Reviews

Some call this a brilliant franchise reboot, while others might say that it's the star of this summer thus far. I say that X-Men: First Class is a blockbuster mutant, one that sports the hybrid powers of a commercial box office cash cow, an entertaining spectacle, and a good film. Dramatically fueled by some great cast performance, X-Men: First Class makes sure that the message of being different and proud to be, gets across firmly.

Usually from the first frame of the film, you'd know through some insane gut feeling if it'd be a good film. X-Men: First Class is one such film that sends good vibes as it begins in 1944's Poland during World War II. The first chapter of a young Erik Lehnsherr who is able to bend metal gates when emotionally charged, especially of grievance and anger.

That very Erik, as most of us know it, will eventually become Magneto.

Erik is well portrayed by Michael Fassbender who exudes a charismatic demeanour of a classic British spy/gentleman. In aid of simplifying that, think of him as a good resemblance to a young 007 - James Bond.

Daniel Craig should be worried.

Everything points towards that, with the Cold War setting and a offshore stand-off between the US and the Soviet Union in Cuban waters, two of the greatest powers in history. There's an innuendo hint at the real-life Cuban Missile Crisis as they used it to create tension, although not to suggest factual evidence.

Wait, or did mutants actually had a part in it?

That is very much so in the first two thirds of the film when Erik befriends a young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), who manages to inspire him to goodness that enlightened his magnetic potentials. Strength comes from somewhere between anger and serenity, that sentence alone underlined the core virtues and wise maturity of a young Professor X.

Much like how Charles is the glue to all the mutants featured in this film, Director Matthew Vaughn (of Kick-Ass fame) did an exceptional job and inspired us that blockbusters aren't just a measure of blatant bang-bang-booms and exorbitant senseless sequences. In maintaining a great momentum and pace throughout the 132 minute blockbuster, he confiscated the entirety of the audience's attention span of interest and never giving back until the credit roll.

There's a much desired focus on the story and character development (credits to a big team of story and screenwriters), which in my opinion is the greatest strength of the film that gives it a worthy edge over so many blockbusters that have revolved around the weary tried-and- tested formula. The dialogues were kept witty and at times amusing, which is uncommon of the one-liners often abused by summer blockbusters. Keep in mind that this is another Marvel superhero adaptation, so my expectations prior to the screening was somewhat along the line of a loud routine entertainment.

I was so wrong about it.

There's spectacular action when called for, but never saturated and overboard. Just what'll suffice and contribute to plot plausibility. For that, Vaughn gains my admiration and respect when most other blockbusters have the pressure of installing intentional crowd-pleasing plot devices with the "more is more" mentality when it's really just senseless overkill.

All the action you'll find are very nicely coated by stellar visual effects (by the likes of Weta Digital) and scored by Henry Jackman's influential music. I'd also like to add that the score played a critical role in veiling this film with the intended serious overtone and gave it the right feel that also helps with setting the right rhythm. Think along the line of how music gave Avatar its atmospheric life and how it also made Inception feel so grand and mysterious. Production values are very high indeed, especially when you can expect a naval confrontation between an American fleet and a Soviet fleet disturbed by the play of mutants.

Not all of the sideline mutant characters enjoyed adequate limelight in an attempt to avoid the overcrowding disruptive effect on the plot, but Raven (Jennifer Lawrence), Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), and Emma Frost (January Jones) were given some and they made good of the opportunity. Some even offered the audience great eye-candy that doesn't feel forced upon.

Before you'd begin to think that nobody remembers the bad guy, there's Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw (also the nightmare nemesis of Erik's ill-fated childhood) who really resembles an ambitious Hitler with menace. Memorable and rather short-lived in my opinion, but there's no doubt about Bacon's performance here (we're talking about a veteran here, after all).

So there's a great cast, good star performance, alluring story, gripping pace, pleasant eye- candy, high production value, beautiful visual effects, and appealing action sequences. That doesn't sound like a blockbuster, it's a mutated form of it.

Mutant and proud.

Oh and that's not all, also do watch out for a crude brief cameo by a key familiarity.

Technically and inspirationally, this film has all the flair in instilling great cinematic moments that are often undermined by several. It's a film about a man being trapped in a fixed location for a little over 5 days, this is where Director Danny Boyle shows you how it can be made into a watchable 90 minute film that is worth every single cent of your ticket purchase.

If you've seen how the film is made, you'd have known how much effort has been drafted into this production where a base camp is set in the middle of some wilderness and helicopters transport crew and equipment to and fro every shooting day. Cameras and their operators were set up with climbing ropes like mountaineers and one might say that this production could be one of the most demanding.

So is the story and experience of Aron Ralston.

Based upon the amazing true account of Ralston, this film is made in tribute to his courage to stand up against nature and allowing his will to live to outshine all adversary. Being trapped with a boulder pinning your right hand against the canyon walls inside the claustrophobic cracks of the Blue John Canyon isn't a situation that anyone will want to find themselves in.

James Franco makes a terrific acting career performance and is probably by far the best we've seen of him. 127 Hours will definitely become his pivotal point as it allowed him to break free from conventional roles and portrayed one of the best sides to him that deserves watching. It's great to see him getting nods, even though people are pinning hopes on Colin Firth to eventually win. In my opinion, his rendition of Aron Ralston was very realistic and made me feel for him during the course of the film, which is what acting is all about - realism within fiction.

Wait, it's more like achieving realism within realism.

If you are thinking how watchable a film is when it merely depicts a man trapped within the cracks of a canyon for 127 hours under the screening time of about 90 minutes, my suggestion here to you is this.

Just go watch it to immerse yourself in what is probably one of the best cinematic experience ever.

Boyle has yet again proved his flair in filmmaking and it's exactly what makes him one of the best in the industry. He's already proved himself countless times especially with his previous winner "Slumdog Millionaire" and who doesn't love it when it took everyone by storm during its year of release?

A visually stunning film that borrows from great editing and cinematography by Jon Harris and Anthony Dod Mantle/Enrique Chediak respectively. We see stylised treatment in the film with the occasional mesmerising landscapes of the canyons. Also not forgetting the original music by A.R. Rahman that made the entire 90 minutes so much more entertaining and enjoyable as a whole.

127 Hours is a film that gets you deeply involved even after your step out of the theatre, thinking (or rethinking) about your life and the wonders of it. Often we tend to feel that we are in control of our lives but life is never simplistic enough for anybody to fully hold a good grasp upon. Here we see a talented Ralston who is so confident and full of life (and of himself in some manner) that he has always thought that navigating though life's mysteries and wonders under the most risky situations would be the best after-dinner desserts he could possibly have.

That was before the element of nature came into play.

Under the power of nature, man is belittled to a tiny speck of existential form as seen here in 127 Hours. Drastic climatic conditions, lack of food and water supply, lack of sleep, claustrophobic location, and eerie silence during most parts of the days and nights. What keeps a man going here will be his determination and will to live and survive. We see him talking to his video camcorder most of the times, his only companion to converse with that is also probably what keeps him sane.

Ralston performs the unimaginable feat of severing his own right forearm, which is graphically portrayed in this film without ever showing much of him actually doing it through editing (it's a little gruesome in thought but if that's what bothering you, it's not a reason worth to skip this film). What's horrible rather, is the sound that we hear during the controversial scene, which brings one much closer to realism than the sight of it.

So it's a battle between nature, Ralston, and his will to live, and it's one that you shouldn't miss for any reason at all.

Never seeming to feature a strong main story, this Taiwanese film almost finds itself tripping over the major rule of cinema. You will realise that the story of attraction actually resides within the well-established characters who are pleasurable to watch for the entire span of the film. All emotions evoked within the audience derive strangely from the wide range of silver screen personalities instead of the plot, a great example of genre defying work of talent.

There is this unspeakable quality to this film, a film that evokes so much emotions through all the well-written characters and yet it is handled (superbly) by Director Chung Mong-hong (who is recently awarded the Golden Horse Best Director for this film) in such a silent fashion in reminiscence of Ozu. Xiang is a silent protagonist by nature, as we later learn that it is the repression due to poor treatment he receives from most adults in his life. He chatters with a vast amount of pure (but often crude) naivety and curiosity only to adults whom he can open his heart to.

The privileged individuals are none other than the elderly school caretaker he befriends after his father's passing, and the similarly estranged twenty-odd boy "Big Gun" whose sharp tongue provides a great deal of casual hilarity for the audience. The caretaker is probably an ideal fatherly/grandfatherly figure to Xiang while Big Gun is possibly a dear elder brother to him. These two fill up the void in Xiang's pitiful life.

One scavenges through desolated residences for scrap items of value while the other instigates petty theft and a daylight robbery of school children. Although these two perform morally questionable activities to tide them by every single day, the main focus here is the kind intentions and pure hearts of these two that are well-received by Xiang as valuable lessons in life.

On a side note, Big Gun comes from a pitiful family background as well.

We then move on to the darker characters in Xiang's life ahead of him. Xiang's mother, an attractive bar hostess of her age, reappears to be in custody of his well-being after the death of his father, leading him to stay with her and his new step-father who disapproves of his presence.

We are introduced to an imaginary elder brother of Xiang here as he often appears in his dreams ever since moving in with his mother. This person truly exists albeit missing for several years after his mother moved from Mainland China to Taiwan. We soon get to learn about the shortcomings of this new family where the (ex-convict) mother views marriage as a mere convenience in achieving a better life while the step-father sports lurking violent behaviours underneath his obnoxious facade. The lesser of evils will be Xiang's mother who is incapable of caring for him despite having the desire to as she tries hard to make ends meet.

Xiang is a silent character in front of these two who doesn't care much about him.

As mentioned prior, this film essentially has no serious story going on. It is not about the destination but the process. The enticing factor comes from the character interactions that revolve around Xiang, where dialogues are always a pleasant surprise as they are seldom heard elsewhere and unpredictable. Aided by excellent screen writing the characters are very much alive in the audience's mind, be it the benign or malicious ones.

Often silent and aloft, the camera work is designed in such a way that it allows us to feel as if we are watching the on screen development as an observing third party, almost like a spirit's perspective. Perhaps the audience is purposely casted as the ghost of Xiang's imaginary elder brother, as it is most noticeable in a specific self-confessional scene where the stepfather reveals certain dark secrets of the past.

Of course, this is just my view based on a wild imagination.

If you are wondering how the film gets its title, you will know that it is better to unravel this mystery by watching it. All I can say is, every portrait depicts an individual (or part thereof) who matters in Xiang's life, one where he pursues and discovers both a lost childhood and coming-of-age maturity through an array of personalities around him.

An outstanding work of genre-experimentation by the talented Chung Mong-Hong, one to watch for.

Coming directly from a highly acclaimed film-maker, Paul Haggis tries his hands on an action thriller remake of the French original "Pour Elle" with a questionable take on it. Cast performance is generally well although the casting choice isn't. An adequate film of its genre that contains some finely detailed plot elements of crime, it will keep you off the tracks of predictability if you have yet seen the original.

Before the first frame of this film is screened, I enter the theatre with the impression of Paul Haggis' incredible film resume of being the first person to write two consecutive Academy Awards Best Pictures back to back. He's directed and written 2004's "Crash" as well as writing Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" within the same year. Adding on to his credits are "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "In the Valley of Elah".

Now let the movie begin.

It begins with a blood-tainted John in a car. Then it flashes back to a little heated conversation over a dinner as John tries to separate Lara from an escalated conflict with a lady whom she didn't like. Right after getting home, the police raids their residence and arrests Lara for murder.

Seems like there isn't much to the background of the protagonists as it dives straight to John's perspective for the critical matter at hand. As a college teacher, John is an average educated citizen whose wife has been accused and convicted of murder and is serving her sentence in a County jail.

A criminal conviction with an unknown integrity, which leaves you questioning her innocence.

You are left to ponder over the rest of the film if Lara actually committed the crime as the film shapes your perception to intended play accordingly, very much like the effects of mass media these days. You either get bowled over or simply dismiss today's journalism, it's your call.

Russell Crowe as Jack, a middle class school teacher, is really not convincing in my opinion. Perhaps due to his rugged demeanour and appearance, he looks as if he is the criminal right at the beginning of the film. I simply do not connect these two dots: College teacher and Russell Crowe. Not that Crowe is a bad actor, which he is in fact a good veteran in what he does, it's just an issue of specific role suitability where better casting could have helped.

What allowed Crowe to stay believable in character is Haggis' screenplay depiction. In a particular scene, Jack is seen throwing up after surviving a nervous episode at the County jail, a reminding notion that Jack is no hero. This was totally unexpected but it's definitely in favour of the audience.

The rest of the cast has been under-utilised as they play second to Crowe's presence. Liam Neeson has a brief appearance as one who has escaped several times from jail, he is approached by Crowe for a prison break advisory. Banks spends most of her time behind bars, which we seldom get to see. This is where I say I don't really feel for most of the characters in this film.

What if Neeson and Crowe switched roles? Food for thought.

Haggis has scripted an extremely detailed screenplay that also depicts disturbingly clear visual hints of how certain crimes can be committed. By surfing Youtube for methods to break into vehicles, for an instance. So for those of you who are intending to bring along minors to a screening of this film, kindly make a mental note.

Details have plagued the first half of the film where the prison break plan development gets the limelight and unfolds itself before the audience, which may be a little too draggy in some's opinions. This is most likely done to achieve realism and credibility, which every good writer loves to have. But when the action comes on, it is satisfying and good.

Action scenes are the essence of this film.

The action scenes do not just excite one's senses, it brings about this quality of unpredictability with well-scripted plot developments. This is noticed during a hospital escape scene Haggis staged in complexity that hints of brilliance. He has made Jack a thinking man who's placed under situational stress, whose plans are gradually materialised over the next hour or so. Looks like you don't have to be Michael Scofield (of Prison Break) to pull off a prison escape.

Maybe being a teacher has its perks after all.

But not all goes well in the plotted escape as random hindrance do come along to frustrate the plan to cause impromptu diversions, which comes as a huge plus point for me simply because a prison break, in actual fact, is not as simple and smooth going as it seems in movies.

All in all, it is an adequate film of its genre with decent screenplay and action elements. This is of course accurate when you do not compare this to any of Haggis' prior works. The Next Three Days could have been better and more, however I still stand firm in faith of Haggis' talents.

Everybody makes mistakes, once in a while.

Quick, ruthless and cunningly brilliant. This is two hours of rapid dialogue spells that draw your attention and energy away to leave you in a mesmerising dazzle. The Social Network strictly adheres itself to the traits of the computer programming genius Mark Zuckerberg who created Facebook and shares his account through his eyes, prompting one to step into his shoes, enter the realm of geeky genius, and finally seeking the 'like' button of this film (if it exists).

It is true that this film, with its talented cast and crew, will achieve greatness like how Facebook achieved worldwide success. Seemingly uninspiring little ideas, when put together and conceived by a genius mind, gave rise to the Facebook social networking phenomenon that has integrated within our daily lives like oxygen to a brilliant mind.

David Fincher's film is no less different.

Who would have thought that a movie about the founding of Facebook and its creator Mark Zuckerberg will be so engaging with wits sprinkled across every dialogue exchanged. Drawing reference to the geeky nature of Zuckerberg's mind, the film has catered for an intellectual fast-paced treatment that is worthy of a Harvard computer programmer. The language at play here is indirectly complex, jargon-filled and is always full of hidden underlying meanings, insults and sarcasm.

Like how Zuckerberg is always constantly at work to improve and move ahead of others, the astonishing intensity of the dialogues suggests how one has to pay full attention to digest and keep up with the story development before risking getting lost and left behind.

Though a little demanding, but it is rewarding at the end of Zuckerberg's talkative journey.

Already a public-listed quality, Fincher's direction is exquisitely powerful with the sensational screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. Answering the call to achieve technical excellence is the beautiful lowlight imagery and the amazing play of DOF (depth of field) by cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth and his RED ONE camera with the latest Mysterium-X sensor that improves low- light capabilities, rendering great details. These are highly reflected in the dim night club scenes as well as the rowing competition in UK.

Ensemble cast plays a huge contribution to the film's credibility and emotions drawn from its audience, especially of Eisenberg as Zuckerberg and Timberlake as Napster founder Parker. They were spot on choices for their respective roles and were responsible for leading the show with superb multi-dimensional character portrayal.

Everything revolving Zuckerberg's inept social proficiency gave birth to the revolutionary digital social experience, one that he will be in control of and on top of. The social network dream is really based upon Zuckerberg's dreams of living as a high social butterfly, where monetary prospects of his creation is of secondary importance to him.

He is more concerned being labelled as an a**hole by his date over advertising revenues.

However, in the midst of achieving greatness for Facebook, Zuckerberg has gradually twisted his perception in his life and lives by questionable rules and beliefs. He turns delusional as he ousted his best friend Saverin out of Facebook due to visionary disagreement of Facebook's direction. The verbal virus worms from Parker drift them apart further.

The interesting notion about Zuckerberg is, he actually knows what he wants and what he is after right from the beginning. Despite being supposedly 'brainwashed' by Parker, he remains nonchalant against the evils that Parker is advocating, such as drugs and underage girls. Zuckerberg remains an unpredictable and hard to understand personality who works alone in his own unique manner.

Zuckerberg seems to be amazed by a tiny bubble that has appeared before him and he serves to protect the bubble at all cost upon seeing what the bubble might be capable of. As the bubble grows bigger, surrounding bystanders become jealous of his success and tries to sabotage and burst it. This forces Zuckerberg to be alone with his bubble and when it finally bursts, as all bubbles will eventually, he has to realise at the end of the day that what really matters is the beauty of the initial bubble forming that captivated him.

Zuckerberg is after all, not a genius by choice and yearns to live sociably well among others.

The Social Network has to be one of the greatest cinematic surprise that expands the boundaries of an auto-bibliographic genre. Apparently, many moments in the film will be possibly telling you how nothing is impossible.

The Social Network is impossibly good.

Feo Aladag's debut feature comes to you with such a powerful presence that it is unlikely anyone will falter under her silver screen plea of sincerity and truth about violence against women and their rights under religious restraints. This narrative drama is void of plot clichés and feels a lot like a documentary, convincing of an ill-fated woman's horrible chapter captured on film.

Austrian actress Aladag's first feature film is powerful and overwhelming for the film community, depicting a Muslim woman's struggle for freedom and human rights in the light of religious complications. It is made with such rawness that is almost too convincing as a drama genre film, feeling more like a documentary on the big screen. There is almost no single scene in it that makes you go "Hmm, that is scripted" even though it is, by Aladag herself.

We are looking at superb directing and writing here by a first time feature film-maker, which is a wonderful surprise that leaves us craving for more of her works to come. Perhaps it is her passion to promote anti-violence against women as well as women's rights, allowing her to be devoted towards this film as a mass media tool of propaganda for a good cause.

I for one, am very convinced and inspired by her film.

Sibel Kekilli (previously earning accolades for "Head-On") deserves (Oscar nomination worthy) recognition for her portrayal of Umay as she manages her emotions so well to evoke strong feelings within the audience. I felt so much for Umay and her son Cem, wondering how can such tragedy befall upon them and at some points experiencing this passive urge to extend my helping hand towards them.

No film has ever made me feel this way.

Aladag illustrates the modern European society's concerns over integrating Muslim immigrants into the EU community, where the line to draw between intercultural tolerance and interference is vaguely debatable. Just how much can one's deprival of basic human rights be justified by any religion, the very one that supposedly exists to give us hope, security, and moral guidance?

Pressurised by how the conservative Muslim community judges their family based upon Umay's individual revolt against norms, her family becomes very uptight and volatile regarding the new found woe and remains adamant against her doings. There is very little act of love revealed under their furious demeanour throughout the film, but I do believe that Umay does hold a place in their hearts no matter how small it is becoming. Her religious family has perhaps overtly regarded faith as the utmost authority that cannot be defied, one that even transcends blood ties.

Interestingly, her two brothers played an integral part in conveying the sentiments of the young Muslim generation. Both brothers did not know what they should do, except by faith and teachings since young to always follow the intentions of their parents. None of them tried to hold rational family discussions to speak on this, where everything is decided by the head of the family. With their parents heavily stuck in the mud of traditional values and culture intolerance, the brothers eventually caved in and followed suit to resist their sister.

Umay and Cem are being ill-treated by her abusive husband (coerced sexual activities and violence), leaves him and runs home to her family who regards her act as a shameful disgrace. Umay's father mentioned that upon marriage, she belongs to her husband. Does that mean that she has to suffer silently even when her husband tears off a limb or two from her or even end her life? It is also cruelly brought up that when her family has to choose between the community and Umay, they will never choose her.

These are questions that one has to ask oneself, regardless of religion and cultural background.

In 2005, 23 year-old Hatun Sürücü was shot to death by her youngest brother, at the instruction of his family, at a bus stop near her residence. This was classified as one of the shocking "Honour killings" trend in Germany, where the father has actually ordered for the murder of his own daughter. Hatun was married against her will to her cousin for eight years and decided to leave him with her then five year-old son. Hatun was pursuing an education and an internship as an electrician after she left her husband.

This film follows with reference to the 2005 tragedy, but the ending (though similarly unfortunate in nature) is not the one as mentioned above. So no spoilers pertaining to the film's ending.

A simple issue of a woman's ill-treatment by her abusive husband and her decision to leave her misery behind for a better life that everyone deserves. There is no religious implications here. It is not up to God to decide who should be ill-treated or deprived of human rights, it is up to us to stop violence and unjust treatment as fellow human beings. Sadly, although the misfortune of Umay (and Hatun) was derivative of religious intolerance, the entire affair has nothing to do with religion.

Umay has removed her head scarf in the film ever since her family disapproves of her intentions. This may be deemed as her disregard of and revolt against religion, but I feel that it is more of a revolt against unjustified suppression of her personal freedom and rights. Her removal of her scarf may simply imply that it has nothing to do with religion.

Just as what Umay's superior has said to her father during an unannounced home visit,

"Leave Him out of it, God has nothing to do with this".

This is one of those days when the Sun never rises, as this film offers you a one-way ticket to abyss. Without promising any hope or joy, this also happens to be an excellent case study of the situation behind today's youth where undesirable behaviours such as violence are prominent. A disturbingly graceful depiction of the dark side of humanity in style and post- rock soundtrack (think Radiohead). This film is depressing and violent in theme, you have been warned.

Confessions opens with an interesting chapter, where Matsu gives one of her last lectures in class about the essence of life as she gradually steered towards a sinister angle. Initially frustratingly rowdy as she begins amidst the din created by the students, it was difficult to actually catch on her lecture until the moment when she reveals some truth about her life. I was slowly able to focus on her conversation.

This was when the students began to settle down in silence.

In my opinion, this scene is one of the best re-enactment of real life as it made me feel like one of the students sitting there in class trying very hard to listen to her. This goes on for a good 20 to 30 minutes, but no, it is no dull monologue given her dreadful expression and petrifying aura towards the students that keeps you on edge with engaging visual narration.

Just before this chapter of "confession" closes in awe, we learn that a couple of students in her class has ended her daughter's life. She refers to them as Student A and Student B, hinting a sense of irony in her tone and choice of words as she is desperately trying to show resentment within the boundaries of education.

The rest of the film degenerates and carries a strong tone of angst, sorrow, hatred, and cruel insanity.

And there's no turning back.

Tetsuya Nakashima's shocking thriller is definitely relentless in dragging its audience to Hell for open house orientation, revealing the potential dark side to all of us, especially during puberty where one's direction in life is extremely volatile. With a dark blue and gray palette smeared across the screen for most of the part, everything feels cold and bleak.

We begin to learn how hatred begets hatred, and the possibilities of an endless vicious cycle.

Upon venturing on to the subsequent confession chapters of Student A and B and a few others, we begin to realise something. While being lenient to and accommodative of the youth generation in order to ensure that they always earn a second chance to redeem themselves despite their rash teenage wrongdoings, the kids seem to be exploiting this value in society to do as they fancy.

They have every reason to retaliate against every loving adult in their lives, including raging hormones.

They have got issues, of course. Who will choose to be such rebellious ingrates when everything is going well for them in life? However the society and its system do not cater for their issues, they merely accommodate the consequences. As a result, the teenagers hold no regards for the society and moral values that should be well-defined within them. They exploit the legal system that relieves a minor of criminal contempt even when he or she commits grave crimes.

Is this the so-called teenage revolt?

Without remorse, they seek to commit one after another. The juveniles just don't learn anything at all after countless guidance by the adults in their lives. All they care about is themselves and constantly seek self-gratification (it's mentioned in the film that all they desire for is to be praised and recognised). Are they domestic pets to the adults, or what?

This gets on my nerves.

In the final ambitious revelation when Matsu's brilliantly devised plan of revenge unfold itself in highly stylised fashion via deliberate slow-motion sequences (that seems to glorify all the sick traits in grace) and incoherent nightmarish montage edits, we also learn one more lesson from Nakashima.

Responsibilities may be shirked, but consequences have to be beared.

That includes the minors as well, the future rulers of our world.