Finding Shangri-La (2009, Taiwan)

This film is about a woman who is devastated by the death of her 6-year-old son and can't move on, and is still pursuing legal action against those responsible for his death even though they were acquitted in court (the legal aspects in this film are dubious and should be ignored). Her husband wants her to move on and their marriage has become strained (I'm reading a subtext of no sex for 2 years into it).

Her despair takes her from Taipei to a city in southwest China that was re-named "Shangri-La" last year to boost tourism (really, it was an actual news story the newspaper I work for covered). Hilarity ensues. Or not. If I recall correctly, the movie didn't get glowing reviews but it wasn't panned outright. I guess that's fair. I liked it but I can see how other people might be annoyed by it or think it trite.

It's not a stretch to guess that this movie is about finding peace, closure. It's not a Buddhist film although it has overt Buddhist elements and contains passing hints of Buddhist philosophy. The elements of karma in the film are of the pretty banal what-comes-around-goes-around type which is a patently incorrect reading of the concept. A Buddhist fable is referenced which portrays the Buddha as a supernatural being with powers to make things happen for truth and justice and the Buddhist way, but a legitimate teaching of the story should emphasize that everything's a matter of perception. The Buddha can't do anything transformative but only point the way to a path of transformation.

The director does put in an example of a Tibetan practice where you're always putting yourself in the place of other people in order to understand them and develop compassion for them. Everyone more or less does what they do for a reason. They may do something you don't like or annoys you or even harms you, but if you were in their shoes and with their background you might have done exactly the same thing. And without giving anything away, it's sort of the equivalent of a car crash that's witnessed by different people from different perspectives and they all have different accounts of who was at fault or what transpired.

I noted a film before for being a textbook for rolling out a classical narrative. Each character is introduced in due order with their roles plainly delineated. Events unfold logically and everything holds together very nicely. And I noted another film which deftly doled out information and cleverly back-referenced itself to good effect. This film is kind of the opposite. The narrative is disjunct and information is intentionally withheld and jarringly doled out. Back-referencing is rampant and one key flashback is cut up and spread out. I don't think it necessarily harms the film (the technique worked particularly well in 12 Monkeys), but it wasn't until the second viewing that many of the pieces came together and I could see what the filmmaker was doing. It just wasn't as clever or deep as the director may have been trying to be.

Still, the film captures emotions well. The plot suffers in more than one way and it depends on the individual if they can be forgiven or not. I noted but forgave them. There is a magical element in the film which I've seen before in other films with Tibetan Buddhism as a theme, but here it isn't clearly magical. There's a perfectly rational and psychological explanation. I thought that was curious and interesting having that option in interpretation.

I'm torn about how the people responsible for the son's death is handled. What a couple of bad eggs, but isn't forgiveness an essential point in Buddhism?

Fresh 7 out of 10 tomatoes.



Quantum of Solace (2008, UK)

There's really no point in reviewing a James Bond film unless its ridiculously sub-par like "Die Another Day". Otherwise a James Bond film is a James Bond film. Don't watch for plot or twists or plausibility. Watch for the cars, Bond girls, guns, shit blowing up, and the implausible but kinetic action. This film fits the bill well enough.

Bond goes up in a primitive propeller biplane and is attacked by an air force jet fighter, guess who wins. Bond is in a sputtering wood fishing boat against sleek muscle speedboats with mounted machine guns, guess who wins. That's hyperbole but you get my point.

I grew up on James Bond films so I'm one of the initiated. I even grew up on Roger Moore as James Bond so my bar was set pretty low.

Daniel Craig as James Bond is great. I like the gritty, hardened, no-nonsense tough-guy reboot of the character. He may even trump the other Bonds as a (perceived) legitimate secret service type, although I'm sure Sean Connery could pull it off, and probably better, too, if he were just starting in the role now. I think Sean Connery could have found a balance between the suave and the tough-guy, whereas Daniel Craig gets the tough and the cool down but not so much the likable (edit: Sean Connery's Bond in the first film, Dr. No, is a gritty, no-nonsense tough-guy).

This is a worthy James Bond film as long as you don't think too much, er, at all rather, about what's not making sense and what doesn't quite work or fit and just go along with the ride. Most James Bond films are episodic, meaning they have no relationship to one another, but this film has a direct link to the previous "Casino Royale". Having watched that quite a while ago and forgotten the details, there were elements in this film that I couldn't follow so a refresher viewing of that may be advised.

The action and pacing of the film is good, the good guys are OK, likable enough, although I would've liked the option of seeing one of them in future Bond films. I'm not so sure about the bad guys. The French bad guy was probably too easy. You make a bad guy French and it's almost a given that he's ridiculous and will be humiliated and gets no respect. And his dumb and dumber-looking henchman didn't help.

I have no problem recommending this film to James Bond or action film fans, although they probably wouldn't need my recommendation. As a film, it was watchable but not notable. As a James Bond film, I'll give it a fresh rating of 6 of 10 tomatoes.

WordsCharactersReading time