the prestige (2006). directed by christopher nolan.

Angier's ambition, we infer, is to transcend humanly created illusions by drawing on the powers of advanced science, and this takes us into the realms of science fiction and Frankensteinian hubris. The reserved, immaculately dressed Tesla is magisterially impersonated by David Bowie.

After a single viewing, I'm not sure I could describe the order of events in Nolan's film. Yet though one may be puzzled, just as one is by an illusionist, everything seems lucid and leads to a succession of revelations that left me stunned. I was still working out their implications long after leaving the cinema. The Prestige is a dazzling piece of work that left me eager to see it again and to read Priest's novel.

The film is immaculately assembled with magnificently stylised sets by production designer Nathan Crowley, acute editing by Lee Smith and wonderfully atmospheric but wholly unaffected photography by Wally Pfister. They've all previously collaborated with Nolan, in Pfister's case on all his pictures since Following, which Nolan himself photographed.

The performances of Bale and Jackman complement each other superbly and Caine brings a seriousness and dignity to Cutter, a role that combines the best aspects of his theatrical agent in Little Voice and his butler in Batman Begins. As in earlier Nolan films, the women's roles are unrewarding, though Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johansson do well enough as Borden's naive wife and Angier's duplicitous stage assistant.

If I have given the impression that the film is unduly cerebral or opaque, let me say that in addition to the intellectual or philosophical excitement it engenders, The Prestige is gripping, suspenseful, mysterious, moving and often darkly funny.

-as reviewed by phillip french, the guardian.

harsh times (2005). directed by david ayer.

i wrote this on the train.

comparisons have been made between harsh times and training day, but harsh times is about friendship, loyalty and ambition colliding with addicts, dealers, cops and regular ppl living up to the chaos of LA. yellow filters marked the seedy yellow streaks flashing across the city of angel.

one of them is jim, a walking time bomb waiting for the moment to explode. the odd friends that jim kept are addicts and dealers and a childhood pal, mike. they passed the day in the streets of LA like grown up children looking to steal a candy, supposedly looking for work but actually living a life of petty gangster. the story is sorrowful, the eventuality of self destruction isnt something that jim can avoid. he is shell shocked from the war he had been recently discharged, but refused to admit to it. the machismo front that he is trying to live up to doesnt help, constantly feeling the pressure even from the smallest of things.

christian bale is powerful as jim, too much a chameleon as the deeply unstable jim, posesessively dependent on mike for company. freddy rodriguez of six feet under fame is the loyal mike, who seems to need jim's friendship more than the love of his girl friend, charmed by jim's recklessness and bad influence that he mistakes jim's macho front as being ''a man''. the ending is tragic, and mike must learn to be an adult.

the story is yellow, too close to the audience. the intimacy is uneasy. the pursuit of happiness is a never ending quest, and those not looking for it is truly doomed.

lady in the water (2006). directed by m. night shyamalan.

i regretted not seeing shyamalan's movie lady in the water on the big screen. i've always enjoyed his other movies, and so far has not been disappointed in any one of them. the movie isnt linear in the strictest sense, and it's really rewarding for potential viewers to pay attention cuz this isnt a movie you can watch while eating (or doing laundry etc). what i like about shyamalan is his ability to present something, put it in such a way that is intelligent and more often that not, gives us a glimpse of originality when so many other movies are a concoction of the things that i have already seen (beware, i think it's a good sign you keep surprising yourself). and there are lots of nice shots, which is one of the things that i look out for, be it in the village, signs and unbreakable (to name a few).

he took his time to tell the story. and sometimes the camera is static, which i find particularly irritating in yasmin ahmad's movie.

it's christmas tomorrow. merry christmas.

the departed (2006). directed by martin scorsese.

scorsese is losing it.if the departed wins at the golden globe, then the standards has definitely sunk.the departed is no way comparable to infernal affairs, be it the plot, story telling, even the cast.

i personally believed there's a casting mistake in scorsese's adaptation of the hong kong mole game to the boston landscape. di caprio was too high strung for an undercover, and damon was too 2D, devoid of personal conflicts. casting jack nicholson is too overpowering, because he obtained the lot of the screentime, swallowing the movie and overshadowing the two main characters (of di caprio and damon). which is not the point. the point of infernal affairs was the conflict of 2 men living their lives in a way none of them wants to be. worse, the feeling is like watching a cut and paste job. 70% of the scenes are directly adapted from infernal affairs. the two are so close, yet couldn't be more dissimilar. one can say scorsese made a different movie, but the departed failed to raised to the occasion of previous efforts by scorsese, such as the goodfellas and casino. i have also watched infernal affairs part 3. what i like abt the first and third part is that both movies respect us as the audience. both never tried to overly explained anything, they left it to us to figure out what's going on and this is vastly helped by the good acting displayed (of leung chi wai and lau tak wah). it is subtle, but you cant missed it if you pay attention. i find the departed dwelling on some scenes for far too long than it needs to be as if scorsese wants to be sure that we "get it".

ps: bravo, hong kong films can be a better watch than hollywood stuff sans the gadgets and effects.

gubra (2006). directed by yasmin ahmad.

i finally got around to watch gubra last raya, as it was shown on ch4. i quite like yasmin's first effort, so i thot i gave this one a try.

i made a mistake of thinking the movie was trying too damned hard, and indeed, it had. so i ended up disappointed at the outcome of my prediction.

i seriously have a problem with yasmin ahmad's way of telling the story. im no stranger to 3 part movies, which is a perfectly good idea to implement if you wanna joined up 3 seemingly disparate stories to a common theme, or situation. i dun even have a problem if the imam talked or patted the dog or the hookers, i mean, bring it on, i can even handle aliens if that is what she wants. what i have a problem is when she is testing my patience with that damned, outdated camera work of hers that she seemed to be so fond of, because that's the slowest snail paced movie ive ever watched. my brother said she wants you to float with the hopelessness of the situation, but i dun buy that crap. as if she wanna test you, if you can stand to listen to the clock ticking while she slowly unveils whatever, then she's gonna congratulate you for staying on, hence, appreciating the scenes. crap. i watched terrence mallick stuff and i have no problem with taking time to tell your story but deliberately wasting time is just stupid. the stories just do not convey because she doesnt tell them as well as it should be.

another thing that i dun see ppl commenting abt the movie is how glaringly wrong for sharifah amani to win whatever award it is for her role. when i saw the teaser on tv i thot the guy who played her husband is a child molester for cohabiting with her cuz like it or not, she's wayyy to young to pass off as a career woman. that miscast alone is a mistake.

as i was saying earlier, i was gubra-ed. literally.

superman returns (2006). directed by bryan singer.

bryan singer's latest effort is a bit of a late down compared to his previous works, culminating in the excellent the usual suspects (other works include x-menI and x-menII). the only praise i can offer is the fantastic photography, which some scenes, such the chaos when the plane is going on a nosedive, ppl endlessly hitting walls, and the one with glass on every building shatters in a sequence were exceptionally good. other than that the story lacked focus, not too mention dragging on scenes that should have been discarded. kevin spacey was grossly underutilised that he was unable to be an effective lex luthor, not really menacing or evil or genius or mad, cuz the affection for classical music is an overemphasized crazy person trait. i like classical music and i can tell the difference between max bruch and felix mendelssohn and ludwig van and god loved one and im not mad, in most ways. insufficient characterization of major characters kills the film. average grade is C.

sepet (2004). directed by yasmin ahmad.

yesterday nite, after much deliberations with my sisters, we settled to watch sepet for our saturday late nite movie this week. the other sister was huge on johnny depp and hugh laurie and john cusack, while the other warned me about how sepet is ultra pretentious that i would have the same exact hatred as her for the movie when the credits rolled at the end. here am i, with two choices in hand, an overdose of mr depp flamboyance or a movie ive been ignoring for the sake of the hype rule. i for one, havent watch sepet until now because i have a rule against currently hyped movies (or anything else for that matter, so you know im slow on the uptake of anything new because i feel safe viewing the world with skepticism), not that ive bought the stupid allegations thrown towards yasmin ahmad abt this and that, mostly irrelavant anyway.

i thot the movie is sweet, contemporary and honest that i find it surprising now, as i recalled, various quarters condemning the movie for being un-malay, un-malaysian etc. i relate to the on goings in the movie, malaysians being so close, but always at arm's length for god knows what reasons (sorry, we know the reasons, right?) the dialogues are incredibly simple yet true, that i thot every malaysians should have thot abt the issues potrayed one way or the other. i especially liked the scene in the hospital, with keong and jason, when keong said he never not like the malays, just that he hasnt thot abt them. by right, there's nothing new to be learn, other than to accept the realities of life in this country. if there's anything to be learned, it has to be for us to start doing something about it, rather than leave it to the so called able hands of our trusted leaders (and no, i dont trust them, they are scum for one thing, they play the race card and most recently, the religion card, all the time).

those local directors that have taken their time and effort to bash yasmin are jerks, and most embarassingly, i have a strange feeling that these people have never watched a single quality flick in their whole directing lives that even something as simple as sepet make them fall off their seats. the preoccupations with titbids and petty details like orked's dressing (my sister was annoyed at the baju kurung switchings) etc are silly, who doesnt wear anything else at some point in time anyway? but you go girl, for someone who cares more for bird flu killing ducks in her backyard, i hope for you to take the world.

chasing amy (1997). directed by kevin smith.

the past week had seen me constantly bending over tracing papers and pressing my pencil hard to get the shape of the top maps underneath. maps, by rule, including the fact that if your background comprised of less than 5% of geology, will give your life hell. let me share this scene from chasing amy (1997), because i think me and banky edwards don't find life as a tracer completely...complete.

COLLECTOR: So you draw this?

BANKY: (signing the comic) I ink it and I'm also the colorist. The guy next to me draws it. But we both came up with the characters

COLLECTOR: What's that mean - you ink it?

BANKY: Well. It means that Holden draws the pictures in pencil, and then he gives it to me to go over in ink

COLLECTOR: So you just trace!

Banky freezes up. He composes himself and continues signing.

BANKY: It's not tracing. I add depth and shading to give the image mere definition. Only then does the drawing really take shape.

COLLECTOR: You go over what he draws with a pen - that's tracing.

BANKY : (hands book back to Collector) Not really. (calling out) Next!

A LITTLE KID steps up but the Collector lingers.

COLLECTOR: Hey man. If somebody draws something and then you draw the same thing right on top of it, not going out-side the designated original art what do call that?

LITTLE KID: (shrugs) I don't know. Tracing?

COLLECTOR: (to Banky) See?

BANKY: It's not tracing.

COLLECTOR: Oh, but it is.

BANKY: (to Little Kid) Do you want your book signed or what?

COLLECTOR: Hey - don't get all testy with him just because you have a problem with your station in life.

BANKY: I'm secure with what I do.

COLLECTOR: Then say it - you're a tracer.

BANKY: (grabbing Little Kid's book) How should I sign this?

LITTLE KID: (grabs book back) I don't want you to sign it, I want the guy that draws Bluntman and Chronic to sign it. You're just a tracer.

COLLECTOR: Tell him, Little Shaver.

Holden accepts a comic from another Fan.

HOLDEN: (off comic) Who do I sign it to?

Before Holden can finish, a loud crash is heard. He looks to his left and freaks. Banky is throttling the Collector from across the table. The Collector attempts to fight him off.

SECURITY GUARDS pull them apart. Holden grabs Banky.

COLLECTOR: Jesus! All I did was call him a tracer!

BANKY: (to Collector) I'LL TRACE A CHALK LINE AROUND YOUR DEAD FUCKING BODY, YOU FUCK?!

HOLDEN: (to Security Guard) Could you get him out of here!

The Security Guards drag the collector away.

COLLECTOR: Hey, wait a sec! He jumped me! And you're dragging me away!(exiting) Fucking tracer!

BANKY: (calling OC) YOUR MOTHER'S A TRACER!!

HOLDEN: Can I explain the audience principle to you? If you insult and accost them, then we have no audience.

BANKY: He started it! Fucking cock-knocker! He's lucky I didn't put my pen through his thorax!

HOLDEN: Need I remind you...(holds up watch) Curtain's in ten minutes.

swimming upstream (2003). directed by robert mulcahy.

its a rare event nowadays that i get to watch tv until 4am. yesterday the honour went to swimming upstream, a little known aussie movie i'd heard of since my uni days in sydney. yeah poverty prevented me from enjoying a lot of movies at the cinemas back then (heck, even now), but i guess a good thing is never too late for anyone to enjoy.

i was talking to a fren the other day abt how parents, in actual fact, do have differential preferences when it comes to their children. hence some kids are more favoured then the rest, and i retorted, saying that my parents arent like that. simply because i could not find a motive for ppl to do so, eventhough i suspected they wld probably do not need any reason at all to be so biased. and this is the theme of the film. harold (g. rush) seemed to have a peculiar hatred for his second child, and the film didnt even attempt to explain why he hated the boy in particular. he went on great lengths to turn his children against one another, creating vicious factions in the family that persisted till adulthood. he's a troubled man with a troubled life and childhood, and he seemed to be jealous of his own children. the kids were juz children, who crave for adult attention, and played along the sick game of being each other's enemy to win the old man's approval.

it has a happy ending, but i dun think a happy ending matters in such a freaky situation. ppl get too damaged beyond repair.

and g. rush is one hell of an actor. i love the old man's brand of method acting. he was excellent in the life and death of peter sellers, another fucked up individual who doesnt grow up and treats ppl closest to him like rubbish. he was so good that ppl hated him for being too real in exposing the ugly side of peter sellers. i loved that piece, for the man and his job is exclusive of one another.

i dun understand why ppl keep harping on using petronas' profits to finance the country's oil subsidy. its a national company, meaning that it belongs to the govt, meaning whatever profits it makes ultimately belong to the govt...i read pak lah's explanation on utusan regarding the matter, i think alot of ppl here have no idea how the oil business works at all.