You are browsing the archive for 2010 February.

Book Review: “When You Are Engulfed in Flames” by David Sedaris

February 17, 2010 in Book Reviews

So I told a good friend of mine that I was thinking of writing a book about some of my experiences over the last few years. 

The book had to be clever, witty and funny, I said.  I gave him a few top secret examples of what I intended to write about, and my friend said, “This stuff reminds me of a book I read recently.  It is so awesome.  You have to read it.”

The next day he brought the book for me.  It had a skeleton smoking a cigarette on the cover (which turned out to be a 1885 Van Gogh!).  The author’s name is David Sedaris (award-winning, best-selling author that I didn’t know), and the book’s name is When You Are Engulfed in Flames.  It is his sixth book, and as of 2008, Sedaris had sold over seven million books all up.

However, I was sceptical.  The book cover didn’t really appeal to me, and the blurb on the back was very ‘meh’.  Didn’t seem like a particularly interesting read.

Well, I was dead wrong.  This David Sedaris guy is truly a genius comedic writer.

I don’t throw around such titles lightly.  To me, making people laugh out loud with writing on the page is the hardest thing to do.  A lot of books considered “funny” are really just “amusing”.  I might smile at the book every now and then, but rarely does writing make me laugh out loud, especially when I am in public.

To be fair, I don’t usually read a lot of “funny” books, but in recent memory, only four books have made me laugh out loud, hard, and consistently when reading it: The Basketball Diaries (1978) by Jim Carroll, American Psycho (1991) by Bret Easton Ellis, The Timewaster Letters (2004) by Robin Cooper, and the one I am currently reading, Bill Simmons’ The Book of Basketball (2009) (review coming soon).

I now add When You Are Engulfed in Flames to that list.

The book is a memoir, a collection of essays, or an autobiography of sorts.  It comprises 22 chapters of varying lengths, each chapter tackling a different topic, scenario, or period in Sedaris’ life.  It’s almost like a collection of short stories, because the chapters aren’t necessarily linked or in chronological order.  However, whatever Sedaris is talking (or writing) about, it’s funny.  Whether it’s retelling a story about burning mice, getting angry at a horny taxi driver, wondering if he should remove a lozenge that has fallen from his mouth into a sleeping passenger’s lap, or trying to quite smoking in Tokyo, Sedaris manages to find the hilarious in daily life.

There is something about Sedaris’ writing.  He talks about everyday things and experiences, but there’s always a twist to it – whether it’s some witty dialogue or sharp thought, or some colourful insight into the dark side of human nature.  Often it feels like he is being self-deprecating, but really, he’s just being brutally honest with himself.  His ability to turn what would otherwise be a mundane topic into a riveting read, often with a touch of poignancy, makes me extremely jealous.  So does his willingness to discuss some extremely awkward, disgusting or offputting subjects, seemingly without embarrassment or hesitation.

I would say that the first 100 pages or so (of the 310-page book) is not quite as good as the rest of the book, which is unusual as there is a tendency to put the best stuff upfront.  The turning point for me was the chapter on Sedaris’ crazy old neighbour Helen.  She’s what would best be described as a loudmouth sociopath who has nothing better to do apart from make the lives of those around her miserable.  But somehow, Sedaris manages to portray her as somewhat endearing, I’m sure, reflecting his own mixed emotions about her.  He brings Helen to life with vivid descriptions of her rants and disregard for normal human decency, but at the same time he makes her almost sympathetic, especially towards the end.

From that point on, the book was virtually unputdownable for me.

5 stars out of 5!

[PS: I do not dare compare myself to David Sedaris.  It is, however, something to strive for.]

The 20 Most Rewatchable Movies of All-Time

February 14, 2010 in Best Of, Entertainment, Movie Reviews

There are some films that, for one reason or another, have an extremely high ‘rewatchability quotient’ (as I like to call it).

You know, one of those movies that you happen to come across one night on TV when you have nothing better to do, and you end up watching till the end (even when there’s something else on that you haven’t seen before) – and you still found it enjoyable and not a waste of time.

Or if you have it on DVD, you might whip it out every now and then and put it on for whatever reason, and then find yourself sitting there two hours later, still captivated despite having seen it 10 times already.  The freakiest thing is that some of these movies actually get better the more times you watch it.

Following an agonising culling process, I have finally come up with my top 20 most rewatchable movies of all time.

Let’s count them down.

(click on ‘more…’ to continue)

Read the rest of this entry →

Movie Review: The Wolfman (2010)

February 14, 2010 in Movie Reviews

Argh!

Talk about a massive disappointment.

The Wolfman (the film not the man) is a ‘remake’ of the 1941 classic horror movie (which I haven’t seen), and had been on my ‘must-see’ list for quite some time.  I’ve always been a sucker for monster movies and this one looked highly promising.

Ponder the following:

  • a classic werewolf storyline (let’s not pretend there’s any surprises here);
  • 2010 make-up and prosthetics skills combined with the latest special effects technology;
  • Academy Award winner Benicio Del Toro, Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins, Golden Globe nominee/winner Emily Blunt, and freaking Mr Smith/Elrond (Hugo Weaving)! and
  • script by Andrew Kevin Walker, who worked on Seven and Sleepy Hollow (plus uncredited rewrites of Stir of Echoes and Fight Club!).

There was no way this film could not be awesome.  Or so I thought.

Even when I heard that The Wolfman received lukewarm reviews, I was convinced the critics were wrong.

Well, they were right.  It’s still early, but there is a good chance The Wolfman will be my biggest disappointment of 2010.

It’s difficult to know where to begin. The Wolfman‘s biggest problem is that it’s not scary.  Not one bit.  All the elements were there – the full moon, the shadows, the misty woods, and even the growls – but there was zero tension.  Not having seen the 1941 original, I can’t say whether this was supposed to be a tribute or a ‘re-envisioning’, but The Wolfman felt like a cheesy, unintentionally comical mess.  I couldn’t decide whether it was trying to take itself seriously or be tongue-in-cheek with the over-the-top blood and violence.

The pace was all stuffed up (when a 102 minute film feels both too long AND rushed at the same time, you know there’s a problem) and the script was utterly predictable all the way to the end.  Even the music didn’t fit.  Worst of all, the special effects and make-up were sub-par.  The CGI buildings and scenery were good, the morphing process were decent, but the post-transformation scenes made me think I was watching a pissed-off Chewbacca on acid.  While there may be excuses for all the other problems, there’s no excuse for for this in a production of this magnitude.  Not in 2010.

I should have known the film was in trouble when Benicio Del Toro (one of my faves) appeared on screen sporting the worst haircut since ‘The Hanks Disaster’ from The Da Vinci Code.  When I heard Del Toro was cast in the lead role, I thought, “Great choice!  They’ll hardly have to use any make-up!”  However, that haircut made him lose all credibility, and I think the look on Del Toro’s face throughout the movie confirmed that he was embarrassed to have such an abomination on his head.

As for the others: Anthony Hopkins looked like he was just there to pick up the paycheck, Emily Blunt did her best in a thankless role, and Hugo Weaving was utterly hilarious (unintentionally, of course).

There must be a plethora of reasons why The Wolfman was crap, but the easiest point of blame is director Joe Johnston.  It’s not he is a bad director, but his style didn’t fit this film.  It may have worked for Jumanji and Jurassic Park III (and could for the upcoming Captain America and Jurassic Park IV films), but not for The Wolfman.  How they ever managed to botch up something so promising this badly is beyond me.

1.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker (2009)

February 13, 2010 in Movie Reviews

The Hurt Locker isn’t a film that jumps out at you as a front-runner for the Best Picture Oscar while you are watching it.  It has the feel of a small-scale film, focused on a specific subject in a specific setting, with largely unknowns in the lead roles.  But don’t let that put you off.  It is undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

I would call The Hurt Locker an American war suspense-action-thriller.  Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (K-19: The Widowmaker, Point Break – yes, that’s right!  Point Break!), it tells the story of an United States EOD (Explosives Ordnance Disposal) team in post US-invaded Iraq.  To many viewers, it will be a world that is as foreign as Pandora from James Cameron’s Avatar.

The Hurt Locker a cut above most other post-911 war movies for several reasons.

First of all, it is probably the most suspenseful film in recent memory.  The thrills come in waves, but when it comes, the tension is so unbelievably high that it made me forget how to breathe.  Full credit must go to Bigelow, who combines life-and-death situations with documentary-style shooting to create an atmosphere that makes the audience feel like they are right there in the pressure cooker with the EOD team members.

Second, the script by Mark Boal is outstanding.  Boal is a freelance journalist who actually spent time with a bomb squad in Iraq.  This experience, coupled with his ability to create intriguing, well-developed characters, makes The Hurt Locker the most authentic-feeling Iraq war movie to date.

Third, the acting is first class.  The three main leads (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty) are considered relative no-names in Hollywood, but all deliver performances that bring their respective characters to life.  Renner (28 Weeks Later) is particularly excellent and is well-deserving of his Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.  He brings a brooding arrogance and obsessive quality to Sergeant First Class William James that makes the already-tense environment even more explosive.  Renner’s face reminds me of a pudgier Jason Bateman, but his screen presence (according to a friend) is reminiscent of a young Mel Gibson (before he went off the rails, of course).

Lastly, I really enjoyed the subtlety of The Hurt Locker.  It may be an anti-war movie at heart, but it doesn’t ram any political messages down your throat.  There’s no American hero bravado or that ‘Americans are evil’ sentiment.  There’s a telling image here and there, but for the most part, you can simply enjoy the movie for its intense action and ignore the underlying message.

Having raved about the film, it isn’t quite perfect.  At 131 minutes, The Hurt Locker is probably 15-20 minutes too long, and partly because of this, the last third of the film isn’t quite as exhiliarating as the first two-thirds.  However, these are only minor complaints in an otherwise superb film.  The only thing really preventing The Hurt Locker from getting full marks from me is that I simply don’t think it is memorable enough.  It may be one of the best films of the year, but it’s unlikely to be one of those classics people will easily recall years down the track.

4.5 stars out of 5!

[PS: I now think The Hurt Locker has a pretty good chance of beating Avatar for Best Picture because of this new preferential voting system.  That said, I'm sticking with my prediction of Avatar for Best Picture.  The one with the bigger chance of an upset could be Bigelow over her ex-husband James Cameron for Best Director.  This is one of those years where voters seem to rally around a cause, and this year the stars may be aligned for the first ever female director to take the prize.]

True Blood vs The Vampire Diaries

February 10, 2010 in Best Of, Entertainment

Looks like a musical, doesn't it?

Thanks to Twilight, vampire books and TV series are everywhere now (well, they’ve always been around, but are finally being noticed).

I recently finished watching Season 2 of HBO’s True Blood, and I am up-to-date with Season 1 of CW’s The Vampire Diaries (13 eps).  So which is better?

(to read the verdict, click on ‘more…’)

Read the rest of this entry →

Bad Behavior has blocked 585 access attempts in the last 7 days.