'Based On' or 'Inspired By'?

The Imitation Game (2014)

8.2/10 on IMDb
89% on Rotten Tomatoes
This movie follows the story of Alan Turing, the real-life mathematician hired to crack the enigma code and thus win World War II.

First things first I'm going to put a disclaimer here. This review is going to be extremely short, and most of it will just be a rant on the one thing I hated. Feel free to skip this section if you want, but I need to get it off my chest.

So, the review:

I love Benedict Cumberbatch, I think he's an amazing actor, and his performance was great in this.

Keira Knightley I also love, so she was quite refreshing as I haven't seen her in much lately.

Charles Dance was also a welcome surprise but is it just me or did he still look and act like Tywin Lannister?

The plot was good, and all in all this movie was great and very enjoyable.

Now on to what I hated the most about it:

90% of the movie did not happen.

The movie is sold as a movie that is based on a true story. Based on. Which to me means that most of the movie will be true. Sure there's room for creative licence and different interpretations and a bit of drama thrown in, but if you're going to make 90% of the movie false, then it is no longer 'based on' a true story; it becomes 'inspired by' a true story.

I'll do the most part of this spoiler-free but later on I'll add spoiler tags so it's more in-depth.

Most of the movie focuses on the challenges that Turing faced when trying to crack this code. These challenges did not exist in real life.

The movie makes him out to be some insane hero who, after cracking the code, goes on to do even more amazing things. This did not happen in real life.

The ending was one of the few things that was true to reality. But unfortunately it was squished into the last 30 minutes and 2 pathetic sentences after the film ends. They bothered to focus so much on falsity for the first 3/4 of the movie, then they just shoe-horned in the one thing that was real (and might I add it was quite an important feature that shouldn't have been rushed). Turing and his struggles deserved much more than a rushed 30 minute segment and a few sentences after the film ends.

My problem with this is that it does no justice to Turing. He did struggle, but the filmmakers and the studio decided to create more false struggles than to focus on his real struggle.

I can't keep going on like this without spoiling the movie, so here is my non-spoiler free section:

~SPOILERS!~

1. In the film, Turing is called up to crack the code, not to build the machine. He is socially awkward and none of his fellow colleagues like him. He also has this ingenious idea of building a machine to crack the code, much to the dismay of his fellow colleagues and superiors, who do not like it and continually undermine him and question him and his machine.

In fact none of this happens. He was called specifically to build the machine, which was actually a better improved version of a previous machine someone else had tried to design (but did not really work). Let me repeat that: He was hired specifically to build that machine. He did not come up against any struggles with his superiors.

He also wasn't socially awkward as they made him out to be. He was well-liked and actually made friends with his colleagues quite easily.

2. He gets engaged to Keira Knightley's character.

This part was true.

3. He cracked the code with this great revelation of using the weather as a word that would always pop up.

I think this was false. The part in the bar where they have this great epiphany and rush to the workshop to figure it out is definitely false, but I'm fine with it as it's just for dramatic effect.

4. After cracking the code, he continually helps by working out the statistical likelihood of winning battles, so the Germans won't realise they cracked the code.

This is completely false and just wastes a lot of film time.

5. He was homosexual, had problems with society, got chemically castrated, then suicided as a result.

This is all true. But it was shoe-horned in during the last 30 minutes. Why didn't they play this out through the whole movie? It makes me so angry because it just reinforces this idea that someone's problems with his sexual orientation is not as serious a problem. Instead let's just condense it in to the last bit of the movie and write a few sentences on it.

What they could have done was just cut out most of the made-up struggles he had at the beginning of the film, play out how he solved enigma, then spent the other half of the movie focusing on how crap his life was just because he was a homosexual.

Surely that would have done more justice to him.

It's almost as if we haven't progressed anywhere in society if you're just going to neglect the fact that his homosexuality was such a huge problem. Why does this guy have to be homosexual and socially awkward and hated? Why not just show that he was great and hardly had any problems except the fact that he was homosexual? And show how he was such a great genius, but his homosexuality in the end caused him to suicide. Why not have the entire movie on that, rather than this crap about him needing to buy apples to get others to like him?

Anyway, that's the end of my rant.

In the end, it's a great film, but as far as selling it as a true story, and undermining this guy's life, it's a real disappointment.

Having said that, I would highly recommend it only if you knew it was 90% false going in.



Foxcatcher (2014)

7.2/10 on IMDb
88% on Rotten Tomatoes
Another film that was based on a true story, except this time it was actually pretty accurate.

Here we look at Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), his older brother and also Olympic Wrestler Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo), and Mark's new wrestling mentor John du Pont (Steve Carell).

This film doesn't have much of a plot to it, but pretty much Mark decides to distance himself from his older brother Dave, as he attempts to break free from being under the shadow of Dave and make a name for himself. That's how Steve Carell comes in, who, might I add, is simply amazing.

Steve Carell is kind of the only reason I wanted to watch this film. I've seen interviews of the cast, and clips of the film and was just blown away by how crazy Carell was. Like, he honestly looks and acts so different to what he normally does. In fact, it's pretty hard to see that he is even Steve Carell. He looks like he could be Carell's uncle or something.

But altogether, this film was not that great. It could have been good, but it just dragged out so much. There were scenes that could have lasted one or two seconds but instead lasted about 10 seconds. There were scenes that were long but completely unnecessary (for example Channing Tatum awkwardly asking for the toilet and then a super long scene of his face whilst he is peeing).

The movie is about 2 hours and 15 minutes, but one hour in I actually thought the movie was going to end soon. In the realisation that we had over an hour left, Michael and I let out an audible groan of anguish.

The most memorable thing was the ending, which was just so random and unexpected I was very confused.

The second most memorable thing was hearing the theme of Kingsman from an adjacent cinema during a quiet scene.

In the end, the acting was great, from all three main characters, but the directing was too slow to be enjoyable.

I do not recommend this film.

-----
Oooh and Valentine's Day happened! (Yes, this is how far behind I am in blogging)

Unfortunately I was working during the day and Diwan during the night, so we couldn't meet up, but us girls went and had a girl's night in at Joyce's where we had curry, did random stuff and watched a movie.

What's Your Number? (2011)

6.0/10 on IMDb
23% on Rotten Tomatoes
Starring Anna Faris as a woman who's had sex with nineteen different men, the film follows her trying to track down these nineteen people as she wonders whether one of them is actually 'the one'.

Firstly, this film is actually quite long, but it was still enjoyable. I hadn't heard anything about it so I didn't have much high expectations anyway (after all, it's just a simple rom com).

It actually has a pretty good cast which I did not realise (Chris Evans, Chris Pratt) as well as a few good cameos (Joel McHale, Andy Samberg, Martin Freeman, Anthony Mackie, Aziz Ansari).

All in all, it's a decent comedy for when you're bored and don't have much to do (and Chris Evans is a handsome devil so why not?).


On the Sunday after Valentine's Day, Diwan and I went to Darling Harbour for the Valentine's Day attractions, which weren't even that great. Literally they put every single thing as an attraction even if it was just one heart hung up somewhere.

But Diwan opened my eyes to Hot Star fried chicken, which was amazingly delicious.

Unfornately I'm not that good at remembering to take photos of my food when I'm absolutely famished, so you'll just have to trust me on this: it's bigger than my face.

I couldn't finish it, but the money paid for what I got was still worth it.

They pound it super flat but for some reason it's still so moist. I don't understand how they make this perfection of a fried chicken.

How did we end up here?

Okay I've been pretty busy lately, so I've got a few movies that need reviewing that I'll blog about in the coming posts. For my first one, I'm going all the way back to mid-January yikes!


Birdman (2014)

8.1/10 on IMDb
93% on Rotten Tomatoes
As amazing as Christian Bale is as Batman, Michael Keaton was the one and only Batman for me during my childhood.

And here he is again, after so many years, playing Batman again.

I mean Birdman.

I mean how self-aware is this film? It's probably the most self-aware film that's ever been created.

Michael Keaton stars as Riggan, a washed-up actor known for his portrayal of the superhero Birdman. Yet after all these years here he is, suffering a mental breakdown as he struggles to show his full potential. While people recognise him as Birdman, he strives to be something more; he strives to be an actor with skill and versatility, not just an actor that played one role.

Sounds familiar? Well, it's pretty much the story of Michael Keaton's life here. I mean seriously, I haven't seen any other Keaton film apart from his Batman movies. It's just so self-aware! I love that about the film.

Even when they say that Riggan hasn't played Birdman since 1992, it's not just a random date pulled out of nowhere; that's the year that Batman Returns was released, the last year of the Michael Keaton Batman era.

And it's not just with Keaton; apparently even Edward Norton's character is a parody of his real self, as he has a reputation for being a very difficult actor to work with.

But let's get to the main feature of this film.

I don't know about you but I was pretty darn hyped up for a film that looked like it was done in one shot.

Alejandro Iñárritu did such an amazing job here; it was so mesmerising to see everything from a single shot; almost like we were following Riggan, like we were going up the steps to the balcony, almost as if we were there ourselves.

From IMDb: "Given the unusual style of filming long takes, Edward Norton and Michael Keaton kept a running tally of flubs made by the actors. Emma Stone made the most mistakes, Zach Galifianakis made the fewest."

Speaking of which, how awesome was Zach Galifianakis? Like he wasn't a complete idiot in this film. He wasn't even slightly an idiot! I was so surpised; I kept forgetting it was actually him.

And just as a side note, Emma Stone's eyes are HUGE in this film (Tiny Fey and Amy Poehler weren't kidding).

By the way, a lot of people praised Emma Stone, but I feel like she was just alright; like she was good, but nothing special. This film didn't really showcase any versatility or whatever in her, it just showed she's still a good actor.

My favourite part of the film, though, was... well I can't really say because it will ruin the moment, but here's what IMDb says about it:

~(Potential) SPOILER!~

When Riggan is on top of the building before he's about to start flying, a lady below asks if he's for real or if it's for a movie. Riggan replies that it's for a movie and the lady yells back that all the movies are full of s***. The woman was not part of the production.

Also, the ending was intriguing.

It's one of those endings that will spark (and has already sparked) much debate...

~SPOILER ON THE ENDING!~

This video explains it quite well, but I also drew a flow chart to kind of explain all the different possiblities:

(Click to enlarge)

Apart from that, another great thing about the film was the music. The way the opening credits come on, and the way that drummer plays his heart out throughout the film is fantastic.

So all in all, this film is completely legendary (thanks to Iñárritu and Keaton) and a definite must see!


By the way, at the cinemas, how cool are these Choc Top names:

Juno (2007)

7.6/10 on IMDb
94% on Rotten Tomatoes
I've always loved Ellen Page, ever since I saw her in X-Men as Kitty Pryde, so I don't know why I didn't watch Juno when it came out, but it's always been on my list.

I'm sure most know the general story of Juno MacGuff, the young teenager who finds herself pregnant. But I really didn't expect the film to go beyond that. I thought it was just a simplistic comedy about teenage pregnancy. Sure it was quite critically acclaimed and won a few awards, but I just thought that was acknowledging it's quirkiness and that it couldn't go any further as a movie.

Of course, I obviously didn't hear much about it going in, so I was quite surprised when I watched this film. While it's quite funny, it's sense of humour is pretty clever, and not the slapstick really stupid humour I was expecting. The storyline also gets a bit complicated, and Ellen page and Jennifer Garner were pretty great in this. Jennifer Garner actually made me tear up in that one really touching scene when she bumps into Juno at the mall.

I also didn't realise there was much of a cast to be honest. I knew Michael Cera was in it, but I had no idea about Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner and the others being in it.

Overall, this film was a pleasant surprise, but I think it was still a bit too hyped up (maybe because I'm only watching it 7 years after it came out, maybe because I thought it was a full-on in-your-face comedy film, and maybe because all I heard about it was hype hype hype and more hype, instead of an actual plot or proper review). But in saying that, the comedic timing was great, and the balance between comedy and drama was well executed, and I would recommend it if you needed something to kill your time or if you ever came across it and weren't sure if you should give it a watch.


Also, for one week of February my house has been empty of parents.

My dad went to China for work and my mum Malaysia for holiday, so they've left me and my brother to fend for ourselves.

Fortunately, that was the week I stopped working so much, so I've had more time to cook.

Apart from the stuff my mum has pre-cooked and frozen (like curry and spaghetti sauce), I've been experimenting with random recipes I've always wanted to cook:

The chicken schnitzel was bought cold from Coles, but was still quite nice. The cheesy potato bake was delicious but took way longer than expected to actually make altogether (about an hour).

The chicken schnitzel was left over from the first time, so I cooked it again with baked stuffed potatoes, which are a classic that I've been doing ever since food tech days in year 9/10.
My dad came back about a week after my mum left, but because he can't cook I had to keep this up.

It was a good day in the Lim household where I discovered I still had a taco kit in my pantry that wasn't expired!

Then I started craving some Frankfurts and gravy so I got these hot dogs done, together with these frozen chips that I bought before but didn't get around to cooking.

Then I was in the mood for some creamy chicken fettucine, which is delicious because the main ingredient is Cream of Chicken condensed soup. Although I will say there is A LOT of food, and quite a bit of preparation for it. We were all quite full after.

Holidays are for Making Monies

Man these last two weeks has been cray.

I finally have a proper job now, and by proper I mean something that's long-term (unlike a Christmas Casual) and official (unlike the black market that is private tutoring).

Yehp, I'm now a casual receptionist at LJ Hooker! The last few weeks have been crazy because I've been training every day that I could, mainly just transferring calls, filing, doing mail, etc., which isn't that hard.

I'd work a full day only to come home and do more research for my new volunteering position as a research assistant, which I talked about in a previous post.

From now on I'll be working two to three days a week, which is good because I still need to get a fair bit of research done, and when uni comes I can still have a proper job while studying.

The research position is going good. I've been reading A LOT on self-handicapping, a super interesting topic. It's one of those things that some people do where they deliberately (but not necessarily consciously) hinder their own performances by doing or not doing certain things, such as procrastinating and not studying, or going out the night before an important exam. This serves to externalise the issue so that if you don't do well, you can blame it on something, like, "Oh I didn't do well because I didn't study" or "Oh I didn't do well because I didn't sleep enough". However, if you end up doing well, you can internalise the success and say something like, "I didn't even study and I did well! I must be pretty good!" So in this regard you can see how it links to things like self-esteem, which is kind of (but not really) what I'm doing as a research assistant. The woman whose PhD we're working on actually doesn't really focus on self-esteem, but that's the best way I can describe it.

So whilst it's been a very busy and tiring few weeks, at least I'm being productive and earning money/gaining experience.

But unfortunately, I haven't done much this past week, and I've had to have amazing self-control and reject opportunities to watch movies that my family borrowed/rented.

So for now, these are reviews of movies that I've watched at least a few weeks ago:


Into the Woods (2014)

6.4/10 on IMDb
72% on Rotten Tomatoes
Maybe because it's a fairytale movie, maybe because it's a musical, maybe because I adore the entire cast, but I absolutely LOVED this film.

It's based on the very popular musical that tells the story of multiple classic fairytales, including Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Rapunzel.

I haven't seen the musical but I thought it was a great spin on all these classic stories, with an innovative way that they could all intertwine, as they are all connected by a baker and his wife, who want (more than anything) a child. However, a curse was put on the baker's father by the witch that lives next door to them.

Meryl Streep as the witch is amazing and legendary, as usual. Even as a witch you could tell how pretty she was.

In fact, everyone was amazing. Anna Kendrick has this beauty that just makes her so perfect as Cinderella, and the way she hit those high notes in the opening song sent shivers down my spine. James Corden as the baker was good too; I haven't seen him in anything yet but he did well in this role. Emily Blunt was just as amazing and funny as she usually was, and Chris Pine was hilariously and devilishly charming. The only thing was Johnny Depp, as I'm getting quite sick of him being a weird character. His singing voice was still good though, and he's only in the film for a brief appearance as the Wolf, so it wasn't too bad.

Everyone was a great singer, but the only problem was the the girl for Little Red had a very loud and piercing voice that just kind of made you cringe every time she opened her mouth.

I found it more enjoyable than Les Miserables. Even though Les Mis had good songs, it seemed a bit boring and quite long. The main theme of Into the Woods is amazing though; it's so catchy, so fairytale-like and just so wonderful.

The movie still felt quite long though, even though it was only two hours. I think it's because the main songs get repeated quite a lot, and the second half dragged out a bit longer than expected. However, there's still some great moments of comedy (thanks to Chris Pine and his manly chest).

I did read though that the second half or second act of the original play is usually not performed in many schools, and it may have something to do with the fact that the second half just isn't that enjoyable. I was quite surprised when the first half of the movie was done, and I checked my watch, and only one hour had passed! It seemed way longer than that, but that might also be the fact that every piece of dialogue (pretty much) was sung.

But in saying all this, the second half does reveal a great moment of truth for the audience. It's the part of the movie when reality hits. You realise that just because you wanted something before doesn't mean you would still want it when you actually got it. It's like that line that Cinderella says (that I can't seem to find properly quoted) when she states that she only loved the idea of the far-off Prince, and didn't love the idea so much once she finally got him.

Regardless of all that, I'm still definitely buying the movie when it comes out on DVD.


Prisoners (2013)

8.1/10 on IMDb
82% on Rotten Tomatoes
For some reason I hadn't heard of this film in 2013, but my mum rented it and, as you can see, the ratings were pretty good, so I figured why not.

The story revolves around two fathers whose daughters go missing mysteriously one night. As the police seem to be getting nowhere with the case, the fathers decide to take matters into their own hands, but boundaries are blurred and pushed to the limits when the fathers start getting desperate.

I didn't expect much out of it, and to be honest I haven't really seen Hugh Jackman in anything other than X-Men, Les Mis and The Prestige, so it's quite refreshing to seem him act as a non-superhero, a person not singing, and just living in the modern time period. He was actually pretty good in this, but his character is not anything you wouldn't expect.

Jake Gyllenhaal was also pretty good as the detective, but the true star of the show was Paul Dano.

This guy's performance was just absolutely amazing, and he really was the actor that stood out. While Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal are good actors, they seemed so average in comparison to Paul Dano.

I can't say too much about the film without giving away spoilers, but the film was surprisingly intriguing and intense. The plotline is pretty solid, and the directing was done really well. The majority of the film keeps your heart in your mouth and your butt on the edge of your seat.

It also really makes you wonder what you yourself would do in that situation, and how, in many ways, these events can result in more than just one victim, or prisoner.

In the end, I think this film was pretty darn good.


Captain Phillips (2013)

7.9/10 on IMDb
93% on Rotten Tomatoes
Based on the true story of Captain Richard Phillips and the hijacking of his ship the MV Maersk Alabama by Somali pirates, this film definitely has more to offer than what you would expect.

I expected a story about Somali pirates hijacking a ship, Captain Phillips overpowering them and then Captain Phillips having a happy ending.

I really didn't expect much more than a standard hijacking story, especially because it was based on a true story.

To my delight and surprise, the story gives you so much more than that. Tom Hanks was great at portraying the clever, brave, and yet cautiously frightened Captain, and his performance really made me extremely emotional. I know that Barkhad Abdi got nominated for the Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards and even won it for some other awards, but to be honest I didn't see what was so good about him (it's probably just a political move as per usual).

The movie as a whole was pretty good though, all the actors played their parts well and the storyline is definitely better than you expect (and I can't say much more than that without giving the plot away).

Overall, I think this is one of those films that are good to see, but probably won't interest you for a second viewing in the near future.