Change Your Image
chengwinghei
Reviews
Nui yan boon sik (2007)
The heart and soul of Hong Kong...
As we pass the 10th anniversary of the political coup d'etat/long awaited return to motherland (depending on your POV), inevitably there will be numerous movies that will have something to say about what went down these last ten years. And what a ride it was! Seen through the eyes of strong-willed Joy (played by G. Leung) and her eccentric assistant Tung (played by F. Sit), it chronicles their exploits in the real estate industry, and especially the men that come and go in their lives.
Music/film veteran George Lam plays the real estate executive and husband of Joy, who struggles to find his place in society as the Anglo-American commercial-political clique is replaced with a Chinese Communist one. Kevin Cheng plays the young idealistic rookie doctor, brother-in-law of Joy. Yuan Nie plays the young, debonair, Chinese communist CEO who replaces George Lam's post because of his connections up north. Hins Cheung plays the shy, admirer of Tung who unfortunately is stuck in a job that is not terribly macho. Shiu Hung Hui plays Joy's extremely money-minded father in law. Eddy Ko plays a member of the director's board at where Joy works. Kitty Yuen plays the relentless multi-level marketer who's "friends" with everybody at Joy's place of work. Hacken Lee plays a surprise role.
First the problems: there is the mis-casting of Lam as spouse of Joy, as Lam is old enough to be her father, and Leung has no marriage experience in real life. The gap between the acting skills of the full-time actors (Kevin Cheng) and crossover pop artists (Sit) are pretty obvious. The story can get a bit moralistic at times and political bias can be alleged, but no matter, since Hollywood films are generally critical of the government too. Those acquianted with recent events of Hong Kong will easily predict what will become of the various "functional characters". Hardened, cynical types may find the story a bit sentimental at times. Some symbols of historical events, such as news footage of the stock market, may have been used too repetitively without any imagination or subtlety to the point of being hackneyed.
But overall, the cast's spirited performance (after all, they HAVE all experienced what happened the last 10 years) will make you laugh, make you cry as you recall the challenges Hong Kong has faced. This is a film you could show foreigners to help them understand really matters to citizens of "the fragrant harbor".
White Oleander (2002)
Complete trash
Words cannot describe how much I have come to hate this movie.
I am not even going to hold back the plot details, this movie is so
rotten that whatever I am about to say won't even qualify as
"spoilers". But overall it was worth my money: I stayed until the end
to heckle at the characters. The plot goes something like this:
Moody artist kills lover. Artist goes to jail. Moody artist's daughter
gets sent to orphanage. Daughter moves in with Christian
fanatics. One Christian fanatic woman accuses daughter of
sleeping with another Christian fanatic male. Daughter sleeps
with that fanatic male. Angry female fanatic pulls out gun and
shoots artist's daughter. Daughter survives, and gets moved back
into orphanage. Daughter moves into rich couples home. She
arrives just in time to see the richer half abandon the whole family.
Poorer half of couple commits suicide. Daughter moves back to
orphanage and meets angry boy. Meanwhile moody artist tries to
appeal her prison term. Daughter moves in with Gypsy family.
Artist asks daughter to give false testimony in murder in exchange
for telling her why she has no father and what she had been up to
while in jail. Artist tells daughter it was only a one-night-stand with
the "father" with no conception of her in mind; she also reveals that
she gave the rich couple advice which would screw up the rich
couple's marriage. Daughter, somewhat discouraged by this
revelation, hesitates to repay wicked mother. Moody artist says,
"my bad", and drops the appeal, stays in jail. Daughter reunites
with angry boy, who has become a comic artist. The end.
And what is the audience supposed to think after all this? Why,
well sometimes the person that loves you the most is the person
that screws up your life. Forget you just popped out while she was
"making love". Forget she killed somebody she didn't like and now
she's telling you to lie in court. Can you say, pathetic
psychobabble? Let's say you screwed up someone else's family
to get your children's attention; should I be giving you a standing
ovation? Furthermore I am sick of how moviemakers are still fixated on
stereotypes regarding various lifestyles. Excuse me, but being in a
devout church-going family beats a drugged-up, swindling-gypsy
family anytime. I wished they'd stop being so politically correct and
portrayed all of them as being completely dysfunctional. There's
got to be a way to depict each group respectfully and *still* explain
why things don't work out for the little girl at the end. Hollywood has always made movies about how wonderful messed-up people "actually" are. Characters continuing to wallow
in their "issues" (like it makes them unique somehow) until the
end of the movie, with nobody able to rescue them (taking liberties
in portraying well-intentioned people in the worst light). Great job,
underacheiving main character! Has it crossed your mind maybe
it's your fault? Bottomline: Only see it to know how screenwriters view the world.
Tuck Everlasting (2002)
Movie of the year
This movie is my pick for the movie of the year. I usually pick
movies based on their ability to change my outlook on life, and not
based on certain standards set by the jaded, high-minded crowd.
This is probably the only movie I've seen this year that allows me
to accept its flaws as it is: i.e. Jesse's re-drinking from the fountain
of life, the gradual unravelling of the cast's dialogue from old
English to modern slang, the extremely stupid "plan" to get a
certain Tuck out of a captive situation. That is all trivial. Here's the
message of the movie up front, without the need of a "controversial" scene or agenda, without consulting to death the
script. And let's face it, the happiest, most life-affirming moment of
your existence probably occurred when you saw a movie in your
childhood, not when you were 50 years old and saw some
arthouse movie and was surprised at how sophisticated it was.
Definitely better than "moonlight mile" or even "Perdition".
Like Mike (2002)
Pretty good...
A family movie that stays true to the word "family" (unlike Hey Arnold for example). Of course the plot was a bit lame, (after all, it is a kids movie) and props to the mainly inexperienced cast who nevertheless give it their all. Most of the negative reviews I've seen seem to be concerned that this is a "NBA PR picture". Well, I guess that makes the last movie I watched a "Paramount PR picture", and the one before that a "Warner Bros PR picture". Come on, this movie could have been better, but it does what it is supposed to do. Kids shouldn't be forced to grow up so quickly these days.
Hey Arnold! The Movie (2002)
They forgot this is a KIDS movie...
What were the creators thinking? They must have forgot their target audience. What kids will learn from this movie: it is OKAY to beat up someone that ripped you off; it is OKAY to blow up a road in order to "save the neigborhood"; it is OKAY to escape from jail so you can see your grandchildren; it is OKAY to break into someone else's home because they run a big-baddy corporation. Even if you're not some Jesus freak moralist, you've gotta hate their lame attempts at street cred.
Men in Black II (2002)
Not exactly the best time to go movie-soul searching...
This is really one big mess. The story is supposedly about finding out about and destroying an alien who wants to destroy the universe. The greatest hurdle to this goal? Boredom. The shadow mission? Not falling asleep. J (Smith) and K (Jones) literally go around town looking for hi tech gags to stimulate their interest in having to save the world (again). Trailer gives away the best jokes as many have mentioned. After much soul-searching (many involving peeking into the "small world" of lockers), one failed romance, the boys get out their big guns to kill the bad alien (what took them so long) and they both call it a day. All before J's next yawn. Don't watch it, it's a real snoozer. The ending is kinda cool though.
John Q (2002)
See it as a movie, not as social commentary
I would have to say that this movie takes a lot of liberties in issues,
such as portraying policemen as people that will kill anyone in
order to "get a medal". The result is a very one-sided message
picture on why one should give 90% of their income to help these
people. If John Q didn't start to threaten to kill other people none of
this would have happened. But if you look closely you would see
how much is forced down our throats to make this story possible.
Sure it is manipulative propaganda, but nowhere near as
shameless as "the West Wing". Just watch it like "Die Hard".
A Walk to Remember (2002)
A well-meaning but untimately unsuccessful movie for me...
***warning, spoilers!!!***
After reading the book, I may have set my sights a bit too high. I understand that it's harder to make a good movie than a book, but this movie is a major disappointment, even though they should have credit for at least trying.
Knowing that it's set in the nineties instead of the fifties, I sensed that something was seriously wrong. (with so many "90s" based movies in the market, making another movie is like walking thru a minefield of cliches!!!) The opening scene was unbearable, with the rapid-fire acting you'd expect from apprentice actors. (it's okay to have smart one liners, but it just goes on too long!!! Even kids in real like don't talk so much trash at such a speed. Maybe they were struggling to get those lines over with. *hint* The black guy does something really stupid; yet another cliche.) The reason for the kids doing what they did in the first scene is never explained.
It doesn't get any better. The lead of the story, Landon Carter, who was framed for the previously mentioned stunt, GETS A LEADING ROLE IN A COMMUNITY PLAY!!! What kind of punishment is that!? There is also many many instances, when swear words never should have been used.
Of course, Carter and Jamie Sullivan get closer and closer every scene. Again, the circumstances they meet is as fake as I could imagine, involving a church choir scene where Jamie seems to be the only one that sings decently. Carter's friends, especially the black guy, crack some great lines, but most of the time they are schizophrenic (inconsistent in their personality), and in their efforts to ruin Carter's and Sullivan's "relationship", they pull off a high school prank that is lame, even by high school standards. Again, WHY THE HECK THEY SCRAP ALL THE DETAILS IN THE BOOK? This is a complete mess, although there's a moment of relief in the community play scene, when Moore, playing Sullivan, goes back to doing what she does best.
Meanwhile, the guy playing Jamie's dad is as stereotypical as hell. However he gives a surprisingly good performance when explaining to Jamie about what boys are like (he takes his time, using only one line.); that scene starting off awfully enough.
The second half of the movie are a series of scenes which seems to be borrowed from every teen movie made since the stone age. And the result is awful. Not only did I not know what was going on, (then realised nothing was going on, since those series of scenes didn't make any sense) but the line "I love you" was used like twelve times, each times decreasing in sincerity, that the very last time it was used, I heard the guy next to me just groan and cuss. The emotional equivalent for running for touchdown, even though you never had the ball in the 1st place.
To top it all off, Many Moore's performance is just outright DISGRACEFUL. She just doesn't cut it as a preacher's daughter. Maybe it was her lines. Or her lack of emotion. Maybe both. Whatever. My take is that if you're going to make a movie based on a good book, FOLLOW THE GOOD BOOK. That is a good first step. And Mandy Moore should take more ACTING CLASSES!!!
BTW for those people that say this movie is for "stupid 12-year olds", your snobiness is showing. What 12-year-olds? We know your grown-up tastes are "superior". *hint* *hint* Cut it out.
A Walk to Remember (2002)
A well-meaning but untimately unsuccessful movie for me...
***warning, spoilers!!!***
After reading the book, I may have set my sights a bit too high. I understand that it's harder to make a good movie than a book, but this movie is a major disappointment, even though they should have credit for at least trying.
Knowing that it's set in the nineties instead of the fifties, I sensed that something was seriously wrong. (with so many "90s" based movies in the market, making another movie is like walking thru a minefield of cliches!!!) The opening scene was unbearable, with the rapid-fire acting you'd expect from apprentice actors. (it's okay to have smart one liners, but it just goes on too long!!! Even kids in real like don't talk so much trash at such a speed. Maybe they were struggling to get those lines over with. *hint* The black guy does something really stupid; yet another cliche.) The reason for the kids doing what they did in the first scene is never explained.
It doesn't get any better. The lead of the story, Landon Carter, who was framed for the previously mentioned stunt, GETS A LEADING ROLE IN A COMMUNITY PLAY!!! What kind of punishment is that!? There is also many many instances, when swear words never should have been used.
Of course, Carter and Jamie Sullivan get closer and closer every scene. Again, the circumstances they meet is as fake as I could imagine, involving a church choir scene where Jamie seems to be the only one that sings decently. Carter's friends, especially the black guy, crack some great lines, but most of the time they are schizophrenic (inconsistent in their personality), and in their efforts to ruin Carter's and Sullivan's "relationship", they pull off a high school prank that is lame, even by high school standards. Again, WHY THE HECK THEY SCRAP ALL THE DETAILS IN THE BOOK? This is a complete mess, although there's a moment of relief in the community play scene, when Moore, playing Sullivan, goes back to doing what she does best.
Meanwhile, the guy playing Jamie's dad is as stereotypical as hell. However he gives a surprisingly good performance when explaining to Jamie about what boys are like (he takes his time, using only one line.); that scene starting off awfully enough.
The second half of the movie are a series of scenes which seems to be borrowed from every teen movie made since the stone age. And the result is awful. Not only did I not know what was going on, (then realised nothing was going on, since those series of scenes didn't make any sense) but the line "I love you" was used like twelve times, each times decreasing in sincerity, that the very last time it was used, I heard the guy next to me just groan and cuss. The emotional equivalent for running for touchdown, even though you never had the ball in the 1st place.
To top it all off, Many Moore's performance is just outright DISGRACEFUL. She just doesn't cut it as a preacher's daughter. Maybe it was her lines. Or her lack of emotion. Maybe both. Whatever. My take is that if you're going to make a movie based on a good book, FOLLOW THE GOOD BOOK. That is a good first step. And Mandy Moore should take more ACTING CLASSES!!!
BTW for those people that say this movie is for "stupid 12-year olds", your snobiness is showing. What 12-year-olds? We know your grown-up tastes are "superior". *hint* *hint* Cut it out.
Tian mi mi (1996)
Amicable coincidences
This film is essentially about a guy that falls in love with a girl in a foreign place, somehow marries a former lover and in the end loses it all (well almost all). The first half of the film is mainly about the relationship development between the two "comrades". Since I am not a fan of either actor to me it seems to drag on for quite some time on specific details (one about a very popular singer) which would prove to be significant later on. Chinese in their thirties should relate to some of the historical events. All the sentimental stuff happens in the second half, some perhaps on the least likely of characters. As usual Maggie Cheung is brilliant with her subtle brand of acting. In my point of view, the circumstances where the two surviving characters meet again sporadically after splitting up seem somewhat far-fetched but so sweet you should give them a break. In general it manages to avoid pointless sentiment, innocous humor and yet comes up with a bittersweet ending that is dramatic yet humble. I like "The Umbrella Story" from last year more because it is much gushier and there is more going on (more characters to relate to) but I could understand if an older audience said this movie had better taste.