Down The Rabbit Hole

Last year I watched a movie called "Rabbit Hole", starring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart. Last night, I went to watch a local production of the play "Rabbit Hole", on the same plot and theme. I am not a fan of local productions, even though I have seen a few good ones, but yet I like the local play more than the movie version!

Both the movie and the play is on a couple who have lost their son, their different ways of grieving and how they finally came to terms, or tried to come to terms, with it. Even though this is a story with only a few characters, the whole storyline is pretty good. While the movie version is more solemn, the play is more light-hearted, yet both versions are intellectual and intense. For a more detailed review, please refer to my book and movie blog.

Why the title "Rabbit Hole"? For both the movie and play versions, right at the end, when the main character talked to the teenager who accidentally caused her son's death in order to find closure, it was explained in a story the teenager wrote to dedicate to the dead son, that when his story characters fall into a rabbit hole, it is like going into a parallel universe, where anything is possible.

Hence for the mother dealing with her grief, she has to open up her rabbit hole to find a parallel universe where her son is happy, and she can finally come to a closure and move on with her life. Which is why the rabbit hole is the theme of the whole story, to be able to go in and find yourself again.

I wish I have my own rabbit hole to find too!

Midnight's Children

I do not normally watch Indian shows, even those in English, but those I have watched are pretty good, like Slumdog Millionaire, and Life of Pi. So when I saw that Midnight's Children is showing, I decided to watch. The book is written by the controversal author Salman Rushdie after all, so the story should be pretty good.

 

I went to watch the show last night, and it is really one of the best movies I have ever seen! The main character is named Saleem. He was born on the stroke of midnight on the day of India's independence, ie the day the British left India completely. Because of this, as he was growing up, he discovered he had special powers. His power was to bring together all the children born on the same day as him, between midnight and one in the morning, in the same room.

 

All these "midnight children" have special powers of their own, but Saleem's power is the strongest because he is the only one able to bring all of them together. Since he was born on the stroke of midnight, his powers would be the best. Those born nearer to midnight would have stronger powers than those born further away from midnight.

 

Unknown to Saleem, he was actually switched at birth, with a musician's son Shiva, also born at the stroke of midnight. The musician's wife was raped by a British guy, hence Saleem was fairer with sharper features than the other Indian kids. The nurse who switched the two babies to fulfil her lover's legacy of the rich being poor and the poor being rich. Saleem's parents are rich Indian Muslims, and the musician poor, so the poor boy was raised as a rich boy and the rich boy was raised poor.

 

This changes the course of the two boys' lives. Saleem grew up with all the riches, and the apple of his father's eye, but after an accident where it was discovered his blood type did not match either of his parents, his father resented him and he was sent away to Pakistan to live with his aunt and uncle, who was the general of the Pakistan's army. This happened during the split of India and Pakistan, where the Muslims in India went to Pakistan to fight for their own rights.

 

Years later, Saleem's parents also went over to Pakistan and he was fetched home to stay with them. His father never gave him the affection he used to receive, and when the nursemaid (who was the one who switched the babies) revealed the truth, she was thrown out of the family. His parents decided to accept him, and they never looked for their own child too.

 

After that, East and West Pakistan got involved in a civil war, with East Pakistan emerging the winner with the help of the Indian army, becoming Bangladesh. Saleem was drafted into the Pakistani army, but he was found lost and wandering in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh.

 

During the victory parade, he saw that Shiva, the poor boy who resented his poor life and hated the rich, was now second in command of the Indian army. He also met up with Pavati, the girl who told him about the midnight children in the first place. Her power is doing magic. She hid him in her invisibility basket and brought him back to India.

 

That was when he realised that the fates do intertwine. He was born to a poor family, switched at birth and brought up in a rich family, but yet now he was reduced to living in the slums. Whereas the boy who was born on the same day and same time as him, was originally born of a rich family, brought up as a poor family, yet now a big hero and having all the power he could dispose of.

 

Later on during Indira Gandhi's administration, she ordered that all the midnight children be disposed of, or made sterile so they would not breed, as she was led to believe that these midnight children who have since grown up would be the downfall of India. She and her son Sanjay also started clearing up the slum areas by bulldozing all the slum areas of India.

 

The movie ended with Saleem looking forward towards the future of a new India, and a newly born country who would rise up against all the politics and discrimination of the distinction of society.

 

I am not that familiar with Salman Rushdie's books, as I have only read one - Haroun and the Sea of Stories. But after watching Midnight's Children, I really want to read this book, as well as the other books that Salman Rushdie wrote. If the movie is this good, just imagine how much better the book will be!

 

This is the impact of a great movie - it makes me think, yet makes me cry and feels all huggy and fuzzy inside. I really recommend this show and the book too, for those who are interested!

Disappointing Oscars ...

So the Oscars are over, and I am really not pleased with the results! How can Argo win the Best Picture? There are so many better quality shows! Considering all the nominations, I would say Lincoln is the best, although Les Miserables is a close second. Even those shows that are not nominated, Hitchcock and Cloud Atlas are pretty good too!

 

So how did Argo even manage to win? Just because the state supports it? But a movie is a movie, and for an award of this scale, it should be on quality, is it not? I am not saying Argo is a bad movie, it is of pretty good quality too, but how is it better than Lincoln, or even Silver Linings Playbook?

 

As for the rest of the winners, I am pretty pleased that Anne Hathaway finally got her deserving Oscar. I am disappointed Hugh Jackman did not win though, but then since he lost out to Daniel Day-Lewis who is a living and breathing Abraham Lincoln, I have no complaints about that.

 

I hope next year's nominees and winners will be really based on quality and not politics. Hopefully the movies next year will be good too, as there have been a few times where the movies are quite disappointing and no real good Best Picture movie was shown. This year seems to be a good year for movies, and hopefully next year will be better!

Six Movies A Day

I always pride myself on being efficient. I can get many things done in a day, hence my office work is always done within half a day or a day the most, with hardly any spilling over to the next day. Even when I travel, I try to cover everything as much as possible within a day. My Australian relatives were so impressed because I actually covered most of Sydney (central, parks, waterfront, beaches, Eastern suburbs, red light district, northern district) in a day.

 

Even in my own life it is the same. I believe in being efficient and covering as many things as possible in a day. So for the past few weeks, I have gone crazy and dedicated one full day just to watch movies alone. In this way, I can watch all the shows I want to and spend the rest of the week doing other things.

 

Last Saturday I watched a record of six shows in a day at the same cinema. This is not the first time I watched an influx of shows, the last time I did that was some weeks back. People may wonder how in the world that can be achieved, but trust me, it is feasible. One just have to plan the timing and duration effectively.

 

A few weeks back, I watched The Sessions, The Grandmasters (Chinese show), Hansel And Gretel, The Tower (Korean show), Time No Enough (local show) and Zero Dark Thirty in one day. The first show was about a quarter to eleven in the morning, followed by twelve plus, then three plus, then five plus, then seven plus, and finally the last show was around half past nine at night. Hence I managed to reach home before midnight.

 

Last Saturday, I watched Les Miserables (again! For the fourth time!), Beautiful Creatures, The Last Stand, Journey To The West (Chinese show), Hitchcock, and finally Upside Down. All these are good shows in their own right. The first show was at eleven in the morning, then one plus, then five in the afternoon, then seven plus, nine plus and finally eleven at night.

 

To top it off, it is really enjoyable doing that! Okay, I think everyone can certify me as mad now, since no one else can ever do what I do. But this is the only way I can get to watch all the movies I want to watch. Being such a perfectionist as myself, I do not like to pick and choose, I want everything! So this is the only way I can get to watch all the shows I thought of watching!

 

Do bear in mind though that this is not for everyone, even though you can be great movie buffs. It is very tiring, and unless you can really sit through a movie theatre and go in and out, with hardly any breaks in between, otherwise just take it easy. I do not do that all the time as well, only once in a while, otherwise I myself cannot survive too!

More Oscar-Worthy Shows

After all my raving about Les Miserables being the best movie I have seen so far (which I have already watched it three times in the theatres), I have been watching other movies that are in the Best Picture nomination list, as well as some really good ones that are not.

 

I was actually disappointed about Argo winning Best Picture (Drama) during the recent Golden Globes, because there are definitely much better shows. I was happy that Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway and Les Miserables won for Best Actor (Musical / Comedy), Best Supporting Actress (Musical / Comedy) and Best Picture (Musical / Comedy), as I have been rooting for them all the way!

 

Ben Affleck's Best Director win came as a surprise though, in light of the stiff competition he was facing, but still, he did not do that bad a job with Argo. Unfortunately, he was not nominated for the Oscars. Neither was Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty), Tom Hooper (Les Miserables) and the one who did Cloud Atlas.

 

Perhaps this time round the competition is between Ang Lee and Steven Spielberg? Does that mean Life of Pi would win Best Picture? Or Lincoln? The French show Armour is not a bad contender too. However, I would think Lincoln (although I have not seen it) is a better Best Picture as compared to Life of Pi, but of course, I would still prefer Les Miserables to win!

 

In any case, I had watched Silver Linings Playbook, and even though it is a good movie on its own, somehow I do not think it is "Best Picture" material, although it is better than Argo. Cloud Atlas is another story though. First it is starring Tom Hanks, so one knows the quality of the movie is definitely something. And the plot is unique in the way it is structured.

 

Cloud Atlas is the kind of show that is not very obvious, but very thought-provoking. It is science-fiction yet deep in philosophy. Although the movie is long, at three hours which is longer than Les Miserables, I was watching every scene intensely and felt so solemn at the end because the message of the whole show really hit home.

Which is why I feel rather bewildered that it did not even make any nomination for any category of the Oscars, let alone the Best Picture. This is a way better show than Argo and Silver Linings Playbook, with fantastic makeup effects too! So how in the world did it not make any nomination?

The same goes for The Impossible. Okay, perhaps this is based on a true story, but it is a fantastic movie on its own. Again, it is a far better show than Argo and Silver Linings Playbook, and the only category it was nominated for was for Best Actress for Naomi Watts. What about Ewan McGregor? Should he not deserve a nomination at least, considering this is one of his most emotional shows as before?

 

Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained and Lincoln are yet to be shown here, but from the looks of it, seems like the most likely contender would be Lincoln. After all, this has the most number of nominations for this year, after Argo, which for some reason I cannot fathom, also seems to be nominated in just about every category. If Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained and Lincoln are just as good as all the hype is about, then Les Miserables is facing real stiff competition from the looks of it! This year's Best Picture is really going to be a tough fight indeed!

Amour ...

Today I watched two movies, "Won't Back Down" and "Amour". Amour is a French show, literally translated to "Love". It is a story of an elderly couple who have been married fifty years. They only have each other to fall back on since their only daughter is living overseas with her family, and only drops by to visit them once in a while.

 

When the wife suffered a stroke which left her paralysed, the husband took care of her, carrying her into her wheelchair, bringing her to the bathroom, bathing her, washing her, doing all the household chores. When she could no longer function normally and started wetting the bed, he engaged a nurse to take care of his wife, but the nurse was not gentle and he fired her for bullying a defenseless patient.

 

The whole show is on how he took care of his wife, even when his own health was failing and he could hardly walk properly anymore. The wife became totally bed-ridden and delusional, and she even lost sense of her own speech and was rambling on all the time. The husband did everything he could to comfort her whenever she went into any of her fits, by massaging her, telling her stories and giving her back her memories.

 

One day, he could take it no longer. After comforting her and calming her down, he took a pillow to smother her and she died. He then dressed her up and mourned her. Shortly after that, he died in his sleep too.

 

This is a really touching show beacuse it shows true love and commitment between a married couple. How often do people forget that a marriage last forever, and it is really for better for worse, in sickness and in death, in good health and bad, for richer and poorer, till death do them part? Chances are most people will run away at the first sign of trouble. I have heard people tell me that they have an agreement with their other halves, that if either of them fails in health, the one who is sick would just go to a nursing home, divorce and let the other half go on with his or her own life so they would not be a burden to the other.

 

But if you love each other, would it then really be a burden? Does marriage work that way, that if you become a burden, you just leave the person? Is marriage not supposed to be a full commitment, which means even if the other person is sickly and frail, you stay by the side and take care of the other person instead of leaving?

 

Of course, if both are sick at the same time, then that is a different story altogether. If I ever get married and my husband becomes bedridden for whatever reason, I would be the one taking care of him, no questions asked. Simply because he is the man I married, and it is my duty, obligation and perogative to be there for him when he needs. Similarly, I hope whoever I marry will think and feel the same way about me too when the time comes.

 

This movie reminds me of someone I know, who married his wife despite knowing she is sick, and after so many years and in and out of hospitals, he is still there by her side, taking care of her, loving her, comforting her, being with her. And it is still on-going as his wife still needs treatment, and he is still by her side, taking care of her. They have no children of their own because of her condition, but he accepts it and accepts her wholeheartedly. Whenever I hear of this, it really brings tears to my eyes, to see a man so committed and good, beacuse this is indeed love.

 

On the other hand, many men I know claim they love a girl and want to be with her, yet drop her the moment they find something a tad wrong with her, like she may be infertile, or quirky or chirpy or too outspoken for his liking. And here, I have a real life example of a man who marries his wife despite knowing how she is like and that he will never have a normal future with her but still went ahead.

 

It kind of changes one's perspectives, is it not? What is love then? Love is not being lovey dovey and sticky to each other. Love does not mean writing letters and declaring your love. Love does not mean being physically intimate. Love is much more than that. It is accepting the other person, warts and all, and being with the other person through thick and thin, no matter how the person may be and what the outcome may be, and at the end of the day, you are still with the person despite everything. That, to me, is true love. It is shown in the actions you do and not what you say.

The Musical That Ignited My Passion

I just came back from watching Les Miserables for the second time. I have been waiting to catch Les Miserables ever since I knew the movie was coming. It opened on Christmas Day, but I managed to catch the preview on Christmas Eve, and now I watched it again. Thank goodness I watched it on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day which I originally planned, since I got so sick during Christmas. Sometimes impatience do pay off as the reason I watched on Christmas Eve was because I wanted to catch it when it first came out instead of waiting!

 

And my verdict? It is an excellent show, by far the best movie of the year! I may be biased because I love the musical, but I find this movie version just as good, or even better, than the musical, except for a couple of actors who cannot really sing.

 

When I knew some years back that a movie of Les Miserables was in the works, and it would be starring Hugh Jackman, one of my favourite actors and my own version of sexiest man alive, I knew it would definitely be a musical. I have always loved to hear Hugh Jackman singing, and after Anne Hathaway proved she could sing too, I knew instantly this movie would be a hit.

 

And I am not wrong! It is a fantastic show from beginning to end! The songs, the emotions, the acting, all were perfect from beginning to end! Hugh Jackman as the prisoner 24601 aka Jean Valjean who atoned for his sins by being good, who met Fantine, took pity on her and promised to look after her daughter as his own, and later his own conflict when his adopted daughter Cosette fell in love with the student revolutionary Marius, and how he ensured Marius' life would be saved by bringing him to safety in the sewers, and his going away before Marius and Cosette's wedding so Cosette would never find out his true self.

 

But later on he prepared to die and joined Fantine upon his death. Marius took Cosette to see him before he died and beseeched him to come live with them as Marius was so grateful for him saving his life and giving him Cosette, but he refused and still chose to die.

 

Anne Hathaway as Fantine gave one of the most haunting and emotional performances of her career, with the unforgettable song "I Dreamed A Dream" sung to perfection. I am really rooting for these two to win Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively! Although I am not sure what other competition is out there, but so far as I can see, Les Miserables is a hot favourite to set to win Best Picture, and I really hope it does, as the rest of the movies I have watched this year is not of the same calibre as this.

 

So far I have been pretty accurate where Best Picture is concerned. Those who know me know I go for really intense and "artistic" films, movies where most normal people could not bear watching. Hence every year, my prediction of Best Picture is always on the best and favourite movie I have watched for the year.

 

For instance Forrest Gump. When I first watched the show, I fell in love with it, and now years later, it is still one of my ultimate favourite films of all time. It won the Best Picture and Best Actor for Tom Hanks.

 

When I watched Titanic, American Beauty and A Beautiful Mind, I knew that these would make Best Pictures, simply because they were the best shows I have watched for the respective year. I also predicted Kevin Spacey would win Best Actor for American Beauty and Rusell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind, which came true.

 

Same goes to Chicago, The Pianist, Slumdog Millionaire (although that year I tied it with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and The Artist. I predicted Chicago would win Best Picture although I do not think the actors and actresses were outstanding enough for Best Actor / Actress wins, and The Pianist would take Best Picture and a Best Actor win for Adrien Brody, which also came true. I also predicted the French guy playing The Artist would win Best Actor and The Artist would win Best Picture, because if someone can make a silent film this good, then it is one heck of a film and should go down as a favourite classic of all time.

 

The only time when my guess was wrong was in Avatar. However it won almost every other category it was nominated for, but lost the Best Picture to The Hurt Locker, which I also like, but to me, I find Avatar better. Black Swan did not make Best Picture too, although I predicted Natalie Portman would win Best Actress. But that year was a very good year for movies, and I was actually tied between Inception, Black Swan and The King's Speech, with the latter winning Best Picture.

 

So I really hope Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway would sweep Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress, and that Les Miserables would get Best Picture because so far for this year, the movies are not that impressive, although there are a few good ones, but none as fantastic as Les Miserables. Perhaps better movies are coming? After all the Best Picture nominated movies normally come around January and February in line with the Academy Awards, so perhaps there are better shows coming up?

 

Incidentally, Les Miserables was the very first musical I watched. I remember I was fourteen, and my parents brought me to watch the musical when it was running in one of the older theatres here. I was so entranced that I was glued to my seat and could focus on nothing except the musical. I love the songs, the plot and the character of Jean Valjean. It was because of this that I fell in love with musical theatre and performing arts and one of my dreams would be to be a perfomer myself, which I did for a brief time. I even sang "On My Own" duing one of my singing auditions.

 

Now watching this again, my passion is re-ignited. My passion for performing arts and musical theatre have never died, it was just buried somewhere, waiting to resurface. Perhaps I should take up singing and start performing again. And yes, I will definitely be watching Les Miserables again, as long as the movie is still showing. Now I cannot wait for the musical to come back!

Four Movies, One Musical, And One Ballet

In a matter of two weeks, I have watched four movies (more than that actually, but I am only going to speak on the better ones), one musical and one ballet. What an "achievement"! It has been so long since my time is filled with consecutive activities like this.

 

The first show I watched was of course "Life Of Pi", the 3D version. I must say, Ang Lee really managed to capture most of the description in the book. The movie followed as closely to the book as possible, including the last part where the Bengal Tiger story overrules. Even though like the book, the movie also lets us question which story is more true and whether is Pi just blessed or he really had a guardian angel, these questions are still unanswered no matter how many times I read the book or have now watched the show. But the essence of the story is that, people all chose to believe the more implausible story, simply because it sounds more amazing than the other one.

 

The second movie I watched was "Back To 1942", another China war show. This time, it was about the Henan famine in 1930s before the war when Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek was still in charge before he fled to Taiwan. It was a heart-wrenching story on how people escaped the famine, hoping for a better life, but yet it was nothing but an illusion. Many people died along the way. The government was not doing anything except pandering to the Japanese, they took the grain that was already scarce to the people just to feed the military, and when the people reached the border of the next province, they were turned away.

 

Mr Pianist himself was a war reporter who reported on the actual sitaution of the famine and how the local government was doing nothing or refusing to do anything. The article was published in Time magazine, and when it was translated by the Chinese press, Generalissimo Chiang suspended and closed down that particular Chinese publication and published another translated version that downplayed the actual famine situation.

 

When I watch biopics like these, it makes me feel so lucky to be born in this era. Yes, we may have no money and struggling to make a living, but at least we are not starving until we had to run away and die along the way, and eat anything, snakes, grass, cats, just to survive.

 

The third show was "Intouchables", a French show based on a true story about an invalid man in a wheelchair, and how he found his jolly life again after engaging a caregiver from the slums who let him view life from another angle, instead of the usual uptight aristocratic way. This is a really touching show which I hope would win Best Foreign Film for the Oscars next year.

 

The fourth show was of course "The Hobbit". The first part was on how the dwarves crashed into Bilbo Baggins' house, and how he followed them to try to retrieve back their kingdom. The movie followed the book closely, and Peter Jackson, again, showed his perfectionist streak by making all the sceneries and settings perfect. Many of the scenes look familiar as I visited the exact places and locations when I was in New Zealand a few years back.

 

The musical was "Jersey Boys", and it was above average at best. The story was on the beginnings of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, and even though the songs are great and I enjoyed them, somehow I find this musical overhyped by winning several Tony Awards, because it is not in the calibre of other musicals like Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables, which I am still waiting for the movie to be released!

 

The ballet was "Sleeping Beauty", a new version of the fairy tale. Even though it was a great ballet and this rendition was really good, I find the last part too draggy. The first part was on the three fairies, the witch and the curse on the new baby princess, and then the princess grew up and she was pricked and the whole palace fell into a deep sleep. 

 

The second part was on a hundred years later, the prince heard about the legend of the castle and he went to hack his way in, saw the princess sleeping, kissed her and she awoke. The third part was actually on their wedding and their coronation as the new king and queen, but a lot of unnecessary details like the individual dances of all the "guests" at the wedding, could be totally cut out. It made the whole ballet too long. The cherographer(s) should have just done the ballroom ballet, the couples' dance, and a few twists and turns, instead of doing every individual dance. 

 

Still it was a good rendition, although it was the longest ballet performance I have ever attended, longer than even Swan Lake. I believe the Dance Theatre was trying to showcase their performers' talents, but it kind of backfired because many people went off during and after the second interval and did not even come back for the final scene. I also saw many people going off during the final scene as it got too long.

 

All in all, I have had a great time seeing all these great films and performances! I think this is going to be a good Christmas ahead!

End Of The Pretty Vampire Saga

I just went to watch the last instalment of the Twilight series for the second time. The ending is a good conclusion to the whole series, and somehow I felt a sense of pity after finishing the show, because that is the end. It was just like Harry Potter, where I had to wait ten years for the ending.

 

I read the book series when the first movie came out. Within one week, I finished all four books. It is a good story on its own, although if I was say fifteen years younger, I would appreciate it more and go so starry eyed and dreaming of my own true love in the form of a good-looking, rich and romantic guy. Alas, reality strikes and now that I am this age, I have gotten more cynical.

 

I guess the story is so appealing because it is a deviation from the norm. Afterall, vampires are supposed to be like Dracula - evil, blood-sucker, kidnap maidens and gain more power. They are supposed to have no reflection, stay out of the sun, sleep in coffins, have pointed teeth and no red eyes. Vampires will be killed using a cross, stabbing through the heart and scared off by garlic.

 

Stephenie Meyer made vampires look so glamourous - pale skin, dark hair, red eyes, no pointy teeth, mirror reflections, no need to sleep and able to glow in the sun instead of burning. They do not eat, not scared by garlic, and nothing can kill them save for beheading. Somehow that reminds me of the immortal Highlander.

 

For people who are die hard vampire fans, these do not bode well for them as they believe in the traditional vampires. Hence, this would be a screwed up version of vampires. But this story, besides vampires taking the central stage, is essentially a love story. Shorn of the vampire and human status, it shows how true love prevails, how the guy would do anything to protect the girl he loves, how a man will put his family first at all cost.

 

And that is why it is so popular, especially amongst ladies. Every lady, no matter what age, deep down, she yearns for a man like that, someone who loves her and protects her, who cares for his family and someone who can withstand thick and thin for her. Which is why I felt it was a pity that the series ended.

 

Oh well.. I can always re read the books and start indulging in my own fantasies again!

Shows For The "Holiday" Season

I always like end of the year. Besides the fact that a new year is coming, hence new hope and new beginnings, there are always great shows around this period of time. Most of my favourite shows are around the holiday season, like "Love, Actually", which is now my staple routine for Christmas countdown. Not to mention the night lights, and the great food, feasting and partying.

 

This year, the Christmas countdown (for me at least) begins this weekend. So many great shows are coming, like the final saga of Breaking Dawn which brings an end to the entire Twilight series, which, by the way, is much better in the book series than the films.

 

Then there is Life Of Pi, which is one of my favourite books of all time. Okay, I have a lot of favourite books, but when I say "favourite", I rank it amongst the top fifty books that I like. I am really curious to see how the movie will turn out to be. The trailer shows lots of CGI, but since it is the great Ang Lee directing, I believe he may somehow make the story come to life.

 

There are also the two great "heros" of two of my favourite writers, Alex Cross, as created by James Patterson, and Jack Reacher, as created by Lee Child. Even though both of these Dan Brown contemporaries are not as good a writer as him, they write pretty good stories that are easy to read and keep the reader captivated.

 

And of course, the very first musical I have ever watched, which is now my second favourite musical of all time, played by one of my favourite actors-singers, Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables! This will be opening on Christmas Day. The trailer does not feature a lot of Hugh Jackman's singing, but I really cannot wait to hear him sing again! 

 

What makes this movie even more interesting is that all the actors have to sing live, as in accompanied by a live pianist, and instead of reciting the script, they sing out the whole script. Which means there is not much room for mistakes. Let us wait and see how those two Australians are going to pit against each other!

 

Speaking of musicals, there are also two musicals which I will be watching in December - Sleeping Beauty, technically not a musical but a ballet, and Jersey Boys, with their first ever show here. Hopefully they live up to their hypes too!

 

Hopefully this will be a very good end to the year, as compared to my disastrous year end last year and beginning of this year. As I said, a new year, a new hope and a new beginning!

A Capella A Capella

I just came back from watching "Pitch Perfect", and it is a pretty good, albeit comedian, show. Essentially, the show is about a group of college all female a capella singers trying to win the prize which they lost so humiliatingly the previous year.

 

The show is a rather run-of-the-mill kind of show, but what strikes me is the singing. All the actors can sing! That is really something. Many a times, we get people who can act but cannot sing, and vice versa. The notable exceptions are Hugh Jackman, Neil Patrick Harris and Anne Hathaway, who by the way, will be with Hugh Jackman in the upcoming "Les Miserables" which will open here on Christmas Day, and I really cannot wait for it!

 

The actors and actresses of this show all sing a capella, which is much harder than normal singing. In normal singing, one follows the rhythm and just let the words flow along. But in a capella singing, it is without accompaniment, which means the voices have to be the instruments, backups and vocals all at the same time. This is not an easy feat, and only a really talented singer who keeps good beat, rhythm and with great pitch can achieve that.

 

This show makes me want to sing again! I have not sung for a long time, save for the once in a while karaoke sessions. Ever since I stopped performing, I have not really sung and I think my vocals have turned rusty. In fact, I do not know if I can even carry a tune anymore!

 

However, I am not one to sing a capella, because I do not think I have perfect pitch. I guess I just have to make do with singing normal songs, although a capella sounds so much more interesting and fun to sing, because you can really play with the songs and stream a medley just by your voices alone!

What Constitutes A Good Director?

I just came back from watching Skyfall (check my thoughts here), and I love it! This is a different James Bond altogether, but being directed by Sam Mendes, one can expect it to show more of the artistic aspects of the show than any real action. But Sam Mendes did a really good job. He is one director that I like, after his work on "American Beauty", which is one of my favourite movies of all time.

 

Which makes me think, what constitutes a good director? A good director, in my opinion, is someone who is able to capture the essence of the show, brings out the amazing storyline, and makes the movie in such a way that it not only captures the audience, but also gives them a feelgood or reflective feeling about the show.

 

Of course, the opinions differ. Some would think a good director is someone who can come up with action after action after action. Some would think a good director is someone who can come up with scary movies after scary movies (think about the "Paranormal Activity" series). But to me, I think a director who can actually come up with the artistic effects of the show is a much better director because it is the artistic effects that make the show really good, and anyone who can do that is what differentiates between a mediocre director and an excellent one.

 

Like Sam Mendes. "American Beauty" is a simple storyline. Some people would think it scandalous. But the way he made the movie made the show so beautiful, the characters so conflicted yet so real. And that is the whole beauty of the show. Hence "American Beauty", not the beauty of the Mena Suvari's character, whom in my opinion, is not even that pretty in the first place.

 

What about Ron Howard, whose shows never fail? Even though he is not that an artistic director, his shows are normally more dramatic and intense. Just think "Ransom", "Apollo 13", "A Beautiful Mind" and "The Da Vinci Code". And Robert Zemeckis, whose "Forrest Gump" is still my favourite show of all time, not to mention his "Back To The Future" trilogy, and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? Even Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and James Cameron, whose shows I will defintiely flock to watch, because these two directors never fail.

 

I have realised that good directors make good shows. Those names above, their shows never fail. In fact, it is good that Ron Howard ventured into directing because I think he makes a much better director than an actor. Hence before any show comes out, I normally see who the producers and directors are. By going with good names, chances are the shows will not let you down.

 

A couple of years back, I went to watch the new version of "The Three Musketeers", where Milla Jovovich is one of the stars. I had a feeling the show would not be good, because it was directed by Paul W. S. Anderson, the guy who directed "Event Horizon", which to me, was the worst show I have ever watched in my life. And I was right! This rendition of "Three Musketeers" was not impressive! I much prefer the older version with the famous song by the threesom - Sting, Rod Stewart and Bryan Adams.

 

There are many good directors around. Those I mentioned are just the creme de la creme, but there are many others who make pretty good shows too. Like Joe Wright, the director who did "Atonement", "Pride and Prejudice" and the upcoming "Anna Karenina". What about the directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, the husband and wife team who did "Ruby Sparks" and "Little Miss Sunshine"? Most directors have their own style and genre, and after one or two shows, one can easily recognise which director goes with which style.

 

Problem is, how to discern? Well, it is easy if you are a movie buff. Sometimes the style of the show looks very similar to another show you have watched, then chances are, it is by the same director or producer. And it is all up to the individual which style you prefer.

The Words Of Atonement

I went to watch "The Words" last week, and it is one of the best shows I have seen in recent years. This show reminds me of "Atonement", as the theme is similar. Both shows focus on a writer, who use words to tell the truth, and atone for what they have done.

 

"The Words" is actually a story within a story. The opening scene is on a writer talking about his new book. In his new book, he told of a young struggling writer who wanted to get something published. Unfortunately, a few years and two manuscripts later, his works were still rejected for publication, even though the publishers all said he wrote well and the story was good, but just not marketable.

 

One day, he came across a briefcase with a manuscript written by someone. He was so haunted by the story of a young soldier in the second world war dedicating the story to his wife and recently-deceased baby daughter, that he wanted the words to flow out of himself. So he went to retype the manuscript on his own typewriter. When his wife came across that story on his typewriter, she was so moved that she urged him to get the manuscript published. Unwilling to disappoint his wife and knowing this would be his big break, he did not reveal that he was not the original writer.

 

His book became a sensation and overnight best-seller. Due to the popularity of this new book, his previous manuscripts were also published. That book allowed him to win the New Letters Of The Year award. The next day after receiving an award, he came across an old man who was revealed to be the original writer of the story.

 

The writer was so crest-fallen and guilty that he confessed of his plagiarism to his wife. He then went on to confess to his publisher, who told him things like that do happen and he just had to ride on his new-found success, as if not because of this book, he would never be a published writer. Hence, he had to live with his guilt, especially after finding out the other manuscripts he wrote were not of the same standard as the first that was published.

 

So the new writer went to find the old man and wanted to give him his proceeds of the royalties. The old man refused and said it was enough to see his words in print, and that he did not tell him the truth to gain anything, but just to let him know the background of the story. Shortly after, the old man passed away, and the new writer did not have the chance to atone for what he did.

 

Back to the opening scene. It is now revealed that the writer talking about the book is none other than the young writer himself, but now middle-aged and with several best-sellers to his name. He decided to write this book to tell the truth and to atone for what he did. Of course, people thought it was all fiction. It was implied that he and his wife never did recover from the deception and their marriage fell apart, and even though he became rich and successful, he never got over the guilt of publishing someone else's work in the first place.

 

Just like "Atonement". The writer in the show never got over her guilt of what she did to her sister and the man she loved. Unfortunately, she never did manage to make amends, as both died during the second world war and never had the chance to get back together. She became a famous writer, and in the end she published her final book entitled "Atonement", hoping to alleviate her guilt towards what she did.

 

Both shows are good in their own ways. "The Words" may sound complicated, but it is actually a very simple movie and quick to understand. And that is why it makes the show so good because it is such a simple, albeit fantastic storyline. Nothing complicated, no extra characters. Just a simple plot and great acting. And that is why it is one of the best shows I have watched in recent years.

Do People Not Watch Movies Anymore?

I was at one of the most popular cinemas today and the counter was practically empty. I attributed it to being early, as it was only eleven on a Sunday morning, but I remember normally around this time the last time I was there, the queue was already quite long.

 

When I went back again around three in the afternoon, there was still no queue. And I managed to get my Sunday discount from my mobile service provider, even at three in the afternoon, when normally, the discount would no longer be valid as it would have met its quota by twelve noon.

 

The emptiness of the cinema made me wonder, do people not watch movies nowadays? Is downloading the only way to go, that they are killing off the movie business?

 

Of course I know it is so much cheaper to just download than to spend S$10.00 on a movie ticket. But downloading a show is not the same as actually watching a show in a theatre. Afterall, what can the laptop or computer screen give you that a big screen with fantastic sound system cannot?

 

I much rather watch movies in a theatre with the big screen, sound system and all the trailers, than to watch on a small screen with poor sound at home. Having said that, if I really like the show, I would not mind watching the downloaded version again, but the first time I watch a show, it would always have to be in a movie theatre before I can assess how good the show actually is.

 

Watching a show in a movie theatre is simply more conducive than watching it at home or on someone’s screen. But then again, this is just my own preference.

Charity Movie Event

Today my company organised a charity movie event for its adopted charity - Club Rainbow. Those of us who were attending were released from work early and we went to the cinema to catch the show with the kids. We were told we could claim for cab fares and there was also a free bucket of popcorn and a Coke.

It was the special screening of "Rango", the tale of a lizard who became a hero and saved the rest of the lizards in some old Western town when their water supply runs out. Johnny Depp voiced the main lizard character, and besides the animation and all the characters happen to be lizards, the action and story line is actually quite similar to the recent "Cowboys and Aliens" that I watched.

This is not normally the kind of movie I would watch, but since it is for charity and a company initiative, I do not mind. At least the kids had a great time, due to all the childish laughter going around!

Is Human Cloning Ethical?

We went to watch the movie "Never Let Me Go", based on the book by Kazuo Ishiguro, about a group of school kids who were cloned and brought up to be organ donors to "real" humans. I had mixed feelings after the show. No doubt the book is good (the author has his own style of writing that one either gets it or does not get it), and the movie captured the essence of the book, but still, the show left me wondering if it is even ethical to clone?

Just about a decade ago, there was a sheep who was successfully cloned, and she even had lambs with a male sheep. Since then, scientists have been trying to clone other things, most recently, humans. In the show, these "clones" are considered "duplicates", second class to the "originals", hence it is their organs who would be used to save "real" humans. Most of these "clones" could only have three organ donations before they themselves die off.

It is possible to defer the donation, provided one becomes a carer (caregiver to the donors), but even then, that would only be deferred for a couple of years the most. Once the donors are dwindling, the carers would be called upon to become donors.

Upon watching this show, I could not help but express my anger at the society that made these clones, giving them hope when young but actually they have no hope because they would all serve a purpose and die at a young age.

Which led me to the question : Is it even ethical to clone a human to take their organs, because "real" humans would not want to donate their organs? If we are to create a life, then should the life not be treated as a normal life, instead of a low-class duplicate? Afterall, I believe Dolly got all the care and concern from her "owners" before she passed away. No one used her to experiment on other sheep.

As of now, there has not been any human clone, as the DNA for humans are too complicated to make cloning successful. It is a relief though. In the near future, who knows, with society progressing the way it is and science and technology advancing everyday? But for now, I truly hope and pray that there will not be anyone trying to play God and create a "super" human, because that is going against nature and to me, I always feel being natural is the best.

An Alternative Family?

I have heard raving reviews about the show "The Kids Are Alright", so decided to watch it today. Since we both had a day off from work to "recover" from the intense cycling the day before, we went to watch the show.



The show is essentially about a lesbian couple (played by Annette Benning and Julianne Moore), with two children, a son and a daughter. The daughter was borne of Annette Benning (who wears the pants in the family) and the son was borne of Julianne Moore (who is the typical dependent wife). The girl just turned eighteen, so her brother asked her to seek out their biological father (as both mothers took from the same sperm donor).



What struck me about this show is not because of the prominent homosexual themes throughout the show, but that children brought up into an "abnormal" family are still able to grow up normal, intelligent and well-behaved. Or maybe because they are in a family of two mothers, hence the maternal instinct and upbringing are of double dose?



With all the values of a "normal" family consisting of a father, mother and children, this makes me wonder in this case, why are there so many problems of juvenile delinquency, extramarital affairs, divorces and children being neglected and abused? Comparatively, the family in the show is rather wholesome.



Of course, one of them started an affair, as she felt under appreciated by her partner. She wanted some excitement and appreciation. And when her partner found out, she was very upset and angry, threatening the peacefulness of the family. But at the end of the day, the one who had an affair ended it and apologised to the whole family, saying that marriage itself is hard work, and that she just wanted to be appreciated.



How I can relate to that! I believe just about every wife can relate to that! Of course I am not saying one should have an affair because one feels under appreciated, but at least even in this "alternative" family relationship, everyone still faces the same problems as a "normal" family.



And family really matters! At the end of the day, they still love and forgive you, and leave things be in the past. That is what a family should be, let alone a husband and wife or a wife and wife or a husband and husband relationship. Once you choose to be with someone, you are committed to make things work, warts and all.



Now I understand why this show has such good reviews because it is a rather refreshing show as compared to the norm.

You've Got M@il! - Redux

In my insomniac state, I started watching all the movies which I loved. Then I came to this movie - You've Got M@il!, starring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. I first came across this when I was a university freshman. That point in time, emails were still new and schools were still experimenting with them. There were not any web-based email accounts and the account my dad applied for was by a service provider which was then shared amongst everyone in the family.

So the thought of finding love through email was a novelty. I grew up during the time where writing letters is a form of getting to know people. Actually, I still believe in the old-fashioned way of writing letters, I just find that so much more personal than writing a mere email.

But nowadays it is very common to use email since you get instant reply and need not wait days or weeks for others to reply you, you save money on postage, paper and stationery, and so many people have met through online portals, chatlines, emails and even social networking sites. In fact, if you tell people now that you write and exchange letters, people will only stare and jeer you in the face.

But somehow, posting on a Wall, sending an email and connecting through pokes and messages does not feel the same as actually writing a letter. It is just so much more personal. If someone actually bothers to source for beautiful stationery, put pen to paper, think about what to write and mail it out or hand me personally, this kind of effort is commendable.

Unfortunately, most people nowadays take the easy way out and just sit behind their computers and send out a mail. Granted that one needs to think when typing out an email too, but then these are just type-written words. Nothing beats the sincerity of a hand-written word.

Of course emails are convenient. You can send photos, attachments, even jokes and messages at just the click of a mouse, all without needing to pay extra postage and using an extra envelope. But when the person receives your email, what then? How would you know whether the person is smiling, laughing, angry, sad or touched? I would want to see the person's face when I send him or her a touching email, a personalised message or just a normal joke or something that can cheer someone up.

Nevertheless, emails are an important tool in today's communication. Without emails, businesses can never be as efficient nor do things as quickly. Emails has got to be one of the greatest invention ever, but to me, still nothing beats writing letters because that is just so much more personalised, especially writing to a loved one and expressing very private and intimate thoughts which can only be shared with a special someone.

Demon Possession?

"The Rite" is a true story about demon possession, and how a young sceptical priest-in-training had to believe before he could successfully exorcise the demon. At the end of the credits, it was stated that out of all the priests in the United States, only less than ten percent are exorcists.

Is demon possession really possible? Under what circumstances do one get possessed by the devil or evil spirit? Here, we have a series of books known as the "True Ghost Stories", but just how many of the stories are really true, no one actually knows. If anything, I believe those stories are more to entertain than to scare.

There used to be a very scary show called "The Exorcist". This was during my parents' era. I remember years ago, there was the tenth or so anniversary of "The Exorcist" and the cinemas were showing that movie again. I asked my parents to bring me to watch the show, and my mum absolutely forbade, citing the reason that it is too scary and will bring untold damage to my mind.

My boyfriend told me when he was watching "The Exorcist", his flat actually shook, as if there really was something there. His is a Catholic house, and maybe that is what saved him. Since then, he never touched that show ever again.

A few years back, there was the Novena exorcism saga. A lady who claimed to be possessed, asked one of the priests in the Church of St Alphonsus (otherwise known as the Novena Church), to perform an exorcism. I am not sure what entailed, but this case became a big case because the priest was sued for wrongful exorcism which triggered off emotional damages. The case went to court and during the few days' hearing, many Catholics went to sit in for the trial.

If I am not mistaken, I believe the court ruled in favour of the priest, as there was no evidence that the woman was really possessed, or she was just faking all her actions. Which makes me wonder, how is there going to be any evidence of demon possession? Do you have to fly or crawl on the ceiling or turn your head a full circle before people are convinced?

I shudder to imagine what a real demon possession will be like. I hope never to come across things like this in the course of my life!

Friends ... With Benefits

I just came back from watching the show "No Strings Attached". It is a romantic comedy about two kids who met each other in camp during their teenage years, and then happened to meet again ten years later, and then saw each other again a few years after that, which was when they started a "friends with benefits" relationship - seeing each other whenever they felt like a romp.

However, the guy started taking things seriously and wanted to really be with her, but she was afraid of being hurt, hence kept rejecting his advances and his feelings. Finally he could take it no more and told her he could not see her anymore since they were on different paths, but when he was out of her life, she really missed him very much and decided to chase him back.

Of course, in a movie, there will mostly be a happy ending. But in real life, do "friends with benefits" actually work? It probably may not work for a girl, but it sure is no problem for a guy. Afterall, many guys I know have no qualms sleeping around and not be tied down. Of course it does not matter to a guy, he is not the one who will have his emotions triggered, he does not need to be the girl's boyfriend, does not need to take responsibility, and yet still have a healthy amount of sex anytime he likes. Which guy will not like this?

But not so to a girl. I will not say for all because I believe there are many girls who sleep around without feeling guilty as well. But generally, if a girl is to sleep with someone, it normally means she loves him very very much and trusts him explicitly to yield herself totally to him. All the more so if she is a virgin and agrees to lose her virginity to the guy, he must be someone she really feels she can depend and rely on.

Unfortunately, guys simply do not think the same way. They deem it a conquest to be able to get a girl to bed him, especially if she is a virgin. They then get their egos boosted up, throw her aside after she yields and go on more conquests. In other words, they totally lose their interests in her after they have had their fun, without caring the trauma, depression and feelings of betrayal the girl will feel.

What is it about men that they seem to find it a fetish to destroy a girl's life like that? Do men think we are not humans with emotions, but objects of their fancies and desires, to be played with and then thrown aside once they tire of us? Or that they are gods where we have to kowtow to and go according to their schedules and sleep with them whenever they summoned?

It is hard to find a guy who is willing to take the responsibility to a girl in this day and age. Most like to play around and have fun, without caring whether the girl feels the same way. To them, if they feel they cannot progress anymore, they just disappear, but they have never once considered the impact on their actions to the girl in question.

Are we females forever subjugated to what our male counterparts want? Then it is very sad indeed, that in this modern day and age, there is still no equality of the sexes and men still think girls have to submit to whatever they want and do whatever they like to us.

We live in a sad world indeed.