Golden Slumber
(2010)
|
|
| 0Share... |
Golden Slumber
(2010)
|
|
| 0Share... |
| Credited cast: | |||
| Teruyuki Kagawa | ... |
Sasaki Ichitaro
|
|
| Yûko Takeuchi | ... |
Higuchi Haruko
|
|
|
|
Nao Ohmori | ... |
Higuchi Nobuyuki
|
|
|
Masato Sakai | ... |
Aoyagi Masaharu
|
|
|
Akira Emoto | ... |
Hodogaya Yasushi
|
|
|
Hidetaka Yoshioka | ... |
Morita Shingo
|
|
|
Shihori Kanjiya | ... |
Rinka
|
|
|
Saki Aibu | ... |
Inoue Koume
|
|
|
Gaku Hamada | ... |
Kill-O
|
|
|
Yukari Shiomi |
|
|
|
|
Gekidan Hitori | ... |
Ono Kazuo
|
|
|
Sonim | ... |
Tsuruta Ami
|
| Ryushin Tei | ... |
Detective Washizu
|
|
|
|
Ken'ichi Takitô |
|
|
|
|
Yûsuke Iizuka |
|
|
When easy-going Aoyagi meets an old friend for a fishing trip, he ends up drugged, framed for the Prime Minister's assassination, and on the run from corrupt cops. It's only the beginning of what quickly becomes the worst, weirdest day of his life. But he'll get by with a little help from his friends, who include a famous pop diva, a rockabilly deliveryman, a crippled old gangster, and the world's most cheerful serial killer. Among the many puzzles of this twisty, clever film is how Nakamura manages to sneak a genuinely moving tribute to friendship into the madcap procession of perilous events. No matter what befalls Aoyagi, his friends and parents believe in him because of his steadfast, almost irrational pleasantness. Written by Los Angeles Film Festival
From the trailer, this looks like an action thriller with good acting. Well, I made it 50 minutes because of the acting, but it was abundantly clear the trailer was misleading. This is actually an art house movie that, according to some reviews, is an "uplifting" and witty commentary on Japanese society.
Characters don't act like real people, and things are deliberately structured to meander and not make sense. What the movie seems to think is funny is either trite, lame, or, most annoyingly, disturbing, and there are no reassurances something horrific isn't about to happen any second. There seems to be a gleeful nonchalance at work keeping you from becoming invested in anything, and I had to check some reviews to see if it was worth sitting through another 90 minutes to finish it. After seeing a string of glowing reviews along these lines, I knew it wasn't:
"Most movies suffer from the need to explain everything. They do not leave any room for imagination. They are designed for people who love to avoid thinking and just want to consume what's put in front of them. The celluloid guinea pigs.
Movies that come close to what art's supposed to be involve the viewer, inspire contemplation and leave many things unexplained simply because art doesn't dictate perspectives, it opens perspectives. A great movie is a movie that allows us to see ourselves in it."
This is not a thriller to pop in for some excitement and get lost in; some say it gets better towards the end, but you'd better have a *lot* of patience to find out. See the twitch and meniscus reviews I added in the external reviews section for a couple of more realistic appraisals.
This is the kind of movie that loses the viewer's trust, much like the 'prankster' who says "Oh, your wife called earlier and said she was on the way here, but it sounded like she got into an accident and the line went dead" and then laughs at your horrified expression and chides your for not 'getting' their joke, and director Yoshihiro Nakamura is now on my 'avoid' list.