Singapore Dreaming. I watched it, so there.

The following review/article contains spoilers to the movie. I highly encourage Singaporean to see the movie, if only to support the local filmmaking scene. I also encourage Singaporeans to critically consider the film without fanatical devotion to his quality simply because it is local. It is good we're making films; it'll be better if we were making good films.

Certain movies exist mainly to hold a mirror to our society, a reflection of our lives as it stands. Singapore dreaming is hailed as one of those movies. Our dear president himself is quoted as saying "This is Singapore in its reality." Unfortunately, what is reflected in this movie is a society filled with distressing cynicism, unfocused angst and little insight. This could be a point of disagreement, as one could claim that the movie openly explores the travails of materialism has on a family. Materialism may be the vice that seems the most obvious to the filmmakers, and the largest symptom of our flawed culture, but it is hardly the cause.

Materialism fails to explain why CK needs to take a piss in the toilet when he is several steps away from the flat. It fails to explain why Mei's boss treats her with such disdain and why his wife does the same. It fails to explain the reason Mei herself would turn on her trusted maid Pinky in barely the second it takes for the suspicion to form in her head. Materialism also fails to explain, the rather inexplicable storyline of Lao Ah Beng's adultery, but then again, the entire film fails in this regard. Materialism is a problem yes, but it isn't the original sin that plagues the flawed characters populating Singapore Dreaming.

Materialism may be the Singapore dream, but the deeper question that could have been explored is why is this so, and is it really something that would make us happy? Perhaps the root cause could have been bettered explored in a film uncluttered by characters, a film with a clear idea of whose story it really wants to tell. Could it have been Seng, the wayward prodigal son, returning from US to seek his dream at home? If so, then he is a poorly chosen character on which to hang the film's central theme on.

Seng is a weakly written potpourri of desperate Singaporean cliches. He isn't played any better by Dick Su. Mr Su has Seng driven on a single gear; how to be as much of a money grubbing jerk as possible. There isn't a hint of care on his side for his patient girlfriend, a sense of piety to his bereaved mother, or any other suggestions of human characteristic that would elevate him above melodramatic villain. On the flip side, is his caring girlfriend Irene, played by Serene Chen. She does a commendable job playing the conflicting impulses of the loving, compassionate girlfriend.

The cast, however thankfully has the character of CK who is played by the ever reliable Lim Yu Beng, thankfully with depth, humour and a sense of genuine pathos. He is joined by the equally strong Yeo Yann Yann as his wife Mei. Together as the struggling, couple, they plump the depths of a troubled marriage. The film is stronger from their presence but then fails in resolving their storyline satisfactorily. I nitpick, but I was far more interested in seeing what new job CK got, how Mei dealt with her own sudden self-awareness and a more intimate look in how this quintessential couple manage to overcome their difficulties rather than Seng beating up a conveniently malfunctioning car.

Convenient would describe the third act of this film. It was convenient that Irene would just happen to walk in as Seng confesses the plot twist. A plot twist telegraphed throughout the film by the director's odd choice of simply neglecting the entire plot in the middle of the film when it spends a substantial amount of time setting it up in the film's beginning. Convenient would describe the character arc of Lao Ah Beng, a move I perhaps unkindly view as expediently moving the remaining characters in place for the final showdown. Convenient is a nice word; it lends itself to less negative connotations than contrived.

Singapore dreaming is supposed to have a celebrated Director of Photography behind the lens. It is this fact that I perhaps expected a cinematographic style less reticent than displayed in this film. The entire film feels composed for television; the camera is positioned practically to capture characters and their actions, but little else added to the proceedings. This of course, could be due to the directors. This is after all, their first serious attempt at dramatic storytelling after their ludicrous satire Talkingcock.com. They do a competent job at letting the story play out, but at times miss opportunities to elevate the film above the trappings of its soap opera angst.

The film is no closer to understanding what drives our dreams, how they came to be, and whether in the long run, they are the key to our happiness. It has identified problems with our culture, problems that most self-aware Singaporeans already know, but then it stops there. There is nothing more, barely an inkling to a path out of this social morass. Calling Singapore dreaming Singapore's best film to date does a disservice to Royston Tan's excellent if similarly flawed 15 . Singapore Dreaming is not a bad film, but neither is it a great film. It is competently made; a Singaporean films for Singaporeans who want nothing more than a story about themselves.

Yet, if the point of Singapore Dreaming is too remind ourselves of our identity, of how petty, narrow-minded, naive and unforgivingly crass Singaporeans can be, then it has done it's job spectacularly. It is sad for us when the noblest character in a film dedicated to local people is the Filipino maid, and the wisest character, a mainland Chinese prostitute.