3
15
1
4
1
1
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?
A 12-course meal, where every course is a dessert
If I had to describe this series in three words? I'd choosesaccharine
repetitive
inconsistent
Why saccarine and repetitive?
This show is basically a 12-course meal, where every single course is some kind of dessert, and sometimes you get the same dessert twice.
The thing is, when even the bitter-sweet moments are more sweet than bitter, then the sweetest moments don't taste as sweet as they should. A meal that is only desserts might fill our bellies, but we won't feel satisfied, nor it is nutritious.
To say it clearly: None of this is the actors' fault. They all did their best with what they were given, and there are many moments where the love between Rati and Thee shines -- it's only that there are too many of these sweet moments, and not enough of anything else.
Knowing that this is a GMMTV production, I didn't expect them to use the intriguing possibilities a setting like this provides: The backdrop of the first World War is only used as an excuse to have a French national teach his language to Siamese dignitaries -- while Rati expresses that he is subject to negative scrutiny from Siamese people, this is never actually shown.
That Rati is both of Siamese descent and a French citizen, and is part of two very different worlds, is never used to its potential: France was the only Republic in Europe, and one of the very few Republics worldwide, and with its basic idea of "liberté egalité fraternité" it was an egalitarian society by law, if not in practice, while Siam was still an absolute monarchy, and had only penalized slavery a few years prior to the story.
The subject of classism and also of homophobia in Siamese society is reduced to a personal conflict within the two families of Rati's and Thee's, marking two characters as the evil antagonists, while everybody else stays neutral to understanding or even supportive.
And this reduced potential for external pressure is overshadowed by the saccharine, at times kitschy, relationship between Rati and Thee. As a love story that starts with a "love at first sight" cliché, and then only slowly develops, it is not only overly sweet, with a lot of handholding and gazing into each others eyes, it is also very repetitive. We get at least three different declarations of love and devotion, and after a kiss in episode 5, the relationship regresses to handholding and loving stares again -- you cannot tell me that Rati or Thee, as young men with a sex drive, would not try to find a secluded place for more, and instead wait for months without even doing so much as kiss again, and only sleep together when they are at Rati's mother's place, several episodes later? (A place that is not exactly sound-proof, I might add.) Especially Rati's resistance doesn't make much sense here -- if he accepts that they are both in love and knows that they should try to use their time together, then he should, as a 24 year old man who grew up in cosmopolitan Paris, want to and know how to be physically intimate with another man, and not shy away from touch like a frightened virgin.
The potential disaster of separation and unwanted marriage hangs over the protagonists from the start, and since everything stalls for nine episodes, with Thee's grandmother occasionally popping up to say "MARRIAGE!!" -- the climactic eleventh episode, which should have been the emotional highlight of the drama, full of anxiety and with a feeling of impending doom -- this part feels much the same as everything that came before. To be honest, I was bored at that point, and that episode 12 glossed over Rati's and Thee's feelings of loss and betrayal with a time skip only to proceed with a 40 minutes long sugary ending, did not make anything more interesting.
The story would have profited from a tightening of the pace, and a reduction to maybe six or eight episodes, and if the script had allowed the angst to shine, then this could have been something very special.
Why inconsistent?
The most glaring inconsistencies are around Inn's character Rati. As a young man from Paris, and a man who presumably has been groomed to take on a diplomatic career, he should behave much differently.
Paris was (still is) a cosmopolitan city, it hosted the World Exhibition of 1900, it was a centre for cultural and artistic innovation -- and yet, Rati is excited at the prospect of owning a bicycle, one of the most widely used modes of transportation in the early 20th century? He has never bathed in a natural body of water? He is amazed at the sight and taste of cotton candy? It's just not believable.
Rati, who should have had an education in politics and diplomacy, who should be much more experienced in worldly matters, who, I assume, has studied at a prestigious university and has met people of different countries and classes before -- this Rati behaves more like a sheltered Khun Nhu in more than a few scenes, especially when it's about physical intimacy with Thee (see above). He also at times is very ignorant in matters of society and how it works -- and then he is the one who points out the risks of engaging in a homosexual relationship between a noble and a son of a servant. His character does not make any sense. (Thee, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a character at all.)
Also, some anachronisms: The most obvious one being Thee's car, which is a model that didn't even exist yet in 1915 -- this is what a modern car looked like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hispano-Suiza_(F)_Type_26_Roadster_von_Flood_1914_(2).JPG. There are a few more minor things, like the telephone in the customs office, and the ubitiquous presence of electricity outside of homes. But the one that should not have happened is the mention of the Chulalangkorn University in 1915/16 -- it was only founded in 1917.
Was it good?
The scenery was nice to look at, both the landscape and the actors, and it was well-filmed and acted. But the overly saccharine relationship, and its non-existent development combined with inconsistencies and missed opportunities for depth, made it feel like I was being force-fed one piece of cotton candy after the other. The only liveliness was provided by the secondary couple's story, which has its own share of multiple issues of inconsistencies and anachronisms.
Did I like it?
I liked it enough to finish it, but that was probably only because I chose a time where my brain wanted to watch something sweet.
Woud I recommend it?
No. Die-hard fans of Inn, Great or the other couple's actors, Boom and Aou, might find enjoyment in watching.
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?
PWTP -- Porn With Travel Promotion
"Kiseki Chapter 2" consists of three elements: Travel promotion, Drinking, and Soft Porn.There's no plot, except for a bare bones "four young men meet and spend a few days together" to loosely tie the three elements together.
Theres nothing wrong with either travel promotions or soft porn, and I don't even mind both of them in one drama.
The problem is that the quality is somewhere in the basement:
Both the travelling (especially the food) scenes and the sex scenes feel as if the makers wanted to imitate Japanese food centred films and Pink Films. They failed spectaculary at both.
My theory is that the director showed up only for the sex scenes, because they were the only scenes that seem to have a script -- and even so they can't reach the (dubious) quality of Pink Films when it comes to creatively hide genitals, show more sexual acts than tab A goes into slot B, and position body parts correctly for realism.
And everything else? I think the team gave the actors a vague "This is what should happen in the scene", left the camera equipment with the intern, and went to get some delicious Japanese food.
In the end, I jumped forwards through the outings and the drinking (which I usually don't do), watched the sex scenes and really didn't mind when it was over.
Was this review helpful to you?
This review may contain spoilers
Summer vibes with a lot of waffling about
I am extremely conflicted about Minato's Laundromat. On the one hand, I loved it. On the other, I disliked it.Let me explain.
There were several things I loved:
* the summer atmosphere at the seaside town
* the sets, especially the cosy laundromat
* the teacher, with his hilariously bad memory, who nevertheless was very good at leading his students towards adulthood,
* the solid acting
I think what the production team was going for was a cute and fluffy summer story. The thing is, the story *also* shows clearly that both Shin and Minato are sexually attracted to each other, and get heart-rate-raisingly close to each other in some scenes (always ended by Minato, who pushes Shin away with a curse and a laugh) -- this part of their mutual attraction is switched on and off, just as the script demands. I would have liked to see Minato struggle more consistently with his desire; but what we got is a man who seems to be quite content with the way things are for the most time.
And a similar personality switch exists for Shin. He is both shown as the young, thoughtful and earnest boy, who has clear goals in life (studying medicine) and who takes care of his younger siblings -- and then, like flipping a light switch, he suddenly is a pushy "seme" who doesn't want to take no for an answer.
It's more these points that made watching the drama frustrating than Minato's endless waffling about.
Regarding that, it was also low-key irritating. We are told two reasons for his rejection of Shin's advances: 1) Shin is a minor. 2) Minato still has unresolved feelings for his old teacher.
The thing is, in the last two epsides, none of them are really relevant anymore. So, why is he still hesitant? (It feels as if he is just because the writer said so.)
So, although most of the series was lovely and nice to watch, as soon as I started thinking about character arcs and motivations, things fell apart. I know that this drama is based on a manga, which sometimes get one or two volumes too many, so that a once tight story loses its clear focus; and I suppose that might have happened here.
Was it good? -- It was entertaining and technically well done. character-wise, it wasn't as tight as it should have been.
Did I like it? -- Yes. No! I don't know.
Who would I recommend it to? -- Fans of fluffy, slow-paced Japanese BL dramas.
Was this review helpful to you?
[Don't pay much attention to the ratings for this review, as always. Documentaries would need different categories. When will MDL finally allow me to post a review without ratings?]
It's a very slow paced documentary, which I don't mind as such -- but for the most part, I didn't really understand what was happening on screen. They introduced too many brewers and masters too fast, and jumped from one to the other -- some never to be seen again, some would be important later, but I didn't know who would. The narrative also jumped between times -- history and present, summer and winter. They showed one aspect, and then, without explaining it thoroughly, showed another.
I ended up having more questions than answers at the end:
* Why exactly do all the brewers have to stay at the brewery for the whole six months of winter? I get that it's a difficult process, that needs to be monitored closely at crucial times, but when the mash is fermenting, it should be sufficient to check once or twice a day, right? (The answer seems to be tradition.)
* Where do the workers sleep during that time, how are their living conditions?
* Are they paid during the summer?
* The documentary claimed several times that the brewing of Sake in Noto is closely connected to the local culture. We only got to see a few glimpses of one festival. What exactly is the connection, what do the locals who are not working as brewers think about it?
* The documentary claims that the four "Kings of Sake" developed the modern brewing process. How exactly does it differ from older processes?
Overall, it was a frustrating (and boring) experience. For a moment, I wondered if it was me, if it was because I have no knowledge about Sake at all (other than that it's a alcoholic rice drink) -- but no. I also didn't know anything about Sumo but thoroughly enjoyed the documentary "Sumodo".
One other thing: The volume level is very low, I had to turn up the volume on my end several times. I don't know enough Japanese to understand anything, but I still like to hear the people on screen.
Was it good? -- I don't think so. There were a few scenes that were really good, and I loved how they ended the documentary (that one sentence had impact), but the narrative was more confusing than informative.
Did I like it? -- I would like to see another, better documentary about the same topic.
Would I recommend it? -- Not really.
I will give a watch suggestion for the first time after writing more than 130 reviews: Watch from the beginning to 2:16 for the atmosphere, then 23:40-26:25 (for the origin stories of Sake), 27:00-31:30 (for the modern brewing process), and 1:15:00 to the end (for the brewing process of refined sake by a master). After that, you could go back and watch the rest for the brewers and the masters.
Was this review helpful to you?
Comedy lakorn with modern ideas and a lot of convenient writing
Before I say anything else, let me admit that I am just starting to dip my toes into mainstream Thai television. This means that, as a Western European viewer, I can't really say how this series compares to mainstream Thai lakorns. Everything in this review is just based on my own feelings and what little I know about Thai society.Anyway, my tl;dr:
Was it good? -- It had quite a bit of convenient writing and a few dated jokes, but the good outweighed the bad for me.
Did I like it? -- Yes, it was what I needed at the time, something funny, engaging but not too hard on the brain. Also, the two romantic subplots were not the main focus of the drama, but were still well integrated into the main plot.
Would I recommend it? - I don't know. I'd have to know more about other mainstream productions.
What I am quite sure of, however, is that to review this lakorn is to understand that it was broadcast on weekdays at 7pm -- which means that its target audience are normal families at the end of a busy work and school day. They will want to watch something that isn't too much outside the expected norms, something that provides a bit of escapism, something that is relaxing, relatable and funny.
Another thing to be expected, given the genre, is the low budget and the resulting narrow range of sets and inconsistencies. Actually, the people in charge did a good job of keeping track of all the colourful costumes worn by Leena and Khaomai -- unfortunately I noticed this mostly because of Gee's ("Bank") ever-changing hair length. (Really, from episode 14 or so, I started to notice the order in which they shot the series, just by how long his hair was.)
As for the mix of progressive and outdated aspects, I think the writers tried to write a modern lakorn that would still appeal to the mainstream audience, so in the end, we got a lakorn that had both cliched plot points, some outdated "jokes" and a few messages of democratic principles, equality and humanity.
The main character, who is กะเทย "gàthoey" -- the concept seems to be quite different from the neat western boxes of "gay" / "trans", so for the purposes of this review I'll just describe him as "effeminate gay man" and use the Thai word from now on -- is himself a mixture of stereotypical and progressive. Just alone the fact that he *is* the main character, and not a side character to be made fun of, I find progressive in itself. But then they went a step further, and cast James Rusameekae, whose body is large and whose skin is dark -- so he is not even stereotypically gathoey in terms of looks; just in terms of how he dresses, moves and speaks.
In the course of the drama, the script addresses homophobia and colorism very respectfully -- but it's a minor aspect of the show. Instead, Lee / Salee / Leena is shown as a person who loves his village very much, who is willing to fight for justice and who has his own flaws, none of which have anything to do with his being gathoey or his skin colour.
However, there are three scenes where the writers slide back into the old habit of making homophobic "jokes" -- two of them between Leena and his father, which makes it all the more distasteful.
Similarly, the two main young women in the drama, Khaomai and Pakkad, are both modern young women, one with a thriving business, the other with a clear purpose in her life, both are shown as equals to their respective romantic partners -- and, at the same time, Pakkad is written as someone who is not very smart and, in the first half of the drama, as someone who pursues a man based on superficial attraction, and Khaomai gets her own "hysterically demands a course of action that goes against all common sense" plot line, even though she is usually a very level-headed young woman.
One of them is the one to propose when the time comes (instead of the male love interest) -- and then, in the end, both are left to stay in the village while all three of the men go out into the world to learn.
There is a lot of convenient writing, and the plot develops "because the writers said so" -- some of the problems could easily have been avoided if Lee and his assistants had just sat down for an hour or two and made a plan, instead of running around like headless chickens. The villains are easily recognisable villains, we have the expected roles of "old man with a rough exterior and a heart of gold", "mother who will do anything for her son", "plucky child", several easily forgotten "villagers" and so on. The subplots are easily predictable, and where there aren't, it's more often than not either because of a sudden plot twist to make things more difficult for the characters or a deus-ex-machina solution. Overall, these things are more or less what I expect from a comedy series that is filmed to be shown in the early evening on a weekday.
On the other hand, the writers not only included the most interesting character of Salee, but they also mentioned democratic rights, a discussion of what is right and wrong, ordinary people fighting against corrupt officials; they raised the question of what kind of development might be good for rural areas. Considering that Thailand is still a very fragile democracy, with a score of 34/100 (a rank of 107 out of 180 countries) in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 (https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/thailand), I think the Thai audience might appreciate this differently from a Western viewer.
This strange mix of progressive character traits and tropey writing confused me a bit -- but the writers managed to make me care for the main cast, who all had their loveable traits and their flaws, so much that I can overlook these not-so-good things.
Overall, I liked it for what it was. Could it have been better? Yes. But it could have been so much worse. For me, it was exactly what I needed, which was a bit of escapism.
Was this review helpful to you?
Project Dreams: How to Build Mazinger Z's Hangar
2 people found this review helpful
This project will save the company -- no, Japan -- NO! THE WORLD!
Japanese companies have made running shoes out of tabi, dictionaries out of collected words with minimal budgets and huge amounts of earnest shouting, so why not make a hangar for a flying robot out of nothing?I cried with laughter throughout the film, a perfect mix of
a) those popular business stories, where earnest shouting and lots of "ganbarimasu!" combined with Japanese ingenuity save the Japanese economy (or, at least, the company),
b) fan culture, the kind where fans earnestly discuss how things would work in real life (like physicists trying to work out space travel in SF, or biologists drawing up an evolutionary tree for Pokémon),
and
c) the passion of engineers. (Muck is a serious issue!)
Did I like it? -- Absolutely!
Was it good? -- Without doubt!
Would I recommend it? -- YES! Especially to those who are either in the kind of fan communities which I described above or who have seen one or more of Japanese business dramas/films.
When I watched the film, I wasn't aware that Mazinger Z is an existing anime series (it's from the 1970s) -- and I wasn't sure if Maeda was a real company. But it is!
And what makes it even better is that this film was based on a real group of Mazinger Z fans, who worked at Maeda and made detailed plans for the construction of sci-fi anime bases.
(https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2020-01-31/live-action-maeda-kensetsu-fantasy-eigyobu-film-features-cameos-by-mazinger-z-creator-go-nagai-yamato-desslar/.155963)
I really loved the characters, who are all so likeable, and how each of the the core group members gradually discovers their own niche of passion for the project. There was never a dull moment for me; the overall development of events was gripping (Japanese films can really make you care about the most niche of interests!) and the comedy pacing was spot on -- although if you are not a fan of passionately shouted speeches and the Japanese style of comedy, this may not be the right film for you.
I also liked how towards the end, the line between fantasy and reality became increasingly blurred for all of the characters, both main and supporting, until even we, the audience had a hard time telling them apart.
One minor point I did not like as much -- they could have left out the romance. There is only one female character in the team -- why does she have to get a crush? There was no reason at all for it, and I would have found it much better if she had developed a crush on the niche interset, not on the person who has the niche interest. But since it's minimal, and I could easily disregard it (I don't think her crush is even aware of it, and she denies it), I don't mind too much.
Overall, it's a great film! Do watch it!
Was this review helpful to you?
I have to admit that I started watching Mystery to Iunakare because I had heard good things about the drama and because I thought it would be a detective drama.
And it IS, in a way, but not a classic example of a whodunit, where you can solve the cases along with the detective character.
I had to adjust my expectations -- because this is more of a psychology lesson, with a focus on parent-child relationships, and with a bit of philosophy thrown in -- characters, their story and their motivations to do the things they do are at the center, not the cases.
Once I did that, I mostly had a good time.
I loved, as I often do, the excellent acting, the use of space and light -- it often reminded me of a stage play, in the way the characters were positioned in relation to each other, or the way the camera used wide shots.
The drama was strongest when it used silence to convey the mood of a scene or to build suspense -- I also liked the two original songs (and I am very grateful for the translation of the lyrics on VIKI, because they do help to understand the drama's themes). But why, oh why?, did they have to use classical music for the background music? The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy, the Aquarium piece from The Carnival of Animals, Vivaldi's Four Seasons -- I am sorry, but their original meaning was never "mysterious" or "suspenseful" -- and to hear them used in that way was jarring.
I was also unconvinced by the order of the story elements. We get an interesting dynamic between the main character and another character -- which is completely dropped in favour of a weird romance (?) arc between him and a strange young woman -- and then picked up again in the final episodes. I do understand why they did it that way, but the thing is, it broke my connection to important characters, not once but twice.
(I am also not a fan of romance arcs in mystery dramas, so that did not help.)
Regarding the main character -- I am not sure I like him. He is interesting, yes, and quite mysterious. A 20-year-old philosophising at older people always strikes me as precocious -- but if not the young, who else can make such sweeping declarations about life?
I wish the actor and director had focused more on Totono's imitation of other people's habits -- it was just him imitating tics, like drumming fingernails on surfaces or similar. I think if Totono had mirrored their whole posture or even their facial expressions, maybe a bit more subdued, that would have been much more fascinating and could have added to both Totono's mysterious aura and the drama's underlying theme of "identity". I am convinced that the actor could have pulled it off too!
Another aspect was the shocking and rather sudden explicit depiction of severe child abuse in episode 7. I didn't mind that it was shown per se -- I do mind that we didn't get any warning and that it came very late -- all the other episodes before had been rather conservative with showing violence, or even dead bodies, so it wasn't something I could have expected.
All in all, Mystery To Iunakare (Don't Call it Mystery) excels in pacing, acting, lighting, silence and the OST (not the classical pieces), which all serve to make an excellent philosophical and psychological piece about family, specifically dysfunctional mother-child and sibling dynamics, and how society shapes identities, explored through criminal cases.
So, in conclusion:
Was it good? The acting and the lighting were impressive; the musical choices not so much. The cases presented were interesting -- but why were they shown in this order?
Did I like it? I liked some aspects of it, enough to keep me interested.
Would I recommend it? Yes, especially if you like stories that explore the human psychology.
Was this review helpful to you?
What to do when you feel your relationship and your life has reached a breaking point?
This is not a happy story.(tw: depression, child abuse, chronic illness)
This short film, like most short films, leaves a lot of meaning unspoken and questions unanswered.
That means if you can't find a connection to the struggles of at least one of the two main characters, this film might be hard to "get".
The characters have to deal with illness (of the mind and of the body), their own and their partners; with prejudice toward their sexuality and towards their profession.
What to do if, on top of all of this, you feel trapped in your relationship? When you feel that you lose yourself, bit by bit?
Will you go on a long-distance journey or stay with your partner?
The pain of the characters is apparent in every movement of their faces and bodies. The minimal music and the cold late autumn surroundings underline their bleak situation.
One thought about the plot: I was completely thrown by the twist in minute 20, which made a lot of things about the woman much clearer. I had to rewatch the whole film just to understand her better.
I'm not sure I like what her ending scene implies about a possible connection between that twist and her sexuality, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
(Edit: After thinking about this some more, I arrived at an even sadder coclusion about her life and her decisions. Another point in favour of this film. Made me think, and question what I saw.)
And a thought about the subtitles: Those on GagaOOLala are not good. They are good enough to understand the plot, but the obvious grammar mistakes make me wonder if there are nuances that pass me by just because of the bad translations.
I also wonder about the subtitles for the ill partner. We get them, and know what he says, but the main character doesn't (he says so during the therapy session) -- so, does the Korean version have subs for the partner's sentences? Or do international viewers know more than the main character AND Korean viewers?
Overall, I found the story extremely painful and bleak. And I can understand why some viewers don't like it -- for those who have experienced at least some of the characters' struggles, the film might give a better connection to the themes.
The excellent acting and production alone is worth it, I think. (According to the info on GagaOOLala, this film was awarded the Grand Prize of the 2020 Ansan Dan-won International Cultural Art&Film Festival, so it can't be just mid.)
I'd suggest that you try it, it's just 29 minutes, after all.
Was this review helpful to you?
