Curse of the deserted Movie Review

Hi World! Today I have decided to do another review of a movie I have recently watched (regretfully). This movie is Curse of the Deserted, and as you have probably guessed from the cheesy disturbing poster, it is supposed to be a horror/thriller movie, which also makes the worse horror movie I've ever watched, or just the worse movie I've ever watched, period.

I think I should explain why I even ended up watching such a crappy movie anyway. So I was with a couple of friends celebrating a friend's birthday, and one event on the agenda was to watch a movie. Because we were at Cathay Cineplex, we had a much narrower choice of movies, and ended up buying tickets for PCK The Movie. HOWEVER, there was some miscommunication between the ppl buying the tickets and the counter staff, and we ended up with 8 tickets to Curse of the Deserted. Thinking that it was something decently scary at least, we decided to go for it anyway. BIG MISTAKE as it turned out to be.

Right, plot summary.Young writer Guo wrote about a titular curse in his book, "The Deserted Village". It began 500 years ago in the Ming Dynasty, when one of the villagers died of terminal illness. The widow Yanzi vowed to stay with her husband forever but when the man suddenly returned to life, the horrified neighbours believed that he was a monster. They burned him to death and torched his mansion. The devastated Yanzi upheld her vow and threw herself into the fire. Since then, the village was cursed and the mansion subsequent inhabitant dies mysteriously. Some say only couples who share true love can survive in that village. Those who are unfaithful will come to their demise. To the world, the book was pure fiction. Only Guo and his ex-girlfriend Zhi had lived through the horror to know its existence. When four college students decided to explore the village themselves, the trip led them to an ancient well in Yanzi's mansion, where the curse was unleashed once again.

The summary is a heck a lot more exciting than the actual movie. To me, the movie was just about the 4 college students going to the village, and slowly dying one by one, with romance and some witty dialogue randomly inserted in between.

I don't even know how to begin assessing this movie. Maybe the reasons why I don't think it is good would be good. Right, so for me ,movies should stick strictly to their genres. Meaning, if the movie is a horror movie, no matter how crappy the plot is or how crappy the acting is, as long as its scary enough, its a good movie. I personally felt this movie was way too adventurous, trying to dabble into too many areas at the same time. The movie attempted to blend romance with horror, which left the movie hanging in limbo, fitting neither requirements for both genres, leading to well, a crappy movie.

The movie wasn't particularly scary, and the visual effects were completely sloppy. There were only brief moments where the director used suspense music to compensate for the atmosphere. Romance was also not particularly evident, only in the random flashbacks that constantly appeared near the end of the movie. Speaking of the ending, ARGH, the ending was really the thing that completely killed the movie. In the end, the entire episode just turned out to be a plot of a book the main character, and that in real life her boyfriend had been involved in a car accident, which inspired her to write. What the heck, that really destroyed any scrape of liking I had had to the movie until that point.

In conclusion, Curse of the Deserted is really a substandard movie which I don't recommend, but if you've been watching too many good movies like Inception and Avatar lately, then maybe you can watch it to be reminded how sucky a movie can get, and maybe get a good laugh out of it.

Rating : 1.5/5 stars - at least there was a decent amount of blood. Watch it if you're seriously bored.

~Kevan

Inception Movie Review!

Hello World! Today I have decided to try something new, which would be a movie review of Inception which I have very recently watched. This is also my first time doing a movie review, so please forgive me if I epically screw-up. Right, fingers-crossed let the reviewing begin!

First, I would like to say that Inception is one of the greatest films I have ever seen in a while, and would have been definitely been the best movie I've seen if not for Avatar, but hey, Avatar's in a league of its own. With breathtaking special effects to rival the Matrix, unthinkable plot twists, extremely awesome acting , a smattering of comedy and a bold ambiguous ending boldly thrown in Inception is definitely a movie people will remember for a long, long time.

In Inception, Leonardo DiCapario plays Cobb, an extractor who steals ideas from other people's minds through their dreams. Cobb is hired to extract an idea from a wealthy businessman, Saito, who turns the tables back and instead offers Cobb the supposedly never-before-done job of performing inception - the act of implanting an idea into a subject's mind. Cobb accepts the job on Saito's promise that he would use his influence to make a murder charge against Cobb disappear, allowing Cobb to return to the United States to be reunited with his family.

Cobb then goes on to recruit a group of specialised individuals, and together the team sets off to deep into Robert Fischer Jr.'s mind, heir to Saito's greatest rival energy company, to implant an idea that will cause Fischer to ultimately want to dissolve the company. After many plot twists the team manages to successfully finish the job, Saito honours his promise and Cobb is reunited with his family.

What I really like about the plot is that the film does not make the common mistake of revealing the mechanisms of the dream world and Cobb's plight in long monologues, but uses a careful injection of flashbacks and the interaction between the characters to reveal the plot. This not only keeps the audience glued onto the screen for the full 148 minutes of the movie, but also makes the audience pay close attention to every small little detail in the movie, which would be essential to fully understand the plot.

The special effects are also jaw-droppingly good, using the dream world as a cover to create impossible worlds beyond the wildest dreams. One classic scene I would remember for a long time would be the anti-gravity fight in Fischer's dream. While many movies have fight scenes where the characters manipulate gravity, in this scene there is NO gravity at all, and the entire hotel lobby also moves occasionally due to external factors, tossing the characters around and making that fight scene just so much more epic.

In conclusion , with scenes that make your heart miss a beat, scenes that leave your jaw hanging , scenes that make you secretly tear up and scenes that make you laugh out loud, Inception is definitely a movie worthy of watching and re-watching again and again.

Rating: 5/5 stars - Must Watch!

~Kevan

E-Learning Assignment Task 2

The following is my E-Learning Assignment Task 2, a much closer analysis on the poem Rainbow Death by Hubert Wilson based on a template Ms Soh gave us.

Just for reference’s sake, here is the poem, again.

America did not foresee
Green, pink, purple and other colors death potpourri!
Expecting others to pay a high price.
Now thinking twice?
Toll on the innocent and unborn.

Omnipotent and disregarding who will mourn.
Reflective about all the illness, birth defects and prematurely dead.
All the deceit continues to spread.
Nefariously America led astray -
Generations untold WILL pay -
Execrable effects of agent orange spray!

1. Point of View

From how the poem very clearly reflects the “execrable effects of agent orange spray”, I do believe that this poem is written from the first-person perspective of someone who has a first-hand account of the devastating results of the use of Agent Orange. By being able to describe the effects of Agent Orange with accuracy and also being able to know that “America did not foresee” the harmful after-effects Agent Orange brought, we can assume that the poet, who is the speaker in the poem, is a war-veteran who was involved in the Vietnam war, and had personally at least seen the effects of Agent Orange.

2. Situation and Setting.

Very obviously, the poem is set after the use of Agent Orange, probably a couple of years later, for the poet does not just describe the immediate effects of Agent Orange on the people, but also its implications on future generations of Vietnamese children, like “birth defects “ and even being “prematurely dead”. The poet even goes on to say that the “deceit continues to spread”, telling us that the U.S government probably tried to continue hiding the truth about the effects of Agent Orange from the public, and was still doing so when this poem was written.

3. Language/diction

I found the title of the poem puzzling and ironical, for the two words “rainbow” and “death” are not commonly associated with each other. Rainbows are symbol of magical bridges between life and heaven, or at the least something vibrant and colourful, in contrast to the bleak reality of death. I do believe that the poet chose this oxymoronic title as a direct reference to the “rainbow herbicides” (details in the previous post), and showing how the name of this group of harmful chemicals, responsible for so many deaths in the Vietnam War, is ironical.

Another oxymoron in the poem would be death potpourri. Potpourri is actually either a mixture of dried petals and leaves from various plants that gives off a pleasant smell, or just an interesting mixture of things, both rather positive. However, it is once again associated with death, something bleak and negative, making it ironical. Right before this the colours green, pink and purple are listed, which can be assumed as reflecting the Agents Green, Pink and Purple, other herbicides part of the “rainbow herbicides”. Perhaps the poet is trying to say that the U.S Military had not considered the possible implications before using those biological threats.

4. Personal Response

After reading about the effects of Agent Orange and how “untold generations WILL pay” as described in the poem, it left me feeling rather disturbed and uncomfortable. The poet started with an ominous tone, how “America did not foresee”, before ending with an equally ominous one. Throughout the poem the poet fills my thoughts with images of death and suffering, and shows that the Agent Orange spray is the one responsible for all of it, thoroughly convincing me that the use of Agent Orange is inhumane, serving the poem’s purpose.

~Kevan

E-Learning Assignment Task 1

The following is my E-learning assignment Task 1, an analysis on the poem Rainbow Death by Hubert Wilson.

America did not foresee
Green, pink, purple and other colors death potpourri!
Expecting others to pay a high price.
Now thinking twice?
Toll on the innocent and unborn.

Omnipotent and disregarding who will mourn.
Reflective about all the illness, birth defects and prematurely dead.
All the deceit continues to spread.
Nefariously America led astray -
Generations untold WILL pay -
Execrable effects of agent orange spray!

What I’m supposed to do is write a report about the conflict which is represented in this poem, of course after carrying out extensive research.

So basically after surfing around the net, I realised that this poem is actually talking about the use of “Rainbow Herbicides” by the U.S Military in the Vietnam war, in particular the use of the infamous Agent Orange.

Rainbow Herbicides, a direct reflection of the name of this poem, is a group of chemicals which the U.S Military used during the Vietnam War. Their main purpose was to destroy plants to expose Vietnamese soldiers hiding among the forests. Other Rainbow Herbicides besides Agent Orange were Agent Green, Pink and Purple, which are shown in the first line of the poem.

From 1961-1971, Agent Orange was widely used by the U.S Military, and apart from destroying large areas of vegetation, Agent Orange caused 400,000 deaths and 500,000 children born with defects. This devastation is repeatedly reflected in the poem, like how the agent tolls on the “innocent and unborn”, and the “illness, birth defects and prematurely dead” as a result of the use of Agent Orange.

As of now this is my research on the use of the Rainbow Herbicides shown in the poem, and the next pose will be about close analysis of the poem.

Cool Stuff! None Like It Hot!

So hi all you people of this world. Today I want to announce the start of a new segment of my blog, called "Cool Stuff!", which would primarily consist of interesting and well "cool" stuff I find on the internet from all around the world, as an attempt to make my blog less boring.

Anyway today I want to share with you guys a video from the creators of Futurama and the Simpsons about the fundamentals of Global Warming. Enjoy!

~Kevan

Is it right? -Life sentence for 88 year old nazi?

Greetings fellow earthlings! Your loyal geek Kevan here again. So anyway guys I have decided that besides just having rants about my very boring life in this blog, I'm going to add in a new segment called "is it right?", which will discuss controversial topics from all over the world. This is the first time i'm doing something like this, so please leave your comments and suggestions!

So, before you read on please check out this article here, which my post will be revolving around.

Just a summary of this article for those of you who got bored after reading the first sentence: Germany has recently convicted a 88-year old ex-nazi for war crimes, including murdering 3 Dutch Civillians as a SS Assassin. He will be spending the rest of his life in jail.

So what do you guys think? Should we convict this man- who claims he was following direct orders from Hitler himself, and even implies that he was brainwashed when he committed murder? Should we even still convict WWII soldiers for war-crimes- men who are about to die from old age and other natural causes anyway? This is what I will be discussing in this blog post.

I shall first present my stand on the issue. Personally I do believe that the old man should not be convicted. I don't even think that ex-soldiers should even be convicted for war crimes. The country that is convicted for war -crimes is the country that loses the war, like in this case Germany. However, in war, EVERYONE IS A MURDERER. If the loser country is convicted, shouldn't the victor be too, since it was probably responsible for more deaths then the loser country.

Also, the "murderer" in question, the ex-nazi, like many of his fellow nazis, had been subject to brainwash since young, which means that his actions during the war have been greatly influenced by external factors. Since his orders came directly from Hitler, not following them would have led to the murdering of him and his family. Considering all these factors my heart goes out to the old ex-nazi, who is, as he says himself, already "waiting for death".

Since I found this topic of enough substance, I decided to use it for my current affairs interview with Mr. Eddie Lau, our form teacher. While Justin, my partner for the interview, has the same views as me, Mr Lau feels that the the ex-nazi should still be held accountable for the murders he was responsible, no matter under what circumstances. He even gave us some vague modern-day example of some student leader having done something which frankly speaking I did not really think was relevant to the topic, but I still really appreciate Mr. Lau's effort in pushing his point forward.

So where do you guys stand? Do you, like me and Justin, pity the old ex-Nazi and think he should be allowed the rest of his life, or do you, like Mr Lau, believe that he should still be convicted anyway and held accountable to all the relatives of the murdered? Please your interesting and thought-worthy comments below! I eagerly reply your comments.

Signing off

~Kevan

Will you take the money?

If you found a wallet lying on the floor, right in front of you, and you pick it up, to find $200 and some important documents like NRIC, Cashcard etc. Now ask yourself, will you, hand the wallet over to the lost and found counter/ police/ the owner himself?

Ok I can probably predict your reply. With an angelic beam and innocent eyes you're gonna say : "Of course I'll return the wallet- I'm such a nice person and I love this whole world.

No seriously.

After years in the Singaporean education system any rounds of civic-moral education many of us are already programmed to answer this way- to behave like the pure-hearted beings we're supposed to be.

However, I want you to really look deep into your heart, and question your fundamental moral values: If you really had $200 in your hands, would you SERIOUSLY return it to the owner/authorities, or would you give in to temptation and keep the money?

So anyway you guys are probably wondering why I'm blogging about this. Well, just a couple of days ago my family and I decided to celebrate my younger brother's birthday at Downtown East resorts. Since we had checked into the resort in the afternoon and the party we had organized was not till late evening, we decided to burn some time at the arcade.

It was the classic tragic " i- left-it-there-and-it-went-poof" story. Since I was wearing shorts with no pockets in them, I was holding my valuables - wallet and phone, in my hand until my brother wanted to challenge me to mario kart. Being the muddle head I am, I had left my valuables on the chair next to me, and promptly forgot about me upon leaving the game. 5 minutes later upon hurriedly returning to find it, it was long gone.

It was largely my fault anyway. I could have left my valuables with my parents who were close by before rushing off to trash my brother at table soccer, but I had carelessly left them somewhere accessible to any random passer-by to pocket.

Since I was surrounded by teenagers at that time, the possibility that it had been a teenager like myself who took my valuables is the highest. Being the love-filled person I am, I'm simply going to ASSUME that the teenager who took my wallet had not eaten for 3 days, was starving, and desperately needed the money to buy food. And he had to take my phone to call the church and thank the lord or something like that.

So anyway, back to the topic. Before this episode I was, like many others, unsure whether or not I would keep $200 I found on the floor. In fact I would probably be more inclined to keep the cash. But now, after experiencing the fluster and desperation of looking for a lost wallet, I am absolutely sure that from now on, I will definitely return all lost possessions to their rightful owners.

I'm sure that many of you guys reading this have experienced losing prized possessions before-with the high theft rates in our class last year. To those lucky souls who as of now have not lost their possessions before, and everyone in general, may I urge all of you to follow your conscience, and return the poor soul his lost wallet.

Cheers!

~Kevan