Can someone please tell me what I'm what missing about Crazy Rich Asians? The film has a 93% rating on Rottentomatoes and reviews seem to range from "it was alright" to "it was actually quite good". I absolutely hated it, and thought that in so far as any piece of art can be said to be objectively garbage, surely this is it. Here are some reasons why:
This movie asks us to empathize with characters whose main problems stem from being one of the richest families in Asia. The protagonist has a choice to make between taking over a billion dollar company or living like a king with the love of his life in New York City. Who identifies with these characters? What audience are they speaking to?
I have never seen a movie so utterly devoid of conflict. For the first hour everything and everyone is rich, hot, and perfect, and then the slightest of all problems arise when the mother doesn't like her sons girlfriend. The stakes in this movie were so incredibly low and uninteresting that i felt i was constantly waiting for a punchline that never came.
There is zero character development from anyone but the mother. I kept on waiting for the dark family secret, or the fatal flaw in the prince to be revealed, but it just never happens. Nick is perfect. He is perfect at the beginning and he is perfect at the end. Rachel is kind and sweet at the beginning and she is kind and sweet at the end.
A sold 45 minutes in the middle of the film was dedicated no nothing but shot after nauseating shot of lavish parties. From the mansion, to the batchelor party, to the batchelorrete party and beyond. Fireworks, exotic food, expensive clothes, naked women, I felt like I was in a tasteless Pitbull music video the entire time. But I held out hope. I thought perhaps the movie is setting us up for a fall, these luxuries will weigh heavily on Nick, and as the empire crumbles the family and Nick will see that this lifestyle comes with a price. Boy was I mistaken! The end of the movie comes with a 40 million dollar wedding and then an extravagant engagement party, and as the very last shot of choreographed swimmers and fireworks fades I felt both relieved and deflated.
Now, i quite like a good romantic comedy, even if it is formulaic and cheesy, but Cray Rich Asians does not qualify. This movie felt contrived and souless, as if it occupies the same niche as gossip magazines who survive on selling normal people a lie of what its like to be rich and famous. I felt like I was either a member of the paparazzi or a servant balancing a tray of champagne glasses for the entire movie.
Please help me. What do people like about this movie?
Over the past few years I have meticulously curated a list of over 700 films grouped by release year from 1910-2018 to choose from during my annual Spooktober movie marathons. I’ve included monster movies, creature features, classic slashers, killer thrillers, murder mysteries, paranormal possessions, supernatural suspense, haunted houses, frightful foreign films, alien invasions, survival horrors, psychological mind-fucks, sensational violence, gruesome gorefests, video nasties, brutal black comedies, and family friendly frights.
The list can be filtered by date-range, MPAA ratings, Rotten Tomatoes scores, and even by streaming service availability making it easier to find something to watch.
I invite you to have a look over this list in hopes that you might find something new to watch this Halloween season or revisit a forgotten favorite. Better yet, if I’ve left anything important off list this, or if you have any obscure favorites you would like to suggest, please let me know in the comments so I can include them.
The actors who played Batman: Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck, Adam West (if you were to count the TV movie in the 1960s which got theatrically released)
I think Michael Keaton was the best because he was able to convey the dichotomy of Bruce Wayne, the charismatic playboy, with the somber nature of the Dark Knight. You got to see Bruce be playful and approachable but you still got to see the darkness within and as Batman, I found him menacing, possessing and fearsome yet also reasonable. With Christian Bale's take, I thought he made Batman into such a hostile and dominant figure that you also forget how reasonable he can be in situations of danger and that voice he put on sounded so forced. Batman only lost his marbles in situations of great risk and tragedy and Bale made his Batman pissed the entire time.
Keaton was able to deliver a good balance, make Batman cool and strong but also charming and funny. As for Val Kilmer, that nipple leather suit ruined it for me and he was too "Pretty Boy". He looked more suited for Nightwing. George Clooney, no comment. As for Ben Affleck, I personally felt he was miscast. Too goofy to be convincing as Batman and he always acted like being Batman was a chore, especially after Batman v Superman.
We’ve heard so much about this service , all the new shows and movies , but not the content they already have that we all love. Being able to go all the way back the to 20s and watch almost everything to present, would not just be amazing ,but game changing. The ability to stream lion king,sword and the stone and steam boat willie, back to back, all while being able to watch the current Pixar, marvel, Fox,Disney, would literally give Netflix a run for its money. Everything Disney has ever made/owns, divided into sections , in one app called Disney plus or some shit like that. Sadly, I think Disney would never do this, but if they did , would you be more inclined to buy into the all in one service?
I caught the movie on Netflix last week for the first time in a while. Its a film with some undeniably great moments and a few rock solid performances, and the source material shines as brightly as ever, but its just not as good as it should have been.
Alan Rickman/Warwick Davis as Marvin? Superb.
Stephen Fry as the Narrator? Ingenious.
Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent? Couldn't be better.
Mos Def as Ford Prefect? B minus. Could have been better.
Sam Rovkwell as Zaphod? Not bad but why the George Bush-by-way-of-Jim Carrey schtick?
Zoe Deschanel as Trillian? Jesus why?
It sucks that they shoehorned a manic pixie dream girl subplot into this film. Zoe is in no way believable as Trillian, she commits to almost no lines and her arc centers around some doughy claptrap about how only Arthur understands her, even though their sole interaction was meeting at a party. It really is one of the worst examples I can think of of forced romantic subplotsand it sucks that they spent so many amazing actors working at their peak on this film that alllmost works but not quite.
Has it been long enough that we can get Edgar Wright to remake this with some of his regulars? Pegg and Frost seem natural fits for the leads (either could play either role, I feel) or he could grab some of his other talent to avoid it feeling like a fourth Cornetto film. The material requires a frenetic pacing that the 2005 film simply can't capture, the leads need to be bounced from scene to scene so quickly they can barely keep up. Not to mention Wright's mastery of "blink and you'll miss it" visual gags would add plenty of new flavor to some written jokes we're all a bit too familiar with at this point. Just imagine how many ways he could cleverly hide "42" in the background of every shot.
In a better world, huh?
The House With A Clock In Its Walls