Review: Memoirs Of A Geisha

Director : Rob Marshall
Main Cast : Ziyi Zhang, Michelle Yeoh, Ken Watanabe, Gong Li

Memoirs Of A Geisha is an entertaining adaptation of the novel of the same name (which is highly thought of by those who have read it). The film stars the current who's who of Asian cinema in Ziyi Zhang (who's officially changed her name from Zhang Ziyi - marking her increasing Hollywood profile), Ken Watanabe (superb in The Last Samurai), Gong Li and our own (Datuk) Michelle Yeoh.

Nothing much surprising in the storyline itself, which is typical of a rags-to-riches story, with the obligatory highs and lows experienced by our heroine along the way to becoming a geisha. In fact, I think that the film (the book too?) just had one too many of the lows, and not enough of the highs. The abrupt, artificial and contrived ending to the film is symptomatic of this. If the film really is a faithful adaptation of the book, then it's as if the writer suddenly realised that he had wrote too much, with all the twists and turns in the plot, and was running out of pages. So he decided to just end it suddenly on a high note. I mean, I have nothing against happy endings, just that in Memoirs, there was no real build-up to it. It was just conflict after conflict, and then suddenly girl gets boy and they live happily ever after.

The acting in Memoirs was generally good, with special mention given to Yeoh and Watanabe. Zhang also performed admirably well in her English speaking debut, though she did sound like she memorised her lines without understanding a word she's saying, a bit like Jackie Chan in Rush Hour. Same goes for Gong Li. However, both are really stunning, especially Gong Li as a slutty and scheming geisha. They look too alike to each other though, and I actually got them mixed up on more than one occasion.

I also feel that some of the supporting cast, especially the Auntie and Mother characters, were cast merely because they spoke good English, and were very theatrical and stagy. It was as if they were performing live on a theatre stage, and spoke every line word by word, which sounded really false. It actually reminded me of some of the Malaysian supporting cast in the Jodie Foster and Chow Yuen Fatt-starring Anna And The King.

All in all, Memoirs Of A Geisha is an entertaining film, which you would expect from the director of Chicago, if nothing more than that. I don't expect it to win any major awards, except maybe for best set and costume.

Review: Oliver Twist

Director : Roman Polanski

Main Cast : Barney Clark, Ben Kingsley

The main problem with this film is that is has already been filmed before. The 1968 version, a musical no less, is one of the most loved films of all time, filled with classic sing-along songs. The new Roman Polanski (The Pianist) version, though, has no songs. And Oliver without the songs, is just plain boring and disappointing. I want Artful Dodger to start singing to Oliver when he first finds him "Consider yourself, our friend! Consider yourself, part of the family!", or Fagin singing "You gotta pick a pocket or twooooooo, you gotta pick a pocket or two!". The anticipation of the songs is heightened more by the fact that everyone looks exactly the same in appearance and costume to the musical version, especially Artful Dodger and Fagin. It's like a remake of the 1968 film, rather than a remake of the original book. Without the songs, of course. Maybe I'm saying this because I have a soft spot for musicals, but I'm sure that those like me who have seen the 1968 film would agree with me. I mean, it's like watching The Sound Of Music but without the songs!

At over 2 hours long, it's a real bore of a film, and had me looking at my watch every 10 minutes, longing for it to end quickly and spare me further suffering. I thought my torture was finally over when Bill Sykes got killed. Finally! And they lived happily ever after. The End. Well, not exactly. Polanski saw fit to add a lengthened scene at the end to show Oliver meeting Fagin for the last time. Aaaaarrrgghhhh!

Review: King Kong

Director : Peter Jackson
Main Cast : Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody

So here it is, my first review in months, for various reasons. And what better way to kick start this blog again than by reviewing what is possibly the film of 2005. When the first of the Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) films had its premiere in central London several years ago, I was told by a friend who was there that while everyone cheered and applauded when Viggo, Elijah, Orlando & co stepped out of their limos, none recognised one overweight man who looked like he hasn’t seen a razor in years. None other than Peter Jackson himself, director of obscure cult flicks like Braindead and Bad Taste, whose most mainstream film up to then was the Michael J. Fox-starring The Frighteners. Cue three years later. He is an Oscar winner and his LOTR trilogy has been said by many to be the best movie experience of all time (butt cramps and all).

So you could understand the pressure and on him to follow up on LOTR, and the tremendous hype generated ever since the making of King Kong was announced. Just to add to the pressure, at a cost of almost US$300m, it is even more expensive than Titanic!

What is King Kong all about then? Well, I’m sure almost all of you have watched the 1977 version with Jeff Bridges and the hot Jessica Lange (well, back then anyway). What most of you may not know though is that it isn’t actually the original version. It is actually a remake itself of the original 1933 stop-motion classic, with various significant changes made in the plot, to suit it to a modern-day setting. Peter Jackson’s version, however, is an actual remake of the 1933 one, down to the character names and 1930s New York setting.

Honestly, I did have early reservations about Peter Jackson doing King Kong. I mean, here was the creator of Braindead, one of my personal all-time favourites. He’s done great for himself, Best Director Oscar on the living room shelf, and more successful than in his wildest dreams. So it’s okay for him just to take a step back maybe, to appease old-time fans like me with a film that takes us back to his early days, or at least something original. Instead, he opts for a high budget, CGI-filled remake of a 1977 film about a giant Gorilla and a pretty lady.

How wrong I was though. For starters, some of the scarier scenes on Skull Island were vintage Peter Jackson. I sat up in my seat, biting my nails with glee as others around me tried their best to hide behind their own (and other people’s) hands, as the film crew were attacked by the savage villagers, or when they were eaten alive by the giant bugs and worms. Mark my words, these scenes in particular were top-notch, piss-in-your-pants scary. Certainly scarier and more disturbing than most of the “horror” films out there. To the point that I seriously advise parents out there to take caution if your small child is watching it.

And what about the dinosaur scenes? Just awesome, I tell you. Much much better than the three Jurassic Park films combined. Wait a minute, I hear some of you say. Why the hell are there dinosaurs in King Kong? How far-fetched and ludicrous can this idea be? Why the necessity to mess up and dilute the film with so many other gigantic creatures? It’s KING KONG, not Jurassic Park!??!?! Well, as I said earlier, Peter Jackson’s version is based on the original 1933 version, the film that inspired Jackson to make films in the first place. So without the original film, in all its black and white stop-motion glory, we wouldn’t have Braindead, or even LOTR for that matter. Anyway, back to the point. In that early film, King Kong did fight dinosaurs. So Jackson was totally appropriate to include dinosaurs in his version, albeit the jerky stop-motion of yesteryear has been replaced by gorgeous, sumptuous CGI. In fact, my favourite scene in the whole film was the one where Kong, Naomi Watts and two full-sized T-Rex were falling down a deep chasm, moving through the oversized vines as they fall. Classic scene, worth the price of the movie ticket alone.

I’ve already mentioned how great the CGI is in King Kong, but you would expect no less from the creator of one of the most realistic CGI characters in Gollum from LOTR. And Andy Serkis, the guy who did the motion capture for Gollum, is at his best again doing the same thing for King Kong. He apparently went all the way to Rwanda just to study the gorillas in their native habitat, and it really shows. King Kong goes through the whole range of emotions, using every single muscle available in his face, especially during the scene where he watches Naomi Watts doing her thing. I dare say that King Kong should be up for a Best Actor gong at the Oscars, or at least Andy Serkis anyway. Seriously.

King Kong is the true star of the film, and none of the human actors can even come close to upstaging him. Not that they were crap either. Jack Black (one of my favourite comedy actors of all time ever since he stole the show in High Fidelity), gave a terrific understated performance as the maverick and determined-at-all-costs director. He made sure not to let all his goofiness and mischief out so as not to detract too much from his character in the film, in case he steals the limelight. Naomi Watts is perfect as the blonde damsel-in-distress. Well to tell you the truth all she does is scream her lungs out most of the time anyway, something that is not beyond the horror veteran of The Ring 1 & 2. However Watts does add that extra dimension and depth to the clichéd blonde heroine role. Adrien Brody though gives us yet another showing of his usual doe-eyed kesian dumb expression, the one he always his in his other films like The Pianist and The Jacket, which makes him look like a damsel-in-distress himself rather than the supposed hero of the film.

A common complaint of the film that I get from quite a number of people is the 3 hour playing time, and the fact that he only makes his grand entrance more than an hour into the film. Well I simply have to beg to differ. I personally think that the first hour of the film (before they actually get to Skull Island) was the perfect build-up for to action to come, to explore the circumstances and motives of each character, to make the options that they make later on in the film seem plausible. Particularly the steadfastness and film-or-die attitude of the director (Jack Black) and the relationship between Watts and Brody. It’s what separates the film from the myriad of B-movie straight-to-Astro monster/horror flicks. However, the wait is well deserved, as when the action starts, boy does it start! It’s one chase after another, one fight after another, one dinosaur/giant bug after another.

The action doesn’t really stop until we get to New York, and that only for a short while until King Kong breaks from his shackles and wreaks havoc on the city. Until, that is, he’s reunited again with his human girlfriend and they decide to go for a bit of skating on the frozen lake. Ermmmmm. Well I’m obviously just being picky here. To wrap, King Kong is a great film, would provide you one of your best ever movie experiences (if you catch it at the cinema), and is just about my film of 2005 (well among the ones that I’ve seen anyway). Peter Jackson’s last film was Return Of The King. Well, the King HAS returned. King Kong, that is. Long live the King.