The film has a good set up but descends into a series of random sketches of variable quality. The highlight comes pretty early with the meal with would be mainland investor Ronald Cheng. The scene builds up the level of dread and ickness to it's climax. To which point I would have opened now that a suitable level of depravity had been reached, it would be used as a sign to audiences that this is a movie where anything can happen. But sadly the movie seems so pleased with this event that it is continually referenced and seems to be shrouded in some kind of mystery or secrecy but it seemed quite obvious in the scene following the act that it most definitely did happen. After all, they even mention the use or non use of condoms for the occasion.
I can see comparisons of Dada Cheng's performance to that of Shu Qi's in 'Viva Erotica', and how it can be seen can be seen as a breakout performance for her. It's the simple tart with a heart role but hk is so lacking in decent female parts that I think a hk best supporting actress nomination is a shoo in. Speaking of nominations, Ronald Cheng is highly liked to get one for best supporting.
The film seems to revel in its use of obscenity, like a teenage who has just discovered the words. Which is fine as hong kong films have strangely found the use of swearing in films almost taboo and have only used it in a liberal fashion in a handful of films such as Pang's own 'Love in a Puff/Buff' and the early 90s award winner 'Cageman'. The amount of swearing in the film reminded me of the glory days of Eddie Murphy in the mid 80s, where the curses were almost punctuation and the use made you feel something because you didn't hear it being used so often and with such wild abandon.
The teenager aspects is keenly felt throughout with the wink wink themes of oral sex and masturbation. These jokes feel a bit dated but I guess these gags are new in hk cinema so it can almost be forgiven. But an extended monologue about masturbation which is basically 'the dead hand gang' gag from 'the inbetweeners' is a bit lazy and obvious. The concept is a bit old and urban lore even references prisoners using nail varnish to increase the illusion of a different hand. So to put a gag in like that with such a drawn out punch line just felt like a 5 year old saying "poo" cos he thinks he's naughty.
It's also a little disappointing that no clips of the film they were suppose to be making were ever shown, which seems almost a must for all 'making of' movies. Granted from what I have heard, the film was shot on the fly in less than 2 weeks, which is an achievement in itself and if we were judging it by these circumstances then the film has succeeded what it could have possibly hoped for.
I am pleased this film got made and receiving the kind of success it has been getting. It shows the hong kong audiences are looking for something edgier and different and not endless traditional epics. I see this as a step in a new direction for indie style hk movies and I think it will spawn a legion of lesser movies by much less talented directors. But that's not the fault of Pang and if we have learnt anything about hong kong films, we know they love a good copycat trend
The film seems to revel in its use of obscenity, like a teenage who has just discovered the words. Which is fine as hong kong films have strangely found the use of swearing in films almost taboo and have only used it in a liberal fashion in a handful of films such as Pang's own 'Love in a Puff/Buff' and the early 90s award winner 'Cageman'. The amount of swearing in the film reminded me of the glory days of Eddie Murphy in the mid 80s, where the curses were almost punctuation and the use made you feel something because you didn't hear it being used so often and with such wild abandon.
The teenager aspects is keenly felt throughout with the wink wink themes of oral sex and masturbation. These jokes feel a bit dated but I guess these gags are new in hk cinema so it can almost be forgiven. But an extended monologue about masturbation which is basically 'the dead hand gang' gag from 'the inbetweeners' is a bit lazy and obvious. The concept is a bit old and urban lore even references prisoners using nail varnish to increase the illusion of a different hand. So to put a gag in like that with such a drawn out punch line just felt like a 5 year old saying "poo" cos he thinks he's naughty.
It's also a little disappointing that no clips of the film they were suppose to be making were ever shown, which seems almost a must for all 'making of' movies. Granted from what I have heard, the film was shot on the fly in less than 2 weeks, which is an achievement in itself and if we were judging it by these circumstances then the film has succeeded what it could have possibly hoped for.
I am pleased this film got made and receiving the kind of success it has been getting. It shows the hong kong audiences are looking for something edgier and different and not endless traditional epics. I see this as a step in a new direction for indie style hk movies and I think it will spawn a legion of lesser movies by much less talented directors. But that's not the fault of Pang and if we have learnt anything about hong kong films, we know they love a good copycat trend
No comments:
Post a Comment