Reviews

The latest in a series of movies with the same title and vaguely similar story line (the 1941 version staring Carol Lombard and directed by Alfred Hitchcock remains best of breed). This time it's about a pair of psychopathic assassins for hire looking to boost their resumes and incomes, bought and brought together by a mysterious global organization (as always!), and using a fabricated marriage (and, of course, fake IDs) as cover. There is humor, romance, surprises, suspense, and a number of action set pieces (see below). There is also a very dangerous love/hate relationship. All of this is weighed down by the script and dialog deliveries. The movie is poorly written and punctuated with unexplained and hard-to-fathom events starting with the opening scenes in the first episode (which remain unexplained until the closing scenes of the last episode--if the viewer still cares). The usual Smith-to-Smith dialog is Reality TV quality. It seems often ad libbed, small-talk like, tedious, and far from interesting. This works against establishing chemistry between the protagonists that can be observed by the viewer. It doesn't help when the Smith characters frequently mumble their lines in English. The movie has been dubbed into many languages including Japanese. The leading Japanese voice actors, for example, clearly speak their lines with the leading voice actress providing a far more engaging (and understandable) line readings than actress Maya Erskine (Mrs. Smith) speaking English. Attempted low-comedy falls flat. Leading players are a mixed bag. Actor Donald Glover (Mr. Smith) has an infectious style of delivery especially in the early episodes. Erskine's performance seems to be a work in progress as she struggles to escaped being steamrolled by Glover's acting. She also appears to be physically mismatched to the part. The show is rather short (there are only eight episodes), but production appears to be lavish and it looks like most of the budget can be seen on screen. Action scenes are especially well directed/edited (and choreographed). The viewer will be tempted to fast-forward through the dribble in between. English subtitles can not be divorced from CC/SDH which is a constant irritation during the first six episodes. In the last two episodes, English subtitles appear to be normal, but foreign language versions can not be brought up. Below average popcorn movie. Viewed on Amazon Prime. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

An intriguing and amusing story for grownups about a chance encounter between a now-adult Red Riding Hood (RRH) and Cinderella. The movie is packed with beautiful would-be princesses inhabiting a kingdom devoted to all things beautiful with one exception -- its king (marvelously played by Jiro SATO)! "Master" RRH does pro bono work in trying to solve the murder of a predatory royal male hair stylist obsessed with collecting the long hair of women whether they want a short-hair look or not. Acting and direction are okay. Production value seems high. Cinderella's pumpkin carriage design is super original. CGI is fine. Subtitles are close enough. Closing hints at more RRH adventures to come. Yokatta! (Great!) Viewed on Netflix. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This 10 episode series sort of looks like some people may have lost a wager and were forced to honor their bet. It's a totally bare-minimum effort. Most/all of the drawn-out photoplay has been copied (poorly) from other sources, and the production seems to be an end-to-end forced undertaking. The thread-bare story line (as usual, it's a world-conquest maniac planning to start with Japan) is generic. Directing is lethargic and editing is riddled with huge lapses in continuity. Fight choreography can be uncreative and is usually highly repetitive (and silly) with two stunt actors typically taking out a dozen (or more) gang members. Acting is across-the-board amateurish and uncomfortable to watch (reminiscent of watching a high school play). Then there is the subtitle mess. The viewer is forced to activate and select the text size and text background just like in the primitive "old days." Once subtitle navigation is (tediously) completed, preferences can frequently change or just disappear (within and between episodes). Subtitle synchronization is a major problem with dialog translations sometimes appearing 20-30 seconds after spoken lines! Opening and closing credits are extensive, taking many minutes to scroll, and are repeated with each and every episode (one time would seem to be enough!). They can not be automatically skipped, giving your remote's fast-forward button a real workout. Simply an embarrassment to the spy/fantasy movie genre. Viewed on Amazon Prime. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This 10 episode streaming series seems to wrestle with the classical "quantity vs. Quality" dilemma. Quality loses. What might have been an unique and memorable action adventure series is hopelessly buried under an excess of repetitious stuff. To call out a few: the incredulous story line often lacks continuity and is loaded with never-ending, nonsensical twists and turns and way too many subplots involving global organizations dedicated to destroying Japan, global organizations dedicated to protecting Japan, and global organizations dedicated to destroying and protecting Japan (sometimes at the same time!). Most supporting actors seem well cast and deliver fine performances. Sadly this is not the case for the two lead actors - they are clearly miscast. Rubber-faced Masato SAKAI plays one of the heroes and delivers nonstop mugging and silliness (sort of like a standup comic trying to be funny when loose in the wild) until the last few episodes. Not particularly amusing. The other hero is ostensibly Japanese, but certainly doesn't appear to be. Actresses can be overly made up and look a bit like geisha (which they are not). Cutesy scenes involving a child actress are repeated ad nauseam and milked beyond dry. Then there is the sand. The series is packed to the gills with it, both real and virtual. Photography and CGI are outstanding and sets (particularly real outdoor ones) are simply marvelous. Score is uneven. Subtitles arrive before some characters have finished delivering their lines. A movie that requires a lot of popcorn (and strong, anesthetic liquid refreshment) be at the ready. Viewed on Netflix. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

Regression hypnosis, brain washing, impostors, soul switching, murder, psychopathology, and rabbits. Director Sho KATAOKA (who is also the writer, cinematographer, and editor) covers a lot of ground here and does so in grand suspenseful style with a psychological thriller that keeps viewers close to the proverbial edge of their seats! The plot is packed with twists and turns that are reminiscent of a high stakes ping pong match. As seen through the eyes of a family's oldest daughter (who increasingly feels something is not quite right with her family), she escaped serious injury in a brutal car crash five years ago that left her mother in a permanent coma, her younger sister disfigured (she always wears a white ceramic full-facial mask), and a her doctor father (a skilled hypnotist) with a nerve-damaged leg (who likes to keep rabbits - lots of rabbits!). There are many surprises in this film especially towards the end. The ending, however, is overly long and barely escapes degenerating into a slasher movie fantasy. Interior photography is often a bit on the dark side. Music is suitably "spooky." Subtitles seem close enough. And the rabbits are cute (as is their nature). Highly recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

The third in a series about con artists conning every life form in sight (including themselves). This time there is semi-completion (at least initially) rather than the usual team effort to exploit marks and suckers. It involves creating and "finding" the seventh treasured artifact attributed to feudal ruler Hideyoshi (ancient Japan's mythical treasures are always an odd number like 3, 5 or 7) which could have been a tea cup called a "Phoenix" (the bird, not the city in Arizona and duly noted by one of the con artists). As usual, just about every male character gets to make a fool of himself, and all ends in multiple super-contrived happy endings. This same plot line has now become an antique. So has the shtick! The director (and writers) gallantly try to counter the creakiness with jump-cut editing and confusing subplots that sort of work initially. But the movie is way too long and stuffed with fillers (to stretch out the running time) including a tutorial on pottery making and an ending that goes on forever. In the background, Osaka Castle looks as impressive and beautiful as always (it's my second favorite castle in Japan). Initially built by Hideyoshi, it has been destroyed and rebuilt many times; it is the real Phoenix of this movie. Not a funny film, but antics are mildly amusing here and there. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This is a tale of what might go on behind the scenes in the lives of successful (think: upper middle class) and award-winning novelists whose fictional creations are, of course, often based on past and ongoing personal experiences. Writer and Director Rikiya Imaizumi has concocted a fascinating mix of events and subplots including a serial writer of best sellers whose mistress is the wife of his closest friend who in turn is enamored with the recent recipient of a major writing award and still in high school. The mistress is the successful editor of her lover's novels while her husband (the best friend) stopped writing after the publication of his first novel and is now an unhappy freelance journalist who remains confused about why he stopped writing. The excellent script is filled with subtle humor and enables long scenes (up to five minutes or more) to occur that explore in-depth character psychology and allows actors to show emotional changes (as they occur) that the viewer simply can not resist (the camera never moves). Cinematography, lighting, and editing are excellent. Subtitles seem close enough. A fine film for grownups about grownups. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This is a story about high school class projects and a contest between two teams making cell-phone movies (in Japan, the school year continues during the summer). One team won financial support from their school. The other is bootstrapping it. Between bouts of running, jumping, and especially squealing by ostensibly young female students (see below), there are some diversions involving time travel fantasies and a male high school student from the future. Things progress in fairly typical rom-com fashion until the movie's ending scenes. Here the student director of the bootstrapped movie rewrites the ending of her movie which she stages live when her movie is shown to a high school audience. (Film directors seem to always want to make changes to "improve" their creations right up to the premieres and this time this student director pulls it off !) In closing scenes, actors spout nonsensical lines from a script that appears to struggle to wrap things up. Moreover, characters as portrayed drastically lack audience appeal with actors appearing more intent on trying to play much younger roles rather than striving to develop actor-viewer chemistry. Cinematography, lighting, and editing are fine. Subtitles seem close enough. Any low expectations will be fully realized. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A quirky and immediately engaging cinema treat provided by writer and director Eiji UCHIDA is about the importance of harmony on many levels. Harmony is a major and enduring characteristic of Japanese culture (perhaps the most important one going back to very ancient times), and is the theme (perhaps the real "star"?) of this movie. A police detective who has been a one man band (pun intended) for 30 years is finally forced to confront changing times and work as a member of a police unit. Things are not going well, and he ends up being "promoted" to a ceremonial police band where he must learn (actually re-learn) to play an instrument and perform (in harmony, of course) with other police musicians. As expected, things do not go well in this job either until a no-nonsense police-women trumpet player takes an interest in the former detective as he struggles with achieving harmony in musical performances and in his family life (the lady trumpet player is also seeking harmony in her life as a single mother). As a "waste of taxpayers money," the band is about to be disbanded until the musical team ends up capturing (together and in a surreal fashion) a criminal mastermind who has preyed on the elderly for years. Performances seem a bit forced at times especially at the film's beginning. Cinematography, lighting, and editing are fine. Subtitles are close enough. Band music is rousing and consists of standard marching numbers plus a Glenn Miller classic. There is also some classic rock (or close to it). Closing credits are sometimes translated; closing credit vocal seems out of place. The movie ends with a rather unharmonious collection of loose ends that simply demand a sequel be made - are you listening cinema gods?! Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This film is an especially weak entry into the eternal feel-good movie genre. A precocious preteen from the city is now living on an island with her mother (where the latter apparently grew up) due to her mom's recent divorce from an alcoholic surgeon. Although the island is very sparsely populated due to chronic rural depopulation (three school-age children attend a huge school with one teacher, a principal, and a grounds keeper), nonetheless the writer/director manages to incorporate a full set of the usual (often cardboard?) stereotypical character types found in small-town movies including mandatory overly-cute and wise-beyond-their-years children, evolving love interests (the last two marriageable islanders?), a number of pier-dwelling inhabitants/reprobates, beauty-parlor gossips, and the alcoholic surgeon who is trying to mend his ways, pleads his case to the Greek-chorus of islanders (who are seriously deprived of entertainment!), and may yet win back his wife. Yes, you have seen a variation of all this before (too many times?) with a banal and generic script ("it's not how long you live but how well you live") packed with predictable and simplistic subplots (often transparently contrived to invoke sympathy) that might have given search engines a real workout. Actors seem erratically directed (and winging it?). Children deliver way-beyond-their-age dialogue (dubbed?). There is also a lot of jumping into an always-smooth-as-glass ocean by swimmers and nonswimmers alike because, well, it's just there. Subtitles can be rushed due to poor editing. Minor digital effects, camera, and lighting are okay. Closing credits music is very pleasing to the ear (perhaps the best part of the film?). Not necessarily recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This is a tale of high school romances which focuses on a girl stuck in a same rainy-day time-loop featuring an abundance of precipitation, a petite clock "tower" that is repeatedly victimized by lightening strikes, and a hit and run truck driver who keeps targeting the girl's boy friend at night and, of course, in the rain. You likely have seen most/all of this movie before. Think GROUND HOG DAY(1993) meets BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985) and typical chick flick plotting plus a plethora of well known Japanese movie staging and settings. High schoolers are played by lead actors who appear to have left their own high school days far behind. Direction suffers from a lack of originality and energy. It also fails to elicit much in the way of chemistry between players or empathy between on-screen characters and viewers. The film is way too long and the screen play is end-to-end dull, sophomoric, and, well, drippy. Lead actress is burdened with dialog often consisting of variations on "eh?"; other actors don't have much to work with either. Lines in the closing scenes (which can't come soon enough!) consist of well worn platitudes and less than insightful (or original) observations on - wait for it - the purpose and meaning of life (as we think we know it). The hit and run events are critical to the story line, but these scenes are never shown on camera (a victim of a tight budget?). Cinematography is workman like and generic; it lacks creativity. Lighting is fine. Special effects (lightening flashes and strikes, blue skies, etc.) are okay. Subtitles are close enough. Closing credit music is a bit jarring and seems out of place. Pretty much an all-wet film. Not recommended except for countering insomnia. Viewed at a JICC virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This is a story of life-long bonding by three adolescent orphans. It also serves as a venue for an underlying feeling of impending doom that constantly lurks in the background in this finely-tuned sinister film. Dread of what? And how and when might it occur? The viewer can sense it (almost from the first frame), but the characters do not (or chose to ignore it?). Like an itch you are unable to scratch because you can't exactly find it, Director Yuichi Sato demonstrates a mastery of suspense building complete with a highly original surprise ending. The story line covers a lot of plot real state. Aside from life-long bonding of orphans, it includes auto repair detective work, yakuza custom service providers, corrupt politicians (redundancy intended), internet influencers. Room bugging, bombing, and symbolism (lots of this last one). The most memorial (iconic?) scenes occur in the middle of a pedestrian crossing on a deserted rural highway. There are several gaps in the narrative (intentional provocation or the victim of jump-cut editing?) as the story wraps up. Except for a bout of histrionics at the film's end, acting is okay. Lighting is poor during the last 1/3 of the movie--scenes are grossly under lit which diminishes the suspense buildup and is a major distraction. Subtitles often loose the struggle with spoken reality. Highly recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A boat load of plot devices and other things have been crammed into this film. In more skilled hands, the parts might have worked nicely together in a fine little movie. But for this film, the whole is far, far less than any summation of its parts. The movie is simply a poorly written, cast, directed, and acted production. Performance of the lead actress often consists of mugging and making guttural sounds of surprise/despair/relief/etc. Lead male actor (playing the husband) looks like a fugitive from a low-budged horror movie. The film is also way too long (it never seems to end!). Viewers might be tempted to hang in there for awhile with the hope that things will improve - they do not. Attempts at senior humor are decidedly not humorous. Pasted on animation (mostly the addition and subtraction of yen amounts) is cute for the first few times, but quickly becomes a stale irritant. Even the lively Latin favor of the music can not counter the boredom. There is egg in this film alright - on the faces of the movie makers. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-Film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This modest slice-of-life movie is about becoming mature and leaving behind the carefree days of youth like it or not. It follows the romantic adventures of an upper middle class couple who meet in college (they have very similar interests and wear the same type of sneakers), live together for about five years, and eventually breakup (the result of romantic burnout and the emergence of differing life goals--one wants to move to the next stage of life, the other does not). The main movie message here seems to be that change (in people, circumstances, and things in general) is a never ending process--life moves on and time, as we know it, proceeds only one way. Script writer and director also make the point that mutual attraction of child-less couples married or not can have a limited shelf life and it is delusional to ignore the "sell-by" date. The script is loaded with name dropping (hard to tell which are real) and never clearly explains how two college undergraduates (who are never in class) can afford such relatively luxurious life styles. It also employs an unconvincing and strained plot device of using eavesdropping in a restaurant to close out the story. Lead actors appear to have only periodic chemistry and seem mismatched with actress Kasumi Arimura dominating every scene she is in. Jump cut editing adds confusion towards the film's end. Subtitles are sometimes accurate. Not especially recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

Once again it's a cultural clash between hoteliers and undercover police in dealing with a serial killer who is on the hunt in a hotel. For the police, anything goes, since everyone is a suspect when trying to neutralize the murderer and any accomplices; for the hoteliers, customer, er, "guest," privacy is paramount and anything a guest desires hoteliers will strive to provide even if the former seems suspicious. The story line is super loaded with clever red-herring scenes involving 500 guests (talked a lot about, but never entirely on camera) checking in and preparing to attend a New Year's Eve masquerade bash. Perhaps the best (and certainly the most hilarious) scenes have to do with hotelier ingenuity in dealing with a billboard advertisement that is blocking a clear view of the Tokyo Tower from a guest's window. The script is a bit uneven. How the police quickly zero in on a handful of suspects when there are 500 candidates is not entirely clear. The wrap-up, fill-in-the-blank ending seems overly clever and, hence, convoluted. It also includes a mad rush to save an unconscious hotelier (in a complete change of costume) newly targeted to protect the killer's identification (or just jazz things up?). Ending scenes seem to go on and on as well as set things up for another sequel plus the possibility (yet again!) of a future romance between the hotelier and the police detective played by the costars. Direction is okay, but acting can be a bit hammy especially by those playing police characters. There is also a lot of running around for no apparent reason (perhaps some players like to jog indoors?). Cinematography and lighting are fine, but score suffers from the same pretentiousness as in the original movie. Subtitles need some serious editing to increase brevity and reduce flash-by speed. Next trip to Tokyo, I want to stay in this hotel! Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

Serious space travel (sci-fi and real) is for the young and, perhaps, the middle aged. If you disagree, check out the often uncomfortable-to-watch STAR TREK: PICARD (ST:P). Here a number of actors reprise their roles from nearly three decades ago. Some look like they have held up well; others not so much. The star of ST:P, Patrick Steward, seems to be somewhere in between. His Picard character acts, looks, and sounds like the octogenarian actor Steward is. But he appears to move about well. Nonetheless, it seems incredulous to see him ostensibly commanding space ships and heading landing parties in Hans Solo style.

Season One.

Steward's bland, unchanging expression and presence in many scenes seems like it might as well have been digitally pasted in. Rather than remaining front and center, the Picard character can end up on the sidelines as an observer which clearly illustrates that the show intends to proceed with or without superfluous (bookend?) appearances by Steward. The most watchable scenes are usually those without the Picard character.

Picard survives all this by becoming an android. But Steward's new existence could still benefit from some (more?) digital make-up plus some (more?) re-recording to eliminate the distraction of his mumbling, weak, hoarse, and cracking voice.

Directing/editing is hit or miss. Pacing is generally lethargic and things often limp along between fight-scene set places. Scripts are far from original and some are ridiculously padded to extend individual show lengths and the number of shows. Special effects, especially exterior scenes, can look obviously fake and cheesy such as repetitive scenes of the Golden Gate Bridge that looks like a toy model. (Some sets may be knockoffs from THE EXPANSE.) The score is rather generic except for the impressive opening and closing credits. That said, the score can be the most dynamic (and, hence, interesting) part of otherwise sleepy scenes.

Season Two.

This is not the usual Star Trek space opera franchise. Rather, it is a time-travel opera with multiple blossoming romances and a conventional happy ending (that includes the Borg!).

The initial show starts off as a whimper: a rambling (and endless) Picard character expository and an obsession on growing grapes (not even in space!). The script soon descends into chaos and lunacy, and never seems to recover for the duration of the series. Jeff Russo's powerful score comes to the rescue none too soon and (fortunately) stays there as the season unfolds. Russo's music is really the star of the show! Movie-theater grade special effects provide life support (it's hard to find a scene without CGI). Unfortunately, the quality of effects shots deteriorates as the season progresses and become cheesy in the closing episodes (a victim of wrap-up rush and/or dwindling financial resources?).

Time travel sagas are always a struggle for writers to get straight! The script is mostly focused on Picard's memories (which may be far from perfect at his age) where what is "remembered" has yet to occur. The trick of using a space ship to travel back in time has been used before, but returning to the future sans a ship seems to suffer from writers lacking imagination! Moreover, time-line impacts on the future due to changes in past events are given lip service at best.

Script writers appear obsessed with the amateur psychoanalysis of the Picard character; life in a vineyard riddled with hidden tunnels, dungeons, monsters (but, sadly, no dragons); and a suicidal mother trying to comfort a psychologically lost very young Picard (the latter appears in the same scene or is glimpsed in the background ad nauseam!).

Acting is all over the map from the enjoyable (especially the character played by actress Sol Rodriguez) to the tolerable but hammy (from principal supporting players) to the painful (the title character). There is also a fair amount of what looks like ad libbing.

This season could benefit from leading off with a summary of the previous season. After all, its been over two years since the last one (which was far from memorable).

How many producer types does it take to screw in a light bulb or, in this case, screw up a show? It looks like this production was "producer sourced." Sure the script writers can be held accountable for the mess, but the multi layers of "checkbook or in-kind" producers should probably share much of the blame. Way too many cooks (and wannabe cooks)?

ST:P seems to be a show designed to shore up nostalgia in its aging and dwindling core base of fans while trying (disparately?) to grow that base. The outcome for either does not look particularly promising given this entry. Recommend fast forwarding through the Picard character scenes or, better still, turning off the video and just enjoying the music. Viewed on disc. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A family replacement chick flick involving a university philosophy professor and a barber who is a single mom. The primary plot revolves around the supposition that the emotional trauma of learning to swim can provide psychological therapy when dealing with past traumatic experiences. The professor lost his family when he was unable to save his drowning son due to aquaphobia. Five years later, he has decided to learn to swim. There are four leading characters: the aforementioned as well as a lady swimming instructor (for whom swimming therapy does not work) and the professor's former wife. This is basically a one-trick-pony movie, a problem the Director never overcomes. The swimming-pool scenes rapidly become repetitious and boring (there are a number of attempted diversions using unrelated scenes and subplots) with superficial and strained acting (but not for the comic relief of the pool "Greek chorus"!). It is difficult to relate to the roles of the principal players who also seem to lack sufficient inter-character chemistry. Keeping the leading actresses straight is challenging: they are sometimes made up to look alike plus the random use of jump-cut flash backs adds to identity confusion. The script seems wobbly and contrived more often than not (the Director also wrote the lines). Future events are clearly telegraphed leaving not much in the way of surprises to hold the audience's attention. There is some smoking and the obligatory happy ending. Cinematography (including underwater shots), lighting, and sound are fine. CGI special effects range from the cheesy to the impressive. Subtitles are a bit busy. Most signs and other text are not translated (including one critical poster for swimming instruction!). Closing credits song is generic. Not especially recommended. Viewed at a JICC J-film streaming event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

This is a tale of a sex doll business. The first act is mostly about a small time manufacturer of high-end sex toys constantly on the brink of failure. It is packed with manikin "nudity" (and, occasionally, what appears to be live models acting as dummies) as well as touchy-feely and other sophomoric silliness. There is a lot of running around inside of a small space (it appears to be an extended garage) used as a design and fabrication site. The business model (pun intended) evolves from best-guess abstract and gross design of dolls based on what a diminishing customer base might like (but does not) to the use of "realistic" molds from a figure model. The latter approach causes sales to sky rocket. Actress Yû Aoi plays the model. The second act is a story of the marriage between the doll designer and the now apparently retired figure model. It is loveless (the designer is more interested in his business than his wife) until the wife is diagnosed with an incurable disease. To absolutely no one's surprise, the dead wife "lives on" as an upgraded sex doll. The movie is way too long in part due to excruciating details of doll manufacturing processes. Lead actress Aoi very much looks the part, but is not all that convincing as she struggles to act the part. The director occasionally obtains some solid acting from others in the cast. Cinematography, lighting, and sound are okay. Subtitles are a bit busy. Not especially recommended. Viewed on streaming. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

DRIVE MY CAR is a highly original tale of coping with loss and associated regrets. It is also a feel-good uplifting story of hopefulness. The screen play brims with surprises, shock, humor, and suspense. There is much on the surface; far more underneath. Director Ryûsuke HAMAGUCHI is credited as a co-writer of the outstanding screen play. A theater/TV director and actor suddenly loses his semi-faithful wife (a screen writer and sometimes collaborator) to a brain disorder, decides on a change of scenery, and accepts a job in a regional theater as the director of a multilingual production of Russian playwright Anton Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya." He drives his classic red roadster from Tokyo to Hiroshima, but is forced by the terms of his contract to relinquish local driving of his car to a young part-time garbage truck driver (from Hokkaido) with remarkable driving skills she learned the hard way. Play rehearsals seem to have the usual problems, but all this is only prelude. Hamaguchi employs a remarkably diverse and talented (and well directed) set of actors who communicate on screen using several languages including Korean sign language (provided by actress Park Yu-rim). The director is a master of subtlety perhaps only totally appreciated with multiple viewings. "Uncle Vanya" is intertwined through out the film with translated lines from the play used to emphasize and underline events on screen, a number of which seem identical to or mirror those of Chekhov's. (The translation from Russian to Japanese to English subtitles holds together well.) Cinematography and lighting are excellent. Sound is well done. Subtitles are close enough. Signs are translated as needed. Closing credits are unhurried and, hence, sometimes readable! The film is not without its warts. Smoking is prevalent and used as a focal point ad nauseam. Editing is rather loose and fails to remove obvious padding such as repetitious dialog while commuting and indulges in a road trip (to Hokkaido) with seemingly endless travel through tunnels. The closing scenes are especially "interesting." Movie making rarely gets better than this! Viewed on disc. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A small but clever film loaded with humorous one-liners as well as amusing (and psychologically adroit) situations involving an age mismatched, childless couple suddenly deciding to have a baby. She is physiologically ready to boogie. He not so much. One of the stars of this film is the excellent and comprehensive script (which even includes the role of pomegranates in pregnancies) well executed by actors refreshingly underplaying most of their scenes. Among the gems is a scene in a fertility clinic where the anxious couple is ambushed with techno-babble by their physician. Another involves a father-in-law curmudgeon using cash to negatively motivate his son in law (or rather his son in law's sperm) to try harder (and get even by paying him back later with interest). (Hey, it seems like everything else has been tried!) Director Tôru Hosokawa (who also wrote the screen play) does a bang up job (pun intended) all round. The film slows down a bit around the mid point with too many repetitive scenes used to make a point. The couple have an aquarium filled with jelly fish which could be symbolic in several ways including that these invertebrates don't need each other except maybe for reproduction, but humans (at least in this movie) need the companionship and emotional comfort of others ~ always. Highly recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A film that seems to try hard for relevancy and misses by a country mile. It fails to "click" for a number of reasons including: relying on not especially likeable characters the audience can relate to (marginal acting and poor direction); a blur of mini plots mixed together like a pot of recycled TV episodes (some of which are hard to swallow); a weak, rambling script (the Director is also credited as a co-writer); it is stretched out with padded scenes and superfluous scenes of eating (lots of eating); and a pace that is super slow (undisciplined editing). All in all, an unimaginative, soporific, and ultimately disappointing movie. Cinematography is by the book and undistinguishable; scene lighting seems okay. Music is nondescript especially what passes for rock from the distant pass. Subtitles often lack accuracy (the translator needs to revisit the meaning of "itadakimasu" among other things) and can be overly busy. Not recommended. Viewed at a JICC Virtual J-film event. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

Where to begin when attempting to review a film classic and overwhelming cinematic epic? A production so immense that it required two directors (Shinji Higuchi and Isshin Inudo)! The movie recounts the siege of Oshi Castle (located about 40 miles northwest of Edo/Tokyo) when defenders (out numbered four to one) successfully held off attacking forces towards the end of Japan's feudal era. This "floating" castle was mostly surrounded by swamps which formed part to it's fortification. (It has been partially rebuilt in modern times.) Defenders threw in the towel (but seem to have never really surrendered) after being drowned out by a flash flood induced by the attackers who built and then emptied a large reservoir filled by damming nearby rivers. All of this is convincingly (and grippingly) recreated in this film which is also loaded with believable high drama. Crammed with supporting-actor talent, actor Mansai Nomura (playing the leader of the defenders) is a stand out while actress Machiko Ono not so much. Nomura's character is an aristocrat who: is also a man of the people; has an amusing off-the-wall personality; although not a warrior, can be a shrewd military strategist when pressed; and is a very good song-and-dance man (yes, you read this right!). The latter talent is used to confuse and soften the resolve of attacking forces after the flash flood. The castle looks more like a fortification than a castle as depicted in the movie. Special effects are spectacular (and rarely look like simulations). Costumes are imaginative yet seem to be historically accurate (except for some head gear). Same for weapons. Interior sets are richly detailed. Music adds much to what is occurring on screen. Nomura's singing is hauntingly reprised during the closing credits. Subtitles seem to capture the gruff, hard-to-understand dialogue , but the translation ignores clarifications and guide posts (names, titles, etc.) inserted through out the film to help the viewer keep on track. That said, movie watching very seldom gets better than this! Viewed at Japanese Film Festival Online. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.

A bit of a contrived idea about the lives of two women from decidedly different socio-economic levels often intersecting in Tokyo is appealing presented by Director Yukiko Sode who also wrote the script. The principal message seems to be that no matter how rich or poor you may be, you will experience similar upsides and downers in life. However, the plot is really a riff on the ancient myth that money can't buy happiness (which is espoused, of course, by folks who don't have any!). Acting is convincing especially the scene involving the first arranged meeting between the rich female protagonist and a seemingly bashful super rich guy whom she will eventually marry, at least for a while. The ending teases that these two now divorced may still be mutually attracted. Many scenes involve eating, but the actors never put on weight! The Tokyo Tower is often in the background to emphasize that the rich couple lives in a very expensive neighborhood (and, perhaps, to add a bit of a romantic touch?). Cinematography is pretty good except for a few scenes where the camera bounces about for no apparent reason. Lighting is excellent with dark scenes (of which there are many) allowing the viewer to see the performers do their stuff (yeah!). Sound fields cleverly overlap between scenes. Music fits right in. Subtitles are close enough. Worth watching. Viewed at Japanese Film Festival Online. WILLIAM FLANIGAN.