andrewcong
Joined Apr 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
andrewcong's rating
Benno (Fabian Krüger) wakes up every morning to discover - no not that he has turned into a giant vermin - but that he is turning into sand.
What makes a work Kafkaesque? The lack of reasonable explanation for events, the deliberate way the narrative eschews our expectations of character and plot, the absurdism of the situation, and possibly, the sense of deeper symbolism behind the story. Despite appearances, this film is not Kafkaesque. It is an extremely well-made film, highly stylistic, and shot with care, but it is no Kafka.
There is a scene which inadvertently gives this secret away. Benno visits his psychiater and explains to him "I am loosing sand". The psychiater rubs his chin and replies something to the effect of, "that is a very good metaphor".
"But I really am loosing sand!" Benno exclaims, "I'm not using a metaphor."
The psychiater looks curiously at Benno, pauses, and slowly replies: "Hmmm, that is a very good image."
This film is indeed a very good image - but aside from its absurdity I can detect no underlying meaning. Is the subtext that distressed classical musicians should never give up? That we should be true to our dreams, lest our corporeal forms disintegrate like grains blown apart by the winds of the world? I should hope not. I doubt if Kafka wrote this he would write up an ending as neatly packaged and satisfying as the one we are asked to accept.
This is really, at the end of the day, more of a light-hearted comedic romp. It is the Swiss equivalent Jim Carrey's usual story arc in a film like Yes Man or Liar Liar. (This will ring nostalgic once it is revealed the mechanics of the Sandman's condition.) Visually, there are some stunningly conceived dream sequences here, delicately shot with a soft sun-baked palette. There are a fair few laughs in it too. But don't expect not to expect an explanation - this is no film of Kafka; Benno is no Gregor Samsa.
What makes a work Kafkaesque? The lack of reasonable explanation for events, the deliberate way the narrative eschews our expectations of character and plot, the absurdism of the situation, and possibly, the sense of deeper symbolism behind the story. Despite appearances, this film is not Kafkaesque. It is an extremely well-made film, highly stylistic, and shot with care, but it is no Kafka.
There is a scene which inadvertently gives this secret away. Benno visits his psychiater and explains to him "I am loosing sand". The psychiater rubs his chin and replies something to the effect of, "that is a very good metaphor".
"But I really am loosing sand!" Benno exclaims, "I'm not using a metaphor."
The psychiater looks curiously at Benno, pauses, and slowly replies: "Hmmm, that is a very good image."
This film is indeed a very good image - but aside from its absurdity I can detect no underlying meaning. Is the subtext that distressed classical musicians should never give up? That we should be true to our dreams, lest our corporeal forms disintegrate like grains blown apart by the winds of the world? I should hope not. I doubt if Kafka wrote this he would write up an ending as neatly packaged and satisfying as the one we are asked to accept.
This is really, at the end of the day, more of a light-hearted comedic romp. It is the Swiss equivalent Jim Carrey's usual story arc in a film like Yes Man or Liar Liar. (This will ring nostalgic once it is revealed the mechanics of the Sandman's condition.) Visually, there are some stunningly conceived dream sequences here, delicately shot with a soft sun-baked palette. There are a fair few laughs in it too. But don't expect not to expect an explanation - this is no film of Kafka; Benno is no Gregor Samsa.
Sing (Stephen Chow) is a spoilt snotty nosed brat living in Hawaii. He spends his time pulling pranks on hapless friend Siu-Fu (Lee Kin-yan) and his butler Tat (Ng Man-Tat). The arrogant, egotistical jerk is one of Chow's stock characters (see also 'The God of Cookery' (1996)) who experiences a tragic downfall and is humbled by his experience. Sing is pursued by the Triads, blown up and reconstituted as a cyborg by mad scientist Chang (Elvis Tsui). Conveniently, Chang's niece Chung-Chung (Gigi Leung) is the ugly duckling that flowers into Sing's love interest.
Expect the same Stephen Chow brand of slapstick comedy, puns and wordplay, caricature and vulgarity that define his unique sense of Hong Kong humour. But the film is less an original film than Stephen Chow's parody of contemporaneous Western films ('Terminator 2: Judgment Day' (1991), 'The Mask' (1994), 'Pulp Fiction' (1994)). Chow really plays his own version of 'The Mask' half fused with the Terminator. But unlike the veritable walking weapon T-1000, Chow is something more of a George Foreman grill. The gag is that he can only change his cyborg form to household appliances. Much to my delight, about halfway into the film there is even an almost shot-by-shot remake of the dance number in 'Pulp Fiction', with hilarious results. Although, given the fact that Hong Kong audiences watched very few Hollywood films during the 90s, one wonders how much of this film can be legitimately called parody and how much is simply Chow's gratuitous repackaging of Hollywood for Hong Kong audiences. Nonetheless, the Hong Kong centric focus of the film reveals itself in the final showdown at the end, with Chow playing up an in-joke that few audiences outside of Hong Kong would fully appreciate.
The film is awfully dated when it comes to special effects. One gets the sense that many of the situations in the plot were contrived to show off those special effects. These kinds of special effects were awfully dated even for the 90s - when one recalls the kinds of special effects wonders that were being weaved on screen by Hollywood - what was director Raymond Yip thinking? Nonetheless, if you can ignore the campy special effects, there are enough laughs here to warrant a viewing.
Expect the same Stephen Chow brand of slapstick comedy, puns and wordplay, caricature and vulgarity that define his unique sense of Hong Kong humour. But the film is less an original film than Stephen Chow's parody of contemporaneous Western films ('Terminator 2: Judgment Day' (1991), 'The Mask' (1994), 'Pulp Fiction' (1994)). Chow really plays his own version of 'The Mask' half fused with the Terminator. But unlike the veritable walking weapon T-1000, Chow is something more of a George Foreman grill. The gag is that he can only change his cyborg form to household appliances. Much to my delight, about halfway into the film there is even an almost shot-by-shot remake of the dance number in 'Pulp Fiction', with hilarious results. Although, given the fact that Hong Kong audiences watched very few Hollywood films during the 90s, one wonders how much of this film can be legitimately called parody and how much is simply Chow's gratuitous repackaging of Hollywood for Hong Kong audiences. Nonetheless, the Hong Kong centric focus of the film reveals itself in the final showdown at the end, with Chow playing up an in-joke that few audiences outside of Hong Kong would fully appreciate.
The film is awfully dated when it comes to special effects. One gets the sense that many of the situations in the plot were contrived to show off those special effects. These kinds of special effects were awfully dated even for the 90s - when one recalls the kinds of special effects wonders that were being weaved on screen by Hollywood - what was director Raymond Yip thinking? Nonetheless, if you can ignore the campy special effects, there are enough laughs here to warrant a viewing.