jane eyre (2011). directed by cary fukunaga.

i watched this movie because i want to see which one of them is micheal fassbender, who has new movies coming out this year touted as a good watch - shame (2011) and a dangerous method (2011). i still find wasikowska too uptight, while i understand her character as an independent woman trying to survive poverty, being single and betrayal of trusts that could turn any woman into an anxious bucket of sarcasm. eyre is witty and smart, but she is poor and by implication, plain. she has many dark episodes in her life but she wants to be realistic about it without being too naive of how scary the world could be or too scared to shy away from experiencing it. i like fukunaga's direction that gives sense of how stratified society of victorian age favours people of money and dismissed people without money like mere insects - like they have no personality, no feelings, no life. and people with money, they get away with bad behaviour, almost as if such a thing is expected if not condoned. 

we, as people, can still be bought with illusions of power and wealth, like those victorians ages ago. 

my son, my son, what have ye done (2009). directed by werner herzog.

this is a curious movie. but i should have known how curious it could be when i see the name werner herzog and it was produced than none other the master of wierdness, famed director david lynch. to be fair, i haven't watch a lot of herzog's work. i decided to watch this movie because i was taken with micheal shannon's acting and wanted to see more of him. when i browsed through his filmography, i was surprised with the number of films he had done and i have watched but nonetheless did not see him. he is the ultimate everyday man, he is there everywhere, blending with the environment, that he is not seen. 

this movie though, has a curious way of telling its story. it started like any regular cop movie, and then it started to go haywire. it was as if the movie (rather, the director) is saying, fuck off to all known cop movie formulas out there. i am sick of people expecting i do what i should do, so let it rip. 

it is a story of suburban hell, of too much fake happiness that homeowners had to paint pink flamingos on their wall. it's weird, when a mother smothers her grown up son with too much affection that she has to give them cookies when he is about to sleep with his girlfriend. shannon's character had probably been unstable for a long time, waiting for the ripe time to explode. it is wierd (again), that his mother, his girlfriend, his neighbours, his theater instructor, his friends - none of them see how mentally fragile he is, perhaps the real danger lies in basking in too much imagined solace that they failed to see a ticking time bomb, living right across the street. 

take shelter (2011). directed by jeff nichols.

this has got to be one of the better movies made this year, though not in the same category as drive (2011) which was more about style than theme. there's nothing wrong with that, movies can be whatever they want to be. a well done movie is not about theme or any particular topic - it's about good execution. take shelter (2011) goes beyond style alone - this movie confronts you with such layered story telling and subtleties that it doesn't need special effects to create tension and suspense. great acting from micheal shannon and jessica chastain, they have got to be my current two favourite actors and i see more good movies coming from them. i like the cinematography by adam stone that presents ohio as a quiet rural place, but not as peaceful as it seems to be. something dangerous is lurking underneath the summer wind blowing the trees. 

the story tackles many issues without confusing the audience, it fact it unites the various elements that by the time the movie ends, the story achieves perfect harmony. shannon is a young husband and father afflicted by visions of apocalyptic storms and mysterious people attacking him and his family. he begins to get very anxious about it as he regularly hallucinates and loses the ability to sleep - all this while trying to hold down a job, pay for his home and car mortgages and find treatment for his deaf daughter. you can feel why this guy is seeing things - while he could be genuinely on the verge of schizophrenia, he has many things on his plate that could make anyone unable to sleep. i like shannon's portrayal of the the ordinary man losing his mind - his anxiety is real and heartfelt as he tries to cope with seeing the unreal while trying to be a responsible father and husband, all at the same time. chastain as shannon's wife provides a good pairing of a couple in love and committed to each other, she is ethereal without being bland, strong without being overpowering, supportive without being dependent. she is the reason why shannon feels he has to get through his difficulties despite all odds. he is strong because of her. this story is about many things - financial worries in times of economic uncertainties and downsizing, the constant enviromental threat (which is a real risk in many countries, such as america and indonesia) and what it means to be committed in a marriage. 

it is about facing good times, as well as real or imagined bad times, together.  this film is must watch, alas it is not widely distributed in the US, i doubt it will be shown in other countries. that's a shame, really. i had to walk 2 miles in order to find a cinema in denver that showed the movies, and it was worth every step i took (disclaimer: i don't have a car here because i am attending a conference, and cabs are expensive. it was a good exercise, i was restless and needed to discard excess energy). 

waiting for superman (2010). directed by davis guggenheim.

the other day on twitter, me and a friend got into a discussion about lousy education systems and predictably, she said malaysia is the worst. may be because we went through the system, and despite being able to go to uni via that system, get a job and earn a reasonably comfortable living, we forget of inherent factors that make or break that system. year in, year out, the education minister reports increasing number of students passing with higher and higher marks in national exams that we are often fooled of the real situation. 

what about the majority that didn't do so well? what will happened to them? why couldn't they do any better? is it fair to say that some kids just can't learn? is there anything we can do about it? is the system at fault? what are the factors that contribute to kids not learning what they are supposed to learn?

these are hard questions that the film is trying to answer, something we all should be worried about too. 

i think whatever plagued the american education system, if looked close enough, we will find an eerie similarity with what is happening in our country. those good marks are nothing but a mask. that is the  topic of interest in waiting for superman, a documentary that follows a father's search and countless other parents for a good school for their kids. i must say, this film is much more suspenseful, engaging and puts you on the edge at the precarious decline of the public school system in america than a lot of action flicks playing out there. it's heartbreaking seeing single mothers working 3 jobs trying to pay for private schools, hardworking children from poor neighbourhoods putting their hopes on lotteries in order to gain entry into a good school. the film explores the issues that turn american public schools into a sinkhole (increasing drop out rates, no improvement in reading and math skills) - a powerful teacher's union that makes it impossible to fire bad teachers (and there are lots of them on the payroll and not doing their job) and complicated management of the school system that makes it inefficient.  the real losers - kids. 

this is a powerful film that educators and parents should watch and understand - for nothing is more impactful to the future generation than quality education. 

food for thought!

dream house (2011). directed by jim sheridan.

the only saving grace of this movie is that it runs for 92 minutes otherwise i would have walked out of the cinema. it's been a while since i watched a hopelessly bad movie (the last one was final destination 5 (2011)) and it is most unfortunate that this one comes second - it has daniel craig, rachel weisz and naomi watts; on top of that it is directed by jim sheridan of my left foot (1989), in the name of the father (1993) and in america (2002) fame. come on! i was angry by the time the film ended - it was flat, no intonation, no climax, the mood and atmosphere is all wrong (thrillers don't work with too much light!) and i don't buy the plot. craig needs to see spider (2002) if he wants to give a credible potrayal of a man who lost his mind. may be the script is weak, that not even a good actor or a seasoned director can salvage the movie.

i am disappointed, and i dare say that was a waste of my 10 bucks. 

the tree of life (2011). directed by terrence malick.

last weekend friends of mine who lived in downtown houston asked me to come along to watch margin call (2011) at river oaks theater located right in the middle of the city. they didn't tell me that the cinema is the oldest cinema in houston, and that it has only 3 screens. by the time we got there, tickets were sold out for all movies (which were only 3). one of them then suggested that we go back to his place to watch the tree of life (2011), him being new to high brow art movies, recommended by his boss, and thinks he couldn't make it watching the thing alone. 

before i say anything further, let me just iterate that in general i like terrence malick films. they are not conventional, lots of people find them too dreamy, slide-showy - i've heard worse - the p-word. pretentious.  

whenever i watched malick's films, the word that comes to my mind is beautiful. the cinematography, the moods, the colours, the fact that it seems to drift in no particular direction often puts in me in awe. but that's me. i am impressed that he doesn't have the need to tell the story like so many other directors might have done, it is like he doesn't care what people think about the film, because his role as a director is to put the story out there as he sees it. it doesn't matter to him if you get it or not. that's just how he sees things. 

which of course, makes my two guy friends who love block buster action franchise squirmed in their seat  in confusion and impatience. but they made it through the whole 2 hours and 20 minutes, relieved that they finally watched "an art film".   

i don't know if it is an art film. it is a terrence malick film and there is only one terrence malick which makes it singular on its own. in a nutshell, the story is about a middle class family in texas, the stern patriarch played by brad pitt and his angel-like wife starring jessica chastain trying to raise 3 boys in the midst of surburban monotony, economic down turns, parental discord and teenage growing pains. the story is told through the eyes of jack, the oldest of the 3 boys and i feel it is imperative that while watching the movie, audience need to assume his point of view to appreciate the movie. i can't be the person watching it from the inside, i need to be in the movie along with jack and it takes me back to my childhood. i can relate to the lazy days, my disciplinarian and moody father, my soothing and full of love mother, and their fights which scared the hell out of me. the movie invokes those memories - and i guess it can't be done without intimately recording the seemingly useless details of those times. i was a child and didn't know what life will be, which i think fits the movie ostensible lack of plot. it is also expansive in its tribute to the mystery of life - right from the big bang through the dinosaur sequence and to the human fetus, wondering at the question why are we here? jack marvelled at the difficult question, as i did, back then. 

this film is not for everyone and many critics praised it for being brave (while failing at the same time) because hardly anyone these days apart from terrence malick and the great dead directors like stanley kubrick and andrei tarkovsky make films like this anymore. nobody seems to wonder about the continous flow of life, endless and has no beginning. the film is not perfect, but it is good that someone out there is praying to this grand monument we call life. 

the machinist (2004). directed by brad anderson.

he is gaunt and too thin for his 6 ft frame. he can't sleep, must have been for a long time now. you will immediately feel sorry for him, something is eating up this man mercilessly, in fact, if this is the price he has to pay for whatever wrong doing in the past, you'll say, enough already. he seems like a regular guy if not for the anorexic body, but something is wrong. his co-workers avoided him, hated him actually. we don't know why. the director is dropping little hints here and there - in his apartment, what about a big guy following him around and he doesn't look pleasant to be with.  the atmosphere is bleak, there is no sun. the only ray of hope comes in the form of a single mother and her son, whom the thin guy enjoys spending time with. something is bothering him though - something. 

director brad anderson weaves a tale of regret that literally eats a person up. christian bale famously lost 63 lbs for the role, and by the end of the movie, you will throw your hands up in the air and cry - for the love of god man, stop punishing yourself. we forgive you. forgive yourself. now eat. and sleep. 

and that's all that he wants. to be free from guilt. to be free from illusions that things done in the past can be fixed. you can only forgive and live with your sins. and then you can sleep. 

such a simple pleasure to earn, isn't it? think again the next time when you can't sleep. it can eat you alive. 

scenes of a sexual nature (2006). directed by ed blum.

i don't enjoy assembled cast hollywood films. i don't remember the last time i watched one and actually like it. i often find it lame, pretentious and worse of all, not funny. personally i think it is a waste of talent pool, but come christmas and valentine's day, there usually be droves of assembled cast feel good films that hardly feels... joyful. 

defeats the purpose, eh?

there are many things i like about this movie. apparently it is an assembled cast film but since i don't know a lot of british actors, it is refreshing to see people who are actors acting as opposed to famous hollywood actors acting. actors should become the part, not the other way round. i don't pay to see a movie to see leonardo di caprio acting to be leonardo di caprio because i want leonardo di caprio to be whoever the script wants him to be. off tangent, my bad. but that's my point why i hate assembled cast hollywood films. 

this movie is about the misadventures people encounter in their search for love, and specifically, sex. i find most of the subplots interesting, for example the story of iris and eddie, the old couple who at last met after 50 years of looking for one another. another one involves pete and molly, the divorced couple who are so happy despite the fact that they are dissolving their marriage. the funniest has got to be noel's persistent bad day when a woman proposed sex to him in the park only to call it off half way through and he was left with his white preppy flat butt in the air, pants in the ankle. he is naive and too honest, and it should not come as a surprise why women immediately take him for a pervert. 

is love about being together while letting our partners do what they like although it is displeasing to us? is love sex, and vice versa? could love come in to our life if only we could stop being defensive and take a little joke about ourselves? could love be paid in money, secret meetings and far away holidays?

louis said it best - it is easy to love someone, not so to like them. 

fight club (1999). directed by david fincher.

i didn't noticed before that edward norton has no name in this movie and i have watched it god knows how many times. david fincher's dynamic direction is still refreshing as it did 10 years ago, putting humour in otherwise a very bland life of an neurotic insomniac who had to be someone else in order to feel free. brad pitt nailed the role of tyler durden, nameless norton's alter ego which is his total opposite - he's flamboyant, smart, outspoken, sexy, opinionated and strong. perhaps the movie is a collection of cool one liners that underscore the anxiety of a generation of men that feels emasculated by the lack of doing anything traditionally associated with being a man. norton is great at playing the hesistant everyday man whose confidence is at an all time low. it is a dark comedy, and after many many viewings, i still find it funny - the issue of emasculation and over consumerism are more relevant today as they did 10 years ago. 

bronson (2008). directed by nicolas winding refn.

after watching several hollywood movies back to back, i was relieved that i finally got to watch something different. i don't know if bronson market itself as a dark comedy, because i was giggling at 1am, at the absurdity of bronson. the guys is stark raving mad. he could be schizophrenic. who in their right mind would pick fights in prison knowing that your stay would be prolonged, and solitary confinement at that?

the good thing about this movie is that director nicolas winding refn doesn't take a linear approach to tell the story. bronson is obviously crazy and suffer from delusion of grandiose, to the point of creating an alter ego called charles bronson because "i want to be famous". tom hardy as bronson is compelling to watch, he brings realism and bestiality to the character. he lacks control and operates by a different logic that is not normal like other people. 

i doubt this movie works for everyone - there's nudity, too much violance, and chaos. but we do need different things, once in a while.