Almost Buddhist - 戲‧論

( Mia Wasikowska in Jane Eyre ) (2011)  ★★★★☆ Frankly, I haven’t read the book, but I really want to now after I saw the film that is indeed a surprisingly terrific adaptation of such a classic piece of work by Charlotte Bronte. Classic tales like ‘Jane Eyre’ could be rather boring to modern readers like us that probably prefer fictions to literature or stuff, but this 2011’s version is not at all mundane. It’s, on the contrary, intriguing and romantic enough to make you sit still and enjoy for two hours straight. To those who’ve read the book, the story could be of no surprise, but to those like me who haven’t, it’s very much of a mystery, especially as it’s told in frequent flashbacks. It kicks off with Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) running out of a mansion breathlessly with a bitter face. Her memories then begin to play out as the story goes on. We’re told how she’s raised up and ill-treated as an orphan in her uncle’s family; strictly educated at a charity school and finally in

(2011)  ★★★☆☆ 本人非長線「股民」，但曾是短線「估民」。我一向認為「短炒」只屬賭博，並非投資，投資須具備充足的行內常識、耐性、和眼光。除了有少許耐性之外，我沒有投資常識，也就注定沒有眼光，更加關鍵的是我沒錢，所以現在已是一個徹底的「股盲」了。〈竊聽風雲 2 〉涉及股票買賣情節，但還不至於複雜得令大家一頭霧水，我這個「股盲」都看得懂的東西，應該難不倒各位「專家」吧。 股票買賣只是個幌子，背後其實是一個復仇故事，一個司馬念祖（吳彥祖飾）精心設置的局，棋子包括督察何智強（古天樂飾），證券商羅敏生（劉青雲飾），目標是「地主會」那班炒家，矛頭直指同叔（曾江飾）。至於司馬念祖如何引他們入局，以及他們之間有何恩怨，就留待閣下自己去看了。不過有一點我不是太明白，既然司馬念祖 IQ 那麼高，為何最後不給自己留後路呢？為何要冒那麼大的險呢？難道他受到最後那個「真相」的衝擊，失去了理性，臨時改變了主意？這一點真是不得而知。總覺得不太合理。 〈竊聽風雲 2 〉的劇情沒第一集那麼峰迴路轉，結局也沒那麼誇張悲壯，整齣戲的節奏其實頗緩慢，有點沉悶，抱著看動作片的心態入場，肯定失望。電影運用大量對白去交代人物背景和性格，角色發揮空間大，古天樂和劉青雲判若兩人，十分內斂；吳彥祖沒甚麼大突破；黃奕是大花瓶；葉璇是大驚喜，她的演技真是越來越好；其他「阿叔」們的表現，我覺得「電視味」還是濃了一點。雖然文戲為主，但當中兩段飛車場面卻拍得有聲有色，精采刺激。整體來說，〈竊聽風雲 2 〉算是近期比較好的港產片。 以暴易暴，以其人之道，還治其人之身，向來是復仇電影的主菜，這種電影看多了，你會覺得心寒，因為即使你相信法治，也會不自覺地同情戲中的受害者，並贊成用暴力的方式，去對待暴力對待他或者她的人，「以暴易暴」被合理化，大家都變得歇斯底里，私刑氾濫，公義道德的界線變得模糊，最終人人自危。不想這樣，除了變得更絕、更冷血之外，還可以想想《法句經》「從非怨止怨」這句話。還好，司馬念祖耍的不是暴力，而是小聰明，只不過他可能玩得一時興起，忘了他的對手和他一樣，都是瘋狂的人。 

(The couple in Insidious) (2011)  ★★☆☆☆ A couple with 3 kids of their own live in a seemingly haunted house. The wife starts to see and hear things after her oldest son falls off a ladder and into a coma. She gets more and more paranoid and hysterical as her husband doesn’t really buy her story. They after all move to a new place thinking they’ll be alright, but unfortunately, for a particular reason, those spirits have decided not to leave them alone… There’re scary moments in the first half of the film, but they work much like a shock rather than instilling a fear. The atmosphere is well built up but it all seems to go to waste as we move on to the second half and are informed the reason why the spirits are so insistent to stay with the family, especially their son in a coma. As we start getting the whole picture, we no longer feel involved and frightened of the things we see even though the director tries to stir up claustrophobia by taking us back to that typical haunted hou

(Saoirse Ronan as Hanna) (2011)  ★★☆☆☆ To me, ‘Hanna’ is more like a boring drama than an action thriller. It’s sort of an embarrassment because if it’s seen as a drama, the story itself is too plain and simple to actually get you involved, but if as an action film, there’re few actions that in fact seem so fake and clumsy. Why’d Hanna have to keep running and hiding from her enemies and be obliged at times to give punches and kicks since she is, as we’re told, a trained killer and martial arts pro? People say that the actions in ‘Hanna’ are well choreographed. I guess they haven’t seen Korean’s ‘The Man From Nowhere’ yet. Well…is there nothing good about this film? Not really. Its score and editing are indeed ingenious, and Joe Wright’s direction is quite focused and stylish, but aside from that, there’s really nothing to feel excited about. Maybe it’s my fault. I should never have expected too much from it. With no expectations, you may be surprised. But if you do, you’d be ra

(Robin Wright & James McAvoy in The Conspirator) (2011)  ★★★★☆ Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) is a soldier-turned-lawyer asked to defend a woman charged with conspiring to kill probably the most respected President in American history, Abraham Lincoln. Imagine you were Frederick himself, you once risked your life for your belief, your people and your beloved President in the battlefield. Now the President you adore has been shot dead, would you stand to defend someone that you believe is part of the assassination? Or would you choose to go against the spirit of the Constitution that all the Presidents of the States must swear to defend, quit your day job, and let the innocent be hanged without even a proper trial? I guess there’re two different kinds of legal dramas out there. One is filled with twists and turns, suspenseful and mind-blowing if you like, and the other with lots of emotional struggles. ‘The Conspirator’ is definitely the latter. It strikes you not by showing

(Kevin Spacey in K-PAX) (2001)  ★★★★★ Prot (Kevin Spacey) says he’s from K-PAX, a planet 1000 light years away from Earth. You know what that means? Light travels 300000 km/s. A light year means the distance you travel at the speed of light for a year. So it’d take you 1000 years to get here from K-PAX even if you travel at the speed of light. In order to reach Earth without becoming a 1000-year-old fossil, Prot must travel much, much faster than the speed of light, that is, according to Einstein, totally impossible, but you know he does. That sounds ridiculous to us chained by the Laws of Physics. Like Prot said, if he tells us how he’s able to do that, it’d simply blow our mind away. Prot is picked up by the police at a train station. He says he’s not human. They think he’s crazy, so he’s introduced to psychiatrist Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges). Mark starts questioning him, but Prot intellectually questions his questions. He embarrasses Mark by showing off his exceptional intelli

(2011)  ★★★☆☆ Without the unexpected ending, this film could be like just a cup of tasteless water to me. The story is told in a very slow pace and an undramatic way. The characters are pretty dull. Their performances are by no means impressive. The images are vivid but not so imaginative. Nonetheless, if you can stick till it ends, you’ll be amazed to find that it’s after all not so bad, and your patience is so worth it. A man, a science fictionist, decides to write a short story every day to make his wife laugh after learning that she’s dying of cancer, because he’s told by the doctor that laughter can improve his wife’s immune system so that she may be able to live longer than probably just a year. He keeps writing funny stories and his wife seems to have recovered during their journey to Hokkaido for a big tree under the deep blue sky. But turns out it’s nothing but a lie. She herself knows right from the moment her husband decides to write her a story every day, that she’s

(2011)  ★★★★☆ 〈武俠〉的序幕讓我想起美劇〈 House 〉，而開頭徐百九（金城武飾）查案一段，則很有〈 CSI 〉的味道。〈武俠〉嘗試以醫學、針灸學、物理學、力學、心理學等科學的角度去顛覆我們對中國傳統武俠片的既定框框。真的，我從未見過這種「武俠」！不過，這種「從未見過的武俠」只在影片的前半段展現，后半段的〈武俠〉已漸趨公式化和堆砌，新鮮感欠奉。 不過，陳可辛的〈武俠〉還是值得一看。音效配樂十分震撼，武打場面令人屏息，美指和攝影細緻盡美，氣氛營造令人叫絕（特別是「樹林送別」一段），從這些層面去欣賞〈武俠〉，你會嘩嘩稱讚。有人說〈武俠〉沉悶，好像「廢話」很多，但我個人很喜歡那些對白，細心咀嚼，是很有味道的，特別是劉金喜（甄子丹飾）落水後跟徐百九的一段關於「自性」的談話。 劉金喜說人無「自性」，總是受制於環境和他人的影響。其實他的意思是：我以前為惡，是迫於無奈，沒有選擇。當然，對一個已成熟的「果報」，你所能做的就只有接受，但在「果報」未成熟之前，其實你可以做一些事情去阻止惡果的出現，你還是有選擇的。而眾人口中所謂的「條件限制」種種，其實也是一些已熟的「果報」，並不是真的有一些既定的外在條件在限制我們，一切都是自己造成的。如果你能怔悟「自性清靜」的真理，你將會明白，其實你是絕對自由的。劉金喜既已出手殺人，難道他還希望一切如往常？還希望可以繼續隱名埋姓，不被騷擾？如果他真的那麼希望，那是他的妄想。既然他種下改變他生活秩序的「因」，他就要承受隨之發生的一系列「果」。凡事發生，皆有原因，絕對不會是無端端的。很多時候，我們因為人生不順而產生的怨恨種種，都是源自我們見不到那個「因」，但不明白或者見不到，並不代表它不存在，這點大家要謹記。 因果是公道的，有果必有因，世間萬物都在呈現這條真理，包括〈武俠〉的結局。但一開始顯得很「科學」的〈武俠〉，為何到最後就顯得不那麼「科學」了，乃至要用多少有點超越科學的「佛家因果法則」方才得以圓滿解答呢？為何不「科學」到底呢？有點可惜！

(2011)  ★★★★☆   開頭一幕，阿寶看見師傅在耍一套「超勁」的功夫（怎麼個「勁」法？閣下自己去看吧），令他目瞪口呆，他自作聰明地認為那套功夫的秘訣在于「脚下」，當然，事實幷非那麼一回事…… 我沒有看過〈功夫熊猫〉，但聽說第一集只是搞搞笑、胡胡鬧鬧一番而已，而且衆影評對其評價也不高。姑勿論第一集如何不濟，〈功夫熊猫 2 〉絕對精采：有劇情，有鋪排，有笑料，最重要的是它有大道理──一條屹立于天地而永不倒的致勝法則。不是甚麼花拳繡腿、輕功太極；不是甚麼神功護體、刀槍不入；不是甚麼船堅炮利、胸懷大志，而是簡單到你不相信的四個字：心平氣和。現在我們都崇尚「複雜」，忽視「簡單」，而事實上，越簡單的東西，往往越有用，但也恰恰最容易被我們小看。正如我們都明白「諸惡莫作，衆善奉行」的這條成佛「基本法」，但我們活到老都未必做得到。 〈功夫熊猫 2 〉的確很「中國」（雖然它是西方「夢工場」的作品），那些山水背景、亭臺樓閣很有詩意，那些功夫招式很有中國武林風，戲中各位「獸兄」的服飾亦很有中國味。笑料充足，由頭笑到尾是必然的事，但最想不到的是，當中還有 一兩 幕催人泪下的場面，真正做到笑中有泪。多場精采搞笑的追逐對打設計，始終圍繞著阿寶的身世之謎，故事發展有條不紊，不失焦點，確實難得。 其實，這類作品理應由我們國人來拍，但很遺憾，我們沒有那種能力和技術，恐怕也沒有那份熱情。多少年來，我們幾次嘗試徹底埋掉我們的「根」，多虧一班有遠見的知識份子的倡導，中國傳統文化才得以殘喘至今。但在功利主義和資本主義（他們說是有中國特色的社會主義）主導的現代中國，能寫一手好中文的人越來越少；能撐得起唐裝而又不顯得造作的文化人也越來越少；有古文根基的知識份子更是幾乎絕種。中國傳統文化在經濟壓倒一切的中國越來越沒有立錐之地。不過，對這個問題，我還是樂觀的，因為我相信物極必反的道理。 凡事都不能走極端，否則遭殃的不僅是自己，還有他人。阿寶的師傅那套「超勁」功夫的秘訣當然不在于「脚下」，而是在「心中」，也就是要做到心平氣和。保持心平氣和，才能接受自己的過去，真正活在當下；才能生起智慧，心不為外境所動，杜絕煩惱；才能變成「大師傅」，使出「真功夫」去克制那些克制功夫的東西；才能破相見真，而不是只看到自己想看到的。假如人人都能像阿寶那樣做到心平氣和，那「和諧號」列車就不會相撞。就

(He doesn't use guns. How boring! Paul Bettany in 'Priest') (2011)  ★☆☆☆☆ 'Priest' starts with a cartoon sequence informing us that the vampires have long co-existed with humans. But why and how did the first vampire occur? Why are they so bloodthirsty and afraid of the burning Sun? Of course questions like this would not be answered because you know it's just a comic-book adaptation, in which, all expected could be frightening scenes and thrilling actions. Unfortunately, there's none. The screenplay is shallow and stupid. The story is by no means gripping. The pace is ridiculously slow so the film seems 90 minutes too long. The vampires look very similar to some sort of creatures in 'Lord Of The Rings'. The trailer may mislead you to believe that there'd be stylish actions involving fancy use of weapons. Truth is, there's nothing but few exchanges of fists and gunfire; high speed motorbikes with no lethal weapons attached (what a lous

(2011)  ★★☆☆☆ Well... what really interests me is not its intriguing plot that, as a matter of fact, contradicts itself, but what Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) complains about his situation as being pushed to a corner after being able to survive a seemingly planned car accident somehow: do you know what it feels like to become insane? It's a war between being told who you are and knowing who you are. Alright, what'd you answer when asked who you are? I guess you would tell your name, but names are nothing but a label, aren't they? So who exactly are you? Or shall I say, what exactly are you? I guess you would then tell what your ID card number is; how high or heavy you are; what you look like; what you've done; what your philosophy of life is; who your relatives or friends are, etc. so as to prove your existence, but your ID card number is still just a label. Your physical conditions are always changing. So are your relatives and friends. Who do you think you a

(2010)  ★★★★☆ 〈借東西的小矮人亞莉亞蒂〉不像〈千與千尋〉般奇幻，不像〈天空之城〉般刺激，不像〈飛天紅猪俠〉般好笑，也不像〈幽靈公主〉般沈重血腥，它像一部文藝作品，一切顯得平平淡淡，而恰恰就在那些平淡之處，讓我有絲絲感動。它不僅僅是一段有趣的童話故事，更帶出有關「大小」，「分別」的問題。 由于我們的認知總是建立在某個參考點上，所以我們總是落入异邊，看東西非黑即白，非是即錯，非好即壞，非大即小，非友即敵。這是我們認知這個世界，獲取常識的方式，但同時這也是我們的局限。種種執著，不良情緒皆源自於我們的分別心。 如果你在家中發現小矮人亞莉亞蒂，你會像戲中的男主人翁那樣，說她美麗，可愛嗎？你會把她當作人對待嗎？還是把她當作怪物呢？可能在身體構造上小矮人和我們沒有分別，但我們和他們大小差別很大，站在我們的立場，他們應該不算是人類，因為在我們的概念（常識）當中，「人」不可能，也不應該那麼小。那站在小矮人的立場，我們又算是甚麼呢？ 我們總是活在自己的世界裡，我們總是一相情願地去理解這個世界，所以我們無法看到事物的實相。或許你會問，「事物的實相」是甚麼？就是： It is what it is. In other words, it is not what you think it is 。你的認知永遠只能是一種「偏見」。 我不知這部動畫片為何會感動我，也許是因為它讓我意識到執著的痛苦，以及分別心給我們造成的傷害；也許是因為亞莉亞蒂和男主人翁之間那份真摯的情感；也許還因為有以下這首感人的片尾曲：

(2011)  ★☆☆☆☆ 1, Adam Sandler's comedies suck (or any film starring him sucks). 2, Jennifer Aniston has lost her touch with comedies ever since she quit 'Friends'. 3, Nicole Kidman should've never tried to be a comedian. 4, David Matthews is a great singer but he sucks at acting. 5, Real jokes can never be found in a so-called comedy. 6, Songs remixed should've never existed (Obviously they raped Sting's 'Every Breath You Take' and Snow Patrol's 'Chasing Cars' with no shame at all. How? You go check it out for yourself). 7, Never lie about getting married or divorced or having kids or whatever. 8, 'Beauty is nothing but skin deep' is so true, but we just never think so. 9, 'Just go with it' is no good, but we just love it, always. 10, Hawaii is definitely a nice place to be, only if you're rich enough to go. Here are two great songs from two different ages: ('Every Breath You Take' from 198

(You believe there's such a thing as justice in this world? Matthew McConaughey in 'The Lincoln Laywer') (2011)  ★★★☆☆ When I first saw Mickey Haller (Matthew McConaughey) in his Lincoln Town Car, I had a feeling that he's not the guy who'd easily back down or break down; that he must be someone that always has a backup plan or a card up his sleeve. Turned out I'm quite right about him. This film is all about how a backup plan works for a guy more than capable of his job! Haller is a criminal defense lawyer, a successful one, meaning he's been setting guilty scumbags free from their charges, and inevitably putting some in jail for the crimes they didn't commit at all. He's therefore got enemies and also protection from gangsters that are his old clients. This film is an one-case drama with no twists nor anything tricky. It's easy to find out right from the beginning who's lying and who's not. So if you're a fan of TV's le

(How come such stupid aliens could get so far in 'Battle: LA'?) (2010)  ★☆☆☆☆ If aliens are able to travel that fast and that far to come and take on the Earth, they must be capable of controlling time and space. And if they're capable of that, would they bother sending troops to combat against us? Would they need a command center like that to direct them which way to go and how to fight? We're told that they try to colonize us because they hanker for our water. Okay, but if they're that intelligent to be able to get here, would they have to risk their lives to wipe us out first before they could deplete our water? What makes us think that such unfriendly creatures must have a physical body, and a beating heart that can be simply killed by a blade? Life superior to us, in my opinion, wouldn't give a damn about us or our planet at all, because communicating with us would be like us trying to communicate with an ant. They wouldn't waste their breath d

( 苦笑、無奈，難道這就是生命？〈美麗末日〉積維爾巴頓 ) (2010)  ★★★☆☆ 如果醫生告訴你，你患了絕症，只有幾個月的命，你會如何反應？愁眉深鎖，惶恐萬分？難以接受，抱頭痛哭？一臉苦笑，無可奈何？怨天怨地，大喊不公？片中的男主角 Uxbal 選擇接受現實，如常生活。沒錯，如──常──生──活。他並沒有「頓悟」生命，做一些平時不會做的事情，說一些平時不會說的話，看到一些平時看不到的東西，或者安排甚麼身後事，他如常地生活，好像一切都沒有發生過。也許，他已有所準備；也許，他對死並不陌生，因為他已「見證」無數次；也許，他沒時間去擔心那麼多；再也許，他已知道生命其實一點都不美麗。 陰沉的畫面，哀傷的故事，醜陋的人性，刺耳的配樂，連僅有的一幕比較「陽光」的場景，也看到具具恐怖的屍體，一切似乎在挑戰你我的忍耐能力。這部戲，的確讓人窒息，讓人感到很不舒服。也許，這就是它的目的，它就是想告訴我們：生活充滿掙扎，生命並不美麗。真的是這樣嗎？ 看這部戲的時候，身邊人一再問：「死」真苦，既有「生」，又為何要「死」？我答：有「生」就有「死」，有「死」才有「生」。又問：那為何我們要「生」？佛說十二因緣法，已對生死流轉做了充分解釋：因為我們沒有選擇，我們主宰不了自己「非正常」的心。在佛──覺悟者──的眼中，我們都是「不正常」的人。你細心想想：你「正常」嗎？ 生命美麗嗎？所謂「三界唯心，萬法唯識」，生命美麗與否，完全取決於你的心態，一切都只是你的心識作用罷了。在生命裡，你不會找到一樣實在的東西叫作美麗，也不會找到一樣實在的東西叫作非美麗，生命就是生命。

(2010)  ★★☆☆☆ I believe that what distinguishes us humans from animals is things like guilty conscience, empathy, compassion, moral consciousness and stuff. So for sure we can be like animals if we happen to have lost those sorts of qualities, like those 'animals' in 'Animal Kingdom', an Australian film that tells a story of a family of criminals. What if you grow up in a family like that? How would you survive? What would you do? Would you turn a blind eye to your conscience or what happens around you? Would let yourself grow so numb that, even when you find your mom dead from overdosing on drugs in a couch, you'd still be calm and keep watching TV while waiting for the authority to come? In the opening scene of the film, J Cody's in a situation like that. Nor sure if he was born an animal or has been traumatized so bad by a family of animals. I however, tend to believe that he was a good boy! There're great actors, great performances, great direct

(Michelle Monaghan & Jake Gyllenhaal in 'Source Code') (2011)  ★★★☆☆ 'Source Code' is not completely a letdown. Yet it's not that gripping and touching as I thought it was, probably due to its preposterous science that I find pretty hard to accept though I know it should be okay for a pure sci-fi film like this. It's just a movie for us to enjoy, not a science lesson for us to learn. Source code is a program that allows you to live the last 8 minutes of someone else's life. In this case, Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is repeatedly ordered to become Sean Fentress, one of the passengers on a train to Chicago , to find out who wants to blow the train up and ruin the entire city, within only 8 minutes. He must experience those 8-minutes over and again to pick up traces bit by bit to finally get his job well done. You see the problem here? Scientifically speaking, no matter how many times you go through that 8-minute, you can't possibly rememb

(2011)  ★ ★ ★ ☆☆ 影片一開始就拋出《金剛經》的四句偈：「一切有為法，如夢幻泡影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀。」沒錯，一切皆幻有，幻有就是「空」。「情義」是「空」；「天下」是「空」；「江湖」是「空」；「小人」是「空」；「大英雄」是「空」；「生」是「空」；「死」也是「空」。看〈關雲長〉，你會看到因執著而產生的苦和悲劇，你會覺得很無奈。說的好聽就是「有義」，說的不好聽就是「沒腦」。 如果你想看武打，〈關雲長〉不會讓你失望，但也不會給你太大的驚喜，因為武指是甄子丹，裡頭的招式都似曾相識，最後一幕更是〈精武陳真〉上身，玩 Parkour ，有點不是味。還好，〈關雲長〉最精采不是武戲，而是文戲。很喜歡姜文飾演的曹操，雖然戲份不多，但有型有格。眼神，言語，表情，舉止都盡顯中國影帝的風範，真是服了。而甄子丹飾演的關雲長，從頭到尾都是木口木面，雖是主角，但和姜文相比，高下立見。 《三國演義》裡的曹操是小人，但史上真正的曹操是偉人，是「 治世之能臣，亂世之奸雄」，「可謂非常之人，超世之傑矣」，而且「手不舍書。書則講武策，夜則思經傳。登高必賦，及造新詩，被之管弦，皆成樂章。」這樣一位老闆，你願意為他幹活嗎？關羽不願意，因為他要守住對劉備的義。無論曹操怎麼挽留他，他還是要回到劉備身邊，最終落得個身首異處的下場。好一個「大英雄」，好一個「頑固份子」，好一個「理想主義者」。 關雲長，天生就有羊的心腸，他不知道跟他講道義的都是一群披著羊皮的狼，他更不知道曹操只是一隻披著狼皮的羊。在他的眼裡，君子成了小人，而小人則成了君子。正如英文戲名 The Lost Bladesman ，他真的 lost 了，糊塗了。

(2010)  ★★★★★ 兒時看過〈少林寺〉，只覺李連杰很醒目，好打。現以佛子身分看〈新少林寺〉，心中有百般感慨，多次掉眼淚。百般感慨不是因為看到很多人死，而是因為看到有些人就算到死，還是不信〈大隻佬〉的名言：萬般帶不走，惟有業隨身；不明因果是公道的；不懂放下。結果悲劇不斷，一代連一代，一世接一世。 個人十分喜歡〈新少林寺〉。不誇張的武術設計，展現少林武功的精髓，看得人熱血沸騰。重本投入，實景拍攝，拍出來的大場面，確實賞心悅目。片長兩個多小時，故事發展還算合情理，節奏不馳不慢，有動有靜，毫無悶場。而我最欣賞的，更是當中所蘊含的佛理。 軍伐少帥侯傑（劉德華）落難逃至少林寺，九死一生，家破人亡的他，對出賣他的曹蠻（謝霆鋒）無比仇恨，一恢復知覺，隨即拿起刀，也不顧自己還未痊癒，就準備找曹蠻報仇，途中不慎掉入一個坑洞，他無可奈何，躺在洞裡，透過洞口，望著天上繁星，他問了一句：為甚麼？ 得勢的曹蠻野心日增，心狠手辣，為壯大自己而不擇手段。當他得知侯傑藏身少林，馬上就召集人馬，準備趕盡殺絕。已皈依佛門的侯傑屢次勸曹蠻「放下」，但徒勞無功，於是兩人比武，曹蠻落敗，但他不服，還一心想致侯傑於死地。但侯傑並不懷恨於他，最後他更為了救曹蠻而被橫樑壓死。曹蠻到此頓然醒覺，他想移開橫樑救出侯傑，但為時已晚，這時他也問了一句：為甚麼？ 沒錯，當我們遭遇惡果時，都喜歡問：為甚麼？所謂「菩薩畏因，凡夫畏果」。我們愚昧，往往要等到惡果成熟時，才懂得害怕，才知道後悔，而不知種下惡因正是我們自己。就是因為我們不明白，所以才有貪、瞋、痴等顛倒意念和行為。對自己的行為負責，深信因果是公道的。面對任何困境，要勇敢面對，誠懇接受，積極處理，然後放下。如此才能隨緣自在地生活，才不用再問：為甚麼？ 戲中的老方丈在電影開頭就說：來時歡喜去時悲，空在人間走一回，不如不來亦不去，亦無歡喜亦無悲。我們總是生活在相對的虛妄，虛妄的相對之中。擺脫相對、分別，我們才能真正生起慈悲，放下仇恨。

(2010)  ★★★★☆ Said it's based on the first part of a fantasy book 'Guardians of Ga'Hoole' by Kathryn Lasky. The ending strongly suggests that there'll be sequels to make it a complete journey. And I really hope so, because a nice-looking animated film like this is of such great entertainment indeed. It's got a 'Lord Of The Rings' atmosphere though the story itself is not as complex after all. In fact, it's a bit too straightforward or say, things take place too naturally so that you're not quite convinced of how the story and those characters ought to develop. But that's okay. The breathtaking slo-mo actions and stunning graphics will simply sweep you off your feet, and make you forgive all of its shortcomings. You'd feel like watching the owl version of the stylish '300'. Speaking of which, this film is directed by Zack Snyder, a visionary director famous for spectacular images but weak storytelling. His latest work is &

（ 到底誰才是惡魔？ 李炳憲和 崔岷植 ） (2010)  ★★★☆☆ 以復仇為題材的電影經常出現，這類電影觸及人類最根本的一種情緒──憎恨。你給我一巴，我還你一巴。你殺我親人，我殺你全家。這就是憎恨情緒催生出來的變態行為。為何我們會起憎恨？因為我們只見惡果，而不見惡因。甚至我們會以為惡果是「無故」地發生，但，真是「無故」嗎？有果必有因，假如我們接受、明白「因果是公道」的，我們就不會起憎恨，就不會成魔。 探員休玄（李炳憲飾）發現自己的未婚妻被人恐怖碎屍，棄置河邊。問題來了，假如你是他，你會怎麼做？接受現實，找出兇手，繩之於法？還是選擇私了，以其人之道還治其人之身，慢慢折磨兇手至死？如果你相信「非怨止怨」，你會選擇前者。如果你相信「怨可止怨」（其實你心底知道是不可能的），你就會選擇后者。休玄接受不了這個惡果，他選擇報復，以自己的手段折磨殺人狂魔敬哲（崔岷植飾），結果累及更多無辜，自己也漸漸變成另一隻惡魔。 復仇的快感，無非來自看到你的仇人承受你所承受的痛苦；看到他向你求饒，認錯，懺悔，但如果，你的仇人跟你說，無論你對他做甚麼，都不會讓他感到痛苦的時候，你所謂的復仇，到底又有何意義呢？又如果報仇成為你生命的唯一，報仇之後的你又如何面對空虛，如何重拾人生正軌呢？如願報仇的感覺真的是那麼好嗎？其實，戲末休玄所留下的眼淚已經說明了一切。 〈我，看見惡魔〉不是恐怖片，不是情誼片，不是偵探片，只是另一齣復仇電影。過程相當血腥，令人作嘔。可能有人會問：為何導演要拍得那麼噁心？我想，動機可能跟 Mel Gibson 拍〈受難曲〉一樣，為了刺激我們麻木的心，去感受戲中人所承受的痛。這樣說來，最令人不安的，不是電影本身，而是我們──現代人──慈悲匱乏的心。某程度上來說，我們大家都是惡魔。

（她到底想要甚麼？〈下女〉全度妍） (2010)  ★★☆☆☆ 〈下女〉沒有高潮起伏的故事；沒有詩情畫意的場景；沒有足夠空間讓韓國影后全度妍發揮演技（可能已經發揮了，但是我不覺得）；沒有驚心動魄的鉤心鬥角，沒有值得流淚的地方；更沒所謂窒息的感覺；有的只是兩場看似很「激」，但一點都不「激」的情慾戲（韓國人拍這些就是有一手，比李安大導的〈色戒〉高明多了），和一個不明所以的結局，不是猜不到她會那麼做，只是不明白她為何要那麼做，值得嗎？唯一的解釋就是，她已經瘋了。 所謂「引誘」，其實是互動的，正如鼓掌要兩隻手一樣，「引誘」要成事，需要去「引」的人，和一顆能被「引」的心。假如戲中的全度妍的心是正常，她根本不會受「引」，也不會脫光光等著被「引」。她，一開始，就已經有問題，只是未「爆」出來罷了。當然，在那種當自殺是常事的冷漠社區長大，沒問題才怪。 〈下女〉中的藝術感，刻意得令人有點討厭。全片唯一看頭，應該是全度妍看似「露了」但又好像「沒露」的演出。但，我還是不明白她為何要拍這部戲，以她現時在韓國電影界的地位，大可不必做〈下女〉吧？

★★★☆☆ 'Hereafter' is more about 'here' than 'after'; more about people facing death than death itself; more about how to live with death than how to run away from it. Clint Eastwood cares more about how people think of death and its impact on them than how it is like or whether there's an afterlife. Three different persons in three different places dealing with the same thing-death. A woman who's survived the Tsunami; a boy who's lost his twin brother; and a male psychic who can tell people's past simply by touching their hands. They all have their own struggles and difficulties. They're all being struck by the matter of death. In the end, their paths collide to tell a fact that the near-death experience is universal, but never is the hereafter; that we're all going somewhere unknown; that we're all ignorant of things beyond death. There's nothing religious in 'Hereafter'. It has no view on 'afterlif

(2010)  ★★☆☆☆ 'The Tourist' tells a secret: the tourist is simply not a tourist, and the guy that you think is behind the whole plan is just a tourist in fact. This is kind of a trick that most of the suspense movies have pulled, but you know it's sort of over-used now. So don't be surprised if there's no surprise at all. Frank (Johnny Depp) appears to be an American tourist, but you know he's simply not. And a man that appears to be Alexander Pearce wanted by the Interpol and the gang is nothing but a tourist manipulated by Frank whose real name is___ can you fill in the blank yourself? Alright, so what's Angelina Jolie's Elise there for? She's looking for Alexander Pearce. They used to have a relationship. She's doing what he tells her to. She's told to pick up a guy as high as Alexander himself to distract the police, and she picks Frank on a train. Hang on a sec, don't get Elise wrong. She's not part of the gang. She's

 (2010)  ★★★☆☆ In 'Never Let Me Go', some kids are not deemed humans but only creatures brought up to donate their organs (they call it completion) for others to live over 100. The more completions they can achieve, the more meaningful their lives will be. That's what they're taught to believe in. Most of them however, can barely make it through the third completion. Some even die on their first. It's supposed to be heartwrenching, but I find it pretty ridiculous. Just because they have no parents doesn't mean they're not humans. Just because we think they have no soul doesn't mean they must die for us. Frankly I'd rather die than kill them by taking away their organs just to live a few years longer. Nowadays, we can sign a paper promising to give away our organs to those in need after we die. In the film, they take away donors' organs while they're still alive. That's ruthless, isn't it? What seems more ruthless is, donors ar

 (2010)  ★★★★★ 〈殺手代父〉令我想起另一齣經典── 〈這個殺手不太冷〉 。兩齣戲都有完整、催人淚下的感人故事；都有一個孤獨的男人和一個可愛的女孩子；都有出色的氣氛營造、配樂和人物刻畫；都有令人熱血沸騰的「一打十」高潮位。「殺手」用槍和手榴彈，「代父」主要用匕首，但最後他都不得不用槍，因為他要對付的變態佬實在太多。 〈殺手代父〉裡頭的元斌 cool 爆。他髮遮半邊臉，沉默寡言，低調經營一間當鋪維生。除了隔壁一個小女孩偶爾跟他搭訕外，他幾乎不會和別人廢話。這個設定已經告訴大家，這個男人一定有不簡單的過去，內心一定受過傷，而且他應該不是一個壞人。事實上，他和 Leon 一樣，是一個單純善良的男人。在這個功利主義社會，這般純情的「怪物」，幾乎已經絕種。 相比 〈骨肉同謀〉 故弄玄虛的故事，〈殺手代父〉的情節顯得簡單、直接。一個一心「隱世」的男人，最後被迫為一個女孩子出頭，皆因小女孩的悲慘遭遇觸動了他內心的「痛」和「愛」。前半部分的情感壓抑，襯托後半部分的情感爆發，衝突、對比十分強烈。片長兩小時，真正的打鬥場面其實不多，但重質不重量，每一幕都拍得氣勢攝人，全靠鋪排伏線足。尤其最後一幕，簡直……一個字「爽」，兩個字「爽啊」。 〈殺手代父〉沒甚麼不足之處，如果硬要挑剔，那就是戲裡的元斌實在太型太酷。雖然他已經很努力地扮「普通」，但他一出場，就覺得他「型」。還有就是「出乎意料」的結局來得有點「意料之內」，不過，拍得還算感人，雖然不像〈這個殺手不太冷〉的結局般悲壯煽情，但已足夠催人淚下。 我從不喜歡一些無無謂謂、打打殺殺的戲。但〈殺手代父〉殺得──的確──令人叫「爽」，因為戲裡那班「無良」──的確──很該死，那班小孩──也的確──很無辜。佛講慈悲，但對於一些屢教不改，無惡不作的頑固眾生，能耐不高的菩薩運用非常手段而儆之，我覺得也未嘗不可。如果這個世界真的有如此可惡的人，我也會毫無猶豫，變身「殺手」，教訓他們。

 (2010)  ★★☆☆☆ Through the rabbit hole, you'd, according to 'Alice's Adventures In Wonderland', experience a whole new unknown world of mysteries, sensations and of course dangers. Whenever there's a change, there's pain. You may mistake it for some sort of pleasure at first, but y'know, it's just pain in disguise. In the film, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are trying to deal with the pain caused by their son's sudden death in a car accident. Becca wants to move on, and let bygones be bygones. She gets rid of her son's pictures and clothes, and gradually slips through 'the rabbit hole' into a strange, mysterious relationship that may be found hard to understand by most of us though. Howie however, refuses to. He's stuck in the memories of his son. He believes God-talk will help. He needs an ear, someone who would listen to his heart. But that's it. He doesn't want to move further. What a sad soul! I

 (2010)  ★★☆☆☆ In 'Monsters', you don't quite get a proper glimpse of the monsters till the last scene, which has been considered the best sex scene ever. Eh... I'm not sure if they're communicating or actually making out. Anyways, it seems pretty stupid to me. Said it's a very special piece of work, but I don't see anything special about it. In case you're curious, it's about a man, a photographer, trying to help his boss's daughter get back to the America. They could've traveled safely by boat, but thanks to alcohol they lost their passports. Thus they have no choice but to cross the Infected Zone, and run into monsters, a squid-like giant creature, a new life form that has been breeding inside the Zone since 6 years ago a space probe sent to collect alien samples within our Solar System crashed there, somewhere between the America and Mexico. The setup is interesting, but the journey itself sucks. There're one or two War-Of-T

 (2010)  ★★★☆☆ Is it a good film? Well, I don't think so. Is it bad? I don't think so, either. I'd call it an average love story that may get to touch you if you still have faith that love could be an adjustment for your life to get better. I'm a bit moved by the plot, though it doesn't seem quite exciting in the beginning. I'm convinced that sincerity and courage are all you need to win yourself true love. I'm entertained as well by Paul Rudd and Jack Nicholson's humorous performances. This is after all not a lousy film though most of the critics don't like it. The DVD will be out soon. Go check it out for yourself. Remember, it requires a little bit of your patience to slowly feel involved.