I like Derek Lee and I really wanna like this movie. it starts out weird enough, with almost a high school propaganda portrayal of drug abuse, and then a hackneyed summary of drug abuse (you know, the one that goes "people abuse drugs to fill their voids"). Then the movie was followed by almost half an hour of great drama, detailing the main character Nick (played by Daniel Wu) and his interactions with the police, the drug network, and a single junkie mama (who looks more like a heroin model than a junkie mama). It introduces the great Andy Lau as a charismatic and very human drug lord. Then it suddenly switches back to the one-dimensional, almost laughable portrayal of junkies (followed by the worst makeup for a junkie I have ever seen and the worst motivation I've heard in a modern film for dope addiction), followed by a beautiful monologue by Andy Lau, explaining the modern Hong Kong drug chain...etc. This is when you realize that you're watching a schizophrenic movie. It is at heart some kinda simplistic anti-drug propaganda, determined to use any tool necessary to dissuade the innocent viewers of drug use, but at the same time, Derek Yee and the cast and crew seem to be far too intelligent and sophisticated to beat you over the head with the valuable life lesson. In the end we get a half-engaging, half laughably bad film. Derek Yee seems to have done his homework, and he seems to not only understand the world of drug both as a business and as a crime, but also to depict it beautifully and coherently for the average viewer. Unfortunately that understanding does not translate to the other half of the drug trade nor the movie, in which great actors do their best zombie/ drunk impressions in attempts to scare the viewers straight. It really is heartbreaking when something is only half good. It's a shame too, since real junkies live in much more pain and horror than the fake movie ones, and, for better or worse, anyone with any exposure to the streets (in any major city) these days can tell the difference between gritty realism and gritty caricature. Put it this way: if Zhang Jingchu's junkie reacts to withdraw the same way she reacts to a scary kungfu master in "Seven Swords", then it can't be that convincing. The good news is, you can always rent Half Nelson or The Wire, the latter pretty much is the movie The Protégé (and many many other movies and shows about drugs and crime) wants to me.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Larry David: Curb Your Enthusiasm
(1999 TV Movie)
not the show, this is a special
19 July 2004
this was an hour-long mockumentary (pilot?) made for HBO counting down Larry's days to his HBO comedy special. It exposed Larry David to the rest of the world, with a few bits that would later re-surface in the HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm", most notably the death in the family bit. It was really funny from beginning to end. It had to be one of the most convincing mockumentaries ever made, through a clever fusion of celebrity cameos, a real solid technical understanding of the "documentary" aesthetics (from the slightly "imperfect" composition to occasional on camera interviews), and a pitch-perfect satire. It was obvious that Larry David was putting on a routine, but the tone of the film was so dead-pan that David seemed distant enough for those kind of neurotic reactions. That, unlike Woody Allen's neurotic New York comic reacting to the LA phonies in "Annie Hall", David's interactions with the people around him were passive-aggressive enough to take place in the actual LA.
Compared to the series, it was more subdued and unpredictable, which made it a little slower and less funny I guess.
Compared to the series, it was more subdued and unpredictable, which made it a little slower and less funny I guess.
Elephant
(2003)
another artxploitation film this year
17 November 2003
just came back from it. the cinematography was beautiful. the movie itself was gleefully ignorant, indulgent, and exploitative.
it was gleefully ignorant because, as the filmmakers said so many times in so many interviews in prestigious film journals, it does not offer any "answer" to a high school shooting. It does not because the filmmakers didn't know the answers, and many critics started contending that nobody knew the answers, therefore Elephant was a great film because any answer would've done it injustice. So instead the filmmakers decided to do the next best thing it seemed: nothing. that's right, it was like Fred Wiseman's documentary "High School" with guns. The difference is that Wiseman's directed a documentary. He had real insights (not offered by himself, but by his subjects, which was organized by himself as the editor) into an actual high school. It was one of the first American "direct cinema" pieces, it was an attempt to capture "truth." Gus Van Sant had actors and fictional characters.
Which makes the film indulgent, because while a documentary of a REAL event, IF it strives real hard to stay unbiased, can afford to ask its viewers to "contemplate" on what was shown based on all the facts given--Elephant is imagined entirely by Van Sant and his improvising cast. He really is just asking us to contemplate what he's thought up, written, choreographed, and edited, which HE CLAIMS to be fair and unbiased because the usual bag of cinematic tricks is not present for the cultural police within us to point out "hey, that's a shakesperian foreshadowing" or "hey, that's a leftist motif against homophobia!"
So essentially it's a film that says nothing and claims nothing with a spectacularly filmmed massacre in the end (but whoa, check it out, it's DIFFERENT--there's no blood squibs and the gunmen don't run slow motioned sideways with doves in the background! This s*** is ART yo!), which makes it, along with another recent fave Irreversible, an exploitation film. It claims to be nothing, then asks the audience to contemplate on that supposed nothing, all the while building up tension via multiple POV (multiple POV?! Like cubism?) and the payoff is a massacre shot with arthouse sensibilities.
But the film had to be this way. It could only be ignorant because how can Gus Van Sant provide any insight into something he has no understanding of? It had to be indulgent or how else can "nothing" last a feature film's length (or any length at all)? And it HAD to be absolutely exploitative or otherwise how would it get funded in the first place and generate so much controversy/ publicity?
and I have no idea why the filmmakers were so afraid to contrive an emotional bond between the viewers and the characters, or to provide any understanding into the character's psyches. it's not like a total lack of insight is the only way to stay "balanced" or "in perspective." Look at two other controversial American films, Do the Right Thing and Dead Man Walking. Both were fair in a way that characters and events were portrayed as multi-dimensional, lively, and very well laid-out. In both films, the characters are displayed intimately, with their deepest joy and sorrow depicted on screen. In Elephant, there are long and amazingly timed and choreographed tracking shots of familiar American high school archetypes, branded by how they look, and never fully realized. this is not any type of avant-garde filmmaking, or some kind of breakthrough in film narrative; this is well-crafted laziness.
to its credit, Elephant does make the viewers think; people seem to be debating about not only the film, but columbine, once again. But the debate, so far, sounds like the same exact debate brought up when everyone got his piece of the columbine info via Time Magazine and Newsweek.
Gus Van Sant's proved twice before already with Psycho In Color and Gerry that he can shoot whatever the hell he wants, and this whole Elephant success is only encouraging him.
it was gleefully ignorant because, as the filmmakers said so many times in so many interviews in prestigious film journals, it does not offer any "answer" to a high school shooting. It does not because the filmmakers didn't know the answers, and many critics started contending that nobody knew the answers, therefore Elephant was a great film because any answer would've done it injustice. So instead the filmmakers decided to do the next best thing it seemed: nothing. that's right, it was like Fred Wiseman's documentary "High School" with guns. The difference is that Wiseman's directed a documentary. He had real insights (not offered by himself, but by his subjects, which was organized by himself as the editor) into an actual high school. It was one of the first American "direct cinema" pieces, it was an attempt to capture "truth." Gus Van Sant had actors and fictional characters.
Which makes the film indulgent, because while a documentary of a REAL event, IF it strives real hard to stay unbiased, can afford to ask its viewers to "contemplate" on what was shown based on all the facts given--Elephant is imagined entirely by Van Sant and his improvising cast. He really is just asking us to contemplate what he's thought up, written, choreographed, and edited, which HE CLAIMS to be fair and unbiased because the usual bag of cinematic tricks is not present for the cultural police within us to point out "hey, that's a shakesperian foreshadowing" or "hey, that's a leftist motif against homophobia!"
So essentially it's a film that says nothing and claims nothing with a spectacularly filmmed massacre in the end (but whoa, check it out, it's DIFFERENT--there's no blood squibs and the gunmen don't run slow motioned sideways with doves in the background! This s*** is ART yo!), which makes it, along with another recent fave Irreversible, an exploitation film. It claims to be nothing, then asks the audience to contemplate on that supposed nothing, all the while building up tension via multiple POV (multiple POV?! Like cubism?) and the payoff is a massacre shot with arthouse sensibilities.
But the film had to be this way. It could only be ignorant because how can Gus Van Sant provide any insight into something he has no understanding of? It had to be indulgent or how else can "nothing" last a feature film's length (or any length at all)? And it HAD to be absolutely exploitative or otherwise how would it get funded in the first place and generate so much controversy/ publicity?
and I have no idea why the filmmakers were so afraid to contrive an emotional bond between the viewers and the characters, or to provide any understanding into the character's psyches. it's not like a total lack of insight is the only way to stay "balanced" or "in perspective." Look at two other controversial American films, Do the Right Thing and Dead Man Walking. Both were fair in a way that characters and events were portrayed as multi-dimensional, lively, and very well laid-out. In both films, the characters are displayed intimately, with their deepest joy and sorrow depicted on screen. In Elephant, there are long and amazingly timed and choreographed tracking shots of familiar American high school archetypes, branded by how they look, and never fully realized. this is not any type of avant-garde filmmaking, or some kind of breakthrough in film narrative; this is well-crafted laziness.
to its credit, Elephant does make the viewers think; people seem to be debating about not only the film, but columbine, once again. But the debate, so far, sounds like the same exact debate brought up when everyone got his piece of the columbine info via Time Magazine and Newsweek.
Gus Van Sant's proved twice before already with Psycho In Color and Gerry that he can shoot whatever the hell he wants, and this whole Elephant success is only encouraging him.
Pinpon
(2002)
a transcendent film!
23 October 2003
"[...]transcendent moments are in short supply these days."
--Martin Scorsese, on Wes Anderson
At first I was very skeptical about this movie, because the ads made it sound like a shaolin soccer ripoff, you know, a movie that takes a normal sport to a comically extreme level or something. Then I realized the movie was nothing like that--it didn't really have any of that over the top cg or any of that ingenious mo lit tao (an asian "nonsensical/ absurdist" type comedy, kinda neo-Groucho Marxian I guess) comedy of Stephen Chow. It was simply a very down to earth sports movie. what makes it so good? first and foremost, the characters. The movie depicts the relationship between two high school guys on the ping pong team--Peco and smile. Peco is the crazy genius ping pong player seen beating some college champ for money in the first scene, while Smile ("they call him that because he never does") his nerdy awkward buddy who envies Peco's talent. Peco's dream is to be the best ping pong player "on the planet" while Smile just wants to play for fun. But then we realize that maybe Peco isn't so good after all, and maybe Smile is the real genius who concedes on purpose because he just wants to play for fun, not for victory.
Then there is the hot shot player from Shanghai (hong kong's Sam Lee of Gen-X Cops); the militant, all-bald rival ping pong team dressed in all black; the crazy granny with her own "ping pong dojo" and a frustrated coach named "Butterfly Joe"--all of them sounding like real familiar sports movie archetypes, but there is a twist at the end of every scene, when we realize that they are a lot more human than anything we've seen in a long time. For instance, the Shanghai hotshot is under constant stress because he knows he's just a failed junior national player in China, playing against Japanese high school kids to feed his own complex ("I coulda gone to Germany, I coulda gone to Sweden..." he keeps on telling himself). And ironically, these are orginally comicbook characters.
The actors are really good--probably too old for high school roles, but they display a real innocence, and that makes you forget that the main guy's got smoker's teeth of a 25-year old. The little kids that play the younger version of the high school characters are especially nice. My favorite parts of the movie are the flashback sequences interspersed throughout the movie when Smile keeps on remembering a young Peco with the mask of a popular manga robot hero from the 60's, proclaiming "enter the hero!" in front of a temple. Those kids are so natural, and so confident, but not jaded like those TV kids. Either that or they are so jaded they are fooling me.
The music is good too, just like the rest of the movie, it has a real innocence about it. it's just catchy electronic pop, but never crosses the line to being stupid or bad or cheesy pop, at least not in the context of the film. The energy is high, and it attacks in short assaults--it comes in, drops out before you realize it, then attacks again. Half of the movie is carried through ambient noises, but the sound design does an excellent job of creating that sense of rhythm in a ping pong hall, between the cheers and the conversations, just a symphony of crispy ping pong sounds, layered with heavy breathing and the echoy sneakers. It is intense.
The style in which the movie's shot is real flashy, a lot of handheld work, mixed with a lot of crane. in fact, I don't think the movie used a dolly or steadicam at all--when the camera is not flying up and around the characters, it's following them step by step via handheld. and between all the cool extreme closeups and quick cuts, it also reminds you that this is a Japanese film by pulling all the way back and leave the characters on screen doing about their thing, free of extradiagetic sounds or any medium shots, Ozu-style. it's flashy but never obtrusive. I don't think there was any quick cut simply for the sake of showing off, but to simply elevate the tension of a ping pong game. there were some lengthy takes on the crane of two players going at it, uncut, with the assistance of some nice CG to show off the long takes, but those didn't last too long, and I think that's the only instance of showing off I can remember. and showing off isn't even a real crime, just a minor petty nit petty petty pick.
This movie reminds me in a lot of ways of Inoue's Slam Dunk, where gifted (and soulful) high school jocks center their lives around the sports, and the comedy and the drama just comes from how easily they have it and the tension between them and other people who try and try but just don't got it (but the story doesn't side with either of the party in these two instances). However, while Slam Dunk packs the plot and character development so tightly within the basketball games, where every point seems life and death--Ping Pong really isn't concerned about the games, and the message of the movie seems to be reminding us that hey, it's just a game, a beautiful, transcendent game.
--Martin Scorsese, on Wes Anderson
At first I was very skeptical about this movie, because the ads made it sound like a shaolin soccer ripoff, you know, a movie that takes a normal sport to a comically extreme level or something. Then I realized the movie was nothing like that--it didn't really have any of that over the top cg or any of that ingenious mo lit tao (an asian "nonsensical/ absurdist" type comedy, kinda neo-Groucho Marxian I guess) comedy of Stephen Chow. It was simply a very down to earth sports movie. what makes it so good? first and foremost, the characters. The movie depicts the relationship between two high school guys on the ping pong team--Peco and smile. Peco is the crazy genius ping pong player seen beating some college champ for money in the first scene, while Smile ("they call him that because he never does") his nerdy awkward buddy who envies Peco's talent. Peco's dream is to be the best ping pong player "on the planet" while Smile just wants to play for fun. But then we realize that maybe Peco isn't so good after all, and maybe Smile is the real genius who concedes on purpose because he just wants to play for fun, not for victory.
Then there is the hot shot player from Shanghai (hong kong's Sam Lee of Gen-X Cops); the militant, all-bald rival ping pong team dressed in all black; the crazy granny with her own "ping pong dojo" and a frustrated coach named "Butterfly Joe"--all of them sounding like real familiar sports movie archetypes, but there is a twist at the end of every scene, when we realize that they are a lot more human than anything we've seen in a long time. For instance, the Shanghai hotshot is under constant stress because he knows he's just a failed junior national player in China, playing against Japanese high school kids to feed his own complex ("I coulda gone to Germany, I coulda gone to Sweden..." he keeps on telling himself). And ironically, these are orginally comicbook characters.
The actors are really good--probably too old for high school roles, but they display a real innocence, and that makes you forget that the main guy's got smoker's teeth of a 25-year old. The little kids that play the younger version of the high school characters are especially nice. My favorite parts of the movie are the flashback sequences interspersed throughout the movie when Smile keeps on remembering a young Peco with the mask of a popular manga robot hero from the 60's, proclaiming "enter the hero!" in front of a temple. Those kids are so natural, and so confident, but not jaded like those TV kids. Either that or they are so jaded they are fooling me.
The music is good too, just like the rest of the movie, it has a real innocence about it. it's just catchy electronic pop, but never crosses the line to being stupid or bad or cheesy pop, at least not in the context of the film. The energy is high, and it attacks in short assaults--it comes in, drops out before you realize it, then attacks again. Half of the movie is carried through ambient noises, but the sound design does an excellent job of creating that sense of rhythm in a ping pong hall, between the cheers and the conversations, just a symphony of crispy ping pong sounds, layered with heavy breathing and the echoy sneakers. It is intense.
The style in which the movie's shot is real flashy, a lot of handheld work, mixed with a lot of crane. in fact, I don't think the movie used a dolly or steadicam at all--when the camera is not flying up and around the characters, it's following them step by step via handheld. and between all the cool extreme closeups and quick cuts, it also reminds you that this is a Japanese film by pulling all the way back and leave the characters on screen doing about their thing, free of extradiagetic sounds or any medium shots, Ozu-style. it's flashy but never obtrusive. I don't think there was any quick cut simply for the sake of showing off, but to simply elevate the tension of a ping pong game. there were some lengthy takes on the crane of two players going at it, uncut, with the assistance of some nice CG to show off the long takes, but those didn't last too long, and I think that's the only instance of showing off I can remember. and showing off isn't even a real crime, just a minor petty nit petty petty pick.
This movie reminds me in a lot of ways of Inoue's Slam Dunk, where gifted (and soulful) high school jocks center their lives around the sports, and the comedy and the drama just comes from how easily they have it and the tension between them and other people who try and try but just don't got it (but the story doesn't side with either of the party in these two instances). However, while Slam Dunk packs the plot and character development so tightly within the basketball games, where every point seems life and death--Ping Pong really isn't concerned about the games, and the message of the movie seems to be reminding us that hey, it's just a game, a beautiful, transcendent game.
Martial Arts of Shaolin
(1986)
jet's best fight scenes so far
14 June 2003
I saw this movie on the big screen here in boston a few weeks ago. I loved it. this was the jet back then, before he was lassoed down by the hong kong choreographers who are still wondering, 'til today, what to do with a five-time wushu champion of China. Jet got to show off his staff work, his broadsword, mantis fist, bagua zhang (the same kungfu the Evil Jet used in The One), his made up shaolin lohan fist, not to mention the kicks that he'd hardly perform anymore.
Lau Karleung had a lot to do with the fights looking so good as well, the fight scenes in first and second shaolin temple looked too much like live wushu sparring sets, too demo-like, but in this film Lau KarLeung really worked hard on intensifying the fight scenes and stylizing the hand-to-hand combat scenes. There were so many fight scenes, and each one of them looked different, emphasized on a different style/ technique...etc. There was even a fight scene with Jet dressed like a girl, pretending that he didn't know kungfu, and somehow defeating a bunch of soldiers. this was also the charming boyish, charismatic jet li that we hardly get to see anymore (not since Fong Sai Yuk anyways)--he was in drag, he was killing snakes for dinner, he had a crush...etc., and it was cute. The hoaky plot and music only added to it. The sentimental crap in this film wasn't too unbearable, kinda helped the film with its charms in fact.
So yeah, it was a good movie, and the fight scenes were incredible.
Lau Karleung had a lot to do with the fights looking so good as well, the fight scenes in first and second shaolin temple looked too much like live wushu sparring sets, too demo-like, but in this film Lau KarLeung really worked hard on intensifying the fight scenes and stylizing the hand-to-hand combat scenes. There were so many fight scenes, and each one of them looked different, emphasized on a different style/ technique...etc. There was even a fight scene with Jet dressed like a girl, pretending that he didn't know kungfu, and somehow defeating a bunch of soldiers. this was also the charming boyish, charismatic jet li that we hardly get to see anymore (not since Fong Sai Yuk anyways)--he was in drag, he was killing snakes for dinner, he had a crush...etc., and it was cute. The hoaky plot and music only added to it. The sentimental crap in this film wasn't too unbearable, kinda helped the film with its charms in fact.
So yeah, it was a good movie, and the fight scenes were incredible.
Better Luck Tomorrow
(2002)
tried too hard
24 April 2003
I went to "represent" earlier tonight. it wasn't a disappointment because I didn't expect much. I personally didn't like the movie. yes it had style and a twisted/shocking plot, but both were well within that "predictable" realm of things you're supposed to do when you're out of a film school. there is a lot of jump cuts/ pans/ swoosh pans/ slow motion/ sped-up motion/ music montage/ wideangles/ lowangles, freeze frame...etc (to my surprise, no split-screen). it even does that run lola run thing splicing in stills when doing character exposes. all of this seemed like they were done for the sake of flash instead of helping the story, supposed to give up this illusion of "energy" but I just wasn't feeling it, it felt too contrived; trying too hard to be cool. and it might've been innovative had not Guy Ritchie and every other "hot young" director not done this to death already.
I don't want to spoil the plot for you, but to me it just feels like film school storytelling--shocking for the sake of, just because that's NOT how a story is supposed to end, so it'll be "cool" if it does end this way. it's not very moving, not very insightful, and again, nothing very new. there is a bit of pulp fiction thrown in there, where shocking violence quickly turns into comedy when the characters bitch at each other trying to clean up the mess as if doing simple household chores. again, seen that all too often, in film schools, low budget movies, AND hollywood. then the storytelling technique itself is kinda a turnoff. it's narrated by the main character, who, in the beginning of the movie, tells you "how it all began"...etc., you know, Scorsese's characters love doing that, kinda film noir-esque quips, existentialist self-reflection after committing crimes or whatnot. this one follows pretty much the same formula: it starts out all innocent, then all that fun and games as they make money through criminal activity, then rock bottom...etc., as the main character's voiceover reflects on what he's done and describes everything he's going through in details. in this movie it doesn't do too much because 1) I don't think justin lin or any of the writer actually understands, or is interested in understanding, insights into the mind of a criminal, but instead it's just a lot of cliches from other crime pictures, and 2) the voiceover here seems almost as if it's trying to patch up the weak character development--so the director doesn't have to SHOW what the characters are going through, since they're saying it all already.
but there are things to like about this movie. the actors are all pretty good, most of them look too old to be 16 though. and the angle of asian americans is really nice, because it's not like joy luck club where it's so race-specific, where you're constantly reminded that you're watching chinese people, yet at the same time they're not "white-washed." the comedy for the most part is really nice and really funny, I just wish the tarantino funny moments in the end aren't there--'cause it's WAY too similar to the end of pulp fiction, even more so than like snatch. the crazy MTV editing style, while not too original and doesn't support the storytelling too much (as I've mentioned above), is pretty fun to watch. and the movie had a good IDEA (bad execution), trying to make a coming-of-age teen movie with a dark dark twist, ultimately it failed because it just got too caught up with that twist and everything else just kinda stopped so the filmmaker can show off what a crazy twist (which is not that crazy) it is. After you watch it you'll know what twist I'm talking about.
anyways, but I still want you to check it out because asian films need to be seen in order to convince the studios that a non-kungfu movie starring an all asian cast can make money.
I don't want to spoil the plot for you, but to me it just feels like film school storytelling--shocking for the sake of, just because that's NOT how a story is supposed to end, so it'll be "cool" if it does end this way. it's not very moving, not very insightful, and again, nothing very new. there is a bit of pulp fiction thrown in there, where shocking violence quickly turns into comedy when the characters bitch at each other trying to clean up the mess as if doing simple household chores. again, seen that all too often, in film schools, low budget movies, AND hollywood. then the storytelling technique itself is kinda a turnoff. it's narrated by the main character, who, in the beginning of the movie, tells you "how it all began"...etc., you know, Scorsese's characters love doing that, kinda film noir-esque quips, existentialist self-reflection after committing crimes or whatnot. this one follows pretty much the same formula: it starts out all innocent, then all that fun and games as they make money through criminal activity, then rock bottom...etc., as the main character's voiceover reflects on what he's done and describes everything he's going through in details. in this movie it doesn't do too much because 1) I don't think justin lin or any of the writer actually understands, or is interested in understanding, insights into the mind of a criminal, but instead it's just a lot of cliches from other crime pictures, and 2) the voiceover here seems almost as if it's trying to patch up the weak character development--so the director doesn't have to SHOW what the characters are going through, since they're saying it all already.
but there are things to like about this movie. the actors are all pretty good, most of them look too old to be 16 though. and the angle of asian americans is really nice, because it's not like joy luck club where it's so race-specific, where you're constantly reminded that you're watching chinese people, yet at the same time they're not "white-washed." the comedy for the most part is really nice and really funny, I just wish the tarantino funny moments in the end aren't there--'cause it's WAY too similar to the end of pulp fiction, even more so than like snatch. the crazy MTV editing style, while not too original and doesn't support the storytelling too much (as I've mentioned above), is pretty fun to watch. and the movie had a good IDEA (bad execution), trying to make a coming-of-age teen movie with a dark dark twist, ultimately it failed because it just got too caught up with that twist and everything else just kinda stopped so the filmmaker can show off what a crazy twist (which is not that crazy) it is. After you watch it you'll know what twist I'm talking about.
anyways, but I still want you to check it out because asian films need to be seen in order to convince the studios that a non-kungfu movie starring an all asian cast can make money.
The Dancer
(2000)
kinda terrible
4 June 2002
I just read a review that told me the female lead, star of this movie, was a dancer in real life. I'm no dancing machine, but she just didn't dance very well in this movie. Her moves looked exactly the same as all the extras who were in the movie. She just got framed a little more properly. At least choreograph something a little more interesting. For a movie about a dancer whose entire life was about dancing and mesmerizing others with her moves, she was wildy wildy wildy average. Don't expect any Janet Jackson or even Britney Spears. Expect the cool girl at a party somewhere in some college kid's parents' summer home. Another big complaint was the direction. This director, another protege of Luc Besson, did not know the American culture very well, or Americans very well, nevermind the subculture of hiphop. His car-commerical type green-and-red tone looked totally out of place. Many interesting cuts and wild camera movements, but added nothing to the movie. The way he filmed the actors, especially black actors, was very obvious through a foreigner's gaze. People looked objectified. And many sets in the movie--the audition studios, the clubs, the streets of New York, all looked like exaggerated versions of sets from other American movies. The director probably has never been to very many hip clubs. And nevermind the science labs. The sci-fi elements of this movie was grade-b tv material. It was offered late in the movie as some kind of cheap deus ex-machina. So a mute girl can't get respect as a dancer because she's mute, what does she do? Oh, just turn to a scientist whose new advice can turn your moves into post-new age electronic music that sounds like retreads from The Fifth Element (oh yeah, of course, and a little Bjork here and there just to be safe.)
The music and the images at no point of time really connected, it shows how far we've gone from those MGM musicals movies where the lines may be crappy and the filmmakers may be racist, but at least the dance sequences were good. Or 10 years ago when Michael Jackson was still making music videos.
But the movie is harmless, its visual is pretty smooth so you can turn off the sound and just kinda stare at it, kinda like a really colorful lava lamp. If you must watch it, it probably won't kill you.
The music and the images at no point of time really connected, it shows how far we've gone from those MGM musicals movies where the lines may be crappy and the filmmakers may be racist, but at least the dance sequences were good. Or 10 years ago when Michael Jackson was still making music videos.
But the movie is harmless, its visual is pretty smooth so you can turn off the sound and just kinda stare at it, kinda like a really colorful lava lamp. If you must watch it, it probably won't kill you.
Tell Your Friends