jp-campbell

Isn't it funny how most user reviews seem to entirely miss the point (and the tone) of this movie? While I might criticise the world it portrays, so does Crazy Rich Asians. There is no endorsement here of the vulgar displays of wealth, of the abhorrent behaviour of various characters. In fact, throughout, major plot points are illustrations that the film is criticising the culture of gold-digging and ridiculing the assumptions by various villains that the lead character has anything to do with their game. Scorn! Scorn for the tone deaf and borderline-illiterate audience who completely misunderstood what the plot is about. Shame! A shame that they were the target audience for what is a very simple, mundane romcom extolling the virtues of a fantastical & basic romance based on some indefinable love maintained by two one-dimensional characters against all the odds (avaricious competitors maligning the girl, steely villainous relatives culturally at war with this Westerner, etc.).

Above par for a plodding generic rom-com, which doesn't elaborate beyond the most basic of beats - style and setting elevate it beyond its parts - but as a story there is nothing unexpected. Strictly for those who want what that genre average delivers.

Performances - Michelle Yeoh transcends the material and her multi-faceted mother must be a construction of her own talent and craft, because the script and the direction offer no help whatsoever - Constance Wu is compelling, and sure as hell works hard to remain likeable despite her clunky dialogue and humourless jokes - Awkwafina is highly entertaining and manages to draw a characterless role in at least one fabulous dimension - same goes for Nico Santos.

Some might feel the film avoids revelling in gratuitous wealth, but to me, while it retains an otherworldly character, the portrayal of wealth is definitely pornographic.

Henry Golding can be forgiven for his wooden performance given that the character of Nick is the most anodyne Etonian old boy ("the best beer of my life, mate... would be perfect with a spot of rugby, what?"; excuse me while I empty my stomach) whose duality runs only as deep as his inability to forsee the entire plot of the film, spawned by the idiotic decision to keep everything about himself hidden from the woman he purports to love and truly wish to marry. These two leads seem to know nothing about one another, their feelings for one another seem to derive purely from aesthetics (shirt off, glasses on, suit on, dress on; look how she fits in so well; look how he plays vaguely well with kids) and therefore the entire setup for the film is implausible.

Nick is a twelve year old's notion of the eligible bachelor. Rachel (Wu) is a twelve year old's notion of the female protagonist - a good role model, the Mickey Mouse version of an economics professor, who falls head over heels for the first hunk she meets without batting an eyelid that he says nothing of his entire history before college. These kids have the sophistication and emotional range of ... a twelve year old. Yet they are adults in a problematic adult situation - and so I don't believe in the fiction. We watch two actors struggle with terrible dialogue, not two characters with fates we give two figs about.

Social politics - note the line about how the Yeung (Young?) family came as first generation Chinese settlers to Singapore - how their capital raised the city out of the swamp. Ignoring the fact that foreign settlement of traders in the area predates the proposed timeline, what sticks in the throat about this fact being casually thrown away as explication of the prestige accorded that affluent family, is the fact that their ancestors would have multiplied their fortunes by driving indentured (slave) labour into the mud of that swamp - the same people who are now employed in the background throughout this film as household help. We do absolutely revel in the glory of immense wealth as sprayed across hillsides and freeways across Asia (certainly after the Western fashion, but with a particularly eastern status-materialist flavour), and at no point do we find straying into shot the unliveable yet unaffordable sweltering tower block housing for the workers at the bottom of the Yeung (Young?) pyramid.

This is not a film concerned by social or economic politics - and therefore implicitly it is a film concerned about helping us to ignore these things.

But, instead, it's a film about the challenges of negotiating a relationship with the prospective mother in law, and broader integrations into a partner's family. On that front, it does justice to the theme as much as can be achieved in this running time. Even if it plays out in the context of an entirely implausible relationship, completely lacking in substance and at no point justifying the overwhelming effort these characters put into making it work.

The story does manage to neatly tie up the conflict between western individualism and trends toward broadening opportunities and empowerment of women versus traditional family roles, values and self sacrifice to traditional power structures and greater goods that are implied to be the preserve of eastern cultures - in the final interactions between Yeoh and Wu. It was pleasing to see that there was no total resolution, as the mother in law disappears from the final party scene having conceded defeat. It was most displeasing to see that all the progress made by Rachel in maintaining self respect, dignity and autonomy, is jacked in because a plummy marionette delivers a boring, hollow and unfunny proposal to her on a plane, presents her with a massive sparkly stone and somehow this intelligent woman is overcome with the ROMANCE of it all. But at least we can rest easy in the knowledge that neither of them will be happy because of the impossible compromises required of them by this flippant decision. (Hey, who knows - certainly not them, they know nothing of one another - maybe they might be able to make it work).

There are many attractive people in this film, which I suppose is another plus. Bravo. Didn't stop their jokes from making my skin crawl (up from the seat, and straight out of the theatre).

A lovingly crafted portrait of Hal Ashby's career, with brief detours into his problematic personal life. Entertaining and touching use of his letters. Perhaps more accessible and exciting for audiences already acquainted with his most celebrated work.

Reviewers want this exquisite and heartbreaking film to be a tightly focused wartime narrative but that it is not. We follow Suzu through several of life's terrifying (and often involuntary) leaps of faith. We leave home with her, just a girl, and to marry a boy she never recalls having met. We live with her in a marital house that is at times welcoming and at others rank with hostility. We see her reforge her attachments to family and become part of a new one; we see this house become her home, her place of work and something she will fight furiously to defend. There is the numbness and then bottomless acceleration of grief; the desensitisation to loss; a distance, a cold strength by the time more former intimates are gone. An honesty to the development of her marriage, the elements of loving warmth and explosions of tension. The imperfections of characters brought into proximity and friction. A nuanced portrayal of a perceived love-triangle and the way it is both uncharacteristic of stereotypes about this era but also entirely plausible in light of how wartime fatalism shapes emotional experience. Suzu is completely charming in her tirelessly hardworking and yet creatively daydreaming tendencies. Though her life is brutal at times, her perspective on her lot, and on the natural and human beauty which surrounds her, makes the idea of a now forgotten life of domesticity in prewar Japan almost seem appealing! To look back on her, the world that she sketched and painted in her mind's eye, the characters with whom she was co- dependent, feels like looking back with tearful nostalgia toward real friends now lost in time - the same emotions felt at the close of any great film, and in particular, most of the grown-up output of Studio Ghibli (apologies for the predictable reference). Really priceless.

The IMDb description irritates me immensely. This is not about random acts of violence, though perhaps they might be the sort of acts characterised as such by any deliberately superficial media outlet. Each of four acts of violence demonstrates one character's breaking point. One shows a personal response to social injustice and corruption; another, a reaction to the stultifying culture and impossibility of a socially acceptable alternative; the third, an outburst against gender hierarchy, oppression and humiliation; finally, an escape from the intransigent work culture. This paints quite a well-rounded picture of much of what appears to be broken in China. It is shot with elegance and edited gracefully. The dialogue rings true and the mis-en- scene is extremely evocative. My only qualm is that the violence presents itself as realistic but in fact is not. When someone is cut deeply or shot in the belly, they scream; they do not fall silently and become inanimate. That's probably a concession to censors but, I feel, is a cop-out.

Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you.