Unthinkable: How far would you go to protect your country?

Unthinkable - The Hollywood film that Hollywood doesn't want us to see.

A white Islamic extremist has hidden 3 nuclear bombs in nondescript locations throughout America, and threatens to set them off unless his demands are met.

The race is on to find the bombs before they go off anyway (by themselves), but here's the catch - the terrorist Yusuf (Michael Sheen) has helpfully decided to turn himself in for interrogation, fully expecting to be tortured in the process. The American government duly obliges, sending in special interrogator H (Samuel L. Jackson), one of their most extreme, sickest operative, willing to go to any measures necessary to "extract" crucial information.

FBI Special Agent Brody (Carrie Ann Moss) tags along as a moral anchor of the story, but finds herself increasingly powerless to act against H's form of extreme torture and methods.

And just in case you're still not sure what you're in for, one of the first things H does upon meeting Yusuf (formerly known as Younger), is to cruelly cut off one of Yusuf's fingers. This is torture with a capital T, graphic but not overly so, yet leaving us in no doubt as to what to potentially expect for the hapless Yusuf.

Carrie Ann Moss' Brody faces off H as played by Samuel L. Jackson, whose methods more than border on the unthinkable.

Who's the villain? Both Michael Sheen & Jackson are powerful in their respective roles as the tortured & the torturer.

The premise is astoundingly clear - just exactly how far would you go to save the lives of potentially millions?

Samuel L. Jackson & Carrie Ann Moss here present two different sides of the coin. H will stop at nothing, while Brody will maintain that there has to be a limit.

Stuck in between is the excellent Michael Sheen, the man who has to endure everything. The antagonist who set the stage, and yet also a protagonist of sorts, who shows us just how morally bankrupt we as a society can be.

As we cringe under Yusuf's sufferings at the hands of the relentless H, we have to constantly remind ourselves of the film's other unthinkable, the intentional murder of millions for a cause we can never truly understand. Sheen shows his character's fanatical side, yet is undeniably human in the way he responds to the threats and torture, while remaining committed to his cause.

But the truly unthinkable, the act that will make most audiences balk, is one that is so simple, yet so frightening that it crops up only at the climax of the film. Yet, if you had any sense of realism or an idea of what violence truly means, then you would probably guess it from a mile off.

It is not the film's fault however, for I truly believe that American audiences will not be able to take any further than what's presented in the film.

Which is why it is a pity the Unthinkable was released straight to video. The production value of the film is excellent, so that was never the problem. Instead, the film's disturbing content has proved its downfall. Nonetheless, it has presented a moral dilemma that is both apt and probably current. The pity is that American audiences are simply not mature enough to consider the film's implications.

Americans have to be portrayed as heroes, never as villains. Americans will never want to consider the lengths that one has to go to keep the "peace". But there is a difference between graphic violence, and the unthinkable - and that is something we have to think about....

Moometer Reading:
Moo-o...?!?

Exclamation for:

! Strong Ensemble Cast: The three leads turn in strong performances, with a special nod to Michael Sheen for displaying both the fanatical and vulnerable side of his character with equal believability. Jackson is his usual frightening self, somewhat reminiscent of his portrayal in Pulp Fiction. Carrie Ann Moss betrays the empathy in her character beneath all that steel, which her character uses to make the most important decision in the film.

Query for:

? Flawed Script: Strangely enough, I am in no way slating the script, since I can understand the motivations behind those flaws. The film is quite well paced, but the flaws are a little glaring. Yusuf's obvious stupidity and naivety in turning himself in is a rather grandiose but necessary plot element (so he can be tortured). It is explained as his bid for martyrdom but seriously, he should have expected the outcome, though apparently it is unthinkable for him after all. That particular unthinkable is easy to anticipate, yet is only revealed at the end as a kinda twist, which of course falls somewhat flat if you were waiting for it to come all through the film....

? Straight to Video: Hello? It is a pretty good film and should deserve a run in the theatres. Boo America!

Sammy's Adventures: The Secret Passage

Sammy's Adventures in glourious 3D

I was a kid once.

I could barely remember what it was like to go on an adventure of a lifetime then emerge from it all bubbly and excited.

Which in a nutshell is what Sammy's Adventures: The Secret Passage is about.

Little Sammy the sea turtle (his mommy must have named her brood while in the egg - one by one by one by one...) hatches from his egg to begin an epic journey, the journey of life - complete in 3D animation.

Along the way, he chums with best pal and jellyfish slugging Ray (one of his supposed many brothers, who looks a suspiciously different breed, ie. colour of turtle); takes 'flying lessons' from hungry seagulls; gets caught by humans and joins the hippy movement; and goes on a hunt for a secret passage that brings him to the south pole. And of course at the end of it all, he finds his long lost love Shelly.

It's all good kiddy fun.

Too bad I'm not a kid anymore.

Life through the eyes of a turtle - an eagle's eye view....

Oh crab!

Enjoying life in the sun - in a makeshift luxury yacht....

Seriously, I wouldn't have watched this movie if I hadn't been asked to do a review. Though to be fair, there is no doubt whatsoever who the target audience is - children - and more specifically those below the age of 12.

And it was telling, sitting amongst an adult audience, that there was hardly any laughter throughout the screening of the preview. On my part, I peaked at a grand total of one good chuckle - when the baby eaglets were pecking away at Sammy's cute bald head.

If you're looking for a good balance of adventure and intelligent humour like say in Finding Nemo, Sammy's Adventures simply will not fit the bill.

The writing is too uninspired for that. Everytime Sammy loses Shelly, a new character pops up to tell him where she is. Deus ex machina in a cartoon? No need to explain to the kids....

Not to say there aren't any saving graces.

Sammy's Adventures proves once again that 3D belongs best for now, in animation rather than in god-awful epics like Clash of the Titans.

The technology isn't perfect. Landscapes and individual objects still look like those cut outs from 3D picture books (to which by the way, there is a wonderful nod during the end credits). But the renditions of sand and water and waves can somtimes border on the sublime. The producers too, make full use of the 3D animation to produce some stunning 'in your face' visuals - the unforgettable image being that of a menacing and inquisitive snake.

And for a kid's film, the movie also brought up a few environmental issues facing the world today - the threat and pollution of oil spills; the problem of whaling etc. These can certainly be appreciated by a young and impressionable audience.

All in, Sammy's Adventures: The Secret Passage can be a fun and unforgettable ride for little children, but adults sans kids may not be too eager to catch this cute animated turtle.


Moometer Reading:
Moo-o??

Query for:

? Being a kid's film: Being a movie primarily targeted at children, it would be unfair to judge it with adult eyes. And yet there are easily plenty of animation films - Finding Nemo among others that are funnier and that appeal to both adults and children. Sammy's Adventures thus gets a generous Moo-o when its rating could easily have been worse.

? Poor Scripting: It seems pretty clear that the writer was thinking: It's for kids! Who cares? Well, I did for one.

The Karate Kid (2010)

The Karate Kid kicks on - in China....

There is practically no karate in this new Karate Kid.

But aside from that little wistful desire that America should finally get the rest of the world right, there is really little doubt that the former Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Will Smith, has served up something of a gem, while officially presenting his son and heir apparent, Jaden Smith, as a future and upcoming heartthrob and superstar.

Simply put, Jaden is his father's son. Adorable at such a young age, the boy nevertheless displays an irresistible charm and an uncanny flair for humour that his father is so famous for.

Sure, he still lacks a little something in the emotive department, but like his character Dre Parker quips while being trashed in table tennis by a Chinese man (???), "Dude! I'm only 12!"

JS & JC - striking up a fine camaraderie....

Jackie Chan takes on a bunch of kids... ouch - for them....

Jaden Smith - your up and coming action superstar?

But enough of that for now. How fare this 2010 version against its 1984 original?

The film is essentially a remake of the 1984 Karate Kid starring Ralph Macchio and the famous Pat Morita. In essence however, this 2010 film is actually quite different in tone.

What sets this apart from its predecessor is the injection of quite a bit of comedy, and in a sense, it works very well.

Jackie Chan delivers some of the most hilarious deadpan lines as Mr Han, the kungfu master masquerading as a local apartment caretaker.

Equally funny, though perhaps unintentionally, is the sight of the legendary Jackie Chan pitted against a bunch of Chinese kids (all smaller size than him), when Mr Han tries to save Dre's skin. Somehow I can picture a bunch of white kids ganging up on Pat Morita's Miyagi, but here? I don't wonder if JC himself wasn't embarrassed with the match-up.

The Karate Kid (2010) IS funny, I give you that. And to be fair, the representation of Chinese Kungfu, especially showcasing a trip up the mountain (Mt. Wudang perhaps?), is excellent.

But I cannot help but suspect that the comic element is both a boon and a bane. What worked well as a coming of age movie as the 1984 original was, seems to now have been lost amidst all the laughter and levity.

Ralph Macchio & Pat Morita from the original - a more coming of age experience....

I remember one of the original film's iconic moments, when Daniel (Macchio) adopted the crane stance against his opponent - that was quite something else.

But while that scene is repeated in the remake, it ended up being more funny than actually inspiring.

The story may be the same, but the setting and tone are certainly very different. Perhaps it is a reflection of the times we're in. But in no way should those detract us from an otherwise entertaining, and fairly successful remake.


Moometer Reading:
Moo-o..

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

"One, two... Freddy's coming for you...."

Oh please no more Nightmares.

The highly successful franchise has seen a total of seven sequels to the original A Nightmare On Elm Street, so the producers decide it is time to do a remake and reboot - a reflection of current film making trends I'm afraid.

But how do you take a novelty idea from 1984 and rejuvenate it for today's audiences when it has all but worn thin?

The idea of course is to reinvent, to update on the original to fit the times. Unfortunately, this 2010 version fails on both counts, making for an ultimately plodding storyline with cheap and predictable scares.

To be fair, this is indeed a basic remake, with only a few major changes from the original. The characters are more or less the same. The major difference is the serial child killer in the original has been relegated to a maybe only child molester (I know, what in the world...?).

And of course there is Freddy Krueger, the masterful and iconic Robert Englund now replaced by Jackie Earle Haley, who was himself incredible as Rorschach in Watchmen.

I still remember as a kid, how a classmate of mine fervently did his own impression of that scissorhand arch villain - complete with hat, glove and claws - and he called himself Freddy.

This was the effect Freddy Krueger had on scores of young lads throughout the world for a good decade and more.

This new Freddy unfortunately, lacks character. The face looks too plastic, though that is supposedly done to more closely match those of burn victims.

No teenager or otherwise is going to be inspired or truly frightened by this Freddy, certainly not when Freddy lookalikes, parodies and caricatures have been around for over two decades.

Yes. Hide that face a bit more, because Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger doesn't quite... cut it....

Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner play the only two characters in the film with any personality at all....

Do not fall asleep in class, or Freddy's gonna get you....

While there is little to take away from this reboot, the production value is nonetheless quite decent. The cinematography and sets are also pretty good, though an over-reliance on poor CGI tends to let the film down.

The supporting cast are forgettable, underdeveloped, or just plainly Freddy fodder. Only the two leads, played by Rooney Mara as Nancy and Kyle Gallner as Quentin, give any favourable performances at all.

Reviewers slam Mara's "wooden acting", but I disagree. I have known girls like that - shy, hesitant, unsure of how to express themselves - and to see two atypical teenagers fighting off a nightmare villain is exactly how you want you want horror flicks to be.

And the jury will have to be out on the new Krueger. Clearly the new makeup has created a stumbling block, but Haley is a talented actor, and had there been an expansion on his backstory, his performance just might have worked.

Unfortunately, the film chose to introduce precisely that, then inexplicably abandon it in the end for a silly twist that fooled basically no one.

Haley is signed on as Freddy Krueger for another two installments, so I'm hoping he really gets to make that role his own, to give it a new lease of life.

Because otherwise, like a broken record that keeps on playing, this could be one reel Nightmare that really never ends....

Moometer Reading:
Moo?

Query for:

? No sense of direction: Seriously, Director Samuel Bayer has to take responsibility for this one. The story was already there, all he needed to do was to plan some new and interesting scares and kills. How is it possible that one could visualise a story actually worse than the original? And while it's fine to create a darker, more serious Freddy, what about giving this Freddy some meaning for being so? It's one thing trying to fill a big pair of boots, quite another to just make a simply bland and boring film.

Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity: Truth or fiction? See it to believe it....

A couple plagued by mysterious hauntings in their comfortable two-storey home in San Diego, California, decide to record their experiences on a digital video camera.

Unlike most videos shot by paranormal investigators, their documentary effort actually does strike gold, revealing a whole plethora of creepy and unexplained happenings that occur even while the couple sleep.

Steven Spielberg apparently got spooked while watching the 'video recording' because his bedroom doors inexplicably locked by themselves minutes into the show, and he had to call a locksmith to get himself out.

If this is the first you have heard of Paranormal Activity, the documentary style horror film that has taken America by storm, then read no further, put everything down and go watch it - Paranormal Activity will freak you out.

Much of the action takes place in the couple's bedroom - but did they really have to leave the door open? Spooky....

Katie Featherston is the girlfriend haunted by a demonic presence since childhood. Micah Sloat plays the skeptical boyfriend.

Audiences being scared silly during a screening.

But if you have heard of it and know what it is, then there might be a problem.

Following on the documentary shooting style of such classics like Cannibal Holocaust and Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity thus suffers from the same problem that plagues such films - it is all FICTION.

But while Cannibal Holocaust and Blair Witch Project are genuinely frightening to watch, Paranormal Activity features more of the mundane lifestyles of the two lead characters, punctuated by a series of weird and unexplained occurrences that only slowly escalate to a chilling conclusion.

Needless to say, it is no Exorcist or Haunting in Connecticut (which is after all based on a true story).

You need to truly believe it is real. You need to recognize that a perfectly normal person who stands motionless in front of her bed for hours into the night is a genuinely creepy thing.

But if you do believe, or can make yourself believe - then there you have a winner.

Because Paranormal Activity is every paranormal investigator's dream, to actually record tangible supernatural events in a haunted house.

It is like seeing with your very own eyes the final conclusive evidence - that spooks indeed do exist.

It all boils down to how one views the film. Those built on a staple of slasher flicks and Asian horror may not be too thrilled with Paranormal Activity.

But credit where credit's due - rookie director Oren Peli has scored a home run on a measly shoestring budget of just USD15k, with the film breaking records as the most profitable independent film ever.

Now that is one accolade you cannot argue with.

Moometer Reading:

Moo-o...?!!

Exclamations for:

! Outstanding New Idea: A novel idea that has gripped nationwide attention; a film that is now the most profitable independent film ever - director Oren Peli has certainly hurled himself into the limelight with this low budget offering.

! Non Shaky Camera Work: After Blair Witch and Cloverfield, Moovy Revue is just thankful that the director figured out how to avoid the nausea inducing shaky scenes that have plagued similar documentary style films - by shooting most scenes on a standard tripod. Duh.

Query For:

? Being Fiction: It is a pity then for this non-fiction wannabe that there will always be those who will not be impressed by the understandable lack of pacing and the 'plodding' scares that cannot quite rival the normal fictional horror films - not every American haunting has to be an Amityville Horror here.

Antichrist

Antichrist: A surrealistic sexual mayhem....

The idea of female castration just never seemed plausible until Lars Von Trier shows us how - in his controversial 2009 film Antichrist.

That, plus a bloody handjob; a dangling dead fawn; a bolted leg; and a falling baby, are but some of the disturbing images that haunt Von Trier's latest outing.

A couple struggling to cope with the loss of their infant baby (circa copulation no less) retreat to a cabin in the woods to help dissipate their grief.

The husband (Willem Dafoe) plays therapist while the wife (Charlotte Gainsburg) recollects her thesis on gynocide and the antichrist that she previously wrote in that same cabin.

But nothing is quite what it seems out in the lush, quiet forest. Husband and wife soon descend into an irresistible orgy of explicit sex and violence that will consume perhaps their very lives and souls....

Carnal sexuality somehow minus the love - though the chemistry is great between Dafoe and Gainsburg.

Willem Dafoe in a feast of visual and sound, though the actor does seem a tad Hollywoody in an arthouse flick....

An amazing if disturbing performance from Charlotte Gainsburg. The film is accused of misogyny, so don't expect her to play the heroine.

Beautifully shot on digital video and boasting some 80 shots of computer-generated imagery, Antichrist more than delivers on the shock value, but otherwise struggles to actually make its point felt.

Actually, what is the point? There is none, unless it is a study into the deepest and carnal recesses of the human soul.

The film has certainly split opinion however, with the film accused of misogyny and even receiving an 'anti-award' from the ecumenical jury at the 2009 Cannes Festival.

But Von Trier is no stranger to controversy, and he has his share of both the critics and plaudits.

Antichrist is certainly worth a view for its graphic and visual content, which is at times splendid and other times stark (but powerful). But you are warned - give it a skip if you cannot stomach explicit sex and especially violence.

Moometer Reading:

Moo-o.!!?

Exclamations for:

! Outstanding Actress: French Actrice Charlotte Gainsburg certainly looks the real deal as the aggrieved and disturbed wife, easily shifting between sensual to spaced out to deranged with convincing intensity.

! Outstanding Visuals: The visuals are not simply just graphic or explicit. The imagery is disturbing - yes - but that is coupled with visuals of the dark forest and the slow motion hail of falling acorns. The mood is mostly sombre, but stark and frightening when its needed. Lovely in a sick way....

Query for:

? Pointless Plot: Von Trier had been deeply depressed while shooting the film, which may explain the seeming pointlessness of the film. Perhaps Antichrist is more of a personal look into Von Trier's state of mind and being at the time?

City of Life and Death - A sanitised telling of the Nanking Massacre

City of Life and Death aka Nanking! Nanking!

I must be getting jaded.

City of Life and Death is not an easy film to watch. Not because of the tragedy involved but rather and strangely enough, precisely due to the lack of it.

Let me explain. The death, devastation, looting and rape are all there; but somehow the portrayal of these crimes seem sanitised - as though the producers were withholding the whole truth behind the Nanking Massacre.

Considering that the film was quite beautifully shot in stark black and white, City of Life and Death should have had all the right ingredients and elements to rival the likes Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

Instead, the film somehow falls well short of greatness.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it is a bad film. It is good, and for a regular audience, possibly superb even. But it can be so much better. City of Life and Death just seemed to be missing a certain something.

Hideo Nakaizumi plays the sympathetic Japanese soldier.

Gao Yuanyuan gives a stirring performance as an administrator giving her all to protect civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone.

A limited but nonetheless memorable appearance by Liu Ye.

Jiang Yiyan as the prostitute who volunteers to be a comfort woman for the Japanese.

Fan Wei plays John Rabe's secretary; Qin Lan plays his wife; and John Paisley in a strangely small role as John Rabe - the Schindler of Nanking.

So what I did was to obtain a copy of Nanking, a documentary on the tragedy - notably made by non-Chinese.

What I saw blew me away. Not because of a higher production value - it was nowhere near that of City's - but because it pulled no punches. It revealed pictures that showed the full atrocity committed by the Japanese.

And just one single eye-witness account from the documentary beats the entire film - hands down.

Comfort women being carted away after 'use' in the film - it is not shown how they died after supposedly just three days.

The real faces of the Nanking Massacre - not what you get to see in City of Life and Death.

For the uninitiated (and those from outer space), City of Life and Death tells a story of the period of several weeks immediately after the Japanese occupation of Nanjing in 1937, the then capital of the Republic of China. The events of that period had since come to be known infamously as the Nanjing (or Nanking) Massacre.

One of the major criticisms of the film directed by Lu Chuan is the over sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese soldiers in the film.

While I had no problem with the character Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a Japanese soldier who sympathises with the plight of the Chinese (ironically, Hideo pretty much plays the main lead, though the Chinese are loathe to admit it), I do take issue with how the rest of the Japanese are portrayed more like spoilt kids fighting over cookies (which in this case refers to the women of Nanjing).

The Japanese in this film might be cruel or sadistic (as children can be), but one word that cannot be used to describe them is 'vicious'. I can barely remember any moments in the film where a Japanese soldier was actually vicious. The producers have somehow contrived to take the 'viciousness' out of the film.

The problem I suspect is that the film has the 'Made in China' label attached to it.

The Chinese film industry is still at a fledgeling stage (not counting Hong Kong and Taiwan). The rating system in China, or lack thereof, means that censorship is a major issue to contend with. A film like Schindler's List (gas chamber scene) would never have passed the Chinese censors.

Perhaps it would be better to allow someone outside China to make the film instead.

Now that would have been a spectacle.



Moometer Reading:
Moo-oo...

FEATURE: Serbis - An explicit view into Filipino cinema

Serbis: Literally an explicit view into Filipino cinema.

What's a day like in a seedy family-run cinema in the Philippines?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serbis offers precisely this, sometimes all too explicit glimpse into the life of such a family theatre.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know it is a family theatre because of the big capital letters that line vertically outside the cinema - 'FAMILY'. But the only thing that connotes any kind of kinship in this sleazy joint is the family that runs it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hidden within the dark confines of the theatre are a host of activities and characters that are definitely not suitable for the eyes of children.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Run by the Pineda family, all in the name of making a living, the cinema features a glitz of romantic or pornographic films that attract not only prostitutes but also gay young men ready to offer a special "service" to older men.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Serbis" by the way, means "service" in Tagalog - a byword for the boys hawking their sexual services within the theatre.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coco Martin as Alan, who is about to get a shock. Let's just say the sex is very real and much more explicit....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strong performances from Jacky Jose and Gina Pareno as the matriarchs of the family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only thing 'Family' about this cinema is the family that runs it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those familiar with Filipino film may not be overawed by the live sex scenes that feature all too readily in Serbis. Others however, may find it a little hard to stomach.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Serbis is not simply a film about the gay culture in the Philippines. It is also a story of the Pineda family that owns the rundown theatre.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it is not exactly a story either, but rather "a day in the life of"... a revealing look into the various characters that come and go within the dirty, dank halls of the cinema (including a runaway goat no less).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such films are not easy to appreciate. One does not expect earth-shattering events to occur in the space of a single day. Nor would one expect any suitable conclusions to issues explored within the film.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead, Serbis steams along to a slow boil, exposing the lives in detail of a fairly strong ensemble cast.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A matriarchal grandmother (Gina Pareno) breaks her daily routine for a trip to court after suing her estranged husband for bigamy. She leaves her daughter and mother of the family, Nayda (Jacky Jose) to man the theatre in her absence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Little son Jonas peeps unabashedly at his sister changing. One assumes he would have seen much more in the theatre halls where he seemingly has free rein.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another son and cinema janitor, Alan (Coco Martin) goes about his daily chores with quiet stoicism, painting murals of nude ladies and clearing choked (and extremely dirty) toilets. He meets with his girlfriend for sex, then warms to the revelation of her unwanted pregnancy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nayda's husband Lando (Julio Diaz), who runs a little eatery downstairs, tries to deal with a customer who has shortchanged him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, cousin Ronald and cinema projectionist (Kristopher King), receives a very visual blowjob from a resident prostitute, then makes eyes at Nayda in a sudden, perhaps incestuous turn....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a film that offers an unadulterated view into the several seedy cinemas found in the Philippines, Serbis certainly leaves almost nothing to the imagination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, as a drama depicting the lives of people who frequent sleazy settings such as in this cinema, the film is a very frank and thoughtful portrayal. Akira Kurosawa's The Lower Depths this is not, but Serbis does make a decent shout for its sense of realism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MooMeter Reading:

Moo-oo?!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exclaimations for:

! Outstanding Set Design: Carlo Tabije and Benjamin Padero breathe life into the rundown and dilapidated cinema where most of the action takes place. From the lively stairwell filled with wannabe prostitutes whiling their time away in the day, the murky toilet where grandma takes her bath, to the darker interiors of the cinema where a serbis boy jacks off a customer, these scenes make Serbis as much a story about the theatre as it is the about the people who run it.

! Outstanding Cast: Gina Pareno and Jacky Jose deliver very strong performances as the matriarchs of the family. Special mention also for upcoming actor Coco Martin who conveys volumes despite saying very little at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Query for:

? Poor Sound Quality: While it is acknowledged that Serbis is a low budget independent arthouse film, and shaky camerawork aside, it is the often overwhelming background noise of traffic that jars the ears rather than to lend a gritty feel to the overall cinematography.

FEATURE: Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights

Before The English Patient there was Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights

One of my favourite movies of all time is The English Patient. It was this film that introduced me to the immense talents of Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche.

But The English Patient was not the first pairing of the two actors. Nor was it the first story to feature a tragic hero fallen from grace by an all-consuming passion.

For that we have to go back to the literary classic of Emily Brontë's Wurthering Heights. That is actually the title of the Paramount Pictures film adaptation to Wurthering Heights the novel (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer owned the rights to the original title due to their 1939 version).

In a sense, it is an apt title for the film, for it acknowledges the genius of Emily Brontë, the lesser known sister of Charlotte Brontë, whose own novel Jane Eyre stands as one of the most famous in English literature.

Likewise, this 1992 film adaptation was also not quite as well known as the blockbusters of its day, and yet there are several reasons to try and catch it, not least because it was Ralph Fiennes' film debut, and his role as the tragic villain Heathcliff led to later reknown in his portrayal of Amon Goeth in Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List.

The film begins with a young unnamed woman (Emily Brontë played by Sinéad O'Connor), who visits an abandoned and rundown manor in the moors, and imagines a tale of what might have been....

Without going into detail on the story, Wikipedia probably describes both the film and novel best, as a narrative that "tells the tale of the all-encompassing and passionate, yet thwarted, love between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw, and how this unresolved passion eventually destroys them and many around them."

Unlike earlier versions, the story in Emily Brontë's Wurthering Heights spans the full novel, telling the tale of not only Heathcliff (Ralph Fiennes) and Catherine (Juliette Binoche) but also of their descendants. Earlier versions had only focused on Heathcliff and Catherine (the senior).

What makes this film a must watch is also what makes the novel a must read. It is the story itself, so unusual in its dark, almost Gothic setting - and the terrible, terrible destructive love shared between the two lead characters.

The novel, as is the film, is everything that is negative; it stands against the goodness of man. Again and again the word 'destroy', for it destroys - the lives of those who have the misfortune of being related to Heathcliff and Catherine. And yet despite the inherent selfishness of the two lovers, how can one not realise the deep love and pain suffered by them? How can one not empathise?

"I am Heathcliff," Catherine Earnshaw proclaims, while Heathcliff himself thinks likewise.

"How can I live without my love; how can I live without my soul?" is his lament.

And of course, the performance of Ralph Fiennes - Ralph Fiennes IS Heathcliff. It is almost impossible after watching this version, to imagine any other actor portraying the dark, vengeful anti-hero.

Binoche too, is excellent in her dual roles of Catherine Earnshaw and her daughter, also called Catherine, or Cathy. The chemistry is also exemplary. My only grouse perhaps is that both Fiennes and Binoche looked a tad too old for their characters during younger days.

Set against the backdrop of a dark, lonely moor; and accompanied by a haunting Scottish soundtrack, Emily Brontë's Wurthering Heights is the definitive version of Brontë's novel, a classic hailed by some critics as superior even to Jane Eyre.

You may not have the patience for the novel, but watch it, for it is indeed, Emily Brontë's Wurthering Heights.


MooMeter Reading:
Moo-oo...?!!

Exclaimations for:
! Outstanding Storytelling: The story was all Brontë's - but kudos too to the film for managing to squeeze in the entire novel. The 1939 version only focused on the first generation story.
! Outstanding Actor: Ralph Fiennes IS Heathcliff. Period.
! Outstanding Soundtrack: The Soundtrack by Ryuichi Sakamoto is sad, haunting, and seems to whistle over the empty, desolate moors - a perfect blend with the Gothic elements in the cinematography.

Query for:
? Missing Scene: In one famous scene, Heathcliff's reaction to overhearing Catherine's declaration that she was too good for him, seems to be conspicuously missing. Is it also not in the novel? But even then, visually it should still have been in the film.

He's Just Not That Into You: Doesn't quite get into it....

The men just don't get it. So I guess that's why we have this film to show us guys the ladies' side of things.

Apparently the women don't get it either. At least Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) doesn't, plus a whole host of her female friends in this romantic comedy ensemble about why he's just not that into you.

In Gigi's case, it's Connor (Kevin Conolly), from whom she's waiting for a follow up call after a date. So it's down to Alex (Justin Long) to educate her on a few of life's simple truths.

"If he wants to see you, he'll make it happen."

And all of a sudden, Alex becomes her love guru.

Connor on the other hand, has the hots for the lovely Anna (Scarlett Johansson) who's been blowing hot and cold. She has a friend Mary (Drew Barrymore), whom Connor has never met, but who is helping him with his Real Estate promotion.

Anna actually likes Ben (Bradley Cooper), who wants to keep the faith with wife Janine (Jennifer Connelly), but admits he was forced into marriage before he was ready. Janine however, seems more preoccupied with home renovations plus an unhealthy obsession with her husband's smoking habits.

Meanwhile, Ben's friend Neil (Ben Affleck), and Gigi's colleague Beth (Jennifer Aniston) have a long-time relationship going, but she is giving an ultimatum - too bad he isn't keen on getting married at all.

And oh, there's another thing about Mary. Apparently she's really into online relationships....

Goodwin, Aniston and Connelly: Guys just aren't that into them....

If you think the plotline's convoluted, that's because it actually is.

Yet somewhere through all the complicated and intertwined relationships, the movie and characters do eventually sort themselves out.

Couples get together, break up; pieces fall into place and life goes on.

They do have a Brit version you know - one with a bit more gender equality. It's called well... Love Actually....

It's a pity then that this film quite fails to deliver where the Brit counterpart did so well.

To be fair, the issues are different. But somehow stereotypes abound on an otherwise excellent ensemble cast that should have been fail-safe.

But instead we have characters like Gigi who just appears silly for her unwarranted faith in men, or Anna who insists on being the vixenous third party, and Janine, who just seems to miss the point completely.

I'm sorry then to have to say that, despite the presumably happy endings and it being supposed to be a chick flick and all - well, some men may be jerks - but the movie just doesn't reflect well on the ladies.

Guys must walk out of the theatre thinking that women are a neurotic bunch.

Perhaps, it is like as aforesaid. The men just don't get it.

But if that is so, maybe it's high time the girls learnt that - he's just not that into you....

MooMeter Reading:
Moo-o..