BootsyFever

A film like Crazy Rich Asians is manufactured to play on women’s desires that leads to unreasonable expectations on men. I am not speaking on the fantastical “love” aspect of the film, it would be great if the film was about Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) and her desire to be with Nick (Henry Golding) but due to Nick’s family it’s not easy. But deep down that’s not what the film is about. So what is it about? It’s about the glitz and glamour of being incredibly rich. It’s about a woman’s fantasy that one day the man they are with will invite them to Singapore to meet his family and it turns out his a billionaire. So Sally whose been with Dave for 2 years is about to meet his Mum in Texas. She is expecting them to fly first class and rock up in a Mansion. Instead it’s a two bedroom apartment and she finds out that Dave has $120,000 in student loans. Sally is going to subconsciously resent him for this even though she will pretend she doesn’t. It’s like the porn argument that is subjected on men all the time. The women on these videos do outrages things on camera and the belief is that men will expect the same thing from their girlfriend or wife. The difference between the two is that men are inundated with scornful information and education on how women should be treated and the realities of a relationship. Is a crazy, rich, Singaporean vacation a reasonable expectation? A film like Crazy Rich Asians doesn’t come with any advisory information or education. The opposite, they are embraced, they are heavily marketed and when a group of women go to see this movie they arrive home depressed and saddened on their own living situation which will in turn reflect poorly on the men in their life. And don’t be tricked in thinking this is some empowering movie. Yes, Rachel Wu is an economics professor but this isn’t a film about a Chinese immigrant who is bought up by a single mother who has to toil her way through high school and college all while being bullied for being different. No, this is a film about how a Chinese/American woman who luckily met a man who happens to be the richest man in the world, oh, and she happens to be an economics professor. I am no different either, I got caught up in the way the film was presented. The vibrant elegance in which the film was shot as the two love birds arrived in Singapore, where, at times, it feels I was watching a commercial from the Singaporean Tourism Department as Nick mutters walking through the food markets “you know, this is one the only places in the world where street food vendors actually earn Michelin stars”. I got caught up in the massive parties and the outrages way a bride walked down the aisle. I laughed at Akwafina, Ken Jeong & Ronny Chieng, even though I thought Ronny was a little too much. And I did find both Rachel and Nick charming even though they’re both a little stale and required all this glitz and glamour to make them more enduring. But that shouldn’t disguise the fact that while Rachel pretends that money is meaningless, it actually means everything. Rachel is the personification of what we think we will act like. But it’s not reality. Reality is that money dictates everything from our education, family and who we fall in love with. I am not saying movies like this shouldn’t be made. It is fun to step away from reality and imagine a world where such a predicament exists. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t be naive to that fact that deep down such issues may arise. Men have to deal with expectation/reality every single day and in modern times I believe that is warranted. But I also believe that it should work both sides. Both men and women desire different things and because one expectation is deemed more sensible than the other it doesn’t discount its impact on a potential partner. So let’s cut the **** and say that movies like Crazy Rich Asians are just as detrimental to relationships as Two Girls, One Cup, even if it’s much easier on the eyes.

Praise the lord, the dark hole of the first movie has been removed (Isla Fischer if you don’t remember) and been replaced by the exceptional Lizzy Caplan. Who, dare I say, has been wonderfully cast, except for the fact that she has been forced into a love interest with Dave Franco, but I digress. It’s amazing that such a small change has paid dividends and has led to the 2nd incarnation of the magic heist film a more tolerable movie going experience. Is Now You See Me 2 perfect? No, not even close, but it is paced more cohesively and is centred around a theme (security in the 21st century) that I can momentarily invest myself in. Credit should go to director Jon M. Chu who was able to put together compelling scenes and keeps the film on track. The momentum of the film feels about right and climaxes well even if the ending was a little poor, more on the ending later. Where the film does fall apart is once again in character development/arch. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to be the leader but learns his not, pretty boring. Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) falls in love with Lula (Lizzy Caplan), pretty boring even though I loved the Caplan implementation. We find out that Merrit McKinney (Woody Harrelson) has an evil twin brother Chase (Also Woody) which is a very difficult pill to swallow but you learn to accept it. And Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is all over the place. These character failures really come down to the objective of the movie; too shock, too awe and too swerve. In order to do this it sacrifices character cohesiveness and it doesn’t take long for a character like Rhodes to totally lose his identity all together. For example Rhodes very quickly gets founded out as a rat and part of this magical mafia, the Horseman then get kidnapped and Rhodes who ends the first film as a calm, collected, magician is substituted for this brooding, out of his element character that is more likened to his FBI persona. It’s confusing and leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Though, I will credit the introduction of Daniel Radcliffe into the mix whose tone and energy was a nice touch to the antagonist role, that wasn’t full of cliché on liners and inexplicable motivations. But back to that ending; though there is nothing technically wrong with it, it was just kind of a letdown. Basically the Horseman are back on top after being subjected to the evildoers and Chinese ninjas and are sprinting to end the film with one last hurrah, as expected of course. It starts off well with a few mini performances around London but the big reveal at the end left me a little high and dry (trust me that’s funny watch the film). What made it that much worse is there was this incredibly long explanation after the bad guys were jibbed that involved the horseman explaining their victory while the bad guys stand there with no thought of trying to escape. It was just weird. This ending exemplifies this franchise so far. It has many things going for it, strong acting pedigree and compelling a concept and what I am most impressed with is that it has improved on itself. But what still concerns me and what leads to the film falling flat is with incessant need to make sacrifices in order to achieve a cheap surprise or lead to an overpriced computer generated sequence. Now You See Me 2 is a step in the right direction but it still has a long way to go to.

Why after 6 years and bloody 10 viewings do I keep watching Now You See Me? I don’t like the disorientating path of the story, I don’t like the chemistry between characters mainly because I don’t like the characters, and I really don’t like how a group of actors that I personally enjoy are used as mouth pieces for some very corny dialogue. You probably think the movie is simple enough, so why do I think it’s disorientating? Think about it? In one of the opening scenes we see the Four Horseman performing onstage for the first time. The performance involves using “magic” to transport an audience member from Las Vegas to a bank safe in France, your engaged in the trickery, enjoying the performance, then all of a sudden were in New Orleans, reset were moving on. I need time to breathe, I would have been suffocated if it weren’t for Morgan Freeman speaking to the FBI agents explaining how the trick was done, which, by the way, might be the best parts of the film. It’s a very wordy way of lifting the veil on how a trick is done but at least you’re never left in the dark. Throughout I always felt rushed, not because the scenes were overly short, but when the movie did settle, for nonsensical love scenes for example, it would speed through the character arks all to get to this heavily computer generated set piece. Another thing I found frustrating is how this film has the Harlem Globetrotters of casts and makes them all feel like first year drama students. And don’t get me started on Isla Fischer who felt like she was acting at gunpoint the whole time and Melanie Laurent, of Inglorious **** fame, who was inexplicably awkward alongside Ruffalo. So here comes the hypocrisy. Why do I keep coming back for more? I honestly think it comes down to one simple reason. I really like the concept and the movie did enough right that I can almost see its full potential. I like how they use the motif of magic and turn it into a politically motivated heist movie. There is fight scenes were playing cards are thrown and magical fire balls are flung, and maybe the pace of the movie is disorientating but it’s also never boring. I think I keep watching because I know what the movie can be; I love Jesse Eisenburg and Dave Franco is an incredible talent. So when you thrust these performers into this world I can’t but think what might have been. Now You See Me is a movie you should watch, watch even more than once, but that doesn’t mean I like the movie.