Reviews

A theatrical, strangely bizarre and oddly funny piece where we are both the Frankenstein God and the incestuously regenerative creation where reborn means rediscovery of things and Bella the creation or the monster or the baby however you wish to call it is driven to go forward by both carnal pleasure and curiosity. It is a world where heaven is a forgiving protective Victorian lab and outside of that is a Dante Purgatorio adventure that houses our evolved notion of civility, morality, innocence, power, inequality, love, possessiveness and freedom. In the end, this Frankenstein God is only mortal, but the legacy he gave Bella is the gift of freedom from which she gains wisdom and skill and with which she uses for justice. It is a story of life and if you really want to know who are the "poor things"? We are.

Anatomy of a Fall: The story seemingly is about the proof of innocence over the cause of a fatal fall of a man. That proof rests on the testimonial of his son whose mother, the wife of the deceased is the suspect. At the end of the movie, my friend whom I saw the movie with asked if I thought the son lied in order to save his mom. My answer was it really is immaterial one way or the other for I don't think the film is about criminal justice. That kind of Judeo-Christian legal morality of crime vs. Punishment is best left for the American. The French are more interested in human angst and its inter-relationships. If you take my view on the film, then the "fall" in the title can be more than just about a physical phenomenon of gravitational force and the resulting death. It can be something more metaphorical in implication. In this case for the characters involved, it can be the fall from endearment, the fall from self worth and the fall from trust. If this is the essence of the Film, therefore, the question is no longer about serving justice but about recovery and redemption from fall of trust and endearment. Especially when that trust and endearment is being tested to breaking point. The irony is if you take that metaphorical approach, that French approach, you will still come full circle back to framework of Judeo-Christianity preaching. For forgiveness and embracing after hurt is also a form of dealing with injustice.

A movie that is represented by names of two songs, a Chinese one for the film's Chinese title and "Fly Me to the Moon" for its English title with each suggesting one side of the common and yet different views of the unattainable or the wishful, where we live on by doing our best in spite of life's short falls and where we find solace and comfort that may seem small in gestures to most, but are actually significant in meaning to the giver and perhaps even the recipient for we are bonded together as humans. The film places us as silent observers by gently ripping open the curtain and leads us into lives of a family of mainlanders who try to survive, integrate, sustain as a family and grow as individuals in the metropolis of Hong Kong. The realism and the subtleties of the portrayals is a tribute to the artistry and craftsmanship of the director and the cast. Here I get to see once again, the superb performance of Kang Ren Wu. But because the approach in this film is very cinéma vérité, the camera decidedly took a more distance, more observing and more detached approach. Therefore, sometimes I wish I could get more involved with the characters through stronger dramatization by way of the cinematography and the editing. But that's just a matter of choice by the convention of the chosen style. Other than the performances, the cinematography, the art direction, the editing and the music are harmoniously orchestrated together into a symphony of how life is making the best of what it got because this is life. In closing, this is a film which I highly recommend. Just the performances are worth the price of the ticket.

Given the tsunami of film entertainment out there, new and old combined, to find such a rare and exquisite gem of mastery is extraordinary and delightful. Akin to how I imagine Sir Richard Attenborough might have felt when he discovered a new and beautiful life form. This film tops my chart and I saw it twice in a week just to sustain that satisfying glow. It is masterful not because it has a high concept, which requires an out of the box view on things and that is hard to do, but it is even harder in my book to explore something that is utterly common and do it exceptionally well. In this case the word to describe this film is a mild and gentile one from the English language. That word is: "belong", and "belong" is the theme of the film. The idea of belonging, however benign it is as a word, actually underscores the foundation of our humanity, gives meaning to our existence and rewards us with happiness. The film is set in Malaysia, a multicultural world in which if you have not been properly assigned, accepted and therefore belonged, you become an underclass and an outcast, and this is the story of two brothers who in their utmost try to belong, to be included within the mainstream as a necessity for survival. But beyond that, there is an even closer and more intimate circle of belonging and that is one of kinship. Brother to brother and father to son. This is where the story hits the hardest and explores the deepest. But an idea alone does not make a great film. It is the execution of that by way of the medium and this is where the mastery of the artistry lies. This one has it all. The three names to remember from this film are Lay Jin Ong the director, Kang Ren Wu who played the elder brother Abang and Jack Tan who played the younger brother Adik. That said, the entire cast is also magnificent. Last but not least, special honor should also be given to the actor who played "Auntie Money" but whose name escaped me. Given how well-crafted this is, how deeply it touches, I predict this will be an Oscar contender and I certainly hope I am right in my prediction.

Quite a thought-provoking show with excellent art direction, a fantastic music score (Hans Zimmer) and some very engaging performances by John David Washington and Madeleine Yuna Voyles who did an exceptional job as Alphie. I seldom expect to be moved by sci-fi movies for that is not their usual intention. Their usual intention is to use the future to comment on the present. However, this one did move me as a result of those two actors. Another sci-fi movie which also touched me deeply happens to be the original A. I. On the thought-provoking part which has to do with the script, this one is an amalgamation of A. I. in that A. I. is also embodied in the form of a child and the movie Terminator, which is a combat for survival between "orga" and A. I. infused "mecha". The twist here is that the theme is somewhat color-coated by our current popular pseudo-progressive dynamics using racial hegemony as an undercurrent and not just racial hegemony per se, but in broad strokes form of the west vs. The East. Given the context of our current real-world geopolitics in which there is actually a contention involving A. I. between the west and China in an arm race to prevent or to start a war, this possible sub-layering of reference has given the film a whole new possible interpretation. With that as a given, it is still a very good show regardless and hopefully it may draw some of our minds to ask deeper real world questions about our presence, which is the real purpose of science fiction.

Beautifully shot in 99.9% B&W from a very leftist perspective about the eternal legacy of power, corruption, greed and wealth using vampirism as a metaphor. Here the church in the embodiment of a condescending nun, who though in nature should be the liberator of vampire souls, is in reality secretly in pursuit of the same forces through lust. It's really quite bizzare, surreal, expressionistic, kind of incomprehensible and black as black comedy can be. The humor can suddenly jump at you and make you laugh and it has some famous political figures in it to set its political stance. Watch it if you want to experience something mesmerizing but weird from the other dimension.

Absolutely sensational, 1st rate and deeply felt. Very iconic in my knowledge of the genre. While not knowing what to expect, 3 questions came to mind as I was watching this. The 1st question happened about 1/3 into the film: could this be done as a straight film? And soon after the mid point, my answer was "no". The second question came a little after my 1st question: could this be something other than Japanese? The answer was also an affirmative "no". The 3rd question was why the title (English) "Egoist"? That had me wondered until the story took a sharp turn which I am not telling, but the answer is related to the question of "true love". I am among those who believe that there is a sense of altruistic giving in true love, but behind this lofty ideal, we must not forget as human and no matter how altruistic we are, there is always an underlying incentive of reward for the giver and this is the premise of the story. Henceforth, the title. On the genre "gay films". I shall begin with a personal story. When I was studying at AFI, Sherry Lansing, an executive at one of Hollywood major studios came to talk. She told us excitingly that there will be a new picture from Hollywood that would rewrite how gays were being portrayed. That gays will be presented in a more positive light. No longer as victims, as side casts, or as deviants and definitely unapologetically. The film was "La Cage Aux Folles" - the 1978 version. That also turned out to be a huge success. If you understand film to be a form of popular culture, not only to be enjoyed by the mass but also to time stamp the mass as history and as a collective, then films are certainly there to mark changes in attitude as well. Other which performed as milestone markers for me are "Boys in the Band", "Torch Song Trillogy", "Happy Together"(for HK), "Lan Yu" (for China), "Milk", "Philadelphia", "Dallas Buyers Club", "Call me by your Name" etc... Other than the Asian ones I mentioned and among those that I am not calling out, these films marked changing attitudes and perceptions about gays in society. For "Egoist", it certainly marked a very distinct attitude in the context of time, space and culture and presented these attributes in a more philosophical question on love and altruism. Finally a good word for the two actors who delivered their performances with much subtleties and believability. A word of warning for those who are prudish before you go rushing into the cinema. There are enough fairly explicit love scenes to raise your eyebrows. So there!

Tar is a very complex film because you can look at it in different ways. To the obvious, it is a film about Tar, a female conductor, but if you look again, it is a film more so about the world in which Tar presides than about Tar the person herself. That particular universe in which Tar is the center is a realm to itself, a Vatican like private club that is above and beyond the comprehension of most common people in terms of tastes, cultural sophistication and subtle privileges. How this is conveyed in the film is how this is revealed to the audience. As an audience, you are never being fully invited inside the parlor, to sit among the characters and savor every tidbit of the drama that is unfolding in front of you. Instead, you sit outside of the room and are only able to catch snippet of conversations because the door is left ajar just enough for you to eardrop, and unless you are well versed in who's who in the pantheon of classical giants and the intellectual discourse in music theories, the recurring name-dropping shop talks and the sharp tongue ripping of a student in lecture might just leave you in awe and snubbed at the same time. Now this is when that universe takes the stage, becomes a character and speaks to you. One may ask why is this characterization of the universe so important? It is important because the film is a journey of Tar traversing into her own Dante Inferno and the realm from which she has fallen has to have a strong presence for you to appreciate how far she has fallen and what she has lost. In "Prelude to Hell" of Dante Inferno, Dante came across three beasts representing three types of sins. One of the beasts is a she-wolf and she stands for incontinence, the lack of self-control over lust and sexual desire. It is this type of solicitous impropriety over underlings, with Tar's given position and power, is the raison d'etre for her falling from grace. The analogy cannot be more apparent in the scene where Tar tries to follow Olga, her latest loved and prized junior member of the orchestra, after they say goodbye to each other, to try to give Olga back her teddy bear. There lost in her way, Tar descends into the heart of a decrepitated ruin only to be surprised and chased by a wolf like beast which caused Tar to tripped and injured herself. That reenactment with the beast from Dante's story foreshadows Tar's fast track to her own inferno. As a film, I think it is too long at the front end, but Cate Blanchett, even though her character is very self-centered and does not interact much with other characters, is extremely captivating to watch.

Historically based films almost always use the past to comment or reflect on the present, and "Full River Red" is no exception. This is directed by Zhang Yimou, the person who brought you "Hero", a film that suggests unification trumps tyranny and thus making tyranny forgivable. The tyrant in that story was Qin Shi Huang, an emperor who burned books and buried scholars alive by the mass. In the case of "Full River Red", it borrows from the legendary story surrounding the hero of Yue Fei by using Qín Huì, the person who purportedly was instrumental for Fei's death, as the pivotal character to spin an intriguing story not so much about loyalty and betrayal to the emperor as one would expect from the plot, but interestingly sidelining the climax to a different focal point about awakening the army to pledge allegiance to Fei's defense of the Sung's dynastic unity. That was a call to battle for the army to claim land that was lost to the invading Jin. How this point becomes the focusing nexus for the entire film was at that very scene, the army recite in chorus the famous Fei's poem: "Full River Red ", and that recitation was built to a powerful climatic high point of emotional crescendo. This is what the story is really about. Army allegiance to defend territorial integrity. A sentiment that is in harmony with the current context of Sino-geopolitical ambition from the Chinese Communist Party perpetual helmsman Xi's perspective. Looking back at the message from "Hero" to now, you may say "Full River Red" is an extension of that same sentiment. That said, Zhang also brought you "To Live" in his earliest works. A film that shows empathetically from the inside the harrowing plight of Chinese nationals as they try to adept and survive in the topsy turvy political turmoil of China, especially under the Cultural Revolution and the ruling thumb of the Chinese Communist Party. That grassroot perspective is not lost in "Full River Red" either. If you look beneath the sophisticated and well-polished veneer of the film which serves subtly as a Party instrument calling for army's loyalty to defend national integrity, you will see beneath that veneer the overbearing stench and corruption coming from omnipotent power, the callous self-serving use of others, and the maneuvering skills one needs to stay alive where personal truth and integrity if there are any are always best kept close to the chest. As said so at the beginning of my review, historical films are to use the past to reflect and comment on the now and this is exactly what Full Red River is doing. As such, you can say it is propagandistic.

I finally saw it before it disappears into nowhere and all of a sudden. I think the movie is really about us. Not just Asian women, not just women in general, but also men as well. Just ask any dads to see if not most of them also worry about their sons not living up to certain paternal expectations, which may be some subliminal extensions of their unfulfilled alter egos or selves? That said, I think that male paternal psyche if it exists may be more oriental than occidental in general. Crazy movie. Very funny and side splitting performances from everybody. This may be a new trend in the dramatic structure of storytelling.

As a person who is intrigued by the art of cooking and the presentation of macabre and mayhem in a good movie, this has always been a wanted one to see for a while but time and distraction forbade that till now, and I am glad I did because it was a very satisfying titillation as both a visual presentation of culinary arts and though not so much a cinematic macabre and mayhem, it was instead an intellectual food for thoughts on the similitude between cooking and life. For example, whether both should be guided by a purposeful planning? Or as chef or life planner or both, we crave worthy recognition for our achievements? Or whether regardless of which hat we wear, we should have an excectitude for excellence or nothing? Or in persue of excellence as a bait for accolades, one would eventually become a self-agrandizing soulless crowd pleaser? As the film progresses towards the closing curtain, I wonder how this will end? Will it become obligatory happy with the police come charging in or blackly tragic where death prevails bar none. I am glad the ending was more elevated than those conventions and that's why the satisfaction for me was in the food for thought.

This one has the same awesome and riveting impact on me as "A Ghost Story" or "Nomadland" or "The Power of the Dog" because of how it breaks the obligatory convention of its genre and stands as a unique iconoclastic beacon of its own. I am not going to disclose the story for that is also quite unique. As far as the story is concerned, it will come to you if you sit through the initially ambiguous but very intriguing plot and the likelihood that Australian may sound nothing like English to you. (fortunately, there are subtitles). The things that grabbed me the most are the orchestration of its cinematic components which is just brilliant. The design of the sound tracks, the pictorial composition of the shots, and the editing all has this very unique flavour to them. Much like the marks of finger prints, but above that all, it is the acting that kept me to my seat. Joe Edgerton and especially Sean Harris are simply just ace. The show has 2 wins and 16 nominations. This film is so good I simply can't recommend it enough.

Although it is called the "Glass Onion", it really doesn't qualify as a REAL "who did it?" onion for a real detective onion throws you clues to test your deductive prowess and then the good ones surprise you logically as to who the real culprit is. This one is too quick to tell you cluster by cluster all the mitigating logic and how things are before speed rushing you to the next plot point to do pretty much the same thing all over again. Given that, I had already second guessed who is the real villain is two third into the show and just sat back and wait for it to come. Meanwhile, what was interesting to watch was the Mardi Gras like production (the art direction, especially the set design). It does have a real fun opening that perked up my expectations quite a bit. All in all, quite entertaining as a whole. Good if you want to sit back and just take in the ride.

I finally saw it before they take it off. Normally, I have some trepidation about movies that's about movies, especially the bad ones because sometimes the pathos are a little thick and heavy for my taste. Just like a bad class I shouldn't have taken. But this one isn't because it is actually a love story on a human scale and a love story it is in every sense of the word. The thing I wasn't expecting was the John Ford bit and it was on an interesting and famous line about good vs bad placement of the horizons in shots. Most people might think that was about pictorial composition but I have a slightly different view. I think what Mr. Ford meant about interesting is not just about balancing for pictorial composition. I think he meant to make the "character" interesting and in his films, the "big country" is not a back drop, it is a character. To him that requires proper treatment to stand out as such and to make that boring just wouldn't cut it.

After finishing all 5 seasons of The Crown, I have come to conclude Her Majesty the Queen was the Crown and the portrayal of her in the series made me love and respect her even more for being the true sovereign and spiritual helmsman of the nation. There was also a bit of HK in the final episode which was sad for me to watch. The show is top craftsmanship at its best, especially in the writing and the production. Episode 6 of season 5 in particular shows the virtuosity in story structure, which begins with the execution of the Tsar and ends with an insight on how to find peace within the Royal marriage. Although when it comes to some of the castings of this season, there are some minor blemishes but I can forgive that.

I hypothesize that aggression and sex co-exist near each other in our brain for they both reward us with pleasure and gratification. Otherwise, how else can you explain away that in all cultures, cussing is always in the form of aggressive sexual expletives? I think our evolution as social animals mandated us to separate violence from sex as a fundamental survival contract between us. A code of right and wrong for coexistence as species. As for this story which is a true story, it is about a young man where his barrier of separation between sex and violence had broken down and the pleasure he had gotten from the combined both became an addictive intoxication which led him to become a predatorial serial killer for the pleasure of his own sexual fantasies. This is a finely crafted series looking to become an Emmy Award contender. Or maybe even Emmy winners, especially for the stellar performances from Evan Peters and Richard Jenkins. Just ace! I do have some quibbles though. The first has to do with the script, it shifted focus from Jeff Dahmer to one of his victims in the second half as a lead-in to espouse on racism. Even though the introduction of the character Tony Hughes was clever, but racism is really a different form of victimization. I think the story pounded too heavily on this point which to me becomes a diffusion more suitable for a different angle and another story based on the same plot. The other quibble I had was how John Wayne Gacy was brought into the story. It was an unnecessary and exploitative spotlight on him just for the sole purpose of underscoring a few lines about repentance from Jeff. My final verdict is a high recommendation but only if you are not offended by the shock of male sex and shocking violence.

It is REALLY quite good 😊. Reminded me of John Hughes "16 Candles", "The Breakfast Club" and his overall touches on the subject of teenagers. There is also a bit of "Wayne's World" because of the chosen music style (heavy metal) but this one is less over the top and less cartoonish by comparison. The three leads (Jaeden Martell, Adrian Greensmith and Isis Hainsworth) made their characters so watchable and so engaging. Last by not least, the head bobbing music track is just fantastic. Highly recommended.

I went in the cinema with high hopes, but it turned out to be something I least expected and all I can say is: "It was interesting." Like most people, I have fallen in love with the mythological persona of Diana. Mythological because I don't know her personally, but from the media, including the news, the books and other films which together had given us enough of a rich portrayal to understand her as a person behind the title. This movie is disappointing because it did not enrich my feeling for Diana a single iota. Reason being it was done with such heavy handedness. Instead of being empathetical to her as a person, it put her up on a soap box, gave her a megaphone and almost caricaturized her as a result. The lines to me were bluntly written to the tune of being theatrical like that for a play. Even the metaphors were laid on thick, the pearls in the soup, or dropping the eight ball for example. If this is about how suffocating it can be to be royalties in the House of Windsor, then it should find inspiration from the renowned series: "The Crown". Take season 1 for example, the character of Princess Margaret was done with such depth and subtlety that you feel for her as a person behind her blue blood. The power is in less is more in which intensions came out between the lines. This is to the credit of excellent writing, acting and directing working seamlessly together. Frankly, I think being British in the making of "The Crown" did have the advantage of knowing the nuances in their blood. Back to Spencer, I found those iconic dresses the character wore amusing because it did help to bring memories back of the real Diana.

Batman (2022) was a reset of the Batman saga literally from the top with a lengthy epic length of almost 3 hours long. The first screen version of Batman was a TV series, a duet with a Boy Wonder sidekick which dated back to the 60's. That was a squeaky-clean version of "POW!" and "KAPOW!" knockouts of the bad guys. A superhero "super" because he and Boy Wonder were the accompaniments to maintaining law and order, which was suggestively beyond the arms of the Gotham police. As time progresses, the movie version of Batman took an interim turn to become bigger, with more fantastic super-toys, to the point where he had outgrown the need of Robin the Boy Wonder to become "super" solo on his own. A design needed to offset some equally more diabolical and more showy "super" villains. At that time, Gotham was still simplistically polar in its good vs. Bad, but as our real world evolved into more and more complex and dualistic sophistry of relativism, Gotham also evolved accordingly. Batman becomes the Dark Knight. No longer is he the Adam West version. Now he has a dark spot in his heart, and vengeance in his drive for justice. Who cares if he is not puritanically good as long as he shines over the darkness of greater evil? In this latest version, the line between good and evil has become even less distinguishable. It has become a question of who between Batman and the Riddler is the more acceptable vigilante? A question of who can claim the moral higher ground, a question which was also asked in the movie "Seven". As a movie, Robert Pattison makes a visually compelling Batman to look at, in spite of the short fall in the script. For as a character, he was written with the depth of a cardboard standee. The direction did not help by giving him a lot of brooding closeups as if by abundance, we can actually see depth into Batman's soul. One peculiar nuance with this new version is Batman is being demystified to become a more common mortal, like the Paul Kersey character in those Death Wish movies for Batman is able to walk among the police of Gotham like Sherlock Holmes could among his bobbies. He is no longer the revered "dark knight" but the weird "vengeance" guy in a funny costume. Someone whom the police can barely tolerate. Also, new to this is the mystery of his true identity. It is a secret seemingly more important to Bruce than to others. The general curiosity in the matter among people seems perfunctorily halfhearted. My favorite parts in the movie are the detective style of storytelling, especially at the opening. Some of the fight scenes are also quite spectacular and finally, the kit out, stripped down, quasi stock racer of a bat mobile with that bad ass jet engine so exposed as the flaming butt hole of the car. The rawness and the attainableness of the whole design is just delightful.

You must understand the context in history which in the early 60s, before the morale of the world has evolved to our present time and before the 1967 Sexual Offences Act in Great Britain, which decriminalized gay sex, to appreciate the abhorrence at that time to the word "homosexuality" which as a result, spurred the following sequence of real events that put: "gay sex, love, shame, denial, power, politics and attempted murder" into one barrel of rather tragic and "sordid" mess. Fortunately, Stephen Frears lifted that piece of historical darkness with brilliance and empathy. Both Ben Whishaw and Hugh Grant were sensational to watch. Ben Whishaw gave Norman Scott, the jilted younger lover vulnerability and pure at heart while Hugh Grant, who played Jeremy Thorpe gave his character fear, denial, and depth. For Hugh Grant doing that character was a brave new move. The script was also masterfully written for two subtle reasons. First it is the use of "periodic sentences" in some of the dialogue to not just give them the power of emphasis in the right places but also used them as transitional connections into the next scenes. The second is the quiet disclosure of Thorpe's secret as to why he fell in love with Norman when pressed by his lawyer Emlyn Hooson. That secret was "safety and security" away from the violent dangers gotten from fleeting and unknown pickups. That nonchalant piece of revelation from Thorpe immediately elevates the film from a simple focus on a sensational historical trial into something broader in scope. It brings to light the social and legal context of risks one has to take when love is driven underground by criminalization.

Often when we look at gay romances in coming out stories, the norm that puts people in the closet is a set of stigmatizations that are way too familiar because they coincide with the contextual norms of our living world. They are there as canvas backdrop without us having second thoughts. This is where "The Young Royals" differs because here, gay romance is not being measured by ecclesiastical morality, but by the suggestive duty of royal expectations, legacy, and succession. Apart from being exceptionally cast and well plotted, the unique feature for me is the subtly indicative of the humanistic value that is so Swedish. Subtle cues of that are the casual inter-racial mix and the color-blindness of the student body, apart from the Wilhelm, Simon and Prince Erik, the anti-cliché necessity of placing good looks with the privileged, and the down-to-earth and sometimes almost commoner go-about of royalties. In this story, equality is almost across board except for the "villainess", but the class distinction is just on an individual level. I did try to mentally compare "Young Royals" with "Get Real" at first which is another exceptional British coming out story, but this is different because of that level of embedded humanistic world view. In closing, one must mention Edvin Ryding as Crown Prince Wilhelm. The connectivity, the sensitivity and the subtle depth of his performance is exceptional. A highly recommended show.

"Nomads" of the "Nomadland" as the title of the movie refers to is a tribe of wonderers who live with almost total detachment from the burden of material ties. Those material attachments can be your house, your belongings and even your human relationships. It is a way of life, a monastic shedding of all excessive "worldly enrichments" either by choice or by circumstances, and when life is reduced to that level of existence, it can be lonely like an island at times. This film is an actress show piece and much like "Joker" was for Joaquin Phoenix, I am quite sure "Nomadland" will most likely do the same in honoring Frances McDormand for she was absolutely riveting. To quote from "Ecclesiastes 5:15": "As he came naked from his mother's womb, so he will return as he came." this is the bare fact of existence and the movie puts you right in the middle of that statement as a reminder.

A truly delightful film. Reminds me so much of "Young Sherlock Holmes" as they are both adventure mysteries energized with protagonists who are in their teens. Very much like the Nancy Drew series. The catch for this one is it introduces Sherlock Holmes' younger sister Enola Holmes as the central character. It makes perfect sense because the intrigue for this one involves the emancipation of the fairer sex. The cinematography is scrumptious, and so were the trappings that came with the period. For me, the true delight was in watching both Millie Bobby Brown and Louis Partridge, who are the perfect toppings for this package. The only quibble I have is the over usage of talking to the audience, the "second person narrator" device which can be gimmicky and annoying sometimes.

Few books had me vicariously live the skin of the author through the character he wrote like "Catcher in the Rye" to the degree where I became obsessively curious about the man himself. That was me in my teenage years. To make matter worse, JD Salinger was almost reclusively private so there wasn't much to find out. Now with the film "Rebel in the Rye", that obsessive curiosity was perked once again. Unfortunately the film did not tell me anything more and I concluded Holden Caulfield might be the closest you will ever get to understanding JD. In the film, Nicholas Hoult played JD. He has this magnetic boyish charm that makes the screen version of Salinger enigmatically attractive, but the real surprise was seeing Kevin Spacey. Regardless of all else, Kevin is a superb actor and it shows again in this film. Lastly, a special mention on the wardrobe, especially those for the character JD which was beautifully chosen with a subtle and refine eye for matching palette and texture.

It's sublime not just because I came from the generation that drank milk from the Beatles' songs while growing up, it's sublime because the idea of the movie is so whimsically clever. If you were born not knowing who the Beatles were or what songs they did, this film is existentially about you and I hope you will get the full blast of woozy warm feelings when the songs played which was what they did to an old geezer like me.