Let's Talk Movies #35 – Sparrows and Panthers and Dinosaurs…Oh My!

[watchthis!!]

I saw The Meg last night. Great combination of fun, excitement and laughs. Like a really good roller coaster of a movie, with lots of ups and downs of varied thrills. Plus there was a moment near the end where there was a strong round of applause for an action that was taken. It's been a long time since I saw a movie where people applauded. (But I don't usually see movies right when they come out, though!)

 

[VGThuy]

Just got back from Crazy Rich Asians. It's very much a movie in the Rom-Com genre, which I didn't know was a dying genre relegated to Netflix these days until I read some articles about how this movie could save it. As someone who immensely enjoyed the first book of the Crazy Rich Asians series, I recommend this movie. I do think movie scriptwriters who adapt dense books and have the films come out satisfactory really do deserve more applause because it's hard and as a person who has trouble editing herself, I tend to think every little detail is soooo important to explain the character to the audience/reader.

Positives:

I had a much longer review saved, but I'll just keep it simple. It's a really really good, maybe even a great movie for the genre and one I will watch multiple times for a myriad of reasons. In many ways, it totally improved upon the book, added more heart, nuance, human qualities, and the character of Rachel is a huge improvement from the book as I believed she was a "brilliant" Economics professor from NYU and a lot of it had to do with the screenwriters (including an Asian-American woman who gets it) and Constance Wu's surprisingly nuanced portrayal. Henry Golding is a leading man of yesteryear. He looks so classic and handsome. They also improved the romance from the book as well. Gemma Chan is stunningly gorgeous on screen. I could not believe how beautiful she was. Michelle Yeoh was brilliant and gave the character more emotional depth than how she existed in the book. I did love the character interactions, including the small, minute ones that are just happening in the background. I think it added to the atmosphere and gave us an idea who the characters are without having to invest too much time to it. I don't know if this is the "best quality" adaptation (some very important scenes with depth seemed more rushed than it should have been in parts) that could have happened with the source material, but I think this was the most accessible one and it's probably what this movie needed to be.

Negatives:

I did miss the more complicated insight into Singapore history; the portrayal of the racism against mainland Chinese, Malaysians, South Asians, Filipinos, etc.; just how different these particular Singaporeans and other Asians are from the noveau riche coming out of China; the almost provincial classicism/elitism and how deep it goes; just how big these legacies that these people with their names are; the historical ties between these old Singaporean families and the British aristocracy from the 1800s; and I do think they could have went a lot crazier and the movie would have been an even bigger spectacle (even though I think the director is one more for visuals than character scenes). What the movie does well is explain to the larger audience how Asian-Americans would be seen by actual Asians, especially the elitist kind, and the movie did its job the best it could with getting the point across that these people aren't just rich but "crazy rich" with the time allotted.

I'm also

Spoiler

disappointed with what they did to Astrid's storyline (cut like 80% of it) because I loved it so much in the first book, but Astrid being awesome still comes out in this movie, Gemma Chan is beautiful, and considering what Kevin Kwan does to the character of Michael in book 2 and 3, it's better her and his story ends this way even it seems weak for narrative purposes...but Charlie Wu who was HUGE in book 1 only exists in a post-credit non-speaking scene...I was looking for Harry Shum Jr. everywhere!

Personal stuff:

Now this part is just my personal feelings that sort of goes beyond the movie as a movie. The movie looks like a typical summer rom com that is actually good...and it is. However, knowing that, I can't help but be really impacted by this film. I actually nearly cried at the end of it. I think this was a movie I've been wanting to see for a long time. I remember being a child watching tons of movies and just replacing the actors I was seeing on screen with Asian people just to get a feeling of what it would be like to see people who looked like me do stories that weren't Asians running from burning villages or whatnot. Just regular everyday stories (or Hollywood styles stories) that had Asian people playing central characters. I think I've been screaming for this movie forever. There was a scene where a bride and groom are just looking at each other and are just so happy and me seeing them both be Asian and seeing non-Asian people in the theatre feeling it was an experience I can't properly explain. My husband felt it too and we don't know why we did as it's just a summer romantic movie. To me, this was such an incredible, weird, and yet defining experience. Seeing non-Asian people in the theatre react so well to the jokes, the plot, the characters, etc. was also rewarding in a way I can't fully explain as well.

They turned down more money and more creative freedom from Netflix in order to take the movie deal because they thought it was so important to have this movie be done on the big screen. I understood and applauded that before I saw this movie, but I didn't know how much I didn't understand how important that decision was until I saw this movie.

 

[watchthis!!]

Disney slammed after reportedly casting Jack Whitehall as gay character in "Jungle Cruise"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jungle-cruise-movie-jack-whitehall-disney-slammed-after-reportedly-casting-gay-character/

Disney has reportedly cast its first openly gay character, but many LGBT fans are crying foul. After sources told The Sun that straight actor Jack Whitehall was cast as a "hugely effete, very camp and very funny" gay man in the live-action film, LGBT actors and others voiced their frustration on social media.

The article mentions Scarlett Johansson dropping out of the movie "Rub and Tug" where she would have played a transgendered man.

Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt have been cast in Jungle Cruise, interesting that this casting news for a Dwayne Johnson movie comes out after we just saw Johnson play and handicapped man in Skyscraper. Did anyone hear anything about people objecting to Johnson being cast in this role instead of it going to a handicapped person? (I didn't.)

 

[PeterG]

Regular Guys is a 1996 gay (ish) romantic comedy drama from Germany. It's kind of a gay look at straight relationships and a straight look at gay relationships. It's light in tone, seemingly a little too much I thought at first. But as the movie progressed, the script took things to a more substantial level, all the while remaining quite entertaining. I thought it was fun.

P.S. The trailer I provided a link to is basically just one scene in the movie. Someone has posted the movie in full at youtube if anyone is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUJuRBnA3kk

 

[Buzz]

Just got back from seeing Alpha and loved it! The movie is quite the refreashing change from the stuff i usually watch. It is all about a boy and his dog and their adventures together. And that little twist at the end! 7 out of 10

 

[misskarne]

I haven't been keeping up with my Marvel movie reviews, but I'm up to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Still enjoying them so far. I think Iron Man 3 was the best Iron Man movie. Thor: The Dark World was pretty good too, but I'm told I'll love Thor: Ragnarok so obviously can't cast judgement on which Thor movie is best so far.

One thing I loved about The Winter Soldier was the shift from outright action superhero movie into more of a spy thriller story. Watching Cap out of his element at first and then going along with Natasha was really great, and the two characters have an easy friendship story (the bit where Natasha continues to suggest girls for Cap to ask out after they just threw one of the bad guys off a building and Cap responds perfectly casually had me nearly fall off the couch in laughter).

But Marvel achieved something with that movie that I didn't think was possible: they made me cry during a fight scene, and not because a character died.

Spoiler

But because that last scene with Bucky and Steve on the helicarrier is so incredibly heartbreaking. Steve doesn't want to fight his friend. Bucky is struggling with the control over his mind - he knows he knows Steve, he knows Steve is important, he knows - somewhere, deep down - that Steve is his friend, but the mind control from Hydra is so strong. And then the moment Steve tells him to "finish it, because I'm with you til the end of the line" - and you can see Bucky break through the Winter Soldier in that moment. Huge mega props to Chris Evans and Sebastian Stan for the way they played this scene. The anguished way Bucky screams "shut up!" and the tortured growl of "you're my mission!" just shatter your heart. And then to know that Steve has effectively lost Bucky again by the end of this movie - that's three times now he's lost him just after finding him.

I loved the introduction of Sam, too. He's a fabulous character but I like most that he can see straight through Steve at the start of the movie. He knows Steve's struggling and there may be some PTSD in there, but he also knows Steve's trying to hide it and won't admit it.

I like the way they handled the reveal that

Spoiler

Bucky is the Winter Soldier

. It was possibly one of the worst-kept secret twists, but the way they did it in the movie made it really powerful and shocking, even if you knew it was coming.

As an aside, I really like that Marvel doesn't just brush everything aside and the heroes are all happy fine dandy after their adventures. Instead, Marvel doesn't hide that the heroes are struggling mentally as a result. That Tony is a wreck who can hardly sleep for the nightmares, builds Iron Man suits to escape his thoughts, and has panic attacks. That Steve is having trouble sleeping, still has flashbacks to the war and the things he went through, god, the implication in the Avengers that he was awake when they were defrosting him - how long was he awake? Was he awake while frozen?! That Sam is a counselor who helps veterans coming back from war - and that he struggles with the loss of his friend, too.[/SPOILER][/SPOILER]

 

[4skating]

VIETgrlTerifa, thanks for that thoughtful review, including the "personal stuff." I read the book several years ago and loved it, but was disappointed in the sequel. Recently, I got the third book from the library and was pleased that Kwan seemed to be back on form.

I have been looking forward to the film for awhile and have tickets for an early show tomorrow at an Alamo Drafthouse. May even get an order of dumplings for lunch and an adult beverage--it seems like a party kind of film.

 

[smurfy]

I saw 'The Spy that Dumped me" - fun summer movie - with ladies in the key roles.
Mila Kunis and Kate McKinnon were great. Nice escapist movie.
Sam Heughan - from Outlander - I enjoyed him.
Laugh at loud at some of the stuff, nothing original, but fun.

 

[watchthis!!]

Follow The River is about a pioneer woman (played by Sheryl Lee) in the 1700's. Her family is attacked and abducted by Indians. Later we learn that these Indians only abduct the numbers which match the numbers from their tribe which have been killed by white people. The first part of the story is about the months this woman lived with this Indian tribe and the second part is about her escaping and travelling through the wilderness on foot for over 800 miles. She eventually was found by some men who were hunting (or were soldiers?) and was re-united with her husband (who had been looking for her all this time). The ending is surprising and uplifting, but that's a spoiler you'll only get if you see the movie!

Trailer for Follow The River: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5psUS9aXP2A

And someone has posted the whole movie if you'd like to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stAckZ6Ic-8

 

[PeterG]

A Gena Rowlands 2-for-1:

A Woman Under The Influence (1974). Written and directed by John Cassavetes (Oscar-nominated three times...for directing this movie, for writing 1969's Faces and for acting in 1968's The Dirty Dozen). Cassavetes was nominated for three Golden Globes, two BAFTA awards and one Emmy. He never won anything. But this movie deserves the accolades it has received over the years. He directed Rowlands to her first Oscar nomination with this movie (and then again in the great 1980 movie Gloria). The style of direction is messy, but the story is messy so it all fits together to make us squirm a bit while watching as a husband and wife try to come to terms with her mental illness. I personally thought Rowlands' character was more of a "wild card" kind of person...her husband was as well, in his own way. I found the story to be more about wanting to force a square peg kind of person into a round hole. I recommend this one only if you like subject matter (and the movie itself) to make you think and kind of challenge you in a way.

Lonely Are The Brave (1962). Only Rowlands' second movie role (she had done a lot of episodic TV roles). Rowland was built for the movie screen. She stars opposite Kirk Douglas in this modern day western about a man who is perhaps meant to have been born a century or two earlier. And how he tries to fit into today's world, but it just isn't the right fit. The DVD for this movie has a great making of feature, with interviews of an elderly Kirk Douglas, his son Michael and Steven Speilberg. It's mentioned how this movie didn't get the credit it deserved when it was released, but over time, people have acknowledged it as a great movie. It has a very high 7.7 rating at imdb.com. Lonely Are The Brave also features Walter Matthau, Carroll O'Connor and George Kennedy in smaller roles.

Both of these movies have been uploaded to youtube in their entirety.

 

[Japanfan]

A Gena Rowlands 2-for-1:

A Woman Under The Influence (1974). Written and directed by John Cassavetes (Oscar-nominated three times...for directing this movie, for writing 1969's Faces and for acting in 1968's The Dirty Dozen). Cassavetes was nominated for three Golden Globes, two BAFTA awards and one Emmy. He never won anything. But this movie deserves the accolades it has received over the years. He directed Rowlands to her first Oscar nomination with this movie (and then again in the great 1980 movie Gloria). The style of direction is messy, but the story is messy so it all fits together to make us squirm a bit while watching as a husband and wife try to come to terms with her mental illness. I personally thought Rowlands' character was more of a "wild card" kind of person...her husband was as well, in his own way. I found the story to be more about wanting to force a square peg kind of person into a round hole. I recommend this one only if you like subject matter (and the movie itself) to make you think and kind of challenge you in a way.

Loved it! I might agree that the film was 'messy', though that would not be the first word that came to mind. I would call the film 'bold'.

Cassavetes and Rowlands were a brilliant team! I wish we had more independent filmmakers of their ilk today - although perhaps we do, and I'm just out of the loop.

 

[Cachoo]

I watched a delightful documentary yesterday called "Always at the Carlyle" about the famous, discreet hotel in NYC. Of course I want to check out a few of the bars there particularly the whimsical bar painted by "Madeline" author Ludwig Bemelmans. Trailer: https://youtu.be/PBMOMuI0pRA

 

[snoopy]

We saw crazy rich Asians tonight. My bf always has better bon mots than me so I’ll quote him. “This was a worthy addition to the Cinderella cannon.”

I didn’t read the book but the film was very Hollywood. Definitely a fun movie with beautiful clothes, beautiful people and a happy ending.

 

[VGThuy]

This is only slightly related to the movie, but someone posted her thoughts on what Crazy Rich Asians meant for her:

https://twitter.com/kimmythepooh/status/1030606408365027334

Her first tweet reads: "You’re 8 years old. Your 3rd grade class orders chinese food & your father delivers it. You are so excited to see your pops in school. He’s your hero. But apparently other kids don’t think he’s so cool. They laugh at him and mimic his accent. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore."

Her last tweet reads: "You’re 25 years old. You see a movie with an all-asian cast at a screening and for some reason you’re crying and you can’t stop. You’ve never seen a cast like this in Hollywood. Everyone is beautiful. You’re so happy you’re Chinese. #CrazyRichAsians #RepresentationMatters"

 

[PeterG]

War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007) - a documentary that imdb.com sums up much better than I could:

War Made Easy reaches into the Orwellian memory hole to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq.

I watched this movie quite a while ago, so it's not really fresh in my mind, but I wrote down two things that really stuck with me. The first is about wartime civilian deaths:

WWI - 10% of deaths were civilians

WWII - 50% of deaths were civilians

Vietnam War - 70% of deaths were civilians

War in Iraq - 90% of deaths were civilians

The second thing that stuck with me was the point that bombing 30,00 people from the air is somehow moral, whereas someone who uses a suicide bomb to kill people is seen as the exact opposite.

 

[VGThuy]

^ And with drones and other technology advancing, war and violence will continue to be dehumanized where death counts will be like numbers in a video game where we don't see it. There was an original Star Trek episode that touched upon it and in the end Kirk forced the people of that planet to actually face the people they were killing. That made a difference.

 

[Japanfan]

The second thing that stuck with me was the point that bombing 30,00 people from the air is somehow moral, whereas someone who uses a suicide bomb to kill people is seen as the exact opposite.

I think it depends on whether a war is seen as 'legitimate' or not. WWI was meant to be the war to end wars. Then along came Hitler, and men like my father who were not soldiers felt it was their obligation to fight in WWII because of the dire threat to the world that Hitler posed.

Those wars are seen as important and necessary.

To the contrary, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is seen as one that could be resolved if the two countries would just get on with the peace process - thus, not necessary. Terrorist acts are likewise not seen as 'legitimate'. The Taliban is not fighting for world peace (rather, world dominance). All the wars that rage in Africa are seen as petty but violent squabbles.

Of course one could write an entire book unpacking all the assumptions and biases in my position. Probably the book has been written over and over again.

And one can presumably blame all the wars in the world on colonialism (an over-simplistic view in my opinion).

The anti-war sentiments of the flower children in the 70s are unfortunately not in vogue today.

WWI - 10% of deaths were civilians

WWII - 50% of deaths were civilians

Vietnam War - 70% of deaths were civilians

War in Iraq - 90% of deaths were civilians

One of the reasons for this is the evolution of weaponry. Bombs can kill millions at one time, whereas a sword can only kill one person at time. As weapons become more powerful, an increase in civilian casualties is inevitable.

Concurrently, I think there was once a sentiment that civilians should not die during war, but that sentiment is not strong any more.

I'm reminded of a military group of women in Africa (don't remember which country). The women got so sick and tired of being raped all the time that they decided to take up arms themselves.

 

[IceAlisa]

I saw Crazy Rich Asians with my mom tonight. She has read and loved the books too. The audience was mostly young kids of Asian descent and a smattering of non-Asians. It was a full house.
We both loved loved loved the movie, teared up a bit and enjoyed everyone's acting. The casting was excellent. There were applause at the end as the credits rolled. People were sitting and standing in line for the next showing as we were walking out. This is immensely popular so I cannot imagine they wouldn't shoot the sequels. Any word on that? Soooooo looking forward to the sequels and also to rewatching it when it comes out on TV.

I might have to re-read the books in the meantime.

 

[snoopy]

FWIW there was not a single Asian person in the half full theater when we saw CRA tonight.

 

[PeterG]

I thought the 2015 version (Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard) of Macbeth was quite strong. I'm not a Shakespeare uber, especially live productions with the rat-a-tat delivery, which to me feels like they're just trying to push away non-ubers like me. With this film version of Macbeth, the actors take their time with the dialogue...which means I was invited in to understand what was being said. It was much more powerful to me with the whole movie having a slow, relaxed pace yet still being dynamic and powerful. The cast are all top-notch, I was especially impressed with Cotillard taking on Shakespeare, what with English being her second language and all. All the technical aspects are amazing as well. The cinematography, the music, the set design, the costumes and make-up. Zero Oscar or BAFTA nods. Huh? Six nominations for the British Independent Film Awards, though. The movie was also a nominee for the Palme d'Or at Cannes that year.

 

[VGThuy]

I saw Crazy Rich Asians with my mom tonight. She has read and loved the books too. The audience was mostly young kids of Asian descent and a smattering of non-Asians. It was a full house.
We both loved loved loved the movie, teared up a bit and enjoyed everyone's acting. The casting was excellent. There were applause at the end as the credits rolled. People were sitting and standing in line for the next showing as we were walking out. This is immensely popular so I cannot imagine they wouldn't shoot the sequels. Any word on that? Soooooo looking forward to the sequels and also to rewatching it when it comes out on TV.

I might have to re-read the books in the meantime.

Apparently,

Spoiler

all the Astrid/Charlie Wu stuff that didn't make it into the movie at all is going to be put into the sequel.

I can't imagine a sequel won't be happening now that CRA exceeded expectations and made 34 million plus in the 5 day opening. The word-of-mouth was really strong with this one.

 

[DannyCurry]

Agree about Cavill, props to his tailor for the wondrous form-fitting outfits. Cavill's beard (scruff) I was fine with, but the pornstache...the jury's still out.

Cavill is super hot. I don't mind the pornstache and I liked the beard. He's the one who kept me awake through MI. I also enjoyed Vanessa Kirby. Apart from them, I found the movie quite boring.

Blood Simple : (The Coen brother's debut) Well, couldn't stay awake for that one, but that was my after brunch nap. What I saw (second half of the movie, mostly relying on misunderstandings) looked ok.

Mamma Mia : Overall, really enjoyable. Colin Firth does age well.

Under The Tree : Icelandic neighbours feud and a couple's separation. Despite a few good bits, I felt like it would never end.

The Guilty : Danish thriller which takes place in an emercy call centre where a police officer receives a call from a woman who's being abducted. I liked it. It reminded me of Buried, as we don't get to leave the place where the operator is.

On Chesil Beach : Witnessing the completely awkward first time of newlyweds, while flashbacks show us how carefree the young couple was before they got married. Saoirse Ronan and Billy Howle make such a cute couple. Overall I loved it, though it left me quite disheartened in the end. Two drawbacks though : Saoirse Ronan can't convincingly play the violin, and well, we don't get to see Billy Howle's peen.

As I loved the book, I can't wait to see Crazy Rich Asians. Unfortunately in France, it will only be released in October Meanwhile I will try to refrain myself from reading the spoilers and reviews.

 

[IceAlisa]

Apparently,

Spoiler

all the Astrid/Charlie Wu stuff that didn't make it into the movie at all is going to be put into the sequel.

I can't imagine a sequel won't be happening now that CRA exceeded expectations and made 34 million plus in the 5 day opening. The word-of-mouth was really strong with this one.

Please get on it, Hollywood. Clearly it’s a goldmine

 

[manhn]

I too watched Crazy Rich Asians over the weekend. So much fun! I agree that the movie does a much better job of making Rachel and Nick viable characters who belong together. Constance Wu is a good actress with a strong will (Rachel in the book is so wishy washy) and Henry Golding is soooo dreamy. The filmmakers do a better job of explaining Nick's unwillingness to disclose his life to Rachel, and Rachel holds her own better.

Astrid's storyline does not hold up as well, but I still like Astrid as a character. There will most definitely be sequels, so her storyline can be played out then.

I really liked the first book, the second and third ones were duds. They were not slavish to the source materials, so I have confidence they can extract the good aspects of the books onto celluloid.

Also, I want to go Singapore yesterday. Any chance of a 4CC in Singapore?

 

[VGThuy]

I honestly would not mind if they reworked the entire second book's storyline at all. It was that bad.

 

[snoopy]

There are a lot of potential socio economic themes to explore in CRA, did the book focus more on those or was it also really just a rom-com? For example, the one line in the movie about eat your dinner, there are starving kids in America. I might just be extrapolating stuff from my designer handbag fetish, but the financial centers of control seem to be moving to Asia. (Design houses put a lot more effort in the Asian market than the US market, and probably even the Euro market).

 

[VGThuy]

There are a lot of potential socio economic themes to explore in CRA, did the book focus anymore on those or was it also really just a rom-com? For example, the one line in the movie about eat your dinner, there are starving kids in America. I might just extrapolating stuff from my designer handbag fetish, but the financial centers of control seem to be moving to Asia. (Design houses put a lot more effort in the Asian market than the US market, and probably even the Euro market).

There was a lot more to it in the book.

Spoiler

The movie focused more on the characters and romance, so that aspect improved two-fold. I also argue that having an Asian-American female screenwriter improved Rachel considerably and actually made her sound like a real second-generation Asian-American woman unlike in the book. Constance Wu also added a lot of that with her wonderful and nuanced performance. The book was full of commentary that didn't make it in the film. There was more commentary on the minorities in Singapore, the classism, the colorism (darker skin bad), and mentioning other Asians and South Asians. One family member is totally disowned by his family and cut off when he married a Malaysian woman. There's also a lot more snottiness and snobbery towards the new money mainland Chinese people who Eleanor and others think of as tacky while the younger gen Singapore rich peeps want to flaunt their wealth more like the mainlanders do. It was briefly mentioned in the movie when Eddie spoke about "getting a lot of shit about marrying Fiona and she was a Tung and from one of the most wealthy shipping companies from Hong Kong." Also, Alistair isn't a dick that he was in the film. That's going to be important later.

 

[Aussie Willy]

I thought the 2015 version (Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard) of Macbeth was quite strong. I'm not a Shakespeare uber, especially live productions with the rat-a-tat delivery, which to me feels like they're just trying to push away non-ubers like me. With this film version of Macbeth, the actors take their time with the dialogue...which means I was invited in to understand what was being said. It was much more powerful to me with the whole movie having a slow, relaxed pace yet still being dynamic and powerful. The cast are all top-notch, I was especially impressed with Cotillard taking on Shakespeare, what with English being her second language and all. All the technical aspects are amazing as well. The cinematography, the music, the set design, the costumes and make-up. Zero Oscar or BAFTA nods. Huh? Six nominations for the British Independent Film Awards, though. The movie was also a nominee for the Palme d'Or at Cannes that year.

I saw this when it came out. I thought it was well done but it wasn't my favourite take on a Shakespeare play. I did think Fassbender and Cotillard were very good.

Last year I did see a stage production of Macbeth with Jai Courtney as Macbeth. He was okay but the rest of the actors kind of acted rings around him.

 

[IceAlisa]

I honestly would not mind if they reworked the entire second book's storyline at all. It was that bad.

I am hazy on the details but what do you think was bad?

 

[oleada]

I am hazy on the details but what do you think was bad?

IMO, everything about it.

Spoiler

The crashed wedding. The rich dad. The jealous girlfriend. The poisoning. It was a bunch of contrived melodrama with none of the fun

I ended up seeing it on Sunday and it was so much fun. I thought the changes worked for the better. Rachel is a much more likable character than in the book (and I think Constance Wu played a big part in that), and Michelle Yeoh gave a stereotypical tiger mom character a lot more heart. Awkwafina was hilarious.

The audience was mostly Asian people of all ages, with a good amount of non Asians as well.