Drug War (2012, Johnnie To)

Who would have thought a movie just called Drug War would be so amazing? The original Chinese title appears to be just as simple, director To and his amazing batch of writers–War is the probably the best four person scripted film ever–must have known they didn’t really need a flashy title. To’s direction is astoundingly assured and every one of his choices is spot on. Even when things get “predictable,” To makes them play pitch perfect.

The first third of the film sets up the anti-drug units, it shows how different cities work alongside each other, it shows the procedures. It’s not a procedural; To never tries to fill any genre. War isn’t a docudrama either. It’s not really a cop movie, not really a criminals movie. It’s a very matter-of-fact presentation of its events, they just happen to concern cops and criminals. To and the writers never take the time to explain to the viewer. From the first sequence, it’s clear To’s doing something very different.

Great minimalist score from Xavier Jamaux, great photography from Cheng Siu-keung. All around, just amazing production values.

The film mostly follows Sun Honglei’s captain from a big, but routine bust into a breakneck race. Louis Koo’s meth kingpin unexpectedly gets into a wreck and gets busted; Sun uses him to go after the big villain.

To ratchets the film up to a relentless pace. Amazing performances from the cast, every move is a good one.

War’s perfect.

4/4★★★★

CREDITS

Directed by Johnnie To; written by Wai Ka-Fa, Yau Nai-Hoi, Ryker Chan and Yu Xi; director of photography, Cheng Siu-keung; edited by David M. Richardson and Allen Leung; music by Xavier Jamaux; production designer, Horace Ma; produced by To and Wai; released by Media Asia Distribution.

Starring Sun Honglei (Captain Zhang), Louis Koo (Timmy Choi), Haung Yi (Yang Xiaobei), Gao Yunxiang (Guo Weijun), Li Guangjie (Chen Shixong), Gou Tao (Senior Dumb), Li Jing (Junior Dumb), Lo Hoi-Pang (Birdie), Cheung Siu-Fai (Su), Lam Ka Tung (East Lee), Michelle Ye (Sal), Lam Suet (Fatso), Ng Yuk San (Hatred), Keung Hon Man (Darkie), Gan Tinging (Mrs. Haha) and Hao Ping (Haha).


RELATED

The Great Magician (2011, Yee Tung-Shing)

The Great Magician is a madcap romp through rural early twentieth century China. It never says rural–Peking is mentioned a couple times–but it feels rural, where a somewhat dimwitted warlord (Lau Ching-wan) can still be powerful. The time period’s a little confusing too. Moviemaking plays a significant part in Magician and all the example films are silents, but when people are making movies, they’re making talkies.

But those confusing parts are nothing compared to the rest. Magician is a political comedy thriller with a lot of magic, some quests, a love triangle, probably some of things too. Oh, right, it’s occasionally narrated by two townspeople who break the third wall to directly address the audience.

Even though director Yee’s not much for composition–Magician’s shots are adequate, but far too reliant on CG, something Kita Nobuyasu can’t seem to shoot–he does keep the circus together. Especially after Tony Leung Chiu-Wai shows up. Until he arrives, it seems like Magician could go anywhere (and even for a little while after he does). Once the film focuses on its tone, it gets to be a lot of fun to watch.

Leung and Lau are great together. Xun Zhou’s excellent as warlord Lau’s seventh wife who he decides is the one he really wants. Paul Chun’s funny as Lau’s scheming subordinate.

There are some great comedy interchanges; most end up being completely unpredictable.

Leon Ko’s excellent music is another big plus.

Magician is a strange, fun picture.

2/4★★

CREDITS

Directed by Yee Tung-Shing; screenplay by Chun Tin Nam, Lau Ho Leung and Yee, based on the novel by Zhang Haifan; director of photography, Kita Nobuyasu; edited by Kwong Chi-Leung; music by Leon Ko; production designer, Yee Chung Man; produced by Peggy Lee and Mandy Law-Huang; released by Emperor Motion Pictures.

Starring Tony Leung Chiu Wai (Chang Hsien), Lau Ching-wan (Bully Lei), Zhou Xun (Liu Yin), Yan Ni (Lei’s third wife), Paul Chun (Liu Wan-Yao), Alex Fung (Chen Kuo), Lam Suet (Li Fengjen), Daniel Wu (Captain Tasi) and Kenya Sawada (Mitearai).


RELATED

Missing (2008, Tsui Hark)

As Missing‘s end credits rolled, I could only think one thing–this movie is actually going to end. After the two dozen false endings in the third act, it really does feel like it’s never going to stop. There’s probably a post-credits tag, but I’ll never know.

Missing is a mix of Harry Potter, The Sixth Sense and Vanilla Sky. I don’t know why it’s got Harry Potter in there, but it does. There’s some stupid mysticism somewhere in it. Maybe a fight between ghosts or the promise of one. Whatever.

Strangely, until the last act–the big Vanilla Sky reveal (and I’m not feeling bad about spoiling this movie, because even after I say Vanilla Sky, I’m not even getting into those twelve false endings and the final twist)–Missing is completely watchable. The psychologist who sees ghosts following some kind of hypnosis drug? It’s kind of a good time killer. But Missing doesn’t just kill time, it somehow becomes light itself–infinitely long. Even when the movie isn’t bad, it’s long.

Some of the problem–well, technically, all of the problem, but I’m only going to cover some of it here–is how much Tsui Hark loves this movie. There are inexplicable voiceovers about the importance of the sea–both for environmental reasons and experimental psychotherapy. Or something along those lines. It all sounds like bull, so it’s hard to keep track.

His composition is fantastic and he has some great camera moves, but his script is something else. It’s not even neat in the way it all ties together. There are loose ends and the entire, end of the second act twist only works because he’s been deceiving the viewer the entire time. For one of the first times, I finally understood what Leonard Maltin meant when he complained about The Usual Suspects–you get to the end of the movie and it’s clear there wasn’t any reason to watch it. At the end of Missing, there’s this strange third act attempt to slap a big melodramatic romance onto the movie, but it doesn’t matter anymore… the dumb thing is almost over (finally). And it’s turned the protagonist into a brain-damaged simpleton and took the focus away from her, so what’s the point?

The acting in Missing is mediocre. Again, Tsui’s fault. Angelica Lee is never believable as a someone holding an MD, but she does the terrified thing pretty well. Once she turns into the simpleton… it gets painful. Isabella Leong is unimpressive throughout (occasionally, she has eyeshadow to act for her). Chang Chen is good, as is Tony Leung Ka Fai in a too small part.

Missing‘s such a good looking film, such a well-made one, there’s probably some argument for watching it–at least until the end of the second act. Then with the first big twist… well, I’m a little embarrassed I didn’t stop it. But I wasn’t expecting the third act to last three hundred minutes of the film’s two hour running time.

0/4ⓏⒺⓇⓄ

CREDITS

Written and directed by Tsui Hark; director of photography, Sakamoto Yoshitaka; edited by Yau Chi Wai; music by Ricky Ho; production designer, Kenneth Mak; produced by Tsui and Peter Chan; released by Mandarin Films Distribution Co.

Starring Angelica Lee (Dr. Gao Jing), Isabella Leong (Chen Xiao Kai), Chang Chen (Simon), Guo Xiaodong (Dave Chen Guo Dong), Tony Leung Ka Fai (Dr. Edward Tong) and Zhang Zhen-yue (Haiya Amu).


RECENTLY

[display-posts tag=”Angelica-Lee,Chang-Chen,Isabella-Leong,Peter-Chan,Ricky-Ho,Tony-Leung-Ka-fai,Tsui-Hark” posts_per_page=”5″ taxonomy=”post_tag” tax_term=”Missing” tax_operator=”NOT IN”]

Ashes of Time (1994, Wong Kar-wai), the redux edition

I never know how to describe Ashes of Time. The first–and probably last–time I tried, I described it as a mix of Magnolia and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. As difficult as it is to describe, it’s got to be impossible to advertise–a character-based martial arts film, where fight scenes lack any visceral impact. Wong stylizes them, but not for any entertainment value. Given he’s become a more recognized and marketable filmmaker since the film’s initial release, as this “redux” edition started, I wondered if he’d tried to make it more palatable to any of the fans he picked up following that Norah Jones music video he made.

Pleasingly–and surprisingly–he did not. Ashes of Time is as hostile to the passive filmgoer as ever.

What’s most amazing, in terms of the narrative, is how Wong approaches his storytelling. The film opens with a few minutes, then skips ahead an indeterminate period of time. Wong separates the film into seasons (a possible addition to the redux edition, but I’m not sure) and, at the third of five seasons, foretells the protagonist’s future. It’s a strange and wonderful move, playing with the point of storytelling–if the reader knows the ending at the beginning, it’s going to change how he or she experiences the narrative–but to reveal the ending as an aside, it’s an entirely different effect. In Ashes of Time, it contributes to the film’s surreality.

The film’s visual style is one of its most hostile features. Set in a panoramic desert, in a small village, Wong never shows the village in an establishing shot. The desert never gets a vista shot for narrative’s sake. There’s only one time he even comes close and then it’s to emphasize the shot’s singular presence in the film. Much of the film takes place inside Leslie Cheung’s house, which is occasionally seen from the exterior but certainly not long enough to give the viewer any real sense of it.

There’s a wonderful scene between Cheung and Brigitte Lin where it’s nothing but close-ups.

The film’s actors have a rather awkward task here. There are lots of monologues, lots of close-ups–Maggie Cheung basically just has a long, single shot monologue. They’re in ornate costumes, playing these historical, mythic characters, but delivering these humanizing, rendering lines. In addition to delivering the majority of these monologues, Leslie Cheung narrates almost all of the film–both exposition and internal reflection–giving him the hardest task.

Both the Tony Leungs–Chiu Wai and Ka Fai–have good roles. Chiu Wai has the flashier role, but the importance of Ka Fai’s performance gradually comes through. Lin’s excellent, as is Charlie Yeung in a smaller role. Maggie Cheung’s monologue–her delivery of it–is invaluable.

While Christopher Doyle’s photography is–as always–wonderful, it’s the editing here. William Chang and Patrick Tam out do any expectation. Ashes of Time gets better as it moves along, every pitch perfect. The omnipresent musical score–from Frankie Chan and Roel A. García–transports the viewer into Wong’s created world. While he based it–loosely–on a novel, what Wong does in Ashes of Time is create a setting the viewer cannot be familiar with, but can’t be foreign in either. It’s an immersive experience, one requiring active participation with wonderful result.

4/4★★★★

CREDITS

Directed by Wong Kar-wai; screenplay by Wong, based on a novel by Louis Cha; director of photography, Christopher Doyle; edited by William Chang and Patrick Tam; music by Frankie Chan and Roel A. García; production designer, Chang; produced by Jeffrey Lau, Jacky Pang Yee Wah and Wong; released by HKFM Releasing.

Starring Bai Li (Hong Qi’s Wife), Jacky Cheung (Hong Qi), Leslie Cheung (Ouyang Feng), Maggie Cheung (Brother’s Wife), Carina Lau (Peach Blossom), Tony Leung Chiu Wai (Blind Swordsman), Tony Leung Ka Fai (Huang Yaoshi), Brigitte Lin (Murong Yin / Murong Yang) and Charlie Yeung (The girl).


RELATED

Invincible Enforcer (1979, Cheng Gang)

Even with rats doing cute tricks–and maybe because of it–Invincible Enforcer is an unwatchable piece of… of something. I’m not even sure the correct noun. It’s my first or second attempt at a Shaw Brothers production and what’s really amazing about it is the editing. It’s got all the fast edits of a modern Hollywood crap-fest, except the director only has three kinds of shots–besides inserts, which I’ll get to in a second. Either Cheng pans and zooms, zooms and pans, or pans and zooms and pans again. Unless he’s doing some of those inserts, which don’t have the actors in the same position or expression. In fact, there’s one where the actor has grown a beard during a scene. I thought I was wrong, until he grew a five o’clock shadow in a subsequent one.

The music is intense and expressive and goofy, much like the writing. Oddly, for a movie featuring a super-intelligent Disney rat–smart enough to grab on to the bottom of a bucket when the villain is on to him–the subject matter isn’t at all funny. Invincible Enforcer is about prison abuses. The main character, played by Tony Liu (in an exceptionally indistinct performance, he practically fades into the background), is the only innocent man in a prison of scoundrels. He’s up against the cell block boss and a corrupt guard and every inmate, the only person on his side is the pretty young probation officer. The acting is uniformly awful, but not just because of the bad actors–the filmmakers seem to have casted for caricature.

The only possibly interesting element is the inclusion of foreign nationals as being complicit with the human rights violations going on in the prisons. I can understand the white dude–I mean, Hong Kong was a British protectorate and all–but the Sikh? Even the film’s attempt at being gritty–goofy, over-produced gross out violence (and not even bloody violence, just lots of spitting up)–is an abject misfire. All I could think, as the film started and I watched somewhat incredulous at the ardent incompetence in filmmaking–it’s like a live action “Looney Tunes”–was I understand why people rallied around John Woo back in the late 1980s. If these films were the examples of Hong Kong cinema, Woo would be some kind of an improvement.

As for the cute scenes with the rats… yep, the rats are cute, but… come on. A serious drama about prison abuses (the movie cops out, blaming it all on one guard–who was a collaborator with the Japanese during World War II no less) with a Disney rat. If the movie had any credibility at that point (it didn’t), it wouldn’t just be shot… it’d be flushed away.*

* That one was too much, wasn’t it?

0/4ⓏⒺⓇⓄ

CREDITS

Directed by Cheng Gang; written by Hsin Han Pai; director of photography, Peter Ao; edited by Chiang Hsing-lung and Fang Pao Hua; music by Eddie Wang; produced by Mona Fong; released by Shaw Brothers.

Starring Tony Liu (Jiang Chai), Fanny Fen-ni (Probation Officer Lin), Wang Lung (Brother Meng Tian Long), Chen Kuan Tai (Min) and Helen Poon (Xia Lin).


RELATED

A-1 Headline (2004, Gordon Chan and Chung Kai-cheong)

A-1 Headline is a good, old fashioned newspaper movie. There’s the conflicted editor, the smarter than he gets credit for photographer, the amusing guys around the office. Even the newspaper office looks like a good movie newspaper office: rows of desks, yellowing fluorescents, and antiquated computers. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t have a particularly interesting mystery. The actual investigation, once underway, is the least compelling part of the film, but A-1 still manages to be compelling. However, the characters are compelling. The story is not engaging at all. A handful of important questions go unanswered and I could tell early on there’d be no satisfactory answers to them. It’s just constructed wrong. What starts as a workplace conspiracy mystery ends as a nice little newspaper film, with a little romance no less.

Besides that lack of an engaging plot, there’s little wrong with A-1 (except a lot of the music, which sounds like something from a 1980s commercial). It’s funny, the character relationships develop in interesting ways… It’s a little short in some parts, but overall it’s a fine length since that lack of engagement would get tiring. The acting is particularly good, especially Anthony Wong Chau-Sang, who gives a deep performance. A-1’s borderline cutesy in many ways (mostly because the lead character, Angelica Lee, is a fashion reporter and the introduction to the character requires it) and the film has a fanciful air to it, which the intrusive music doesn’t help, but Wong really brings something to it. It’s not quite his film, but he’s the whole reason to watch it. The rest of the cast is good, with Lee turning in a really nice performance, even when she stops being the center of the film.

Nice is an odd adjective for A-1, but it seems to fit. While the film doesn’t work out well–it’s still all right, but doesn’t decide its thesis until… I don’t know, the last scene–it’s well-made and full of characters who are worth spending a boring ninety-five minutes watching.

2.5/4★★½

CREDITS

Directed and written by Gordon Chan and Chung Kai-cheong; director of photography, Nau Yee-shun; edited by Cheung Ka-fai; music by Johnny Njo; produced by Allan Fung; released by Panorama Distribution Co.

Starring Anthony Wong (Fei), Angelica Lee (Ling), Edison Chen (Kei), Tony Leung Ka-fai (Tsang Tat-si), Eric Kot (Ma) and Lam Ka-tung (Tong).


RELATED

Fighting for Love (2001, Joe Ma)

Watching Fighting for Love is frustrating. Rapid-fire dialogue–straight out of a Howard Hawks comedy–is difficult to get in subtitles, especially poorly translated ones. Still, the charm of the actors comes through and Fighting for Love is probably the best mediocre romantic comedy I’ve seen in a long time, at least of the recently-made (since 1998) ones. I initially queued the film right after I saw Yesterday Once More and went through Netflix for other Sammi Cheng films. Since Yesterday tried to be serious, it didn’t offer the best precedent for Cheng. She’s charming and funny and touching in a way we don’t have right now in American cinema. As goofy as Fighting for Love gets, Cheng is never otherworldly. Her problems are never two-dimensional, on celluloid. The problem could be–I don’t really think it is, but I’m acknowledging the possibility–with American female actors, we’re a little too aware of their reality and can’t disconnect enough to connect with their films….

Once I had queued Fighting for Love, I realized the Tony Leung it starred. There are two Tony Leungs, Chiu Wai and Ka Fai. I don’t know who had the name first (and I’m too lazy to look it up). Chiu Wai, who appears in Fighting for Love, is the Tony Leung from In the Mood for Love and 2046 and Hard-Boiled. I’m a Tony Leung fan and so I was looking forward to the film. While he’s older than Cheng, their age difference doesn’t really affect the film. He does look rather silly surrounded by all the much younger actors playing his siblings, but I let it pass. The story’s a general romantic triangle (his girlfriend’s out of town and they have to fall in love while she’s gone, yada yada yada). It doesn’t matter. It’s a romantic comedy, the predictability isn’t an issue. There are some nice moments between Leung and Cheng and funny ones too and those scenes are what romantic comedies are about.

The most particular thing about the film–and I wasn’t expecting it–was the quality improvement throughout the second half. It didn’t do anything particularly special, it just laid on those nice scenes. By the end of the film–where, of course, there was a final cute joke–the varnish was nice and shiny.

3/4★★★

CREDITS

Directed by Joe Ma; written by Ma, Chow Yin Han and Lam Oi Wah; edited by Cheung Ka-Fai; produced by Carl Chang; released by Film Power Company.

Starring Tony Leung Chiu Wai (Veg Cheung), Sammi Cheng (Deborah), Niki Chow (Mindy), Joe Lee (Camel) and Li Fung (Deborah’s mom).


RELATED

Yesterday Once More (2004, Johnnie To)

The event romantic comedy is a familiar genre, but not one with frequent entries. With the exception of Julia Roberts (and maybe Sandra Bullock), the genre in American cinema does not exist anymore. The hardships of making these films is finding a project the stars jibe with–I mean, people actually like Runaway Bride. Two Weeks Notice, which I thought was a huge bomb, was actually a hit. It’s just a hard genre because these films are about the audience’s affection for the actor, not the character she’s playing. I say “she,” of course, because there isn’t–currently–a male event romantic comedy star. Though Hugh Grant tries, it only works when Julia Roberts is part of the equation.

Yesterday Once More is a Hong Kong event romantic comedy, pairing Andy Lau and Sammi Cheng as a pair of divorced (but still, of course, in love) professional thieves. As I understand it from my cursory research, Lau and Cheng did a couple other romantic comedies (as well as some dramas, I guess) and a pairing is a big deal. I’ve seen Lau in Days of Being Wild, but I don’t remember him and I’ve never seen Cheng in anything. I’m not hip on my Hong Kong offerings anymore. I used to watch John Woo stuff, but now I don’t and unless it’s a Wong Kar-Wai, I just queue a Chinese-language film, I don’t rush to see it. An event romantic comedy has a specific target audience (albeit, in theory, a large part of the moviegoing audience) and I am not part of Yesterday Once More’s demographic. But I got it.

For the first forty minutes of the Yesterday, there’s nicely shot, nicely scored montage after montage. First the divorce, then a proposal to Cheng, then a heist, then a trip to Italy. I had to pause it to see what the time was when the film finally slowed down for a scene. Since Yesterday is supposed to be purely entertaining, it has to do very little. It has to be charming. Well, Yesterday pits Cheng against a kleptomaniac mother-in-law to-be, has a couple private investigators who worry about each other’s cholesterol intake. The heists are even cute. Yesterday works because it keeps it simple–besides the couple, there’s a mother-in-law to-be and a few supporting characters, really supporting. When I started watching it, not remembering why I’d queued it in the first place, I realized as long as they kept the character count low, the film would work.

While Lau is good, he’s not the protagonist–he is the character the audience has to identify with, however. Cheng is the one who actually has to act in Yesterday and she brings a semblance of depth to an easy character. Ultimately, the film stumbles because it doesn’t want to embrace its levity. Out of nowhere, in the last half hour, it actually wants to say something, which it can’t. But even those false steps can’t defeat the film’s charm.