ajlee3 Reviews

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Should retitle, "Captain America Z Tenkaichi Budokai"

[6/10 · 18 May 2016]

I've been going through a U.S. Civil War history book these days. Whether the human lives destroyed and the socioeconomic consequences of a devastated South were worth their after-effects is still hotly debatable today. Civil war is the worst thing that could happen to a country. Brother against brother, both fighting to the bitter end to protect their homes. A tragedy to be desperately avoided, but when it comes, one that tests to the very limit the human will to discern right from wrong and to hold resolutely to convictions no matter the cost.

In comparison, Captain America: Civil War is a parody of a civil war. It amounts to a spat between former co-workers... over governance policy. Iron Man wants the Avengers to be under the UN, Capt. America declines the health care and pension benefits and wants to stay an independent contractor. Yes, it's as banal as that.

The fighting starts after some convoluted events involving the Winter Soldier, but eventually boils down to "Are you my BFF?" Like Mean Girls. Seriously. The explosions and wreckage are there merely to show off the characters' super powers, while betraying the lack of emotional intensity in the conflict. Despite all the CGI, it felt so heartless. Unlike battle between mortal enemies, sibling spats don't end in death, they end in submission. So, every punch and kick felt pulled, despite the movie's best efforts to make the damage look real, including a character admonishing another for doing exactly that. The only real damage was to the main characters' egos and my wallet (I saw it on IMAX 3D).

See the X-Men series for a better superhero civil war. Xavier and Magneto make a MUCH better case for the need for war despite their personal friendship because it plays into current-day xenophobia over immigrants. This, in comparison, felt like a glorified DBZ martial arts tournament where everyone goes back to their lives at the end of the day. Except, even Goku and Cell had the sense to take their fighting far from populated areas.

The technical aspects of the movie and the acting are quite good. But, the story is too contrived. The villain, too obscure. The climax, uncathartic. Afterwards, my wife and I looked at each other asking, "What was THAT all about?" For the young teen audience, there is a strong moral to the story at the very end. But, so simple is the moral, that it only reminds you of how stupid the whole affair was. Didn't these guys learn anything in kindergarten?

Precious (II) (2009)

The Insider's Perspective Conceived by Outsiders

[5/10 · 23 July 2010]

I have two focal points in this review (more like a commentary)- realism and the message.

Realism.

In my opinion, it's not real nor powerful enough. Even for an outsider like me, it becomes apparent that the story is too contrived to provide a truly accurate view into inner-city life. It's as if the writers wanted to jam every headline issue with the inner-city into the lives of a few characters: welfare fraud, incest, drugs, rape, delinquency, juvenile crime, obesity, illiteracy, behavioral issues in the public school system, single mother parenting, inept social workers, homosexuality, the AIDS epidemic, etc. Because it is so overwhelming, it becomes immediately apparent that everything was carefully crafted to illustrate each issue in living color. Precious bears under ALL of this with superhuman resolve, only to plaintively cry near the end "I'm so tired!" So, rather than seeing the life of a real, plausible girl, we're seeing talking points, an agenda acted out on the screen, like a power-point presentation filled with bullet points, slide after slide, example after example.

The casting makes this even more apparent. Why Monique? Why Mariah Carey? Why Lenny Kravitz? Sure, they're unrecognizable during the movie. But if you didn't know then, you will afterward and it will make you think. And you'll see that the director chose these people BECAUSE they were not from the hood. In fact, they are from the completely opposite spectrum. It's as if to say to the audience ever so subtly if not during the movie then afterward, "don't freak out, these people are actors, these are NOT real people!" You'll see interviews of these cast members about how they "transformed" themselves and had to strip away many layers of their identity to perform their roles, only to read that after making the movie, they ran as fast as they could back to their glitzy lives, like a diver desperately coming up for air. So not even do the actors, who made this movie to champion the cause of the inner-city, want to have anything to do with the inner-city. It borders on hypocritical.

The Message.

The message is simple. Inner-city girls have potential to be strong and shed the social issues that seek to victimize them. It just takes a caring individual to awaken and develop that potential. Stop throwing money at the problem or thinking that broad-based measures are the ultimate solution. The change happens one-on-one. It takes a life to save a life. The message is one that rings true to me, but it is hardly new and has been done better in other movies.

But, annoyingly, there are other messages that coddle stereotypes and even undermine the thrust of the movie.

The "good guys" in the movie are fair-skinned, slender, and beautiful. The ones needing salvation or redemption are obese, dark-skinned, and generally, ugly. The good guys speak perfect or near perfect English, without any accent.

The characters themselves have no real articulated hopes. Precious's defense mechanism of flashing to visions of enjoying a vaunted celebrity lifestyle during times of duress is obviously not a picture of her true aspirations, it's just a regurgitation of what's been fed to her through the media. She wants a boyfriend, but what teenage girl doesn't? The movie insists, she wants to learn to read and write. But, why? Literacy is good, but it is by no means a panacea. So, Precious is really a very shallow teen. OK, nothing new here. So, what does the movie really want for Precious?

The movie never really tells us. Nor does it give us any plausible clues as to how this girl, now made a representative of the worst of the inner-city, can better her situation. It doesn't give us any indication as to why Precious would want anything other than to be just another single mother living in Harlem, albeit one that is not as bad as her mother and who can read to her children.

At the highest level, I feel like the movie advances a black agenda at its foundation that says, blacks are a strong, intelligent people and we can help ourselves. But, ultimately, what is the endpoint of literacy and education in general if not to get into college and to become employed in a market system that is mostly white-dominated? What is the point of trying to get black kids to read if the resistance to education by the poor black community is rooted in the lack of trust in a white- dominated market society, and the belief that it wouldn't matter anyway because they'd be discriminated against? The movie rails against welfare dependence, yet it doesn't address the realities of making it in a white-dominated society where blacks have to play by their rules and must work with them on the race issues. By the time the movie ends, you're wondering, "that's it?" There's no real resolution, no payoff. And by implication, the many real-world issues that the movie painstakingly depicts are given no real resolution or payoff, either. You feel stuck in the 1980's, as if you've even gone backwards.

Overall, the movie tries hard to do something to educate the viewer and to bring some sense of hope and vindication. To perhaps the most out- of-touch white suburbanite soccer mom who thinks all inner-city blacks are hopeless crack heads, this movie might be a revelation, but, to this viewer who is more open minded, in the end it feels shallow and the lack of profundity opens the door to even more despair.

I give this movie a 10 for effort but a 0 for added perspective. So, I give it a 5.

Buhwal (2005)

One of the best Korean drama's I've seen

[10/10 · 15 November 2006]

I'm no Korean drama aficionado. However, I know enough about them to spot the stereotypical love triangle (too many to list), the overused rich guy/poor girl love story ("My Name is Kim Sam-Soon"), or the apprentice-to-master progression ("Dae Jang Geum"). "Buwhal" (or "Revenge" as titled in the U.S. release) is riveting in that it repeatedly departs from the stereotypical K-drama framework, resulting in a story that truly keeps the viewer guessing to the very end. No one is overtly evil, no one is overtly good. Each character has his own interests at stake - it's just a question of how much he is willing to ignore the plain consequences to attain them.

The theme is revenge, but at what cost? We can see the main character, Seo Ha-Eun (Eom Tae-Woong) being plagued by the anguish that comes with losing oneself to the throes of his vindictive rage. Due to a shocking plot twist, the once jovial and gregarious man is forced to become an expressionless mask, as he secretly plots his steps while carrying on life right under the noses of his enemies. As the plan unfolds, we see that Ha-Eun's resolve will entail heavy collateral damage to innocent parties. The ending is profound and will have you thinking about human frailty and whether it is better to forgive to keep the peace or to seek justice at the cost of yourself and possibly others. I respect the writer for leaving that judgment to the viewer.

The only problem I have is the highly improbable love connection between Seo Ha-Eun and Seo Eun-Ha, a major bedrock of the series. Raised as brother and sister from an early age (although not related by blood), the two characters should have felt guilt, shame, disgust, or such feelings attributable to thoughts of incest. The Westermarck Effect, a psychoanalytic theory that has gained much traction through empirical evidence (in contrast to Freud's theories), precludes such a relationship, because brothers and sisters when raised together usually become sexually indifferent and even adverse to each other. But, that's a minor nitpick considering how well the story flows.

Seek this one out, and enjoy!

Holiday (2006)

Based on a true story

[6/10 · 17 April 2006]

"Yu-Jeon-Mu-Jwae, Mu-Jeon-Yu-Jwae" - Innocent if rich, guilty if poor.

This is a movie about a prisoner escape that occurred during the heyday of Korean nationalism and international image-consciousness, the Seoul World Olympics of 1988. The movie exposes the contemptuous practice of lengthening prison sentences for petty crimes by decades at the whim of the prison warden, juxtaposed against the light sentences given to corrupt bureaucrats. The basic message is that Korea has a long way to go before it can step up to 1st world standards in human rights and equality, starting with its criminal justice system.

As noble as the message is, there is just way too much melodrama and over-the-top clichés to take this movie seriously. The one-dimensional warden goes out of his way to be cocky, snide, and evil with every spoken syllable and every gesture. Pick any villain in your favorite Saturday morning cartoon and he is it. The prisoners are portrayed with a schoolboy-like innocence obviously meant to draw viewer sympathy. The music, the pacing, the agonizingly long death scenes, all serve to squeeze as much viewer sympathy for the prisoners as possible. The point could have been made more powerfully if it were made with more subtlety. If you watch this, be prepared for a head pounding to make sure you get the point.

Calla (1999)

Skip this. Watch Failan instead.

[5/10 · 26 September 2005]

I rented this movie after having watched Failan, also directed by Song Hae-sung. Whereas Failan drew powerful emotions of loss and sorrow, this movie was a bland march to a trite ending. The plot is somewhat interesting, as it takes on a Star Trek-like turn for the paranormal. But the characters are flat and the dialogue is painfully terse. Somehow the audience is supposed to feel what the characters feel, but how can we do that when the acting is so unexpressive and the dialogue so cryptic? Kim Hee-sun has no charm or allure, but is a pasty ghost of a woman, as usual. Song Seung-heon is too low key to portray the character's intense longings. Finally, Kim Hyun-joo doesn't strike me as someone who is completely head-over-heels. In the end, the trio's rigid acting made for a completely sterile experience.

Jugeulrae salrae (2003)

Only sadistic Korean thugs would laugh at this action comedy.

[1/10 · 3 June 2005]

Some things in life just shouldn't be made fun of no matter the means of delivery: sexual abuse, rape, and beating up old women. And trust me, the delivery is god-awful. The dialogue is so bad that it doesn't even measure up as a way to get more exposure to the Korean language (my original purpose for renting this movie), unless you want to end up speaking Korean like a complete fool. I'll just summarize what appears to be the plot so you can be spared of the misery.

SPOILERS (as if there is any joy to be spoiled...but anyway)

The main character, Lee So-Ryong, is a Chinese restaurant delivery boy who aspires to be the next Bruce Lee. He trains every night in front of a TV playing Bruce Lee clips to avenge the death of his father.

He falls in love with a Chinese-Korean immigrant, Jang OK-Ran, from the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture. OK-Ran wants to become a hair stylist, but is fired from her salon assistantship for illicitly cutting hair without supervision. A local gangster notices her plight and offers her a shot at "stardom." The promise of fame is actually a scam where the gangster strips his "pupils" of their money and virginity, while subjecting them to harsh "discipline" and grueling "acting lessons." The final blow to OK-Ran comes when the gangster steals her hard-earned money after a drunken rape session. When she later confronts him, the gangster and his cronies beat her up in broad daylight in front of an ogling crowd. So-Ryong notices the commotion and tries to save her, but only succeeds in drawing the ire of the gang. This sequence repeats itself a few times. Somehow, So-Ryong finally saves up enough money to send OK-Ran back home to her parents.

Meanwhile, the gang, headed by the man who murdered So-Ryong's father, then goes on a campaign to crush opposition to redevelopment projects in the area. They beat up protesting locals, in which scene we get to see the aforementioned bloodied old women. By the end of the movie, So-Ryong finds his inner strength as bestowed by the spirit of Bruce Lee and proceeds to beat up all the gangsters, including the one who raped OK-Ran.

Yet, we never see So-Ryong avenge his father's death. No emotional catharsis. No laughs, no resolution. In short, I want my hour and 30 mins back.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Just go see it and then express your frustrations here on IMDb

[5/10 · 26 May 2005]

SW:III was undoubtedly an improvement over SW:I and SW:II in all aspects. But considering how those two had all the character depth and plot complexity of kid-flicks like Goonies or Honey I Shrunk the Kids, I'm not exactly praising the movie to the high heavens. Without giving away too much of the plot, I'd like to list my impressions after the movie.

1. Anakin is not a tragic antihero who is caught in an epic struggle between the lust for power and his searing conscience. No, he just wants his mommy, and a wife who can love him like his mommy... and hey, why not throw in a galactic empire in there just for kicks. He even balks at the thought of children because it would expose himself to a world beyond his tight circle of love with his wife/mom.

2. Yoda purposefully uses Korean/Japanese grammatical syntax just to tell the audience that he's Yoda, not as a natural outflow because he learned English as a second language.

3. Lucas must have really loved the RotJ speeder chase on Endor. Every action scene moves with the same frenzied pace. Why make your ILM guys render scenes with detail to the nth degree if you're always going to be showing it whiz by at ludicrous speed?

4. In RotJ the emperor's most dangerous weapon was his strategy, not his lightning bolts or his saber skills. We saw Luke almost losing it completely because he was confronted with the awesome foresight of the emperor, realizing how he had countered the Rebels' every move. Sidious is supposed to have concocted everything from start to finish in SW:I,II,III, but he's never really given any credit for it. He never gets his "everything is according to my plan" speech. You never see how exactly the Trade Federation, Dooku, or any other villain was ultimately duped by Sidious, how the Jedi were influenced or clouded in their judgment, how ANYTHING of this really transpired. We're just forced to infer everything because, well, he's emperor and got his sidekick didn't he? Btw, who wanted to see the emperor fight? Didn't we all want to see Vader kicking some Jedi arse??? Also, you'll see Yoda doing some morally questionable telekinetics as he uses the Force to ATTACK.

5. We see some of the technology from SW:IV,V,VI in SW:III. And it's jarringly cheesy-looking compared to the fluid Naboo models and everything else that is supposed to be antiquated compared to the bleeding-edge tech of SW:IV,V,VI. The prequels should have had cruder ships and simpler tech so that there would be signs of technological progression, not regression.

6. You will never look at Vader in the same way (and not in a good way). I almost wish I'd never seen the prequels. Lucas really messed this one up, guys.

Shrek 2 (2004)

NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN!

[21 May 2004]

My wife and I were aghast as we watched Shrek 2, purporting to be a family-friendly movie with a PG rating, as it employed very crude sexual humor to tickle the funny-bones of the adults in the audience. Imagine trying to explain to a 5 year old about cross-dressing, transvestites, "licking one's self," and the other myriad of sexual innuendo in the film.

It's like the film was trying to target the same crowd who snickered and guffawed at There's Something About Mary, American Pie, Scary Movie and its ilk, while throwing in some pretty animation to get a PG rating as a way to maximize ticket sales across the entire age demographic.

Parents, please watch this movie before showing it to your kids. There are many jokes with questionable taste. Inevitably, much of the sexual suggestion, though not immediately comprehensible by the kids, will sooner or later merit a careful explanation.

As for the film itself, I thought it was rather contrived. The jokes were forced into the story to draw allusions to other films and fairytale stereotypes. Frankly, NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS. There is almost no plot, no adventure, no character maturation or development. If Shrek 2 is their best work, Dreamworks would do well to study Pixar's story-telling skills.