Change Your Image
holtom5
Reviews
Lü de shui (2016)
A tragedy that doesn't really go anywhere
The first thing to say is that this is a tragedy, first and foremost, with some comic elements.
Because it seems to be described in many places as a comedy movie, which, along with the whimsical movie poster, might give you this impression that this is a going to be a feel-good experience.
But no; while it has some funny jokes, they basically finish up by the middle of the movie and the rest is just a succession of appalling things being said and done.
It's a morality tale; some relatively relateable characters start by telling white lies for the greater good but end up digging themselves into ever worsening problems.
And herein lies the main issue I have: you can have a comedy movie where everything goes wrong: a black comedy.
But if there's no humor and you're making an outright tragedy, then you need some other elements to sustain such a story. Here, it feels like they make a point by the end of the first act, and then that point just gets repeated, more and more painfully, through the second and third acts with little entertainment value.
The 4 stars are because the acting is very good.
Arrival (2016)
A "Hollywood smart" film
This got hyped to me as an intelligent sci-fi movie complete with a consistent, rich alien language and real linguistics terminology.
Well, the alien language is quite unique, and I like some of the early setup, so hence the 3 stars.
However most of the movie is so dumb my eyes hurt from being rolled so much. I'm not exaggerating when I say I think Independence Day was more logical and consistent.
It starts with Forrest playing a recording of a few seconds of noises and expecting Louise to somehow be able to translate it.
Then, when there is the choice of linguists to take on the mission, Louise asks them to ask the other guy "What the Sanskrit word for war is, and its translation?". They apparently pick her on the basis that she answers correctly, and he does not.
Let's go through the things wrong with this.
Firstly, isn't (one) correct answer simply "war", by definition? Secondly, how do they know her answer is right, if only the most genius- y person knows the right answer? Thirdly, does he get to ask her a question? Fourthly, what does it prove anyway? It all only makes sense in movie- logic, where if person A is more genius than person B then B's knowledge and skills are a subset of A's.
You may think I'm being pedantic over one small issue but the whole movie proceeds like that. I can give lots of examples: Forrest demanding to know why she's teaching the aliens such simple words -- when she had just got started -- what on earth did he expect? Ian proposing that maybe the reason for the difference in air pressure in the alien's chamber is because they are used to a different atmosphere -- apparently no-one had thought of this. Writing on a whiteboard being tried before photographs or drawing say, or even a computer display that would at least make her type consistent. The kangaroo speech (using a myth to explain, well nothing at all actually, just something that sounded smart enough to Forrest to shut him up). The bizarre actions of the Chinese and other countries. etc etc No-one on earth brings a single good idea to the table other than Louise and Ian (and he only plays a bit role).
Then things get gradually more and more sappy and conclude with some 15 mins or so of flashbacks to / from her future life and daughter h a n n a h. I guess after interstellar people think this is a good way to finish a sci fi movie, but it erased any goodwill about the early part of the movie for me.
Waking Life (2001)
Utter drivel
I thought I'd love this film but I found little to like.
There's very little plot to this film. Basically the protagonist, who we quickly learn is dreaming, spends the whole film passively listening to a series of monologues.
Some of the monologues touch on philsophical concepts, such as free will versus determinism. But only at a very basic level. So people familiar with the philosophy will gain nothing, while those new to it, will be put off philosophy, I suspect, by this film.
Why? Because most of the monologues are never argued coherently. Someone new to philosophy watching this film might think philosophy is not about reasoned argument, it's just about talking quickly enough to sound clever, and never giving anyone a chance to dissect your ideas.
The film also feels rather self-indulgent. One of the characters for example, mentions matter-of-factly that there is a bigger difference between Plato and the common man than between the common man and a chimpanzee. The implication being that the filmmakers and maybe others interested in philosophy are better than those who do not. And you can tell that the makers really think this from the tone of the film.
There are a number of facts in the film which are incorrect; I wish I had brought a pad to jot them all down, I can remember two off the top of my head: the fact that we regenerate every 7 years and the fact that dreams are not experienced in real-time. So even where the characters bother to give arguments for their worldviews, those arguments are based on false premises.
I have given the film 2/10 and that second star is simply for bravery; for attempting to do something original and thought-provoking (but failing).