BOOK REVIEW #17: THE GIRL WITH THE LOWER BACK TATTOO Posted on 15 Apr 2017 Stand up comedian Amy Schumer might not be a household name in this part of the world but she is gaining quite a reputation with her successful Inside Amy Schumer television series and her rather well received movie debut, Trainwreck. The 36-year-old comedian has no qualms making fun of people such as her father, her sis and many more but most importantly herself. In her first autobiograph ... more

Genre: Drama
Director: Gerard Barrett
Cast: Chloe Grace Moretz, Thomas Mann, Carrie-Anne Moss, Richard Armitage, Jenny Slate, Tyler Perry
Runtime: 1 hr 30 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Disturbing Scenes)
Released By: Shaw  
Official Website: http://www.brainonfiremovie.com

Opening Day: 4 May 2017

Synopsis: Brain on Fire follows Cahalan (Moretz), a rising journalist at the New York Post who mysteriously starts having seizures and hearing voices. As weeks go by and Susannah rapidly descends into insanity, she moves inexplicably from violence to catatonia. Following a series of outbursts, misdiagnoses and a prolonged hospital stay, a lucky last-minute intervention by one doctor finally gives her a diagnosis and hope to rebuild her life.

Movie Review:

Twenty-one year-old Susannah Cahalan was living her dream job as a reporter for the New York Post when she starts zoning out at random moments, suffering from headaches, losing time, missing deadlines and meetings, and imagining stuff like bedbug bites and leaking faucets. Pretty soon, her condition gets worse – from seizures to paranoid episodes to manic mood swings to catatonia, she exhibited more and more the symptoms of what abnormal psychology would easily classify as bipolar disorder and/or schizophrenia. The cause? Her regular family doctor says it all comes down to withdrawal from alcohol, partying too much and working too hard. A three-person panel of doctors at the hospital she has been admitted to since she deteriorated recommends that she be transferred to a psychiatric hospital so she can receive the proper treatment. The truth is neither; rather, she has been struck by anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, a rare auto-immune disorder that causes the body to attack the brain and hence causing the titular syndrome.

‘Brain on Fire’ is Susannah’s story, based upon her bestselling memoir of the same time. Some critics have dismissed it as yet another ‘disease-of-the-week’ drama, but we suspect their brains may have very well been burnt. This is not just your typical Lifetime movie about a perfectly normal individual whose life comes crashing down after he or she contracts a debilitating disease; it is that and much more. In fact, it is most fundamentally about our healthcare system, its reflexes, limitations and consequences on the individual as well as his or her loved ones. It is about a system whose reflexes have been built upon psychiatric drugs to treat manic and psychotic behavior, rather than say trying to understand why a person’s brain is causing him or her to respond in such a manner. It is about a system who is limited by knowledge and expertise, both of which may exist in pockets within the medical fraternity but not widespread enough to benefit the system as a whole. And last but not least, it is about the consequences of these reflexes and limitations on those who need help – either freeing them to be able to live their lives to its fullest or dooming them to a lifetime of psychiatry – and in turn the joy or dismay of their loved ones.

Because it is told from Susannah’s (Chloe Grace Moretz) perspective, these intents may not be entirely obvious until late into the movie. We see therefore in the first act the life she was leading – an aspiring musician boyfriend Stephen (Thomas Mann) who describes his sound as ‘The Smiths meets Tom Waits’, a pair of divorced parents (Richard Armitage and Carrie Anne-Moss) on perfectly amicable terms, a chummy dead-panning work colleague (Jenny Slate), and a tough but compassionate editor (Tyler Perry) – as well as how it gradually falls apart as she deteriorates. We feel her helplessness as well as that of her parents and boyfriend as she goes from high highs to low lows while on medications that don’t seem to work and diagnoses that don’t seem to make sense. And it is only towards the end that we encounter her savior Dr Souhel Najjar (Navid Negahban), who through a series of observations as well as practical ability tests manage to diagnose exactly what was afflicting her in the first place. While the experience is meant to be intimate, the lessons to be drawn are systemic, and ‘Brain on Fire’s’ profundity lies in the latter.

Notwithstanding, writer-director Gerard Barrett does a fine job with the former too. As the visuals draft in and out of focus and get occasionally disjointed whenever Susannah is dead centre in the frame, the sounds blur and echo too, coupled with intrusive noises and thoughts that drown out all the rest. There is no way we can fully comprehend what Susannah was going through mentally, but Barrett approximates that rather successfully. Some of the character relationships could have been better sketched, such as that between Susannah and Stephen (whom she eventually married by the way), but the confusion, exasperation and ultimately relief of her parents is unmistakable. He has also cast his film well, and the ensemble make the most of their supporting roles alongside a sincere but sometimes slightly lacking lead performance by Moretz, who still does admirably transiting from the adolescent roles of ‘Kick-Ass’ and ‘Carrie’ to that of a much grown-up character.

But like we said, ‘Brain on Fire’ isn’t about Susannah per se, but rather what her experience says about the healthcare system. It is for this reason that the real-life Susannah had chosen to write a memoir rather than stay quiet about what she had gone through. It is for this reason that she had since openly spoken about her traumatic month of madness, and supported organisations as well as Dr Najjar’s work in expanding the knowledge and expertise in encephalitis with the wider medical community. And it is for this reason that the movie isn’t just your ‘disease of the week’ drama or some ‘medical misfire’ – those critics be damned, we say – but really an illuminating account that needs to be heard, seen and shared so that many and more like her who have similar conditions may receive timely treatment to be able to live their lives fully again once more. Yes, it may not be perfect as a movie, but its purpose is clear, noble and significant, and for that reason deserves to catch fire. 

Movie Rating:

(Like its protagonist's experience, this woefully misjudged drama about the reflexes, limitations and consequences of the healthcare system deserves to be heard, seen and shared)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Thriller/Western
Director: Martin Koolhoven
Cast: Guy Pearce, Dakota Fanning, Carice van Houten, Kit Harington
Runtime: 2 hrs 29 mins
Rating: R21 (Sexual Scenes and Violence)
Released By: Shaw 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 20 April 2017

Synopsis: A triumphant epic of survival and a tale of powerful womanhood and resistance against the unforgiving cruelty of a hell on earth. Our heroine is Liz (Dakota Fanning), carved from the beautiful wilderness, full of heart and grit, hunted by a vengeful Preacher (Guy Pearce) - a diabolical zealot and her twisted nemesis. But Liz is a genuine survivor; she’s no victim - a woman of fearsome strength who responds with astonishing bravery to claim the better life she and her daughter deserved."

Movie Review:

Martin Koolhoven’s ‘Brimstone’ begins in a small village where a mute young woman named Liz (Dakota Fanning) and her daughter Sam (Ivy George) live on a ranch with her much older husband Eli (William Houston) and his teenage son Matthew (Jack Hollington). Despite the occasional tension between mother and stepson, they live in relative idyll. That peace is however shattered with the arrival of a new reverend (Guy Pearce), who in his first sermon not only quotes from the book of Matthew to warn them of false prophets who are dressed in sheep’s clothing but also tells the congregation how he is personally acquainted with the pain of hell. From the moment she hears the reverend’s voice, Liz is seized with terror, though we know yet not for what reason. But we come to realise that Liz has every reason to be scared, as the reverend seems bent on punishing her for an unfortunate emergency delivery on the church’s grounds right after his sermon, where she was forced to make a split-second choice between the life of the mother and that of her baby whose head was too big.

Over the course of the next half-hour, we watch as the reverend slowly tightens his noose around Liz – but it is not until we see Eli pleading with Liz to end his life after choking on a noose made out of his own intestines that we recognise the reverend for what he truly is, i.e. pure evil. Koolhoven titles the proceedings till then ‘Revelation’, but really the revelation lies in the subsequent two chapters ‘Exodus’ and ‘Genesis’. Moving back in time through Liz’s life, he traces her ordeals as a 13-year-old runaway working as a teenage prostitute at a mining-town brothel named ‘Frank’s Inferno’ and her childhood with the reverend and his meek and deferential wife (Carice van Houten). Oh yes, the reverend is no less than her father, who uses the Bible to justify his desire to marry Liz and have sexual relations with her. He is the very embodiment of the ‘ravenous wolf’ whom he had warned of in the first chapter, and a most loathsome one at that in the way he hijacks religion to explain away his lustful, sinful desires.

There is no denying that ‘Koolhoven’s Brimstone’, as it appears in the opening credits, is a riveting watch. Shuffling the order of events proves an inspired artistic choice, forcing us to re-assess at every juncture the characters’ relationships with one another. Yet how much you’ll enjoy this neo-Western is another question altogether, and indeed there is good reason why people’s opinions on that are likely to be polarised. By the end of ‘Genesis’, you’d have sat through two scenes in which women get their tongues cut out (one of them being Liz), another two in which women get their backs horse-whipped by the reverend (again, one of them being Liz albeit in her younger days) and another two where decent women are hung to their deaths. In between, there is slaughter, evisceration and mutilation, and let’s just say the nihilistic violence is the reason why it has been rated R21 in our land. Worse, it doesn’t stop there – by the end of the fourth and final chapter ‘Retribution’, you’ll also have seen a five-year-old subjected to a hideous whipping on her bare back.

Had the opening voiceover (which eventually bookends Liz’s story) not primed us for a proto-feminist empowerment story, we probably would not have so appalled at the hurt and humiliation that Koolhoven subjects his female characters to. But given how what we realise is a grown-up Sam speaking about her tough-as-nails mother, it is somewhat disconcerting and even downright perplexing just what Koolhoven intended for his film to say. Is this a film that aims to expose the subjugation of women? Is this an allegory about the false prophets in our midst who hide behind the guise of religion? Or is this really a thinly disguised exploitation piece? Whatever the case, Koolhoven’s message about God and male dominance, misogyny and female resilience comes off muddled, and hardly as compelling as the undeniably brilliant ‘Revelation’ suggests the rest of the film may be.

That the movie still remains an engaging watch is credit to the excellent acting of Pearce and Fanning. One of the most underrated actors of our generation, Pearce oozes mystery and menace in equal measure, carefully calibrating his Calvinist act so it never tips into camp. Fanning has matured finely as a kid in ‘War of the Worlds’ and ‘Charlotte’s Web’ into the young character actress we see here, conveying her character’s fear, dread, desperation, grit and fighting spirit in a mostly wordless performance that is surely one of her best. Koolhoven has also assembled an impressive list of Dutch talent behind the camera – cinematographer Rogier Stoffers contributes the beautiful landscapes and stark, often striking, visuals; while his regular production designer Floris Vos makes good use of the locations in Germany, Austria, Hungary and Spain to depict a slice of the Old West.

Flawed though it may be therefore, it is undeniable that Koolhoven’s ‘Brimstone’ reflects a strong directorial vision – it could do with clearer thematic focus, but it is nonetheless a well-structured drama that unspools with confidence and poise. Like we warned, it is bleak, brutal and bloody as its title suggests, so get ready to steel your nerves and your guts if you’re prepared to sit through two-and-a-half hours of often relentless gloom. Truth be told, Koolhoven could have made any number of English-language films after his well-received 2008 WWII drama ‘Winter in Wartime’, but the fact that he chose to avoid the typical Hollywood picture and go about one of the most expensive Dutch movies ever made is testament to his ambition, conviction and passion, all of which are reasons enough to give this revisionist Western a shot.

Movie Rating:

(Relentlessly bleak, often bloody and at times brutal, this revisionist Western is nonetheless a creative tour de force by writer-director Martin Koolhoven, complemented in no small measure by Guy Pearce and Dakota Fanning's riveting performances) 

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Drama
Director: Barry Jenkins
Cast: Naomie Harris, André Holland, Mahershala Ali, Janelle Monáe, Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders, Jharrel Jerome
Runtime: 1 hr 51 mins
Rating: M18 (Some Homosexual Content)
Released By: Shaw 
Official Website: http://moonlight.movie

Opening Day: 27 April 2017

Synopsis: MOONLIGHT is a timeless story of human connection and self-discovery, Moonlight chronicles the life of a young black man from childhood to adulthood as he struggles to find his place in the world while growing up in a rough neighborhood of Miami. At once a vital portrait of contemporary African-American life and an intensely personal and poetic meditation on identity, family, friendship, and love, Moonlight is a groundbreaking piece of cinema that reverberates with deep compassion and universal truths. Anchored by extraordinary performances from a tremendous ensemble cast, Barry Jenkins's staggering, singular vision is profoundly moving in its portrayal of the moments, people, and unknowable forces that shape our lives and make us who we are."

Movie Review:

If you reading this review, it is likely that you are aware of the embarrassing Oscar ‘envelope gate’ incident that took news headlines by storm.

At the ceremony in February, Best Picture presenters Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty read La La Land as the winner. Beatty later stated that he had mistakenly been given the duplicate Best Actress envelope, for which Emma Stone had won for her role in La La Land a few minutes before. When the mistake was realized, La La Land producer Jordan Horowitz came forward to announce Moonlight as the correct winner.

Although this is one of the most talked about blunder in Oscars history, it meant good things for the coming of age drama written and directed by Barry Jenkins, based on a Tarell Alvin McCraney’s unpublished semi autobiographical play “In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue”.

The film is a success story everyone wants to love. Made with a $1.5 million budget, it has grossed over $55 million worldwide. It is the first film with an all black cast, the first LGBT film and the second lowest grossing film domestically (behind Kathryn Begelow’s The Hurt Locker) to take home the Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Nat Sanders and Joi McMillon were nominated for Best Film Editing, making McMillon the first black woman to earn an Academy Award nomination in film editing. Mahershala AlI was the Best Supporting Actor, making him the first Muslim to win an acting Oscar.

If you have been following entertainment news, you’d also be impressed by how this underdog came out tops as a champion.

The 111 minute film presents itself in three stages. Chiron, the main character, is seen at three different phases of his life where he faces difficulties with his own sexuality and identity. There is depth in the story as we see the physical and emotional abuse Chiron receives as a result of who he is.

The stars of the film are Trevante Rhodes (as adult Chiron), Ashton Sanders (as teenage Chiron) and Alex Hibbert (as child Chiron) – each of these charismatic actors brings an emotional edge to the character. Playing Chiron’s closest friend Kevin are André Holland (as adult Kevin), Jharrel Jerome (as teenage Kevin) and Jaden Piner (as child Kevin). The three actors complement the story with their delicate performances. Supporting characters are played by more recognised names Naomie Harris (Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Our Kind of Traitor), Janelle Monae (Rio2, Moonlight) and Ali, who appears briefly but has an impact on the film.

Given all the hype about the film, one may think it is unworthy of the attention. The thing is: the movie that has been listed on numerous critics’ top 10 lists for 2016 is a personal piece of work that has gotten the world’s attention (why else did you think a distributor would pick it up for local release so many months after its domestic release?) While it may or may not be a good thing for the cast and crew (showbiz is an unpredictable machine), it is deifintely a fine piece of work that is restrainedly beautiful. The storytelling is tender and poetic, the images are put on screen like paintings (Jenkins reportedly immersed himself in foreign arthouse cinema, and once wrote an essay about Wong Kar Wai that scored him a place on Telluride’s student symposium), and it is definitely worth your time watching it on the big screen. 

Movie Rating:

(It is true – this year’s Best Picture winner is a captivating and poignant piece of work that is beautifully told on screen)

Review by John Li

Genre: Mystery
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Cast: Tom Bateman, Kenneth Branagh, Penélope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom, Jr., Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Marwan Kenzari, Olivia Colman, Lucy Boynton, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Sergei Polunin
Runtime: 1 hr 54 mins
Rating: PG (Some Violence)
Released By: 20th Century Fox 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 30 November 2017

Synopsis: What starts out as a lavish train ride through Europe quickly unfolds into one of the most stylish, suspenseful and thrilling mysteries ever told. From the novel by best-selling author Agatha Christie, "Murder on the Orient Express" tells the tale of thirteen strangers stranded on a train, where everyone's a suspect. One man must race against time to solve the puzzle before the murderer strikes again.

Movie Review:

If you haven’t yet encountered Agatha Christie’s parlour-car trick of a novel of the same name, you’ll be one of the few lucky ones who can still enjoy Kenneth Branagh’s big-screen adaptation of it as a whodunnit. But we suspect for most, the pleasures of watching Branagh re-stage Christie’s book after a fondly remembered 1974 Sidney Lumet version will lie in the telling of the story, rather than in the revelation at the end of it all, which his writer Michael Green stays faithful to its source material about. We might add that Green has chosen to retain the rest of the twists and turns in Christie’s busy plot machinations, which further reinforces why those who have encountered this tale before will find its joy instead in how it unfolds. And in that regard, Branagh has mounted a handsome old-fashioned piece of cinema that older audiences will come to find both familiar and pleasurable.

Just as Lumet did, Branagh has assembled a spectacular list of stars to accompany him on his ride. Oh yes, Branagh himself plays the lead role of Christie’s famed Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot, who is on vacation on board the luxury train when a fellow passenger named Edward Ratchett is found dead with multiple stab wounds. No less than Johnny Depp plays Ratchett with his signature gangster air, and the list of suspects include Josh Gad’s shifty assistant Hector MacQueen, Penelope Cruz’s bitter Spanish missionary Pilar Estravados, Michelle Pfeiffer’s flamboyant man-hunter Caroline Hubbard, Willem Dafoe’s racist Austrian professor Gerhard Hardman and Judi Dench’s scowling Princess Dragomiroff. Of worthwhile mention too is Daisy Ridley and Leslie Odom Jr as a pair of secret lovers, a doctor and a governess, who in this iteration are portrayed as an inter-racial couple.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Ratchett isn’t just the shady art dealer that he claims to be, and for the matter are the other passengers on board the Orient Express who they say they are. Poirot’s investigation will uncover that they are all somehow connected to the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the adorable three-year-old daughter to American heiress Sonia Armstrong, a high-profile investigation then which had led to the wrongful prosecution of the family’s nurse when in fact it was later established that the killer’s identity was one Lanfranco Cassetti. A large part of the intrigue is finding out just who these twelve possible murder suspects are in relation to either the Armstrong family or the people implicated in its aftermath, which by extension explains too their plausible motives for killing Ratchett – and mind you, each one of them will turn out to have some reason or another for wanting him dead, challenging Poirot as well as the viewer to decide who’s lying and why.

Ensuring that every single character has a compelling reason to be part of the narrative was going to be a tough juggling act for any director, and Branagh doesn’t entirely succeed in that regard. The story is told from Poirot’s point of view, and because of their sheer number, most only get one or two pivotal sequences with him. The ones mentioned above at least manage to leave a lasting impression, but others that get even shorter shrift include veteran actor Derek Jacobi’s valet Edward Masterman, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo’s Italian car salesman Beniamino Marquez, and Sergei Polunin and Lucy Boynton’s Count and Countess Andrenyi. The way Branagh films how Poirot moves from character to character to interview them after the murder also gives the impression that these individuals are just sitting around waiting for their turn, which hardly seems likely if and when one knows of the truth of their culpability.

But to Branagh’s credit, his film does move at a brisk clip, which helps to gloss over some of the coincidences and unnecessary convolutions that Christie has herself admitted was a bit of an eye-roller. It may sound like vanity that Branagh’s Poirot gets the bulk of the screen time, but the actor-director does make the detective an intriguingly idiosyncratic character to watch – first and foremost of all by his intellect and mental agility; second, by his neurotic quirks, such as requiring that his boiled eggs at breakfast are exactly the same size; and third, by his impeccable waxed moustache, that does take some time to stop getting distracted at. As director, Branagh does bring to bear the sets, costumes and vistas for a sleek-looking film, complemented by his frequent collaborator Haris Zambarloukos’s interesting use of wide shots and overheads occasionally in order to lift the visuals out of its claustrophobic carriage confines.

On the whole though, Branagh’s version of the ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ is still a satisfyingly told murder mystery. The knotty storytelling pulls you in, and so do the A-listers who each make the best of their limited supporting roles. This Poirot, notwithstanding the unnecessary addition of a love interest, is also one of the more fully realised incarnations of Christie’s creations – and we’re not referring to the moustache, mind you. So yes, there are pleasures to be had whether you’re encountering this tale for the first time or if you’ve seen it before. It’s not perfect, especially a third act that feels rushed and muddled, but this is a rare throwback to the kind of escapist entertainment that used to be the stuff of blockbusters before the modern era of CGI and superheroes. So come now, all aboard the Orient Express!

Movie Rating:

(Not all the characters end up belonging as much as they should, but Kenneth Branagh's incarnation of Agatha Christie's classic detective novel as well as her famed protagonist Poirot is still an intriguing, sleek and ultimately satisfying murder mystery)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Drama/Romance
Director: George Mendeluk
Cast: Max Irons, Samantha Barks, Barry Pepper, Tamer Hassan, Aneurin Barnard, Terence Stamp
Runtime: 1 hr 44 mins
Rating: NC16 (Scene of Intimacy)
Released By: Shaw 
Official Website: http://www.bitterharvestfilm.com

Opening Day: 20 April 2017

Synopsis: Based on one of the most overlooked tragedies of the 20th century, Bitter Harvest is a powerful story of love, honor, rebellion and survival as seen through the eyes of two young lovers caught in the ravages of Joseph Stalin’s genocidal policies against Ukraine in the 1930s. As Stalin advances the ambitions of communists in the Kremlin, a young artist named Yuri (Max Irons) battles to survive famine, imprisonment and torture to save his childhood sweetheart Natalka (Samantha Barks) from the “Holodomor,” the death-by-starvation program that ultimately killed millions of Ukrainians. Against this tragic backdrop, Yuri escapes from a Soviet prison and joins the anti-Bolshevik resistance movement as he battles to reunite with Natalka and continue the fight for a free Ukraine."

Movie Review:

Because Hollywood’s fascination with Russia hasn’t moved past the Cold War and international espionage, there have been few – if any – Western films about the Holodomor, a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine during the years 1932 to 1933 in which some seven to ten million ethnic Ukrainians were estimated to have died as a result of Joseph Stalin’s policies. At the very least, co-writer and director George Menduluk deserves credit for shining light on the subject, and furthermore doing so at a most prescient time when Russia’s expansive ambitions on its neighbour are once again rearing its head as seen from the actions it took to annex Crimea.

But well-intentioned as it might be, ‘Bitter Harvest’ is a bitter pill to swallow in many ways. To be sure, that is not because of the nature of the atrocities it is trying to portray; oh no, on the contrary, it is because Menduluk, who together with his co-writer Richard Bachynsky-Hoover and producer Ian Ihnatowycz are of Ukrainian descent, has mixed politics, romance, faith and famine in a most clunky and uneven manner, so much so that it is at times simply difficult to continue watching. Indeed, as well-intentioned as his movie may be, the erstwhile TV director is ultimately defeated by his own inept execution of the material, coming off no better than a mediocre Hallmark Channel movie.

That is apparent from the get-go, which sets up the simple love story between Yuri (Max Irons) and his childhood sweetheart Natalka (Samantha Barks) amidst the sun-dappled fields and folk-dancing peasants in rural Ukraine. Over cringe-worthy proclamations of the depth of his love, Yuri’s carefree life up till his teenage years seems only to be interrupted by worries over whether Natalka will let him paint her by the river in the forest beside their village or whether he should follow his friends to Kiev in order to pursue his dreams of becoming an artist. Those ambitions are supposedly at odds with that of his stoic father (Barry Pepper) and even, if not more, stern, grandfather (Terence Stamp), but neither relationship is depicted convincingly enough.

Stalin’s decision to collectivise Ukraine marks a crucial turning point that heralds the arrival of Sergei (Tamar Hassan), a brutal Soviet commissar who demands that the villagers hand over their land and their grain or be shot by his soldiers. In time, Sergei and his men will not only be responsible for killing Yuri’s father but also knocking Natalka’s father into a coma that she will never wake up from – and that is after shooting the village priest in cold blood and occasionally seizing the village women as their own. The Russians are one-dimensionally evil of course, but again the depiction of that callousness is somewhat muted when the death of every principal supporting character (and that includes Yuri and Natalka’s aforementioned relations) is marked by some prop splattered with fake metonymic blood.

It also doesn’t make sense narratively that Yuri should leave the village and go enrol in some art college in Kiev when there is danger right at the village doorstep, instead of staying put and ensuring that his family as well as that of his newly-wed bride Natalka remain out of harm’s way. Just so we can see too how bad things are in the city, Yuri ups and goes before the famine hits, eventually joining the anti-Bolshevik resistance and getting thrown into prison for stabbing a Russian officer to death. In the meantime, Sergei makes overtures at Natalka, who responds by poisoning his borscht soup and organising her own resistance against the former (which only succeeds at getting herself and her family arrested and her needing to redeem her way out by swallowing her dignity and washing Sergei’s feet with her hair).

In case it isn’t apparent yet, there is little hint of subtlety here, but the emotional manipulations would not be so frustrating were they not so clumsily performed. As if afraid that we will forget how much Yuri and Natalka pine for each other, we have to endure Yuri’s voiceover from time to time about how much he misses her and wishes that she write more often (how about going back to the village to visit?). As if afraid that we forget how vile Stalin was, we have to endure occasional cutaways to a bushy-moustachioed Gary Oliver from time to time talking about how he doesn’t care of the sufferings of the Ukrainians and only about how the famine will help to put down Ukrainian nationalism. Worse still, the horrific results of the Holodomor are inexplicably glossed over, left for the end credits when we are told just how extensive the toll of the famine was on the Ukrainian people.

There is but one saving grace here, and that is British cinematographer Douglas Milsome’s on-location visuals. We’re not even going to start with the acting, which is cartoonish at best and dreadful at worst, in large part due to Irons’ inability to emote and his non-existent chemistry with Barks. Like we said at the start, ‘Bitter Harvest’ is a bitter pill to swallow in many ways, and despite shedding light on a timely and worthy subject, there is very little from a creative standpoint to embrace his poorly made historical romance drama. And that is truly a pity, for not only is it a missed opportunity, it is a dishonor to the millions who perished and deserve a better memorial to their name.

Movie Rating:

(Clunky, manipulative and heavy-handed, this terribly inept film of a worthy and timely subject of the Holomodor is an embarrassment on itself, and a disservice to the millions of people who died during that period)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Thriller/Drama
Director: Sofia Coppola
Cast: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning, Oona Laurence, Angourie Rice, Emma Howard, Addison Riecke
Runtime: 1 hr 34 mins
Rating: M18 (Sexual Scene)
Released By: UIP 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 7 September 2017

Synopsis: The Beguiled is a seductive drama from acclaimed writer/director Sofia Coppola, adapted from Thomas Cullinan’s novel. The story unfolds during the Civil War, at a Southern girls’ boarding school. Its sheltered young women encounter an injured enemy soldier. As they provide refuge and tend to his wounds, the house is taken over with sexual tension and dangerous rivalries, and taboos are broken in an unexpected turn of events.

Movie Review:

Sofia Coppola became the second lady in history to win the Best Director award at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, expectedly The Beguiled is nothing but a dreamy period outing that only the artistic crowd will appreciate and adore. The rest of the mere mortals (including this reviewer) need not apply.

Based on a 1966 novel by American novelist and playwright Thomas P. Cullinan, Coppola took the liberty to adapt it to the big screen culminating in a pretty brief 94 minutes runtime though the entire affair seems like 9 hours 4 minutes in reality.

Assembling a cast that includes the prestigious, period drama regular Nicole Kidman, Coppola’s frequent collaborator Kristen Dunst, up-and-still-coming Elle Fanning and once Hollywood bad boy Colin Farrell and set in the midst of the civil war, The Beguiled tells the story of an injured deserter, Corporal John McBurney (Farrell) who happens to seek shelter in a boarding school whereby there are only two teachers, Miss Martha Farnsworth (Kidman), Edwina Morrow (Dunst) and their five students, Alicia (Fanning), Amy (Oona Laurence), Jane (Angourie Rice), Emily (Emma Howard) and Marie (Addison Riecke).

The Beguiled simply can’t make up it’s mind to be a comedy or a provocative thriller. Shortly after McBurney shifted into the boarding school, the girls start to dress up to catch the attention of the rugged, good looking man in the house. Should I add the ONLY man in the movie except for some brief scenes involving confederate soldiers passing by. It’s laughable even sickening at some point when a girl less than 10 years puts on a pair of Edwina’s earrings just to involve in some small talk with McBurney. But hey this movie is done from a woman’s perspective so I guess it’s perfectly all right.     

Undeniably, the cast looks great in corsets parading with much style throwing lusty eyes at McBurney who happened to be bedridden because of a leg injury. Despite that, McBurney who might not be a competent soldier in the field has no problems manipulating every girls in the household from Amy (who happens to be the one who brought him to the school in the first place) to a horny Alicia to Edwina who can’t wait to be conquer by a soldier who volunteers to stay back as a gardener for Miss Martha. It gets incredibly quirky like a cheap porno flick as the movie goes but I can’t laugh out loud because it’s a serious movie after all.

Depending how good your eyesight is, the movie is often bathed in candlelights and natural lighting courtesy of French cinematographer Philipe Le Sourd (Seven Years, The Grandmaster). It’s an atmospheric affair though it can gets irritable if you can’t see the faces of the beautiful cast for most of the time.  

Like the lavish Marie Antoinette and satricial crime drama,The Bling Ring, Coppola fails to delve deeper into the motives and complexity of the characters. This is a pity consider that Coppola already kept things small and confined. There’s no backstories of anyone or any context of the ongoing war. While it may seems I hated the movie a lot, I did enjoyed the production values and the wonderful cast performances on the contrary. Did I say there’s a nice twist to the all the sexual tension on display? As a caution, just stay far away from mushrooms sautee in butter and wine. 

Movie Rating:

(Watch for the acting and gorgeous production values otherwise it’s a slow-pace arthouse drama filled with unintentional laughs

Review by Linus Tee

BETTER

Genre: Romance/Drama
Director: Kearen Pang
Cast: Chrissie Chau, Joyce Cheng, Ben Yeung, Babyjohn Choi
Runtime: 1 hr 51 mins
Rating: PG (Scene of Intimacy)
Released By: Shaw
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 11 May 2017

Synopsis: In 2005, two women are approaching 30 years old. Christy Lam (starring Chrissie Chau) is fearful of the future as she struggles with the stress at work, her aging but annoying parents, and her seemingly stable yet stagnant relationship. On the other hand, Wong Tin-Lok (starring Joyce Cheng) has never been in love, and her job is taking her nowhere. However, she is optimistic towards life, and makes a bold decision to just pick up her bags and fulfil her childhood dream. Christy makes a temporary move into Wong’s apartment. Through Wong’s diary, Christy discovers that they share the same birthday, and learns about her life. As their virtual bond grows, Wong’s alternate approach to life becomes an integral part of Christy’s own. Who has entered whose world?

Movie Review:

Age milestones, like the annual New Year event, have a profound effect on human beings. Somewhere along the way, they have warped from celebrations to stressful introspective checkpoints.

“What have I done with my life so far?”, one asks of themselves.

No one is feeling this more keenly than Christy Lam (Chrissie Chau), a high-flying executive who just got promoted to regional manager. A month away from her 30th birthday, she is enjoying upward changes in her “saturn cycle” - a theory her boss shares, as a period of monumental shifts at the end of every thirty years. It seems that way. She’s got a steady boyfriend, her own lavish apartment, and a healthy support system of friends and family. But as the day draws closer, her growth u-turns, and everything starts to fall apart. She loses first her apartment, then her boyfriend, before spiralling down tearfully as parent and job finally disappears from her life.

Enter Wong Tin-Lok (Joyce Cheng). She’s lived her life from day-to-day as a record shop assistant, with most of her days spent with childhood friend Cheung Hon Ming (Babyjohn Choi). They take polaroids of their lives, giggling at every seemingly simple moment, toothy and unaffected by the pressures of an adult life. As it turns out, Tin-lok is also turning thirty and has the exact same birthdate as Christy.

Writer and director Kearan Pang, who adapted 29 + 1 from her own play, is also the main actress on the stage. She explores the parallel timeline of two adult women, who face their lives with a completely attitude, exploring background and motivations. Does success come with estrangement? Is happiness as easy as just choosing to be so? According to Pang, this may be so, as she slowly layers the philosophies with sentimental scenarios.

Sad to say, the transition from play to film is keenly felt. Maybe Pang suffers from tunnel vision, given her proximity to the material. 29 + 1 feels uneven and at times, a little staged - literally. Certain segments I could see literally transplanted from the original material, speech and body movement overly theatrical and staged. Other moments, it goes renegade on whimsy, before diving straight into tubebox melodrama. The personal musings of the play might also have grown a little dated - unsurprising given it came out in 2005.

Chau as Christy and Joyce as Tin-lok don’t seem to have that connection that’s meant to be the glue of the film. When Christy becomes temporary tenant of Tin-lok’s unit, while the latter goes on her dream tour to Paris, you feel excited for the premise. They never meet, yes - but Christy’s discovery of Tin-lok’s diary and the direction it gives her to save her from the brink of depression could have been much more, but is only concept acted out, but not very much felt.

There are moments that charm, when the characters step out of their caricuture and stereotype. Like when Tin-lok gets captured on camera for “an expression of gratitude” by her boss giving her generous leave. Or when she asks her best friend Hon Ming to touch her breasts. Christy also becomes authentic in a scene with her father, and during her breakup with her boyfriend. More of such realism would have given the punch 29 + 1 deserves.

Movie Rating:

(Rich material comes across stilted and dated in the translation, though still a worthy exploration)

Review by Morgan Awyong

Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: Leste Chen
Cast: Huang Bo, Xu Jinglei, Tiffany Ann Hsu, Duan Yihong, Yang Zishan
Runtime: 2 hrs
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence)
Released By: mm2 Entertainment, Clover Films and Cathay-Keris Films 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 28 April 2017

Synopsis: What will happen if your brain locates a memory that doesn’t belong to you? In 2019, the “Master of Memory” has been popularized worldwide. This is a surgery that can manipulate one’s memories and takes away any emotional trauma in efforts to aid people in moving on. Feng, a prestigious novelist, is entangled in a painful divorce and chooses to erase the memories of his marriage. When he tries to recover his them, he finds himself in the mind of a serial killer. He reaches out to a police inspector, Shen. Both relying on their deductions of these dangerous secrets, they have 72 hours to find the killer. Otherwise, these horrifying memories will be etched to Feng’s mind forever.

Movie Review:

Despite its Chinese title Jiyi-Dashi, which in fact literally translates to “Master of Memory”, there is nothing in this film about brainiacs gifted with the cerebral aptitude for storing or recalling long strings of data or figures. A loose follow up to 2014’s The Great Hypnotist (or Cuimian-Dashi, literally “Master of Hypnotism”) and the second part in up-and-coming Taiwanese director Leste Chen’s planned Master (Dashi) trilogy, Battle of Memories is a sci-fi crime thriller that, apart from genre and namesake, bears scant resemblance in storyline to its predecessor.

Debatable misnomers aside, the film starts off chillingly enough – we hear a girl whispering numbers to herself in a dark dwelling, seemingly counting down to some event that we are not privy to. A neighbour, concerned about the raucous quarrels that have emerged from the girl’s apartment just moments before, helpfully knocks on the door to ask if everything is ok with her parents. The girl falteringly answers that it is so and shuts the door, but clearly nothing is ok, because we then see two bloodied bodies sprawled at the base of a staircase in her house.

Fast forward and we meet the protagonist Feng (played by Huang Bo), a best-selling author of meek temperament, who is in the midst of painful divorce proceedings with his wife Zhang Daichen (played Xu Jinglei). Driven by a desire to forget the past he shares with her, he employs the medical services of an institute to perform the cutting-edge surgery in question, which niftily elicits the relevant memories and distils them into a minidisc-type token.

Except of course that there are limitations to the technology: the procedure focuses on removing the emotions associated with the traumatic memories rather than deleting the culpable events recorded by the brain. Any post-op recollections are then experienced detachedly by its clients as dispassionate observers. In addition, the surgical operation is only somewhat reversible and any memories that are re-imported become permanent after 72 hours.

For reasons that are later revealed, Daichen insists that Feng reinstall the memories, which he does. It slowly emerges that his token has been inadvertently swopped with that of a killer, as harrowing images of crimes scenes start to manifest themselves in his mind. He helpfully volunteers the information to the police, in particular a certain Inspector Shen (played by Duan Yihong), who begins to believe Feng’s accounts but is ostensibly limited by the lack of concrete evidence to take any action.

As the fuzzy transplanted memories start to gain clarity (which range from somewhat unsettling scenes of domestic altercations to downright eerie depictions of a pallid body submerged in a bathtub and of another lady being shoved down a flight stairs), Feng is convinced that the mysterious killer (who has access to his extracted memories) will target his wife next and decides to takes things into his own hands. The film escalates into full-blown whodunit thriller mode, laying some red herrings along the ride for audiences but never easing on building up the dread, as the fragments of the killer narrative coalesce into a climatic end.

So how does it all fare? Comparisons of how this movie measures up against other films of the Hollywood sci-fi tradition seem inevitable, given that the latter has had a far more established history than that in the mainland Chinese film industry, and that many Chinese productions of such scale have been plagued by the ignominy of unoriginality or even plagiarism accusations. The comparisons are a fact that director Leste Chen himself seems resigned to, judging from recent media interviews.

Truth be told, there are aspects of the film’s premise that recalls modern genre classics such as Christopher Nolan’s Memento (in the way unfamiliar memories are progressively pieced together in order to trace the identity of a certain murderer and the stylistic interspersing of colour and black-and-white sequences) and Michel Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (in the way its characters undergo similar memory erasure procedures to forget about their failed romance).

To Chen’s credit however, he seems to have taken into consideration the criticism levelled upon the previous instalmentThe Great Hypnotist (which critics claimed was a rip-off of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense) and crafted something here that still feels like a breath of fresh air. Instead of focusing on the technical aspects of the sci-fi element, Chen instead grounds his efforts in telling the story, and it pays off quite handsomely on the big screen. The film cleverly steers you in misleading ways, even making you work to think you’ve got the identity of the killer all figured out, when things may not be as they seem (just like a good whodunit should). And even if you’ve got your bets right, certain details about the murderer’s motives and modus operandi for his or her next intended slaughter are left only to the very end. 

While the material is hardly ground-breaking (at least by the Hollywood yardstick), there also appears to be a deliberate effort at subtle social commentary to remind you that the context is still quintessentially Chinese: a mother-in-law pressures her daughter-in-law to have children (with heart-breaking consequences); the sense of resignation with regards to laws protecting minors; an abusive husband who has to seek permission from his mother-in-law to bring his wife home.

Rather than resort to cheap jolts and jump scares, Chen also manages to weave a richly macabre atmosphere by combining a grim, neo-noir aesthetic with plot-driven tension. Some scenes are outright visceral and may be difficult to stomach (including the use of a razor blade in creative ways to break out of jail), but they all work in keeping audiences at the edge of their seats. The result of all the above? A satisfying piece that teases the brain as much as it gratifies in terms of visuals.

In terms of acting, it is clearly the leading men who steal the limelight. Huang Bo proves his mettle as one of the biggest names in mainland China today by fully displaying the range he is capable of: he is equally adept as docile goody-two-shoes novelist as he is in his transformation to raging beast on the loose. Duan Yihong also excels as police inspector Shen, well conveying the intensity of his brooding character in an overall compelling performance. One wishes though that the portrayals of the main female characters were more memorable, especially that of the doctor Chen Shanshan (played by Yang Zishan), which felt a little too subdued for such a pivotal role in the plot.

While not perfect, all things taken into consideration, Battle of Memories is a solid piece of entertainment that reminds us that not enough Chinese movies have been made in the same thematic vein, and that given the right budget, production values and attention to storytelling, there is no reason why Chinese productions should be seen as inferior to their Hollywood counterparts. If the battle for audiences continues to head in this encouraging direction, we want in.

Movie Rating:

(A damning indictment on the far-reaching consequences of domestic violence, this crime thriller is an all-round exciting ride and a breath of fresh air among Chinese films. Watch it)

Review by Tan Yong Chia Gabriel

Genre: Romance/Comedy
Director: Derek Hui
Cast: Takeshi Kaneshiro, Zhou Dongyu, Ming Xi, Tony Yang, Chiling Lin Chi-Ling, John Chang Kuo-Chu
Runtime: 1 hr 47 mins
Rating: PG
Released By: Clover Films and Golden Village Pictures 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 11 May 2017

Synopsis: Adapted from renowned web novelist Lan Bai Se's A Long Time Coming. Does difference breed contempt or fondness? The Lu family motto is ‘Being loathed leads to solitude and solitude keeps the mind clear.’ Callous and eccentric Lu Jin, President of an international hotel group, is every bit the man one loves to hate. Gu Shengnan, sous chef of Rosebud Hotel, is no more a social darling than him ? confused, careless and unkempt, she is hardly what most men consider an object of desire. Lu Jin checks into a hotel to conduct acquisition research. He is dissatisfied with everything he sees, but a last-minute dish whipped by Gu Shengnan blows his mind. He starts ordering dishes from her and she starts cooking for him. The two don’t meet in person but they share a mutual appreciation for each other. Yet in reality, they’re arch-rivals whose every encounter is a catastrophe, until their identities are revealed by accident… In the tug-of-war between contempt and fondness, which side will win?

Movie Review:

At its core, ‘This is Not What I Expected’ is about two diametrically opposite individuals who start off butting heads with each other but end up falling in love.

On one hand is Lu Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro), the CEO of a multibillion international company called VN Group who flies around the world evaluating hotels for their worthiness before deciding whether to acquire them or not.

On the other is Gu Shengnan (Zhou Dongyu), a junior sous-chef at the boutique hotel Rosebud in Shanghai where Lu Jin and his subservient assistant Richard Meng (Sun Yizhou) has just checked into for business (not pleasure, mind you).

It isn’t just their statuses that are different; their personalities are just as dissimilar – Lu Jin is a tightly wound, clinical individual who prides himself at being a perfectionist; whereas Shengnan is by and large a free-wheeling lark whose blithe attitude to life is only disturbed by her recent breakup with the hotel’s   (douche-bag)  general manager Cheng Zixian (a very suave-looking Tony Yang).

As much as scriptwriters Li Yuan and Xu Yimeng draw from the oldest trick in the rom-com playbook, their adaptation of renowned web novelist Lan Bai Se’s ‘A Long Time Coming’ is no means stale. Oh no, the result is quite the contrary in fact. Mixing the familiar elements of an ‘opposites attract’ rom-com with the ingredients of a culinary comedy has proved quite the inspiration, and even if it does feel familiar on the whole, there’s no denying that veteran editor Derek Hui’s directorial debut still tastes fresh, delightful and often hilarious.

Benefiting immensely from his years working with some of the best in the industry including Peter Chan himself, Teddy Chan and even Chen Kaige, Hui demonstrates confidence, discipline and clarity right from the get-go, displaying none of the shortcomings that usually plague first-time directors.

That is clear right from the get-go: within the prologue, he establishes succintly not only Lu Jin’s exacting standards in the food he eats, but also the businesslike approach with which he handles staff performance, telling an under-performing senior manager seated across a long table that he is fired. And then without letting up, Hui stages the first meet-cute between Lu Jin and Shengnan in a classic case of mistaken identity, as the former catches the latter vandalizing the hood of his car to avenge her heartbroken female buddy Xu Zhaodi (Meng Xi) and only agrees not to call the police after she lets him humiliate her, i.e. by writing on her forehead the telephone number of the company she is supposed to call to fix the damage she caused to his car.

Oh yes, there is a precision to the way Hui approaches his scenes, such that each makes its point without outlasting its welcome. That same exactness also ensures the movie remains pacey – from the point Lu Jin steps into the Rosebud criticizing the customer service, room soundproofing and Michelin-starred food in turn; to his enchantment with the last-minute dish prepared by Shengnan and each one of her exquisitely plated dishes thereafter; to the series of encounters between Lu Jin and Shengnan that reinforce his annoyance towards her before he discovers she is the chef he has been enamored with; and last but not least to the pranks he plays on her before she realizes that he already knows her identity.

There is plenty of screwball humour in between: Lu Jin ending up in lock-up after stuffing a drunk Shengnan, who falls onto on his balcony, into a suitcase; Lu Jin instructing the duty officer at the police station how to prepare a perfect bowl of instant noodles; Lu Jin ending up with a horribly swollen face after Shengnan lets loose a swarm of bees when retrieving an umbrella up in a tree; and last but not least Lu Jin forced to agree to record a series of festival greetings for a pompous online celebrity’s video channel so that the latter will take down embarrassing pictures of him in lock-up. Quite impressively, the laughs to gags ratio is almost one-to-one, which is extremely rare for any comedy.

Before the madcap antics turn repetitive, the second half switches gears for intimacy and even pathos. Over a nicely edited montage, we see Lu Jin turning up unannounced at Shengnan’s messy but homely apartment where she lives with her dog named ‘Boss’, treating her as his personal chef, turning her place into his own home, and in the process discovering a much more human side to himself that he has been repressing. There is both sweetness and tenderness in a whimsical sequence where both hallucinate rain after having some poisonous blowfish for steamboat, and end up taking an umbrella out for a walk around the neighbourhood and on board a bus through Shanghai’s beautifully lit streets. A late twist that sees Lin Chiling emerge as Lu Jin’s personal chef is somewhat under-developed, but still makes the point of reinforcing how food has been a special bond between their hearts.

And as a final note, it is admirable that Hui stays true to the quirks and eccentricities of his characters as well as their relationship during the heartfelt finale. That same consistency extends to Takeshi Kaneshiro and Zhou Dongyu’s performances, so that we not only believe that their characters are authentic but are also invested emotionally in them.

True to its title, ‘This is Not What I Expected’ is an unexpectedly enjoyable rom-com – the jokes land mostly where they should, the romance is sweet but never cloying, and the presentation is brisk, lively and engaging. It also boasts a pair of leads with sharp comic timing and great chemistry that you’ll miss hanging out with the minute it’s over, and with the venerable Peter Ho-sun Chan and his regular partner Jojo Hui as producers, you can be assured of a finale that is touching, poignant and genuine. Just be sure not to go into it hungry, because the wonderfully delectable food porn shots within will make sure that it isn’t just your heart that will be stirred.

Movie Rating:

(A perfect combination of screwball humour, heartfelt intimacy and infectious chemistry, this ‘opposites attract’ rom-com would most certainly be ‘Michelin-grade’ excellence in the culinary world)

Review by Gabriel Chong