Showing posts with label asian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asian. Show all posts

Monday, March 11, 2024

KWIF: Madame Web (+4)

 KWIF = Kent's Week (or two) In Film. It would probably be easier on me if I just did as Toasty does and write-up each film as an individual post, but I seem to prefer just sitting down for three (or four or more) hours and plugging away at writing about movies when I'm awake way too early.  We're encroaching on 2000 published posts here at T&K Sometimes Disagree, and had I separated each movie or TV show into their own entry we'd probably be closer to 2500. Whatevs. Still it's quite a milestone.

This Week: 
Madame Web (2024, d. S.J. Clarkson - In Theatre)
All Of Us Strangers (2023, d. Andrew Haigh - Disney+)
Joy Ride (2023, d. Adele Lim - Crave)
No Hard Feelings (2023, d. Gene Stupnitsky - Crave)
Akilla's Escape (2020, d. Charles Officer - Crave)

---

Of all the films I have to write about this week, Madame Web is certainly the least of them. It only gets the KWIF headline spotlight because it's the first 2024 film I've seen this year. I'm still catching up on 2023.

We all knew, from the first trailer, that Madame Web was going to be trash. The trailer hid nothing, and the complete disinterest of the cast was evident in a 2 minute montage. 

Some of us even knew back when Sony announced they were producing a Madame Web movie that it was going to be trash. There's never even been a Madame Web solo comic book, how are you going to make a whole movie around that character? Especially when, in the comics, she's a blind, chair-bound eeeellllderly woman. As an actress Dakota Johnson is not a lot of things, and those are three of them.

The most interesting thing about Madame Web is all metatext, the stuff that happened around it. If the reports are true, it started out as a 90's-set prequel to the Andrew Garfield-led Amazing Spider-Man franchise. Then, apparently, producers got cold feet and wanted to push it up a decade and make it a prequel to the Tom Holland-led Spider-Man: Home* franchise. Then they got complete frostbite, lost their toes, and decided to make it its own thing.

It's certainly it's own thing.

We all knew it was going to be a bad movie. Upon its release critics were savage, comic book movie fans even more so, but even still, when I suggested Toasty and I spend an entire Saturday watching at least 4 screenings of Madame Web, I was only half joking.

Why?

Because Madame Web is truly a film that should not logically exist. There's no audience asking for it, there's no fanbase for the character, and there's no "world building" impetus for it. It was a studio-mandated dumpster fire the purple suits hoped would turn into a barbecue.  And that's intriguing to me.  

It's not like Morbius -- which I skipped and had zero interest in seeing until it cropped up on Netflix this week and now it's on the "wee hours of the morning, maybe" pile -- who is a character and concept, much like Blade which has the potential to be its own thing. He has had his own comic book series at least. But Morbius seemed too self-serious, as any Jared Leto-led project does. Madame Web looked like there was potential for a good time.

And you know what...?

I had a good time.

It is a terrible movie, just bloody ridiculous. A ludicrous farce of a superhero origin story that never fails to boggle the mind with inept story transitions and character choices and expository dialogue. But in that, it felt kind of light, breezy, mindless. It's sort of like getting that glaucoma test at the optometrist, where you sit there in dreaded anticipation of that puff of wind going in your eye, and then it happens and you can't help but be surprised and react and laugh, and then, really forget all about it seconds after its over. This is just a puff of wind in the eyes.

I don't have a lot of experience with Johnson's prior roles, and what I have seen has not left me clamouring for more. Her performance, if you can call it that, reeks of embarrassment. You can totally tell she doesn't really want to be in this movie. I have seen Adam Scott -- who plays (Uncle) Ben Parker here -- in plenty of things, dramatic and comedic, and I have never seen him not even phone in the performance, he's still dialing the numbers here. The whole cast is lifeless and drained of any energy. It probably speaks to all the many reshoots done, but it's a listless product, save for one aspect that actually does work: women talking.

The life of this film is when all the female characters are on screen together. There's a support there that seems to elevate the dodgiest script, and a true sense of bonding between the performers seemed to have happened... like soldiers in a regimen at war, experiencing the same traumas brings you close.

That good time I had watching this, though, I think it's a one shot deal. I can't imagine rewatching it and getting the same sense of enjoyment. It's a real dog of a Spider-person movie.

With a re-edit and more reshoots, I could see a much better, completely Marvel-free horror movie made out of this, of a woman whose precognitive powers isolate her from society and the three girls she must save from a slasher who is killing orphans or something. 

Will Madame Web become a cult film, though? I could see people coming to screenings, holding pepsi cans and fake spiders in jars and doing fake chest compressions (the cure for everything) in the aisles.

---

All Of Us Strangers was a critical top-ten favourite of 2023 but missed out on the Oscars likely because Searchlight Pictures was putting its money behind nominations for Poor Things instead.  It's loosely adapted from Taichi Yamada's novel Strangers into a definite tone poem (and not a vibes movie).

Andrew Scott plays Adam (no, he's not playing Adam Scott of Madame Web...we've moved on...) is a screenwriter in London. He lives in a new condo tower that is largely vacant. He seems lonely and a little depressed. He encounters a drunk Harry (Paul Mescal, completely endearing), who seems very much in the same state, but rebuffs Harry's offer for company to retreat into solitude. 

Adam is trying to write about his parents, who died in a car crash when he was 12, but can't find the words, so he returns to his childhood home, where he encounters their ghosts. They catch up on their son's life. Adam is elated. He runs into Harry again and the two connect, first as two lonely and sad people, but then as two gay men whose lives just need more love and affection in them.

Adam and Harry become a fast couple, a very sweet, tender, romantic, caring couple, and together they venture out of their solitude and into the world. Adam, meanwhile, returns to his ghost parents on multiple occasions, some encounters not faring as well as others (like when he outs himself to his mother), but finding closure along the way.

Tone poems (like vibes movies) can be a challenge. I found myself a little bored during the first act, but when Adam and Harry finally connect, and get intimate, it's quite passionate. The second act, as Adam and Harry become more emotionally involved the colour palette gets really warm, and the bare skin of the men is just radiant. It reminds me just a touch of In the Mood for Love. The second act really endears you to these men and their gentle, supportive relationship. The vibestones leave no room for drama, there's not going to be any wild swings...except Adam's return visits to his parents' ghosts. 

At times, I had to ask myself, is this a romance or a horror? A drama or a ghost story? The answer is "yes", and it's hard to reconcile at times. The third act is a tearjerker and, I'm sure for many (like Lady Kent), a head scratcher. At one point I was telling myself "if the movie goes there, I'm going to be so very mad at it." The movie went there. I wasn't mad, because it found itself, seconds later, right back in the vibestones, and it kept vibingtoning, and I kept vibingtoning with it.

It won't be for everyone, as vibe movies are pretty much  exclusive to those who hit the same wavelength. I can see this emotionally connecting very hard with people who lost their parents young, or who have had strained relationships with them because of their gender or sexuality (or both) but, even if you can't personally relate, it offers a space on the couch, a little hit of something, and a set of headphones to feel the groove...if you accept it.

---

I had planned to catch up on a bunch of 2023 comedies this week but only managed two, which is fine. More than any other genre, comedies are the ones I approach with the most trepidation. What the proverbial Purple Suits think the masses think is funny and what I think is funny tend to be two radically different things.

Joy Ride is like half a Purple Suits-derived movie, and half spitting directly in their faces. The road-trip-gone-wild (RTGW) subgenre of comedy is such a Purple Suits formulae at this point that it's an instant eye-roll generator for me. The RTGW in recent years, though, has been co-opted from the Purple Suits by the FUBU crowd and we're seeing culturally-specific RTGW movies hitting the screens and turning tidy profits. 

In this case, it finds two lifelong best friends, both Asian-American, but borne of different circumstances.  Audrey was adopted from China as a baby to white parents, while Lolo was raised by her immigrant parents, and they met as children in the very white, Dave Matthews Band-soaked community of White Hills. Now adults, Audrey is the consummate overachiever, handling microagressions from her ignorant-not-intolerant white lawyer colleagues as she climbs to the top, while Lolo is a sex-positive artist with little income living in Audrey's basement. Audrey is set to take a trip to Shanghai to close a business deal and is taking Lolo with her as translator, since Audrey never really learned to speak Mandarin. In China they're to meet up with Audrey's college roommate, Kat, who has become a famous soap opera actress about to make the leap into major feature films. Lolo's awkward cousin, Deadeye, tags along as she's supposed to meet up with some online friends from a K-Pop superfan forum. 

Audrey's experience in China at first is a mixed bag. Being surrounded by people who look like her lends her a quiet comfort that she never knew, but then finds that the language barrier, and the cultural barrier dampen that comfort. Lolo wants her to look up her birthmother while they are there, but Audrey seems to have no interest, until the business deal goes sour and proving her Chinese bona-fides to the Chinese investor involves recruiting her birth mom into action or losing everything she's worked for.

Of course nothing turns out right and the four women find themselves on a road trip gone very wrong that involves heavy amounts of drugs, aggressively sexy times with a basketball team, some distant relative connections, a breakdown in the friendships and an unexpected turn in Audrey's priorities.

I find the RTGW genre a fairly tired one, particularly the requisite "we're so high on drugs" scene and/or the absurd sex-stuff scene(s), because they're so often just relying upon the conceit for the laugh and not really working hard to elevate the jokes. The drug stuff here is so much the former, but the sex scenes with the basketball team leads to a pretty good group of gags, even if it's cartoonishly out of hand.

Our leads  -- Ashley Park (Emily In Paris) as Audrey, Sherry Cola (Shortcomings) as Lolo, Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All At Once) as Kat and Sabrina Wu in a very breakout performance as Deadeye -- are all terrific, the chemistry is great, and they're all nimble comedic performers. Park nails the third-act drama so well, she had me tearing up along with her.  

There is a place for comedy-for-the-masses, but to me, the best comedy gets deeply specific. What will always take a general 3-star RTGW story up a level is cultural specificity, it's the jokes that are generated from the culture by the culture to appeal to the culture. I'm not sure the jokes here are deeply specific, but they are definitely specific, and, even though it's not a comedy playing to me directly as an audience, it's still a rowdy fun time overall.

---

I think film trailers are the number one reason why people don't go see comedies in the theatres anymore.  It's hard enough to get a comedy that swerves around the Purple Suits' expectations for what's funny, but then you got the Purple Suits' editors distilling a film down to two minutes and their particular sensibilites.

Thus No Hard Feelings trailer premiered to a swath of reactionary, unfounded "film about grooming" allegations that I'm not sure it ever properly shook. From my perspective it looked like a stupid "raunchy comedy" that certainly couldn't have anything interesting to say about an older woman trying to bring a teenager out of his shell for a new car.

The teenager in question is 19-year-old Percy who is about to head out to Princeton in the fall, but never leaves his room and worries his parents with his isolationism. As a parent of modern teens, I can relate. But these rich second-home-having New York elite types are also aggressive helicopter parents and they aim to do something about it. They solicit an ad for a college-aged woman to date their son in exchange for a new car.

Answering the ad is Maddie, a 32-year-old Montauk lifer is struggling to keep her house. Her car has been repossessed, which means she can't supplement her low-wage bartending job with Uber driving for the summer when all the rich idiots descend upon town. It's these idiots, buying up and redeveloping all the real estate, that is driving her taxes up to unaffordable levels.  She needs the car to drive the idiots to save her house, and she's willing to date a 19 year old to do it.

What results initially is highly awkward, very uncomfortable scenes of Maddie trying to get Percy's attention, trying to proposition him, trying to get him interested in having sex with her. Her plan is to get in and get out because time is money and time is a-wasting.  But Percy is a thoughtful, sensitive and caring kid. He finds Maddie attractive but he wants to get to know her before he does anything with her.

What happens, naturally, is Maddie develops feelings. Percy's not like the quick meaningless lays she's left around town, she has a genuine interest in Percy's development as a person, seeing a reflection of her own life lost by the promise of this fledgling adult. Of course, her feelings are not romantic, like Percy's start to become towards her, and there's not really any easy way out of this, especially if he were to find out about the deal.

Jennifer Lawrence is a fearless performer. She doesn't carry with her any sense of ego or identity in her performance. It's only the first few minutes of the movie where I was thinking "yeah sure, world-famous movie star Jennifer Lawrence is pretending to be a victim of the housing crisis and class inequality" to "Maddie really needs that car, and while her tactics are riotously wrong-headed, she's not wrong for going for it". The brassiness that Lawrence shows as Maddie is a very well constructed veil that is evident from the beginning, hiding someone underneath who is sort of lost and afraid, and has been for a long time. (There's pretty much a direct parallel between Maddie and Adam from All Of Us Strangers, both who lost their parents young, and both who have severe difficulty opening up to others with knotted up hearts).

Matching her scene-for-scene is Andrew Barth Feldman, a newcomer to the screen but played the lead in Dear Evan Hanson on Broadway. The kid's got chops. The film is set in this age of financial disparity, and offers no resolution to it, save for the poor to take advantage of the inane ways the rich wish to be served. But it's also about the generation gap, between the time Percy's parents remember (eg. the John Hughes years) and the way kids engage with the world today, and also in the way Maddie views the world compared to Percy.  It's not directly saying a lot about these things, but they're being put boldly up on the screen to examine and compare.

It's a far more thoughtful film than I had given it credit for, and it doesn't go for easy gags. Even it's most infamous (already) scene finds Lawrence engaging in fighting a trio of teenagers fully naked at night on the beach, at one point even suplexing a kid. In a comedy 20 years ago it would have been cheap titillation but, it's definitely not that. There's no leering. It's an action sequence. It's a brilliantly funny moment as she stomps out of the ocean in the background towards the teens like a Terminator fresh from the future, absolutely determined to destroy. And it's not funny just because she's naked, but because she's so unphased by her state when fighting with such wild gusto. It speaks to her as a character for sure, especially the conversation with Percy that immediately follows. 

There's so much to enjoy here (see also Percy's stunning cover of "Maneater" or the "abduction" scene). This isn't a throwaway comedy. It's also not a laugh riot that demands immediate rewatch, but any other time in the past 50 years it would have been an instant cable TV classic. I don't know where it fares from here, but its charms are sure to prevail. 

---

How I came to the indie-Canadian urban drama of Akilla's Escape is an odd one. I was randomly searching movies on the various platforms I have accounts with. One connection led to another, six degrees of Kevin Bacon-style, and I came across Saul Williams. I know Williams primarily from a few tracks of his from the early aughts. He blends spoken word with hip-hop with activism in a very powerful manner such that the few tracks of his I've heard have really stuck with me over the years.

Williams is a multi-multi-hyphenate. He does a bit of everything writing, poetry, music, directing, and yes, acting. It was his profile on my Rogers cable box that brought me to Akilla's Escape. I watch the trailer, it looked interesting enough, but the list of people associated with the production included Robert Del Naja, aka 3D of the band Massive Attack as part of the soundtrack. Williams was the lead, and also the composer, with 3D assisting.

The next day I listened to the soundtrack to Akilla's Escape a half dozen times, which led to a strong desire to watch the production. This is not unusual, as it happened a fair number of times back in the 90's when I'd gorge on a soundtrack long before I'd watched the film.

The story of Akilla's Escape is fairly simple, but the simplicity betrays its depth. Akilla is operating a grow-op in Toronto, where weed has become legal and is controlled by the province. The profits are still there, but competition has gone legit and he wants out. In the process of making his pitch to the criminals he's tangentially beholden to, a robbery goes down. One of the three thieves is captured, and he's just a boy, a mute kid in over his head. Akilla takes responsibility for the boy and gets him safely home to his aunt. But the danger isn't over. Akilla's associates want their goods returned and some intimidation for good measure, and the gang the boy was running with figure him for a snitch that needs to be silenced.

Flashbacks tell us about Akilla's life with his abusive father, drummed out of Jamaica after the political civil war ended and his enforcer status with the losing side marked him a wanted man. He took his family to New York where he started the Garrison Army, a particularly vicious gang, and when Akilla was old enough, brought him into the the fold. But Akilla had to run to Canada after retaliating against his father after repeatedly abusing his mother. It's been nearly 30 years.

But this boy he's saved, he was running with the Garrison, and that makes it personal for Akilla. And when the boy is abducted, Akilla will make sure he's returned safely to his aunty.

Overall this is a well crafted, tightly structured, and contemplative entry in the street gang subgenre. It's well coiled around a remarkably introspective performance by Williams who doesn't come off as an action hero badass, but instead a man capable of doing whatever it is needing done. He wears the weariness of Akilla well. He's tired of the life he's leading. Rather than thinking about something more, it's almost like he wants something less. An escape, you might say.

The film has a great trick in its sleeve, which is casting Thamela Mpumlwana as both the boy Akilla saves and as young Akilla in the flashbacks. Styled completely different, and yet, the resonance of Akilla seeing himself is absolutely the point. 

At times this film bears the scars of its Canadian production budget. With better cameras, lenses, lighting and time, it would look a lot better than it does. It looks fine, but you can tell the late director Officer wanted it to look amazing.  This should look like a Michael Mann picture, but it can only reach.

It's very much straddles the line between vibes movie and tone poem, owing a great debt to its soundtrack which weaves in and out of genres from reggae, dub, electronica, ambiant, industrial, gospel, hip-hop and even Spanish guitar. It is a great listen, both in context and out of.


Tuesday, November 21, 2023

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Quiz Lady

2023, Jessica Yu (13 Reasons Why) -- Disney

Kent's the comedy movie guy in these parts. Kent will/would have more insight. I am usually caught by a premise or an actor or a style when I choose to watch comedy. If the trailer makes me chuckle at least twice, then I am oft inspired to actually watch the movie. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily dislike comedy. I am just ... niche? Or maybe too pedestrian in my comedy? 

So, I laughed at two things during this movie's trailers: that the tables were turned and Sandra Oh was the weird, awkward one, and Awkwafina was the awkward, straight one. That still seems... wrong, but maybe the "flipping the expectations" is what they were going for? Second one was when Sandra Oh hits on the gay doctor and he responds, "I am married, and I am gay." Her response, "Why's you have to say two reasons?"

#snort

So, Anne Yum (Awkwafina, Ocean's Eight) is nerdy and awkward, insular and invisible at work. But she has her game show and her dog; well, her sister's dog that was left behind 20 years ago. Anne gets the call from the old folks home that they lost her mom (!!!). No, silly, not dead, just lost. Turns out mom took off to Macau with her new boyfriend, and that is the final straw for the home, who kicks her out. Anne's estranged sister Jenny (Sandra Oh, Killing Eve) also shows up, much to her sister's chagrin. Jenny is a hot mess, homeless, jobless and still dressing like she is 21. She is not 21. 

Also, mom has a gambling problem and owes a local bookie $80K. So they steal the dog as collateral.

Every week night Anne sits down with her dog to watch the popular quiz show hosted by aging, amiable Terry McTeer (Will Ferrell, Stranger Than Fiction) which she has been watching so long and with so much dedication, she gets every question correct. But its not just the watching -- Anne's bookshelves are full of books full of the knowledge these types of quiz shows depend on. 

A plan is hatched. By Jenny. Anne hates being in the spotlight, but she wants her dog back. She grudgingly agrees. If she does really well on the show, she could not only win enough money to get the dog back, but also dethrone the reigning winner, smarmy Ron Heacock (Jason Schwartzman, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World), who has his eyes on being the next Terry McTeer. Anne hates him. Everyone hates him, despite being such a nice guy. 

Does everyone hate Ken Jennings? 

You know how it ends. 

Its an OK comedy with a modicum of heart, some decent jokes and a lot of awkwardness. Sandra Oh is pretty good as the entirely not-self-aware (or IS she entirely self aware, but only sees one path to where she wants to be?) terrible older sister. Awkwafina has to stop playing the "straight man" characters and embrace her own level of weird, be let off the leash. That said, she really has the slouch down pat in this movie.

Monday, July 24, 2023

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): The Half of It

2020, Alice Wu (Saving Face) -- Netflix

Interrupting our regularly scheduled programming of violence and gunplay is a romcom.

Speaking of Asian Americans and stories of identity (writing a bit of these posts after writing or publishing OTHER posts just messes with the timeline), this is a Faustian (dude, not EVERYTHING is a Faustian deal) a story with a Cyrano-ian deal between two high school students, Ellie Chu (or choo choo, as the local racists call her, based as much on the fact she lives in a train yard, as her last name; Leah Lewis, Nancy Drew) and Paul Munsky (Daniel Diemer, The Midnight Club), small town hero & sausage king. He loves Roxanne Aster (Alexxis Lemire, Cerebrum) but ain't so good at the talking, so he has Ellie, known for writing everyone's English essays, to write a letter to be given to her. And thus begins a blossoming romance built on deception and lies. Always a great way to start things (Well, that is how dating apps work, right? Dunno; never used a dating app and haven't been on a date since the 80s).

Given that Paul is not very bright, that he thinks that breaking the ice via a letter written very well and mentioning a bunch of stuff that Aster would be into, but he has no clue about, he also doesn't consider what comes after he breaks the ice and actually dates her. He says he's good at the dating bit, just not at the breaking ice bit. He also doesn't catch on until very much later, until he and Ellie have become real, legit friends, that Ellie also likes Aster and the words come from her heart.

The movie has fun with the Cyrano parts but the best parts are the connective tissue, the character building and the plot that connect them all. Ellie has to make money because her dad only works the very minimal job at the train yard. He's an engineer, not that kind of engineer, but not with an education from the US. He is also dealing with the loss of his wife, Ellie's mother, a love so utterly part of his personality that he spends every night watching the movies she loved. And Aster is so obviously not the cliche she is presented as, dating the ultimate bro, tied to her very Christian family, but deeper than she let's anyone know. And Ellie is gay, but doesn't let anyone know; small town and all that. When Paul figgers everything out (big ol #facepalm) he is not only upset at Ellie's motivations, but also that she is gay. He knows he's supposed to not like homosexuality, and Ellie did kind of betray him, but she's also his best friend. So, he strains his brain and thinks it through. In the end, everything doesn't quite work out but it gets to a good place. And that is often the best place that a love story built on deception can get.

Saturday, July 8, 2023

What I Have Been Watching: Back to the TV - Pt C

 What I Have Been (or Am) Watching is from The Domein of Toast, he (i) admittedly spending too much (almost all?) time in front of the TV. Kent's not stepping on toests but yeah, he (me) has a piles of TV shows in progress (and done) and maybe doesn't have has too much to say about it.

Pt. A is here. And Pt B is there. 

The finished.

Tales of the Walking Dead, 2022, AMC+

I stopped watching The Walking Dead after a single episode left me despondent. Yes, it was that episode in Season 9, Episode 15, a climax in the Whisperer's storyline, as adapted from the comics. I just found it all so unnecessary, it surpassing even my immense capacity for bleakness. I have many times been tempted to pick it up again, but always refrain, as I know it will treat me badly again.

But a contained series of short stories unrelated to the other series but in shared world? I am always up for anthologies!

mid-writing insert -- I am thinking your 1-1-1 format works really well for anthology commentary where you need to get it out, but might not have a lot to say, as I often do not.

Evie/Joe begins with Joe (Terry Crews, Brooklyn 99), a prepper who was ready for the zombie apocalypse, who finally reaches his limit of solitude, and decides to make the 700 mile trek to meet face to face with another prepper whom he kept in contact with, while it was possible. Joe is not good with people, but he was good with her, so off he goes. And then he bumps into Evie (Olivia Munn, X-Men: Apocalypse), whom he is very not good with.

Its a road story, a dialogue between two contentious people, which is helped along because they are such recognizable faces. Its funny and its touching, and sets the tone for what this series wants to be - to approach living in this apocalyptic world, and how it affects people, without all the dramatic baggage of the main series. In the end both of them arrive at their destinations, neither gets what the expected or wanted, but maybe they found something better, in each other.

Meh. Good summary, but it doesn't actually SAY anything about the episode. What really makes the ep is how different the two characters are. Joe is paranoid, anti-social and defensive while Evie still somehow remains upbeat and positive, almost hippie dippie, despite all that is going on. And yet both of these traits are walls the pair need to maintain to keep sane.

Blair/Gina is probably the best of the lot, but I am biased because its a Loopty Loo! No, they don't try and explain the why or  how a time-loop connects to the Zombie Apocalypse but it does have a trigger, and it does have a break, and that's all that matters. 

Blair and Gina work together; technically, Blair (Parker Posey, Lost in Space) is Gina's (Jillian Bell, Workaholics) asshole boss. Despite hating each other, the two are tied together at the start of the Zombie Apocalypse, with each loop ending in their deaths. Once they stop trying to kill the other, they try to figure out how to not only move forward but perhaps even end the loops. Dark comedy was not something I expected the bleak zombie series to riff off.

I skipped over Dee because I wasn't interested in revisiting what made me quit the main series (The Whisperers storyline). You are allowed to not watch things.

Amy/Dr. Everett must be set at some future time in the world of the Walking Dead for it centres around a Dead Sector, a large swath of land surrounded by a trench where the dead walk but humans are not allowed. So, that implies outside the sector there are ... fewer walkers? Anywayz, Dr. Everett (Anthony Edwards, Top Gun) is a reclusive scientist in a (the?) zone, studying tagged & tracked walkers. Things must be bad outside the sectors because Amy (Poppy Liu, Sunnyside) is part of a group that has decided to live in this one, despite the dangers. She needs help after losing contact with her friends, is rescued by Everett, but he would prefer she just piss off.

Its a story about loss and dedication, isolation and madness. Amy thinks Everett should reconnect with the world, connect with her people in their makeshift camp of tents, camper vans and trailers. Alas, the walkers have other ideas...

Davon is built around the idea that he wakes up with no memory of how he got where he is, in a village that seems surprisingly walker-free but also disconnected from reality. He (Jessie T Usher, The Boys) has a head injury but is unsure how he got it. And the villagers are just weird, dressed almost period, speaking French, but the village itself seems to be normal suburban homes. The episode has an eerie Outer Limits feel to it, otherworldly and disjointed, which tracks with a head injury. It is part murder mystery, part horror movie.

Its not worth going through the details of the story, given it is about revealing. Why does he have a head injury, why was he in the village to begin with, why is handcuffed to a zombie who doesn't try to bite him and whispers words to him? So many questions appear only to dissipate as his head clears. Its typical of horror anthology episodes and works decently enough, with some fun easter eggs for The Walking Dead universe.

And the final note is La Doña, a haunted house story.

TWD fans probably hated this, as it adds proper supernatural elements to their vague universe of "it's not about zombies, it's about people!" conceit. Idalia (Daniella Pineda, Cowboy Beebop) and Eric (Danny Ramirez, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) are running from the dead, as all good people in TWD are, and come across the well protected house of La Doña Alman (Julie Carmen, In the Mouth of Madness). They are not welcome, nor does Idalia want to be there, as she's heard stories of the house and the woman who owns it. But Eric has to have his way.

The two are haunted, both literally and metaphorically, as the house and the spirit of its owner tries to drive them from it. Finally, it has its way.

As a series, I had hoped it would explore the world of the TWD universe more, giving us stories that expanded on things happening elsewhere, but for the most part, exploring other types of stories in that universe was.... well, as TWD universe stories are, only mildly satisfying and often frustrating.

American Born Chinese, 2023, Disney+

Of note, I had to correct what I had titled this, previously Chinese Born American, which would be an entirely different, but similar identity issue.

One of the most fun things we watched this year. And that it comes on the heels of Everything Everywhere All At Once is purely intentional, and I love that it makes use of the cast while also addressing some of the challenges Asian Americans still live with living and working in America.

Jin Wang (Ben Wang, Chang Can Dunk) is a typical American teenager dealing with identity, bullies, crushes and the new "exchange student" who happens to be the son of the Monkey King. Wei-Chen (Jimmy Liu, Light the Night) is hiding out on Earth looking for a mythical Fourth Scroll to assist his father against the rebellious Demon Bull, who's pissed at Monkey King for stealing his thunder all those years ago. He is supported by goddess Guanyin (Michelle Yeoh, Tomorrow Never Dies) and is convinced that Jin is destined to help him.

The show navigates the avenues between the action-comedy of the Monkey King story and Jin's family & school life brilliantly, with background commentary of a returning sitcom from the 90s called Beyond Repair about cliche Asian Freddy Wong (Ke Huy Quan, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). The actor Quan plays mirrors his own real life, and Jin is desperate to not be the joke his character was, and just wants to Fit In.

Pacing, acting, action sequences and the balancing of heart-felt stories was just brilliant here. I am not sure how close it followed the graphic novel by Gene Luen Yang, but I suspect it was severely condensed. The Ke Huy Quan story thread did seem a little inserted, especially the exposition that obviously drew from his own real life story (he left acting because he was only getting one type of role), but it just felt.... necessary and important.

Chemistry of  Death, 2023, Paramount+

The bleakness of British crime drama of late is disappointing (to you, cuz the market just laps it up). I think I would prefer more procedural Death in Paradise than Broadchurch which is interesting, because all those years ago when I began searching for interesting crime drama from the UK, it was the hard hitting series I searched for. But I think the depressing nature of these "single theme to a show" series that finally got to me. At least Luther still had episode to episode investigations, for the most part. 

Again based on a novel series, by Simon Beckett, we are introduced to David Hunter (Harry Treadaway, Star Trek: Picard), a forensic pathologist who escapes to rural Norfolk after a deeply traumatizing personal tragedy, where he works assisting a simple country doctor. But he cannot escape death and is asked to help investigate a local murder which, of course, goes down a dark rabbit hole, revealing a long darkness in his seemingly quiet community.

The first investigation is followed by him being asked to travel to the Outer Hebrides to assist in another death investigation, to find out if the burnt remains of a young woman were accidental or murder. Yes, murder, yes another rabbit hole. Yes, bleak underbelly of isolated rural communities. Yes, tragedy abounds and one death leads to more leading to a darkness he seemingly cannot escape.

All the while the series is only hinting at what happened to him. His wife died, his child died. But was it an accident? Or at his wife's hands? Or at his own hands? We never find out.

Satisfying acting, brilliant settings but please provide an uplifting Murder of the Week next time, please?

Rabbit/Hole, 2023, CBS

Oh look, a Kiefer Sutherland thriller shot in Toronto! Oh look, there's a TTC bus in the background! Oh look, there's a place on Queen W I recognize! Alas, its not set in Toronto. We will leave that to the Star Trek: Strange New Worlds episode.

Sutherland (24) is John Weir, a ... corporate fixer? Freelance business espionage expert? Professional Ruiner of Lives? His exact job defies easy description but he runs a small company of people adept at manipulating situations, changing perceptions of reality in order to change outcomes. Being investigated by the SEC ? Why not set up a row of dominoes wherein the SEC agent doing the investigation is caught on camera seemingly accepting a bribe. Doesn't matter he didn't nor that there's no evidence he did, as long as the public perceives he did, it will change the validity of his investigation.

Except his own methods are turned against him and he is framed for murdering his own team. This begins a twisting serpentine tale against a shadowy enemy who is literally out to control the world. Weir's supposedly dead dad (Charles Dance, A Game of Thrones), once a CIA agent after the shadowy enemy, is mixed up in it all so Weir has to work with him despite hating the man with unmitigated passion. It doesn't help that Weir is a broken man, caused partially by his father's faked suicide during his childhood AND the recent suicide of his best friend, all part of The Conspiracy.

This show quadruples down on the deception and misdirection often leading us to question each scene and the outcome of each episode. Nothing is What It Seems is too mild a term for what the show wants us to believe. Its somewhat successful, and unlike many other shows going this way, it actually does pull everything (well, most) threads together. And Sutherland is ... well, his own type-cast character, but still does it wonderfully.

The Muppets Mayhem, 2023, Disney+

Muppets shows since the 70s success are a grab bag of quality. I thought, at first, it was because they tried to tie Story to the comedy and gags and funny characters, based on the success of the movies, wherein I enjoyed the one-liners and intentional Vaudevillian comedy. But even a later rendition of "variety show" did not do so well, and that is probably because nobody really knows what variety shows are now, at least in English North America. Last I checked, they were still popular in Quebec. But in American and English Canada, the concept was already dying out when Muppets: TOS started.

When this limited series started, I was somewhat turned off by the story, the gimmicky, "let's get the band to record an album" focus on Doctor Teeth and the Electric Mayhem. They were never my favourite buncha muppets, but I get that its a decent plot to hang a series on. But as more and more episodes went by, I found myself chuckling more and more and even guffawing a few times. Its not the story that matters, nor the humans involved, but as long as they sink enough of the one-liners and gags, I was satisfied with it, as a muppet show.

Oh, the humans. Lily Singh (A Little Late with Lilly Singh) stars as the "record label exec" (not quite) trying to get them to record. Taj Mowry (Baby Daddy) is the band's superfan. And there are a ton of celeb cameos because what would the Muppets be without celebrities pretending they are real.

Wait, dude, they aren't real?

Mrs Davis, 2023, Peacock

O... M... G... This will be in my top 5 for the year, a totally WTF, funny series about destiny and AI and religion and spirituality. To summarize it will not do it justice, but can be a whole lot of fucking fun anyway. 

So, a nun named Simone (Betty Gilpin, GLOW) living at a strawberry jam making convent is tasked by Jesus Christ (Andy McQueen, Coroner), who runs an other-worldly diner, to deal with an emerging AI, calling itself Mrs. Davis (in the US), which is ... well, taking over the world. Assisted by a child hood friend (Jake McDorman, Limitless) who happens to be working for a covert organization of extremely macho, but not toxic, men also tasked with taking down Mrs Davis, she also comes to learn of a group of women who care for the Holy Grail, which happens to be semi-sentient and demands to be shown to the world. These women are assisted by men with aprons. Mrs Davis makes a deal with Simone, that she will turn herself off, if Simone destroys the Holy Grail. Simone is also dealing with her traumatic upbringing by a pair of grifting Vegas-style magicians. She witnessed her father (David Arquette, Scream) die in a horrific Houdini act, and her mother (Elizabeth Marvel, House of Cards) refuses to believe it was real, and blames Simone for being in on it. Meanwhile the Grail has actually been swapped out with a fake, the real one eaten by a whale. Also, Simone is actually married to "J", like literally, doing all the normal husband & wife stuff (y'know, sex), and that's sort of complicated as he is Jesus, and Jesus loves EVERYONE.... biblically. Eventually they do find the Grail, understand its origins and .... well, go watch ! Because, there is also a great TV commercial for British Knights sneakers, a sweet scene about a man finding his wife's piano, a heist episode, a rollercoaster of death, a "keep your hands on the car" contest but with a giant representation of Excalibur, and a conspiracy involving The Pope.

Almost every episode is a WTF episode, and some are almost entirely WTF. Even the characters begin to catch on to the gonzo style uttering their own WTFs as new stuff is revealed. In standard Lindelof style, he likes to introduce more questions than answers, but honestly, in this utterly bonkers context, its a perfect choice. And I loved every moment of it.

Wednesday, October 26, 2022

31 Days of Halloween: The Sadness

2021, Rob Jabbaz (Clearwater) -- download

This season wouldn't be complete without a proper zombie flick. I just wish it hadn't been this unfortunate attempt at a Garth Ennis over-the-top approach to zombies (his comic Crossed) to the genre. Let me correct that; it's not the concept that bothers me (an infected style of 'zombie' that is fueled by violence and sadism) but more the Ennis level of embracing the ick-factor. Ennis has always made his name by going past the line where most creators would stop. Sometimes, as in Preacher, its fun as he is held back by his publisher. But in the case of Crossed they pretty much let him do whatever the fuck he wanted, and at some point the comic became stomach churning. This movie decides to go that way. And my stomach was not churned by the gore, as that was to be expected, but by the "sadistic" choices the director chose to depict. Less would have been more in my opinion.

Jim (Berant Zhu, How to Train Our Dragon) and Kat (Regina Lei) wake up lovingly, no morning breath, perfect hair, perfectly in love with each other till Jim admits he forgot they were going to take a week's vacation together, and he needs to take advantage of a work opportunity. Meanwhile, "it's just a flu" pandemic is stirring outside. Kat has a very very VERY uncomfortable encounter with an older incel-ish man ("can't a man just compliment a woman these days?!?!") on the subway just before all fountains-of-blood Hell breaks loose. They lose contact, but Jim gets a "meet me at the hospital" txt msg, and begins to fight his way to her, as the world collapses around him.

This is the zombie apocalypse, as the infected lose all sense of decorum and attack others. Initially we get the violence, introduced by the attacks on the subway with Kat. The infected rip throats out, stab people repeatably and murder others with visceral glee. But as the movie escalates, we begin to see the unfettered nature of those infected, and eventually it leads to sadistic rape and torture scenes. Too many rape and torture scenes. Give me the fountains of blood, but humans giving in all too human behaviours? No thanks.

All in all the movie was shot, acted and directed well, I was just not interested in the direction it chose to depict. The idea was fine, and could have been  handled off screen, or even by just having others as horrified (not classic horror movie terrified) by the "zombie" actions as we were.

As for "the sadness", there was a brief nod as the infected shed tears, just before they lost all control, a brief moment of grief at what they were about to do. TBH, I also had this idea for a zombie fiction of my own, but instead of infected, the tears were shed by the last vestiges of the human trapped inside the walking dead body, a fading identity that moans and cries as it dies off as slowly as the body is.

Saturday, March 19, 2022

Turning Red

 2022, d. Domee Shi - Disney+


I moved to Toronto from smaller, more northern climes in 2001, I'm not sure how I missed this giant panda incident less than a year later, but now I finally know what happened to the Skydome. 

Basic plot: as Mei hits puberty she starts crushing on boys and liking pop music, and hanging with her friends. Her overbearing mother does not like these things Mei likes and kind of forbids her from liking these things, which, you know, is kind of an unreasonable ask.  But also with puberty brings changes, and for Mei, it's turning into a big, floofy (apparently smelly) red panda, which was a spell of protection once granted on her ancestor, now handed down as sort of a curse, since the transformation is triggered by any strong emotional response.

I loved this movie. Films about loving-but-complicated parent-child dynamics really get deep under my skin, and this is a great one at showing how these dynamics tend to be generationally influenced.  Plus, it's set in Toronto, where I live, which...you know, has never happened in a massive animated movie before, and rarely happens in film in general.  And there's a great sense of friendship Mei has with her friend group, full of love and support that's so differently rewarding from familial love and support that the film makes tangible.

Of course my stupid head just wants Mei to become a local superhero (like Squirrel Girl meets the Pitiful Human Lizard) but that's always where my mind takes everything. 

I liked that Mei at the onset is a little too much, a little off-putting, but the film allows us to quickly understand her, how her goals and achievements aren't fully for herself but to maintain her mother's love, or inhibit her wrath. That she loves things - and starts to want and desire things - that are outside of her mother's comfort zone invites us to see her true self, and then showing us the full brunt of her mother's overBEARing personality (Sandra Oh, Canadian legend!) gives us complete sympathy for Mei...and then she turns into a big, fluffy, adorable red panda, a metaphor for puberty and hormonally influenced emotions. 

IMO if anyone can't relate to this story because it's about a Chinese-Canadian family, or a pubescent girl is its lead, or it's set in Toronto, at best you're just kinda dead inside and emotionally unreceptive, at worst you're the problem, not this movie. I'm happy this doesn't have to compete against Encanto for awards (not that awards really matter) because I think I would have to choose Encanto but feel really bad about it.

As excited and happy as I am to see Toronto play Toronto in a major motion picture, an animated one at that, It did drive me a little nuts watching this that the geography was all nonsense. Is this what New Yorkers feel all.the.time when NYC is played by other cities in movies?

Friday, November 19, 2021

We Agree: Shang-Chi

2021, Destin Daniel Cretton (Just Mercy) -- Disney+

I have always appreciated Asian Americans (as a label, including Canadians) who skip right past the choosing of an Anglicized name. Sure, there are going to be some that our English tongues will trip over, but your name is your name, so stick with it. And people will always give shortisms or nicknames they can be comfortable with. I am David, not Dave, when asked.

My favourite bit in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (just Shang-Chi from now on) is Shang revealing to Katy his San Francisco best-bud, what his real name is. Her Mandarin sucks so she keeps hearing "Shaun" when he is saying "Shang". And once she catches on, she is affronted that he hid his real name by removing one letter. That is so Awkwafina.

But it says something to the place of Asian American identities in this movie. As Kent mentioned, very few of us know much about the actual Marvel character, a Kung-Fu master who was probably just the comic book's desire to have Bruce Lee as a superhero. But the movie blows past all the challenging bits of comic book legacy and connects a new character to the existing MCU, by having Shang-Chi the son of the magically immortal warlord in charge of the Ten Rings, the actual evil crime organization that Trevor Slattery coopted in Iron Man 3. As a teen Shang-Chi runs from his legacy, to hide in America. But it finds him, or we wouldn't have a movie. So, the movie not only deals with an Asian American hiding from his heritage (to a degree), but also with the challenges of them in the world of comic book superheroes.

The challenge Marvel has in creating the second wave of Marvel movies, the ones that liberally disconnect from the flashy, familiar characters of the prime comic books, is keeping our attention. Marvel movies are well crafted, but that doesn't make them Good Movies. So much of the fun comes from combining the craftmanship, as in a well implemented use of formula, with the nostalgic familiarity of our favourite (or at least recognizable) characters on the screen. But take away the latter bit, and I wondered whether the craft would have sufficient weight.

At least, for me, it did. I really liked this movie, but I admit that it probably won't warrant as many rewatches as others. Then again, I said that about Ant Man and we often returned to it when in the mood for Marvel-lite. But what I liked about this movie was, as Kent said, how it was Disney in Live Action, but also because it drew upon familiar Asian cinematic elements, and connected them to a world I am comfortable in.

I have never really deep-dived into Asian cinema, but being a Once Movie Buff, I have dabbled rather heavily. I loved the Wuxia elements of this movie, especially that romantic, melodramatic, ballet of combat between warlord Xu Wenwu and Ting Li. He is seeking more magic to add to his already powerful "ten rings", and she is protecting the way to the magical land of Ta Lo. She effortlessly rebuffs his brash and aggressive attacks, moving like water away from him. And not long after, in true Disney fashion, he is not attacking, so much as he is dancing with her. This scene was utterly lovely, the wire work and CGI incredibly seamless.

And then the two more traditional Marvel combat scenes. One was so familiar, we could have been rewatching one of the Spider-man movies, even bringing back vlogger Klev, last seen in Spider-Man: Far From Home. Marvel cinematic combat has always drawn upon the feel of Hong Kong action flicks, so the fight in Macau, between Shang-Chi, his sister Xialing and the forces of the Ten Rings... well, it was spectacular. BTW, who builds scaffolding up around an ENTIRE building, and OUT OF BAMBOO !?! 

And then we eventually end up in Ta Lo with its magical CGI Chinese mythos monsters - was that a Foo Dog or a Pixiu? Ooo a Qilin !! And the Hundun, and of course, Trevor Slattery -- they made him seem so life like. I said out loud, "This is when the movie feels more like a Marvel movie" as this was a very traditional setup for the third act combat scene, with bright lights and big baddies, some losses and some humour. 

All the while, the movie is bringing Katy along for the ride. But not in an extraneous, only for comic relief sort of way. Katy plays an integral part to Shang-Chi's journey, often as much advisor and voice of wisdom, as she is quippy. Is there a romantic connection? Not likely. But there is a deep rooted loyalty, as she was the centre of his new family in America. But she is not just background, not that Awkwafina could ever just be in the background, as she steps up at every moment, despite having no powers, no super-duper combat training, just perseverance and strength of character.

I need to watch the movie again, so it is not just a jumble of memorable disparate parts. But the good sign is that all these parts felt good to me, and very little, if none, of the movie felt wrong. The only issue will come in the watching for that whole; if it is not there, then maybe the Marvel formula DOES need more to make it win through.

Saturday, April 24, 2021

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Raya and the Last Dragon

 2021, Don Hall, Carlos López Estrada -- Disney+

Kent has already done some recent posts about classic Disney animations, and I have not finished watching our latest Loopty Loo choice, so I thought I would grab MY two animations from the Upcoming Posts bin. Also, pending, Snyderfuss, as I have to write that post with the video (re)playing next to me because 4 chaotic hours does not lend itself to cohesive memories. This standard fare Disney CGI animation and a more traditional animation venture from Apple TV (Wolfwalkers) bookend nicely against Kent's classic views.

Fantasy, to my cis white male world, has always been pseudo-European. Think Lord of the Rings, Shannara and D&D where all the main characters are white, and the Bad Guys are often depicted as foreign or at least foreign looking. But, other countries must want to do fantasy (easy definition? swords, magic, fantastic creatures) and not just find themselves beholden to historical, albeit often fantastical, fiction? I am saying, if LotR is not set in "real Europe", then why would other culture's examples have to be? That is a long way of coming round to saying Raya does not take place in Historical China as I first thought it did, based on the trailers, but in a more fantastical version of all of East Asia, in lands surrounding a vast river system in the shape of a dragon called Kumandra. All of the familiar East Asian cultures are represented in one form or another. Neat! 

Kumandra was once united before being attacked by dark creatures called Druun, that turned all they touched into stone. The dragons helped fight back, until Sisu the last Dragon was able to banish the Druun with a magic orb. She left the orb in the care of one tribe, Heart, which made all the other tribes jealous, Fang, Spine, Talon, and Tail. Five hundred years later the chief of Heart tries to reunite the tribes but is betrayed, which once more summons the Druun to plague the land. Raya escapes but feels her part in the betrayal heavy on her heart and begins a quest to find Sisu, so the Druun can once again be defeated.

What we get is a classic fantasy quest, with all the standard tropes of modern animation. Our plucky heroin deals with self-confidence, gains humorous sidekicks, has a really cute travelling companion (think giant pangolin meets dung beetle fitted with a riding saddle) and earns the respect of each tribe she goes up against. It is wonderfully colourful, incredibly visual and touches on all the right notes for this kind of movie. Sisu, played by Awkwafina is sooooo much better at being a dragon than Eddie Murphy. If I was 14 again, I would be hoping someone would be writing a world guide for a Kumandra based D&D setting.

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Crazy Rich Asians

Twenty-for-Seven #18 (Day7)
2018, d. John M Chu - Crave

I can't believe there only ONE poster
for this megablockbuster movie.  That's
crazy!
I like a good romcom, that's been established.  Part of the 20 movies in 7 days project was to administer an antidote to all the terrible romance/romcoms I subjected myself to over the Hallmarkidays.  Crazy Rich Asians was an absolutely necessary watch as part of that rehabilitation.  Afterall, it's a highly successful, well regarded rom com that I've had every intention of watching for well over a year but just hadn't gotten to it.... which was the other point of 20-4-7, to watch some of those films I had been meaning to watch.

I freaking loved this movie. 

I've known Constance Wu from years of watching Fresh Off The Boat, and it always takes a few minutes to get her out of "mom" mode in my head (and to hear her speak without the accent she employs on that show), but she's a gifted, versatile actress and very likeable here as a romantic lead.  She plays Rachel, a NYU economics professor (a prestigious, well-regarded gig), and daughter of a single mother who immigrated to America and became a self-made woman in the world of real estate.  Neither are rich, but both have done very well for themselves.  She's been dating Nick (handsomely handsome Henry Golding) for some time, and they're genuinely in love with each other.  Nick thinks it's time for Rachel to meet his family and invites her to Singapore to attend his cousin's wedding. The moment they board the plane and are guided into the first class suite on the plane, Rachel knows something is up, and Nick confesses that his family is super rich, but that he always considered it their money.

From that moment on Rachel is thrust into the world of south Asia's uber-elite, the ultra rich, and their insanely decadent lifestyle.  When she first takes time out to visit Peik Lin (Awkwafina), a friend from her college days, she gets a taste of the rich lifestyle, but her family informs Rachel that Nick's family is so far beyond their wealth, there's no way to prepare her for it.

From there Rachel takes a journey through Nick's reality, a life of luxury and decadence, but also of family bonds and cultural traditions that she's for sure going to be viewed as an outsider.  Nick, in the larger cultural landscape, is like royalty, so there's an undue amount of attention put on him by the debutantes of the upper crust, and any woman he winds up with would face a shitstorm, but an American outsider with no connection to wealth is even more disdainful.

There are the expected cast of villains in this, as well as the unexpected, where people put on a polite face, but ultimately have their own prejudices that they can't get past.  Rachel collects a delightful support stable (alongside Nick ALWAYS being on her side), which includes Peik Lin and her family, Astrid (Gemma Chan) who's Nick's cousin and an absolute sweetheart despite her fashionista status and grand wealth, and Oliver (Nico Santos), Nick's very out second cousin.  They're all in her corner, people who certainly embrace their wealth but recognize that being a decent person is necessary alongside it.

One of my favourite all-time actresses Michelle Yeoh is probably Rachel's greatest nemesis in the film, playing Nick's mother Eleanor.  She's so used to both controlling Nick and getting her way that it's kind of beyond her to let Nick make his own choices or to let someone of lower status potentially influence the family image she's so carefully cultivated.  There are some cultural elements of sacrifice in Eleanor's back story which tell us why she is this way, but as Oliver explains to Rachel, you need to stand up to her and earn her respect if they're ever going to get past her issues.

There is a side plot with Astrid that feels unfortunately thin, or rather could hold a film of its own, with her husband, another "commoner like Rachel" who is having an affair, unable to get over his own discomfort with her level of wealth.  I wish there was more to this story, but it's just underserved as a distracted B-plot. 

The film is decadent and outrageous, frequently funny and at times upsetting.  The culture shock is far more the "crazy rich" than the "asian" part of the film, and the film lives within its traditions, playing to an audience familiar with them but also not excluding an audience that isn't.  It's a bloody delight and I had a blast with it.  I loved the characters, how distinctly drawn each of them was, some playing in stereotype, some playing with stereotype, but most definitely way outside stereotype.  The cast is uniformly excellent, and it's just an utterly entertaining film from start to finish.

I freaking loved this movie.  Suck it Hallmark.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

10 for 10: Rewatching Tarantino [and then a ranking]

[10 for 10... that's 10 movies which we give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about.  Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie --or TV show-- we watch.  How about a 10-minute non-review full of half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?   ]

In This Edition:

Reservoir Dogs (1992) - d. Quentin Tarantino
True Romance  (1993) - d. Tony Scott
Pulp Fiction (1994) - d. Quentin Tarantino
From Dusk 'til Dawn (1996) - d. Robert Rodriguez
Jackie Brown (1997) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Kill Bill Volume 1 (2003) & 2 (2004) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Death Proof (2007) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Inglorious Basterds (2009) - d. Quentin Tarantino
Django Unchained (2012) - d. Quentin Tarantino
The Hateful Eight (2015) - d. Quentin Tarantino

Aaaaand go-go (twist contest!)
---

Reservoir Dogs features many of the Tarantino hallmarks, but not all of them (no fetishistic foot shots).  You've the climactic shootout, tension-raising extended dialogue sequences, killer soundtrack, prolific use of ethnic and racial slurs, pop-culture references, dark comedy, non-linear timelines and so much more of what we've come to expect from the writer/director/actor*   27 years later, Reservoir Dogs is the minimum viable product for a QT picture, the template for everything that would come later.  It's a heist picture that pretty much ignores the heist.  It's about sitting around the fringes of the heist, the downtime and the aftereffects.  It's exploring how terrible people deal with things gone wrong, and how there's something still relateable even in those terrible people.  The gut punch of violence - the infamous ear cutting sequence - was notorious back in the early 1990s, and kept a lot of people away from the film, but that kind of grimness is commonplace on television these days.  You see worse on the average episode of CSI or NCIS or whatever acronymed procedural is popular these days.  I don't love this movie, but I like it a lot.  It's got a brisk pace (one of few QT movies to clock in under 2 hours) and a captivating framework.  The budgetary limitations show in the design aesthetic, the movie looks a lot different than every other QT production since, but the dialogue and performance is the show here, and it's pretty good in that regard.

[10:29]

---






True Romance is the least memorable of all the Tarantino-scripted movies (though one wishes they could forget Natural Born Killers), because it's not a Tarantino movie, it's a Tony Scott movie with Scott trying to cram a Tarantino movie into a conventional Hollywood narrative.


 Christian Slater is miscast (there's no belief or conviction in what he's saying - a Sonny Chiba fan, works at a comics shop, Elvis obsessed - I don't buy it, bub) and you don't get any sense of where this character has obtained such brazenness and confidence. This guy is a geek, but Slater doesn't do geek.
The rest of the cast is on point for a Tarantino joint, though: Patricia Arquette is great as Alabama, (even if she is a manic pixie dream girl prototype), Val Kilmer as Elvis (err..."the Mentor"), Gary Oldman as the lead singer of Korn, Christopher Walken and Dennis hopper being racist.  Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini sharing a scene years before The Mexican, Sam Jackson, Bronson Pinchot, Tom Seizmore, Chris Penn.

The direction is all wrong, the edits are all wrong, the musical queues are all wrong... even the usual orgy of violence in the end of nearly every Tarantino movie is sensationalist cheekiness, here Scott tries to play it straight and doesn't understand the absurdity of it all.

This movie has a terribly juvenile sense of love and romance, and it doesn't care to explore the greater emotional depths of the characters or their relationship. The second half of the film gets so sidetracked with its drug deal it forgets about the relationship.  But listening to Tarantino's commentary, and hearing about the original structure for the film (which was his usual non-linear construction), it IS more about the drugs and how these lovers got embroiled in with these mobsters and their cocaine.  QT says that he loves this film as is and by the time he had name enough to get it made he was beyond it. But I can't help but want his full vision for this. To see Slater pick up Big Kahuna Burgers and for Hopper to ask for a Red Apple instead of a Chesterfield.

There's definitely a theme of rebel lovers in QT's early work...here, the duo in Natural Born Killers and Pumpkin and Honey Bunny in Pulp Fiction.

[written while watching the film, so not timed]
---

Ahhh, Pulp Fiction.  This was my awakening as a wanna be cinephile (it turns out I'm too interested in things like comics, music, comedy, games, and such to really commit to the cinephilic lifestyle) when I was 18 years old.  This was a slap in the face, a sudden shock that there's more to the world of film then just what Hollywood dishes out.  QT's approach to Pulp Fiction seemed to be assembling a collage of cinematic homages and putting those on top of a twisty, non-linear, multi-story framework.  Taking inspiration also from 30's and 40's pulp magazines, where there are multiple tales of gangland crime, detective noir, and all sorts of debauchery, the film doles out a half dozen stories, all interconnected but placed out of order.  It's a dense layer cake, but utterly delicious every bite.  I watched this thing 6 times in the theatre when it came out and multiple times since.  I haven't watched it in a while  but most of the script is still committed to memory, as is most of the soundtrack.  The entire package remains thrilling to me 25 years later.  I'm never bored watching it and when it ends I just kind of want to watch it straight away again.  It's kind of a feel-good movie for me.  For all its dark themes, and heavyweight aspects (violence, drugs, gangs, rape, racism) it's a hilarious movie, and it's shot so brightly, it's almost like it's without shadows.  I love it tremendously.  It's a masterpiece.

[20:14]

---

From Dusk 'til Dawn was a favourite of mine 20-ish years ago.  I was into both QT and Robert Rodriguez quite heavily at the time so seeing the two of them married together like this was a big thrill.  It also exposed ER's Dr. Hunky George Clooney as a capable action star and badass.  The thing is, if I'm being perfectly honest, is I liked the criminals on the run aspect of the film's first half a lot more than the second half of vampire monster killing at the titty bar.  The first half has an internal logic at least, one which pokes a little fun at the media's obsession with real-world violence with a news clip of the crime the Gecko brothers commited and a reporter way too enthusiastic about covering the story. 

Of course, this is a very, absurdly violent movie, and I have no problem with that, but the inner consistency of the second half, of how the vampires turn their victims, or how they die, or what can kill them, it all falls apart very quickly.  Nothing is consistent in the second half and it's just balls to the wall ridiculousness.  There's no hint of scares here, it's meant as pure Grindhouse goofiness.  I wish it had stuck with the more grounded tone of the first half. 

QT gives his best (and perhaps only good) performance here as Richie Gecko, a demented sex offender with violent intentions, barely kept in line by Clooney's Seth Gecko, definitely dangerous, but certainly more level-headed.  Richie's interactions with the Fuller family, particularly Juliette Lewis' Katherine is full on ick-inducing, particularly when the film goes into Richie's demented POV that most certainly isn't reality. 

There are aspects I like about the second half, Fred Williamson primarily.  He's hilarious in the role, particularly when he's telling his absurd 'Nam story.  Rodriguez's fast-and-loose doesn't clash with Tarantino's meticulousness all that much, but he certainly seems more at home in the realm of exploding vampires and bloody neck bites than he does with long conversations.  Oh and the foot fetishiness is at its apex here. Bleh.

[1:29:10]


(written after Django)

---

I didn't like Jackie Brown when it came out.  I was extremely excited for it, hotly anticipating it.  In the few years since Pulp Fiction I had become a Tarantino devotee (I even watched Destiny Turns On The Radio because he was acting in it).  I was reading his screenplays, listening to soundtracks over and over, attempted to following his recommendations via Blockbuster and other video stores in a vain attempt at catching onto his cinematic influences (it's pretty much everything, it's futile), and of course, watching Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction over and over.  I thought I knew what I was going to get with Jackie Brown.  I was wrong.  And I was so disappointed.  I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't get it.  It didn't have so many of Tarantino's usual flairs that I didn't know how to feel about it. I always meant to get back to it, to try it again, but I never did, so great was my disappointment.  I didn't even buy it on DVD when it came out.  Me, this Tarantino devotee.  That was my first experience with understandings that our idols aren't flawless and that at some point they'll let you down (so many more of these lessons were still to be learned).

Two decades later though, and Jackie Brown makes sense to me now.  It's a surprisingly adept portrayal of the disappointments of middle-age.  Sure much of that comes from Elmore Leonard's book, Rum Punch, which Tarantino adapted, but QT sure seems to get it.  And he holds himself back.  I think this is a love letter to his mom and her friends, these strong middle aged women he knew who are constantly pushed down by the world but they won't be beaten and they know how to shrewdly navigate it without letting on that they're in control.  Or maybe it's just a fantasy, but it's really, really damn great.

At the time of its release, I was expecting more of a Blacksploitation vibe because of Pam Grier's presence, (probably thinking it would be more like Black Dynamite, something really tongue-in-cheek) but the earnestness is what makes it so great.  It really is a fantastic movie, and Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Carlyle, Bridgette Fonda all hit it out of the park.  Hell, you've got both Michael Keaton and Robert DeNiro in relatively small support roles (DeNiro barely speaks at all until the third act).  It's brilliant casting.  There's no big eruption of violence, and QT tempers his grindhouse instincts almost completely, finding a completely different gear that we never see this exact way again, but it certainly influences how he approaches dramatic moments in the future.  It's his most mature movie, in more ways than one.

[33:32]

---

QT has always said Kill Bill was intended to be one movie, and it was a greedy Weinstein decision to split them up into two pictures.  I've been waiting a decade and a half for a complete Kill Bill, to see it the way its creator intended, and though it keeps getting teased, it never gets released.  So, for the purpose of this recap, I just watched them back to back, literally skipping the credits on volume 1 and jumping direct into Volume 2.  The only thing that seems out of place in doing so is the brief recap at the start of Volume 2 that seems out of sync with the rest of the film.  Otherwise, I don't know that there's much else missing or added to the proceedings.

The wife (that would be my wife, not The Bride) had said that she didn't think the films held up, but I was rapt watching these two again.  More than any other film that QT had done before, or has done since, Kill Bill smashes together so many of his cinematic loves.  There should be tonal whiplash, but the chaptering of the film helps contain each segment to its own genre.  There's obviously different inferences of kung-fu and martial arts films.  There's an anime sequence.  There's so many hard boiled asian action tropes.  Hell, it opens with a Shaw Brothers title card.  The first half really steeps itself in Chinese cinema of the 70's and 80's, while thoroughly digging its heels (so many feet shots) in its 70's exploitation revenge drama. The second half toys around with noir and western revenge cinema (it really is laced with all different genres of revenge), while still keeping its toes (so many feet shots) in Chinese cinema.

The action in the film is ridiculous.  Master fight choreographer Yeun Woo-Ping outdoes himself with so much of what QT asks for here.  What we see in the big Crazy 88s fight is often relegated to animated form because it'd be so difficult to pull off in reality, but here it is.  It's visceral and scintillating.  The climax of Vol. 1, the showdown with O-Ren Ishii is stunning, a majestic and magical sequence that comes more from Samurai cinema than Chinese wuxia.  The opening kitchen fight combines John Woo with wuxia, while the later fight in the trailer is incredible for acknowledging the obstacles and challenge of fighting in close quarters.

What I disliked originally in the theatre was the slow burn of the finale, but watch as a whole, there's total resonance, with The Bride finding out her daughter lives, and is beautiful.  How she handles Bill in this sequence comes back to the maturity QT found in Jackie Brown, and it's beautiful, well-acted, and heartfelt.

As a whole, Kill Bill is a lot, but it shouldn't really be anything less than what it is.  Not totally perfect, not without its flaws (or controvercies) but thoroughly enjoyable nonetheless.

[51:34]

---

I saw Death Proof originally as part of the Grindhouse presentation, a lenghty double-feature viewing experience that kicked off with Robert Rodgriguez's Planet Terror.  A gross, yet giddy dive off the deep end of exploitation tropes.  Where a true grindhouse movie has to pace out its shocks and gags, with his budget Rodriguez could dole out multiples per minute.  In comparison, QT's Death Proof was meandering and leisurely, with a very extensive amount of time given to following a quartet of liberated women as they have an evening out at a dive bar.  The promised murder machine driven by Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike only appears for a few minutes in the entire film, and the menace of Stuntman Mike's presence in the bar actually waffles between creepy and charming.  When the kill(s) actually happen, well, it's almost over before it began, but really you didn't want it to overstay its welcome to begin with.  And then there's a whole other half, where the tone shifts from ominous, slasher film to stunt spectacular.  It's almost two different projects altogether. So tonally it's a bit all over the place, and yet, QT seems to have everything right where he wants it.  If he's going to do straight up grindhouse, he's going to do it true to straight up grindhouse...complete with the meandering dialogue, the titillation, the drinking and drugs, the menace, the kills, the janky editing and extreme camera angles.  And he's not going to do just one straight up grindhouse, but two.  So you get in a 2 hour span both a relatively uninspired horror with a big spectacular kill, and then a stunt show with a dash of revenge thrown in.

Back in the day, watching all of Grindhouse, I wasn't in the mood for QT's slow amble after Rodriguez's amped-up visceral experience (not to mention those hilarious, gross and densely packed mock grindhouse trailers from the likes of Eli Roth and Edgar Wright).  But as its own production, as an experiment to make authentically styled grindhouse, but on a bigger budget, I think QT nailed it.  He has such an appreciation for the style of low budget exploitation cinema that it influences all his work, but in replicating it he know exactly what's going on.  At the same time, he makes it his own, as one would expect, and the dialogue and soundtrack are on point for QT.  The first half is good, the second half is delightful (Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms and Mary Elizabeth Winstead make a wonderful quartet).  QT giving Bell a real spotlight to show off her formidable stunt skills is pretty much the entire point of Death Proof in my mind.  But then there's also the great turnaround where Stuntman Mike becomes a wimpering, simpering fool as he's not used to women fighting back.

This is not a great movie, and there's not much here to think about past what it is, but it is pretty fun.

[1:08:25]
---

Whoops, I forgot to write about Inglorious Basterds.  There are some flat out incredible scenes in this film.  The opening sequence is breathtaking in both its beautiful cinematography and its intensity.  QT has always liked tension building but this is almost exclusively built around tension building.  People trying to hide who they are from other people, the stakes always so high, yeah, it's best avoided by anyone with anxiety issues.

The titular Basterds of the film are kind of the least appealing aspect of it, however.  Their ruthless, revenge-tinged scalphunting is uneasy and speaks too much to "rah-rah 'merica" in its revisionist retelling of how World War II went down.  I can't tell whether it's QT playing to his grindhouse fanaticism or if it's satire of "We're No. 1, U.S.A! U.S.A!" WWII movies that make it seem like there was no war without America's involvement.  There's just uncomfortable problems here.

That said, it's a pretty exciting feature overall, with an absolutely epic, now infamous climax which was a very bold choice on QTs part.  In any other director's hands it would feel like an unearned twist, in QT's hands, it feels like logical extension of the storytelling, and the director.  I like this one...just a little less than I did before.

[1:45:49]

---

With Django Unchained we enter the realm of QT films I've already written about on this site.  But the purpose here isn't to reiterate what I've said before, but to measure my impressions now, in a quick 10 minute writing session.  And so, to be perfectly honest, I was a bit disappointed with this rewatch.  Django as a character has an almost legendary status now... the film ends with him triumphant in killing all the southern degens and rescuing his true love, and he feels epic at the end, but the rest of the film is only marginally about him.  It's three acts of exploits, first with Christoph Waltz's King rescuing Django and taking him under his tutelage in the craft of bounty hunting, then venturing out to mess with Don Johnson's southern fried estate, and finally winding up at Candy Land where Django and King square off against Leonardo DiCaprio's vile Candy.  In these exploits you can see the legend of Django building, but it's still not his show.  It's not until the fourth act where Django frees himself and gets his revenge that the real legend of a true badass mofo is born.  It's an origin story.   QT has said he will never do a superhero movie but here, he's basically done it already.  I mean, QT has already plotted a Django/Zorro team-up comic which may come to fruition as a film soon enough, but we really need a Django movie that immortalizes the character into grand status.  This underbakes the legend, leaving it a little soft in the middle.  It's also really self-indulgent, as I think we've gathered QT's movies all are.

[1:17:26]

---

And back to The Hateful Eight.  Honestly, I didn't particularly like this movie the first time around, and of all of QT's movies this is the one I had the least desire to revisit.  Upon revisiting most of my initial apprehentions about the film still hold -- it's too long, it squanders its panavision, it's use of narrator is annoyingly inconsistent -- but at the same time, watching it at home made it a more inviting experience.  It may not be the way QT originally intended but I liked it more.

Cutting out the overture and the intermission trims the experience down quite a bit, which makes it feel less padded.  In fact, taking out those elements (as great as Ennio Morricone is) leads the film back to being more character focused.  The first time we hear the narrator (QT himself) is after the intermission, an intermission which the narrator references, so on home release, if you weren't familiar with the theatrical experience, would seem a bit odd.

I was actually hoping to watch this as part of the multi-part "Extended Edition" that QT recut for Netflix.  I was curious to see how the experience of the film worked broken down into episodes (the film is already carved out into chapters) with material added in.  There are parts within the current cut which seem like they were abruptly edited, so I could see at least some of the points where more would go.  It's not that the film needs more, but operating as a TV series, I could see this working even better.  There's a mystery at play and the way it executes and unfurls that mystery is quite well done, but I think would be even better in episodic form.  Alas, with the release of Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood I think the extended edition got pulled from netflix, at least for now.  That said, I'm in for another rewatch of that version, or even just the film again at some point in the future.  It's kind of fun. Also, no gratuitous fee shots.

[1:38:14]
---

And that's the QT recap.  Nope, no Natural Born Killers and no Four Rooms (neither are available on streaming at the moment) but let's be fair, both of those are bottom-of-the-list dwelling features anyway.

As for ranking...I had done one before it turns out, after viewing The Hateful Eight  but at that time I hadn't seen most of QT's films for years.  So this one is more true, since everything is fresh (to be fair I should probably see Once Upon A Time... again before ranking it but fuck it...)

So here it is, hot, fresh, and rank...er, rankings (with movement from my last rankings in brackets):

  1. Pulp Fiction - of course [-]
  2. Kill Bill - I think I liked both "volumes" even more on rewatch [-]
  3. Jackie Brown - what a difference two decades make. A new favourite [+3]
  4. Inglorious Basterds - holding strong [-]
  5. The Hateful Eight - something works better watching it at home [+2]
  6. Death Proof -  in some ways, it's the most fun QT [+2]
  7. Reservoir Dogs - still a pretty taut movie, but feels prototypical [-2]
  8. Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood - I'm not sure about this one yet [new]
  9. Django Unchained - I also can't believe it's fallen all the way down here, but there you go.  It misses the mark in some ways. [-6]
  10. True Romance - bleh [-2.5]
  11. From Dusk 'Til Dawn - I've moved past it [-4.5]
  12. Four Rooms - why? [n/a]