RUROUNI KENSHIN

Original title: Rurôni Kenshin: Meiji kenkaku roman tan

Directed by: Keishi Otomo

Starring: Takeru Satoh, Emi Takei, Koji Kikkawa, Yu Aoi, Teruyuki Kagawa, Taketo Tanaka,

Runtime: 134 min

One does not simply have a samurai movie without duelling under the rain and slo-mo gasm of the epic battle. Based on popular manga (Japanese comic) and anime (anime actually means; animation/cartoon but those who are die hard Japanese anime fans refused to call anime as cartoon. I don't know why) I believe this one should stand alone as a movie, not to be compared with the anime/manga. Speaking of which I do not accept argument that this film should be loyal to the anime/manga, this is a two hour movie and the filmmaker has liberties to crunch or remove 'unimportant' sub-plots or characters.

I myself only familiar with the anime series. Civil War hero Himura Kenshin (Takeru Satoh) better known as Hitokiri Battosai (Hitokiri means manslayer) introduced in a battle in 1868. He is ruthless and cruel. After the war Kenshin decided to stop being a killer, ditch his sword (now he have a reversed sword so he will not kill again) and lead a life less ordinary by being a wanderer.

Ten years later Kenshin managed to live alone all by himself until he ran into Kaoru (Emi Takei). Kaoru runs the fencing school left by her father whise name has been smeared of having Battosai fingerprint of killing. Meanwhile a 'fake' Battosai is running around in Tokyo and killing people.

The fake Battosai works for a businessman named Kanryu (Teruyuki Kagawa) who is rich and have an opium business, protected by hundreds of ex-samurai. The opium 'pharmacist' is Megumi (Yu Aoi) who runs from the Kanryu mansion only to seek refuge at Kaori's school.

The rest of the story is easy to predict, especially to the anime fans. The best parts are not the acting but the fighting choreography which lucky for me, does not copy 100% of what the anime used to show and does not feel like a Hong Kong martial arts movie.

Blood being spilled but gore had been reduced to minimum so it does not feel too cruel. I think it would be better if the story is a bit darker, but  overall this one is enjoyable, mixing swordplay and easy to predict story to satisfy anyone. The cinematography is very nice, it shows beautiful pictures without resorting into postcard like scenery and last by not least, not a trace of the anime to be seen here, which is good in my opinion.

Will there be part two? Judging from the financial success and rave reviews from hardcore fans, I think there will be.

PIETÀ

Directed by: Kim Ki-duk

Starring: Lee Jung-jin, Jo Min-su

Running time: 104 minutes

Revenge, Korean style is one of my favorite film. I enjoy Oldboy and I Saw the Devil and unlike most Hollywood movies, it didn't shy of graphic violence and gratuitous nudity. The way the revenge being done sometimes amazing and makes us think, that sometimes the victim can be as bad as the perpetrator.

The first Korean film to win the top prize at one of the three major international film festivals — Venice, Cannes and Berlin is very intriguing. I put some hopes for this one.

The title itself signifies the symbolism for religion. Written by Kin ki-duk, it tells the story of Kang-do (Lee Kang-do), a cruel loan shark who lives alone. He does not hesitate to hurt debtors. One day a mysterious woman appears, her name is Jang Mi-sun (Jo Min Su) who claimed to be her long lost mother.

From here it goes sick. Not in the terms of graphic violence or nudity, but some 'simulated' sex scenes that is very 'sick' and disturbing. With themes of mother and son relationship, guilt, Christian symbolism and the dark side of capitalism, this is a difficult film to watch with stellar acting.

The sudden zoom makes some scenes looks weird, if not real. The acting was good and the story will leave a bad after taste in your mind without spilling too much blood on screen.

There are no sudden twist, in the middle of the film the audience will know what Jang Mi-sun's real intention is, but what she did to reach it is beyond our imagination.

LINCOLN

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Running time: 150 minutes

This is the sort of film where even if you know the detail of the story it won't spoil your enjoyment since it is the journey that matters, not the ending or the twist. Daniel Day-Lewis embodied the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, near perfect although personally I prefer him as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Spielberg is making a good decision by not telling the whole story of Lincoln (the title might mislead people who thinks that this is a biopic) but limiting to his last month of presidency before he got killed by John Wilkes Booth. This film could simply be titled '13th Amendment  where finally the Union abolish slavery and thus reach an end to the bloody civil war.

Written by Tony Kushner, most of the actions took place in the rooms where men argues each other, war scenes are quite rare. On paper this could be boring but the result on the screen is amazing, mostly because Day-Lewis is the center of this film. Spielberg manages to tightly put the whole dialogue driven story in 150 minute. It does not glorify Lincoln but shows how delicate politics can be where it is not that easy to distinguish what is good or bad.

Lincoln was a political genius, he used ways which by the standard of the 21st century, a bit hazy and 'impeachable' such as using lobbyist to 'bribe' and buy the Democrats vote to pass the 13th amendment  He also send representative to make a peace deal with the Confederate all at the same time he try to be a father to his family. 

But he was also a good motivator with his stories of this and that. His leadership is visible and facing two great danger, the civil war and his political venture, he showed calmness and preservation. 

Other cast is also stellar, like Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens who was at the front line of abolishing salvery, even up to recognizing the rights of African-American in front of the law, something that is quite rare at that time.

One weakness of the story is the sub-story on Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who wishes to enlist thus inflict a conflict with his parents. This sub-story felt as if it strays the whole story out of focus and ended in a hushed manner. It would be better if the story about Robert only just implied in dialogue. It would save us 10 to 15 minutes of the duration.

However the whole film is good, even for non-U.S. citizen who had little knowledge on who Lincoln was. It teaches and inspires us how to lead in difficult times as realistic as possible. History based movies doesn't have to be a strict history lesson, but it can take a certain cut at certain moments in history which is defining for years, even centuries to come.

CLOUD ATLAS

Directed by: Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw
Run time: 171 min

How many books are deemed to be unfilmable? This year we had Life of Pi in 3D which is amazing and then this one. Cloud Atlas is a love it or hate it movie. Many will say; dafuk is this? and some will say; That was awesome. I personally loved it and mesmerized by the sheer ambition of this film in terms of information and details.

Not so many films are trying to give complicated story and themes all in one film. It relates six stories taking place between the 19th century and post-apocalyptic future of Earth. The relations are revealed as the film goes.

Here, all you need is just to concentrate to understand the whole thing. The make-up and effects are effective in helping the story off the ground and some points in the film are just thrilling. I cannot divulge you the detail of every story since it will ruin your pleasure. Most movies are better watched without any preparation at all or any spoilers.

Based by the novel from David Mitchell, same actors are acting as different characters in each segment. The make up can hide their true face and I am left wondering, was this Tom Hanks, Jim Sturgess, Halle Berry or Hugh Grant? This sort of choice is very good for this kind of film that propose 'everything is connected' as the tagline.

The acting is amazing, especially by Tom Hanks and Ben Whishaw. They can change characters so fast, aided by make up, and make you believe that they are completely different character from another segment. I cannot imagine how the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer cooperate to make this film. They have done the impossible, filming the unfilmable novel.

However those who just look at the poster might be fooled since the poster suggest as if Tom Hanks is Captain Kirk/Han Solo and Halle Berry is Uhura and it is just a space adventure. It is actually more deep than that and if you are still confused, you shall watch it again and again.

This is a daring and visionary film that tells stories of mankind. That love prevails, that oppression will always be there, that to fought for an injustice is an ongoing cause that shall not end, that mankind learns from history that they learns nothing. It is about interconnection, that although what we did could be just a drop of water in the ocean, one must not forgot that ocean itself are collections of drops of water.

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

Directed by: Stephen Chbosky
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Erza Miller
Run time: 103 min

We accept the love we think we deserve.

Teen movies. Adults view it as something nostalgic from their teen years. Most just circling around the cliches and stereotypes and it is not bad if presented right. Some try to cut deep to what does it feel to be a teenager where problems are more than just on how to be popular and date the hot guy/girl in the class.

The Perks of being a Wallflower is the latter. It is not your typical teen movie with typical stereotypes that can make you cringe since it does not feel real at all, but the one that can make you think and introspect on your youth. Directed by the book writer himself, I think the film has some hit and miss.

It missed to mention the time setting of the film which can make people confused on why the main character is typing on a typewriter and why do people do not seem to concentrate on their gadgets. It happened in 1991-1992, according to the book, thus it justify the 90s soundtrack all over the movie. It also miss on using cinematography as a medium of story telling, although the flat cinematography is actually fine for this kind of film.

But it hits all the chords of coming of age angst like fear of being unaccepted, first love, family problems, guilt, sorrow and how to face it all with the help of your best friend.

It tells about an introverted high school student Charlie (Logan Lerman), who is naive and socially awkward. He enters high school fresh from recent suicide of his best friend. He has no friends and from his inner monologue he guided us through the film. Struggling to find friends he is encouraged by his literature teacher and his new two friends Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), who welcome him to the real world.

Charlie find refuge in writing and as a writer myself I can understand that writing can help people to get through so many randomness on their life. As a writer he listens and understand what is going on around him.

Story of misfit trying to put their feet on the ground is always interesting to tell. In fact most of teen movies are about that and I wonder if the directors and screenwriters are previously a social misfit during their teen years thus they channel their nostalgia through movies.

Sure, anyone can argue that their teen experience is different than most movies but such fears and problems is the one that is rarely addressed in movies, especially American movies.

Lucky for this one, it doesn't fall to become ultra emo or too preachy (or even trying to be too sensitive), it present things as it is. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller are amazing, especially Ezra who is quite scary in We Need to Talk about Kevin.

The other good aspect of this film is the soundtrack, from Come on Eileen to Heroes from David Bowie which remind me of my own teen years since those songs are the one that was once hits when I was in high school.

Overall, Perks is a good movie and a rare one. I think other filmmakers who wanted to make a film about teen should watch it so they know that there is more to teen life than just shallow pursuits of hedonistic desires.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage
Running time: 2 hours 50 minutes.

If you have read the book, you can tell that there is a huge discrepancy in terms of theme, storytelling and characterization between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings although some of the characters are the same. The Hobbit is more episodic and adventurous with a touch of comedy, while Rings is more dark and thrilling.

It is not a surprise since The Hobbit is the second book J.R.R. Tolkien wrote 20 years before he wrote The Lord of the Rings. However an adaptation is independent of having its own interpretation and this time, Peter Jackson falls in the middle. Not bad, but also not as good and thrilling as The Fellowship of the Rings.

Having included footnotes and other materials from Tolkien besides from the book itself, Jackson actually can give the story a better angle but the first half is boring and slow paced. I know that adding materials not originally from the book itself is to make the Tolkien universe of the One Ring intact, so the viewers who had seen The Lord of the Rings trilogy feels the connection between these prequels (and we have two more coming each year), the sort of connection that does not exist if you read the book per se.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tells a story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who got visited by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves lead by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The reluctant Bilbo was persuaded to join the company to go to Erebor, the old dwarf kingdom, to reclaim the land and dwarf gold once own by the dwarves but lost to the dragon Smaug.

Thus commence the journey of the company beyond Shire where they met Trolls, Goblins and pack of Orcs trying to settle bad blood with Thorin.

The second half is exciting, here's where Jackson show off his mastery in choreographing battles and fantastic sets in 3D. Different than the dark and serious The Lord of the Rings trilogy, here the dwarves also work as a comic relief, thus make the tone a little bit lighter.

Martin Freeman is successful as Bilbo Baggins while at the same time reminded me of him as Dr.Watson in Sherlock BBC.

What concerns me is hot 'thin' The Hobbit novel itself than any of The Lord of the Rings books and expanding it into three movies might excite die hard Tolkienist but makes people wonder what else could be put into the other two movies. Sure the appendix and other tidbits from Tolkien universe is plenty but it takes a great effort to pack it into each movie and make it interesting for non-book readers.

As for the technology I didn't watch it in HFR 3D IMAX, just the normal 24 fps RealD 3D and it looks amazing. The visuals and production design is top notch, the sweeping panorama of Middle-earth and the mountains alone in 3D is worth the admission price. The score by Howard Shore is satisfying, although not as memorable as he already did in the previous trilogy, he manages to create another leitmotif which is nice to hear.

PS:
One week after I saw The Hobbit on 24 fps 3D I tried the HFR 48 fps Dolby 3D and I can say that the HFR sucks. Sure everything looks too damn sharp, there is not even any blur during fast movements of the actors but It feels weird and uncomfortable to watch. Sometimes the actions move too fast it felt surreal. Better stick with 24 fps Mr. Jackson.

ARGO

Directed by: Ben Affleck

Starring: Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Victor Garber

Running time: 120 min.

The movie was fake. The mission was real.

1979.Iran. Hostage crisis. Most people know what happened but only some know that six Americans managed to escape the hostage crisis and took shelter at the residence of Canadian Ambassador.

A rescue mission must be done. How to save them? Sometimes the craziest ideas are the best. A CIA operative named Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) have a crazy idea to make a fake movie crew being extracted from Iran using Canadian passport. The film proposed is Argo, a science fiction rip-off of Star Wars. This idea was, at first, rejected since it is too silly. Who would believe a science fiction film will be shooting in Iran at the time of hostage crisis? 

Mendez fly to the enemy's lair, Tehran, and train the six remaining embassy employees how to 'behave' the Hollywood way. To help with the cover, Mendez also cooperate with John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), film industry insider to make everything seems legitimate. All of this is a joint cooperation between United States and Canada.

Does Mendez's plan works or the Iranian finally realized that CIA are trying to smuggle six Americans out of Tehran? It doesn't matter if you already know the ending, what matters are that Ben Affleck can bring thrills and suspense without trying to cover it with so many action scenes. Some scenes are dramatized which is normal for 'based on a true story' film, but this time it is successful in holding your breath. Just like The Town from Affleck, this one is another proof that ex-Daredevil can make a good film.

Smart and crafty, I am truly entertained by the details on how Mendez tries to make his mission success, combined with archival news clips to make the look seems real. 

The film was fake, Argo was never (or not yet) being made at all but the point is if you want people to believe the lie, you should use media to support you. In this case Argo went as far as being featured on Variety magazine, thus make it looks like that the film is about to shoot. However I wonder, would anyone perhaps in the future try to make Argo for real?

LIFE OF PI

"You don't know the strength of your faith until it's been tested."

Directed by: Ang Lee

Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tabu, Gita Patel

Run time: 127 min

As a person who have read the book, I didn't expect much since book and cinema are two different medium. However I put my trust on Oscar-winning director Ang Lee, who take risk casting a newbie (and not even an American or British) as the main actor. It is good since the fame of the actor doesn't distract us from the story. With Suraj Sharma as Pi, we see Pi on the screen, not some famous actor trying to act like Pi.

It is a tough sell for American audience, since meeting art and commercialism is a hard thing to do. Proven by lukewarm box office revenue, Life of Pi cannot manage to stay at number one at the chart on its first week of release since the vampires of Twilight saga still rule the movies.

By this one Ang Lee proves that he is a good story teller. He can tackle drama, martial art films, gay drama, superhero movies and this one, an adaptation of the so called 'unfilmable' novel by Yann Martel. I have read the novel and I can say that the novel is damn good. It is not cheesy or overly pretentious but very beautiful.

The story is about a young man, Pi (Suraj Sharma), who found himself stranded on a life boat in the Pacific after the ship he board in with his family from India to Canada, sunk.

Raised in Pondicherry, India, Pi always wonder about faith, God and religion. His family manages a zoo in Pondicherry and animals are part of his life. They have to move to India since managing zoo is quite difficult financially for them.  Now, stranded on a lifeboat with Richard Parker, an adult Bengal tiger, he must do a journey of a lifetime. 227 days he spent on the boat, surviving and pondering about life and the heart of the film is how Pi, manages to survive the terrible ordeal. This is the story about the power of faith and the strength of a man, a story that could easily fall into a cheesy one if made by mediocre director. But in Ang Lee's hand, it has soul and visual splendor that will make your jaw drop and your mind start to think.

In terms of visual achievement, the film is very impressive. Even if you hate 3D you should try 3D with this one. Major kudos to cinematographer Claudio Miranda who can give the viewers beautiful scenery of loneliness. The raging and violent seas, the all CGI Richard Parker, glowing algae in the sea, it is all presented in a beautiful way.

Ang Lee used 3D not as gimmick to grab cash, but to tell his story more deep and involving the viewers. Even for some scenes the aspect ratio changes so it can give the audience new experience like the flying fish scene where some fish could be seen 'jump' outside the frame. The Adult version of Pi, acted by Irrfan Khan is also another plus, his acting skill is quite extraordinary and narrates the whole story.

Whatever you believed in, this one didn't become an overly preachy movie which push its ideas on your mind but an open end journey where you can chose which one to believe.  Life of Pi is one of the rare movie that will make you ponder about the power of faith that can make man survive even the most tragic thing that could happen to him, whether you are a believer or not.