Reviews
Shanghai Kiss (2007)
sure, it defies stereotypes; but that doesn't mean it's good
Much has been made by other reviewers about how "Shanghai Kiss" breaks away from the unflattering stereotypes that dog Asian men in American popular culture. And to be sure, I'm glad to see these folks playing roles other than martial artist or math geek. But in its relentless quest to show that, yes, an Asian guy can indeed sleep with white chicks, this movie gives us an entirely unsympathetic main character and throws him into completely implausible situations.
Nowhere do we see why it is that Ken Leung's character is such a babe magnet. Instead, we get someone who is shallow, egotistical, moody, immature, and just plain annoying. And he's not even especially handsome, either (though he does have a sort of boyish cuteness). In short, there's nothing particularly desirable or appealing about this guy. Yet, inexplicably, the ladies just can't get enough of him.
And as if the fact that the protagonist is totally irritating isn't enough to detract from our enjoyment of the movie, there's also the rank implausibility of the storyline. I mean, how often do attractive women (of any race) blatantly throw themselves at random strangers (again, of any race) on public buses? Or, when someone just steps off a trans-Pacific airline flight, how likely is it that they are immediately going to go someplace where -- you guessed it -- women are eagerly waiting to pleasure him? To me, the whole thing smacked of the film makers shouting out as loudly as they can, "Hey, look at this! Asian guys can get some action in bed!" Well, OK, that's swell, I guess. But somehow, I don't think that making our "hero" out to be as unappealing and unsympathetic as possible, while putting him into completely implausible and unbelievable situations, advances the cause of Asian male de-stereotyping.
Full disclosure: I hit my limit and stopped watching the movie about a half-hour into it (right after the main character arrived in Shanghai). So that's why I'm giving it two stars, because maybe it got better after that. But as for me, I'm afraid I'll just have to keep hoping that maybe someday I'll find a non-stereotypical Asian guy in the movies who's actually worth spending some time with.
Stealth (2005)
should have stuck to flying
"Stealth" is an OK movie; not great, not even all that good, but not quite as horrible as one might think from reading some of the other reviews. The aerial sequences are fast-paced, exciting, and very well done; they almost justify the price of admission, assuming you went to the bargain matinée show. But once you're back on the ground, the movie falls apart.
I realize that suspension of belief is important for movies like this, and I'm willing to do so -- to an extent. For example, I don't KNOW if a missile, when fired straight down through the roof of a high-rise building, will cause said building to collapse in on itself. But for the purposes of the story, I'm willing to grant that it will. HOWEVER, as we all know from September 11, when a tall building comes crashing down, it will kick up A LOT of dust. But in this movie, nothing; not so much as a speck. That's the kind of piddling little detail that they should have gotten right, but didn't.
Besides, suspension of belief will only go so far. Are we really to believe that a U.S. Navy aviator can willfully, deliberately disregard several direct orders from his superior officer without ANY consequences? Show of hands, please, for anyone who's tried this in real life, and gotten away with it. That's what I thought.
A little side note: part of the story is set on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, and the first name of Jessica Biel's character (a hot-shot, tough but caring Navy flier) is Kara. I have to wonder if this was meant to be a tribute to the pioneering female aviator Kara Hultgreen, who in 1994 crashed and died while attempting to land her Navy jet on the Abraham Lincoln. At the least, it's an interesting coincidence.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
it's a disaster, all right
"The Day After Tomorrow" is (drum roll please) a disaster movie! For those of you who aren't familiar with this genre, what this means is that lots of big man-made objects (buildings, ships, planes, etc.) get blown up/knocked over/washed away/sunk, or whatever. That's what you should expect in a movie of this type, and sure enough, this one delivers the goods. But if you're looking for plausibility, or character development, look elsewhere.
To be sure, the overall plot device (the near-instantaneous global warming) is ridiculous in the extreme; but hey, sometimes you have to suspend belief to make a movie work. (Besides, it's not all that more implausible than an experienced ocean-liner captain turning his ship broadside to a tidal wave, a la "Poseidon Adventure"!) But given the means the film makers chose to kick-start the action, couldn't they have at least made some of the details more believable? I'll give one example: as the water ominously rises out of the subways, sewers, and storm drains of New York (all of which are underground passages not famous for their hygienic cleanliness), what is the reaction from you, the audience member? (1) "Oh no, doom is at hand! They're all about to die! Run for your lives, people!" Or, (2), "Look how astonishingly CLEAN the water is! Why, it's practically transparent!" If you picked No. 2, then you'll feel right at home with this film. It's no wonder all those blase New Yorkers just mosey on down the sidewalk as the city slowly sinks beneath them; why flee in terror when you've got a great new swimming pool right there on Fifth Avenue?
Speaking of that (fleeing in terror), this film really dropped the ball on that part. Every fan of disaster movies knows that the evacuation scenes can be some of the most gripping of all. (Personally, I think the scene near the end of "Deep Impact", when the desperate evacuees take over both sides of the interstate plus the median strip, was probably the most intensely realistic evacuation scene yet put to film.) Here in "TDAT" we have probably the largest mass evacuation in human history. An entire movie could have been made just on that one aspect alone! But instead, all we get is a quickie shot of people flooding the Mexican border crossings. What a letdown!
If you like story-line implausibility, and one-dimensional characters played by decent actors trying to put some feeling into their cardboard dialogue, and (most of all) lots of stuff getting destroyed in spectacular, eye-popping fashion, then this is the movie for you.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
a moral dilemma, Hollywood style
*** may contain spoilers ***
Let's get to the good part right away: the attack sequence is stunning. The visual effects are spectacular, and the sense of "you are there" is palpable. Plus, they portray the air raid itself with a reasonable degree of accuracy. (I appreciate strict adherence to historical accuracy as much as anyone, but we do have to remember, "Pearl Harbor" is not a documentary about the titular event.)
Once we get away from the attack sequence itself, things start to fall apart. Quite a few continuity mistakes dog the film, making it hard to concentrate on the story itself. (Examples: a plane gets shot down in broad daylight and crashes into the sea, but when the pilot swims to the surface, it's night time. A train passing near what looks like the Rocky Mountains would not arrive in New York that same evening. Ships at sea don't sail so closely together that they look like a fleet of toy models in a bathtub.)
The Japanese come off looking very cold and calculating. They always speak in rather stilted language ("we shall destroy the great American fleet" as opposed to, say, "we'll cream the jerks!") and the background music is a bit ominous whenever we see them making the pre-attack preparations. The film portrays the attack as being made as a result of the Americans cutting off their oil supply, but they never mention that the U.S. cut off their oil because they were conquering China and other places in Southeast Asia. So it makes it seem as if, for no good reason, we provoked the Japanese into attacking us. They show Roosevelt as badly wanting to help the British fight the Germans, but at least they stop short of suggesting that he knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened, as some revisionist historians have suggested.
And then there's the love story (actually a love triangle), "Pearl Harbor"s raison d'etre. Yes, it's rather sappy. But (and, judging by the other reviews, this appears to be a minority opinion), it's also reasonably engaging. Specifically, the filmmakers set up an interesting moral dilemma:
if someone appears to be dead, is it wrong for the deceased's best friend and the deceased's lover to then fall in love with each other? And then, when they find out that the presumed dead person is in fact NOT dead after all, what should they do? Will the girl choose her first boyfriend or her second one? And will the best friend choose his friendship with his un-dead buddy, or his love for their mutual girlfriend? In a situation like this, there are no easy answers . . . except of course in Hollywood, where they arrange things in such a way as to work it all out much too neatly.
Discounting the too-pat resolution, I did think that the film explored these issues in an interesting way. And here was one detail that I, for one, found quite refreshing: amazingly for a contemporary Hollywood production, one of the boyfriends refuses to hit the hay with the girl when the opportunity arises, because he does not want to ruin things between them. (Regrettably, the other guy doesn't have the same morals, so -- in typical Hollywood fashion -- the two new lovers get it on right away.)
All in all, for a good, accurate portrayal of the air raid on Pearl Harbor (and the events leading up to it), skip this movie and see "Tora! Tora! Tora!" instead. For impressive special effects, actually, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is quite good in its own right, but "Pearl Harbor" is amazing. If you want a sappy love triangle, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" will disappoint you, because it doesn't have one; the one in "Pearl Harbor" isn't too bad.
My recommendation: see the movie, but don't expect much out of the first hour and a half. Just sit back and enjoy catching the mistakes. The attack sequence is worth the wait. After that, you can watch the love triangle get resolved all nice and neat, then get on with your life.
Everest (1998)
impressive visuals; unimpressive people
This is a tremendously impressive movie. It takes a medium as big as IMAX to capture a location as grand as Mount Everest, and this film does not disappoint on that score. The sheer size of the mountain, not to mention the incredibly arduous process of climbing it, are well captured here. I found that the scene of the helicopter flight up towards Base Camp actually illustrates the scale of the Himalayas even better than the scenes on Everest itself. Also, the musical score is first-rate throughout.
That said, I came away from it with an overwhelming sense of the total pointlessness of the whole endeavor. I admit that I'm not an outdoors adventurer, but still . . . The human sacrifice (people killed or horribly maimed) was such a waste, and for what? To follow a path that others have already trod? To add yet another prayer flag to the whole bunch that are already there? I just didn't get it.
The film portrays the climbers at heroic, but to me they came across as appallingly self-indulgent. There's nothing heroic about leaving one's (pregnant) wife a widow! The only true hero in this movie is the Nepalese helicopter pilot who put his own life at grave risk to save a wounded climber (who, it should be emphasized, got himself into the mess that the pilot had to go and pluck him out of!)
If you can overlook the climbers themselves, and focus on the object of their climb, you won't be disappointed, especially if you're fortunate enough to see it in an IMAX theater.
Midway (1976)
inspiring, in a way
I can't help but agree with most of the other comments: the sloppy production values, the scenes "borrowed" from better movies, the countless anachronisms, the distracting subplot about Lt. Garth and his Japanese girlfriend, and so on. But for me, this movie has two strong points in its favor. One, when they get around to the actual battle, they follow the history with surprising accuracy. (The "Pearl Harbor" makers could have learned something from this one.) So the movie's hard to follow? So was the actual battle! Personally, I think they did a pretty good job of keeping the flow coherent while still remaining faithful to its source material.
The second thing in its favor is that, from the moment I first saw it in the theater as a 10 year old, it ignited in me a passion for the Battle of Midway that remains to this day. I can't think of any other movie that even comes close to getting me as hooked on its subject as this one. Maybe it's a good thing I first saw it when I was young, when I was much less discerning about production values, etc. That way, I could concentrate on the story itself.
If you have even the slightest interest in military history or even in important historical events in general, do yourself a favor. Watch "Midway" to get an overview of the event (fast-forward over the love-story scenes if you like), then go read "Incredible Victory" by Walter Lord (which is a better book than the one for which he is most famous, "A Night to Remember"). You won't be sorry.