did I think of the movie? Well, I found the concept completely fascinating (although I'm not so sure how likely it is that someone could manipulate the jury selection process to get himself on a specific jury). It's also quite interesting to see the focus of a trial being on the jury rather than the case itself. Although it's not a new concept ("12 Angry Men" is supposed to be an excellent example of this although I haven't been able to get my hands on it to verify all the praise I've read for it), it's handled very well and somewhat believeably.

I also found the dynamics between the various characters completely absorbing and very well handled. In fact, it's quite an ensemble effort and everyone plays their part well. The tension is also well maintained and the resolution is well handled and is not disappointing.

Actually, the movie deals alot with observation and manipulation; how to read someone's character just based on a few simple mannerisms; and how to manipulate them to suit your own motives based on these observations. All credit to the script/director/editor for handling this tricky subject well ... cuz if you show/tell the audience too much, they'll get bored but if you show/tell them too little, they won't be able to follow ... a fine line indeed ...

Two unintentional things that struck me (at least I THINK they were unintentional) while I was watching the movie:
1) The movie is set in New Orleans and makes use of the unique architecture and vibe of the city quite noticeably. I found it a little sad and quite coincidental ... sad cuz I was seeing parts of the city that, in all likelihood, no longer existed in the aftermath of the recent hurricane ... and coincidental cuz I don't think I own many (if any) other DVDs of movies set in New Orleans (in fact, I didn't even know that RJ was set there) and to unexpectedly watch it so soon after the tragedy ... uncanny ...
2) I had a "dejavu" movie moment: the scene where Cusack and the other jurors were being sequestered reminded me alot of a similar scene in "Identity". Both movies had Cusack and a group of (relative) strangers being forced to stay in a motel and their initial arrival is in the dead of night. Like I said, dejavu ...

Ok, on to the the special features on the DVD. Wisely, much of it focuses on the rather historic pairing of H&H and the interviews and discussions were quite enlightening and interesting. For eg, we learn that they've actually known each other since before they made it big. In fact, Hoffman used to stay with Hackman to save on rent! Which makes it more surprising that it took so long for them to finally work together.
Speaking of which, the single big scene that they share almost didn't happen. Apparently, in John Grisham's original novel (yup, it's based on one of his novels, just like "The Pelican Brief", "The Client", "The Firm", "The Rainmaker" etc ... Hmmm ... come to think of it, he's had some really great acting talent in his movies: Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon, Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Cruise, Matt Damon ... wows ...) and even in the script, their characters never meet. But after the roles were cast, the director decided that it would be too great a transgression not to allow them to share screen time together. Thus, a new scene was born and was actually filmed after initial production had wrapped.
We also learn that they have very different approaches to acting: Hoffman will try different variations in different takes to get a feel of which one works best while Hackman usually has a pretty clear idea before shooting even starts and usually just sticks with it.

The interviews also shed light on how acting is a true art form. Although there may be techniques involved, both these veteran actors still have a hard time describing PRECISELY how they're as good as they are ... how alot of it is gut feeling ... and how they still worry that they'll fall flat on their face in every new role. Fascinating stuff ...

Equally fascinating and enlightening are the short features on lighting, set design and editing. Rather than the usual boring expositions, these actually show some simple but practical examples of their craft ... how numerous subtle decisions/choices have an impact on the look and feel that a scene conveys to the audience. Talk about manipulation!

There are also a couple of deleted scenes with the option of having the director's commentary. I personally think this should be a standard feature for ALL deleted scenes. After all, why include a "deleted" scene if you don't include the explanation for deleting it in the first place? On the flip side, if the producers think that the reason for the scene's deletion is too obvious to warrant a commentary, then why bother including it in the DVD?
With that said, the scenes included in this DVD are all well conceived and the reasons for their deletion are well considered. In fact, I found it quite interesting as it offered some insight into how the director worked and how the script evolved as the filming progressed.

Overall, a fantastic movie with excellent extras. Definitely one of the better single-disc offerings I've had the pleasure of viewing.

PS: One might think that Rachel Weisz and Dustin Hoffman wouldn't normally star in the same kind of movies, but actually there's another fairly recent one (i.e. less than 3 years old) that features both of them in pretty sizeable roles.
5 points if you can name that movie ;)

KTO: Les Triplettes de Belleville

2005-10-01T14:32:00.000+08:00

Yup, that's French. Or "The Triplets of Belleville" for you non-French speaking folks. (Well, actually that would include me, but that was the title on the DVD, so just thot I'd go with it ;)). Anyhoo, I believe the first time I heard of this little French animation was in a couple of reviews from the US. This was followed by an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature (din win tho cuz that was Nemo year. Yeah Dory!) and another for Best Original Song (which it also din win cuz of Into The West from LOTR: ROTK. Yeah Annie Lennox!). Nonetheless it picked up numerous other awards and my curiosity was aroused. So when I saw the DVD selling at HMV for less than $15, it was a no-brainer.

Lemme just begin by saying that this is one weird-ass movie! In fact, to call it weird would be a severe understatement (and I've seen some bizarre animes that've made me go "waddafish??"). It's creepy and funny, and at times, it's BOTH. There's a train track that runs dangerously close to the upper level of a house and a dog that faithfully climbs up the stairs to bark at every train that passes by. There's also the Tour de France, the French mafia, frog-fishing with dynamite, a car/bike chase at the end, and of course the titular triplets who are an ageing song-and-dance act. Oh, and did I mention that it's all done without any significant dialogue? In fact, from what I recall, the only times you'll hear speaking voices is when the sisters sing and in miscellaneous radio/television broadcasts. (Eric Khoo could learn a thing or two from this movie. His "Be With Me" TRIED to have minimal dialog but replaced it with subtitles, sms-es and other manner of written text instead. If he was trying to give the audience a better appreciation of the world his protagonist lived in, he seemed to have forgotten that she was both deaf AND blind).

If I've made the movie sound dense and confusing, it's not. Things that don't seem to make sense initially have a habit of explaining themselves later in the movie (well, up to a point at least :p). In fact, when I think back, it actually ties up pretty well. Almost everything that's introduced is revisited ... albeit, often in unexpected ways. Coupled with the keenly observed quirky characters, it's difficult not to be continously amused and admire the creativity behind it all.

I can't quite recommend it to everyone since it doesn't have the broad appeal of an animation like "Finding Nemo". BUT if you like your movies off-beat and a tad whacky, and you're willing to expand your horizons, you would do well to track down "The Triplets of Belleville".

KTO: Cinderella Man

2005-09-30T00:43:00.000+08:00

Finally! My first actual movie post! Yippee!

The very first time I read that Russell Crowe's next staring role would be in a movie titled 'Cinderella Man', I did a double take. I mean, macho man Crowe in a fairy tale??!! Or worse, some silly girlie comedy??!?!?

That was before I saw the names 'Ron Howard', 'Renee Zellweger' and 'Paul Giamatti' attached to the project. Ok, sounds marginally more palatable. After all, the last time Crowe and Howard teamed up, A Beautiful Mind resulted and that wasn't too bad. I recall both of them were nominated for the Best Actor and Director Oscars respectively. Connelly also got a nod for her role. So did the movie. Can't remember who won though. Just know that Crowe didn't (if I'm not wrong, he was nominated 3 years in a row (The Insider, Gladiator and Beautiful Mind) but only won for Gladiator. The irony being that most critics regarded it as his weakest performance in the bunch. But I guess that was a pretty lean year in terms of great movies, so ...).
And of course both Zellweger and Giamatti have both been doing excellent work of late (Chicago, Cold Mountain for Z and American Splendour, Sideways for G).

Then, I found out that it was based on the story of a real life pugilist (James Braddock). A sort of Seabiscuit but instead of a horse, substitute with Russell Crowe in boxing gloves. (Hmmm ... actually, I bet Crowe could've played a horse ... and snag an Oscar nomination while he's at it ;))

This was followed by very favourable critical reviews and even some Oscar-buzz. Of course, as you might already know, it did dismally at the box office. Many attributed this to the bad press from Crowe's phone throwing incident. But then again, PR people always say that there's no such thing as bad press (i.e. ALL press is good press), so I'm thinking the American public just wasn't ready to see Spiderman riding Maximus ;)

Ok, enough preamble. So what did I think of it? Well, I had high expectations and I wasn't disappointed. It does start off just a tad slow. Found the scenes between Braddock and his family a bit perfunctory and cliched. But as soon as the Great Depression kicks in, the movie really takes off. In fact, I thought the slow pan across the vanity table that marks this transition was a pretty cool and ingenious way of doing it.

Another little moment that I really enjoyed happens just before the big fight at the end. Normally in a sports movie featuring humongous audiences (i.e. big crowds, not overweight ones :p), you'd see everyone jumping to their feet and cheering and clapping like their lives depended on it when their 'hero' appears. In this one, when Braddock steps into view from the his changing room, there is complete and utter silence. Thot that was a really cool twist to show how much they revered and were in awe of him. I mean, noise in a crowd is almost always a given. But spontaneous silence? Wow ...

As for the fights themselves, I felt that Howard managed to convey the strategy and mental state of the boxers really well. It really brought home the fact that it wasn't just a contest of skill and physical prowess ... but also one of the will and of the mind.

Acting-wise, I thot Crowe was great. Have always gotten the impression that he's a very serious actor and he really throws himself into his roles. He also doesn't rely on a fixed bag of tricks and takes on pretty diverse roles (pencil-pushing everyman turned corporate snitch, warrior-cum-gladiator-cum-martyr, looney maths genius, violin-playing frigate captain). In CM, you can believe he's actually a very decent guy who really loves his family ... but you will also have no problems believing he can take care of business in a boxing ring. It's quite a complex (both emotionally and physically) role and I think he pulls it off very well.

Zellweger acquits herself well enough although she doesn't have as much to do. Actually, there were a couple of moments when I thot she came off kinda hokey and cliched; like the scene just prior to the Depression and another in the changing room just before the big fight at the end. Although it's probably the fault of the script but some of her lines in those scenes made me cringe a bit. Shrug ... maybe that's just how they spoke back then ... or mebbe I'm just too cynical ;)

But the real standout in the cast was Giamatti. He's a real joy to watch. Everytime he's on screen, the movie feels happier. A truly undervalued actor.

Braddock's kids are also pretty good. Don't recognise any of them but they're cute enough for their purposes but not distractingly so.

Oh, was quite surprised/amused to see Paddy Considine. Haven't seen him since In America (which was an EXCELLENT movie btw. Packs a real emotional wallop). He doesn't have that much to do, but was fun recognising him nonetheless :)

Okie-dok, think this post has gotten long enough. Besides, it's getting kinda late and I'm STILL recovering from a cough so I'm SUPPOSED to turn in earlier. Really would like to post on a more regular basis but I'm not sure how I'll be able to squeeze out the time. Oh well, just have to see how it goes ...

Movie Thots

2005-09-27T23:07:00.000+08:00

Since I'm planning on talking about movies quite a bit, I decided to put some thought into HOW I was gonna do it ... you know, what I planned to cover and what I'd leave out. After all, there are already LEGIONS of people giving their 2 cents (or less) on almost any movie you'd care to name. So, I figured I'd set myself some ground rules and guidelines. And to be fair to anyone who was foolish enough to stumble upon my musings, I thought I'd spell them out.

1) I will NOT be providing much of a synopsis (if any at all). I realised while I was writing for Pacnet, that summarizing a movie while trying not to give too much away was incredibly tedious and boring .... not to mention, pointless. After all, anyone who has caught the trailer for the movie or has access to the Internet (i.e. YOU) could easily find a synopsis somewhere else. So why waste precious time and effort re-inventing the wheel?

2) I will try my VERY VERY best not to refer to any other source for any of my movie entries. i.e. I won't be verifying facts, checking out spellings of names etc etc. So, everything I write will be purely my opinion and direct from my memory (or lack of it).
Caveat: that doesn't mean I won't have read anything about the movie PRIOR to my viewing and writing about it. Cuz I often read lots of movie reviews and news, and I hardly ever watch a movie "blind" (i.e. without knowing anything about it and/or whether it's supposed to be good). Some might think that that takes abit of the fun out of a movie experience and I don't disagree. Unfortunately, that's the only way I'd be able to decide whether a particular movie is worth my time (and money) in the first place. After all, there are SOOOOO many movies (both old and new ... not restricting myself to just what's in the cineplexes) and my life is finite. As it is, I already have more than a hundred titles on DVD that I haven't gotten around to watching.
Also, it's the only way I'd ever hear about the smaller, less-hyped movies. Stuff like Memento, Dogma, Fog of War, Spellbound, Primer, Shaun of the Dead etc. No trailers for them were EVER shown in cinemas or TV, and if not for reading about them on the Internet, I would probably never have discovered these gems.

3) I'd likely tend to digress (as I demonstrated in point 2 above :p). So don't be surprised if you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a dissertation on whether JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) when the title of the entry actually reads "Alexander".
(For the curious few out there, Alexander was directed by Oliver Stone ... and my first exposure to his work was his brilliant JFK ... which actually piqued my curiosity enough to compel me to delve alot deeper into the whole assassination saga.
Ok, 5 points if you can tell me what JFK stands for (yes, his FULLname))

4) I will NOT be giving any "stars" or "popcorns" or any other crappy rating to the movies I do write about. Who needs them? Besides, I'd like to think that my opinion on how good or bad a movie is (or at least how much/little I liked it) would be clear enough from what I write.

5) I make no promises that I'll be completely spoiler-free. I'll TRY to warn you if I'm about to discuss a major plot point but ... I'm fallible ;)

6) Since I won't ONLY be writting about movies, I think it's probably prudent that I have some way to set them apart from the rest of my random ramblings. Think I'll go with prepending the movie title with 'KTO: ' (i.e. K's Thots On). Hmmm ... speaking of movie titles reminds me of ...

7) ... how they can be pretty tricky. So, don't be surprised if the movie title I use isn't it's complete and official title. After all, movies (especially sequels) can have incredibly long and convoluted (often inane) titles. For eg, I'd probably just write 'X-Men 3' instead of 'X-Men 3 : X-Men United ... Divided, Integrated, Laplace Transformed: where X is a variable'.
Also, I'll refer to the movies according to the title that I saw it in. Recent examples being 'Fever Pitch' instead of 'Perfect Catch', 'Unleashed' instead of 'Danny The Dog'.
And lastly, I might do abit of doctoring so that the title reads more correctly. Case in point being 'The 40-year-old Virgin' instead of 'The 40 year-old Virgin' (which you'll see on movie posters at your local cinemas). In case you didn't catch that, note how an extra hyphen transformed a paedophilic porno movie into a much more wholesome comedy (err ... well, maybe not THAT wholsesome... but at least it won't be something you could be criminally prosecuted for).

8) I reserve the right to append to and ammend any and all of these ground rules ;)
I think that should about cover it ...

Motivation and Content

2005-09-23T02:10:00.000+08:00

I mentioned to a friend who blogged on a regular basis that I was thinking of starting one, she replied enthusiastically, "What's your URL?? Can't wait to read it! I'm sure it's gonna be brilliant!" (her words, not mine ;) ). Of cuz it's nice to have such a supportive reaction. Imagine! My very first regular reader ... and I hadn't even written a thing yet :p On the flip side, it's also terribly stressful to have such high expectations heaped onto an endeavour that hasn't even seen the first flicker of life.

Anyway, I politely told her that I haven't actually written anything as yet and that she'd be the first person I send my link to ... once I felt that I'd written enuff to warrant such a gesture. Nonetheless, her reaction made me wonder about 2 things:
1) What on earth made her think that anything I wrote could come remotely close to being brilliant?
2) What on (or off) earth am I gonna be writing about???

Guess I figured really early on that I'd just write about whatever I felt like writing about. After all, it's supposed to be for fun. Also, I figured I'd probably review ... or at least TALK about movies quite abit since I'm such a movie geek. Sorta pick up from where I left off when Pacnet's Movies-Online website closed down (I've been known to submit the occasional review to that site ... hmmm ... wonder if that was a contributing factor to it's untimely demise ...). Of cuz, without an editor to answer to nor free tickets to press screenings to bind me, I could actually write (or not write) alot more freely. Cool!

But my enthusiasm waned almost as soon as I registered my username with blogger. After a full day of work, I had TV serieses to keep up with, a home to upkeep, laundry to do, DVDs to watch, friends to meet, various miscellaneous stuff to read, badminton to play ... and of cuz, most importantly a long-distance relationship (LDR) to nurture. As a result, all I had after about a month was a half-assed attempt at a posting. And even THAT didn't get published cuz I never got around to finishing it. Pathetic, I know.

Then one day (well, night actually), out of the clear blue sky (hmmm ... more like overcast with occasional showers), a bombshell was dropped.
And THE most important thing in my life was instantly ... no more.

Which brings me to where I am right now. Guess I'm looking at this as therapy. If nothing else, it should keep me distracted and actively occupied. At least, I hope it will ... *fingers crossed*. Besides, I figure it'd be a good way for me to keep in touch with my English writing skills. After all, it doesn't get exercised much in my vocation.

Also, I'm one of those people who have a really hard time giving short and simple answers. For example, when people ask me how I am ... I often just stone for at least a couple of seconds trying to figure out how to answer it succinctly without resorting to something meaningless and/or glib. I also often find myself having a terribly hard time answering MCQ surveys ... cuz the options they offer often don't even BEGIN to describe my actual answer. And don't even get me started on the quizzical and perplexed expressions I used to get from my GP tutor whenever she asked for my opinion on the topic of the day. I guess if brevity was the soul of wit, you could say I'm kinda witless ;) Of cuz, I prefer the terms "verbose" and "profound" (that was often my GP tutor's response to my answers :p).

ANYWAY, the point of all that preface is this: HOPEFULLY, by writing down all this ... ermmm ... crap, I can just direct them to this URL whenever I need to give an answer that's too long and tiring to fully expound upon. For example:

SomeoneIHaven'tSeenInAges: Hey! Long time no see! How've you been?
Me: Still alive. Go visit my blog for a more complete answer.

OR:

Somebody: Hey, have u caught {fill in latest movie}? Izzit any good?
Me: Yes (or No). You can find out my thoughts on it on my blog.

Although conversations might get a tad short and boring ... but who knows, it might work :p

So there you have it. The Master Plan ... The Grand Scheme ... The Best Laid Plan ... (and we all know how that worked out for mice and men ...)

Colourful Language

2005-07-28T18:10:00.000+08:00

No, I'm not refering to stuff like Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet (which is incidentally arranged in order of increasing wavelength :p). Nope, I'm refering to the infamous 4-letter word and it's kin. Why do some relish using them and some cringe at the mere hint of them? For myself, I just make it a point NOT to use the f-word. In fact, I dun even refer to it as the 4-letter word/f-word/f-bomb etc. I just simply replace it with something else ;) The way I see it, it's an exercise in self-restraint and ... yes, creativity :p

Ok, lemme first take a step back and address the key question: Why don't I use it??
Well, I guess it started like 2 decades or so ago. Back when I was using "interesting" Hokkien words and phrases that I was too young to fully comprehend. Somehow, thru a combination of factors I can't even recall, it slowly dawned on me that they were highly uncivilised and were actually hurtful to others. So, from that day on, I took it upon myself to self-censor my language. In fact, I viewed it as a challenge ... a way to set myself apart and be different from my potty-mouthed classmates.

Unfortunately, the need to exclaim in annoyance and/or frustration remained. That's when the "nicotine patch" of explexities stepped in. The "fish" and "duck" and milder (and hence less offensive and more acceptable) "shit". But these soon caught on with my peers and I started to get bored of them. Then came the moment of enlightenment: a good friend of mine observed that usually it's more important HOW you say a word/phrase rather than the word/phrase itself. It's the amount of emotion and ur articulation of it that imbues it with the power that it has. So, we started experimenting with a couple of innocuous words and discovered that multi-syllablic words were quite effective. Thus began frequent cries of "E-le-phant!" and "Wa-ter-me-lon!" and my personal favourites, "Ba-na-na!" and "Ram-bu-tan!". In fact, it became somewhat of a manifestation of our individuality and creativity ;) And to add abit of emphasis and spice, we'd occasionally intone, "Blar-dee papaya!" or something similarly cathartic :)

I guess at the end of the day, it's all about communication. Language serves as a TOOL for communication but each individual's level of understanding and appreciation of it will inevitably vary (even between 2 people who have gone through similar educational systems). So, what a particular word means to you may very well differ from what it may mean to someone else. Of cuz, that's why languages have certain rules and form (eg. vocabulary, grammar, expressions etc) but still ... that's theory. In practise, we all have our own "filters" and idioscyncracies. So, before jumping to conclusions, I always think it's wise to ask someone to define certain words they use.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the point is to COMMUNICATE. But language, or at least our understanding of it, is imperfect (well actually, what IS 'perfect'? But that's a whole different discussion altogether :p). So I believe for good communication to take place, all parties involved neeed to be aware of this seemingly simple truism.

Of cuz, another important aspect of communication is the ability to keep on topic and NOT ramble ... And judging from the title of this entry ... I obviously still have alot to learn about effective communication :p

Hello World!

2005-07-21T18:25:00.000+08:00

So sayeth the computer programmer ;)