RATATOUILLE

Finally, I saw the Pixar's highly-anticipated latest feature animation : Ratatouille!

And it's interesting enough that the movie itself is indeed a Ratatouille......The similarity between the two is strikingly uncanny.

Pourquoi???

The word "Ratatouille" means simply an ordinary cuisine with assorted vegetables mixing together, nothing high-class or fancy. Like its name, the movie itself is a simple enough story with various different cinematic elements (romance, drama, action, suspense and comedy) added and mixed together. Voila!

However, the quality of the cuisine depends on the creativity and the craft of the Chef (or Remy the Mouse in this case) while the success of the movie rests on the shoulder of the director Brad Bird, who brought us the incredible "The Incredibles" 2 years ago.

Brad Bird's sense of humour and creativity is beyond question, as evident from The Simpsons TV series in which he acted as the Executive Consultant for years. This time, in Ratatouille, he wrote a very simple plot involving a mouse trying to use his cooking talent to be a top chef. Like making cuisine, Brad Bird did make this movie whole-heartedly, with extremely delicate execution and obsessive attention to details. As a result, in the movie, we marvel at the absolutely gorgeous graphics, and are stunned by the breathtakingly realistic Paris streets and landscapes. Besides, all the gags and punch lines are great and with appropriate effects, leaving the audience immensly entertained.

Furthermore, in the movie, he smartly used the icon of Disney as the lead character of this movie to carry on the great tradition of the deceased Walt Disney, who inspired lots of the talented young animation artists like what Gusteau did to Remy. This is an openly respectable tribute to the late Walt Disney from Brad Bird, and at the same time, with some bold criticism directed to the present Disney Empire who now is concentrating on mainly cashing out through exhaustive merchandising.

For me, after seeing the movie, I have very mixed feelings about it. While I found it a great feast to the eyes and most of the time laughed my ass off, I feel that it didn't live up to my expectation. It is better than Cars, which in my opinion, is the worst production by Pixar so far. However, it cannot exceed the success of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles.

Pourqoui???


Just like the cuisine Ratatouille, without the garnishing, the spices and the gravy, it's just some cheap and ordinary vegetables putting together. The movie distracts us from the slim cliche plot and a few superficial characters with the grandeur visuals, hilarious dialogues, exciting chasing scenes, etc. And I also think that it suffers majorly from the excessive length of screening time, together with inconsistent pace, making some scenes dragging to nearly stagnant, notably the first hour.

Also, most of the characters were under-developed. Besides Remy and Linguini, the others are uni-faceted and not at all memorable, serving as kind of like show-and-go sort of a comic relief. The creation of the imaginary friend Gusteau is somehow childish and even cliche. Colette's romance with Linguini is somehow predictable yet not convincing enough. The evils (Skinner and Anton) are not too intimidating or persuasive and so pose not much challenge at all to the leads, making the final act of resolution a bit simple and unsatisfying.......

And what's less than satisfying is the explicit morals and messages of the movie. They almost tell us the lesson of the day word by word, thus insulting the audience. The final long speech by the food critic is particularly unbearable. Though putting this in at the end is a smart move, because it will shut the mouths of all the movie critics from bad-mouthing it, like the case of the Emperor's new clothes!

Well, since I'm not a critic, I'm immuned from that. "Surprise me" no more, I have to say that for a Pixar movie, Ratatouille overall gets only a passing mark. However, among the animated movies this year so far (I haven't seen the Simpsons Movie yet), I still recommend it to anyone who loves animation and is young at heart.

ZODIAC

I am a big fan of David Fincher, seriously. I went to cinema for each of his movies, and enjoyed every single one of them.

It all began since his directorial debut --- "Alien 3", which is still ignored and even rejected by Fincher himself now due to the studio's restraint on his creative freedom at that time. However, his visual wizardry was already evident in the movie. For example, unlike its prequels, it scared the hell out of you without showing you much of the Alien itself; rather he inventively used the POV shot from the Alien itself for the scenes of preying and devouring of its victims. Also, towards the end, the self sacrifice of Sigourney Weaver by plunging down in the posture of a "cross" with the baby alien in her belly has obvious biblical reference as well.

After that, his second feature "Se7en" became an instant hit (my favourite as well) and the rest is history.

Apart from his wonderful story-telling technique and extraordinary vision, I love his skillful discussion of the social phenomenon and examinations of the human values/flaws within his movies (e.g. various common sins committed daily in our community as described in "Se7en", global capitalism and materialism in "Fight Club", mid-life crisis and existentialism in "The Game", feminism and single-parenthood in Panic Room, etc...). He can preach with humour, provoke thinking through entertainment, and inspire without pulling a strict face. I mostly admire him for this.

However, regardless of his diversity on subjects/genres, all of his movies so far are about crimes and violence, and there are palpable sense of isolation/despair/emptiness of the people in his every movie. And Fincher seems having an affinity for the philosophy about the need of Men for sufferings and adversities in order to understand the full meaning of life. This is the recurring theme in all his outputs up till now, his latest one, the Zodiac.



In preparing for the movie "Zodiac", I have read the book "Zodiac" written by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal's character) , from which the movie largely based on. And my reading of the 300-page book proved to be quite rewarding, for it helps me to follow the complex story lines of the movie, and most importantly, to realise the director's views and messages intended.

During my reading, I had a particular feel and perception of the story, and therefore an expectation of how the film would look like. However, Fincher totally surprised me in every way. It has nothing in common with his earlier work "Se7en". He intentionally downplayed the murder scenes, totally avoiding the perspectives from the serial killer and even minimising his on-screen time and dialogues, skipping the gory crime scenes and ignoring the detailed investigations on site. The killer and his cruel acts were very trivialized to the degree that the 2 important murders were even scrammed into the short pre-credit prologue!

The story officially kicks off with the first Zodiac letter arriving at the San Francisco Chronicle, and introduces us to the two leads---top crime reporter Paul Avery (played wonderfully by Robert Downey Jr., or was he just being himself??) and small-potato political cartoonist Robert Graysmith. And later in the murder case of cab driver Paul Stine, we meet the other two major characters---inspector Bill Armstrong (played by Anthony Edwards of "ER" fame) and famous inspector David Toschi (marvelously portrayed by Mark Ruffalo). And Fincher invested lots of effort and time in concentrating on stories of these 4 different real people whose lives were immensely changed by Zodiac the serial killer.

Through compare and contrast with the book, I found that the movie was very fast-paced (even difficult to follow for people without some background knowledge of it), with significant trimming down of many facts and myths surrounding the murder cases and Zodiac's many letters and codes (giving only essential information to the audience on the need-to-know basis); while instead it expanded the dimensions for the four lead characters, especially the author himself (actually he did not mention anything about his own life in the book).

In my opinion, the movie stressed and concentrated on three key issues---the chaotic coordination between the Police jurisdictional districts; the power of the mass media; and obviously the obsession.

The movie successfully revealed in one vivid scene where inspector Armstrong was trying to communicate through phone but in vain with other Police districts where the other murders by the same killer took place. The cooperation, if any, was very chaotic and diplomatic rather than pragmatic or effective. This, together with the fact that the Police had ignored a source of information which was later gathered by reporter Avery to uncover the unknown murder linked to Zodiac, gives the audience the feeling that the killer escaped through those loop-holes in the system of law enforcement. Fincher once again examined and criticized this notorious yet popular culture of the Government.

Also, most of the story took place in the Newspaper office, in the television studio, or told through the TV screens and the newspaper headlines, rather than in the Police Department. This is quite weird for a crime story but feasible here because Zodiac enjoyed seeking attention by contact with the mass media. I think to a certain degree this approach may even be intentional: to emphasize the mass media's part in the Zodiac cases since things got blown out of proportion by it, which even became the tool for the killer, to confuse the Police (like exaggerating the number of his victims by taking credit for other murders he saw reported on the papers) and scare the public (like the school-bus panic).

And for the Paul Avery discovery, the media even released such a key information to the public before the Police knowing it! The heated argument between Avery and Toschi in one scene more or less sums up such a symbiotic relationship between the Police and the media. Now, 30 years later, the mass media is still growing stronger, and exerting its influence everywhere, including politics.

Moreover, this movie is explicitly full of the recurring themes of personal obsessions. By definition, obsession means the recurrent and persistent idea or thought regardless of one's attempt to ignore or inhibit it. It may lead to compulsion, which refers to the behaviour driven by such an obsessive thought. The best pathological example is the Zodiac, who was obsessed with the idea of killing and could not control his murdering impulse. However, interestingly, almost all of the main characters in the movie have their different obsessions (e.g. Avery obsessed with risky lifestyle and later heavily with alcohol when he no longer had the job; Toschi obsessed with fame which almost cost his job when he was questioned of producing the last fake Zodiac letter; Lawyer Belli obsessed with publicity, fame and fortune; Graysmith obsessed with the identity of the Zodiac and lost his family and job because of that).

Smartly, Fincher balanced it a bit by using Armstrong, who quitted the job of homicide investigation so to enjoy his family life and "eating sushi". In one short scene, we got the glimpse of him walking away from a very lonely and tired Toschi at the car, and into the warmly lit porch of his house with his wife. The resulting contrast is overwhelming and inspiring. I think as an obsessive film maker himself, in this movie, Fincher tries to tell us the big cost of obsession, and the importance of knowing when to stop.

All in all, I regard this movie the first pure drama by Fincher. He deliberately restrained his usual visual styles this time with much subtlety instead. And this is why it would bore and fail so many people/fans if a thriller like "Se7en" was expected. The production overall is very authentic and realistic to every detail, from the period clothings, cars and sets for the '70s San Francisco (CGI was employed to rebuild the streets and buildings during that time), to the newspaper clippings and Zodiac's handwritings or other evidence. Fincher was trying to make a fluent chronological documentary-like drama faithful to that part of history as much as possible. He is a well-known perfectionist (he could ask the actors for seventy takes for a single scene just to get the effect he desires). Although he tried not to glorify the Zodiac killer and even trivialize his acts in the movie (different actors were used to play Zodiac for each of the murder scenes) so as not to fulfill his arrogant wish expressed in his last letter to the Police, with Fincher's careful planning beforehand, meticulous execution on set, and a change of style this time, on second thought, isn't there some similarities between the Zodiac and David Fincher himself?!?

Hong Kong Sinfonietta with the Grainger Quartet

It was quite a pleasant experience to listen to the Baroque music (apart from the Dvorak's and Grieg's, of course) performed by the Hong Kong Sinfonietta last Sunday evening.

The Baroque music, including famous works by Bach, Vivaldi and Marcello are truly ingenious. They are very well structured but still have their lively mood and entertaining value. In short, highly refreshing and relaxing for the listeners!

Bach's Brandenburg Concerto no.3, for example, never fails to cheer up the crowd. I've known this lovely music for a very long time, but this was the first time I witnessed it performed live. And the effect was mind-blowing......I discovered that it was much more complicated and riveting than I originally expected. In fact, the nine instruments (3 violins, 3 violas and 3 cellos) each have its own chances to play solo phrases alternately but on the whole they harmoniously combine and generate a spectacular and continuous musical flow. Though the final movement was played a bit too rushed and at times a bit chaotic that night.

Vivaldi, though well-known for his "four seasons" concerti, had also written another famous concerto for 4 violins (Op3, No.10), and it's so famous that Bach even made a transcription of it for 4 harpsichords (or pianos are used sometimes nowadays) instead. Try to imagine : to write a concerto featuring 4 violinists, competing and supporting each other simultaneously! That would be quite a challenge, but Vivaldi (not unlike Bach when he wrote the above mentioned concerto) made it such a great fun for the 4 violinists to play together and still have some virtuosic solo moment for each one. The music is very easily assimilated, and it's exciting to see the 4 soloists playing side by side in the front of the stage, with the orchestra accompanying at the back. Marvelous experience for me, except that one of the soloists was too nervous and sounded a bit uptight and flat occasionally.

Marcello is not a familiar name to most music lovers nowadays, especially among all those giants in the Baroque period, but his concerto for oboe alone could leave his mark in the history, with its enchanting slow movement pretty popular even in the Hollywood industry as the movie soundtrack. I was glad to listen to the complete concerto that night, with Peter Cooper playing the oboe wonderfully. I simply couldn't complain......

Finally, the Strings of HKS, led by the Grainger Quartet with each at the front of the respective sections, gave us Grieg's Holberg Suite, an imitation and dedication to the Baroque period music by the romantic Nordic composer. Similar to the other pieces of the evening, it is a very easy-listening music, and the performance was magnificent. I guess the input by Grainger Quartet must have played a part there (Yip Wing Sze is very brilliant to come up with the idea of having this Quartet as their Artist Associate this year!), but I still have to admire HKS's string players for their commitment, effort and progress throughout the years. And for encore, their playing of Mozart could put HKPO to shame, I dare say......



Grainger Quartet (Artist Associate, Hong Kong Sinfonietta 07/08 season)
Natsuko Yoshimoto (Violin)
James Cuddeford (Violin)
Jeremy Williams (Viola)
Patrick Murphy (Cello)
Special Guest: Peter Cooper* (Oboe Principal of Colorado Symphony Orchestra)

Programme
Bach Brandenburg Concerto No 3 in G, BWV1048
Dvorák Wind Serenade in D minor, Op 44
Vivaldi Concerto in B minor for 4 violins from L’Estro Armonico, RV580 (Op 3 No 10)
(Violin solo: Natsuko Yoshimoto, James Cuddeford, Jensen Lung, Eiko Hosaka)
Marcello Oboe Concerto in C minor*
Grieg Holberg Suite, Op 40

FRACTURE

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys crime/legal thriller, appreciates an original script with fine twist and excellent acting from the ensemble cast! Anthony Hopkins returned to his evil root (Hannibal in Silence of the Lamb) in this latest feature, playing a calm, obsessive and yet very intelligent criminal Ted Crawford who allegedly killed his wife after knowing about her extra-marital affair, but was immediately apprehended at the murder site.

This was exactly how straight forward the movie opened, with the known fact that he shot his wife in the head before our very eyes. And it is this simple setup that attracts the audience. I can't help to wonder what would follow and how it can last for nearly 2 hours. Then entered the winning-oriented and climbing-to-the-top young and ambitious hot-shot attorney Willy Beachum (played by last year's Academy Award Best Actor Nominee Ryan Gosling) becoming the unwilling prosecutor in the Crawford's murder case. The two met in the courtroom and that's where the fun really began, as the prosecution proved to be not as easy and simple as Willy had expected when taking the case......

Director Gregory Hoblit (with fame from acclaimed movies like Primal Fear, Fallen, and Frequency......interestingly all "F" words including this movie) successfully pulled it off again this time, with a pretty comfortable pace, fluid and brilliant story line, appropriate humour at various places; it never fails to keep our brain working and at the same time keep our undivided attention. Hoblit smartly started the movie with the close-up shots of the little self-made miniature roller-coaster toy that Ted enjoys building and playing while rolling the opening credits to let us have the glimpse of how his meticulous mind works, not to mention a bit of his personality, including his accuracy and calculation in planning things. His job as the plane engineer cannot fit him better. I also love the deliberate vision of the director --- the various look at people through reflections, glass or shadows, to give the distant feelings between the characters in the movie, and to set up the dark and mysterious vibe for it.

As I have said and you should have probably known, the acting is genuinely marvelous from the two lead actors, thus giving more weight and credibility to the already good script. This is definitely not a profound movie with great moral lessons, but it is all the way unpredictable and has a decently satisfying ending. All in all, it simply sucks you into the screen and gives you hell of a roller-coaster ride!

ARTHUR AND THE MINIMOYS

With the long Easter holiday coming up, a lot of films suitable for the whole family will be released, and among them a couple of CG animations from different studios.

I have the privilege to see the preview screening of Luc Besson's latest (and rumoured to be his last) directed film "Arthur et les Minimoys". And I whole-heartedly recommend it to those looking for a quality family entertainment at cinema this holiday.

Luc Besson has not been directing since his big flop "The Story of Joan of Arc" in 1999. This partly live-action partly CG 3D animation feature is his come-back after such a long break. And this film, which he wrote and produced, showed his well-rested spirit and high energy level. It combines children's fables, action, comedy, romance, and the fifth element---his vision, into one densely-packed and fully-charged film spans merely 90 minutes.

Yes, the film is fast-paced, without a single minute wasted or bored. Not one frame can be deleted from the finished product. The editing style also gives a similar feeling. So, the audience is guaranteed for a great and exciting roller-coaster ride. Similar to Disney's "James and the Giant Peach" (Big flop from director who brought us "Nightmare before Christmas"), this film opened and closed with live actions while in the middle the adventure of Arthur in the mini-world of the Minimoys was fully done in CG animation. I think such a method is appropriately used here and to full use.

The story is pretty simple and would be easy to follow even for the very small children. Arthur, played brilliantly and suitably by Freddie Highmore (very gifted young actor of only 14 years old now who gave some stunning and emotional performance in films like "Finding Neverland"), not unlike Freddie's title role in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" coincidentally, is a good boy who originally lived happily with Grandparents (the wonderful Mia Farrow as Grandma), suddenly facing poverty and loss of sheltering, somehow entered the magical underground miniature world of the Minimoys, became a hero in that kingdom and got rich in the real world after the eventful "mini" expedition.

The voice talents include some eye-popping megastars, among them Madonna as the Princess Selenia, Robert de Niro as her King Father, and David Bowie as the evil Maltazard! The overall effect is immensely funny, hugely entertaining, and action packed. The lines are generally well written, with some very hilarious one-liners. The style is quite cartoonish and unrealistic, including the performance by the actors and the camera angles or movements.

The good thing about this film is that there would be different things for people at different age to appreciate and laugh at. In the screening I attended, all adults and children were equally having a great time, laughing and cheering. And I can feel otherwise the palpable silence and concentration of the audience throughout. Also, Luc Besson had included some moral lessons and extra touch in this apparently commercial product. Though briefly and lightly, it touches on the family value, the problem of obsessively working parents, the importance of the book knowledge above all others, the importance of environmental protection, the satirical look at the dictatorship, the mocking at the incapable but self-inflated ruler, and some more if the adults are paying enough attention. In fact, it is not simply what Snoop Dogg's character Max said in the film: "That's Entertainment!" More than that honestly.

And don't you leave so soon when the credits roll, remember to stay behind for the inventive "Curtain Call"!!

Luc Besson is already planning to produce two more films for this trilogy: Arthur et la vengeance de Maltazard (Arthur and the revenge of Maltazard) & Arthur et la guerre des deux mondes (Arthur and the war between two worlds)

THE QUEEN

Hey, I've seen the Queen...hmm...I mean the film of course.

My Gosh! Helen Mirren "is" the Queen...her appearance, her gesture, her grace, her pace, her speech, and even her mannerism, like the fiddling with the glasses, all these resemblances are genuinely uncanny.

However, just mere impersonation (I'm still objecting the Best Actor awarded for Capote) should not and would not guarantee her taking home the Best Actress Award(s), it's truly her fine act--the successful portrayal of this well-known public figure with a steel and cold exterior while having the vulnerability concealed inside. Confident, proud and also human, Helen did exactly all that and more. I can't be more glad that she got the unanimous recognitions she so much deserved. However, she did win at the expense of the Queen, and so I guess it is nice for her acceptance speech at the Oscar to end with a sincere mention of her :"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Queen".

Actually, the whole cast is pretty strong. The other lead in the movie is Tony Blair, played brilliantly by Michael Sheen. He is so good that one can love Blair after seeing it, forgiving a lot of his stupidity and kissing up to Bush in reality. And another wonderful actor James Cromwell played Prince Philip, and got all the great one-liners, which are hilarious. His stern yet humorous portrayal brought along a stir of comic relief to the film, and so is the Queen Mother who had a scene talking about Diana's funeral which is simply laugh-out-loud funny!

Apart from the tremendous acting and witty British humour, the film still has a lot of facets for enjoyment and admiration. The storyline is fluid and engaging, with the tension built up successfully and appropriately. It can even moves you towards the end. The direction is marvelous, and Stephen Frears managed to manipulate you to firstly hate and then later concern about the Royal family. The inclusion of the real news footage, intervened with the re-created film footage, gave the film an extra realistic feel. With such a famous incidence put on the screen, a lot of the memorable scenes need to be shot accurately and masterfully. They definitely pulled it off with these scenes like the one where the Royal family returned to the Palace, reading the cards and examining the flowers. Their relative positions and each one's posture (including Prince Charles holding the hand of young Prince Harry who's bending over to read the cards from the people) matched perfectly with my vivid memory. The only thing that I'm not happy about is the background music, which somehow was used not only too much, but sounded too dramatic to the level that it's sometimes over the edge and even disturbed my viewing. Although the Verdi's Requiem used at the Funeral proceeding just could not be more suitable.

I personally think that the scenes with the Queen and the Stag are somehow a bit redundant. They were included there for too obvious reason and were even undermining the originally great story. It somehow looked down on the audience, or at least a bit awkward to be included there nevertheless. The writing was strong overall though, and especially good in the tug-of-war between Blair and the Queen, and their relationship......Simply brilliant!!!

All in all, after viewing, one can't help but realising that the Royal family is after all just a family, and the Queen is just another old woman. They also face the difficulties and cope with them every single day like us. However, with more power comes with more responsibility, and less freedom of will and less privacy. It was stated clearly at the start of the film even before the title appeared : The Queen admires the ordinary British people having the right to vote for the Prime Minister who would run the country for them. Ironic in a way...and irony is unavoidable in everyone's life, regardless of being rich or poor.