Reviews

Asian historical dramas aren't for everyone. Usually, because they are series, there is going to have to be some filler. But, if you're interested in history, they represent a nice way to be introduced to a period that can later be studied more in depth.

GQS never claims to be an accurate portrayal of the actual historical figure. Nonetheless, I rate this very high because the series seems, to me, to do an excellent job introducing the viewer to Korean, specifically, Sillan, history at a critical time. Whatever the artistic license taken, the fact is that this period in Silla saw first a major change in succession rules, and second the period of unification that would occupy the reigns of Sillan monarchs for a space of decades, and which was started by Seondeok.

The introduction to the Hwarang is very interesting, considering a tradition that stems down to our own day. I very much enjoyed the portrayal of Lee Seung Hyo as Kim Alcheon, the honorable hwarang who was a mainstay of Seondeok's rule, her sucessor's, and was himself offered the throne but who declined. "As honorable as Alcheon" might be a nice sobriquet for someone! Lenin would have appreciated the storyline, complete with centralization of power, restraint of the rich nobles, and giving the land to the people, the storyline is actually very political in nature, more so by far than say, "Jumong".

All in all, if this can be spread over a two month period, I think it is a very nice story, well done, and with a very interesting subject matter.

I can't remember enjoying a film so much of recent. I thought "Raisin in the Sun", was superb.

The central point in this film is about a man's relationship with himself, thus the opening lines from the poem. Walter Lee Younger is 35 years old, stuck in a rut, feeling like he's never had that opportunity to break out and see what he can do to make his mark in the world. The people in his life, though dearly loved, are holding him back...he feels it, but how do you say to your wife, to your sister living with you, even to the son you are raising that they are the reason you're not getting a chance to live your own life?

And when your wife gets pregnant again, and you realize yet another chain is to be added, even if your first instinct would never be for an abortion, when the chance is offered...can you really speak against it?

That this film represents a black man's experience at a particular time in a particular place is aside of the point. What is important is how, and if, any man works through that wall, and what kind of man emerges. Not all men who feel that way live in tenements, not all are chauffeurs, but it's an experience a lot of men in the middle and lower classes face.

And what makes the film work is that though such bitterness must be repressed, it will leak out, and sour one's relationship with friends and family. In Walter's case, a windfall offers him an out, and he has to balance his own needs against the interests of his family.

The acting in this film was very good. I don't know why people are so rough on Sean Combs. I've never seen him in anything, film, music or whatever, being a bit beyond his demographic, but the reality is that he did an excellent job in expressing the constant, simmering anger of a man feeling increasingly trapped in his own life. The Walters of the world don't spend all their time emoting in loud fashion. Rather it slips out, to paraphrase Ruth: she just doesn't know what's the matter, she just knows that it's no longer right. I think Combs is the victim of two things here: first, some folks' initial exposure to Poitier and their consequent nostalgia for his performance, and also a certain degree of snobbery that someone like P Diddy or whatever he calls himself should ever dare aspire to a role of such exceeding difficulty.

But for myself, I thought he did really well.

Of the three women, Audra McDonald, playing Ruth, was far and away the best. She carried her role beautifully, from her usual quiet steadiness, through her rare emotional breakdown, to her zaniness upon finding that she's to have a real home...she was just great. Phylicia Rashad was also very good, if a little strong, and Beneatha had to play a side role that really didn't get a chance to develop a character.

The other male characters were relatively weak...Oleyowe had a great accent, but Stamos was far too obvious in his role, not so much smooth in his covert bigotry but almost smarmy in his overt manner.

All in all though, this is a film extremely well worth watching. The writing, as one might expect, is superb, and the acting almost invariably real and true.

I just saw this film on DVD. I thought it was very well done.

I thought Ed Norton was very well cast in this role, and delivered superbly. In fact, he was a lot more convincing as a white racist then he was the reformed and much milder man who came out of prison. Overall, I thought the acting was very well done with an emphasis on his performance.

I liked very much that the script confronted some realities. The speech he gives outside the grocery was correct when seen from that perspective, i.e., he didn't have to make things up to rile up his cohorts, he just had to speak the truth as it presents itself to that demographic: lower white middle class. Mouthing platitudes about how bad racism is a useless endeavor, if we ignore the factors that have so many whites scared and responding in racist fashion in lieu of any other way to express what they see as their grievances. The script forces us to confront the reality that it's not just bigotry that is the problem, but the underlying forces.

And I think this is why Danny dies in end. There is no happy ending to this story, because even if Derek is reformed, there's another racist a- borning, either black or white, and willing to use violence to address his problems. This isn't really a happy film, and I don't think anyone can walk away from it feeling the better for it. But I do think we walk away having learned from it, and that, indeed, is what art is about.

A really excellent effort on a theme that can be very dangerous--in respect to maudlin performance and hack writing. Absorbing and compelling because it is so real. I didn't feel for a moment as though the actors were doing anything but expressing the human emotions of that family, no need for drama, just to be oneself.

It's odd in that one could plot this film out before the various events happened, yet still not feel cheated. As when Moretti sees himself declining to go to the patient's home, and thereby saving Andrea's life by default. We all have had those moments where we've second guessed ourselves over life's crucial decisions, and the way it is was done was just so natural that you didn't feel "cheated" in any way that you had foreseen his reaction, because you foresaw it on the basis of your own experience...you can imagine the exact same thoughts going through your own head, counting the seconds before you say yes, and wishing you had said no...

One comment on the question of psychoanalysis, as many comments seem to suggest that Moretti is panning it. I hold no brief for the practice, but, I don't think that's what he's saying. The people are feeling real pain. Some are, yes, just the ordinary neurotic. But others are the sex addict who, as he says, "is not well", and knows it. And Moretti does help the patients...he doesn't seem to realize it himself, but in the end, the woman who says, "...I'll wait for you, I'll make it my next date" is representative of the good he has done her. Moretti has given the man who has cancer the means to face up to it, instead of bemoaning his own life. You can't win them all, but Moretti learns that he can win some of them.

I saw "Ordinary People" as well. An excellent film, with a great performance by MTM. But, in the end, "Ordinary People" was a story. "The Son's Room" is life.

This is the best movie I've seen this year. I simply loved it, I thought it did a superb job of bringing the concept of MacBeth into the 21st century.

First, I want to address the criticisms. It seems to me that people went to this movie expecting the wrong thing: either they wanted a movie like Romper Stomper, and didn't get one, so feel that MacBeth is somehow lacking; or, they're offended by the transplantation of MacBeth and consequent modifications, or they're expecting a performance like that in a theater rather than that of a movie. Those, however, are more their own expectations than the movie's flaws. As a movie, this is quality work, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

The transformation into drug lords was really quite effective. I think the movie captured the essence of what Shakespeare (or maybe de Vere) had in mind in writing the play...the English didn't look upon the Scots lords as anything more than petty thugs to begin with, and the squabbling over relatively small spoils at the cost of men's lives works for either medieval Scotland or a drug lord.

The violence is also necessary, it brings to mind exactly the sort of violence that Shakespeare has in mind. Does it matter if MacDuff's son is shot or run through with a sword--no, because the point is the willingness of MacBeth to kill children to maintain his position, and how it loses him the loyalty of most of his supporters: brutal and thuggish violence is okay...but spare the children.

I didn't mind the Shakespearean language or the acting at all. I've seen a lot of criticisms of Worthington...sorry, but you don't watch this film looking for the next Olivier. And because I wasn't expecting the Royal Shakespeare Ensemble, I thought the acting, with a special nod to Victoria Hill as Lady MacBeth, was more than adequate for the film's need to render Shakespeare's words. In respect to the actual dialogue, the film was strong enough that the Shakespearean lines are automatically converted into your own English...when Banquo tells his son, "Fleance, fly, fly, fly", it's easy enough to hear, "get out of here".

I also thoroughly enjoyed the small touches...the basins in which Lady MacBeth and her husband washed the blood off, I loved the "are you riding" to Banquo and yeah, except it's bikes not horses, there were so many little touches that just kept the play in mind even as you watched the movie, you knew that the truck was going to have a sign saying, "Birnham Timber"...one after another the technical renditions of the details into the 21st century kept me with a smile on my face throughout the movie.

And I think there's things that you pick up in this movie that you necessarily don't in the play. Lennox meeting with Lady MacDuff after the latter flees...their obvious interest in each other as people going beyond his duty as "cousin"...that's something which, exactly because MacBeth is such a strong stage presence, you're not likely to pick up in the theater because your attention is focused on him, but which is possible to bring to the fore in a movie in which the setting makes their conversation believable and, therefore, meaningful enough to pick up on their feelings for each other.

I also thought the movie was very well made. Others have complained about camera angles, something that I thought just kept the movie moving apace...I thought it was very well filmed, very crisp. Some have suggested that it could have been a bit broader in settings and numbers of cast...but that's an example of being unable to please all folks, because had the director opted for that route, those who would have been looking for a more Shakespearian cast to the movie would have been even more disappointed. I thought Geoffrey Wright struck an excellent balance between modernism and traditionalism, both in action and settings, that, once again, kept the movie closely tethered to the play, but fully played out in our own time and place.

If I had one criticism of the movie, I would echo another in questioning the change in place, and especially the truncating, of the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" soliloquy. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the director chose that way...I guess he wanted to use it looking down at MacBeth and his lady, both dead, as a cautionary third person, but it is so much more effective as MacBeth realizes it, with such deep bitterness, first person in his own life.

Other than that one flaw, however, I thought this movie was perfect, and just cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone who wants to see MacBeth come to life in our own time and place.

All I can say is that I'm 48 years old, and while of course have heard of Peter Pan, have never read the book nor seen any of the prior productions.

Just a wonderful movie. I doubt that reading the book could have been as good as seeing the movie...there was just a magical quality overall that made it a joyful film to watch. I thought the acting was really good. I never ever got the idea that Isaac's playing Captain Hook was aware he was playing captain hook, he got as into the role as Olivier ever did Henry V. There was humor, tears, ya gotta admit, the Tinkerbelle resurrection scene really was tear-jerking, sometimes clever dialogue.

Jeremy Sumter, I have to say, did a wonderful job. You had to have an age appropriate kid for the role, it wouldn't have been believable otherwise. And as the central role in the film, he was just really great as the kid who wouldn't grow up.

And yes, there was sexual tension in the film. And it was handled very gracefully. The point is that growing up isn't all bad, that there is something more beyond the "going to school and office" that Peter dreads. If there were not something for him to offset the bad, the choice he himself made would not have been worth it.

This is just a really good movie. Good for everyone, adults and children alike.

One last thing. As the credits started scrolling, I noticed Mohamed al Fayed as the executive producer. I briefly thought, "hey, that's the father of Dodi", and then "In Memory of Dodi al Fayed" came on the screen.

The pain of a father who lost his son. His tribute to his son, a movie that would enshrine probably his son's favorite book as a kid. Is it unreasonable to see a younger Mohamed, reading it to his young son, forming a connection with him that they will always have? And a gesture of love that other kids will be able to reap the benefit of for years to come.

The rare movie, all things considered, that makes you walk away feeling good to be human.

I read the book on which this movie was based as a kid, a long time ago. Always knew the ending. But this movie was superbly enough crafted that it didn't lose a moment of drama for me...if anything, knowing the result only made it all the more fascinating.

This movie, I think, should be re-released into theatres. There are some lines that the Professor speaks in respect to the Soviets that are incredibly apropos to our own day, insert "Islamofascists" for "Communists" and you could be listening to some of the commentary on right-wing radio and Fox News. Fonda's words to the Soviet Premier, "we created this", are still true today. If we don't find a way to live with the Muslim world, we will be in the exact same situation as Fonda found himself.

If anything, the situation is even more critical. The Soviet Premier, at least, had a nation to protect even after Moscow was gone, and we had the rest of America even with the loss of New York. But what happens today with WMD in the hands of non-state elements? How far do we go if a terrorist group takes out New York, and we know it has ties to Tehran or Islamabad--or Peking? We need to know as Americans what we will do. A movie like this, I think, helped to make Americans think about the consequences of policy. We need such a reminder again, and need to have a national consensus as to how we should react if a situation arises today.

I watched this on DVD last summer. It was just fantastic. Eric Porter's portrayal of Soames is, as everyone has noted, perfect. The series would be worth watching if just for him alone. I felt sorry for Damien Lewis, who had to play Soames in the 2002 remake--Porter's performance was so strong yet so natural that in order to differentiate himself, Lewis had to take Soames to a point of seeming psychosis, which ruined the essence of the character.

This is the kind of series that your local library is likely to carry. It is so much worth checking out...you absolutely cannot lose. The story is so well known that even reviewing the "spoilers" won't detract from your enjoyment...the acting is the all in this series, and is done at a quality not seen, I think, in a miniseries ever again.

About 20 minutes into this film, I asked myself whether or not anything interesting was going to happen.

So, for the first time ever, I checked out IMDb BEFORE I went any further.

From what I've read of the reviews, I'm pretty confident that the film can be disposed of. Most seem to agree a) that it has nice visuals, and b) that it has no story.

Well, plenty of films have nice visuals these days, and I'm not interested in films with no stories.

So, thanks, reviewers. You just saved me an hour and half of pointless viewing!

This is a superb film about power, about how it can be used. People think of Frank Capra in an idealistic fashion, but, while this film has a de rigeur happy ending, the story it tells isn't a very cheerful one. The truths that are in the film about politics are truths that are still central to us today.

Senator Paine defends himself, "I've done a thousand good things in the Senate. Our state has the lowest unemployment and the highest Federal grants. I've been a good Senator." It is a measure of the man and his philosophy, so central to so many pols then and now, that being a good Senator is identified with by the pork you can bring home to your district, while in the meantime you can sacrifice principles and ideals to get along.

Paine compromises, as our Senators do today. When Taylor says to Smith of his congressional colleagues, "they don't have to worry about being re-elected, they have good lives, they take my advice", is it Jim Taylor or Jack Abramoff talking? And isn't the willingness of our current Senators to listen to K Street in preference to their constituents the exact same as Paine's willingness to do buddy buddy with Taylor?

Nor are the truths this movie tells limited to the politicians alone. We talk a lot these days about media bias. Has this ever been more gracefully delineated than the scene where Saunders' press friend is dictating a piece that starts with, "The Senate rose as a body and walked out in protest of Senator Smith" and then, when Saunders rushes up and informs him that "he has to fight for it" suddenly the lead is recast, as "A tremendous David and Goliath story, with a David unarmed even with a slingshot..." or something close to that. Without even commenting, Capra shows us how the very choice of words used by the press conveys their own bias. Neither Fox News nor Jon Stewart had anything on Capra.

Even the notion of idealism, as best represented by the boys in their attempt to get Smith's story out, has the harsh light of truth shone upon it: that force in the service of profit will always triumph over idealism. There is nothing idealistic in the image of boys being run off the road by those uncaring of what the consequences of their use of force might do.

These realities may be wrapped up in candy cane wrapper, but they are there for those willing to open their eyes.

Nor do I think that Capra is any dummy. The exaggerated denouement is, I think, an exercise in sarcasm, sort of a "here, this will make the reality of your governance palatable to you, since otherwise you can't 'face the truth' ha ha ."

And by the quality of the comments, I'd say he succeeded in pulling the wool over most of the viewers' eyes.

...and I'll just give you a two word synopsis of this move.

Mankind sucks.

Ultimately, that's all "Munich" boils down to. There are no redeeming qualities in the plot. Nobody is noble, nobody is clean, nobody has character.

Do you want to spend two hours of your life watching people being murdered, one after the other? Are you unaware already that people behave atrociously, murderously, to others? Why do we need a movie like this to remind us of something we are reminded of on a daily basis? What exactly is the movie trying to teach us that we don't see in our own souls already?

I didn't even find any of the characters compelling. Not Avner, who turns out to be a pretty weak guy. His wife is stereotypical, and the scene where he cries upon speaking with his daughter maudlin.

Nor are the lesser roles fleshed out. We never really learn about Avner's team, who they were, what paths in their lives brought them to where they were...they are introduced flat out, a few words spoken of each and bzzzzt, that's it. Nor, with the exception of Dr. Hamshiri, are any of the quarries of the team made anything close to real human beings...they are just people to be offed.

I just can't see why people like this movie so much. It teaches nothing we don't, or at least shouldn't, already know...it can't be termed anything but a downer...I'm sure folks didn't walk out of the theatre HAPPY, the characters are cardboard, and the plot predictable.

Sometimes I think people rate films on reasons OTHER than the quality of the work. Israel has a lot of sympathizers in the United States, and any movie which puts her in the position of plucky (if brutal) underdog is always going to draw acclaim not for its quality as a filmwork, but rather because it offers a popular viewpoint. "Munich" is the example par excellence of this sort of reviewing.

I very much enjoyed this film. Creepy is the word of choice, and that's all due to Davis' superbly psycho character.

The film did get a wee bit slow in the middle. But, overall, the pacing was very good, and the story very strong. William Dix was really good as the boy Joey, both he and Davis needed to carry the film because the other characters were somewhat peripheral, and both met the challenge--a bit harder, one expects, for a ten year old than an accomplished and experienced actress. So kudos to Dix.

The main reason I wanted to add a comment was because of Davis' last scene, in which we see Nanny packing her pictures. It offers a humanizing perspective of the nanny. We got a hint of this in her conversation with Penelope as the other lays dying, but we are more focused on the flashback than to what she says about trust in the nanny-parent relationship.

But when we see the pictures, we see other children she had taken care of, kids we understand to have done well and thrived under her care, and we thus get a brief glimpse into the mind of someone so horrified at what has occurred to a child under her care, so much at odds with the entirety of her being, that she really does slip a loop. These few shots, in a way, redeem Nanny's character--she's not just a psycho-killer, she's a woman who had a life story that went horribly wrong. It struck me as a nice way to send her out.

I really enjoyed this film as light entertainment, and really have no hesitation recommending it.

This is an excellent movie, well suited, I think, for a teaching role in elementary schools. The movie serves as a well constructed introduction to Mohammed and Islam, suitable for minds 8 years old and up. It has a sort of Ballywood flavor, in that serious matters are leavened by humor and music at appropriate moments. The animation is well done, and the movie runs at a comfortable speed.

I rated it so highly, though, because I thought it so effectively portrayed Islam as someone growing up in Islam would be introduced to it. This is something, I think, that we would do well to expose our own children to, not to convert them, but to show why Muslims believe as they do.

When many of us look at Islam, we look it as a historical phenomenon, as a force which arose 1500 years ago, conquered a good portion of the world, and with which, now, we have relatively bad relations. We look at it as far more a political force, than we do as a religious faith.

By contrast, growing up in America, a nation 70% of which calls itself Christian, even those of us who don't consider ourselves Christian think of Christianity as a faith, not a political force. We recognize that Christians use politics to achieve their goals, but we credit that their goals stem from their faith.

We do so because we grow up learning the Christian faith. We know all the stories about Christ in the Manger, all the stories about Bethlehem and the Star. We know all about the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and Jesus Christ Superstar--even if we do not accept these things, we recognize them as the manifestation of Christian faith. And we understand those stories as speaking to the principles of the faith.

By contrast, many of us think that Islam is an excuse for political behavior, that its religious tenets--such as jihad--exist only to justify the political behavior. What "Mohammed, The Last Prophet" does so successfully, I think, is to introduce the principles that a kid growing up in a Muslim country would learn through their stories even as children growing up in America learn Christian principles through their stories.

If our next generation of children can be shown that Islam is not only a political force, but, rather, a faith shared by millions based on a commonality of stories, much akin to the same sort of Christian stories American children are learning from their parents and communities, then there will not, I think, be in the future the same sort of hostility towards Islam that so many Americans fear and evince.

...not because the book is so much better, but rather because one always gets more out of a book than out of any movie rendition of it. (The exception that proves the rule being "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"--not better than the book, but definitively it's equal.) So, I just watched the movie, and cannot recommend it highly enough. Go into it with the question of what makes us human, what civilization is, and how we deal with our need for social living, and then consider ALL sides of the matter before making a judgment.

The movie making itself isn't all that perfect. But the way in which Brook present's the story--as a tableaux without a message, leaving it for us to decide--more than redeems any inconsistencies in film technique or the acting.

Someone above mentioned that it is hard to talk about the movie without talking about the story itself. And that is true. So, that said, I just wanted to comment that I'm disappointed in what seems to me to be a rather facile interpretation of Golding's work that seems prevalent amongst the comments--the easy assignment of virtue to Ralph and Piggy and savagery to Jack and his followers. Commenters keep noting a "reversion". The conch represents civilization and democracy, Jack (or, more properly, the boar's head) totalitarianism and barbarism.

But the question goes a bit deeper than that. Ralph starts off with the power and the trust. But his response to the situation the kids find themselves in is a passive one--he wants to build a fire and wait to be rescued. Jack is described as power hungry a number of times in comments, but the readers fail to note that if not by show of hands the first time, by show of feet the second time the kids withdraw the power from Ralph--i.e., the scene in which he says "what if I blow it and they don't come" when Piggy tells him to summon the kids with the conch. And the ultimate question is not about whether Jack is power hungry and Ralph virtuous, but rather why the children chose to follow Jack and not Ralph.

THe answer is very clear. Jack was a stronger leader than Ralph. Ralph wanted to be rescued--Jack sought to deal with the situation as it was. Materially, Jack was able to provide meat to the kids because he was able to arm and discipline his choir boys. Socially, Jack was able to forge a bond with his followers, his "tribe", that gave them a reason to accept his leadership, while Ralph could only offer leadership based on a momentary common consensus. And in the end, Jack could protect his followers, Ralph could not. It is significant that the two boys with Ralph in the scene mentioned above are Simon and Piggy--in the end, in allying themselves with him, they end up dying, while Roger, the first to desert to Jack, survives.

To see Golding's story as a reversion to savagery misses, I think, the whole point. It was not a reversion the boys underwent, but, rather, an adaptation to the circumstances in which they found themselves. They didn't go naked because they were suddenly nothing but monkeys, they went naked because it was the better adaptation to the environment in which they found themselves. They didn't accept Jack because they had become uncivilized, they accepted Jack because under the circumstances, he offered more in terms of social utility than Ralph could.

It is understanding this that we understand how totalitarian regimes do take power--that people don't adopt them because they've reverted to savagery, but rather that an extremity of circumstances compels certain behaviors in order to survive. Jack's power wouldn't have been possible without his choirboys armed with spears, but neither would the meat he brought his tribe.

The respective prime followers of Ralph and Jack, Piggy and Roger, are very interesting in that they represent the conflicting elements in human civilization, that to protect the weak and that to hurt it. Intelligence is perceived as weak in a society on the edge because its rewards are not reaped immediately, Raplh's glasses can start a fire, but the kids are still at the mercy of someone seeing it; while brute strength and violence does, as in the killing of the pig, reap immediate rewards.

It concerns me that this novel is being taught improperly in schools, as an allegory for good vs. evil rather than as testamentary to the human condition and the choices we make in order to survive. Golding's work is a brilliant examination not of human morality, but of human society and its many layers, and it is a shame to reduce to "Ralph good, Jack bad" Manichean dichotomy.

A couple of hours time is precious in my life--for those who feel the same, trust me, don't waste it on this movie.

Disjointed, useless, pedantic, preaching, just dull as all get out.

Pointless. Look, I already know that our lives are interconnected. Is there anyone UNAWARE of that? Howover, there was no overall theme tying the individuals together other than that of chance, that made me feel compelled in the remotest fashion to follow them to the movie's end. I didn't even find the individual story lines of interest...the Japanese girl, especially, I found to be unnecessarily coarse.

Overall, to paraphrase Gertrude, there was no movie there, just movie-making. And they're two different things.

Gave up on it in about an hour--fortunately saw it on DVD checked out of the library. So unlike those who, I suspect, would feel cheated if they didn't find a reason to like it, I have no need to make a virtue of a necessity.

I just really enjoyed this film. It's young, it's innocent, and it carries none of the angst that typifies so many gay films.

I do think that some miss the trees for the forest in this film. It's more than just sex: it speaks very much to friendship--the characteristic non-sexual male bonding that appears throughout so much Chinese cinema--that rises above and beyond being gay or in love. This is a theme that is repeated throughout the film, and shows itself in everything from Yu's immediate acceptance that Tien will of course be staying with him, to each boy's attempt to comfort Yu in his breakup with what they understood best, CC with gossip, Alan with his weights, and Tien Tsai with his idealism--it continues in Tien's immediate declination of Richard's initial offer to him because, "my buddy's heartbroken, I'm going home"..and through to, and especially, Jun and Richard.

There is a scene in the movie, in which Tien runs into Bai and Jun on the elevator, watch who Jun watches, then watch as both he and Tien reach for the button panel at the same time, and the metaphor is all too clear. Yet, throughout the film, Jun's unspoken feelings for Richard are kept suppressed by him, even to the point of giving Richard up when he realizes that the latter really does love Tien Tsai. Those feelings reveal themselves, however, in the elevator scene, and in the twisted smile he gives Richard three times: first when he comes upon Richard and Tien-Tsai in the shower together, second when Richard is unable to kiss him, and third when he asks Richard the, for him, fateful, question: "Do you want to see him again?" and Richard's answer, "You know I do". The guy who plays Richard doesn't get enough credit for carrying his part so well.

Finally, while I would agree with Natalie above that Duncan Chow turns in some very good scenes--those in which he is interacting directly with Tien...the two really did have wonderful chemistry together...their scene on top of the building at night was really nice...and, yes, the countdown scene was sweet as hell...the heart of the show is Tony Yang as Tien. He comes across exactly as he should: a sweet kid who is shocked that his internet paramour doesn't want to know him, just do him...shy yet heated up by a sexy man he sees displaying interest in him...unsure of himself in dealing with Richard, urgent in his first kiss, and the morning after scene, where he is just remembering the night and exploring Richard's bedroom, can't help but bring back memories to any guy who's ever felt those emotions. I think it was that scene which won him the Newcomer's Award...gay or straight, you'd have to be a statue to be untouched by the clarity of what he projected at that moment.

Even the music is perfect for this film...I don't understand a word of Chinese, but it doesn't take much to understand what's going on...Rock Bang is the theme song for Tien Tsai, there's a really beautiful set of guitar chords that speak to Richard and Jun's relationship, there's a sad song the notes of which speak more to lost love than the words ever could...it was just really all very well matched.

Just a nice film to enjoy for lighthearted fun. As one reviewer noted, "if the melodramatic conclusion doesn't leave you with a silly smile on your face, it's probably because you're not human."

We all need silly smiles now and then. This film delivers.