Sticky Rice

This is the first installment in an ongoing series of movie reviews by Dano Nissen. Since coming to Thailand, he has been reviewing movies (nang) [หนัง] on a one to five “chang” [ช], scale (ช-ชชชชช). The coveted “golden chang” is reserved for the best of the best. *May contain minor movie spoilers*

Dano Nissen, 134 TESS

I may be hundreds of kilometers from an iMax theater, but I still managed a triple feature in luxury. 

As a prospective volunteer I was under the impression that I would have to be out of the loop from all media releases for two years. This has not turned out to be the case. Many of us have quality wifi in our homes, all of us have generous data plans and Thailand generally has good service. Many of our Thai coworkers and students are cued into Western pop culture, with a special affinity for contemporary pop musicians (you hear Adele, especially, everywhere) and superhero and action movies that do well in Asian markets, like the “John Wick” and Marvel movies. 

We can binge Netflix on our tablets, but for most of us we don’t have accessible movie theaters, which I’ve been sorely missing. Lucky for us, provincial capitals typically have movie theaters located in a big mall, with Major Cineplex and SF Cinema being the two largest movie theater operators. 

If you want to catch an indie flick or see something in the most state of the art theater, you’re going to have to trek to the movie theater Mecca that is Bangkok. 

Siam Square is a veritable shopping metropolis in the heart of the city. Among its endless floors and warrens of food and entertainment options is Paragon Cineplex — of the Major Cineplex brand. 

Paragon has iMax, Laser, X screen, Honda Ultimate Screen and iTail. Those last three need some explaining. 

You’ve heard of surround sound. X Screen is surround vision. There is a screen in the front, like a typical movie screen, but then the side walls also project the peripheral images, almost like a simulator theme park ride. 

The Honda Ultimate Screen is the high roller viewing experience. It’s small and simulates a home theater experience. Chairs fully recline and you can even get a full bed as your seat. Outside the theater is a fancy cocktail lounge. 

The iTail Pet Cinema is the newest addition. The movies are a great place to take your family, friends or a date. At iTail, you can take your pet. 

So, on a weekend trip to Bangkok I ran the gamut of Thai movie screens. I watched three movies on three different screens in one day: “Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Pt.1” in Screen X, “Barbie” in Laser Cinema and then “Oppenheimer” in iMax. I walked in at 11:00 am and walked out at 8:00 pm. Previews ran almost thirty minutes for each movie, and before any movie they play a montage of the King, for which patrons are asked to stand. 

The theater itself was a five chang ชชชชช experience. Although the “surround vision” Screen X for “Mission Impossible” was not as cool as it sounds. It really would only work for something shot specifically to be shown on such a screen, rather than formatted after the fact. 

It was an exhausting day, especially after the three hour “Oppenheimer” finale. Oppenheimer himself famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. I left the theater saying to myself, “Now I am become tired, the reviewer of films.” Here it is, Dano changs the nangs. 

Warning: very minor spoilers ahead. 

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 
ชชช
(Entry Time: 11:00 Runtime: 163 minutes)

Twenty seven years, five directors, one Tom Cruise, Part One of “Mission Impossible 7” and five different movies. Wait, the math doesn’t add up. 

The first four “Mission Impossibles” each had different directors — Brian de Palma, John Woo, JJ Abrams, Brad Bird — in that order. Each director has their own style, and their installment in the series has their fingerprints all over it. That’s what made the series special.

Even though the second one doesn’t quite work, it is at very first glance a John Woo Hong Kong Kung Fu movie. The third one has JJ Abrams’s patented lens flare and the fourth has Pixar stalwart Brad Bird’s immense heart, which the others can’t measure up to. 

The first will always be the best. It is one THE great action movies and the last great de Palma film (although 1998’s “Snake Eyes” is a fun, but ludicrous coda to his career). It’s a studio director for hire franchise flick that stays true to the sensibilities of the existing IP, the campy 1960’s TV show of the same name. With these constraints, de Palma the auteur manages to still make a de Palma film with all his signatures: emphatic Dutch angles, noirish moonlit empty city streets, a centerpiece train sequence, etc. 

These last three films, we’ve been watching a de Palma tribute a la Christopher McQuarrie. McQuarrie has helmed three competent, rather good action movies, with this latest ranking the weakest of his three. 

McQuarrie’s new “Mission Impossible” has emphatic Dutch angles, noirish moonlit empty city streets, a centerpiece train sequence…oh, does this sound familiar?

Back in the day, each installment promised a unique perspective on Ethan Hunt’s impossible missions. The franchise is now heading into stale territory. 

McQuarrie puts on an exhilarating show with impressive stunts and practical effects, but at the end of the day it’s a de Palma cover act. 

Barbie 
ชชช
(Entry Time: 14:10 Runtime: 114 minutes)

Maybe I was expecting something more deranged. The Greta Gerwig/Noah Baumbach mumblecore power couple under the “written by,” which sits just under “Mattel” suggested just as much. Is this gonna be something really edgy and cool?

And the internet furor, with its supporters praising it as brilliant subterfuge and critics crying feminazi trash, made me think this had to be something. 

The sound and fury convinced me that this would be anything but a kinda dumb, kinda funny, kinda alright movie – which is exactly what it is. 

Barbie and Ken aren’t the only cold stiffs being brought to life; this has resuscitated a mid-aughts frat pack dumb comedy, a species going extinct. For crying out loud, Will Ferrell is even in it. The twist – the genders are reversed. This is not an indie “let’s talk about German expressionism and our parents’ divorce in our Bushwick apartment” you might expect from Gerwig and Bambauch. It does, however, inexplicably include Marcel Proust and Stephen Malkmus references. It’s a broad (apologies for the word choice) comedy through and through. In a mediascape where this fare has been consigned to short form streaming to make theater space for nine hour Marvel movies, it’s nice to see ya back on the big screen and that you’ve left your testosterone-fueled antics behind and caught up with the times. 

So this is really what all the fuss is about? This is what has a bunch of adult male pundits who make a living inveighing against the sensitivity of millennials go and throw a hissy fit? A movie about dolls? With pretty innocuous pot shots at its dummy male characters that have been fair game for female characters since time immemorial? You could hardly call this man-hating, as some Barbiephobes have noted. 

And is this really anti-establishment subversion? Or is it a multi-billion dollar toy company capitalizing on trendy social justice discourse to rebrand its outdated marquee dolls and launch a new cinematic universe (we have “Barney” and “Hot Wheels” movies in tow)? The humor and storyline were just so…not risky. It was like a compendium of SNL girl boss sketches of the last decade stretched out to the max (dragging oh so much in the third act). And its big, climactic “this is the theme of the movie in case you didn’t get it” speech could’ve been lifted from a Tumblr blog about #feminism. I think I’ve seen this one before.

It’s also just a teeny bit self righteous. The film acknowledges again and again the irony of having archetypal shiksa goddess Margot Robbie lead the film about Barbie inclusion. And it ribs the sexist legacy of Mattel with cheeky meta jokes. As if that absolves it from profiting greatly off those ironic inconveniences. The patting itself on the back with one hand while grubbing money with the other was lame at best, icky at worst. You can’t have your plastic cake and eat it too (cake accessories sold separately).  

Oh…no….it’s happening. I’m adding to the maelstrom of Barbie debate. They got me! Call me a cynic, but we live in a world (in a cynical world, my views are drastic, isn’t that fantastic) where posturing your product as a culture wars battle hill is a winning PR strategy. And boy, was this the most fascinating and effective marketing campaign I’ve ever seen. 

So “Barbie” is worth checking out at the very least as a cultural artifact. It has successfully tapped into the zeitgeist and has been a precious lodestar for a lot of young women in a vacuum of female-led comedies. And just look at the amount of money (crossing one billion at time of posting) and conversation generated.

Also, check it out because it has some really hilarious parts. No spoilers, but one such part involves Matchbox 20 and endless campfires. Not to mention, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling give infectious performances. I defy you to name any other pair who would’ve done as good of a job. 

Look, Barbie doesn’t become a serial killer and Ken doesn’t pick up a venereal disease that rots his plastic. There is nothing too out there. If you’ve seen the “Toy Story” movies, you’ve seen the basic premise at least four times already. And if you’ve ever been on Instagram you’ve heard the jokes before from the Barbies, and if you’ve ever been on Reddit you’ve heard all the jokes from the Kens. So don’t check it out if “out there” is what you want. 

Mostly, check it out because it’s a kinda dumb, kinda funny, kinda alright movie.

Oppenheimer 
ชชชชช
(Entry Time: 16:30 Runtime: 180 minutes)

Paul Schrader hailed Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” as the “best, most important film of this century.” Schrader is best known for writing “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull” for Martin Scorsese as well as directing films like “American Gigolo” and “First Reformed.” He also directed the criminally overlooked “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters,” which is one of the greatest biopics, and frankly one of the greatest movies ever made. It follows the life of Yukio Mishima, the Japanese writer and media-spanning artist extraordinaire. He was also a militant fascist and loyalist to Emperor Hirohito, whose rule was defanged with the Potsdam surrender treaty instigated by J. Robert Oppenheimer’s creation. 

I mention Schrader and his comment for two reasons. First, I want to rehabilitate the oft-maligned genre of biopic. There are some really really good ones out there that I recommend for your watchlist, like “Mishima,” and drumroll…”Oppenheimer.” Unfortunately the last major blockbuster biopic, “Bohemian Rhapsody” or the desecration of Freddie Mercury, was a tacky abomination that set the genre back quite a bit. 

Movies like “Bohemian Rhapsody” easily get lured into the banal trappings of the genre. For the most part, Oppenheimer avoids montages, stifling parents, drug downfalls and other hoary story beats. This is anti-hagiography, less about lionizing its subject and more about exploring a complicated legacy of an American icon and his contributions. In fact, the narrative is constructed around a courtroom drama over Oppenheimer’s security clearance, where he is scrutinized over his infidelities, communist sympathies and other matters of his personal life. The central conflict is him contending with his own legacy and place in the world as an “American hero.” He’s a character ambivalent about being a character in a story about himself. 

The film doesn’t have the typical biopic progression. It presents more as a classic Nolan thriller with achronological structure and a ticking bomb at the center – the biggest and most consequential bomb in all of history, one that we all know will go off. 

This brings me to reason two. As Schrader said, this film is important. Afterall, it’s about “the most important thing to ever happen in the history of the world.” This line is delivered in the film by Manhattan Project director Leslie Groves, played by Matt Damon. 

Nolan has a knack for creating a sense of importance in all his films (“Memento,” “Insomnia,” “The Prestige,” “The Dark Knight Trilogy,” “Interstellar,” “Dunkirk,” “Tenet”). His characters must make morally challenging decisions, which influence the fate of Gotham, the mind, the space time continuum, World War II, etc. Those important decisions take place in superhero clashes against the downtown skyline, hand combat in inverting hallways, spaceships traversing time and space and aerial battles over Dunkirk beach. 

In “Oppenheimer,” the fate of the world depends on decisions made in University classrooms, cocktail parties and the vast expanse of the New Mexican desert. Other than the bomb, there are no big set pieces. Yet, with the masterful score, editing, acting (Robert Downey Jr. for Best Supporting Actor!) and Nolan’s uncanny ability to confer a sense of importance to every scene, a lecture on quantum mechanics feels just as epic as any death defying stunts in his previous films. The emptiness of Los Alamos testing ground, the intimacy of the man’s many trysts, the claustrophobia of deposition rooms are all in service to Oppenheimer’s decision to oversee the most important thing to ever happen in the history of the world. All those moments, without special effects and choreographed fight scenes, still pop spectacularly on iMax. 

In one scene, Oppenheimer is seen reading TS Elliot’s “The Hollow Men,” which contains the immortal line: “This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” Nolan makes his whimpers just as important as the bang. 

---

Read Dano’s previous articles and contributions.