diviner

Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.

While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.

Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.

There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.

Wong Kar-Wai's "Ah Fei Jing Juen" can best described as "experimental", and experimental it is, as it is stylistic, but neither entertaining nor provocative.

The story loosely surrounds the interaction of (mainly) five different characters. The camera angle appears to be in complete discord with the characters, which may be intentional on the director's part to reflect the inner space of the microcosm. Unfortunately, this the the extent of intrigue that Wong could muster.

First off, the interactions between characters are contrived, crass, and inconceivable. What the characters did in "Ah Fei" defy any logic, even by film standards? Their course of action were simply so far fetched, even non sequitor wasn't enough to describe them The other has to do with the dialogue. Native Cantonese speakers will not talk like they do, even in the sixties. The whole script reads like it has been translated from English. In fact the it was easier reading the subtitles than to listen to what they said.

I think, in the end, Wong did try to break the mold of the Hong Kong film industry. I am no big fan for kung-fu or slap-stick comedy, which the industry seem to cater. Like the gravity defying acts in Kung-fu movies, Wong stretched the limits of human logic and sensibility in "Ah Fei".

I went into the theatre, convinced that "28 Days" would offered something different and provocative. Boy, was I wrong.

First, the camera work was, like, done my someone who just came out of film school, trying to cram as many tricks and angles as possible. Once in a blue moon, they seemed somewhat intriguing, but most of the time, it just looked plain awkward if not annoying.

The acting, I think they did the best they could. The interaction between all the characters consist of strategically placed one-liners. The producers might as well make them all non-speaking parts so that they can save a bundle.

Like the Impostor (2001), the 28 Days Later could have been easily boiled down to the first and last 20 minutes. Unlike the Impostor, however, the omitable portion doesn't advance plot or character development. One just sees people going from one (easily preventable) situation to another.

There are just so many things I either don't get, or they just simply don't make any sense at all. For instance, without giving away too much movie, how does one survive a gun-shot wound in the stomach with little medical attention? And what is with all those in-your-face product placements. "All I have is Pep$!, and Sunny-D. What do you prefer". C'mon, this is just rediculous.

Bottom line: Danny Boyle must be very bitter, and desparate for a comeback. It's good that he has still some friends in the right places. Otherwise, I have no idea how this even gets on screen and receive good reviews. He has to realise that Trainspotting was just an one-hit wonder and move on.