Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Da yuan jing (1982)
4/10
Goofy propaganda (spoilers for a film you will never see)
12 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is like a bizarro-world Network and bizarro-world Star is Born rolled into one, all in the service of propaganda about how ordinary people doing ordinary jobs are the real stars of the world. It is very goofy, intentionally and otherwise, even without the terrible subtitles I saw it with--30% of which are incomprehensible, and 20% of what's left is still pretty bad...and even simple four letter words are misspelled...but none of that has any bearing on the movie, except that is makes the film just hard enough to follow and strange that you feel a little stoned, which adds to the incidental pleasures of the film (of which here is another: whenever the characters are in a restaurant--any restaurant--the background music quietly playing is always Nadia's theme: tonally off from everything else in the scene, but apparently still quite popular six years after the Olympics made it a massive hit).

Ok, so the plot, eliding some of the particulars both romantic and corporate: a producer bucks all expectations by putting on a TV show that just shows really drab documentary footage of people doing their jobs, and the public instantly goes bananas for it. They gather and line up in front of display TVs from literally the very first minutes of the program (which is like the dutiful filler on a kids show), completely excited and poking each other about how amazing this is. It is so popular that another show rips them off, and the two crews are always showing up to the same schools for the deaf or the same ballet classes, and getting into actual bloody fistfights over who will get to shoot this captivating material (it sounds like the film is spoofing this aspect of the story but it's really not-like I said, it's propaganda-for-the-common-man type stuff. I don't really know anything about Taiwanese politics circa 1982, but it seemed more like something you would see from mainland China in that regard). And I thought from the movie summary that it was going to be a Star-is-Born-type story about the female star becoming too big for the producer who put her in the role, but instead the whole idea is that she actually has a regular productive job as well, which she no longer has time for, and it becomes this huge dramatic tragedy that she is neglecting this other job. That's literally the main conflict (which is a little weird, because the film then is forced to elevate her more humble contribution to her computer work over her role highlighting and celebrating the contributions of every other humble person in society, who all then seem invigorated and moved by each other's contributions, just as the film would seemingly consider ideal).

Her father is so upset about not seeing his overworked daughter anymore that he somehow manages to fall and break his finger (he is in his forties, not an old man), though sadly we do not see it occur or even understand how that could have happened (and, hilariously, the subtitles tell us he lost the finger. Reader, he did not). This offscreen accident, somewhat casually related, is somehow the big dramatic low point of the movie (the comedy has disappeared at this point)--that and the fact that she snoozes at her other job, which makes everyone treat the producer like he's a scumbag for having ruined her life, now that she is famous and popular and successful...even though her face is never shown on camera, being hidden behind a hat, because--well, it wouldn't do to single yourself out as special, after all. The fact that her face is never shown is actually tragic as well, because now her father can't remember what she looks like (that was fast). The producer is naturally anguished about what he has done to society by depriving it of her more honorable contributions, and to her sleep regimen, and spends about 25 minutes of the movie trying to get her to quit, but she won't listen.

It all comes to a head when she finally finds out that her father hurt his finger because he was so worried about her, falls to the floor and sobs, quits on camera a few minutes later, and kisses the producer amidst the ensuing pandemonium. Now that everything is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, the film abruptly ends.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Tries to be 80s until it decides to be bad late 90s TV
9 November 2009
The knock on this movie is that it takes too long to get to the horror, but unless you are some easily pleased HorrorCon geek, you'll be glad they put it off. The majority of the film is build-up, and while there are some amateurish weaknesses in the execution (nevermind the many many questions raised by various plot points), it's more or less pretty good. But then the last 20 min is not only full on retarded, it's shot on HD as opposed to the rest of the film, thus completing the feeling that you just switched to some bad WB horror TV show that played at 2:00pm on Saturdays (complete with painfully familiar--and in this case completely random--horror makeup. I would say more, but I don't want to spoil your disappointment). The fact that it was shot in HD leads me to wonder if they went back and re-shot after deciding that the original ending was underwhelming. I for one would have rather seen something underwhelming than the rapid slide into frenzied mediocrity that ensues. By the way, apart from hairdos etc and the winking opening titles, there is nothing particularly 80s about the film itself. Set in 80s, yes, reminiscent of 80s films, not so much. (Except for the poster campaign. Awesome job on those.) Are people just drinking the publicity kool-aid? I don't know. For a film that truly channels pleasantly cruddy 80s horror movies, without even wearing pretensions to that on its sleeve (as this film does), check out 2004's Creep, with Franka Potente.
14 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best of PIFF
27 February 2007
This is the best out of 15 films I saw at the Portland International Film Festival, despite a somewhat shoddy visual presentation (some insert shots are striking, but much of it looks like some kind of cross between video and 8mm). The documentary concerns the lottery system in the poorer section of Naples. Many residents, if not most, rely on an old, strange system of numerology to play it. They tell the clerks at the lottery office about a dream they had, for instance, and the main components of the dream are translated into numbers using a seemingly ancient book called "The Grimace" (why it is called this, along with a few other things, is never explained), or its more modern equivalents. It answers the eternal question: why do poor people throw their money away on the lottery, when they least of all can afford to? The answer in Naples is it is not just a token of hope, but a social activity, a way of parsing the events of their lives for sense and meaning, and simply a way of making life a game. Its at times strikingly strange (a drag queen running bingo games out of her apartment for buttoned-down little old Italian women would be an unforgivably contrived conceit in a fiction film, but one of the highlights of this one), surprisingly moving, often just surprising, and all around delightful. The fact that there are no other comments makes me worry for this film's fate--it has broad appeal. A genuinely heart-warming film, and I normally avoid those like the plague.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Absurdly fun
28 July 2006
This movie doesn't start out too promisingly, with a claustrophobic, ho-hum fight between two guys in a boxcar (oh boy, a fight in a boxcar!). Then, during the credits, a shot of the passing train actually includes a moment where the camera wobbles quite badly. "Oh God," I thought, "what kind of low-budget boredom am I in for?" As it turns out, the movie gathers itself like a train gathering speed, becoming more splashy, ridiculous, and rollicking as it goes along. And it is perhaps not too low-budget, either--it may not be Bond, but the sets are suitably exotic and eye-catching, with a rich, velvety decadence permeating the proceedings. Robert Stack is amusingly noxious as a freelance photographer who tries to kiss every woman who is trying to steal from him or kill him. Within seconds of meeting her. In fact, if you're a woman, he's probably trying to kiss you. That would include Elke Sommer, of course, but even more notable is Nancy Kwan, who steals the movie along with her bad guy enemy/ cohort Christian Marquand (he's the plantation owner in Apocalypse Now Redux). The plot is ridiculous, the finer points are ridiculous, and the movie would not be half as entertaining were it not so. For a movie largely known for the title track, sung by Dusty Springfield, a lot more fun than I expected.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed