jump to navigation

Movie Review: Up (2009) November 30, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

I’m not usually a big fan of animated films.  There have been a few very good ones (such as Toy Story, Shrek and Ratatouille), plenty of terrible ones (such as Shark Tale, Astro Boy and the worst of them all, Resident Evil: Degeneration), and a whole lot of average or overrated ones (in my opinion just about everything else, such as Finding Nemo and Happy Feet).

Accordingly, I approached the latest Pixar/Disney venture, Up, with plenty of scepticism.  I’m not going to discuss the plot – the poster is about as much background as you need.  Anyway, I ended up loving it.

For starters, Up is one of the funniest animated films I’ve ever seen.  It has that Toy Story quirkiness to it, that matter-of-fact approach to completely random and outrageous situations.  There are plenty of WTF? moments, but the execution is so sweet and cute that you can’t help but be captivated, regardless of how crazy it may all seem.

There’s also the wonderful characters – extremely unique characters.  Can you imagine any other film carried by a grumpy old man and a fat little Asian kid (plus a whole bunch of dogs) from start to finish?  Incredible.

Most of all, Up has plenty of heart.  The opening sequence summarising the life of old Carl Fredericksen up to that point is one of the most bittersweet and moving I’ve seen in any film.  And when he comes on board, the back story of Russell the kid is also very touching.  The balance between humour and drama and action is handled brilliantly, each hitting the spot at the crucial moments.

And did I mention the amazing animation?  The gorgeous blend of colours and crisp textures, coupled with the beautiful scenery and perfect character design, took the exuberance and warmth to a whole new level.

Granted, Up is not perfect – it started off wonderfully but dipped a little towards the middle before picking itself back up before the end, but on the whole it is hands down one of the best animated movies I’ve had the pleasure of watching.

4.5 stars out of 5!

Davydenko wins ATP World Tour Finals; did Federer tank? November 30, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Tennis.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Davydenko wins!

I wish I was there to witness it.  Nikolay Davykendo, one of the best players on tour without a Grand Slam, took out the last big event of the tennis calendar, ATP World Tour Finals, by defeating US Open winner Juan Martin del Potro in the final, 6-3, 6-4.

When the tournament began, few gave the No. 7 (out of 8 men in the draw) a chance, and he stumbled out of the gates, losing to Novak Djokovic in his opening round robin match.  However, he managed to regroup and defeat Aussie Open winner Rafael Nadal and French Open finalist Robin Soderling to advance to the semi-finals.  There, he finally beat French Open, Wimbledon winner and World No. 1 Roger Federer for the first time ever (in 13 career meetings).

So congrats to Davydenko, one of those underrated guys who plays consistently well but never seems to be able to pull out the big games against the top players.  That said, he had actually won all 5 of his championship matches in 2009, the last (before this one) coming at the Shanghai Masters, which he needed to qualify for the end of year tournament.

Did Federer tank his match against Del Potro?

I’d just to take a step back for a moment back to the round robin section of the tournament to talk about Roger Federer (who finished the year ranked no. 1).

The ATP World Tour Finals has a strange (not not overly complex) system where the top 8 players are split into Group A and Group B, with the top 2 from each group advancing to the semi-finals.  As each player has 3 matches in the round robin, it is not uncommon for players to end up with identical win-loss records.  Where there are 3 players with identical records (as was the case this year in both Groups A and B), the tie-breaker provides that the 2 players with the highest percentage of sets won will advance.  If that does not resolve things, then it’s the top 2 with the highest percentage of games won.

In his final round robin match, Federer lost to Del Potro 6-2, 6-7 (7-5), 6-3.  This meant Federer, Del Potro and Murray all finished with a record of 2-1 in the round robin round.  All three men also had identical set records of 5-4.  This meant that the tie-break came down to the percentage of games won.  Federer ensured he would go through by winning 44 from 80 games (55%), thanks in part to a couple of 6-1 sets in his wins against Verdasco and Murray.  Del Potro, the other man to make it through, won 45 out of 88 games (51.1%), knocking out Andy Murray, who had won 44 out of 87 games (50.6%).  If Federer had taken just 1 more game against Del Potro, Andy Murray would have been the one to make it through instead.  Just 1 game!

Though the conspiracy chatter has been relatively subdued (and mostly in jest), there are those who believe Federer tanked the last 3 games of his match against Del Potro in order to knock Andy Murray out of the tournament.

In the final set, with the score tied 3-3, Federer fell apart, losing 3 straight to end the match.  However, it was the way Federer lost those games that began raising eyebrows.  As a furious friend told me after the match in an email entitled “Federer is a disgrace”:

“I watched the entire match, and he played entirely different in the last 3 games.  He double faulted, charged the net kamikaze style (ala Andy Roddick) and got passed, dumped return of serves into the net…I don’t understand why he did it but he is not a sportsman.  So upset by this!“

I admit, it does sound a little far-fetched that Federer would do this, and even more far-fetched that he could purposely lose in a way that would knock Andy Murray out.  Nevertheless, the way in which Federer played to end the match is highly uncharacteristic, especially the way he botched his service game when down 3-4 in the final set to hand the match to Del Potro on a platter.

It is probable that before the match Federer and his team would have done some calculations to see what he and the other players in his group needed to advance (and remember that Murray’s game finished first).  Federer admitted that he knew he had to win the second set or else he would be knocked out (which explains his celebratory fist pumps after winning it 7-6). As he said himself:

“I knew I couldn’t lose in two sets because I knew that was going to knock me out.  That’s why I was very excited.”

However, if Federer did indeed make such calculations, then he must have also known that even a 0-6 third set would not have stopped him from advancing to the semi-finals.

Federer’s post-match words are somewhat telling:

“I asked Juan Martin myself at the net, ‘Did you make it or not?’  He said, ‘I don’t think so.’ … Of course, you got to feel sorry for the guy who didn’t make it.  At the same time, Del Potro beat the No. 1 player in the world in the group, and I guess also deserves to go through.  There’s only two places, and that’s the way it is.”

Notice how Federer had only questioned whether Del Potro had made it – which means he had no doubt that he had already made it through himself (ie confirms calculations were made).  And notice how he suggested that Del Potro deserves to go through (instead of Murray) because Juan Martin had beaten the ‘No. 1 player in the world’ (ie himself).  Maybe it’s just my imagination (and it’s not the image of Roger I want to have), but it’s not out of the realm of possibility, is it?

If Federer did indeed attempt to tank his match against Del Potro, even just a little, then I suppose you could say karma struck back.  With 12 straight victories against Davydenko, you could be forgiven for thinking the match was in the bag.  Who would have thought Davydenko would finally get him on try number lucky 13?

Movie Review: Julie & Julia (2009) November 29, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Blogging, Movie Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

When I first saw the poster for Julie & Julia, I literally went ‘meh’.  A drama with Meryl Streep and Amy Adams as the two leads?  I enjoyed Doubt (which they starred in together in 2008) but this so didn’t look like my type of movie.

However, I later found out that the film was about food.  And that it was based on not one, but two intertwining true stories.  And most of all, the book upon which the film was based arose out of a blog!  That was when the aspiring writer inside convinced me I had to watch it.

I don’t like to spoil the plot, but in this case it helps to provide a bit of background.  Julia Child (Meryl Streep) is a famous American chef and author (pardon my ignorance), and Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is an average woman who attempts to cook every recipe in her cookbook in a year while chronicling her experiences in a blog.  The movie somehow manages to switch seamlessly between the two women – Julia in the 1950s as she learns to cook and piece together her cookbook, and Julie in 2002 she develops her blog project into a web sensation.

So how was it?

Written and directed by Nora Ephron (who last worked on Bewitched in 2005, but also did Sleepless in Seattle), Julie & Julia is very much a relationship drama that seeks to appeal to a predominantly female audience.  The main male characters, Julie and Julia’s husbands (played by Chris Messina and Stanley Tucci, respectively), are portrayed as virtual saints who are completely devoted to their wives.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it made me wish there was more tension in their lives than just burnt stews in the oven.

To be frank, it still wasn’t my type of movie.  The stories of the two women were somewhat interesting.  The food appeared to be absolutely divine.  The performances were superb (as you would expect from Streep and Adams).  Some bits were quite humorous.  And yet, it didn’t do a whole lot for me.  It’s not that it was bland.  It’s just that I wasn’t as absorbed as I thought I would be.  Maybe it’s just me.

On the other hand, the inspiring climb to success of both women was pretty cool.  There’s just something about watching other writers ‘make it’ that gets me all excited.

So to sum it all up, a good movie, but not really for me.

3 stars out of 5!

Book Review: The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas November 28, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Book Reviews, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Fear not, religious nuts.  Atheists have not yet taken over the world.  Not yet, anyway.

Remember the infamous Atheist Bus Campaign that stirred up all that controversy at the end of 2008?  You know, the posters on the side of UK buses that said: ‘There’s probably no God.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”?  Well, Ariane Sherine, the creator of that campaign, has come up with yet another brilliant idea.

The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is a clever collection of 42 mini-essays about the birth date of Jesus Christ contributed by an assortment of well-known people from all walks of life.  Stand-up comedians, scientists, writers, journalists, filmmakers, cartoonists and bloggers.  And the one thing all of them have in common?  None of them believe in God.  Any God.

Now, I use the term ‘well-known’ loosely, as there are many names in the list that I’m sure many are not familiar with.  The ones people should at least recognise include Derren Brown (the illusionist who does all that freaky mind control stuff), Zoe Margolis (blog author of Girl with a One-Track Mind), Brian Cox (the physicist – though I erroneously thought it was the Scottish actor from X-Men 2), and of course, the most famous atheist of them all, Mr God Delusion himself, Richard Dawkins.

As for the names you don’t recognise, there is a helpful biographies section at the end.  Unfortunately, I didn’t know about this section until I got there.  A shame, because if I had read about who the authors are and what they do before reading their respective essays it would have put their words in the proper perspective  (potential readers take note).

The various essays are separated into categories: Stories, Science, How To, Philosophy, Arts and Events.  However, I think this was just to make things more manageable for the reader, as each essay is written so differently and touch on such a wide array of issues and themes that it would have been impossible to classify them with any degree of specificity.  The essays range from personal stories and experiences about how they lost their faith, to opinions on what Christmas means to them as an atheist; from complex scientific explanations to discussions on Christmas shopping, gifts, parties, music, film and literature.  You really do get a broad spectrum of views, as some authors were brought up as Catholics, some are Jews, while others were raised by atheist or agnostic parents.

While you may not find all the essays appealing or interesting, the good thing with having 42 different entries is that you can pick and choose what you want to read, and skip, skim or come back (or not) to the others.  The entries range from just a couple of pages up to 10 pages at the very most, so even if you skip a few completely, you won’t feel as though you’re wasting the book.

My favourite essay of the lot is by comedian Catie Wilkins, who wrote a hilarious yet heart-felt little piece called ‘110 Love Street’.  As a film lover, I also liked ‘An Atheist at the Movies’ by David Baddiel and Arvind Ethan David, who discuss everything from The Golden Compass to The Passion of the Christ to Contact.  Of course, the big names don’t disappoint either.  Derren Brown’s piece ‘On Kindness’ and Richard Dawkins’ original Christmas story ‘The Great Bus Mystery’ are both fabulously written and exceptionally well thought out.  Even if you don’t agree with where they are coming from you can at least marvel at their intellect.

I know many religious people will scoff at such a book (especially one with this title), but it is honestly quite harmless.  There is nothing grossly offensive to be found between the covers (unless you are a nutjob).  It can definitely be enjoyed by agnostics (referred to by Sherine as ‘eggnostics’) and non-self-righteous, open-minded religious folk (who aren’t crazy).  At the end of the day, The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is a funny, eye-opening read that turned out to be more educational than I could have imagined.  It would make a great gift for Christmas, especially since 50% of the overall total profit from the book goes to the Terrence Higgins Trust, the UK’s leading HIV and sexual health charity.  For religious fanatics who ‘refuse to read such nonsense’ (or are just too lazy to turn the page), the book is also available in audio format on iTunes.
4 out of 5 stars!

Movie Review: New Moon (2009) November 23, 2009

Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

 

New Moon, the second film of the Twilight Saga, is a solid sequel to a popular franchise.  It will no doubt please its hardcore fan base, but there’s also enough satisfy the casual film-goer (who (1) isn’t out to savage the film for the sake of it and (2) judges it in its appropriate context).  3.5/5 stars!

I have caught Twilight fever. 

Well, not really.  I am more intrigued by why the Twilight Saga has captivated so many people as opposed to the story itself.

And after watching the second movie in the Saga, New Moon, I must admit I still don’t really get it.  Is it the seemingly perfect love between a teenage girl and a vampire?  Or is it the fact that their relationship is dangerous and forbidden?  Or is it just because the vampire is (according to most sources) an incredibly hot dude?  Or is it all of the above?

I don’t know the answer, but what I do know is that New Moon is actually a pretty decent movie.  An average film overall, but in context, a fairly strong sequel.  In my humble opinion, it’s certainly not worthy of the 1-star status it has been receiving from some critics.  In any event, hardcore fans will undoubtedly lap it up and box office numbers should be strong simply from multiple repeat viewings from young girls (and from what I hear oldies too).

New Moon picks up from where Twilight left off, with teenager Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her dreamy, ‘perfect’ vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, aka ‘Rob Patz’) rolling in the bliss of love.  Those who have read the book will know what happens next, but I was quite annoyed with how the previews effectively show you the essence of the first half-hour of the movie and then reveals the major twists and secrets of the entire film!  If you’ve been lucky enough to avoid the previews then I’m sure you will find New Moon a more pleasurable experience.

There's lots of love in New Moon

Anyway, I will start with the bad.  New Moon is a film that first and foremost tries to satisfy the desires of its fans, and that means romance comes before everything else.  While this may be great for its target audience, the problem with this is that if you’re not into the romance then the film falls apart very quickly.  Or alternatively, the movie may start to feel boring and tedious.  There’s a mushiness to Bella and Edward’s relationship that only a limited section of the public can truly appreciate, and I can totally understand why viewers might be turned off by some of the painful dialogue (especially at the start) – but bear in mind that most of it is apparently reproduced verbatim from the novel.  Besides, dialogue is always less excrutiating on the page than it sounds on the screen.

New Moon also assumes that you know the story (or at least the first film) quite well.  There are several references to characters, abilities, relationships and specific incidents from its predecessor, and your recollection and knowledge of these things are somewhat taken for granted.  With my shocking memory, it did take a while for me to remember what the heck was going on.

There are also some things that weren’t explained very well by the movie which may or may not turn out to be gaping plot holes.  I’ll have to reserve judgment on that until I seek clarification from a genuine Twilight fan.  And there’s of course a few unintentionally funny bits simply because the film takes the whole vampire hierarchy thing so seriously.

And now the good.  At its heart, New Moon is a good story.  It might not be entirely original but there is a charm to it that makes it so appealing.  It’s almost entrancing.  For me, a big part of the film’s allure was the development of Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who is effectively the male lead in this one.  Apart from his amazing physical transformation (which prompted him to remove his shirt at every opportunity), Jacob’s emotional growth is also well-developed.  With the two lead characters (Edward and especially Bella) exhibiting selfish and unimpressive personality traits, Jacob becomes the character that viewers can empathise with the most.

Hello!

I may have said earlier that New Moon is heavy on the romance, but there was still plenty of room for action.  There were a number of exciting sequences littered throughout the film, most of them involving ample amounts of CGI.  I wouldn’t quite call New Moon an action film, but from what I can recall it has a lot more action than Twilight.  And the final climatic scenes were done much better in the sequel than the original.

Another strength of the film was its minor characters.  Again, with Bella and Edward being so serious about everything (as demonstrated by the constant heavy breathing from Kristen Stewart and the permanently pained expression on Robert Pattinson’s face), comic relief came in just the right doses from an assortment of other characters.  From the members in Jacob’s clan (Chaske Spencer, Tyson Houseman, Alex Meraz, Kiowa Gordon and Bronson Pelletier) to Bella’s friends Jessica (Anna Kendrick) and Mike (in terrific performance by Michael Welch) to Bella’s dad Charlie (Billy Burke) to the rest of the Cullen gang (in particular Jackson Rathbone as Jasper), almost every one of these minor characters hit the spot in their brief moments on screen.  On the other hand, unfortunately, the talents of Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning were criminally underused in their respective roles, leading to weird, comical appearances that just didn’t feel right.

At the end of the day, New Moon succeeds in what it set out to do, and that is to please its fan base.  For non-hardcore fans, I think there is still enough for an enjoyable experience.  There’s romance, friendship, action, suspense and a dash of timely humour.  What more could you ask for in what is, essentially, a teen flick?

3.5 stars out of 5!

[PS: For the record, I have read the first book, Twilight, and watched the corresponding film.  Both were okay, but neither did much for me.  It just felt a little too much - too saccharine for my liking.  But I could definitely see the appeal, especially to teenage girls.  As a result, I skipped the remainder of the books (including New Moon), but continued to be fascinated by all the hype surrounding it.  And I am looking forward to Eclipse, the next film in the series, especially as it will be directed by David Slade, director of Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night.]