SenorLengua

By now, you probably already know that this movie is a prequel, or more, of the original "Predator." Before getting into my review, I will say two things about the movie. First, this is a fun movie and moves along at a pace which is enjoyable. It is a recommended watch. Second, if you have not seen "Predator," go watch that first. There are some references, including *that* scene, and besides, "Predator" is a great 1980s action film.

On to the review...

First, the cinematography and setting. If you have seen "Dances With Wolves," you will get the understanding of the vast space and breathtaking beauty of the land. Dan Trachtenberg, the director, does a great job of getting the feeling of the tribe being alone yet not lonely. The over head shots, views from mountain cliffs, the expansive forests all give a sense that they are in a natural world with all the plethora of nature that they are part of.

Next, there is Naru (Amber Midthunder). We have seen this role before. The young woman - teens to early 20s - in a society that does has her role defined by gender, yet she wants something more. And, yes, she makes mistakes along the way trying to prove herself. But Naru was introduced to us as from the start as being smart and inventive in a respected way. And when she tries to be more - a worrier in this movie - she is not just allowed to try, but treated as an equal (the fight is even somewhat jarring). Yet, every time she fails, she learns. But never full successfully. Credit given to both Midthunder and the script she was given that this is done well. It is said that Tom Hanks has eyes. In this case, Midthunder acts with her face and body. And while it is not perfect, as a first-time actor, Midthunder is far and away the best of the cast.

A couple of critiques, this being mostly with the script. The first I say as a history teacher, but the introduction of the French trappers is good, but overkill. In 1719, there not nearly the number presented, and they did not easily group as is suggested. Many worked alone or in pairs, often building relations with the indigenous (mostly for trade). The second critique is the rate of learning Naru experiences. She is introduced to ideas which would have been very difficult to imagine in her time. Yet she learns them at almost the first experience. Convenience, sure, but I'd have liked a slightly slower journey to understanding.

With all of that said, if you have seen Predator, as I said this movie does nicely to do a few references. I won't spoil them for you, but I did enjoy the restraint of Midthunder to the over the top of Schwarzenegger - one who knows she has to out smart as opposed to win by brute force. It was a thoroughly enjoyable film.

It is not an academy level film, in my opinion, but very worthy. I give it 7.5 (scored a 7).

Parents - it is quite violent, and would likely have an "R" rating because of that had it been released to theaters.

This is one of those movies which is not well known from a major director (Ang Lee) in part because this was early in their career, and/or it is in a foreign language, and/or it was not widely released in the Western world. (And in this case, it received an NC-17 rating in the US.) This is a shame.

How many times have you seen a movie where there are plenty of supporting actors, but none stand out? Yeah, me neither. But this is the case here. The story, if you don't already know, centers around the relationship between Wong Chia Chi/ Mrs. Mak (played by Tang Wei) and Mr. Yee (played by Tony Chiu-Wai Leung). Everybody else is trivial, at least in terms of acting. Don't get me wrong, Joan Chen (Mrs. Yee) and Leehom Wang (Kuang Yu Min) are very good, but such is the excellence of Wei and Leung that everybody else is more or less feels like a placeholder.

But even then, Wei far outshines Leung. It is mentioned often that Tom Hanks acts with his eyes. In this case, Wei takes that idea, and raises it a level. It is so obvious when every time she plays Mahjong that her speaking part is interrupted when she actually speaks. The first trip to the jewelers is also there. And many, many moments in between. But, when she does speak, she is controlled until...just watch the voluntary confession about her relationship with Mr. Yee and how she changes from soft control to...near madness? Or something like that.

And the same time, there is the ever increasing tug, sometime literally, between the characters of Mrs. Mak and Mr. Yee. The daring and suddenness, the risk and reward, the safety and threats, are all there in every seen between them. We know Mr. Yee has to have some kind of mean streak, but Mrs. Mak is so soft and pleasant that surely she will bring that part out of him. Or does he know more about her than she thinks?

Ultimately, this is a movie about an affair during World War II in China. That the war is going on is in consequential. The real part of the movie, as you know form the trailers, is whether Mrs. Mak can kill Mr. Yee. Because Mrs. Mak is not Mrs. Mak. Or is she?

The acting of Tang Wei and Tony Chiu-Wai Leung aside, the movie is luscious with what we see on camera. Time and again, it is wonderful how moments are portrayed. My only problem with this movie is the reason it is rated NC-17. The sex scenes between Wei and Leung, while important, feel like they exploit Wei and could be done in a way that does not need the excessive nudity (to be clear, it is not that I am objecting to the nudity. I am objecting to the way it was filmed). Watching those scenes strongly evoked the recent declaration by Keira Knightly that she won't do a sex scene unless it is directed by a woman.

This is one not to miss, but definitely not to watch with kids. In addition to what has been mentioned about the nudity, there is one scene of rape (but that scene is important). It is also a longer film at over 2 hours 30 minutes.

My rating is 7+ of 10, rounded down. There are a couple of plot holes, and the supporting actors are mostly unremarkable (Leehom Wang is good, but hit or miss), but if for no other reason, watch it for Tang Wei. Her performance is delicious.

I remember hearing about this show a couple of years ago as being worth my time, and took particular note of Elliot Page (then Ellen) being in the show. Then I watched the trailer...

When I want to watch a superhero show, I look for 5 things. 1) The inventiveness of the plot; 2) How dynamic the characters are written; 3) The writing overall; 4) The acting; 5) Special effects. Thus, there will be 6 paragraphs coming up addressing each area, and a conclusion. Keep in mind, this is only for season 1.

The Plot As with any decent show, there are going to be multiple overarching plots. In this case, there are two which are primary. The first is the family dynamic in which they have to come back together and deal with what drove them apart. The second is the reason they were brought back together. Both are quite clichéd. There is a subplot to the second reason which is interesting, and I'll address that a bit more in The Acting section. But overall, this was nothing I had not seen before. And the climax was clear to me by end episode 3, if sometime during episode 2.

Dynamic Characters?

This is a superhero movie, but the kids are adopted and the family is dysfunctional. It is a nice set up, and one with a lot of potential. But the biological parents are never brought up, and they are never even discussed apart from a function of origin. This is a huge miss, and really takes away from the internal turmoil that the characters should have to work through. Yes, that is a lot to deal with in terms of writing, but it would have been nice to see it even touched on, or even have some greater depth for one or two characters, while the others could be for upcoming seasons. Sadly, it was not.

The Overall Writing To this point, my tone is probably pretty clear. That is not unjust, but it also is incomplete. The idea is neat, though an obvious similarity to Heroes, Season 1, can be drawn. That is probably one of the most inventive superhero shows in the recent past (though Heroes is a unique, The Umbrella Academy already has material). The Umbrella Academy is a bit of a darker version of Heroes, and there are plenty of misses and clichés. Yet there are ideas and moments which are fun. Number Five and his "girlfriend" are a fun and strange aspect, yet endearing. Klaus is also fun, and the things about his which were invented were almost as if a writer had direct knowledge of that/those behaviors. I also enjoyed the philosophical banter between Hazen and Cha-Cha, though as the season progressed, it became more clichéd. Still, enjoyable moments.

The Acting Here is where I am going to be most critical and most praiseworthy. On the positive side, Robert Sheehan as Klaus was really fun to watch. Though some of the clichéd situations were there, Sheehan was a joy to watch with the material he was given, and some of the odder moments the character had, he played that well (the first time he is tied up is funny). I also thoroughly enjoyed Mary J. Blige as Cha-Cha. She could have played that as a straight soldier, but there is a subtlety in some of her looks, a physical stutter here and there which really adds to the character. I also liked the way Emmy Raver-Lampman as Allison did with what little she had to work with. On the other end...oh how I thought that John Magaro as Leonard was bad. He was stale and it felt like his lines were forced. And then there is Elliot Page. Watching him (as he is now correctly identified) was like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. And I say that as a fan of his from Hard Candy, Juno, and Inception (I even liked him in Whip It).

Special Effects This section is here only because it is a superhero show. This is not X-men or the Marvel Universe, or Lord of the Rings, or any of those movies. This is more akin to the aforementioned Heroes, The 4400, The Watchmen (2019) and to a lesser extent Fringe. Special effects are not needed as a major part of the show, yet are present. If they had been done poorly, it would be noticed. But they are not, so it is unimportant.

Conclusion While there is tremendous potential, the good does not make up for the bad. This is a show that is filled with clichés in both dialogue and plot. The idealistic realization that was supposed to arrive for the climax was obvious as late as episode 3. I almost stopped watching after episode 7, then episode 8, but told myself that I should watch it through to see if there were any surprised. One small surprise, but it was part of a side plot and nothing that made me go "Wow!" I will not watch seasons 2 or 3, or any further beyond that if they continue. Another way of saying this is that it was a bad Percy Jackson movie when it had the potential to one of the standouts in the Marvel Universe.

Recommendations and warnings: As I always do...I recommend skipping it (though I'm very temped to say watch it for Robert Sheehan and Mary J. Blidge only). For parents, there is drug use, both actual and inferred. And one scene of bondage and a couple references to that bondage - it is not 50 Shades of Gray, but it is not subtle, so I would say 16 and over.

Rating this a 4. But that is for season 1 only. Appearantly subsequent seasons are better, but I'm not interest enough to find out.