The Farewell

I can see why this film would be beloved by an American/non-Asian audience. It was - to them - likely an interesting glimpse into a foreign culture, tradition and familial values, and the comedic clash of East-meets-West, though genuinely funny, might seemed fresh and exciting in their white/black-tinged world.

However, from an Asian perspective, this film offered nothing new that Asian-cinema has not witnessed or produced in better measures.

Although there was a sincere warmth and honesty in the story, director/writer Lulu Wang's treatment of the material felt amateurish and generic. The storytelling was heavy-handed and littered with expected and predictable tropes of its genre.

Nonetheless, the acting shone through especially from the lesser-known cast. Awkwafina did impress in her first serious-dramatic role, but not in the sense that she was a revelation, instead more like that she was better than expected. Then again, she shone more in the comedic moments rather than the deeper, more introspective, serious beats. Her overall characterisation was more that of an entitled, self-obsessed millennial as seen through my Asian eyes.

The veteran actors, on the other hand, were outstanding. In particular Tzi Ma and Diana Lin 林晓杰 as Awkwafina's parents. But the breakout role, and definite star, of the film was first time actress Zhao Shuzhen 赵淑珍 as the granny at the center of the plot. She stole all her scenes with her easy, unbridled charm and effortless sincerity. It was not impossible to imagine that the actress herself had gone through something similar in her own personal life.

Non-Asian audience, and even those - like Awkwafina - who are Asian in skin but not brought up in that environment, will enjoy this film a lot for its exploration of the immigrant story and reconciliation of one's cultural, traditional past and present day societal norms. This film was not perfect but at least it had sincerity and aimed to educate without mocking. A potential Best Screenplay nomination is in sight.

For Asian audience, go watch it too to support cinema, and to enjoy the film's honest moments and the genuine laughs it brings.

Joker

Wow! Forget about the MCU, Black Panther or Logan. Joker has redefined, possibly even transcended, the superhero/villain film genre. It was absolutely possible to take it as a standalone, character-study, independent of its comic-book pedigree. And it was brilliant.

Joaquin Phoenix was the ace in the deck. He was immensely riveting, insanely transformative and immersive and utterly unforgettable. Just give him the damn Oscar already. Truly, he was in practically every scene of this film and you cannot take your eyes off him. His eyes were magnetic, his body language was (and the dances!) hypnotic and his voice - and that laughter! - was uniquely indelible.

Joker was an in-depth character study that went beyond the supervillain origin story tropes. Director Todd Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver found a way to humanise and authentically translated the downfall of Arthur Fleck the man and a rise of a Joker the villain.

The story itself, was well-paced and although it had its comic-book cliches and the third act meandered into socio-political overtones that felt concurrently overhanded and underbaked, the narrative itself still managed to be surprising and unexpected especially in terms of how certain outcomes were reached.

The best moments of the film were the musical interludes, either from the haunting and oppressive strings of Hildur Guðnadóttir's or Phillips' song choices, where Phillips' just followed and circled around Phoenix as he moved, danced and simply commanded the camera and the screen and our attention. 

Lawrence Sher's cinematography had its moments too, with a couple of standout scenes that were shot and lit beautifully. And together with Phillips' direction and Guðnadóttir's score, their work together helped to support Phoenix and translate his phenomenal characterisation from paper to screen.

Phoenix owned this film and our attention. He was equal parts pitiable, sad, scary, lovable, charismatic, menacing, evil, good and all were mostly done through his eyes and face and body. He and Christian Bale could possibly be the two most method-actors out there now, and he could be the best on-screen Joker of all time (sorry Heath Ledger).

For now, the Oscar is his to lose (if all things being equal, but we all know the Oscars is more than just performance-oriented). As for the supporting cast, Francis Conroy was well-cast as were Robert De Niro and Zazie Beetz although Beetz had nothing much to do. But all three had good chemistry with Phoenix.

Joker was a riveting film elevated to greatness by Phoenix. It deserved to be watched and the concerns surrounding its validation of a sociopath are unfounded as long as the audience watching it have some level of intelligence to be able to differentiate between art and life.

The Goldfinch

Somewhere within this overlong and overwrought 149 minutes slog laid a genuinely interesting and possibly emotionally intense story that deserved better. 

It was a meandering, unfocused and hollow experience only briefly and occasionally lit up by good actors doing their best to lift the material. And unfortunately this did not include Ansel Elgort or Oakes Fegley who played the lead. 

Nicole Kidman was surprisingly effective as was Sarah Paulson, but Jeffrey Wright seemed to be replaying his Bernard host-role from “Westworld”. 

Not even Roger Deakins’ cinematography could elevate this John Crawley dud. 

Perhaps they should have gone to Netflix or Amazon and turned the novel into a mini-series event. 5 or 6 episodes, or even 3 two-hours ones, would have allowed the story to breathe and sufficiently explored the emotional complexities in Donna Tartt’s novel.

An oscar-baiting film on paper that just could not deliver.

Ad Astra [IMAX]

A film about one man’s search for the meaning of his existence and his place in Life, and also about the relationship with his father and how parental influences affect us. A meditative, philosophical contemplation disguised as a space-opera action-adventure by James Gray in his most accessible film to date, think First Man by way of The Tree of Life with touches of Gravity and Solaris, and glimpses of Interstellar. Brad Pitt, in possibly his best film role to date, gave an engaging, immersive and sincere performance that was highly nuanced and incredibly affecting. A superb supporting cast, especially Ruth Negga, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland and Liv Tyler, with stunningly gorgeous cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema and excellent music by Max Richter, make Ad Astra a clear, all-categories Oscar contender.

Gray directed and co-wrote this film which in essence was a simple story of boy looking for father. But through the 2-hours, we got an exploration into the boy and the man he became. The voice-overs may often be an easy - and cheap - trick to help propel narrative and expose a character’s emotional drive, but here, Gray effectively integrates organically most of the VOs into the story. However, it really was Pitt who sold the authenticity and sincerity of those moments. As Gray directed the tight close-ups of Pitt’s chiseled jaws, Pitt’s eyes were emoting and expressing the hell out of his monologues (think Elizabeth Moss’ June/Offred in those The Handmaid’s Tale close ups).

The film itself was incredibly well-paced. From an exciting prologue that deftly introduced our hero, it swiftly moved into the main narrative. Big set pieces followed one another swiftly that were brilliantly shot and edited to give the needed adrenaline surges and serotonin relieves. Backstory and character motivations were also smartly interlaced throughout without breaking the pace nor the momentum. Editors John Axelrad and Lee Haugen did a tremendous job!

Pitt was outstanding. Together with his work on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019 is proving to be his comeback year. And he is easily in contention for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor nominations. Although the win might more easily come from the latter depending on how the rest of the year unfolds. Pitt’s handsomeness was neither distracting nor a factor in his character. Yes, Gray focused a lot on Pitt’s face - he is almost always in a space suit with/without a helmet - but it is to Pitt’s credit that he sold it. We were immersed only in his character’s journey and experience, Pitt the actor sinks into the background. We sometimes forget that Pitt gave us 12 Monkeys, Benjamin Button, The Tree of Life, Burn After Reading and Moneyball - a career that has spanned almost 30 years and a multitude of different characters.

Negga, now finally done with Preacher, can start leveraging her Oscar nomination and venture into films. Her minimal screen time was both powerful and magnetic.

Jones and Sutherland, the old stewards, did some scenery chewing but never more than required. Their scenes with Pitt tended to support and not steal the spotlight from him.

Tyler, coming onto the film scene once every few years, was effective and still as beautiful. A great, ?intentional, throwback to Armageddon.

The cinematography by van Hoytema was gorgeous, echoing his works on Interstellar\ and Dunkirk. Those wide angle moments were sublime and the interior shots were claustrophobic when necessary but oddly open when required. That opening scene and the scenes on Mars and the climatic set piece were outstanding.

Richter scored the music and it was mood and atmospheric-appropriate. Not excessively rousing or orchestrated, nor new and imaginative, but more subtle and internalised; very closely tied to the emotional landscape of Pitt’s character.

Simply put, this was a great film. IMAX was definitely worth it and a repeat viewing is not out of the question.

Hustlers

A fairly enjoyable film that was boosted by a fantastic - and fantastic-looking too! - Jennifer Lopez in possibly her best role in years! Unfortunately, the rest of the film failed to live up to the heights of J Lo. Constance Wu, in the lead role, was unengaging and uncharismatic, and placing her next to J Lo really highlighted the difference in ability and screen chemistry.

Similarly, although the film, written and directed by Lorene Scafaria, went beyond the typical debauchery and skankiness usually associated with stripper-flicks, whenever Scafaria dipped into more serious territory of capitalism, sisterhood, motherhood, survival and friendship the pacing faltered and the air just went out of the film. Until J Lo reignites the screen.

There could have been a better film within this if they had focused on the central relationship between Wu's and Lopez's character instead of the hustling. The flashback narrative structure served to only highlight the boringness and predictability of the central story, whereas the one thing that the audience are keen to find out more, namely the above-said relationship, got teased out to a rather unsatisfactory conclusion.

Scafaria seemed more interested in telling the story of the hustle rather than furthering the depths of these potentially complicated characters, but yet the hustle itself seemed as rote as that of a bloated Lifetime movie.

There was humour in the film too, and it was scattered around. I guess that could have been more due to the contribution by Will Farrell and Adam McKay rather than Scafaria, because oddly enough, on hindsight, one cannot really remember the specifics of the comedy.

Wu's character, the audience surrogate, was written very well - on paper - but its translation onto the big screen by Wu was a bore. Her costuming and look itself did her no favour, and obviously the costumer focused more on J Lo than recreating an authentic Asian look. I honestly doubt and Asian stripper would looked and dressed like Wu in 2007. She looked like she was stuck in the 70s or 80s instead. Added to that, the fact that Wu was just very uninteresting and did not play her character as someone worth rooting for.

Actually, there were no one character that was worth rooting for. Maybe except Doug. Poor Doug.

Scafaria had created for Wu a central lead character that had a great back story with so much potential emotional depth, but in the end, they only gave us someone who was essentially going through the motions without a sense of authenticity or lived-in-ness.

Having said that, Wu did deliver towards the end, but it was too little too late. What a shame.

Thankfully, we had J Lo. Man, we all should look like her at age 50.  And boy, the chatter is real, J Lo has a chance - albeit likely a long shot depending on how else the year goes - of some award recognition. A Golden Globe nomination for sure, but Oscar...we will see. She was electrifying, magnetic, charismatic and dosed out in just the right amount without being overbearing. She easily commanded the screen and out-classed and out-acted everybody. Then again, the latter was not hard, considering the rest of her cast mates were more well-known for their television screen roles and music career than acting per se. J Lo was the ferocious beating heart of this film and her screen entrance will be one for the books.

Another highlight of the film was the music. The songs featured were a homage to naughties and early teenies, and helped to move the narrative along despite the absence of a score.

J Lo should get back into serious film-making as we eagerly anticipate her 2019/20 awards campaign. Just as we anticipate Hollywood try to get a female-driven, female-led ensemble heist/hustler film done right. Steve McQueen's Widows was still the closest for now.

Weathering With You 天気の子

Makoto Shinkai's follow-up to 2016's phenom-hit Your Name continued the director's gorgeous visual and animation aesthetics, and blatant - but excellent - emotional manipulation with a killer piano score, as the story integrated Japan's hyper-modernity with its ancient shinto religion and manga-esque fantasy genre.

However, unlike Your Name, the film's central story (and romance) lacked emotional depth, thematic complexity and was narratively simple. Although the characters were very likable and very easy to root for, their relationship just felt too basic and thinly sketched, lacking the necessary emotional baggage to strengthen their emotional arc.

The resulting film ran just under 2 hours, but at times felt draggy. The prologue and epilogue were excellent bookends for the story, the former effectively setting up the intrigue and the latter closing the chapter.

The first act was fun and well-paced, getting to the premise and establishing characters efficiently, but the second act was unnecessarily complicated with multiple subplots existing for comedic reliefs at the expense of deepening the central premise and mythos. The third act then ultimately felt rushed and hence the climatic weight felt lost.

Although the introduction of the main characters from Your Name into the storyline was a nice touch, and seemed to suggest Shinkai may be starting a whole new in-universe franchise.

Nonetheless, despite its flaws - which were just more obvious because of the looming spectre of Your Name - Weathering with You was an enjoyable film. It was stunning to look at with breathtaking landscapes and stunning rain-animations, and had a killer piano score and charismatic, likable characters.

It Chapter Two

This was one of the funniest film of the year, and I am sure that was not what director Andy Muschietti and writer Gary Dauberman were aiming for. But unfortunately, that was the outcome.

It was genuinely funny due to Bill Hader (go watch Barry!) who was the only standout actor; he and James Ransone were a great comedic duo and they deserve a buddy-comedy film after this. But besides the real, good laughs from them, the rest of the film was filled with ridiculousness and over-the-top, exaggerated "scares" that deflated any sense of dread, fear or trepidation that led up to it. The over reliance on (bad) CGIs and blatantly telegraphed jump-scares (can it still be called jump-scares if the audience knows when to jump?) was pathetic for a horror film.

Most tellingly, you know you are in trouble when a horror film's more horrific moments are a gay-bashing in the cold open and domestic violence sequence in the opening minutes of character-introductions. Nothing after that in the bloated, over-wrought, 169 minutes ever came close to those cringing, eyes-shutting moments. And I honestly doubt that Muschietti and Dauberman had the smarts to have the wherewithal to establish a subtext that nothing in the world is scarier and worse than humanity/humans/men.

Not that there were not anything good about this film. For one, it was more faithful to the source material than the 1990 two-part miniseries; secondly, it did - effectively - foreshadowed the final form of It throughout the film such that when It becomes that it was not such a sucker-punch like in the miniseries.

As for the characters, the bonds of the adult members of The Loser Club was better demonstrated and genuine in the TV series than in this film. One of the best things about It Chapter One was the bond between the characters, but here it was lacking. They were obviously split into groups with Hader and Ransone as the comedic pair, Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Jay Ryan as the inevitable love-triangle, and Isaiah Mustafa as the always-alone Mike.

Chastain and McAvoy were just there with minimal acting required on their parts (just like in X-Men: Dark Phoenix) and Aussie Ryan's introduction to an international audience was more through his abs than his acting capabilities per se.  Also, there was nary any chemistry between all three of them to make any relationship worth rooting for.

Lastly, nobody can replace Tim Curry's Pennywise as the ultimate personification of fear and nightmares. Bill Skarsgard crafted his own unique Pennywise but it was so visually distinctively evil and crazy that its scariness was more dependent on Skarsgard's body language and all the CGI layered over him. You cannot really be scared of something that looked so blatantly evil and mad. Go watch Skarsgard in Castle Rock  instead.

Curry, on the other hand, was just an innocuous clown with dead eyes and a crazy grin standing there waving to you...until he struck and - BAM! - coulrophobia for life!

In the end, despite the faults of the miniseries, inevitably at the conclusion it was a much stronger presentation of It than this two-part film franchise. It was scarier, more haunting and more honest.

And Tim Curry is what nightmares are made of.