Change Your Image
vivianzhu
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Queer as Folk (2000)
'We Will Survive!' - To Queer as Folk, and a better world.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
"If love is true it will stand against all tests of time and adversity, no manner of insignificant details such as the person's beauty fading could alter or dissolve 'the marriage of two minds'"
The creators of the then groundbreaking (in my opinion still groundbreaking) TV show Queer as Folk, Daniel Lipman and Ron Cowan referenced Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 when talking about their show in 2010, five years after the final episode aired. They said that the purpose of their show was to show the world that love transcended many things, even time. To tell the world that love would go on despite the characters, the creators and the audience all changing and growing up. I can't confirm that all love will be timeless, but I can definitely say that the show's appeal hasn't faded in 16 years.
When it comes to movies and TV shows I'm always the one to be intensely critical, even judgemental, and I never expected I would fall so deeply in love with a show to binge 83 of those 50 minute episodes in a little more than a week. I never expected the tears, the laughter and the excitement a show about the LGBT* community in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania set around the time I was born would bring me. I also never expected how much something that some people would (incorrectly! in my opinion) describe as 'gay soap opera' would teach me.
As a cisgender and heterosexual person I would never understand the struggles and pain experienced by the characters in TV shows such as QAF, nor the sometimes much greater struggles and pain experienced by those in the LBGT* community around me. However, this show not only taught me a lot about the issues relevant to the community then and now, it also taught me a great deal about love and how it is the universal language between people no matter who they are. QAF is about the growth and evolution of both the individual and society, about boys becoming men, girls becoming women, people becoming mature and the society becoming better. I can see that our society in certain ways is already better than that society from 16 years ago, and in many ways it shocked me to see that our society hasn't changed a bit since 2000.
Not only did the show give me one of my best any-kind-of-fiction binging experiences (I legitimately laughed my head off and cried bucket loads about three times in the same day), it also reaffirmed my stance as a person who wants to hear about many more, real stories from LGBT* people and not be any of the two kinds of 'straight' people Brian hates.
I don't want to hate anybody in their faces or behind their backs.
To me QAF was not only a worthwhile way to spend my time instead of studying or doing some other productive thing, it was a f*cking brilliant show that I am sure I will revisit sometime soon.
Meanwhile, I'm sure Melanie, Lindsay, Gus and JR are safe and happy in Toronto, Michael, Ben and HNB are still listening to Debbie's rants, Ted and Blake are finally making the most of the right time, and Emmett is still holding out for his true love. As for Brian and Justin? Whether they see each other next week, next month, never again, it doesn't matter. It's only time. And I'm sure one day they would find their happiness, and their love, no excuses, no apologies, no regrets.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Enjoyably Mediocre
I'm quite torn about this movie, as it is quite a 'different' movie. It has an intriguing enough story line, with mostly convincing characters and impressive visuals...I certainly enjoyed it while watching it, but after the fact I could not find a reason why I enjoyed it so much.
It is certainly a film with many flaws. As an 'action movie', the action scenes were not too innovative or even impressive. The fights are largely what has been seen before in the X-Men franchise, just less of it compared to Days of Future Past. As a 'superhero ensemble piece', the fact that it was an 'ensemble' definitely took away from individual story arcs. With nobody really developing from the start of the film to the end of the film, at least not clearly. As a movie, the plot was incredibly cliché without many stakes.
Superhero movies don't necessarily need heroes to die in order to have stakes, it just needs emotional weight and connection between characters, and these connections being morphed or broken (like Captain America: Civil War). Apocalypse however, had no such stakes, only the threat of world destruction...which obviously would not be accomplished.
Though character arcs were lacking in this film, performances by the leads were mainly good. With the clear exception of Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique, who continues to feel like she has no connection with the character whatsoever. Both McAvoy and Fassbender gave great performances as usual, with great chemistry between them as usual. Especially with that one scene of Fassbender in the woods, the emotional layers in his performance were incredible. All the new X-Men also gave good performances, though the ensemble element drowned them and cut their development short.
All up, Apocalypse wasn't the worse X-Men movie, but it is far from the best. It's still worth a watch for X-Men franchise fans, but I doubt it will entice any new viewers.
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Approaching Perfection
Is Captain America: Civil War perfect?
Approaching perfection, but not perfection is how I will describe Captain America: Civil War upon second viewing. It is a film that is humorous, exhilarating, fun but still full of emotional weight. It is a film that has impeccable action sequences and beautiful CGI, a film that outruns The Avengers: Age of Ultron by far and is just as awesome as the second installment of the Captain America trilogy - The Winter Soldier.
Hey, but what about the plot conveniences?
True, there are indeed plot conveniences and traces of the film makers 'making things happen', instead of dragging out plot points logically. This was indeed a flaw, because truly good movies are often based on real-life 'sense'. However, the difference between a movie and real life is that, in a movie, the unreasonable components of the plot can be tucked away in a well paced, well cut film. This is exactly what happened in Captain America, Civil War. The Russo brothers knew how to cut the film so that tension is maintained throughout and the story never breaks. All the pieces of the plot are strung together and played out step by step, joining together like a jigsaw puzzle to form a big picture. By making the big picture well constructed and well paced, the existence of plot conveniences didn't bring the whole film down. Though more logical links and less plot convenience will certainly make this a better movie.
You've got to admit the villain is bad though, right?
Certainly, just like the majority of other MCU villains, Zemo was a mediocre villain at best, and a huge plot convenience at worst. His plans to turn the heroes against each other was a clever one, but his methods of succeeding in such a convoluted plan was never explained. Maybe the film did not need the villain, and the Civil War could happen because of Iron Man and Captain America's difference in opinions. That worked int he comics, that should also work here. However, I do think having the villain in the movie added to certain aspects of the 'Civil War', putting the heavy fact of Tony's parents' death into the last fight, giving it emotional weight and higher stakes.
And the 'no stakes' Civil War?
Many people believe that Disney owned projects are trying too hard to appeal to the family and put no real stakes into their movies in case it upsets the eight year old boys who is a die-hard Captain America fan. People accuse Marvel for not having enough 'guts' to kill off, or even disable characters permanently. However, I would argue that Marvel films so far has struck a good balance between 'family friendly' and 'high stakes'. Comic book fans will know that no hero stays dead, whole runs are often dedicated to superheroes coming back to life. Nobody ever says there are no stakes in all comic books every, right? Why? Because comic books don't need reversible deaths to have stakes, the stakes lies in the emotional connection between friends, lovers and family. As 'Disney' movies need to be family friendly and superheroes shouldn't die, Marvel films worked on making the emotional stakes high. In Civil War, the emotional stakes are very high as the ideological differences build to a peak, only to encounter a personal matter that completely derails Tony Stark. The pain constant in Tony's eyes was portrayed perfectly by Robert Downey Jr., other characters such as Black Panther were given great personal arcs too. These character moments are what gives Marvel movie emotional weight, as well as fun. For a person who is invested in the MCU, this movie's stakes is incredibly high due to my value in the friendship between the Avengers.
Isn't it just poor film making, like every other Superhero film?
A defiant no. Superhero movies are not Godfather or Citizen Kane, they won't push all the frontiers of great film making or open new doors to creative processes. However, this does not prevent them from being a good movie. What does a good movie need? Interesting plot, strong characters, good visuals. By these elements I don't mean they have to be outstanding and noticeable. It means that the plot is interesting enough to hold the audience's attention throughout the movie, the characters are strong enough to warrant an emotional connection, and the visuals are great enough to allow audiences to suspend disbelief. Having these elements do not guarantee an Oscar, but having them means that the movie will be an enjoyable one. Civil War was an enjoyable movie with all three elements above, with added emotional finesse that can be fully understood by those who have watched previous films. It was also a humorous film, with most jokes landing perfectly and inspiring laughs all over the place. Furthermore, it was a film that was really satisfying to watch, as it is full of awesome, kick-ass action scenes that didn't feel unnecessary. Yes, the airport scene may lack some 'reality', but no one can deny it was 18 minutes of none stop fun and eye candy. Yes, the score may be forgettable, but it served its purpose as a atmosphere building block that made moments better.
All in all, Civil War is a film that holds up to a second viewing in the cinemas. It has a very engaging story to tell with some very engaging characters and talented actors. It managed to bring Black Panther and Spiderman into the MCU perfectly, with two great actors who fit the role perfectly. And though it is an imperfect movie, it is still one that's worth your time.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Good actors, great action, bad storytelling
I liked Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, I even liked Man of Steel, but I just can't bring myself to love Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Sure, it was epic, it was grand, the effects were awesome and the actors played the characters well, but all of that was not enough to make a great movie. A great movie for me is still, primarily, a great story. The story needs to be told clearly and should not drag. Non-chronological storytelling is fine, shifting POV is fine, leaning on points for dramatic effect is fine, but confusing the hell out of the audience and allowing them to zone out during the movie isn't. If you asked me what the story of Batman V Superman was about now, twenty minutes after I walked out of the theater, I can tell you about how it started and how it ended, as the whole middle hour and a half of the movie completely lost me. The pacing of scenes was illogical, dragging at times and jolting at others. The dialogue was sometimes wooden, sometimes over the top and mostly mediocre.
The best part of the movie, apart from the classic Snyder imagery, was probably Ben Affleck's Batman. The performance was very convincing and grounded, while being absolutely kick-ass. Alfred played by Jeremy Irons was also great, complementing a broken and weary Barman perfectly. Alfred was also arguably the only source of humor in the whole two and a half hours. Henry Cavil as Superman lacked the sort of depth Ben Affleck brought to his character but gave an acceptable performance. Gal Gadot looked stunning as Wonder Women and her action sequences really shines, but her playing Diana Prince involved her looking hot and speaking about 10-15 lines. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was passable by my standards, even if most critics are all panning his performance. Sure, it was over the top insane, but he pulled that off well, any dissatisfaction should probably be directed at the character setting and script.
As I have said, only the beginning and end of the movie captivated me. The ending of the movie especially, with its non-stop PG-13 violence (as in no blood, but still pretty brutal), was shot amazingly by Snyder. The ending also offered an unexpected twist, the only thing about the movie's plot that trailer 2 didn't reveal. Throughout the movie, visual effects and each individual frame was beautifully composed, the CGI looked great and the 3D was epic, especially for the explosions. However, pursuing the "dark superhero" tone, the whole movie was blue tinted and gray scale, so don't expect any sunlight in the frame.
All in all, this was an OK story told badly by a bunch of good actors with great visuals. Still worth a watch if you're a superhero fan or DC fan, but don't expect a masterpiece like The Dark Knight and definitely don't expect the Marvel-esque, self aware superhero family affair.
General impression: 7/10 Pacing: 3/10 Story: 6/10 Performance: 8/10 Visual: 8/10
Lao pao er (2015)
A good movie bar the poor cinematography, poor pacing and some poor, poor acting choices...
This is a movie that has nostalgia written all over it. It utilizes elements of the traditional Chinese culture and combines it with modern issues. Essentially it is a tale of redemption between a neglectful father and a broken son, of how people we put down can have their own big story and of how modern society lacks the "rules" that define our actions.
The themes in the movie were intriguing (corruption, old gangs...), the premise of the story was promising but it just wasn't a well told story. The scenes dragged, the dialogue felt flat at times and all in all the movie easily lost the audience. This could be blamed on the unnatural pauses in the story telling, the weird cuts and mis-en-scene as well as the out of place soundtrack. It felt like the team behind this movie was pushing the 'artsy' tones a little too much and it all came out forced and fake.
A good film drags the audience in, makes the audience empathize and feel every raw emotion of the characters. In this film, the character I was moved by one character and it happens to be an unnamed ostrich. Jokes aside, the only female lead was played wonderfully by Xu Qing, the character worked because her actions felt real. The title character Mr. Six was played well by leading man Feng Xiaogang, but I couldn't help but feel he was 2D at times.
With cinematography of this standard, and this type of storyline the movie could not possibly attract the attention of the younger population. So, it decided to cast two of the hottest young actors, Wu Yifan and Li Yifeng. Voila! Teenage girls will go crazy! There's one down side though...they can't act! Wooden expressions, awkward delivery...sometimes the performances bordered ridiculous. Yes, there were a few shining moments but all in all the younger characters were a failure. Heck, they even got one of the most popular "teen idol" groups to make a cameo! What happened to movies being about acting...
The take-home message here is that this is a great idea squeezed inside a small container, it tried to be personal, but it wasn't, it tried to be epic, but it wasn't that either. It seemed like the ending of the film tried to be both...it ended up making me want to retreat into my seat and never come out again.
Sherlock: The Abominable Bride (2016)
Leaves fans in awe with plenty of brain food for the next year of waiting...
This was not the standalone episode we were waiting for. Instead it ties into the canon with masterful acting, good character development, very witty dialogue and clever writing (albeit a little too self indulgent at times).
Sitting in the cinemas at a special screening I enjoyed The Abominable Bride thoroughly, it was very funny and enjoyable with a packed cinema full of fans and everybody laughing at all the jokes and references. I have to admit that I came out of the cinemas dazed and amazed...
On the way back I read a Screen Rant article (http://screenrant.com/sherlock-abominable-bride- review/), then I read fan theories and comments elsewhere on the net, and boy was I shocked!
Among fans, so many negative thoughts were floating around this episode, exactly like when Series 3 hit the screen. Thinking about all the quirks in the episode I realized that those complaints were legitimate. I remembered all those times I felt that things weren't quite right (eg. weird spinning transitions...), all those moments when my brain filled with screams of fan-service (eloping...wear the damn hat...having 'urges'...)...but alas, as a fan I thoroughly enjoyed that glorious 115 minutes (screenings got treated to Moffat doing a tour of 221B for the opening and Gatiss finishing it off with interviews with the cast).
Fans will no doubt enjoy the fan-service (Gosh the jokes! Nearly choked to death laughing!), as well as seeing Benedict and Martin as Sherlock and John again, the cinematography held up quite well in a stadium style VMAX (Event cinemas Australia's version of IMAX) cinema (bar a couple of moments where viewers can clearly see the TV-ness of it all).
Without over-analysing, one could easily make an enjoyable watch out of the episode. But as an afterthought, the plot had flaws. Personally I don't think it was terrible...I agree the back and forth with the inception was a bit too much in hindsight but when I saw it for the first time it wasn't too big of a bother.
The verdict? Sure, Moffat gets a bit bloated at times (I saw someone describe the writing of Series 3 and The Abominable Bride as "Instead of thinking 'Sherlock is amazing!' we are forced to think 'Moffat's writing is amazing!'). However, it is that same man that brought us that stroke of genius which gives us the things we love so much in the first place. I am appreciative of the creators' work, but I would love it if they could find the delicate balance that made Sherlock Series 1 and 2 so amazing. Please find the balance between drama and wit, humour and plot, tread the thin line between clever and obnoxious, subtle cuteness and fanservie...that, is what we love about Sherlock.