Change Your Image
aero-windwalker
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
3 Body Problem (2024)
A Mixed Bag
The "3 Body Problem" TV series is a commendable attempt and an improvement on the original book series. However, I had reservations about the source material, which seemed overly fixated on human characters, primarily of Chinese origin, from the 2000s. Even when the narrative leaps into an "artificial" universe billions of years in the future, the protagonist's lifestyle remains strikingly similar to that of rural China or Kentucky in the 1980s. This, to me, suggests a lack of diverse life experiences and imaginative depth on the author's part, confining the narrative to the boundaries of his personal experiences.
The book's portrayal of intelligent species felt like a disservice, as all characters, regardless of their supposed future Russian or American identities, seemed to retain the mindset of 1980s China. The recurring theme of the traditional Chinese family ideal, which often plays a pivotal role in the storyline, can be challenging to grasp for Western readers and even younger Asian readers, I believe. This traditional family model, featuring a man, a woman, and numerous servants, persists even at the story's conclusion, which I found rather unsettling.
The TV show, unfortunately, shares a similar issue, with all main characters hailing from the UK and being interconnected. While this isn't a significant improvement from the book, it does feel more plausible, considering that creative problem solvers are more likely to emerge from democratic societies than authoritarian ones. The characters in the series are more relatable and exhibit greater depth in terms of their personalities and motivations. However, the show falls short in its handling of the scientific aspects, but given the poor foundation laid by the source material, there wasn't much room for improvement.
Luke Cage (2016)
Generally speaking not very satisfying
So first of, I realized I am just not very into the whole marvel superhero theme anymore after 30 years of reading and watching. They just seem to have too many plot holes and go against my knowledge in natural science. Perhaps its about time to stop watching them.
Neither daredevil or Jessica Jones got great rating from me. I gave them 6 and 7 out of ten, but overall I felt they are decent stories (daredevil 2 got absurd so it lowered the rating), and try to stay clear on the plot line, and didn't try too much on bullshitting science. The heroes are not invincible (and therefore wouldn't have too many plot holes, as it is more difficult for people to depict unrealistic events), and they are likable human characters. The bad guys also can be relatable, which makes the viewing all more satisfying.
Now Luke Cage tried similar formula, but kinda failed. I will explain later, but let me first mention the pros:
1. Good music. The soundtracks in all the defender series are quite good. Luke Cage has outdone daredevil and Jessica Jones on music. +1 point. 2. Luke Cage, Claire, and Mercedes are very likable characters. They are simply very relatable and you can easily imagine yourself to be any of these characters and do what they would have done in the show. +1 point. 3. Some bad guys are interesting. Cotton mouth is excellent, shades is weird and almost funny to look at but then you grow to like this character, and few other supporting characters are not too bad either. +1 point. 4. Good plot twist. Cotton mouth was dead in the middle of the show. I didn't see that coming. I thought he was the final big bad. +1 point.
Now let's see why I only give the show 4 out of 10, cons:
1. Corny. At least the show is admitting to it through the dialog, but it also seems to take itself very seriously to the extend it almost feels like Gods of Egypt. The final fight is the pinnacle. It was so bad I don't even know what to say. (BTW it is probably even worse than the final fight in daredevil 2.)
2. No sense of urgency. The show doesn't give viewers the real sense of urgency, while it could easily do it. For example, when Luke got shot by diamondback, he could really die. Instead just to shoot Luke in the head, this guy just jumped out and started bullshitting (so corny), resulting at letting Luke getting away. Then he bullshit again after he had chance to shoot Luke in the theater, bullshit again after he caught Luke on the street (and just let Luke go after he shot him), and then he just could not keep his mouth shut...it makes the viewers feel like it is all going to be okay because the bad guy is never going to really do anything to get to you.
3. The big bad diamondback is a moron. Besides the fact he doesn't know how to shut up, his final battle suit just makes him looking like an idiot.
4. Plot holes. Why couldn't diamondback just equip himself with more vibranium bullets while he equipped NYPD with those bullets. How can the doctor spend so many years without realizing the temperature was a key factor to recreate the condition? There are just too many random plots don't make much sense in the show.
5. Not scientific, this is not an issue if the show just want to be fun like deadpool or guardians of galaxy. But the more serious the show is and try to come up with bullshit to explain real science, the less seriously I can take it. Despite the nonsense of Luke's ability, other details in the show don't make sense either. For example, Luke destroyed a pillar in a theater, based on physic, he should be knocked back 20 feet unless he weights 10 tons. Also to create the force and speed to destroy the pillar, the floor should be destroyed too. And since Luke's power he should be having much larger steps like 10 feet per step and much faster (hard to film tho, hahaha). It's almost like Trump running for president. You just can't mix seriousness and complete nonsense together.
6. The plot didn't hold together after the death of cotton mouth. It introduced a terrible new bad guy, and then the whole speech thing at Harlem's Paradise didn't make sense (forced plot). In fact almost everything after the death of cotton mouth feels rather forced, except the love story between claire and Luke (although their visit to the doc was a forced plot).
There are more cons, but I will just stop here and list the main problems.
The Banner Saga 2 (2016)
Not bad, but wasn't very exciting
My screen's resolution is too high. After I lower the resolution the text became readable. Perhaps the developer wasn't quite prepared for highres screens. Or perhaps I should have known better.
The first half of the game is too slow, and largely irrelevant to the main story telling. We really want to know Juno's plan and yes we do want to see the character development but it should be more exciting.
Main story didn't move forward fast enough. If feels like the story just got started at the end. I wasn't expect the ending, more like in the middle of the game when the ending came. I was like what really...
Choices feel somewhat irrelevant to the character development and plot line. This is a common issue for RPG but with a slow plot line it feels more of an issue.
Game is very difficult but doesn't feel rewarding. This game got difficult 4 hours into the game, but it was when the fights are most boring and less relevant to the main plot line. I had to keep reloading because a few mistakes I made but those aren't even important fights. It got easier once you knew which characters you are going to use. Then when the story got exciting the battles became a bit too easy to overcome. The final battle is difficult but you can lose and have the same ending making it silly to spend time winning it. I was like why did I even bother...
Finally, just disappointed because this is not a soup opera and each of the installment should have a conclusion instead of trying to convince you to buy the next game. I can easily imagine me playing the third game without knowing anything in the second game and be fine with it. The whole game felt like a DLC for the first saga.
Ex Machina (2014)
Good cinematography, Beautiful Actresses, Flat Storyline, Plain Characters
Ex Machina is one of the film that would easily receive high scores from the public due to the overall ignorance of artificial intelligence and the plentiful of beautifully shot nudes in the movie. As an artificial programmer, software designer, cinematographer, and fashion photographer, let me break down why I give the movie 3 out of 10.
Let's start with pros:
1. The movie is generally beautifully shot. Very artful execution of many nude scenes. This alone can probably score a 10 for most short films. Unfortunately this is a full length film, so cinematography and attractive naked ladies alone won't cut it. 2. Stunning interior sets. 3. The movie brought up a debate of whether sexuality helps to shape human consciousness. This idea existed since ancient time, but was a popular debate in the 30s. Of course the movie misdirected its argument - the debate is about societal impact rather than the individual impact (obviously one can have consciousness while being asexual). Nonetheless, we should give the director some credits for trying - especially considering the depth of the movie is so shallow.
Now here comes the cons:
1. The movie depicts unrealistic core plots. Building complex algorithms takes much more than a single person (or even thousands of tireless engineers). The fact that the film makers think it even could be possible makes me laugh. The logic behind the algorithm is also extremely laughable. I feel the film makers might be read some articles (taken out of proper contexts) from WIRED magazine and be like, "Yeah dude, that works for a movie." 2. The movie failed to explore details of the technology - due to the fact that the film makers probably know little about them. 3. None of the programmers in the movies are realistic - the way they talk, act, or things they say, just seem like from someone know little to nothing about programming. 4. The plots and settings in the movie are naive and laughable both from story telling perspective or technical perspective. 5. The storyline itself has little dramas, falls completely flat. Completely predictable. 6. No character in the movie are likable. Their reactions and emotions all seem fake and forced merely to play out the plots and push the story forward. 7. The movie failed to explore the underlying philosophical debates of artificial intelligence - probably because the film makers fail to understand what artificial intelligence means.
Overall, the movie is plain and vulgar, feeling like some masturbation piece from fantasizing nerds who know how to use cameras well. However it would be a good movie to buy DVD for, because you can collect beautifully shot naked ladies from the movie - if that is what you are into.
The Last: Naruto the Movie (2014)
This is one to the movie you have to watch but totally cannot enjoy...
Masashi Kishimoto wrote this movie?! Wow, then who wrote for the story of the manga? I mean, the story of the mango is not great, but at least quite interesting, but this movie is just terrible and boring!!!
I have to give some credits to the art direction when it comes to the character design. The new characters are very good looking (and probably too good looking). I personally prefer the manga's direction because if every character is good looking, it gets a bit boring. But to be honest that is the last problem this movie needs to worry about.
The antagonist in the movie is flat and completely lack of emotion. This is boring to begin with, but there is still hope if the movie can make sure to create an totally psychotic character - but no, they even failed to do it. He is just another Sasuke, who is a highly delusional and immature kid.
I guest the movie filled in the setting of the manga, including explaining the importance of Hyuuga bloodline and the love story between Naruto and Hinata - in the worst possible way... Anoway, I have nothing good to say about this movie. It's one of those movies that you know it is terrible 5 minutes into the movie, but you have to sit through the whole thing because you have to watch it to complete the entire story of Naruto. You would feel so much pain of your body because you pay more attention worry about sitting too long instead of what's going on on the screen.
Yep, it feels like doing a completely pointless homework.
House of Cards (2013)
House of Cards Season 3 Review
I spent the weekend watching House of Cards season three. So here are my two cents.
1. The season three is really about Claire Underwood and Doug Stamper. We have seen enough of Frank Underwood in season one and two. Now the production team explains the importance of Claire and Doug in Frank's success as a politician.
2. Frank's weaknesses have been exposed. Through intimidation and fear, Frank ruled the congress as the whip with great success. His management style, however, doesn't quite work in the administration office. It even backfires when Frank faces off Russian president Petrov, who apparently has mastered greater ruthlessness.
3. The betrayal of Jackie Sharp and Remy Danton highlights the nature of Frank's power structure – a short-term and unstable relationship built on conspiracies.
4. The show still follows much of the footsteps of original House of Cards on BBC (based on Michael Dobb's "To Play The King"). It's reasonable to believe that Heather Dunbar is the equivalent of King of Britain – someone who represents an ideological side of politics. As the timeline of new House of Cards has apparently been stretched, perhaps in the next season we will see the fall of Dunbar. As Dunbar engaged with the real politics, she will slowly realized her wealthy and judicial life experience unfit in the competition. She will become more and more like Frank, and fall to her own foe.
5. Like I predicted in season two, Jackie will likely jump ship to Republican. Now republican has no leader, and Jackie certainly has no real place in Dunbar or Frank's camp. Her experience and ideology are indeed more fitting for the Republican. Jackie in the last season already showed us how she can be an effective leader in the congress using both intimidations and fairness. She has the merits of Frank and Dunbar, but perhaps less noticeable due to her lack of experience and family wealth. As the story develops, she will gain leverage and eventually becomes the one who eliminates Frank's political career.
6. In this season, Frank commented on Michael Corrigan's death. He indicated that Corrigan's death was suicidal and cowardly. This is ironic because we all know Frank eventually suicides at the end of To Play The King.
7. Claire's departure is a derivative of the original story. It would be exciting to see what she can do in the new season. In this season, the production team has used great efforts to point out the fact that Claire is the more powerful and significant politician between two Underwoods (which is the same as the original Ms. Urquhart). Claire questions Frank if they had been lying to each other, and Frank responded that, "Without me, you are nothing." The truth is quite the opposite.
8. I think it's ridiculous that whenever Gavin Orsay pops a message to someone's computer screen, there were random glitches popping in the background as some sort of visual effect. This guy even bothers to create visual effects when popping a message through a cyber attack
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A mockery of the notion to cherish humanity, and an encouragement to the human altruism to embrace the end of an era and welcome the new intelligence.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a neocreationist scientific fictional movie from 1968. I have recently watched this movie again after last time when I was perhaps five. Overall, I give the movie eight out of ten as of the standard in 2015. So let's jump into the details.
First, I like to talk about the cons of the movie. The movie features no Asian or Black actors or actresses. It may be appropriate and convincing in 1968, but certainly not today in 2015. Due to the lack of diversity, the setup of the movie seems more like a funny space sitcom rather than a futuristic exploration. Perhaps due to propaganda purpose, the US and English language are featured dominantly throughout the movie. Examples include the boarding check features a list of languages with English on top, but excluding some of the most populated languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. The lack of diversity in the space and the ideology of the predominant role of the US in the space exploration era shows arrogance and ignorance of the filmmakers, therefore discredited the believability of the realism in the movie. The slow pace and the long pauses in the movie certainly do not seem poetic in 2015, but rather seem idiotic and pretentious. This is why the movie lost two points.
Now, let's talk about pros. The movie is very realistic. It carefully portrayed the behaviors of apes and the lifestyle in space, although from time to time, there were amusing mistakes, such as the space pilot took over the plate by holding the bottom with one hand and to prevent it from dropping while using another hand to pull it over in zero gravity. The movie is actually profound, while it does try too hard and became pretentious. It depicts the beginning and the end of the humanity, and points out what made humanity rise, and why humanity is no longer fitting for a space era. A type of black monolith is prominently featured as an indication of higher intelligence's influence in humanity's evolution – presumably throughout the history, but the movie only showed or mentioned it appeared on earth (likely Africa based on the landscape), moon, a moon surrounding Jupiter, and a symbolic world. This black monolith is a physical symbol that indicates a significant step in the evolution process of intelligence from solar system. The beginning of the movie shows apes' discovery of using bones as weapons following the sudden existence of the black monolith from of the void. Later the black monolith was discovered on moon indicating humanity's ability in space travel. The black monolith on the moon surrounding Jupiter indicates humanity's ability in creating superior life form, the computers. And then the movie uses most of its time to explain why computers are a superior life form and why humanity is no longer fitting for the space era. For example, it uses slow pace to show how difficult it is for human to operate in the space, and how inefficient the way human works. The doctor who was visiting the moon from Jupiter exploration must verify his identity before boarding, and then he must play the role of father to video chat with his daughter, and reminding her daughter to tell his wife that he called. These two actions indicate that human needs constant verifications in order to maintain trusty relationships. Later the doctor meets his fellows and discusses his journey, while he refused to reveal any information. This indicates most of the time human communications are merely waste of time. Then due to the fear of social impact, the doctor reveals that the discovery of monolith must remain a secret. This indicates the fragile of human social structure. Such list can go on and on, and as a result, an artificial intelligent (named Hal) on the exploring ship to Jupiter decided to murder all on board members. This can be seen as a significant evolution step for intelligence in solar system. The AI revealed its despise to humanity when it commented that all mistakes were a result of human errors while inserting such comment in a mellow conversation, which shows its greater ability in giving overtone in the sentences, an indication of AI's higher creativity. The AI gave the final punch to indicate that human cannot even survive in the space without a space helmet.
Of course the movie shows how the astronaut fights his way back to control room and removed chips of the on-board computer and eliminated the threat post by the AI. And then the astronaut had strange visions showing electronic art and then seeing himself getting older and finally on his dead bed, he saw the black monolith once again, and he became an infant flowing in the space overseeing the earth. All of the above scenes since the astronaut fights his way back into the spaceship should be understood as the visual presentation of the denial thinking that humanity will last, and is the terminal species in evolution. The implication here is that, the astronaut died in the space, and a new child of intelligence is born, that the AI has reached a new step in the process of evolution, overseeing the dead bed of humanity, the earth.
The movie overall shows the ideology of neocreationism, that the creator of humanity may or may not be the creator of the universe. It could merely be a mysterious being. More importantly, humanity isn't a very special creation of such being. It can be, for instance in this movie, a biological bootloader of software based intelligence, a superior and more space fitting life form. The movie is a mockery of the notion to cherish humanity, and an encouragement to the human altruism to embrace the end of an era and welcome the new intelligence.
Fresh Off the Boat (2015)
I think Asian American from an Asian family will like this show
The idea of this show is that it challenges the bottom line of the perception to Asian American – like its title or the author of original book. If a black man or a white man made this show, he is certainly going to be getting beaten up and murdered. That's the beauty of such production – it is on the bottom line of extreme offensiveness – which makes it politically correct when the show also makes fun of white and black American. The creative freedom therefore allows the show to tap into many race issues people don't generally talk about because they are afraid of backlashes. For example, the black kid was bullying and showing disrespect to the newly arrived Chinese Asian kids. This is quite common across the nation, but people don't normally want to put it on the spotlight because of the oppression black American post on other minorities – while most white American are ashamed of racism, many black American find it enjoyable to practice racism against other minorities – and they deny their behaviors as racism, and would even claim the critics as racists. To certain black supremacists, all non-black races are racist - therefore all non-black races are subjected to oppression posted by black supremacists. This is why so few television programs had been made to depict minority families other than black families in the US. This TV show is an excellent statement to these black supremacists, and a harsh slap on their racist faces.
Rome (2005)
Generally Entertaining But Ultimately A Failure
Lately, I had been watching Rome the television series on HBO aired in 2005. It's generally speaking not a terrible one. I in fact found it rather entertaining. I would give it seven out of ten, if I could put one's satisfaction in a scale. My objection for the television show can be concluded to two main reasons. One is that the show uses creative license poorly and the imaginary storyline is rather dull. For example, the messenger Marcus Tullius Cicero sent to Marcus Junius Brutus accidentally stopped by Lucius Vorenus' adopted son. It's not bad to add some drama to the series and perhaps some "coincident" but wouldn't a messenger who has such urgency run over a boy – and even if he did stop, would he forget about the letter?! Another example would be Gaia's plot to kill Eirene. There are better ways to kill off a leaving actress' character. Yet the production team chose the plot that had been done one too many times – perhaps the lack of creativity in this production team was indeed the reason why the show was canceled after season two. The second disappointment perhaps has to do with the short length of the series – that they must compress a 60 years period into 16 hours (let alone those "original stories"). The watchable element in the show was it's genuinely dramatic storyline in the history – yes, the story of Mark Antony was epic. But the show actually created a "superman-like" (or more accurately Lex Luthor) Augustus (Gaius Octavius Caesar). Perhaps the production team things American audiences like human-like character that is beyond normal people's capacity. Now let's get something straight. Historically no one knows what really went on during that period of time, but most likely Octavius Caesar is far less calculated and decisive as he presented in the series. It was very likely that he was the natural son of Mark Antony. Let's just think, one should really believe Antony would have been nothing to do with Julius Caesar's death in the senate house? He is likely the man who plotted the murder to overtake his ruling in Rome. And then Antony betrayed Brutus and installed his son Octavius as Caesar's successor. Octavius was Caesar's lover, so it was convincing that Caesar would have pointed him as his "adopted son" to take over his name and wealth (homosexual marriage wasn't legal in Rome). Unlike what the television show has suggested, Octavius was merely under the control of Antony (and they never fought against each other before the dome of Brutus). Lepidus and Sextus Pompeius were the only men who had power to stand up against Antony shortly after the termination of Brutus, and therefore Antony made peace with Lepidus and formed Triumvirate to rule Rome – but notice that Antony has overwhelming power over either Lepidus or Pompeius – not to mention Octavius, who was merely figuratively carrying the name of Caesar. Octavius never drove Antony out of Rome. Antony chose to fight war against Parthian Empire (Iranian Empire) because he was greedy to the wealth of the East. He left the West to Octavius in command because, well, he never thought Octavius would betray him (like how Julius Caesar oversaw Mark Antony's intension). Notice that Antony was at the time already 41 (and Octavius was 22), a rather old man in the stand of Ancient Roman Empire, probably equal to 85 to today's standard. This next ten years was when Octavius rose to power. Lepidus soon overtook Pompeius and rebelled against Octavius (and Antony). Octavius' army at its pinnacle fought against the weary troops of Lepidus' and won. At the same time, Antony lost battles to the Parthian. Supposedly to aid Antony in the East, Octavius' army arrived in Greece declaring war to Antony, and easily ended the war (if there was any) and embraced victory. So as you can tell, Octavius was just a normal man, who took advantage of the warring situation and at best, he knew when to strike to win. He was certainly a smart politician, but he certainly didn't have the ability to borrow large sum of money, built his own army and overtook senate house before he turned nineteen – maybe the production team thought it was a good idea to create a character who can do magic instead of having genuinely interesting personalities).
Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013)
The second half failed apart on storytelling...
Generally speaking Nymphomaniac is a great movie. It discusses the struggle within the society – that how simultaneously similar and different we are individually (and how we can find such struggle even within ourselves as an individual). It is an intelligent discussion, but also it questions the origin of the similarity and diversity – that we are born to be different (and then we are taught to be the same and different). Knowledge and thoughtful thinking can only help us to understand these differences. At the end, it is simultaneously a celebration and a condolence to the diversity in the differences. The ending, and many might have questioned, is an unsettled highlight of this celebration-condolence. That the two very different kind of people, a nymphomaniac and an asexual, sought to have sex based on curiosity – yet see the activity from two very different side of it. Seligman wanted to experiment sex with Joe because he found it intellectually interesting, and he believed Joe would be the best person to experiment with. He failed to understand that Joe emotionally separated him to the rest of human kind because he was blessed to have no desire for sex (physically). That's why she also emotionally failed to accept the fact that Seligman wanted to have sex with her – and therefore chose to kill herself for it (that she was tired in life and have no will to live after her one and only friend in life went across the line). It's not hard for me to understand this because I have two personalities and I switch between a hyper-sexual individual like Joe and an asexual individual like Seligman. Everything makes sense naturally – and I suspect von Trier has similar symptom like myself. However, to really depict this struggle, it should take further steps in the story telling process (like how first volume took it really slow, but the second volume went too fast - should really be two times longer) for most average people to get what is really going on and what the main discussion was – otherwise it would simply look like some pseudo intelligent piece.
Gun Woman (2014)
GUN WOMAN Is Bloody, Trashy Entertainment
Capitalising on a spirited central performance from Japanese actress Asami as the eponymous heroine, Mitsutake Kurando's blood-soaked US-based crime thriller rises above its budgetary limitations in suitably sleazy style.
Killing time on a long drive through the desert, a pair of hired guns recount an infamous story of revenge involving the lunatic son of a notorious Japanese mobster. When the elderly Hamazaki dies, his son (Noriaki R. Kamata) lashes out by raping and murdering the wife of his father's doctor. Driven made with revenge, the surgeon (Narita Kairi), now dubbed "Mastermind", acquires a mute Japanese meth addict (Asami) and grooms her to become his instrument of vengeance.
Gun Woman, directed and co-written by Mitsutake Kurando (Samurai Avenger: The Blind Wolf) had its world premiere last week at the Yubari International Fantastic Film Festival, where it was awarded the Special Jury Prize, along with a special accolade for its lead actress, Asami. An ever- present supporting player in the filmography of Iguchi Noboru (The Machine Girl, Robogeisha, Dead Sushi), the Japanese actress seizes upon a rare starring role, excelling in a wordless, yet incredibly physical and engaging performance.
The film starts on shaky ground, as the weakest sections are its wraparound story involving a pair of hired guns on their way from a job to their extraction point. The performances are awkward and the dialog somewhat expository, as the film works to lay down a considerable amount of back-story and find its feet. Fortunately, once we settle into the flashbacks, which detail how a once-happy family man becomes a handicapped, embittered "mastermind" and embarks on training his angel of vengeance, Gun Woman reveals and embraces its exploitation ambitions.
Working with limited means, Mitsutake and Co. never let their ambition be tethered by their resources, and proudly wear their influences on their sleeves. Unsurprisingly, there's an element of Nishimura-esque Japanese schlock in the scenes of blood splatter and sexual debauchery, but Gun Woman's sights are set on the American exploitation cinema of the 1970s and VHS-era action flicks of the 80s. This is helped immeasurably by Dean Harada's evocative score, that shifts seamlessly from neon synth to hair metal as the action dictates.
While the modest production values and extreme subject matter will not be to everyone's taste, audiences with a penchants for the rougher edges of the action genre should find plenty to sate their appetites. In fact, it's the film's no holds barred commitment that proves its greatest asset, cramming everything from shower cubicle assassinations to underground necrophilia clubs into its lean sub-90 minute runtime.
There are ridiculous implausibilities in the plot, but the film is self-aware enough to imbue proceedings with a sense of fun, while still playing things dead straight. One minute our heroine is tearing her own flesh open, the next she's racing against the clock to avoid bleeding to death, or cutting off her own ponytail to use as a tourniquet. Gun Woman even has the audacity to leave its lead actress blood-drenched and butt-naked throughout the film's entire climactic shootout. This is a film that knows its audience and has them right in its cross-hairs.
La grande bellezza (2013)
Do no watch this movie in a theater.
This is the best movie I have seen in my life and it is not for a theater viewing. I watch it the first time in the cinema and felt I was riding a rocket. I knew I saw a great film but I was not able to comprehend it in such small amount of time.
This film requires some great patient to watch. It perhaps also requires some extensive experience in life to have great sympathy to these characters (specifically a life experience from a dirty poor low class to a filthy rich high class). I imagine a great number of general public would not appreciate such movie - but to my surprised, a great deal of people do. Perhaps a great movie can truly transform how the viewers see the world.
Each scene in the movie has relationships with every other scene in the movie. Anton Chekhov says, "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there." This movie is the best example of millions of guns firing in silent - only the intelligent viewers can see them.
I definitely recommend watching this movie for at least a few times and try to watch scene by scene after you can remember everything about the movie.
Oldboy (2013)
The story doesn't make sense under the US culture...
The original title of Oldboy, Korean version, is a remark of the deep yet twisted side of East Asian culture. The story of incest, fist violence, anti-humanitarian, children sex and rape works and has some dark attraction under the light of an Asian story background.
These elements work because Asian cities are much more crowded, therefore the stress in these areas led to the development of brutality, selfishness, and desperation for sex. These cultures are unique to Asian culture, and simply not attractive to American.
Historically, Asians accept rape culture. Rape is legal and morally accepted in all Asian countries until 50 years ago. Having sex with teen around 11 or 12 years old is very common and still popular in Asia today. Removing these cultural backgrounds making the movie simple seem weird and awkward. To void such weirdness and awkwardness, the direction have rewritten the original story to fit American culture but at the same time reduced the dark and twisted atmosphere of the original title.
Apart from the storyline, the character development and the fighting scenes in the movie are unattractive. The main character seems trying to behave like a "badass" but coming out as a mid-age 9-to-5 dad tried to pretend to be a criminal. The "daughter," who has been removed the Asian submissiveness and youthfulness, lacks of the convincing argument being a "play doll" - instead it's easier to see her as a overly trusting human. There is a big difference between who is willingly to be submissive because of the cultural brainwash and who is just dumb.
Lastly, white people really can't pull off the creepiness Asian actors and actresses can pull off. If the main character was portrayed by Johnny Depp and the "daughter" was portrayed by Chloë Grace Moretz then it might be a different story.
The Notebook (2004)
Favorite movie in my teenage years (but really just a corny fantasy)
Don't you wish you, an ordinary but having some romantic ideas teenage boy, get to meet with a rich and innocent beautiful young lady and get to have some amazing love story with her just because you are obsessed?! Yep, every teenager's dream. Now as I turned older, watching this movie again is just torturing.
The story is unrealistic, the characters are completely boring and lack of anything special to remember. It feels like just a bunch of normal people who are thrown into a overly dramatized world. This is like watching a movie that some dude become president of the US when he wakes up one morning - perhaps entertaining at the time when you have very little real life experience.
We need to stop making movies like this and make more movies that either have more characteristic people and believable storyline or a movie that is about normal people and their realistic drama in life.
Frozen (2013)
Hans turns evil is so cliché...
Almost immediately after I see the character Hans I know he is evil. I wish Disney could have kept the plot interesting and turn Anna, Kristoff, and Hans into some romantic and open-minded polyamory or maybe adding Elsa - so kids can learn that marriage don't have to be just between one guy and one girl.
Anyways, up until Kristoff sent back Anna the movie is a 8.5/10 because the movie has excellent visual effects, funny dialog, interesting plots, and great music - but a bit lack of story telling and character building and the rest is 0/10 because the story just completely failed apart and all the characters turned boring, boring, boring.
So overall I give the movie a 6/10.
Jobs (2013)
Completely Fictional
Well,
The creator of Macintosh, Jef Raskin, had about 5 minutes in the movie and was portrayed as a silly person. In reality, Jef is visionary, and reinvented (or stole, in Jobs' words) the concept of integrating Graphic Interface, and Mouse (his original design was made in reality in 2005 as "Mighty Mouse" when the technology became mature) into personal computing.
When Jobs took over Macintosh project, because of "political" reason, and his own pride, he took what Jef had and gave it to IDEO and had them redesign it so Jobs can claim to the ownership of the project. Because of all these "bullshit" Jobs took three years to establish a commercial product when Apple products are outdated in the market. Jobs' unrealistic (and the reason being he didn't understand technology) approach is like if say today I took over Apple and say, no, let's do all these functions but we are going to not sell any of our products, but just sell a super iPhone that has the power of today's macbook pro (so maybe we won't have it until 3 years later) and sell it for a cheap price, because I don't have to make money off it.
Yeah, of course I will get kicked out from Apple.
No, Steve Jobs was just a good looking dude who had the ability to get money to start a company in Silicon Valley when there were only nerds around. Much like Ashton Kutcher, Jobs was just a pretty face actor.
Upside Down (2012)
Plagiarize With Cheese Storyline
This movie is a plagiarism of the award-winning short of similar story except it adds on tons of ridiculous cheese elements and found two good looking actors for the main character. The idea of duel gravitation only really works for short movies, not for full length story. It doesn't explain itself from a physic stand point and it doesn't feel romantic because it is simply too long to play the cute idea card - besides because the movie really only use the idea as a plot, not the center piece (which in the short it is a metaphor of relationships - that often bounds two very different persons together), and since the world is so big, too much distractions are involved, questions and conflicts become about life and death, instead of cute and romantic - the drama is too intense, and makes no sense. It turns a cute romantic short film into some big drama that doesn't seem to be necessary at all.
Total Recall (2012)
You have to understand that the whole movie is in the "Recall"...
While many don't understand is, the movie is depicting the main character Douglas Quaid in his "Recall". Similar to the original title, the plot and the accidents are ridiculous - similar to "American Psycho" - it is supposed to be ridiculous. It's a smart way of making movies so it leads to discussion of weather the movie was "artificial memories" from the "Recall".
I can't deny that most audiences had lost patience watching and thinking about movies these days because in fact they have been so sick of it...to truly understand a movie you have to stop watching them for a while, having the desire and anticipation of what it might be like before you go ahead and enjoy them like fast food. Total Recall is quite entertaining, the minus 1 point is due to the lack of creative element for fighting scene.