Dominatio Per Malum

Rachel Getting Married (2008) 8/10

Anne Hathaway has definitely improved. From her Princess Diaries days, she has been picking better, edgier movies in recent years (Brokeback Mountain, Devil Wears Prada, Get Smart) although in those films she tended to get overshadowed (its easy when you star against Meryl Streep). But with Rachel Getting Married, Anne Hathaway shows a marked improvement and show alot of room for maturation. As the dysfunctional sister who returns just as another sister is getting married, Hathaway displays impressive depth and more importantly restraint. There are many scenes which could easily have gone over the top but Hathaway rightly reigns it in. The result is an intimate, poignant look at family and how old scars never really heal. While Hathaway is great and deserving of her Best Actress Nomination, the supporting cast provides an excellent foil and they play off each other’s strengths.

The sole weakness is that a script of this nature is inevitably low key and lacks the extra magic to push to the next level. While the cast, including Hathaway is very good, there is still a gap between very good and masterpiece and this is something the film still lacks. While i can think of better examples of films in a similar genre (The Squid and the Whale comes to mind), Rachel Getting Married is nevertheless a finely acted film that will please cinetastes.

Doubt (2008) 8/10

Doubt asks a single question: What is the truth? And provides us with many more questions but no answer. From Philip Seymour Hoffman’s opening speech as a preacher, the film invites us into that murky grey area between truth and untruth, black and white. Set in a small parish, it pits two legendary actors: Hoffman and Meryl Streep, both past Oscar winners and sets them up against each other. It is a scintillating and mesmerizing battle of wits, if only because it is so rare to have such a talented faceoff. The pairing of Frank Langella and Michael Sheen in Frost/Nixon is another such example.

But beyond the excellent leads, who deserve their Oscar nominations are the excellent supporting cast. Amy Adams is decent, but undeserving of a best supporting actress nomination. However, Viola Davis, who has a relatively short screen time, almost steals the show in one of the most powerful and heartbreaking sequences in the film. No mean feat when you are sharing screen time with Meryl Streep.

The film, directed with much skill and craft is almost flawlessly crafted. Pay attention to how the characters use the surroundings to empahsise the relative power structures. When Hoffman’s character enter Streep’s office, he automatically sits on her chair and it is in this subtle manner that the power dynamics of people reveal much more than is spoken.

But there is one flaw that bugs me alot and which i felt detracted from the credibility of the film. Why noone thought of speaking to the boy and asking for his perspective of what happened is to me a critical flaw of the movie’s logic. There is an elephant in the room yet the filmmakers resolutely refuse to address this elephant with the result that the film feels less coherent as a result. While Streep’s character says that it is not necessary to interview the boy because he will likely spin tales, the failure to interview the boy and ask his version of the story utterly defies common sense.

While i disliked this logical gap in the story, the film is nevertheless a brilliantly acted and highly enjoyable tale. Although the film is slow to provide answers, it effectively plants the seeds of doubt in our minds. Whatever the audience’s interpretation of the events, the film succeeds as one which invites us to challenge and question our beliefs. A laudable ideal indeed.

I have been fighting fires (metaphorically speaking) this whole week, and every other day there seems to be some new crisis for me to fire-fight. The latest calamity being my computer which has oh so conveniently decided to crash on me, 2 weeks before a major assignment is due. Luckily i have another copy otherwise i would be really freaking out. If there is ever a time for me to feel a sense of anomie, this is it. I realised how much a computer crash sucks up an immense amount of time without you really realising it. You go through the same stages of grief when your computer hangs. First the denial, as you try to fix it, then the anger, frustration, hopelessness and finally that voice in your head that tells you its only a computer. But, its not, because it is the data, the writeups, the holiday photos, the songs all of which take a special place in your heart. Losing all your data is like losing your memory, losing a bit of the past.

Memento Mori. When you lose something that is of value to you, you are reminded of the ephemeral value of existence and how in the end, everything must go. In a way i am grateful for this crisis because it has invigorated me and made me feel alive. When you coast along in life, you tend to take things for granted. When things screw up, it forces you to reassess your priorities. So there won’t be any updates on this site for some time, because i have fires to fight, and miles to go before i sleep. In the end, we return back to tabula rasa. Now if you excuse me, i have a computer to reformat.

Frost/Nixon (2008) 8/10

What happens when an unstoppable object meets an immovable force? You get cinematic greatness. Frost/Nixon is a film that, distilled to its essence is about 2 men talking. Yet the film is a gripping, intense drama, a sort of intellectual boxing that at the end leaves you feeling exhausted yet exhilarated.

And the centerpiece, the core of the film is Frank Langella who is mesmerizing in a pitch perfect portrayal of Richard Nixon. As a subject matter, Nixon has that mystique, the white knight who has fallen from grace. When Nixon won re-election in 1972, he won by one of the biggest landslides ever, but in 2 years he would have the infamy of being the only president to be forced to resign. Langella gives a compelling rendition of a man of such complexity and nuance and he even manages to make the Nixon somewhat sympathetic. But there is a hubris, a strong sense of pride that is Nixon’s ultimate flaw and Langella gives a masterly portrayal. Director Ron Howard has assembled a talented, top notch cast and he uses close-ups to give the actors, especially Langella the chance to shine. The film itself should be compulsory viewing for acting class because Langella’s performance is exquisite. It is the expression, the downtrodden look of defeat, or is it regret that haunts you long after the film ends. Even though my personal favorite this year to win Best Actor is Mickey Rourke for his devastating performance in The Wrestler, Langella is a very, very close second simply for his masterful tour de force.

And acting as his foil is the excellent Michael Sheen whom i remember well from THE QUEEN. This time, although his role as David Frost gets more screen time it is clear that Langella is the star. But rather than be overshadowed by Langella, the two bounce off each other very well and Sheen’s flamboyant and playboy persona is the perfect foil to Langella’s slick and polished Nixon. The final result feels like an intellectual joust, the equivalent of watching Rocky but with far greater dramatic intensity. This is an intellectual battle between two very keen minds, recreating a pivotal moment of American history and it is a credit to the taut writing and fine direction that such a talky film proves engaging even though most people already know the conclusion. As the film progresses, the audience roots for Michel Sheen’s David Frost to tease out the final note of contrition from a disgraced president. And you almost feel as if you are there, in 1977 watching history unfold. For both Frost and Nixon, they have something to gain and everything to lose. Frost stakes his career and personal wealth on this and for Nixon it is his last shot at redemption. Watching the unstoppable force meet the immovable force proves to be one of the most enjoyable hours of movie watching i have spent.

Frost/Nixon is one of the best films of the year and a personal favourite. A splendid cast headlined by two spellbinding performances makes this a must watch. This is an intelligent and thoughtful film. The great tragedy is that this is the sort of film that audiences avoid. But if you give it a chance, you may be pleasantly surprised.

“The stage play-turned-big screen Oscar contender has all the right moves, zipping along from scene to scene with rare pep until building to a furious climax. And remember, this isn’t a movie about alien invasions or pirate ghosts. It’s a movie about two guys talking. No special effects, no Ben Stiller cameos. “- Mike Ward

“The result is involving, engrossing cinema – more thrilling, in fact, than Howard’s “The Da Vinci Code” – filmmaking of a type rarely seen anymore and sorely missed.”- Kenneth Turan

Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential

Darwin’s theory of evolution has become the bedrock of modern biology. But for most of the theory’s existence since 1859, even biologists have ignored or vigorously opposed it, in whole or in part.

Darwin knew a lot of biology: more than any of his contemporaries, more than a surprising number of his successors. From prolonged thought and study, he was able to intuit how evolution worked without having access to all the subsequent scientific knowledge that others required to be convinced of natural selection. He had the objectivity to put aside criteria with powerful emotional resonance, like the conviction that evolution should be purposeful. As a result, he saw deep into the strange workings of the evolutionary mechanism, an insight not really exceeded until a century after his great work of synthesis.

For Catholics, Heaven Moves One Step Closer

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

It has no currency in the bad place.

Bolt (2008) 7/10

The hamster steals the show, but this film is generally fun and brainless.

Igor (2008) 7/10

Considering the largely negative reviews, Igor was much better than i expected and i liked the snarky tone and its many puns and witticism. The animation is decent but unremarkable but the film is probably more suited to the average misanthropic adult than young children who probably won’t get the film’s snarky references.

The Escapist (2008) 4/10

Feels like a bad episode of Prison Break.

City of Amber (2008) 5/10

I have an irrational dislike of Dakota Fanning the child actress. I think it is probably because i think she can’t act and is terribly annoying. This entry is not about Dakota Fanning, but another young child actress. The difference is that think Saoirse Ronan is immensely talented and trust me, she will go far in showbiz. Saoirse Ronan was the best thing in Atonement where she stole the limelight from Kiera Knightley and she is the best thing in City of Ember, notwithstanding a the fact that her character is a generic cookie cutter role. The other standout in City of Ember is Bill Murray who plays the evil mayor with just the right flair. The visuals are also great and the make believe city is clothed in a beautiful hue. In fact there is so much that is right with the film, that i was really disappointed that the final product was a tepid and mediocre piece of filmmaking. The film had so much potential to be a post-apocalyptic Fallout type movie, but all the edge has been removed by making this a children flick that appeals to all ages. As such, the potential despair of a city of inhabitants living in an artificial cave is never properly brought out and the film becomes a standard Disney-fied flick, shorn of all its edges and just a safe, boring and utterly predictable movie. The film had potential, but because it needed to be PG and family friendly, it became painfully mediocre. A pity, because Saoirse Ronan is quite a promising young actress.

Cash crisis threat to Auschwitz

This is Birkenau, the largest camp in the Auschwitz complex, where most of its 1.1 million victims - 90% of them Jews - were murdered.

With every passing year the urgency to preserve what is left of the site grows, and while steps are being taken to do so, crucial conservation work is hampered by a shortage of funds.

Auschwitz-Birkenau is quite literally disintegrating. It is of of those places which i hope to visit before i die. I believe that Auschwitz-Birkenau should be preserved, if only as a physical reminder of the horrors of the past. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Auschwitz-Birkenau is reminder that “all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing,” as Edmund Burke might say. It is a place of great historical significance, and it would be a pity to lose it. It is one of those few places in the world where disrepair actually adds to the morbid charm of the place.

Hollywood Hong Kong (2002) 6/10

Hollywood Hong Kong doesn’t make alot of sense, but it does have some strikingly beautiful imagery and the always watchable Zhou Xun anchoring the film. The plot itself is elliptical, and does not necessarily conform to logic. Director Fruit Chan creates a strange mish-mash of black humor, mo lei tau comedy, romantic entrapment, political messages and even murder. Overall, the film is intriguing, but never engaging. Zhou Xun easily steals the limelight while the rest of the cast are decent but unremarkable. One has the feeling that the 3 obese characters are cast more for their physicality than any acting chops. One of the film’s curious subplots involve a pig who goes missing and the efforts spent to retrieve it which was mildly amusing but felt totally unnecessary.

Overall, whilst the film has some interesting elements, the film when taken as a whole is a pastiche of genres, not all of which blend well together. The film has some alienating aspects and one gag involving amputated hands was just lame but the director spends a significant time on that subplot to the detriment of the film. Overall, Hollywood Hong Kong is a mixed bag and while fans of HK arthouse cinema should give it a look, the average film goer will probably not understand or enjoy this movie.

My Cousin Vinny (1992) 8/10

Quite possibly one of the best law-related movies made, My Cousin Vinny takes the classic “fish out of the water” cliche and elevates it into a memorable and humorous film. The pairing is strange, but it works and both Tomei and Pesci play off each other’s strengths. Special credit must go to the inspired casting of Maria Tomei and Joe Pesci as a most unlikely couple. Tomei in particular shines in this film, with memorable mannerism and accent. She won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in this film and it is a well deserved win. Fred Gwynne also stands out in his last role before he passed away, as an officious judge who picks on Pesci’s character. While the film moves along in a predictable fashion, the humor, wit and excellent cast elevate a mediocre script into something magical. Tomei is poised to win another Best Supporting Actress Oscar, this time for Darren Aronofsky’s excellent “The Wrestler” but it is great to see Tomei shine in her earlier works.

I don’t normally review specific episodes of Tv series, but i just have to give a shout out to Episode 4.13, The Oath from my favouritest show of all time Battlestar Galactica which is one of the most omg frakking amazing episodes of the season. Tightly plotted and intense. Now that’s what BSG should be all about. With 7 more episodes to the end of the show, BSG still shows that it has many more tricks up its sleeve.

The New York Times

Justice John Paul Stevens, the leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, likes to say that he has not moved to the left since he was appointed to the court by President Gerald R. Ford in 1975. It is the court, Justice Stevens says, that has moved to the right. Justice Stevens, who continues to be a keen and lively participant in oral arguments at the court, will turn 89 in April. Actuarial statistics alone suggest that President Obama may end up naming his replacement.

And that will present the new president with a question. Should he appoint someone who by historical standards is a full-throated liberal, a lion like Justice William J. Brennan Jr. or Justice Thurgood Marshall? Or should he follow the lead of President Bill Clinton, whose two appointees, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stephen G. Breyer, are by those standards relative moderates?

It is certainly depressing that the Supreme Court has moved so unabashedly towards the conservative right in recent years. 5 of the 10 most conservative judges sit on the Supreme Court and quite possibly the most enduring legacy of the Bush administration has to be the judges appointed to the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens, one of my most respected judges is actually more of a moderate but appears far more liberal when compared to the rest of the Supreme Court. I’m not expecting Obama to appoint someone like Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan (though i do secretly hope that he will pick a decidedly liberal judge) but i do hope he will not continue the disturbing trend of appointing judges who are more conservative than their predecessors.

May (2002) 4/10

The film feels like an anti-Amelie, a sort of American Psycho meets Carrie. It is quite a cult hit, but for much of the film’s running time, i was unimpressed. The characters are uninteresting, and their actions often fall on the side of the absurd. Ultimately the film was an alienating experience and i never did connect with either the characters or story.