A New Hope

http://kornypoc.blogs.friendster.com/kornypoc/

An Admirable Vision for Broadcast Media

Came across this link at Roger Ebert's website:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm

A great speech. Most of it still relevant today, half a century later. Really like the integrity and vision conveyed. Bet it would've been really inspiring to have been at a great oration like that ...

Blunt

"Did I disappoint you or let you down?
...
...
...
It may be over but it won't stop there.
I am here for you if you'd only care.
You touched my heart you touched my soul.
You changed my life and all my goals.
And love is blind and that much I knew when,
My heart was blinded by you.
I've kissed your lips and held your head.
Shared your dreams and shared your bed.
I know you well, I know your smell.
I've been addicted to you.

Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

I am a dreamer but when I wake,
You can't break my spirit - it's my dreams you take.
And as you move on, remember me,
Remember us and all we used to be.

I've seen you cry, I've seen you smile.
I've watched you sleeping for a while.
I'd be the father of your child.
I'd spend a lifetime with you.
I know your fears and you know mine.
We've had our doubts but now we're fine,
And I love you, I swear it's true.
I cannot live without you.

Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

And I still hold your hand in mine ...
In mine when I'm asleep.
And I will bear my soul in time,
When I'm kneeling at your feet.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.

I'm so hollow, baby, I'm so hollow.
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow ..."

- J. B.

KTO: Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Night Out (Marathon)

This was actually part of an animation film festival (i.e. Animation Nation) organized by the S'pore Film Society (henceforth known as SFS). It was a marathon of all the W&G material ever produced by Nick Park and his Aardman Studios. This consisted of:

1) A Grand Day Out (Oscar-nominated short)
2) The Wrong Trousers (Oscar-winning short)
3) A Close Shave (ANOTHER Oscar-winning short)
[loo-break]
4) Cracking Contraptions (3 ultra-shorts)
5) Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (1st feature-length animation). This actually featured the penguins from "Madagascar" in a separate animation short as a prelude (let's call it item 4.5).

W&G are a great pair. Very innovative, funny, good natured and boundlessly optimistic. Both are unique individuals but are a perfect complement for each other. The kind of match we all wish for in our relationships with our partners actually. Hmmm ... perhaps they work so well together cuz one of them (Gromit) can't speak (altho that doesn't stop him from reading and understanding English perfectly well) AND ... is a dog ;) After all, they are supposed to be man's best friend.

Anyway, by watching the entire W&G collection in one sitting, it allowed me to really appreciate the evolution in the quality of the production. For eg, it's easy to see that (1) was a first time effort. The quality of the animation is less polished. The story is also less cohesive and the pacing could be improved on. But even then, you could see the great potential there. And just like all the subsequent efforts, it's endlessly imaginative, warm and captures that distinctly British humour very well.
By (5), the animation and production quality has improved tremendously. And it's all done without losing all the things that were great about the predecessors. An extraordinary achievement indeed!

Being the 2nd stop-motion effort to be released in S'pore this year (altho it was actually released before "Corpse Bride" in the US), it will invariably be compared to CB. Both are excellent movies and it'd be fantastic to see BOTH of them nominated for Best Animation at next year's Oscars. With that said, the 2 movies are actually quite different. W&G is a claymation (i.e. uses clay to construct it's characters) while CB uses more puppets and models. Neither is superior to the other. Personally, I find that claymation exudes more warmth and looks more organic (perhaps because it's less precise - You can actually see partial fingerprints here and there). On the other hand, puppets give the film a cleaner and more precise look (as I mentioned in my CB review, it could pass off as CGI). I believe both would be equally tedious and painstaking to produce and I salute all involved in both movies just for that alone. That they ended up being excellent movies ... my greatest gratitude and admiration.

An interesting thing to note tho is that Helena Bonham Carter voiced major characters in BOTH movies. That probably makes her the only person to be involved in both productions (at least as far as I'm aware of). Fancy that. Wonder what it is about her (or should I say, her voice) that seems to attract casting agents for stop-motion animations to her ...

Another interesting thing to note is that the villain in (5) is voiced by Ralph Fiennes (a great actor. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets knighted one of these days) ... who's also playing the villain in "Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire". Anyway, am really looking forward to his "The Constant Gardener".

As for the sole non-W&G animation (i.e. item 4.5), it felt very much like the original "Madagascar": high production quality, very well animated, amusing and funny at times, BUT ... kinda soulless and not terribly memorable. A bit too much talking for it's own good and at times it felt like it was just trying to eat up time. Not a good thing. A perfect example of how good production and technical qualities do not necessarily equate to a good movie. I guess it's flaws were especially glaring when juxtaposed against the W&G movies.



Okie-dok. Gotta get ready for an old friend's wedding. Wonder how I'm gonna do reception duty with my increasinly hoarse (and fading) voice ....

KTO: Transporter 2

This is a fun, amusing and often outlandish movie. In fact, I found it to be one of those extremely rare sequels that were better than their predecessors. I guess a big reason is that there's no Shu Qi to butcher the English language ;) Dun get me wrong, she looked really HOT and yummy in the first "Transporter", but I'm always peeved when an actor delivers dialogue in a language that he/she is obviously not comfortable with ... and worse ... tries to pass it off as if he/she is supposed to be proficient in it. Just like it's incredibly annoying (demeaning even?) when Western actors try to (SUPPOSEDLY) speak Mandarin/Cantonese AND do a bad job of it. Yeesh! Would very much rather they just speak their native tongue and provide subtitles instead. The way I see it, that way you won't be annoying audiences who actually speak the language and you also allow the actor to express himself fully/properly in the language they're more comfortable with ... without the added impediment of trying to figure out a foreign language. If an actor REALLY wants to use a language that's alien to him/her, then they should have the decency to do it properly!
Had the exact same beef with "Tom-Yum-Goong" (which I'll be mentioning again a bit later).

Also, the story/plot for this sequel was more interesting/coherent. It's also alot funnier. The action/stunts are at least on par with the predecessor, if not outright better. The acting is also more respectable (again largely cuz of the exclusion of Shu Qi) with Jason Statham being the obvious standout. He seems prefectly cast as Frank the Transporter and is obviously having alot of fun with the role; acting cool, making wise-cracks, kicking ass and through it all demonstrating that his character has a real heart of gold. Now, who hasn't fantasized about doing stuff like that?!? :p
Actually, Statham's quite an interesting actor. He often portrays variations of this role ... sometimes, he's meaner, sometimes he's abit more clueless, sometimes not as in control. But almost always, he brings an edge and humour to the character that is usually quite fun to watch. First noticed him in Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", followed by "Mean Machine" (with ex-Chelsea player, Vinnie Jones (who was also in "L,S and TSB"), "Snatch" (another Ritchie movie) and the remake of "The Italian Job".

Anyway, now that I've established why I think the sequel is better, I wanna compare it with another movie: "Tom-Yum-Goong" (as I promised earlier). Both are action flicks with leads who can really pull off their own fights and stunts. However, in my opinion, the MAIN difference is that T2 is a proper/ACTUAL "movie" while TYG is more of a 'martial arts porn'. That's cuz the main pleasure and effort is in the fights and everything else is just an excuse for it to be classified as a "movie". (i.e. no coherent plot, weak 'acting', etc). But being 'martial arts porn' also means that TYG has superior fight sequences with much better choreography (for both the fights and the shooting of the sequence itself).
In other words, T2 is a more COMPLETE movie than can be enjoyed from beginning to end ... while TYG should be watched mostly for it's fight scenes only.

The last thing I wanna mention is Luc Besson. If I recall correctly he served as writer (co-writer?) and producer for T2. Personally, I'd prefer that he returned to directing. His "La Femme Nikita" (which spawned a Hollywood remake with Bridget Fonda as the lead, as well as a TV series), "The Professional" aka "Leon" (which featured the indelible debut of Natalie Portman) and "The Fifth Element" (which sorta launched Chris Tucker's movie career and had a minor role for S'porean Ivan Heng) were all very unique, interesting, exciting and often cool movies. My fav would be "The Professional". Excellent, excellent movie. Highly-recommended if you haven't already caught it. Anyway, Besson has since taken a greater interest in producing/writing rather than directing. You still get some of the trademark Besson in these movies (eg. "Yamakasi", "Taxi", "Unleashed") but it would be fantastic if he directed another true Besson classic :)

KTO: Oliver Twist

I'm pretty sure I've seen other versions of OT but I just can't seem to place when or what they were. I mean, I can vaguely remember the famous "Please sir, may I have some more?" line ... Artful Dodger ... all the pickpocketing ... the FEEL of it ... but not the faces or names or in what form(s) or at which point(s) in my childhood. Whichever version(s) it/they were, it was a looong time ago. Hence, the "dodgy" memory.

What I do remember distinctly is that I really enjoyed the version(s) I saw. Definitely more than this Roman Polanski adaptation. That's not to say it's bad (cuz it's NOT!) ... just ... shrug. Perhaps, it was cuz I was alot younger then and I could relate better with Oliver ... or perhaps cuz it was the first time I had seen it and, as such, it held alot more surprises/thrills ... or mebbe cuz I had lower expectations ...

I guess 1 of the things that I din really like was how Oliver seemed quite ... boring/undeserving? He's not particularly spunky or smart or brave or sharp or interesting. He just seems to get blown from 1 situation to another and gets by mostly on how cute and innocent he looks. It's not like he actively makes his situation better or improves the lives of those he meets. In fact, quite the contrary: Sykes dies, Nancy is killed, Fagin is (or will be) hanged, Bronlow has his house broken into, Artful Dodger and the rest of the street urchins likely ended up in jail (?). He just seems alot more like a victim than someone who consciously endeavours to change his fate. I guess in that way, he shares some similarities with Adrien Brody's character in Polanski's Oscar-winning "The Pianist". In fact, in a way, you could say it's the same theme (i.e. that our lives/fate depends largely on luck and the goodwill of the people around us) transposed to a different setting. I dun entirely disagree with that point of view, but I'm far from being comfortable with it because it tends to make people lazy. Sorta like, if it's largely beyond my control, why bother trying so hard? In fact, why try at all? Now, THAT'S a mentality I'm strongly against.

Perhaps as a result, I actually prefered another recent adaptation of a Charles Dickens novel: "Nicholas Nickleby". The protagonist in that was also afflicted with great misfortunes but instead of being primarily buffetted by the winds of fate, he actively fights to create a better life for himself and his family. He also fearlessly tries to right any perceived wrongs he encounters with little regard to his own personal welfare. In my opinion, a much more compelling and worthy "hero" than Oliver. Of cuz, one might argue that Oliver is alot younger, and as such, is not as aware or as able to shape his own destiny. That might be true, but it still doesn't make him any less boring/undeserving to me.

The strange thing is, I dun remember getting this vibe from the previous incarnations of OT. Again, it could just be that I was too young to notice it. Sigh ... the problem with aging RAM ...

Aside from this fundamental problem that I had with the story, the movie in general is well-made. It's well-acted and well-shot and, from what I've read, is supposed to be one of the most faithful adaptations of Dicken's original novel. The kids all acquit themselves well enough (always a crucial thing in any retelling of OT). The only actor I was really familiar with was Sir Ben Kingsley. He's one helluva actor with some serious range. If you're not already familiar with his work, check out "House Of Sand And Fog", "Sexy Beast" (nominated for best supporting actor oscar), "Schindler's List" and of cuz, "Gandhi" (won best actor). Cool guy. So, of cuz it goes without saying that his Fagin is great work. Almost unrecognisable actually, under all that makeup and with that hunch.



Ok, that's all I've got to say about OT. Feel a flu coming on, so I'd better hit the sack soon. Been experiencing an alarming number of aches and pains of late. Won't be surprised if it stems from all the weight on my mind ...
Anyway, hope to get my thoughts on "Transporter 2" up before the end of the week. Till then ...

The Jackpot Of Coincidences

Level 1

It's HB's birthday ... and I'm attending a bachelor party for a common friend (all 3 of us were from the same ECA in JC). Let's call this common friend "K2".

Level 2

The attending "brudders" are from 2 distinct groups: those of us who knew him from JC and those who knew him from NTU. The wedding dinner coordinator is from his NTU gang and the following conversation takes place:

Me: So, where do you work?
Wedding Dinner Coordinator: Oh, at company S. (Which just happens to be where HB used to work. In fact, I suddenly realise we're having dinner in the same building she had her farewell dinner when she left company S for it's Aussie subsidiary ... It's somewhere I hardly ever eat at ... mebbe only 1 other time since attending that farewell with her 18 months ago).

Level 3

Me: Oh really? I know some people there. But they're in corporate finance so, you might not know them. You did Engineering with K2 right?
WDC: Actually no, I did accounting and I'm in the tax department. (Whoa! Didn't see THAT one coming!)

Level 4

WDC: So who do you know? HB? (*ding ding!* Jackpot! I believe we have a winner here!).



SIGHZ ...