Change Your Image
OrrinBob
Reviews
Chik yeung tin si (2002)
Cute, Sweet, Silly Martial Arts/Anti-Corporate Assassins Movie
I have little new to add to earlier reviews, and I haven't seen the film for several years. I'm writing mainly so that I can vote, because I really enjoyed the film and I think it deserves a rating of at least 7. That's true despite the disappointing plot development in the last third of the film, mentioned below as a spoiler. And other undeniable weaknesses--fight sequences OK but not spectacular or innovative, pretty weak and meandering plot, and questionable acting. But the film is still very appealing as a comedy about assassin sisters' loving rivalry, just because it's cute, somewhat differently from Jackie Chan movies, which are cute masculine, while So Close is cute feminine. How? Well, the sweet song 'Close to You' is a somewhat important plot element, as well as a theme signal. The main plot driver is that the older sister wants to shield the younger, not from risky dating but from murder activities, making her tend the computers instead. One dangerous fight takes place between the two sisters in a bathroom, where the suspense is really due to the chance that one or both will slip and brain themselves on the tub. And another major fight scene, between the older sister and the female cop, is so brutal that one actress tears the lead Qi Shu's blouse--shocking despite the fact that some early soft porn films starring Qi Shu still can be found floating around the web. In all of the fights, the women mug extremely broadly after each attack. You get the impression that this crew enjoyed themselves much more than even Chan crews, where everyone is really scared that Jackie really will cripple himself during a gratuitous stunt. It also helps that Qi Shu is on at least one list I've seen as the number one most beautiful actress in the world, so having her take part in sexy fight scenes is a major advantage of the movie, possibly biasing my rating. But that leads to the final plot weakness--Spoiler, though it's spoiled on the IMDb official preview, anyway: Qi Shu's character is killed protecting her sister, well before the final epic fight sequence--of all the major characters to get killed off!
Kadosh (1999)
Very good film (7.5?); some misguided reviews
'Kadosh' is a tragedy; the tragic hero is Meir, who is induced or forced to divorce his wife Rivka because she is barren for 10 years. A lesser tragic hero is his sister-in-law Malka, who is forced into a loveless marriage with the fanatic Yussuf, who beats her because she is deceptive and unfaithful. The main actors did great jobs--the love of the sisters at the end was amazingly portrayed. The point of the film--that ultra-orthodox Judaism is misogynistic--is made with considerable nuance if not balance, and the world of ultra-orthodoxy is explored intriguingly, if not always clearly for a non-Jew.
I am writing this review mainly because of disdain for some other reviewers' defense of the ultra-orthodox practices and beliefs critiqued by this film. (Perhaps it needs saying that no, I'm not an anti-Semite--I even believe, despite my preference for separation of church and state, that a _Jewish_ state of Israel _needs_ to exist, as a haven from the deep-seated and contagious bigotry of other groups against Jews.) Reviewers complain that the film doesn't show the complexity or loving relations in ultra-orthodox families, and that it is biased toward secular or 'capitalist' (!) social currents.
Now, in some ways, I agree: the film oversimplifies, and Yussuf is almost a caricature. (I never saw/heard a truck with loudspeakers extolling services during my short stays in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, though I have--not extolling Jewish services--in Chicago.) Though I don't doubt for an instant that many powerful figures in religious and other institutions, in and out of Israel, are striking copies of him--for examples with less power, one need only turn on US talk radio. A work of art can be great and noble even though, and perhaps because, it makes characters overly simple and portrays actions unrealistically--I'll stop with 'Inherit the Wind' and 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.
But talk about a secular or capitalist bias reveals the blindness of these reviews: no, the real contrast point to orthodox religion is individualistic democracy: the right of each member to be treated as basically equal, to choose their own beliefs and family practices (absent harm to others) without facing organized oppression, exclusion, or condemnation, and the requirement that important social institutions forswear bias and exclusion insofar as possible. A religion (or political party) that says blacks or gays or even women are second-class should face legitimate condemnation based on the clear evidence of history that it inevitably is rooted in fears and even more shameful emotions, and that it has soul-corroding consequences for everyone it involves.
The problem with the negative reviews can be highlighted by comparing Kadosh with the recent film--'12 Years a Slave'. Defenders of slavery would surely complain that that film was very biased against the Southern plantation system, that many whites in it were caricatures, and that relations on Southern estates were complex, including lots of love and family warmth that nurtured blacks while ensuring that they fulfilled the important social function of producing more slaves to keep plantations going and free slave-owners for important cultural pursuits. I saw such arguments in the US even in the 1950s--vicious and ridiculous, surely, but more importantly they're beside the point--even if a social institution is a joy to the world, every human has the right to choose to oppose it, to live outside its norms if living so doesn't harm others, and every person has the right not to be brainwashed or mass-pressured into forgoing real alternatives to those institutions.
Bad Lieutenant (1992)
Depends on what you mean by a Good movie
This film was designed to have a lot of impact, and it does. It makes you want to vomit--I don't mean that in a bad way, exactly.... It starts with a recording of a NYC sports talk-show host venting rage at how the Mets will throw the Series, and that stupid rage is the only explanation given for Hervey Keitel's beyond-damnation cop. Keitel's character fits the old stereotype of NYC cops--before their Stop & Frisk effectiveness--perfectly. He alternates between doped-up-but-alert, and doped-to-the-gills. (SPOILERS COMING) In the latter frame of mind, he blearily investigates a nun-rape crime, hoping to collect $50,000, to help pay off gambling debts. After eavesdropping on the nun refusing to name her assailants (kids she knows) to her confessor, he decides to persuade her to tell him their names using the standard guilt trips, but she refuses--she says she forgives them. After she runs away, he sinks howling to his knees, hallucinates the incarnate Christ and 'repents' that he didn't mean to be bad, just has a weak will. Miraculously, the perp identities are given to him; he groggily shows mercy rather than collect the reward; and he gets gunned down in the predictable end to the film.
Good film??? On the plus side, Keitel is cast perfectly, and the film is striking. Minus: I laughed pretty often at how pointlessly over-the-top it was, Keitel's performance and everything else. He displays only two expressions the whole film: stolid and dopey. There are limits to how much acting skill you can show playing a doped-up character--almost as bad as playing a corpse. There's no motivation for his character, especially the mercy he shows at the end--there couldn't be. No other actor has a part with more than one dimension. Midway through the film, Keitel stops two young (?) women from New Jersey and harasses them crudely; the women claim to be teenagers driving without their father's permission but look like 30-year-old whores (and one of them plays a "whore who knows what's coming" pretty well; the other is just silly). The whole episode is silly--Keitel is much less brutal than seasoned filmgoers will expect, for no apparent reason. But the rest of the film compensates for this mild segment by rehashing crudities without limit or purpose.
Why give it even a 6? I'm not sure--craven conformity to other reviewers? It is a sort of archetype of scumbucketry. I think you have to look at the film sardonically, as a scornful portrayal of (Catholic) faith, repentance, and resolve to do good. The only thing worse is lapsed faith, disbelief, and materialism. What a choice.
The Departed (2006)
Ridiculously overrated.
Maybe it deserves a 7. It is quite to very suspenseful, with a valuably complex but not arcane plot, well-made, solidly acted (meaning in part that Jack Nicholson does not just re-enact his job as the Joker. DiCaprio was better in Blood Diamond.) The cast is indeed stunning.
But right now it is ranked above such trivial fare as Citizen Kane, The Shining, North by Northwest, M, Vertigo, To Kill a Mockingbird, Eternal Sunshine, Bicycle Thieves...(citing only a few whose lower ranks make me want to vomit). I know I am beating a dead horse. It probably is, after all, better than Shawshank (dumb fanboy movie of the world, I guess), Cuckoo's Nest, Inception, Forrest Gump, and arguably 5 to 15 others in the top 46.
But it has limited to no imagination and makes no contribution to film history. Its best picture Oscar should've gone to Pan's Labyrinth, or Volver, or conceivably The Lives of Others, or Letters from Iwo Jima, or Little Miss Sunshine--three to five other films to rank ahead of Departed. I haven't yet seen Infernal Affairs, so I can't make that comparison. But in a nutshell, I know Taxi Driver and Departed is no Taxi Driver (#68. Makes me nuts.)
Dogville (2003)
Very fine film with impact.
Well, 10 is merely excellent? If I ignore that anchor and say 10 is tiptop, I'd give this film about an 8.5. In terms of execution (no pun intended), the film is excellent throughout--the set, acting, shots, narration, etc. are obtrusively controlled and thought-provoking. I've read about 50 other reviews, and none yet has mentioned 'Our Town', which this film seems to aim to mock, or Durrenmatt's 'The Visit', which is about revenge from the very beginning, but still about the corrosive effect on every member of a community an outsider can have.
Grace (Nicole Kidman), and the town's treatment of her, call to mind Christ for sure, but even moreso slavery as an institution, so that the black actress's complicity in Grace's abuse is strikingly ironic. A key message of the film, as I viewed it, is that Grace's very goodness, and early unopposed evil acts, partly the cause of the town's corruption. The townsfolk seem to get along OK before Grace arrives; the other attractive young woman in town does not get raped, etc. (as far as we know). But Grace is helpful, sympathetic, good-spirited, uncomplaining--and so she gets exploited and then brutalized. Chuck, the apple farmer, talks about how she empathically 'understands about the apples' and so is ripe (not intended) for his rape of her. And then, if one person exploits her, the others come to believe that they are justified in doing so, too. If this is von Trier's point, it would come through more clearly if a stranger who was NOT a dazzling beauty entered the town with the same results. She's also downright inhuman in never standing up for herself or effectively protecting herself. Is a reference to the Holocaust intended?--an interesting question in the light of von Trier's comments about Hitler.
Although she is unfailingly good throughout, Grace's likeness to Christ is clearest at the end, when her Father explains that her mercy and forgiveness are arrogance--failure to use the same standards to judge others that she uses to judge herself. Jehovah and the Flood? Anyway, her reaction is very interesting, as she is first reluctant to have all the villagers killed, then reasons that if they were not punished/ massacred, they would treat the next stranger to visit the same way--a rationale that is unmasked by her decision to torment one woman especially nastily and vengefully and to kill her betraying 'boyfriend' Tom herself--"One simply must do some things oneself." (That's the gist.) My reaction to the film's conclusion was high suspense about whether she would 'do the right thing' and kill them all off, and I cheered when she did (though she did not treat Chuck nearly harshly enough for my taste). But then: has power corrupted her, too, and is that what she was fleeing, and is von Trier's conclusion that no one--not Christ, not God--can be good in this world?
Zangiku monogatari (1939)
Great romantic movie
First, this is a tragic, tear-jerking love story, less complex than some other Mizoguchi films, but I can't believe it won't tear your heart out a little. I'm fairly ignorant of Japanese cultural history, but the film convincingly plays out the social structure of Kabuki theater troupes, with prominence dependent on a family name, back-biting hangers-on, a harsh distant ruling father, and a bevy of servants. Mostly masterfully staged; the Kabuki sequences with distant long takes add poignancy and irony to the 'real-life' drama of the actor and his ill-matched lover. I disagree with other reviewers who found the lead actress cloying; I interpreted Otoku's devotion as a carryover from traditional Japanese class structure, and she coughed pretty rarely until the last part of the film. Actually, for 'realism' she should've been coughing more.
Tuxedos and bowlers sometimes are sported, but otherwise Western influences over life within the plot seem pretty rare. OTOH, the whole film seems to exhibit the influence of the Western romantic tradition--I don't know how much Japanese tradition is parallel to that. The main plot-line does have some surprising and/or unfortunate elements (SPOILERS): the way Kiku finds Otoku, the way Kiku gets convinced to return home, his lack of effort to find her in Tokyo, his father's final acceptance, Otoku's death without Kiku being there to weep--surely he knew she would die while he was away.
That being said, the videotape I viewed was faded, faces were indistinct, scenes may have been deleted, and the subtitles were extremely bad. It's actually lucky the plot was simple and fairly predictable, or the lack of subtitles for many stretches of conversation, or their obvious inaccuracy, would have spoiled the film--they surprisingly did not. Yes, it's predictable, but so is Shakespeare or Tokyo Story, and frankly, the degree of predictability is culturally interesting.
Manhattan (1979)
Great, but Why? (Contains very vague but possible spoilers)
I'm not sure if Manhattan is Woody Allen's greatest film, but I have agreed with the overwhelming vote of other reviewers that it's great--until I saw it again a few weeks ago, and I remembered why I also disliked it. I haven't read all of the reviews, but the recent ones seem to dodge the key issue--why would anyone like 'Manhattan'? The problems are obvious: the Allen and Keaton characters should make any normal viewer want to puke. Then the movie celebrates NYC by implying that these characters deserve our sympathetic attention and identification. The prime example, Allen's character, is frankly grotesque. He's an obviously total scumbag in connection with Hemingway, but in all other ways, too. He even hogs the basketball when he picks up his son to pass an afternoon away. When Keaton voices interesting ideas, he responds with dumb self-centered whining--God, his character is one trait = whine. Of course, to balance things, writer Allen makes Keaton's character almost equally puke-worthy--interpersonally dishonest, pathologically insecure but still smugly self-promoting.... A flaw in the film is that Hemingway's honesty and maturity can't be articulated in the space of the other characters; her final speech sounds too good to be true, so maybe she's just learned to lie the New Yorker way in rationalizing self-centered choices, as opposed to really maintaining a commitment to Allen.
I don't think these are insights--I imagine that Allen the auteur would agree, all of the film characters actually do agree when they have occasion to reflect and edge toward honesty...they're the raw material of the film. But the characters go on to be fascinating, dynamic, somewhat sympathetic, maybe even prototypical of NYC. How does this black (yes, evil, I'd affirm--we should, but do not, blanch at Allen's treatment of Hemingway in the last scene) magic happen? Why do we consent to the puke and find the humor and life? Possible answers: They're anti-heroes--no, antiheroes have positive dispositions (see Annie Hall), missing here. They're clinically interesting--no, they're too appealing for that. They're comic--yeah, but the 'Manhattan' character arc is not the 3 Stooges. They're 'real'--no, frankly, Allen comes too close to giving us the 3 Stooges; the people, even the New Yorkers, I know are not bad like this.
I'm married to a New Yorker, so maybe I'm just a sucker for the NYC vibe, but my wife, past the fast talk, is a lot like the Hemingway character in earnestness. I have no good answer, but I fear that people who totally love the film may be getting brainwashed past the basic contradiction.