What's the fuzz about FFM19?

Eli Benjamin once said, "you have to have VISION, GUT & PASSION".

I had to agree with that. And I reckon Yasmin Ahmad is a firm practitioner of the above three. Which is why her movies, apart from being very personal in their views of the world, represent her vision of what should transpire in our society, clearly demonstrating her chutzpah and fortitude in breaking the norms of Malay Moviemaking, and above all, showing to the world how wonderfully talented and passionate she is in doing what she loves best - telling stories.

The fact that she had won the Best Picture award two years in a row (in the Malaysian Film Festival) proved not just my points, but also the fact that other people are weighting her movies far and above her counterparts.

Last year, "they" quarreled over Sepet and Puteri Gunung Ledang - obviously one was produced with the most limited of budget and the other superseding the standard financial outlays. And of course, one was clearly stronger in substance and the other immaculate in style. And the winner was of course ... Sepet.

It reminded me of the year when A Beautiful Mind beat The Lord of The Rings to the podium, or earlier when Driving Miss Daisy became the best film. It was when the juries decided that a small film could deliver better messages compared to a bigger blockbuster. There's nothing wrong with that.

And again, this year, when Gubra was announced as the winner again (making Yasmin one of the rare winners to repeat her victory twice in a row - the other luminaries include Dato' Rahim Razali when he won for Matinya Seorang Patriot and Tsu-Feh Sofiah), "they" once again mumbled and complained.

Frankly, and personally, no other films deserve to win that night. The closest nominee was Pontianak Harum Sundal Malam 2 (PHSM 2) and Gol & Gincu. While Pontianak was technically superior, Gol & Gincu was too light hearted, albeit a well made film with wonderful story telling and deft scriptwriting.

Probably, "they" were referring more to Amani's acceptance speech. That might have convoluted "their" minds and caused a little scar to Gubra's perfect pitch. No one should argue the fact that Amani deserved her trophy but she was deemed too brave or gutsy in her speech delivery. That have caused a lot of uneasiness especially among the elder crowd.

But the rest of the awards - no qualms. Afdlin, Hans and Sazzy were probably the best options in their categories. And Shuhaimi Baba as Best Director, was in lieu of her technical achievement in producing PHSM 2. And when they announced Baik Punya Cilok as the winner of the Best Story category, I felt that it was very encouraging to see that the current juries are running away from the typical run-of-the-mill manner of voting.

It proves again my point - there is nothing wrong in being bold and courageous. You just have to appeal to the public and do it not just in style but with a lot of substance.

X Men with no X

One great accomplishment by Bryan Singer (apart from the awesome "The Usual Suspects") was that he was able to convince all of us that Mutants too have feelings just like us; that Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen were perfect as Professor X & Magneto respectively; & Wolverine was a much more interesting character & far more charismatic than Cyclops & Storm combined ... and that he achieved them all in ONE FILM - The X-Men.

He continued to perform even better with X-Men 2 with far more engaging characters like the Night Crawler and with deeper thoughts & stronger character development. In a nutshell, Singer left us wanting more of X-Men & that was why X-Men 3 was so hugely anticipated & broke box office records in its first week of release in the US alone.

One small thing that the producers forgot to take note was that Singer's handiwork was a tough act to follow, and whoever gets the arduous task to emulate Singer's feat would have to either equal if not better the first two installments. That task was left for Brett Ratner to fill ... and to be fair, he did quite a reasonable job, albeit not up to full expectation (especially to ardent followers).

Where Singer was rather meticulous and tidy about details and character development in the first two features, Ratner was rather brash in his artwork and approach, that when I left the movie hall, I felt very little connection with the characters, apart from the fact that I already knew them in the first two installments. I was of course excited about the third - hoping to see more mutants being introduced. And of course, hoping that there would be a probable glimpse of the 4th installment.

I was slightly taken aback by the treatment. The story and the camerawork were rather patchy and inconsistent. Perhaps, the only emotionally charged moment was when Prof. Xavier suffered a fatal doom in his encounter with Jean Grey. Hence, all that has been built over the two great episodes were left unmatched as the third series appeared somewhat lame and plausibly forgettable at times.

Which is quite a waste considering the strong foundation that it was built upon - a series full of promises and more exciting characters e.g. Beast (played by gasp... Kelsey Grammer!!!).

Singer justified himself with "Superman Returns". But Ratner, coming from the success of the action-comedy "Rush Hour 1 & 2", was no match for Singer.

How I wish it was Christopher Nolan who had taken over from Singer when he left... geez, what a wishful thinking!

Diva Con Dice

The book is better than the movie ... The book is better than the movie ... The book is better than the movie ... but hey, I have not read the book ??? How bout that ???

Some points on the movie: -

1. What's with Tom Hanks' hairdo? Just like in the "Epic Movie" - 'So lame, the hair of Tom'. Could someone else fair better? Probably. But Hanks was certainly not in his usual element.

2. Audrey Tautou is gorgeous, as always. But this is no Amelie.

3. For someone who has yet to read the book, a lot of questions remain unanswered.

4. The puzzles and the clues are somewhat satisfying and exciting.

5. Ian Mckellen as Sir Leigh Tibbing, together with Paul Bettany as the loyal Silas, gave the two best perfomances in the film.

6. But since I have not read the book, personally I felt that the story, the plot and the clues were cleverly adapted and captured into the film. Kudos to Ron Howard, the Director for courageously attempting to cover a risky ground. And hats off to Akiva Goldsman for cleverly bringing out only the relevant details from an immensely difficult source. I must admit that it's obviously hard to capture within a couple of hours almost every single relevant detail from a comprehensive material. (The Lord Of The Rings trilogy were quite exceptional in that sense).

7. Rather satisfying for a non reader. But as a great admirer of Tom Hanks, his performance was not quite up to my expectations.

Poseidon is no Titanic

Cinema is a director's medium.

Under the hands of a new or non-established director, Poseidon could have easily come off as a no-brainer, waste-of-time effort, or a lame excuse to return to the waters cum action movie. But, under the skillful craftsmanship of the experienced Wolfgang Petersen, Poseidon was rather passable, albeit with a lot of loopholes, which could have inevitably led to the "sinking" of the ship, in box office terms literally.

No tight script, not much character development, no Leo, no Clooney, but for a summer-oriented flick, still watchable.

For those who crave for a typical action-packed / adventure motion, the movie is definitely easy-to-chew. But for those who are searching for a little bit more depth in a fiction, just wait till Autumn or Winter - that's the time where the likes of "Crash" of "Brokeback Mountain" would appear.

The good news is, if you're a fan of Kurt Russell, he is still the reliable fella you'd want to be with if you are trapped in a certain kind of misfortune or disaster or anything (another plus point is that Mia Maestro who played one of the victims, Elena, was quite a dish). But the not so good news is that none of these characters are given much needed screen time to allow you to sympathize with their plight or quest for survival.

Right from the word go, Petersen leaves you with no time to dabble with the characters. The movie just walks straight into the night the ocean decided to rip the liner apart. A lot of lives were taken along the ride, and a lot of money must have been spent to make the disaster look real and effective on screen. Somehow, in that aspect, I put my hats off to Petersen & his Special Effects Crew for succesfully creating the much needed tensified scenes above & under the water.

At certain points of the movie, you could be sucked into the water as long as the characters are plunged into it. Now that was effective use of special effects.

However, take example of Titanic or Perfect Storm to a lesser extent - they move you in certain ways (emotionally and sensibly), and to me, that is more lasting than a complete blown out of CGI Effects.

Any movies for that matter, the special effects should enhance the texture & style of the movie, not being the main focus, in order for it to have a lasting impression on one's mind. Audience, in general felt for Titanic because at the crux of the sinking of a great ship lies a quenching tale of 2 souls in love but bounded by the differences of stratas in society.

But, then again, in the midst of summer madness, sometimes style does prevail over substance ...

Simplicity to begin with ...

Sometimes, there is no need to embark on a journey in a grandiose or pompous manner ... Life, instead, should be continued, expressed and articulated in a simple behaviour ...

That is what life is all about (of course within my short sheltered frame) - SIMPLICITY.