Almost Buddhist - 戲‧論

★★★☆☆ 之前的韓版〈英雄本色〉──〈 無敵者 〉，看得我一頭汗。這次韓版〈跟蹤〉──〈天眼跟蹤〉，雖然各方面拍出來的感覺比港版出色，特別是演員方面和動作場面，但無奈故事還是太過「忠實」，驚喜不大。綜觀兩個版本，結局最令我摸不著頭腦：為什麼「影子」（ 鄭雨盛） 在雨中成功擺脫警方跟蹤，卻選擇在雨過天晴後，（最最荒謬的是）在同一地點再出現，再被跟蹤，最後被殺！只不過這次他的死法，總算比較「正常」，不像港版的那麼「匪夷所思」。但是我始終覺得這個故事最大的弱點，或者說死穴，還是它的結局。 再者，我不明白為何叫〈天眼跟蹤〉。如果「天眼」是指那些監控視頻，我覺得最終能夠捉到「影子」的並非「天眼」，而是「花豬」（ 韓孝珠 ）的肉眼。她的肉眼可不一般，是帶有些許神通的，所以她能看到很多一般人看不到的東西，而且過目不忘，但也還不配稱為「天眼」！什麼是「天眼」？簡單舉例，就是你身在香港，卻能看到美國那邊發生什麼事。不可思議是吧？非也，其實很多禪定功夫深的人，都有這個能力。還有比這個更不可思議的「慧眼」，「法眼」跟「佛眼」，大家又知道不？嗯、不扯那麼遠了，想想看，果真有「天眼」，還用跟蹤嗎？ 看這類娛樂動作片，其實也不必太認真或想太多，傻傻的，反而享受。如果你〈跟蹤〉過，則〈天眼〉可免；如果沒〈跟蹤〉過，則〈天眼〉可觀。大可不必用〈天眼〉去〈跟蹤〉，因為那是浪費時間！

★★★★☆ 十年前的韓片〈殺人回憶 (Memories Of Murder) 〉讓我想起 David Fincher 的〈殺謎藏 (Zodiac) 〉，同樣是根據真人真事，同樣是節奏慢得令人「難受」，同樣是開放式結局（跟事實一樣，至今罪犯依然逍遙法外）──氣氛壓得人有點喘不過氣來。演員的演出非常生活化，如實反映那個時代背景下，鄉村警察辦案的荒謬種種。故事推進還算有戲劇性，幾場追逐戲拍得有聲有色。最印象深刻的，是最後那場鐵軌旁的逼供戲，那幾張雨中的臉部特寫，會叫人看得咬牙切齒，感慨唏噓！ 咬牙切齒，是因為你不明白：為何總是找不到證據，去懲罰那個十惡不赦的性罪犯，是時代的錯？人的錯？還是科技的錯？為何好人會遭殃，壞人卻得不到應有的報應？感慨唏噓，是因為最終你會發覺：原來那些所謂的變態殺手，並非你想像中，擁有一張可怖的臉孔，或古怪離奇的舉止和癖好，他只不過是一個外表普通的普通人，一個很容易就能融入人群的普通路人，甚至是你最好的、一個你對他絕無戒心的朋友或親人，人心裡隱藏的獸性是多麼的可怕！ 每個人的心裡都隱藏著善的種子和惡的種子，善的種子遇到適當的「緣」就能成就一個好人，反之亦然。所以如果你自覺是一個好人，不要太欣慰；如果你自覺是一個壞人，也不必絕望，在這個娑婆世界打滾，好壞與否，很大程度上在於你所遇到（或創造）的「緣」。在戲裡，成就壞人的「緣」是一個雨夜，一首情歌，一位女人……下次，也請閣下小心察覺觸發你起惡念的那些「緣」！

★★★☆☆ I’m not giving anything away here, but ‘Dark Skies’ is a pretty honest film except for its posters that may mislead you to think that it’s a ghost story, since you can tell just a few minutes into the film that it’s got nothing to do with ghosts. It’s all about alien abductions. Still this film is atmospheric, mysterious and scary enough to me. There’s no famous actor or actress but their performances are appreciated. I guess alien abductions are much more frightening than any ghost stories because if it’s a ghost haunting you, meaning you’re connected to it, or you were. That you’re not randomly chosen so hopefully you’ll be able to find out why, and do something about it. If it was however, an alien being after you, do you think you could possibly fight off something intelligent enough to travel far across the universe to come and get you? Imagine you were an ant, could you negotiate with the man and beg him not to do you any harm? Would he bother anyway? “Two poss

★☆☆☆☆ Evil Dead, a sorta remake of 1981’s The Evil Dead that made director Sam Raimi famous, is full of make-no-sense stuff making me feel stupid rather than disgusted. Characters in the film are all men of steel I guess, as they can seem to pull a needle or a nail or a blade out of their body, or cut off their arm without showing much pain or struggling. Well… if it’s an evil spirit doing it, it’s okay, but if it’s a man, it’s bullshit! The plot is routine and boring. Guys are somehow left to be killed one by one. How possible, unless they don’t know they’re supposed to stay alert and stick together, but don’t they really? Right, they’re all like idiots teasing us like idiots as well. Most people check out films like Evil Dead just to see gross things, but don’t they feel like the grosser it gets, the faker it seems? Said it’s the most terrifying film you will ever experience. I say, it’s the most terrible film you should ever avoid.

★★★★★ I checked out this film not because I’m a fan of Zombies. I hate cult films of that kind. I did because I’m a fan of Brat Pitt. Simple. WWZ would sure be lack of gravity and magic without him. Anyway if you’re fond of zombie films of much blood and brutality, this may not be the film for you since those attacks are by no means bloody and gross, but absolutely intimidating and breathtaking enough to me. The story is straight and fast paced but not at all confusing. Unlike any zombie films thus far, WWZ doesn’t appear to be like a mindless shooting video game, in which ‘kill and destroy’ is the only purpose. It’s more like a serious action thriller. What I mean ‘serious’ here is that it’s got a decent plot, reasonable explanations for the situation, make-sense actions, great score and performances by Brat Pitt and others, and necessarily some take-a-break moments for us to get ready for the next round of thrills. WWZ breaks out very abruptly and leaves you asking for m

★★☆☆☆ Director James Wan’s ‘ Insidious ’ has a pretty chilling beginning but a very lousy, nauseous ending. Unlike other horror films that prefer a dark bleak close, the ending of ‘The Conjuring’, Jame’s latest, is fairly bright and warm that’s indeed quite a surprise and comfort to me, but the story makes an awkward turn in the middle from a haunted house phenomenon to simply an act of exorcism which seems so old-school and preposterous. From there on, it starts to feel like a turnoff and lose its touch to scare! For those fond of horror films, ‘The Conjuring’ is not so bad after all for its sound effect and setup are certainly decent. A big house, many doors and windows, long corridors and stairs, dim lights, old pieces of furniture, mirrors and reflections, girls with long hair wearing long gowns and a spooky cellar… all things appear to be typical but still scary before the director decides to let the demons show their faces. Like I always said, a great horror film ought t

★★☆☆☆ ‘Now You See Me’ is like a silly joke the director and screenwriters play on us, in an attempt to, I guess, make us feel like an idiot rather than surprised or entertained. The whole film consists of three big tricks so flawless and magical that they’re much more like cinematic special effects than onstage magic performances, not at all convincing or involving in other words. In between are chases and actions that I don’t find gripping and necessary in any way. It’s so fast-paced that there’s almost no room for you to take a break and think what’s going on there. All you can do is flow with it and get fooled in the end. It may not piss you off, but you’d sure feel a bit mad at yourself for wasting time on such a film! This film’s no magic. There’s nothing fresh! The only thing that seems to be an attraction is when Michael Caine takes on Morgan Freeman who’s there apparently as a smart guy to crack those smart tricks, but turns out he’s not quite. He’s also the victim of