2
10
1
2
1
After the owner of a Japanese publishing house has died, a power struggle ensues. Hayami is appointed as the managing editor of the magazine Trinity by one side -- and editor Takano is also caught up in this, even though she just wants to publish well-written and interesting serialized novels. Both will try to save Trinity in their own ways.
The writing is tight -- every dialogue has meaning, so this is not a casual watch. It took me a while to get who is who and who wants what, which is important because this is very much character-driven, I had to rewind some scenes in the first half hour.
The characters' motivations and ambitions are only revealed by what they say, or don't say; sometimes by their actions -- and a lot of it means you have to read between the lines. The movie's title -- 騙し絵の牙 -- Fang of Deception -- or, the official English title Fangs of Fiction -- hints that at least of these characters may be hiding secret motivations.
There are several plot twists in the end, one of which I did not anticipate at all, but, in hindsight, made a lot of sense.
Also, I want to point out that the office sets, like in many other Japanese productions, are excellent! For example, I love how cramped and busy the editors'room of Trinity is, the mountains of paperwork of every available surface. The space of the much revered Kunpu Reviews, in contrast, looks much more organized and still as realistically used.
Fangs of Fiction is both really funny and shows us the contemporary struggles (of the publishing industry) at the same time. Both the external struggle as a traditional company against the new online world, and the more internal struggle about traditional values and old styles of story-telling versus modern innovation and showing more diversity in stories (I loved the cameos of the disabled and the old model and of Ladybeard.)
It also subtly touches on issues of how women are treated in fiction: The main female editor is constantly trying to point out how outdated the depictions of female protagonists in the fictional novels are -- and is instantly shut down by her male companion. I am glad to see that the female protagonist in this movie is at least as important as the male main character -- and how she found her own successful way of dealing with the issues of the publishing world in these modern times.
Recommended! Maybe you'll find more subtle deceptions when you watch the movie, I'm sure I did not catch them all.
Was this review helpful to you?
This review may contain spoilers
pure crack
Are you familiar with the term "crack fic" from fan fiction? This is like that -- as if the writer asked: what are the most common tropes for BL stories to get two guys together, and how can I put all of them in one show?Here's some of the tropes:
forced cohabitation
only one bed
tutor -- student
a fujoshi
a love rival who makes one of them realize his feelings
caring for the ill love interest
sharing food
childhood bully to lover
gay for you
This show is silly, with intentionally exaggerated acting (bordering on slapstick) and camera work, and no plot besides the aforementioned tropes.
If you are not a fan of silliness and suggestive scenes that never actually get anywhere, then this is not for you. If, on the other hand, you are willing to laugh at your own love of BL and are also a fan of silly slapsticky situations, then what are you waiting for?
Also, it might be of interest to know that this is all about the phase BEFORE one of them finally realizes the attraction to the other, so there's no actual relationship here.
In a traditional broadcast setting, this show would fit perfectly at the end of a more serious BL drama.
Was this review helpful to you?
One main reason for this is the main male character, Lee Ahn, who I thoroughly disliked. He is cocky and self-assured without having any abilities to support it -- and it feels that he thinks it's enough that he is himself and has this psychometry to be allowed to flaunt rules.
Another is the romance, which felt forced and superfluous. Is it not enough to share the same traumatic childhood exerience? To have the same goal? Why does it have to be romance, when partners and eventual friends would have made enough sense?
I did not feel any sexual or romantic attraction between them. For the longest time, Jae In seemed to be more annoyed than romantically interested.
They wouldn't do a romance arc if the young people had the same gender, so why force this into a good mystery?
Because the mystery plot was quite good otherwise -- the storyline of the dangerous stranger whose identity is slowly revealed and how he connects to the mysterious Kang Seong Mo was delightfully muddied by the storyline about corporate fraud.
It seemed that we knew everything already in episodes 11 to 13 or so (which is also part of why I had trouble continuing at that point) -- but then there's a surprising plot twist!
(The story telling though was a bit too slow in the last episodes.)
Kang Seong Mo was by far the most interesting character, and his actor subtly portrayed his emotions -- emotionless robot, even though it seems to the other characters, he is not. Without him, I would probably not have made it through the drama.
An honourable mention for Jae In -- one of the few female characters in a drama who can hold her own -- yes, she "needs" to be saved by the male lead at least once, but other than that, she is indispensible to the plot, and actually more competent than Lee Ahn.
Overall, it's not bad -- just not something I liked. If you don't mind romance in your mysteries, cocky male characters and slow pacing, then it might be for you.
Was this review helpful to you?
Young Love with three Sweethearts
Oh, what sweethearts these three teenagers are! This is a love-triangle done right, and the film hits all the highs and lows of a first love.And this is a story with one of the narratives I love: The "ugly duckling" doesn't change.
Takeo is, while well liked by guys, shunned by girls at every turn. His appearance and his deep voice -- the first image that came into my head when I saw him was one of a middle ranked yakuza -- is definitely not what teenage girls look for in their next crush.
The film makes is very, very clear in the first minutes, however, that this boy is a complete sweetheart, a loyal friend, and a gentle soul. From his many rejections in the past, his confidence regarding love is non-existent and he thinks his crush on Yamato is hopeless; and still he puts on a smile and tries to make his friend and his crush happy.
And this is why the film works so well; the three main actors convey the feelings with apparent ease -- when their characters smile with a broken heart, when they try to stay calm but would rather break down and cry; it's all there to see.
The humour is over-the-top as for most adaptations of comedy manga, but sprinkled throughout, and never laughs at the characters.
One little thing I loved a lot was how the writer let the mother causally accept the possibility of her son dating a man. Progressive mums, yay! Also, I love how they hinted that Suna's feelings might be not quite the platonic friendship he would like us to believe. I hated the after-credits scene though, it broke the style of humour and the characterizations of Takeo and Suna, so if you see Suna's characters the way I do, you might want to give the after-credits scene a miss.
Was it good?
Yes, both actors and writers knew what they were doing, and they told us a beautiful story about young love and friendship.
Did I like it?
Absolutely.
Who would I recommend it to?
People who want to watch a different kind of coming-of-age / young love story.
Was this review helpful to you?
This film is not a rom-com. It's a rom-com parody.
And the film makes very, very clear from the first few minutes in that it is a parody -- the "heroine" looks at herself and the people around her as if they were in a story. The exaggerated acting in the typical Japanese comedy style paired with stereotypical extras (like the thuggish bullies or the canteen cook) as well as the constant fourth-wall-breaking are another clue -- and then the story tones the physical comedy down in the second half but still proceeds to follow every single beat of an average rom-com: With a light twist, like when the "summer" date is filmed in the middle of winter. And they follow this concept until the very last scenes, with the hundereds of lanterns and the kitschy snowfall, and then tie it up with an uplifting message.And yet, they somehow smuggled in some very real character growth. The aggressive playboy, who pursued the heroine "just because" and initiated a sudden and unwelcome kiss, learns to let go. The shy and awkward girl learns to stand up for herself, not with lies and deceit but with honesty and integrity. The "hero" learns to make a decision and commit to it. And the "heroine"? She learns that love doesn't just happen because she wants it to.
Maybe the writer and the crew were too good at that, so that MDLers caught real feelings and thus don't understand that this is supposed to be a parody?
Was it good?
Yes! It starts out as a physical comedy where absolutely everything is exaggerated, and ends up with real feelings.
Did I like it?
I did! I was hesitant to watch another youth focused het romance but I am glad I did.
Who would I recommend it to?
To people who get on with the exaggerated Japanese style of comedy. And to those who are able to understand how a parody works.
Was this review helpful to you?
Neither the character dynamics (excitable puppy vs. cold cat / country mouse vs. city mouse) nor the backstory (controlling father, betrayal by lover, thwarted dreams) are in any way new. The setting is an appropriately romanticized village, complete with stereotypical overly friendly villagers and out-of-season fresh fruit and vegetables. Wounds heal quickly without scars; the surroundings don't change with the progressing in-universe time.
And yet, it works.
The story, tropey as it is, takes its time to develop Seon Yul's character from being closed-off and exhausted to a confident young man who has found his own way of life. Events around him fit neatly into the narrative, and everything resolves without becoming too cheesy.
Ye Chan's antics are the eye-catcher of the series (and another proof why you should hire actors who know what they are doing -- according to MDL, the actor Yoon Do Jin is a stage actor in SKorea), and the main aspect that elevates this rom-com above the average. Yoon Do Jin gives his character an endearing quality, child-like but not childish, with unexpected words of wisdom, delivered with perfect innocence. In contrast, Do Won ("Seon Yul") gives us a subtle performance of a jaded man that you need to look closer to see. Both of them balance each other quite nicely.
Technically, I find this to be a solid production; I am not a fan of the sung OST but overall the background music fit well with the rest. I wish they had used the countryside to more effect -- most of the time it was just there -- but we all know that in reality, country life looks nowhere near as idyllic as on screen.
Was it good?
It was a solid, if predictable, rom-com with well delivered performances.
Did I like it?
Yes, and I even have rewatched it a few times.
Who would I recommend it to?
To someone who is looking for a rom-com with comedy elements, with a relatively short runtime.
Was this review helpful to you?
Raising a child gives the whole village a headache
"เลี้ยงเด็กหนึ่งคน ปวดหวัทั้งหมู่บ้าน" -- "Raising a child gives the whole village a headache" ... and raising an adult even more.The Thai title "เกิด / แก่ / เจ็บ / โต" is a very good indicator for this series' themes: "เกิด แก่ เจ็บ ตาย" -- "birth, age, sickness, death" is the fundamental aspect of life in Buddhism. Everybody will experience these four things in life. So, when the Thai title says "birth, age, sickness, growing up" instead, the "death" part and the relation to Buddhist teachings is already implied. The producer tells us: This is a story about life itself.
However, the title goes a step further and inserts "growing up". Both main characters, the man in his sixties and the 17-year-old girl, have a lot of growing up to do, and the only way of doing this is by listening, understanding, mutual respect, and within a community.
For me, "เกิด / แก่ / เจ็บ / โต" was an interesting watch for the cultural lessons it had. How do Thai people speak about dying and death? What changes bring the modern times to family values and intergenerational relationships in a society that is traditionally very clear about roles of family members?
Its intended main theme, I think, was about broken parent-child-relations, about the value of community and family, whether by blood or by choice, and about the importance of listening with respect, regardless of age. And I think that they did a good job with this overall; except in some parts where it got a bit too preachy for my taste, and some of the ending was too feel-good when one secondary character reformed too fast while another gave forgiveness a bit too easily.
That being said, I had feared that *everything* would be resolved neatly, which was not the case, because this too is life: Not everybody will grow up, not every attempt at reconciliation will work out. I just think that it could have been even more realistic without diminishing the feel-good happy ending for our main cast if it had stayed a bit more open-ended.
The story telling was a bit too slow at times and, together with the heavy-handed message, I never felt the urgent need to watch the next episode immediately.
The screenplay was mostly solidly written -- I love the progression of the two main characters, and also how Nok's backstory was revealed slowly. I would have liked it if the supporting characters had been fleshed out more; Pha was a bit too good and too understanding at times, and the trio of our lovely grannies deserved more than to be the background chorus, too. I think the story would have worked as an ensemble cast, maybe even better than it does now.
It's also maybe of note that the screenplay does the usual Thai way of mixing comedic bits and serious messages, which might take a bit of getting used to. There is just enough romance that I can't put the drama in my "No romance!" list -- but both couples make sense within the narrative and the character progression, so it's all fine.
What made this drama was the general production quality, the setting in a lower class environment and the outstanding abilities of the actors. I loved the interactions between Nok and Jan, of course, but also the actors of supporting characters like Omsin and Jojo were excellent in their roles.
Was it good?
I think it was. The production quality was high, the actors were excellent. The message was delivered a bit too heavy-handed at times, and part of the ending felt slightly undeserved.
Did I like it?
I didn't love it so much that I devoured the drama; but I am glad I watched it.
Who would I recommend it to?
To people who an watch a slow, slice-of-life-adjacent drama. And to those who are interested to understand how Thai people view life and death.
Was this review helpful to you?
A conflict based on miscomminucation, the inability to face your own insecurities, or external influences that stop one of the two main characters to act and resolve the conflict on time: This all has been done before in many, many dramas and novels. So, in order to stand out, you need to be meticulous in the writing and in the execution. The crew for this production was not.
There was much potential in the imagery -- the sterile house vs. the perfectly manicured garden, which Ha Yeonwoo crashes into, vs. the wide spaces of nature. There was good potential in the non-linear story-telling, so that we only get to know of their back story bit by bit. There was some potential in the meta-narrative where the feelings of our protagonists are mirrored in the feelings of the fictional couple.
Unfortunately, none of it was used well. It starts with the writing itself: The meta-narrative and non-linear story-telling interfered with each other and reduced the potential significance of each. Parts of the flashbacks seem at odds with each other -- at first there was something about a sweater, and later about a kiss; and both times I had the impression that this was the last time they had seen each other. Some scenes in the later part added nothing to the story (like when they broke into the museum) -- and considering that the whole runtime is just under two hours, the screen writer should have asked themselves: What story do I want to tell?
And in my opinion, the screenplay is the base for everything else -- if it already doesn't work, then the rest will struggle.
The thing is that "the rest" also doesn't work well. The cinematographer had an eye for nature shots (those were great) -- but that was it. The house, the garden and the world outside had interesting lines and light to use. None of it had any significance on screen.
Scenes were edited to be too long or ended abruptly. Microphones were seen on screen. At times, there were some audio issues. And let's not talk about the "kiss" in the "rain" at the end. (Not that I don't mind closed-mouth kisses per se, but here the camera held and held, until it felt awakward for everybody.)
Most of the time, the actors tried to save the mess, and I do think that their abilities were the only thing that made me sit through this film. But even they dropped the ball near the end -- if you are that uncomfortable kissing your (male) colleague, then you should make sure to either not act in a production that requires kissing or at least make sure that it's not as obvious in the finished product.
Overall, I have the impression that most of the crew didn't want to be there and rushed through everything just to get it done. I wonder if they are able to take pride in the product?
Was it good?
No. There was potential but none of it was used.
Did I like it?
I liked two aspects; the rest was ... meh. It was short, though.
Would I recommend it?
No.
Was this review helpful to you?
I am not quite sure what the film is about. Is it about gay life in the year 2000, with all that it entails? Is it about heteronormativity, and its consequences for women and queer people alike? Is it about lonely people who try to find comfort in a harsh and hectic society?
Is it about he question what a *family* is?
And I'm not sure if they put too much into the script (there are several scenes and side stories that don't advance the main plot at all, the scene where they try to mate two dogs in front of a kid is still burnt into my brain), so it's core theme isn't clear -- or if it's done intentionally, because, well, life is messy and everything is intertwined. I tend towars the latter reading, especially with the more than hectic beginning and the parallel telling of the story lines of the three main characters.
Whichever it is, for me, the most intriguing thing was not the gay couple -- their story is interesting as well -- but the three women who encounter the restriction of society's expectations in their own way.
There's, of course, the film's main character: Asako. Who has had different sexual partners in her life (not always by choice, as the film makes very clear; cw for an on-screen non-con sex scene), and is shamed by medical professionals for it. Confronted with the possibility of infertility, she tries to take desperate measures to become a mother -- outside of society's norm of marriage.
By contrast, we meet Katsuhiro's sister-on-law Yoko, who tells us that her marriage was arranged and she didn't have a choice in it. That her mother-in-law expected a grandson. Yoko has resigned herself with this kind of life, and has started to identify with it. She, like her mother-in-law, perpetuates the toxic ideas of a "good woman" and of "family". Because if she didn't, her whole life would be meaningless.
And this comes to head in a climactic scene, where both women meet and their views clash. One of the exchanges stayed with me:
Asako says: I wanted to choose a family the way you choose lovers and friends!
And Yoko replies: You don't choose your family, they are just there.
And in addition to their contrasting worlds, there's a third woman, a co-worker of Katsuhiro's, whose attempts at pursuing him become more desperate over time. She suffers not only from the expectation to marry and start a family -- her disability also makes it much harder to find a partner at all, so she latches on to the only man who treats her kindly.
Core themes aside, the film is gloriously messy. No single character is perfect here, no motivation is "green" -- even Naoya, who is a sweet man, chooses his partner not because he is in love with him, but because Katsuhiro is the one who stayed. There are many things that stay unsaid or unresolved, some character arcs never get what I would call a stopping point.
The cinematography and the side stories give the film a hectic and disrupted feeling -- and occasionally this will be contrasted with slower scenes.
While there are light-hearted scenes, which are occasionally very funny, and while the film gives us an overall optimistic outlook about three people who carve out their own space in this world, this doesn't make the film gentle or light -- it's more that we find laughter and happiness *in spite of* reality, not because of it.
I'm not sure if I *liked* the film, but it certainly stayed with me for weeks now, and that is always a good thing. If I ever have another chance to watch this again, I will definitely do so.
Was this review helpful to you?
Sometimes, less is more
... and this short film is a prime example.You don't need much if all people involved know which story they want to tell and have the ability to craft a good screenplay and to execute well it with everything they have.
In less than ten minutes, we see a love story from the first shy glance -- Is this feeling real? -- to an answering touch -- Is what I see real? -- until we know: Yes, it is.
The intertwining of fiction / acting and reality / genuine attraction in this short underline this uncertainty we feel when we make our first steps towards the possibility of a relationship, and even moreso for two people of the same gender.
Both actors, the director and the person behind the camera very obviously know what they are doing, they use their limited resources ingeniously, and manage to quickly connect audience and characters, build up a good amount of tension, and resolve it with great satisfaction.
Was this review helpful to you?
This is a story about an old man, who refuses to change.
This is a story about a father who loves his daughter.
This is a story about two survivors.
This is a story about gently supporting each other.
This is a story about expressing love.
This is a story about life.
This is a comedy. This is a simple slice-of-life story. This is a film that moved me to tears.
Expect a mostly slow-paced slice-of-life film, in the style that's typical for Japanese films of this genre. It has more than a few layers of story, see above, and those who get on with the style will surely find their own reading.
For me, what was most poignant, and maybe not easily accessible for the younger generation, was the way the two older people lived their life and how they looked back on it. They are, I think, almost exactly as old as my own father, and I found much of him in theses characters. All of them have lived through the horrors of war in their early childhood -- they saw the bomb falling on Hiroshima, my father lived through air raids in cellars; all of them have had to go on with life and rebuild a society they did not destroy, and even though there was no one to talk with about these experiences, this generation shares a silent kowledge about their traumatic childhoods and a quiet acceptance of what is that later generations don't. And in this film you can see exactly that -- and also how freeing it is for both to finally talk about it, to acknowledge the pain and to share their values with each other.
Other viewers might rather focus on the father-daughter-relationship or the tofu making process, or the scenery of Hiroshima, or maybe the two love stories -- it's all fine; I think this is what the writer wants us to do -- and this is what makes the film a great example of a good slice-of-life film.
The overall quality of the film is excellent, as it is usually the case with films shown on JFF Theater; the only thing I would have liked to be different is that Fumie's actress, while outstanding in her portrayal of the character, is about twenty years too young -- and because of that, I was unsure about the character's age for most of the film; even though that is an important fact to know about her, that she was a child in 1945.
Was it good?
Yes. Except for the one aspect I mentioned, it was well-written, and well-executed.
Did I like it?
I did. This is one of the kind of films I need to be in the right mood for, and I'm glad I found the time at the right moment for it.
Would I recommend it?
Definitely. Especially to those who like the Japanese style of slice-of-life films.
Was this review helpful to you?
Now, this is only the fifth documentary from Japan that I have watched, so I might be hilariously wrong here -- maybe they were the exceptions, and this is the norm -- but something felt off.
The other documentaries all had a certain sensitivity to them for the mastery of the craft, for the people living it. And for those about specific people, "The God of Ramen" and "Sumodo", I was moved by them because the directors managed to get very close to them -- so close that we saw the men filmed not only in their high points, but also at their lowest, at moments when they were exceptionally vulnerable.
All of the other documentaries, whether they were about a specific person or a group of people, never shied away from the hard facts of life, and from the pain life can bring -- on the contrary, this is when they leaned in even harder, got even closer, focused even more on them -- because only then the good things can really shine.
And even though "Come Back Anytime" follows Ueda-san for a whole year, I never felt that closeness to him, nor that sensitivity for his craft. It felt much more curated, maybe even staged at times. It felt superficial.
It might also feel more distant because in "The God of Ramen" and "Sumodo" the director was there with us all the time -- both of them commented on what we got to see in the films, and even brought in some of their own thoughts and feelings; and I could see how they themselves had grown closer to their subjects during filming. Here, however, the director is only heard posing questions two or three times, probably because he couldn't edit himself out. This director didn't take us on a journey nor did he offer his own perspective, even though the film itself *is* his perspective, so there's no reason to pretend it's objective.
Another thing that bothered me was the Western / European piano music -- it felt wrongly placed in some scenes, when silence would have been preferable; and during some of the talking head interviews, the music was almost louder than the words of the customers.
Maybe the reason why this documentary feels so different and "off" is a very simple one: The director, John Daschbach, is US-American, even though the producer is Japanese.
And still, even with all of this, there are times when the Japanese perspective shines through. When Ueda is humble about his success -- but still takes pride in his craft. When the customers speak with such love about the simpleness of a good ramen soup. When Ueda and his friends handle food and ingredients so gently as if they are their own grandchildren.
So, overall, watching "Come Back Anytime" wasn't a complete waste of time, and I wasn't bored or confused -- but in the end, I have to ask myself, what was the point in showing us this man's life?
Was this review helpful to you?
The first part is funny, fast-paced, and manages to integrate the message into an engaging plot. Unfortunately, half of the second part is a more elaborate repeat of the first part's last 15 minutes, so it felt a bit repetitive. However, the cast is more than enough to make up for it; even when they do nothing but sit around a table to plan their scam -- told in classic heist-movie fashion -- all five of the cast give their characters life and more depth than is provided by the script alone, so much so than I genuinely began to root for them and was most anxious for their plot to succeed. (A result I am not sure the writers intended.)
For me, I found the writing a bit *too* heavy-handed in their message and the ending a bit too simple; to the point that I asked myself who the intended audience might be -- the plot and the direct informative monologues about how scammers work felt appropriate for 10 to 13 year olds. On the other hand, this age-group is possibly not the target for ATM scams or fortune telling scams, which would be adults.
Given that the drama is part of a programme called "Drama for All", I suspect that they tried to make something that appeals to people of all age groups and all education levels, so it makes sense to do it that way.
And, well. It worked! I was entertained and got a refresher course in the subject.
Was it good?
It was a bit heavy-handed in the message, but overall both extremely entertaining, not in the least because of the cast, *and* it was educational.
Did I like it?
I did. Loved the interactions between the gang members. (And I still want to hear Gle's story.)
Who would I recommend it to?
To fans of the actors, and to people who want to spend two hours being entertainingly informed about scams.
Was this review helpful to you?
They had a great idea and strong imagery, but too many episodes for it
I seek out dramas with an unusual premise, and a penguin turned human is as unusual as it gets.I loved the first half of the drama, how the unsual premise at first seemed to be nothing but a simple high school drama, complete with school bullying, an odd group of friends and a ghost -- but then turned out to have strong imagery of cages vs. freedom, of staying in the seemingly safe present vs. going out into the wild and unknown future. I loved the metaphor of school and teenage years as prison, which liberally used striped pyjamas with numbers, high walls, guards in uniforms and so on, where school is a prison / a cage that provides a safe space but at the same time, stifles growth -- versus the wild, and maybe dangerous woods, symbolising the unknown, in which you can get lost, but also be found again.
The metaphor gets spelled out in a medically induced dream and subsequent dialogues between Junior and Sun -- what will the future bring? What will we do when we grow up? Will we be brave enough to step out of our cages or will we go back to what we know? I think the animal-turned-human is also part of this imagery; as a human, we have much more freedom, we don't rely on instincts alone, we can be who we want and be with whom we want, even if it's a black panther.
Overall, this first part was a very good metaphorical coming-of-age comedy.
I loved Junior's character in these first episodes; he didn't know much about the world, but he did know what he wanted and went to get it, he was able to stand up for himself, even when he was betrayed by someone he had trusted his whole life. And he did all that while being an adorable penguin.
All of this was supported by good choices of sets and wardrobes; and the main actors portrayed their characters and their quirks and thoughts well (especially considering that they are newbies!). More than a few times, Junior really acted like a penguin in human skin, which was lovely to see.
In my opinion, the drama should have ended somewhere in episode 8, when Junior makes his decision whether he wants to go back to his cage or to live in an uncertain future but together with Sun.
Because after that, the writing falls apart. Sun and Junior change to a stereotypical top/bottom couple (with a whining bottom, and a sexually experienced(?) top), the side couple's development stalls completely, even to the very end, the narrative starts to feel redundant and made of ill-fitting pieces, leaving some plot-holes. Especially the last episode, with its weird time skips, and all too sweet ending that somehow tries to give even the minor characters a happy ending, is a huge let-down.
My theory is that the writer had a fantastic idea for a plot -- and then discovered that it wasn't enough to fill the standard 12 episode format, so they had to add more filler, and this is what we got.
Was it good?
There were a few highs, and some great imagery, as well as some good acted scenes. Unfortunately, the last three and a half episodes were weak.
Did I like it?
I loved the first two thirds, so much so that I thought the drama might become a new favourite; and didn't dislike the last third. It was just less than it could have been, so I don't think I'll ever rewatch it.
Would I recommend it?
I don't know. Maybe to someone who likes their BLs on the cute side and doesn't mind some fantastical elements and doesn't expect great writing.
Was this review helpful to you?
Go in completely blind, let the narrative lead you, it's brilliant!
It's not possible to write a review for this film. Whatever I could say about the acting, about the camerawork, about the directing, about the script -- it would all be a spoiler.Instead, I'll share some of my notes I made during watching:
* Oh, "one cut" means "one take"!
* Just enjoying the ridiculousness of the C movie horror zombie film :)
* Wow. This zombie film was taken in one single take.
* Things are not what they seem
* The Japanese dedication to art is always impressive
* Ending credits: Two for the price of one!
* How did they *do* it? HOW?
If you can, please go into the film without prior knowledge and just follow along. If you love zombie movies, especially of B or C movie quality, you'll have a great time, I promise.
Was it good?
Yes, [redacted]!
Did I like it?
I loved every minute of it! As a C horror movie, as a comedy and as a [redacted].
Who would I recommend it to?
To everybody who enjoys a good spoof of C movies about zombies, who loves their layers, and who can watch the same movie several times.
Was this review helpful to you?
