kbsfaz
Joined Mar 2022
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
kbsfaz's rating
MAT KILAU REVIEW
Let me admit that I hate Malay films especially Syamsul Yusof films. However, since my friends wanted to watch this movie so much, so I tagged along with them. After all, this movie grossed RM2 million in 2 days and it's IMDB score is 8.1 so I could be wrong about Syamsul Yusof.
NEGATIVE
1. PORTRAYAL OF THE BRITISH FORCES I taught Sejarah at a private school years ago and I love reading many history books. Although British committed many awful things to the natives but we must understand the degree of brutality of the many colonisers. British weren't like Belgians in Congo (who cut off body parts of babies because their parents didn't meet the daily quota), Turks (in Armenia) and Japanese (who raped, murdered and mutilated 20000 Chinese women and girls in Nanking). British weren't stupid. They clearly understood that indiscriminate murders of innocent commoners will cause many protests and rebellions. Hence, they only killed those who fought them. This also explains why the British empire managed to last for 250 years and colonized 54 countries. However, British in this film are portrayed as stupid and short-sighted. They committed mass murders of innocent civilians in at least two instances, murdered a pregnant woman and destroyed a market.
2. THE FORCES This film is about British colonisers. However, you can see only 3 White people and all of them are holding the top positions. The lower ranking soldiers are all Gurkha even though history tells us they were comprised of Malays, Gurkha and Englishmen. I can totally understand the budget constraints so they obviously can't pay European actors to act as extras. However, why only Gurkhas as British soldiers?
3. THE DIALOGUE I Malays in the late 19th century didn't use flowery language. They spoke just like us. Of course, gurindam, pantun, kiasan, rhythmic sentences were more common back then but they didn't have the time and energy (especially after 10 hours at sawah) to come up with some clever lines with deep meaning.
4. THE DIALOGUE II From the very beginning to the very end the many characters talked about Malay ketuanan, Islam, the evil of infidel British and sovereignty of Tanah Melayu. It was non-stop for two hours. Ok, I get it, the British were bad. Even at school we've been reminded not to distrust strangers who come bearing gifts. You don't have to remind us a trillion times. Instead of this, the screenwriters should spend more time on character development.
5. ILLOGICAL In one scene, the Gurkhas went to the market to collect tax. One of the sellers then protested by arguing that they never paid tax before so why should they pay now to infidel invaders. I could be wrong, and I welcome correction, but taxation towards small Malay businessmen like them aren't the creation of British. Pembesar Melayu imposed it since hundreds of years ago. To say it was non-existence prior to British was wrong. Then, during the final battle between the Gurkhas and the villagers, the British captain instructed to fire the cannon at literally all of them. You can see with your own two eyes Gurkhas died because of this cannon. As I said, British are portrayed as stupid. These Gurkhas were their valuable assets. The cost of training them alone were in the millions. And don't let me start with the energy and time cost. Plus, there's this one scene where Kilau said goodbye to his wife and son. Did you know where this scene took place? At the top of a waterfall! I can totally understand the beauty of the scenery, especially in an epic film like this, but please be logical. Finally, Wahid's wife wore anak tudung. Our Malay ancestors wore head covering but we can see their hair. If you don't believe me, look at any pictures containing Malay women from 1890s to the 1950s.
POSITIVE
1. FIGHT SCENES Although the fight scenes aren't as good as many kung fu films but they are enjoyable nonetheless. Far better than many Hollywood movies with mindless shootings from both sides.
2. THE SCENERY
3. THE ACTORS The acting is so-so but the warriors are muka jantan. With the exception of Fattah Amin, all male warriors are brown- and dark-skinned. In a film like this, you shouldn't apply any make up to the warriors.
⭐ ⭐
Edit : I was told by someone that those British soldiers aren't Gurkhas but Punjab. If that were true, I admit my mistake. However, my question remains valid : Why cast only Punjab as British soldiers when in reality the soldiers were multiracial?
Let me admit that I hate Malay films especially Syamsul Yusof films. However, since my friends wanted to watch this movie so much, so I tagged along with them. After all, this movie grossed RM2 million in 2 days and it's IMDB score is 8.1 so I could be wrong about Syamsul Yusof.
NEGATIVE
1. PORTRAYAL OF THE BRITISH FORCES I taught Sejarah at a private school years ago and I love reading many history books. Although British committed many awful things to the natives but we must understand the degree of brutality of the many colonisers. British weren't like Belgians in Congo (who cut off body parts of babies because their parents didn't meet the daily quota), Turks (in Armenia) and Japanese (who raped, murdered and mutilated 20000 Chinese women and girls in Nanking). British weren't stupid. They clearly understood that indiscriminate murders of innocent commoners will cause many protests and rebellions. Hence, they only killed those who fought them. This also explains why the British empire managed to last for 250 years and colonized 54 countries. However, British in this film are portrayed as stupid and short-sighted. They committed mass murders of innocent civilians in at least two instances, murdered a pregnant woman and destroyed a market.
2. THE FORCES This film is about British colonisers. However, you can see only 3 White people and all of them are holding the top positions. The lower ranking soldiers are all Gurkha even though history tells us they were comprised of Malays, Gurkha and Englishmen. I can totally understand the budget constraints so they obviously can't pay European actors to act as extras. However, why only Gurkhas as British soldiers?
3. THE DIALOGUE I Malays in the late 19th century didn't use flowery language. They spoke just like us. Of course, gurindam, pantun, kiasan, rhythmic sentences were more common back then but they didn't have the time and energy (especially after 10 hours at sawah) to come up with some clever lines with deep meaning.
4. THE DIALOGUE II From the very beginning to the very end the many characters talked about Malay ketuanan, Islam, the evil of infidel British and sovereignty of Tanah Melayu. It was non-stop for two hours. Ok, I get it, the British were bad. Even at school we've been reminded not to distrust strangers who come bearing gifts. You don't have to remind us a trillion times. Instead of this, the screenwriters should spend more time on character development.
5. ILLOGICAL In one scene, the Gurkhas went to the market to collect tax. One of the sellers then protested by arguing that they never paid tax before so why should they pay now to infidel invaders. I could be wrong, and I welcome correction, but taxation towards small Malay businessmen like them aren't the creation of British. Pembesar Melayu imposed it since hundreds of years ago. To say it was non-existence prior to British was wrong. Then, during the final battle between the Gurkhas and the villagers, the British captain instructed to fire the cannon at literally all of them. You can see with your own two eyes Gurkhas died because of this cannon. As I said, British are portrayed as stupid. These Gurkhas were their valuable assets. The cost of training them alone were in the millions. And don't let me start with the energy and time cost. Plus, there's this one scene where Kilau said goodbye to his wife and son. Did you know where this scene took place? At the top of a waterfall! I can totally understand the beauty of the scenery, especially in an epic film like this, but please be logical. Finally, Wahid's wife wore anak tudung. Our Malay ancestors wore head covering but we can see their hair. If you don't believe me, look at any pictures containing Malay women from 1890s to the 1950s.
POSITIVE
1. FIGHT SCENES Although the fight scenes aren't as good as many kung fu films but they are enjoyable nonetheless. Far better than many Hollywood movies with mindless shootings from both sides.
2. THE SCENERY
3. THE ACTORS The acting is so-so but the warriors are muka jantan. With the exception of Fattah Amin, all male warriors are brown- and dark-skinned. In a film like this, you shouldn't apply any make up to the warriors.
⭐ ⭐
Edit : I was told by someone that those British soldiers aren't Gurkhas but Punjab. If that were true, I admit my mistake. However, my question remains valid : Why cast only Punjab as British soldiers when in reality the soldiers were multiracial?
Positive :
1. I get to know many hidden talents. Grant Knoche from Texas has many amazing songs. Wyoming representative has catchy entry.
Negative : 1. Awful camera work.
2. Too many people on the stage. Messy.
3. Eurovision has many bad songs but not as many as in ASC.
Negative : 1. Awful camera work.
2. Too many people on the stage. Messy.
3. Eurovision has many bad songs but not as many as in ASC.