Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
ghoge's rating
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.
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" 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.
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" 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.
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.