Change Your Image
trhliao
Reviews
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005)
Sweet movie, enjoyable, fun
This was a classic mid-2000s girl film. The actresses were really likable. It was like the 2000s version of the 80s-90s Babysitters' Club books. The friends were all a bit too different, but they were always there for each other. It was always fun to see Alexis Bledel, who played a Greek girl who didn't look Greek at all except for her dark-ish hair. She said she was super fair, too, and had to wear a lot of bronzer or self-tanner. I rooted for her and her pretty love interest. Beautiful shots of the dreamy Greek Islands, with the blue sea and white cliff houses. A really fun, sweet, and relaxing film to watch.
I Capture the Castle (2003)
Underrated, perfect film
Some films have achieved cult status. Labyrinth is one of them. But there's been many other films that are really good, but they've remained under the radar and overlooked. I Capture the Castle is one of them. Labyrinth fans would adore this film. It was captivating from the opening scene, when the protagonist was dreamily journaling in the sink of her quirky family's castle.
Everything in the film was sweet, dreamy, imaginative, and delightful. It was based on an equally- delightful and imaginative vintage novel by Dodie Smith.
"I write this sitting in the kitchen sink." - that's how the novel began. More appealing quirkiness I can't imagine.
Anglophiles, rejoice. You'll find bliss in the movie and the book. Escape, and imagine, and watch or read away. A Secret Garden fans would love this, too. If you like girly, British-y romances, with pretty, earnest, artsy characters, and families that are off-the-beaten-path, and decaying castles in the English countryside - then you'll love this movie.
Labyrinth (1986)
Probably overrated, beloved by white geek girls everywhere, definition of Cult Classic
So for some reason, geeks in America have picked up on Labyrinth some years ago. I watched it, and I was happily entranced, like all the other adoring reviewers here. For some reason, it didn't make it too big when it first came out, or for years afterward. But roughly around the late 2000s, someone picked up on it, and word spread. It achieved indie cult status, long after it first came out, belatedly. Why, oh why? Why does that happen? Memes? Internet?
If you're someone who takes pride in being geeky cool, and off-the-beaten-path, and you like A Fine Frenzy, and no-name Canadian trip-hop artists on SoundCloud, and you adored Modest Mouse before they sold out - then of course, you've fallen into the Cult of Labyrinth as well. Maybe you really related to John Cusack's character in High Fidelity. Maybe you adored Welcome to the Dollhouse or other indie films of the 90s. Maybe you like anime, and you're into cosplay, and circle lenses, and all things ugly, mainstream Americans wouldn't touch with a 10-foot stick.
Labyrinth seems like a film you're SUPPOSED to like. It's COOL, ACCEPTED, and SOCIALLY DESIRABLE to love and adore Labyrinth. With the passing of David Bowie - already a cult figure before he died - Labyrinth's place in the echelon of cult films became even further entrenched.
Meh. Indie hipster pretensions aside, I thoroughly enjoyed Labyrinth. It's a film that allows you to dream, escape, and live your fantasy. Pre-plastic-surgery Jennifer Connelly was still beautiful as a 14-year-old. Maybe her acting was pretty wooden (and still is?), but that didn't really detract from the beauty and enchantment of the film.
David Bowie - if there ever was a more appealing and cool cult figure, I can't think of any. He's really attractive, and INFP-ish (most desirable Myers Briggs type for the interweb geeks), and Buddhist-hippie-pseudo-bisexual cool. He's like a million times cooler than his fellow Brit, Alexa Chung, who probably tries to be him, but will never get near him. Notice I write about him in first person. He will forevermore be first person to us, so dear he is to our hearts.
Did anyone else find the Bowie-Connelly romance scary because of their age difference, and the fact that she's jailbait (under 18)? Strange that the filmmakers/casting directors thought it was OK to have a romance between a 14-year-old girl and a guy in his late 30s.
We do see both Connelly and Bowie with adoring eyes, like they're God-like figures. Connelly's teenage innocence and sweet, dreamy look is forever seared in our imaginations and hearts. Labyrinth is a cult, something you want to like, something you feel good about liking, something you want others to know that you like and appreciate. It's what separates mainstream retards from elitist, knowing indie/cult film fans.
The songs in it are good. Boy did I listen to the soundtrack over and over again during the days of the iPod (remember that?). Bowie's songs just hit the spot - so creative, melodic, mild, fascinating - just that perfect combination.
Anyway, I have mixed feelings about the film. People who saw it in 1986 probably didn't think much of it. But so many years later, once it's hit cult status - it's become cool and socially desirable to like it. It just doesn't seem right that a film should suddenly be so highly-rated, when it's the same film it was back in '86, when it was overlooked. It's a good film, but I doubt it would have such high, adoring reviews if it did not have the undercurrent of cool, must-love cult film running though it. Also, because it has both Connelly and Bowie - both indie cult faves - AND Bowie has died, elevating his already-cult status even higher - that's another reason Labyrinth is so beloved, in a way it almost doesn't quite deserve. There are probably many other films that are just as good, if not better, but the masses of geeks online haven't picked up on them, and they haven't become socially-desirable to like, and they don't star celebs that geekdom adores.
Night at the Museum (2006)
Fun, silly film - still enduring after 11 years - stereotypes prevail
This is seems like my totally my type of film, so it's weird that I saw it so belatedly, 11 years after it came out. Where was I in 2006?! Anyway, if you see Ben Stiller these days, he still looks the same - he's hardly aged at all. Still handsome, and still worthy of being a "really, really, really good-looking" male supermodel.
Night at the Museum seems like one of those fun summer flicks that you go to see with your friends, family, or a date. It doesn't take itself very seriously, and it's not trying to be artsy or profound. It's not even making some minor, dumb statement, like what Ben Stiller was kind of trying to do in his supermodel films.
This was made by a Quebecois director, Shawn Levy, and if you watch his commentary in the DVD, you'll see that he's overly articulate and formal. He's a no-name director, and maybe it's because his films are not serious, and they're overshadowed by a big-name cast, like Ben Stiller.
It's a feel-good, fun film. But Sacajawea in the film takes herself too seriously. The part-Native actress, Mizuo Peck, has remained F-list these days; no one has heard of her.
Stiller's love interest in the film seems very innocuous. You might've heard of her - Carla Gugino. You've probably suspected she's the love interest very early on, since the first shot of her, because she seems sweet and pretty, and she's dressed so modest and sexy at the same time. A low-cut cardigan, pencil skirt, and heels - overly dressed up for a mere museum docent job, yet teacherly at the same time. Films are stupid, and they like driving in the beauty-and- brains thing too much. It's slightly pathetic that they made her a very pretty geek girl who's going for her PhD and writing a dissertation on Sacajawea. It just seemed a bit insulting and patronizing, in some way.
Stiller seems like a fairly smart guy, but not that smart. It's like he might have a decent IQ and appreciation of all things cultured LA people are into. But then, he hasn't experienced much of life or of the human condition, so he really doesn't know that much. He's like a late Gen Xer - cool, but uncool at the same time. Anyone remember The Ben Stiller Show? Maybe not. It was from the early Gen X days in the 90s, when 20-somethings thought they were the coolest and most badass people on the planet. But I guess every 20-something generation thinks it's that.
Stiller is guilty of Asian stereotyping, and he obviously has no close Asian friends in his A-list Hollywood royalty circle. It's so minor, but I can see that he doesn't like the "Asian representation" in the film - the Huns. Attila the Hun was played by a no-name Eurasian Canadian actor, Patrick Gallagher - a character actor, obviously, due to his big build and lack of leading-role looks. Every fantasy character in the museum was non-white-American - and yet, when Stiller was faced with an angry mob of "Asians" (Attila the Hun's crowd), he asked, stupidly, "Do you speak English?" He didn't ask that to Sacajawea, or the pretty Egyptian mummy, or the little monkey, any of the other characters, who were just as unlikely to speak English as Attila the Hun, if not more so. This reflects the "no speak English" stereotype, and so many other wrong stereotypes that are pervasive in American films and American culture in general. Stiller is a major player in Hollywood, and he has plenty of major films under his belt, so he has tons of influence. Even something as minor as asking ONLY the Huns if they speak English, and no one else, is driving in foreign, stereotypical singling out, something that Asian Americans suffer from on a daily basis.
Anyway, the film is fun, but it's not totally innocuous. As always, it reflects the stupidity, stereotypes, and limited worldview of its filmmakers and actors. Films drive and influence the perception of the masses, so they have a very important role. Stereotype and degrade, even in s subtle way, and that's causing the stereotyped to be degraded and to suffer in real life, in their everyday lives.
Frozen (2013)
Best animated film of the 2010s - a cult classic, with an enduring place in geekdom
Ah, Frozen. It's created Frozen Fever for the below-10 crowd. Around 2015-16, it was all Frozen Frozen Frozen in the girls' toy aisles. Frozen's merchandise and third-party products have given it a life of its own, beyond the mere movie that inspired them. When I first saw the movie, I gave it a 7. But a couple of years afterwards, with plenty of Frozen merchandise under my belt, I feel like I should give it a 10 - cult status, a franchise, a pop culture phenomenon, like LOTR, Twilight, and Star Wars. I'll settle for a compromise, and I'll give it a 9 for this review.
Frozen's most endearing and enduring aspect is the beauty of the characters. The scenery, majestic castles, and ice castle are beautiful, too. Elsa is one of the most stunning characters in the history of animation. She's like one of those gilded country singers. I still don't know what she did all day cooped up in her ice castle, but a girl can dream. Anna is very pretty, too. She has a gorgeous, multi-colored costume that looks faux-Swiss or Nordic or whatever.
Anna's princely love interest, Hans, is nice-looking, in an average way. Kristoff, oddly enough, is way handsomer, so I don't know why she didn't fall in love with him immediately. Do these animated characters have eyes or not? Humans are, unfortunately, visual creatures, so beautiful visuals in a film really speak to us, and lead to much more. Frozen inspired a clusterf--k of affilated merchandise, coloring books, memes, Pinterest pins, dreamy "princess" art, DeviantArt musings, etc. It's the cult of the princess in American pop culture. Little girls like it, and they don't know why they like it - it's just marketed to girls, and it fits the popular conception of what girls should like.
Frozen is good because it inspires you to dream, and it's escapism, and it fits into the Pinterest-y dreams that young American women are suckered into.
Frozen's songs are maybe second-rate, but they're still good. Mainly I know that Idina Menzel sang Elsa's songs in Frozen. Menzel is a semi-celebrity for the geek and Broadway crowd. She's the most famous Wicked actress, and for that, she's beloved.
Of course, the surprise element of the sisterly love between Elsa and Anna is one of the hallmarks of the film. It's creative and innovative. You'd think it's another prince-saves-the-princess film, but that's been done too many times in the history of Disney. In 2013, Disney needed to think harder.
Frozen is a gorgeous, perfect fantasy for girls and women. It will forever have its place in pop culture geekdom, like Harry Potter, Star Trek, Narnia, etc. It gives Beauty and the Beast a run for the money. Frozen and Beauty & the Beast fans have a lot of crossover. Both are girly, pretty fantasies with gorgeous mansions, landscapes, and lead characters. Beauty & the Beast has the deeper, more profound story, but still. In this age of Pinterest, Instagram, and third-party merchandise, it's not the story that's the king - it's the mere visual, or meme.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
Good, memorable parts - innovative love story - a bit disjointed, lots of subplots that didn't fit together well
I was going to avoid this film because it starred Eddie Redmayne. He must be one of the most annoying character actors these days. I think he should stick to modeling - I believe he was a Burberry model before he hit it big in Theory of Everything. But an "adult" film by JK Rowling just seemed too tantalizing for me. The public transit ads for the film made it seem really appealing, too. I like fantasy, in general, and this film seemed like a perfect fantasy for women who like fun, imaginative films.
This film didn't totally disappoint, like so many films lately. There was plenty to praise about it. It was really innovative in some ways. We all thought Kowalski (Dan Fogler) was going to be yet another fat, ugly, short comic relief who suffered in life as a troll that no one wanted. But instead, the filmmakers creatively made him a believable love interest in the film. The odd and unexpected romance between him and the conventionally-beautiful Queenie was surprisingly pleasant and believable. You just wanted to root for those two characters, and you wanted them to get together and live happily ever after.
It was nice that they thought of making the underdog the star, and of busting stereotypes in that way. The surprising love element in the film reminds me of how Frozen stressed sisterly love instead of the conventional love between a guy and a girl. But Frozen did it far more successfully.
The film suffers from being disjointed - too many subplots scattered around. It didn't feel like a tidy film that went from point A to B. There was a sad and serious part about the physically-abused teenager, played by a 20-something American actor. There was something about the grand, fantastical warehouse-like place led by Carmen Ejogo's character. There was something about Colin Farrell's character, and how he related to the abused boy. There was something about everything in the film, and we're just not sure what's happening, or what's the significance, or how it related to the main story or point of the film.
The costumes in the film were beautiful. I was awed by the metallic, chic flapper-girl-inspired outfits that Queenie and Tina wore to the speakeasy or whatever that was. This film had a lot of it - beautiful, inspiring, memorable bits and pieces here and there, but doesn't work out to an overall fantastic film.
I like Katherine Waterston (Tina) in the film, and it's a shame that she's not better-known and doesn't get more work. It's like she's forgotten because her look is pleasant and pretty but not spectacular or special, and she's still D-list despite being not that young (late 30s). Queenie (Alison Sudol) was surprisingly likable, and I thought it was interesting that she is the singer/songwriter from A Fine Frenzy.
There were parts that reminded me of children's fantasies - like when Redmayne's character went to see/greet the menagerie-like magical creatures. That part was pleasant and fantastical, like children's fantasies of 2016 such as the BFG.
Apparently, this film, as well as the HP films, were shot in Warner Bros. Studios in Leavesden, England. Just a fun fact. When we think of UK, we think of Big Ben and royalty, and not Hollywood films or major film studios.
And speaking of US vs. UK - the mild, teasing "conflict" between Americans and British in the film was very odd, and slightly off-putting to me. I didn't know there was such a "conflict." I didn't know Americans and British ever competed against each other. Americans and Canadians don't even do that. We're all friends. Americans are Anglophiles. It's very weird from a British perspective that they feel they need to make fun of Americans. Really weird. The film was obviously an American/UK collaboration, with an equal number of American and UK lead actors. So many major films these days can't be neatly linked to one country. Actors may have originated somewhere, but now live in LA or NYC. Directors live and go everywhere. There are studios somewhere, and film score composers elsewhere, and special effects offices elsewhere. Big films are all international and multi-national these days.
The ending was extremely pleasant, surprising, and feel-good. It seems like they're leading way for a sequel or trilogy, but I don't know if that's going to happen.
I just don't think this film had the "charisma" factor that the Harry Potter films had. It's a nice film to watch, but you're not going to build a fandom out of it. Maybe you're not supposed to, though, because it's a fun, summery "adult" film, and it's not already tied to a spectacularly-bestselling YA novel series. Maybe it just can't be compared to the HP films or franchise.
I think this film would've been more successful if it had a better name. "Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them" is a very hard-to-remember name. You keep thinking, "How does that go again?" Maybe they should've just called it "Fantastic Beasts" or "Eddie Redmayne's Fantasy" or "Adult HP."
Rogue One (2016)
One of the worst movies I saw in 2016
I'm shocked that people thought of Rogue One so positively, in general. I almost never want to leave the theater when watching a film, but I wanted to leave for this one. It was such a boring, annoying mess. It was painful to watch.
Like so many other sci-fi/fantasy films lately, Rogue One gets bogged down in boring, ugly scenes that are hard to focus on. IT LACKS HEART AND SOUL. Whoever the filmmakers are - their tastes definitely don't match mine.
Felicity Jones was one of the worst things about the film. Stars of films are important, obviously, because you see them in most scenes, and they carry the film. She was fine in Theory of Everything - I felt for her, and her relationship with Stephen Hawkings. She was far better- looking than the actual Hawkings wife, though. But in Rogue One, Jones had none of the heart and acting chops she showed in Theory of Everything. Maybe being a rogue action heroine isn't her forte. Like others have mentioned, she had the same expression throughout Rogue One, and she totally lacked charisma.
Also, 2016 was the year of dumb filmmakers trying to appeal to women/girls by having a female lead that supposedly kicked ass. Very patronizing and unnecessary. Title IX happened long ago, and girls have been kicking ass forever. Filmmakers don't need to pretend to know what women like/want to see in a film. Felicity Jones was a failure as an action heroine in Rogue One. She took it all too seriously. If she relaxed more, she would've been more appealing, and would've carried the film better.
The love interest buildup between her and the Diego Luna character seemed superficial and forced. They didn't have a lot of chemistry in the film. In an ending beach scene, you just didn't feel for them. Throughout the film, it seemed like Luna liked her - I could see that in his eyes and facial expression. She didn't care much for him, though. It makes sense, though, because she is extremely attractive, while Luna looks merely scrappy-cute in his beard and vegan-like shriveled build. Usually charisma is linked with attractiveness, so I don't know how Felicity Jones screwed it up by being extremely attractive, but totally uncharismatic and unlikeable.
All these articles online talked in a very condescending way about how two Chinese actors were randomly thrown in the film to appeal to viewers in China. It's as if Chinese people and China were some inferior mass that you just look down on and talk down to. The most interesting thing about the film, to me, was the inclusion of the two Chinese actors, one from the North (Jiang Wen), and one from HK (Donny Yen). It's opened my eyes to two actors previously unknown to me, and it's piqued my interest in Chinese actors and Chinese cinema in general.
Online, there's been speculation about a homo-erotic undertone between the two Chinese characters. I don't think there's such thing, but people can dream. It seemed they were just close and loving friends in the film. I thought it was a bit silly that they threw the two Chinese actors in most scenes together. It's how people all think that all Asians like to band together, disgusting things that they are. In fact, Jiang Wen (Baze Malbus) was married to a French lady and has a hapa daughter. All Asians don't necessarily love and jive with each other, so there's no need to make the two Chinese actors best buddies in the movie and to throw them together in every scene. It's a stereotype that Asians enjoy clustering among themselves, and you can see stereotypes played out in so many American films.
Overall, this film sucked. But like all films, it says a lot about American/Western culture, stereotypes, preferences, and zeitgeist. It reflects the trends and preferences of the time.
Sarusuberi: Miss Hokusai (2015)
If you want to impress your date, take him/her to see this film
American films are a shallow, inane mess. That's why people go see foreign films at art houses. They want to feel good about themselves, and they want to look good to others. Miss Hokusai probably isn't playing in theaters anymore. But if it was, it's a great place to take a date if you want to impress them with your amazing and elitist tastes.
I'm not one for typical anime. And of the other anime-ish films that were big in America - Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, etc. - I guess I kind of liked them, but I'm not sure why, other than I'm supposed to like them, and it's good and right to like them. Agree, NPR crowd?
Well. Miss Hokusai is a film critic's dream. As soon as I saw it playing at my local college town theatre, I already knew it got 100% from Metacritic and consistent red tomatoes on Rotten Tomatoes. Film critics' tastes are extremely predictable. The more pretentious and experimental a film, the more it merits 5 stars, or 10 stars, or whatever's the highest rating of X publication or website.
Why Miss Hokusai gets rave reviews from critics:
-It's Japanese anime-ish, and critics and TED lecture fans alike all salivate for those.
-It has - gasp! - LBGT in there, and it's not even implied or subdued!!
-I don't know what the f--- it's about, but it sure looks good!
-Japanese Edo period, about famous artist/painter! Critics love artsiness.
-Beautiful Japanese anime-ish characters! Critics appreciate different cultures.
-Japan, Japan, oh how they love and adore Japan!
-Gorgeous 19th-century Edo cityscape and scenery. Critics adore and appreciate cinematography, history, architecture, and the outdoors - a plus if it's a different culture!
-And what is the film about again? I don't care, it seems experimental and cool, so I'll upvote it!
Anyway, I'm guilty of thinking like critics, so I was pretty impressed with the film, and I enjoyed it. I'd hate to say this, but it really is way better than typical American films. Art-house elitism!
Moana (2016)
Disappointing, annoying and mean-spirited characters, formulaic
I had high hopes for Moana. A Disney film about a brave and fun Samoan-ish girl? What could be better? Moana started off strong. The beginning was interesting, with nice-looking characters and beautiful animation.
But by the time they got to the demigod Maui, the film really went downhill. Maui is simply obnoxious. The interplay being the arrogant demigod and the "brave" Moana was just irritating and stupid. I didn't want to root for either character.
It's 2017, filmmakers. Do you STILL need to drive in Title IX on such a superficial, patronizing level? I've been seeing girls kick ass my whole life (Disney's original Beauty & the Beast, anyone?), so I don't need filmmakers to drive it in more, in the most vapid way.
Disney feels guilty for giving films to so many blond "princesses," like Cinderella, Aurora, etc. It's gone to black with Tiana, and Asian with Mulan (stereotypical-looking), and now, it's moving on, probably for the first time, to the Pacific Islands/Polynesia. Pseudo-Samoans need their chance, too.
I did notice in the film how "realistic" the characters' build, legs, and body types were. Looks like they modeled the demigod, physically, after Dwayne Johnson, who voiced the character. And the credits did show that Disney consulted with a few official Samoan or Polynesian "experts" - college professors, maybe? Writers and thought leaders? Looks like Disney's doing its job, diligently trying to portray Polynesian characters realistically and non-stereotypically. Would they give so much thought to Asian characters? I don't know.
The film is just kind of dumb and superficial. They made the poor ugly chicken a scapegoat and comic relief. Moana's heroic dad is portrayed as a really handsome, buff guy. But the arrogant, annoying demigod is uglier, with a big but awkward build. Disney thinks good people are handsome/beautiful, and bad people are ugly. Disney itself made Beauty and the Beast, which drives in the fact that beauty is only skin deep, and the fabulous Belle learned to love a Beast. Stop being contradictory and hypocritical, Disney!
The ending of Moana was an insipid disappointment, too. They had a demonic sea monstress turn into some earth mother loving green thing. O-kay! Very painful to watch. I thought Disney was master of animation and story, but they were really lacking this time around. The child-ish fiascos between Moana and the demigod are painful to remember - them throwing her precious green stone into the water, her jumping into the water and out? It would only appeal to young children.
Get Moana out of my mind! Disney could've done a good job with their first(?) Samoan-ish run, but they didn't do a good job with it.
Kedi (2016)
Cute cats, a unique look at a culture we're unfamiliar with, Euro-loving
This is an art-house theatre winner. Cats, Istanbul, and Turks waxing philosophical about cats - what could be better? Every indie movie house must be desperate to scoop up this film. If you're a foreign film fan who loves things off-the-beaten-path, you'll love this film.
Kedi is refreshingly non-American. It steers clear of the formulaic elitism of typical American documentaries. Not only is it full of cute cats, but it also gives us a unique look at a culture most of us are unfamiliar with - Turkey and Istanbul. Did anyone know Istanbul is so stunning, aquatic, and reminiscent of old Europe, but with a unique vibe all its own? I can tell this film is increasing the tourism rates for Istanbul and Turkey.
So there were shots of romantic alleyways like those in England or Paris. And there were picturesque cityscapes that remind me of an art film set in Edinburgh. Istanbul apparently has a very Euro cafe culture. But so much of Istanbul in the film seems so new to me - lots of colors, details, and an aesthetic that's all its own.
The people interviewed seemed funny, artistic, intelligent, and thoughtful. Maybe they don't represent most Turks - just a subset that the director, Ceyda Torun, chose to interview for the film. Just like people in US films don't represent most Americans, the people chosen for this film surely don't represent the typical Turk. Watch all films with a grain of salt.
So this is how the film lovingly paints Istanbul:
-Colorful, artsy, dreamy, unique - like a film version of novels by Orhan Pamuk
-Remniscent of romantic Old Europe, but also with a vibe and look that's all its own. (Turks apparently want to identify with Europe - who wouldn't? I can tell this is the image the director wants to portray - not Central Asian, not Middle Eastern, and not "Oriental.")
-Loves its cats; the people are PETA types, altruistic, animal-loving. (Director has lived in the US since her teens, so of course the US animal welfare culture is heavily within her.)
-Refreshingly free of an angry animal-rights vibe (It's not a Michael Moore film, or an animal welfare film that's overly preachy, but does have an altruistic animal lover vibe running through it.)
-The Istanbul residents are creative, philosophical, kind of Zen, relaxed, happy, and cool in a unique way. (This is how the director wants to see herself, and these are her friends and acquaintances, so of course these are the people she interviews.)
Obviously, the director feels very close and loving towards Istanbul and its people and cats. ^^ I thought it was interesting how Turks related to cats vs. Americans. In the US, alley cats and pet cats alike would surely be fed manufactured cat food. But most of the Turks in the film fed the cats raw people food, like fish, sliced meat, etc. And they threw the food directly on the ground for the cats to eat, while Americans would consider that taboo and dirty. We feed even stray and feral cats from bowls.
Anyway, if you're a cat lover or art film lover - run, don't walk to see this film! It's probably the sweetest, prettiest, and most educational documentary of the year. Istanbul was never really on the radar for me, but now it's on my list of must-visit places.
The director, Ceyda Torun, was apparently born in Istanbul, moved to the Middle East when she was 11, went to high school in NYC, and now lives in LA. So that explains the film and provides context for it. Torun reminds me of a softer, more dreamy, and less femi-Nazi version of Man Repeller, who's from NYC and of Turkish/Iranian descent.
Black·ish (2014)
Painful to watch
I totally get the vibe/worldview of this show. I live in an uber-progressive area that "celebrates" diversity, so I totally get it. The show is obviously written from the viewpoint of progressive, educated, intellectual blacks. They're blipsters. Duh. The parents are rich high-achievers, and so are the kids. This is a very timely show - perfect for its start during the Obama Administration. It goes right along with Hamilton fever, Michelle Obama fever, etc. It's the perfect pairing with Key & Peele.
What it shows is that blacks have really made it in America. Yes, it's a satire, but so much of it is true, or leaning towards true. With Black Lives Matter being some sort of rallying cry that "unites" all people, Black-ish is a true reflection of our time. Black Lives Matter has been a very effective branding statement, giving blacks visibility and love - the way Pride has made LGBT cool.
We need something like Black Lives Matter for Asians. Contrast Black-ish with that other "ethnic" show, Fresh Off the Boat. Black-ish is about how blacks have made it, while Fresh Off the Boat is about how Asians are painfully stereotyped as an "other" in America. It's still that way. Blacks will get a lot more callbacks for their resumes than Asians. Blacks are hired more, promoted, and seen as leaders, while Asians are not. Blacks are treated better in stores, restaurants, doctor's offices, etc. - while Asians are treated most condescendingly. People know that blacks have suffered in the past, so blacks get a free pass these days. It's not just "white guilt," it's "everyone guilt." Asians have some of the highest rates of depression and suicide in the US. This is due to discrimination and being denied opportunities, income, friendships, and romance. Blacks do not suffer from this severe exclusion, stigma, stereotyping, and subconscious bias that Asians suffer from.
This is all very complicated. But yeah, Black-ish is painful to watch because it contrasts how blacks have made it in the US, and how we all have guilt towards blacks - while Asians continue to be poorly treated, excluded, hated, etc. It continues to be OK to bully and make fun of Asians, while you'll practically be executed if you do the same thing to blacks. The Peter Liang case shows that if an Asian is involved, he'll have to go through much more crap than if blacks were involved. Double standards, as usual.
In one episode of Black-ish, the teenage girl writes a college admission essay catering to white guilt, and her mom totally approves, saying, "You're getting into college!" And not just any college - most likely one of the Ivies or equivalent. Whereas Asians - people hate and look down on Asians, subconsciously or not - have to fight tooth and nail to get into colleges, required to do much better on tests, GPA, etc. People don't think diversity includes Asians. Model Minority is totally a myth - the most poor, struggling, hated, unfairly treated, bullied, ostracized, and underemployed people I know are ASIANS - NOT BLACKS!! Asians suffer dearly in America, and blacks do not. Black issues are flaunted happily in our most reverential media sources, while Asians are completely ignored. Asians are treated as 2nd class citizens in America - blacks are not.
In one episode of Fresh Off the Boat, Eddie Huang's character is fighting with a black kid for 2nd to last place. And guess who gets last place? Eddie Huang, the Asian kid. That totally reflects the state of America these days - Asians are at the bottom. Blacks are not. Blacks are actually shocked when I tell them the way I'm treated by everyone. They seriously don't go through anywhere near what I go through.
Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)
Obviously made by Portland hipsters; a film elitist's dream
As usual, movies like this gets raves from critics and others who consider themselves film connoisseurs. My friend thought it was REALLY good, as did most critics and anyone who watched the film. And as usual, my issue isn't with the film itself, like the cinematography, story, or voice acting. It's with social and cultural issues underlying it. It's about Japan. Many Westerners know Japan from anime, manga, and cosplay. This film is none of that; Portland hipsters aren't really into that type of stuff.
As an Asian American, many things about this film, and the cultural underpinnings that led to it, feels troublesome and uncomfortable to me. First off - the look of the Japanese characters. Why does Kubo have such strange, chunky, oil-slick sort of hair? He doesn't look anime, but his look, and well as all the other Japanese characters, is a Westerners' envisioning of an Asian. Actual Japanese artists would not make him look like that - especially not the odd, piece-y hair. Is his mom supposed to be considered a beauty? Real Japanese people would not draw/create attractive Japanese women like that.
I know that Portlanders and other liberal Americans LOVE Japanese culture - while looking down on and under-appreciating some other major Asian cultures that have contributed greatly to the world over the centuries. There are so many painful things about American films, one review can't begin to do justice.
This definitely will cause the world (ok, film buffs in the US) to have a different and more open-minded view of Japan. Few of us know that it's full of gorgeous forests, outdoor beauty, and supposedly some supernatural sort of mythology. I'm not Japanese, and it opened my eyes to that - supposedly. I assumed that Kubo was based on some Japanese folktale, but it's not. I searched the web and could find no evidence for this. It seems the filmmakers were inspired by Japan in some way, and set about making a film on it, in the elitist hopes of "diversity." The film is definitely an Americans' fantasy, though. I doubt much of it is accurate. Can any Japanese weigh in on this?
Most films are just very unsettling to me. Kubo is actually pretty whitewashed; the way Kubo and the others talk, act, and think sound like white people. It isn't how Japanese or Asians act or think. It's not very culturally Japanese or Asian, other than taking place there, and having superficial Japanese elements like origami. It's definitely a Westerners' envisioning of Japan, and again, probably not very accurate. Movies are very influential, so that can mislead very large numbers of people with wrong information.
Like so much of my everyday life, it's like white people trying to obliterate another culture, practically make it white, and dream up the elements in their own way. My friend LOVED Kubo, but being non-Asian, he didn't find any of it painful or unsettling. He REALLY enjoyed seeing the "Asian" people in the movie - white people's stereotypes of what Asians should look like. Many people are Japan buffs, and non-Asians who like Asian culture would find a lot to like about this film. Just remember it's a total fantasy created by Portlanders, with very little accuracy in anything.
On the bright side, the film is visually stunning. I adored certain scenes, like the floating lanterns in the river, the guy who turned into a lighted-up dragon, and the stars in the cabin while Kubo was playing his instrument. This type of intelligent-yet-entertaining film is every film geek's dream, so I'm sure it's an Academy Award contender for Best Animated Film, Best Cinematography, etc. In fact, it might even win Best Animated Film. Dumber animated films like Zootopia aren't really trying to prove anything, like Kubo is. At least Zootopia was unpretentious, just a silly, funny family film that's not trying to be much.
Kubo definitely reflects the state of filmmaking, the type of people who become filmmakers, and film buffs these days. It all feels like some sort of major subculture in the US. These are the people who are driving the culture these days. They need to be careful because whatever they're putting out there is very influential and will affect the perception of the masses.
My ratings tend to seem high compared to the criticisms in my review, but I go with whatever number feels right to me. It's an excellent film in terms of cinematography and animation, and the story is more sophisticated than most. But all the sociocultural crap is painful, and it's really a refection of Americans and how they view Asians and other cultures. This film reminds me of the almost patronizing vibe of a similar progressive Americans' film - Mira Nair's "Queen of Katwa." So much of filmmaking these days, and film fests, and those who claim to be film buffs, reflect this whole "diversity"-loving but patronizing progressive subculture. That's actually a dominant culture in the US and the West, not exactly a subculture, at least when it comes to artsy stuff like films.
Arrival (2016)
Interesting "puzzle," like M. Night Shyamalan films - but very anti-China/Chinese
I thought this was a good movie, for the most part. It had a nice story, fine cinematography, a cerebral "puzzle," moving moments, and decent acting. I thought this would be nominated for a few Academy Awards. This reminds me of M. Night Shyamalan films - sophisticated puzzles, a "think piece," a bit gimmicky.
Racism and stereotypes are rampant in most US films. Arrival is based on a short story by Ted Chiang. He's Chinese American, but none of his stories have ANYTHING Asian in them. In the film, they put in the usual "China-is-the-bad-guy" crap - nothing new. They ALSO decided to make the white woman the SAVIOR who reforms the evil Chinese general. That's as old as Hollywood itself. A similar film is Anna and the King (1999), where Jodie Foster, the mighty and attractive white woman, comes to save the day. She "reforms" the backwards, misogynist Thai king played by Chow Yun-Fat. White people fixing up bad, backwards Asians is as old as time itself. And it insinuates itself into EVERYTHING, not just films.
Basically, US films, including Arrival, loves hammering in this:
**White = good, right, almighty **Asian/Chinese = wrong, backwards, evil, exclude, look down on
In the short story that Arrival was based on, Chiang failed to have ANYTHING Asian in it. That's the way he thinks and operates - every one of his 15 stories only have WHITE PEOPLE. To be an Asian American and to ONLY have whites in ALL your stories - what does that mean?! He thinks he's white, only hangs out with whites, and is, basically, white. For some reason, the film deviated from the story in that they decided to throw in an evil Chinese general who's out to destroy the universe. Maybe the Quebecois director decided to throw that in, and it had the COMPLETE approval of Chiang.
Chiang's one of the plentiful Chinese Americans who hate China and anything Chinese. That's a given - we grew up in a country that really hates us, so we hate ourselves and try to get as far away from our ancestral roots as possible. Chiang even wrote a New Yorker article bashing Chinese characters and claiming it's far inferior to English and Indo-European languages. Okay!
The guy who played the Chinese general is some actor named Tsi Ma. He has a long & acclaimed career, though none of us have heard of him. Despite his authoritative presence in the film, you can see Amy Adams looks down on him. See her face as she faces him in the grand party scene - she loses her usual pretty look and just looks blah. She's seeing a plain, slant- eyed Chinese man, and she finds his look, and his self, unappealing. That sums up how all people see Chinese people - even those with illustrious careers & an authoritative presence.
Adams' Mandarin is absolutely atrocious in the film. It shows that she really doesn't like the Mandarin language, or Asian people. She doesn't BOTHER to want to learn to pronounce those few lines better. This reminds me of the time Emma Watson & Daniel Radcliffe spoke some Mandarin, and Watson butchered it in the most embarrassing way. That's because she, and most people, simply have no respect or love for the Chinese. If Adams was supposed to speak, say, a French line instead, she'd try harder to pronounce it better, because she subconsciously loves and respects French better than Chinese. That's because everyone reveres white/European culture, while looking down Chinese, at least subconsciously.
Also, I have no idea why Adams' character spoke Mandarin to the Chinese general on the phone, and then he spoke perfect English to her when they met. This shows that people think Chinese don't know any English. Leave it to the mighty white woman to bow down to the backwards Chinese by speaking (terrible) Mandarin - when pretty much all high-level leaders in the world speak FLUENT English, including, apparently, this general when they met in the ball scene. So if her Mandarin is bad, and his English is perfect, why does she speak her poor Mandarin to him on the phone?! It was so bad I didn't understand ONE word she said.
People who hated the film can point out a lot more plot holes besides this one. There are so many contradictions - the filmmakers really didn't have their head on straight.
In the short story, the daughter died of a rock climbing accident at age 25. But in the film, she died of cancer/leukemia as a young teen. It really would've been more interesting if they stuck with the short story on this one.
The love interest in the short story was named Gary, but in the film, they changed his name to Ian. I guess Gary doesn't sound sexy for a love interest these days. The story was written in 1998, and I'm not sure Gary even sounded sexy back then. But I don't think Chiang meant for him be sexy - he's a theoretical physicist, for heaven's sake. But in a film, you need cool, attractive characters, so Ian it is. Jeremy Renner might be considered attractive in an odd way, but he lacks charisma and presence. He seems really boring.
Adams looks young for 42, thanks to celebs' constant use of Botox. She has an enviable nose job that gives her a perfect front and profile view. I think she got the same plastic surgeon as Jennifer Connelly because they have very similar slim, pointy, perfect noses. Adams only rose to fame after her successful plastic surgery - like so many other actresses, e.g., Catherine Zeta- Jones, Nicole Kidman. No one looks this perfect without going under the knife
Fresh Off the Boat (2015)
I can only see non-Chinese/Taiwanese liking this show
This show is groundbreaking in that it stars an Asian American family, and it's been longer-running and better-received than All-American Girl. But it does a disservice to Chinese and Taiwanese Americans. I can see why Eddie Huang left the show after the first season - the show IS "cornstarch," as he said. It's sanitized. The "stereotypes" on the show are too lightweight and obvious. I can see that an actual Asian American, Eddie Huang, really didn't have much say on the show, so course he left it. ABC really wanted to sanitize the show for American audiences, but that only hurt Asian Americans as a result.
I've only heard non-Chinese praise the show, such as Indian Americans and whites. Indian Americans can pretend to know what it's like being Chinese/Taiwanese American, but they'll never know. People who look Chinese are bullied and abused way more than Indians, who look vaguely Caucasian. Eddie Huang's story is one of being viciously bullied by white kids growing up, and this show obviously doesn't reflect the difficulties that Asians go through.
I don't have a problem with Randall Park, a Korean American, playing the dad in the show. After all, he is East Asian and can probably pass for Chinese/Taiwanese. But Forrest Wheeler playing the middle son - that's going too far. Wheeler is hapa, half Asian and half white, and he looks like it. A hapa CANNOT substitute for a full Asian. Anyone can tell that Wheeler is part white. And Constance Wu looks too young to be the kids' mom - at the start, she was only about 31, and her oldest son was a 12-year-old. She also looks too pretty to be a clueless, fobby mom who's excluded by the white suburban women. At her level of attractiveness, it seems she would get away with a lot in real life, fobby or not.
This show is pretty painful to watch for me. Asian American advocates might praise the show, but only the ones who don't know what it's like to be constantly stereotyped and treated poorly as a Chinese/Taiwanese American.