One for the "no.12"
One for joining dance
One for Chinese A2
One for IB
One for the Vendetta saga
One for the love of dance
One for the bboying
One for my friends and family who helped me through

Labels: resolutions, reviews

Made of Honour is a romantic comedy featuring Michelle Monaghan and Patrick Dempsey. And yes you're thinking why im so free and im so free now cos later is a massive stayover and drinking session JEAH CANT WAIT! so since i've watched many movies so far let me go review some of them.

I've watched this movie twice. First is with Victoria at starbucks (i forgot how on earth we ended up there tht nite haha), and second was with Lucy, Mish and Victoria at Lucy's house after prom. I thought that i watched it twice, enough to be familiar with the show.

Basically it's centralled on the protagonist Tom Bailey (portrayed by Patrick Dempsey) and his relationship with his friend for over a decade, Hannah (portrayed by Michelle Monaghan). They were best friends and were shown to have a deep knowledge of each others' likes and dislikes, a unparralleled understanding towards each other although their lifestyles are vastly different: Tom is a player (though he had never had sex nor a relationship with Hannah), Hannah is a typical office-woman with a steady career looking for an equally steady relationship. They both have a unspoken and undiscussed and unexplored and unprobed romantic attraction to each other, but since they are friends they rather label themselves as that and go no further (this is portrayed by them in the movie before Hannah leaves). But Hannah takes a 6 week leave to go to Scotland for her job. And during this absence, Tom discovers that there was no one who could match Hannah the way she was and how well they could click with each other. But when Hannah returns he discovered she's engaged to a Duke called Collin and Hannah asks him to be her Maid of Honour. through a series of attempts and disappointments, he finally manage to win Hannah back from the man she was engaged to. Sorry for the long description, but I needed to explain it or else it will sound stupid.

First off, the story in general was good, well discussed and taken a good approach on focussing on Tom's problems and every action he takes to win Hannah back. The portrayal, too was excellent. It was the last 30 minutes of the show where it really showed. Monaghan's portrayal was downright accurate, Dempsey's acting constantly brings to mind his dillema and troubles ahead of him. The facial expressions and interactions between these 2 characters were excellent. you can literally write them in words like "why the hell am i kissing you im engaged and i shouldnt be doing this but i really love you but i cant think this way".

The entire film is centralled on the intially-independent-but-in-fact-interelated internal conflicts within and between Tom and Hannah. And of course, the friendly-but-flawless sidekick Collin. Characterization was colorful and varied, making it exciting and engaging. The slow change of Hannah's opinion towards Tom is sufficiently arranged, and the element of rivalry, though not superbly developed, was enough to appeal to the emotions and make it funny.

But talking about the story again, although it gains credibility by the sufficient presentation of the background between Hannah and Tom, it wasn't very realistic at the end as it comes off as too abrupt and a little too much of a comedy. Up to the point where Hannah and Tom kissed in the bar, the realism was high enough, but when Tom barged in to tell Hannah he loves her, though it is sweet and puts a fullstop, it put the fullstop when it word isnt complet. That i felt could have been better.

But in sum, this movie, i thought was a good movie, in a sense that it suceeded it's take as a romantic comedy really well. Though lacking in some parts, directing and portrayal made up for it. The emotional journey this movie takes the viewer across is realistic and heart-wrenching. And it does give the audience a new perspective on love and relationships. I would recommend this movie. But if you're a very emotionless person, you'll probably not like it very much cos you're distracted about the incredibility of the last part.

Genre: Drama
Sub-Genre: Romantic Comedy
Cinematography: 4/5
Dark at the right times, light at the right times. with the camera constantly moving, it keeps it upbeat and somehow shows the development of Tom.
Portrayal: 16/20
It isn't like Christian Bale in American Psycho or something. But the portrayal in this movie is something which made this movie look very realistic. If the acting and script isn't up to this standard, this film won't score well under the story section. Dempsey's and Monaghan's portrayal are able to make the reader feel and connect with the reader emotionally really well.
Directing: 13/20
The artistic and dramatic aspects of the play, including music. The three weddings were accurate and very distinctive. The monitor of the scripts and environment is good to make it convincing. The ideas brought about in the film made it damn funny at times. However, the chain of event which follow appear to be too abrupt, more effort should be put to make it more convincing and understandable.
Story: 15/25
Emotionally, this thing is powerful. It scores high on the area, but in terms of intellectuality, i mean, the intellectual relatability of the story, it suffers. However, there is sufficient development of the character and conflicts, and that pushes up the score again. But again, a lazy and inadequately barren finale deflates emotional build-up. In general, a sufficient story.

Total: 48/70
or
68.5%

Labels: reviews

back to reviewing movies. and one of the movies i've watched recently is: just a kiss. Basically, this is the movie description I read on the programme information on cableTV: "a simple kiss between a couple led to the breaking up of friendships and relationship, causing them to find comfort in the hands of strangers. Can they go back to when it's 'just a kiss'?" The show starts at 2am and ends at 3.45pm. And i thought it was about 2 people who like love each other but made a mistake and now are trying to salvage everything. But it's nothing close to that level of depth. It's just as simple as it seems. Take that description totally literally.

The plot is centralled on the consequences on this tight-knit group of friends, Halley, Dag and Peter, due to Dag 'accidentally' kissing Peter's girlfriend Rebecca and ended up having sex. Halley broke up with Dag. Peter is emotionally wounded. Rebecca, out of remorse, gives Halley her room keys. While staying there, she meets Andre a Cellist and had sex with him. Meanwhile, Peter meets Andre's wife Colleen on a plane and they kissed. But because later Peter decided to use the phone to call Rebecca, the plane crashed. Rebecca who had always had emotional problems hears Peter's final words and kills herself. However, peter isn't dead. He is seen on national TV as one of the 2 survivors, the other being Colleen. Colleen is shown in the same news channel to be knocked down by a firetruck in a somewhat comical and dramatic fashion. While all these happened, Dag, who is also remorseful hung out at a bar while he hooks up bartender Paula and was about to have sex, when Paula kicked him off her balcony and he ends up in hospital.

While these 3 are in hospital, Colleen dies from her accident, Rebecca dies from drug overdose because Paula wanted to get rid of her (her real crush is on Peter), and Dag was frightened to death by Paula. Finally the movie rewinds to the scene where Dag only kisses Rebecca but resists sex, thus it's "just a kiss". And resultantly, the consequences were nothing that severe.

Well as a whole you can see that the plot is very happening. But it is amongst the most superficial plots i've known. It was unexplained, uninspired and unnecessary. The idea could have been much more understandable and relatable without the effects they used, with better cinematography and use of music. There seems to lack serious drive in the movie, with narrative drive coming mainly from the quick sequence of events and complexity of break-ups and adultery instead of the expectation of the audience. The movie have failed to appeal to people as a medium of influence, as a emotionally and intellectually altering tool (logos, ethos, pathos). The disconnection between the media and the audience is mostly because of the unrealism of the plot. Though such stuff may happen, the sequence of events make people go "so what?" after the movie. Unfortunately, the acting, atmosphere and ambience did nothing to make it better.

The characters, though, are distinct but flat. Distinctions of character bring through the different courses Halley, Dag and Peter take. But the acting was just enough to make the cut for the character distinction (that isnt a compliment). Although the movie plans to show the adverse consequences on friendship and relationships after even a mistake of kissing someone you shouldn't, the plot goes in a continuous lateral spiral which ends with uncertainty and inconclusion.

Genre: Drama
Cinematography: 3/5
Because camera angles aren't that important in drama, the requirements are bit lower. It has sufficient camera angles professionalism some of the time, right choice of ambience, but poor lighting.

Portrayal: 7/20
Actress portraying Halley did OK. Actor acting Dag was crap, even i could do it. that's how bad it is. Actor portraying Peter was like below average. Actress portraying Rebecca was little lower than average. The script does not escalate the element of tension and conflict, nor does the body language shown in the acting. But it's not the worst portrayal i've seen, so, i'd give it a 7.

Directing: 5/20
The artistic and dramatic aspects of the play, including music directing. Firstly, superficial stories can only go so far right? Secondly, a lack of drive, an insufficient script. Disconnected series of events which go linear at the end don't work out also. The switching between characters and the story makes it look like a joke and decreases the value of the film sadly. The use of the 'fade out to matt drawing' effect looks nice but wasn't complimented with other elements (it didn't make it worse, nor does it make it better, but since it's unnecessary, it's bound to worsen it). Finally, there is a lack of atmosphere and feel and thus expectation and effect on audience is severely limited.

Story: 3/25
Since it's a drama, I've increased it to a 20 to rate a emotionally, intellectually engaging and influencial story. To achieve this, films must have credibility, realism, relatability and must develop the central idea with enough width and depth. However, although it has a good direction, it fails in realism and relatability. The series of events were badly portrayed and these events were just too unrealistic. It may have been a comedy, but this show IS a joke. It has a little bit of relatability because lust, as we know, is a common problem. The development was very wide but haywire at the same time. The unrealism, and undependable development nake this an incredible film lol.

final score: 18/70
or
25.714%

Other scores:
IMDB: 52%
RottenTomatoes: 19%

psst. a part of me died when i saw the imdb ratings.

Labels: reviews

When I knew of the title a year ago, I was trying to predict the central themes, purpose and setpiece in the story and in the director.

Well, that aside,

It's completely ownage. Definitely worth multiple trips to the theater.

Labels: reviews

Just finished watching spiderman 3. Despite rave reviews from friends who've watched it, I don't really stand with them on this one. But this' not to say spiderman 3 is not worthy of the $890 million US$ it brought in.

It has an intended drive to the story, very apparent and obvious, great ideas in this story. Spiderman meets the next 2 nemeses, Harry and Sandman. From this, S3 is one of the most intense action films I've watched.

Aside the webs and surfboards, the blackie and the beach, this episode lets us further explore the character of S3, and the main theme of: choice, put forth clearly and successfully in this movie. There are constant efforts by the director to create emotional upheavals, and to some extent, successful, to some extent, with doubt. The fights are, again, terrifically fantastic, unrivaled, and extremely engaging, just as S1 and S2 are. But a little bit more.

However, the script was, in my opinion, unqualified, and I'm really quite surprised that it's the same scriptwriter in S1 and S2, in some places, was unconvincing. The direction was sufficient, but not fantastic, artistic elements are few, most told to you in the face. Maybe this is what's expected of action movies. Although I found the script loose, it's nothing compare with the likes of DOA (you should watch that and get a laugh).

Well, the acting was fine, not so much of acting is required in an action movie. What's fine is I mean, just enough. Tobey, Kirsten, James doing good jobs on normal sequences. But one thing to note is that when it's time for tears, all were great, Tobey, definitely was the best at doing tearful scenes. His double-portrayal as the black Pete and normal Pete was, good. Yea, good to be convincing enough. Come on, it's an action movie, acting is not as important as they are in dramas, biographies, thrillers, love stories, but having good ones are definitely better.

Efforts for character development is fine, but could have been better. The sound was OK. But not fantastic and stuff. Well in general this movie is OK, or a little more than OK. So, here it is:

Cinematography: the choice of camera angles, lighting, is unrivaled. Unarguable, period.
Portrayal: As I've said, acting was OK, but script is not, acting was like a 7/10, script is like a 6/10
Directing: Artistic aspects (fights and stuff) are great, but storytelling through artistic creative aspects are abit of a letdown. I mean, more could be done. Like, the setting of mood and atmosphere isn't very good. They are very important in storytelling. The story was sadly unengaging to me noticeably in some parts. The sequence of events is not really there.
Story: Simple theme of choice told in a bombastic manner. Well there's bit of digression, the ok-but-not-excellent development of central character obviates the full potential of story's development.

Cinematography: 10/10
Portrayal: 9/15
Directing: 12/20
Story: 10.5/15

All in all: 69.2%.

Now let's see what rotten tomatoes, and imdb say:
Rotten: 61%
Imdb: 66%

The next movie I'll be reviewing is the dark knight, oh and it's a time to check out my favorite actor Christian Bale! I heard that there's not one single negative review yet.. I'll shun myself from other reviews, but grab a copy of new paper to see it's ratings. Cos I've realized this about new paper: they seldom get adventurous and give 5 star, or 4 star reviews, just like the typical Singaporean. Sometimes I find the ratings too conservative, around the 2.5-3.5 star range. It's always easier to be skeptical and find faults than to appraise something in front of the masses, as it would review your professional skeptical eye, instead of the (even more professional ability to praise) dangerous thing about accepting and appraising everything you see. To some extent, it's true about skeptics and pessimists who find fault in others. Well, true isn't it. Oh I'm not saying that new paper reviewers are like that, that's nothing of my intention to find fault and attack them (though I don't like the lack of variety), but in general, I theorize this about skeptics and true believers.

Labels: reviews

I haven't much time left awake, gotta succumb to the "disease" of siesta. So I'll be done in a trice.

In short, a increasingly suspenseful thriller, with powerful, convincing twists and perfect narrative drive. Definitely one of the best films. But not the best I've watched. It though keeps you at your seat's edge, it isn't the type of suspense which keeps you on your toes.

George's portrayal was accurate, up with his job of portraying characters with miens of professionalism. With the Oceans' series, this is certainly one of them. But I personally felt Tilda performed her part as a supporting actress than George performed his as the lead actor. George is a rather static character in the film, and hence not too much character development to talk about (although it's a good amount, but that's perhaps as far as its potential), but the director cleverly used this to develop other characters, like Tilda's character, and Arthur, never forgetting to underline the severity of this conspiracy.

Cinematography was GREAT, but not excellent like what we see in movies like V for Vendetta or Sunshine. The music was also complementary, it's one of the few films which made me want to download the soundtrack. Concordantly, the all made me go "whoa" several times in the film as filmmakers use other characters to counter-develop George's wit and intelligence. Most of all, despite all these outstanding developmental aspects of the film, the plot, circumstances and story was remarkably realistic. And it's not very easy to make a successful conspiracy-busting film without crossing the border to fantasy.

Labels: reviews

I blogged this right after watching "the fountain". 2 word review: outstandingly fantastic.

Words can't quantify the chastity, the art, the beauty of the film. Not many films qualify for this description. I don't believe it's a popular film, even though it's great in my opinion, it isn't like how the bats were released in 2005. You either hate it, or love it, this is a film grapples with the vanity of human existence, love and mortality, and eternity. Again it's not any typical film one will expect, it doesn't have the plot-problem-proposal-punishment typical film outline, but that doesn't make it less captivating.

This film didn't really have a long and firm storyline, but rather, fuses 3 time frames into one main body so beautifully, cinematography is perfection. Though one would expect events and narration to bridge these 3 different time zones, the story does it through symbols and performing (acting and stuff) itself which binds tightly with the central theme.

Hugh Jackman's performance was... phenomenal. I can't describe or parallel it in any way. I've heard of his convincing and accurate portrayals, and I'm too convinced this one of them. Rachel Weisz couldn't do much, but she portrayed her parts accurately.

This film, to me is like a knit of cloth, a tight knit. Everything comes together for each other so well. I'm amazed on how the director is able to achieve such a feat and tell the vanity of mortality in such complicatedly simple, peacefully violent way. This film, however, may not leave you laughing, smiling or feeling fulfilled at the ending, but rather, leads to you deeply think about life. I was personally overwhelmed by this film.

Another thing i must comment is the music. It draws the atmosphere, and brings the feelings into the film like none other. I seldom see music done such a great job in films.

However, the trailer for this film is a little misleading, which led me to feel a little disappointed as the film progressed till the middle part due to my expectations. This isn't really a love story (though it has major theme(s) of love) as the trailer depicted it to be.

Finally, the score. Well, i decided the old matrix wasn't appropriate, so, I'll just grade it by cinematography (the discipline of using lighting and camera choices when filming), portrayal (which includes script and acting), directing (which includes the artistic and creative aspects of the film), story (I'll grade it on the depth of development rather than the idea itself, for i believe a simple idea well developed outshines a complex idea superficially narrated)

C:9/10
P:15/15
D:18/20
S:14/15

total: 55/60
or 93.3%

Labels: reviews

American Psycho

the reality of consumerism and modernism,

whatever you call it.

is a firm i liked. fully of symbols, and a movie so open and subjected.

and that's not including Christian Bale's more than extraordinary performance.

Labels: reviews

This movie by Steven Spielberg is a emotional coming-of-age story of a boy with origins from the aristocratic family. It's a semi-autobiography of the author of the novel of the same name, which depicts his accounts in world war II.

Jamie, the protagonist of the movie, is well portrayed as a child in an aristocratic family. Rich, and well guarded. Christian Bale displays his acting finesse even at a young age portraying the character's innocence curiosity towards everything around him. At the start of the movie, city he's living in, Shanghai, was shelled by the Japanese apropos, he got separated from his parents into a spell of temporal orphanage in the midst of a crowd. He was then deported to a Japanese internment camp, where he falls victim to the opportunistic Bassie.

While this movie possesses a solid enough script, it does lack narrative drive, sometimes leaving the audience a little behind the drama. It's not the typical movie, where there is a build-up, a climax, a solution, instead, it's a mature account on the development of the protagonist, his coming of age, his understanding towards the world. This movie is not the easiest to understand, it does leave me a little behind the effects, I only fully understood it the day after I watched.

This isn't a film one would really expect, themes like family, nemesis, love, respect, innocence all boils down to Jamie's coming of age. Bale acted his part out with superb accuracy for the characterization of Jamie. In the start of the movie, Jamie was innocent and curious, then about the middle, Bale portrays Jamie as someone who is starting to learn about the world. He is a strong and somewhat character in the movie, giving light to those he try to serve, except for the opportunistic Bassie. At the end, he comes of age, he understands the world, became friends with his enemies, and finally, escapes the hands of Bassie. The movie ends with a satisfying, warm, silent reunion with his family.

John Malkovich and Nigel Havers did excellent jobs in portraying the harsh realities of prison life. Malkovich acts as an opportunistic, egoistic man, who exploits Jamie's innocence and willpower on a few occasions. Havers was the true father figure to Jamie in the entire show, and brings to Jamie the realistic side of life. He is one of the characters who influenced Jamie most, and contributed greatly to his coming of age. Jamie contrasts with the realistic nature of the entire film. He does display idealistic thinking and behavior. However, he is a dynamic character who changes in this area.

Spielberg effectively used imagery to symbolize hope, determination, and defiance. Some example include the use of the color white, the atom bomb and simple words "I surrender". Sometimes the audience ends up trying to understand the nexus of these symbols and the entire story, but the result is very enriching.

Well, this movie is emotionally satisfying, but also great for the non-emotional, a movie strongly recommended. One of the best movies I've watched. Since it's the first time I reviewed a movie, my rating is the first also.

Script: 8.5/10
Narrative drive: 6.75/10
Acting: 9/10 (Malkovich was fine, Havers was better than fine, Bale was off the scale)
Sound: 9/10
Story: 17.75/20
Directing: 18/20 (one of Spielberg's best i must say)

Overall: 86%

Labels: reviews

papaya
b^2 - 4ac
christianbboy

does cocaine, ice, CANNABIS
ballet
sexist
anti-heavy metal music
girl-player
extremely hot tempered
1.92m
hetrosexual
UNDEROATH!!!
anti-drug campaignist

bboy
21st dec 2006 :):):)
Kyensai SEKSAY`

5/5/90
wongyuanhao
tobiasisinchinesehigh@yahoo.co.uk
Christian :D

Bobbie

Calvin

Calvin Magnus

Cheryl Lau

Cielo

Chris Foo

Christina Chew

Chucky

Chun Wui

Cliffalogy

Edmund

FireAC

Fabriz

Geraldine

Glynis

Jeanette

Joel Tay

Jt

Kyensai SEKSAY`

Kenneth Lim

Nataniel Tan

Nicholas Seow (1)

Pei Wen (or princes pei)

Ryan Goh

Sharry

Victoria

WordPress.com

WordPress.org

www.wobblin.net

Shane

Xian Yu

March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
January 2011
April 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011








Create your own Friend Test here

designer: ambivalente
brushes: fm.net
lyrics: getty