Stephanie is a single mother with a parenting vlog who befriends Emily, a secretive upper-class woman who has a child at the same elementary school. When Emily goes missing, Stephanie takes it upon herself to investigate.
Beca, a freshman at Barden University, is cajoled into joining The Bellas, her school's all-girls singing group. Injecting some much needed energy into their repertoire, The Bellas take on their male rivals in a campus competition.
Good girl Sandy Olsson (Olivia Newton-John) and greaser Danny Zuko (John Travolta) fell in love over the summer. When they unexpectedly discover they're now in the same high school, will they be able to rekindle their romance?
Rachel Chu, an American-born Chinese NYU professor, travels with her boyfriend, Nick to his hometown of Singapore for his best friend's wedding. Before long, his secret is out: Nick's family is wealthy, and he's considered the most eligible bachelor in Asia. Every single woman is incredibly jealous of Rachel and wants to bring her down.Written by
Janice Chua suggested all of the filming locations to the filmmakers and wrote several Hokkien dialect lines in the script. See more »
In the very last last scene where Rachel and Nick are celebrating their engagement with friends and family at the top of the Sands hotel, TA Curtis is briefly seen in the crowd as one of the party attendees. Given that he is supposed to be Rachel's colleague at NYU and the party occurred with little notice, his appearance is odd. See more »
[Served with extravagant dinner portions at the family table, Rachel is eating rather modestly at Peik Lin Goh's parents house]
Don't stand on ceremony, Rachel. This is simple food, lah.
Wye Mun Goh:
Ha, cha-cha-cha. Dooon't beeee shyyyy!
[hands Rachel a giant platter of food]
Wye Mun Goh:
You're not a model.
I am definitely not.
Wye Mun Goh:
No, you're not! Not at all, you're far from it.
Wye Mun Goh:
And make sure ya eat it all cuz I'm watching you.
[...] See more »
There's a mid-credit scene in which Astrid exchanges glances with a man. See more »
In Australia, the film was passed uncut with an M rating for coarse language. The filmmakers then opted to reduce the language in order to obtain a PG classification. For the home video release the film was returned to its uncut M rating. See more »
1. Celebrates perversity - romance and materialism are too intimately tied together (i.e. gold-digging) that both end up being expounded in their superficiality and unreality
2. Limited representation - only "Chinese" Asians and only extremely wealthy individuals are portrayed, undermining the efficacy and diversity of true "asianhood"
3. Shallow plot and characters - overused story-line about romance and familial tensions, a pure imitation of Western desires with a lack of oriental authenticity, leading to a paper-thin plot protracted by stereotypes
1. If you actually consider how the movie plays out, the elements that supposedly celebrate exuberance and materialistic romance are either dismissed in their possible retention of worth or confined to brief stylistic moments which throw the more intractable experience of love without materialism into stark relief. There is so much evidence of this throughout the film - every point of excess ingrains in us, as an audience, a sense of disgust or doubt - is that not then the point? Plus the title literally spells the theme out for you "Crazy Rich", so yeah. What did you expect?
2. Now the second part of the title"Asians". I agree, the film does not cover every individual that would be qualified under the term in an ethnic or otherwise geographic sense. But why did it have to? It is not a documentary. It does not aim for absolute objective authority, it tells a story with insight into a limited persona with limited struggles and limited breadth. The assertion that the movie is inaccurate or "bad" because it does not show us every type of Asian is extremely unfair - at least they showed us some (where most do not show any) and they did it in a way where the central aspects of being Asian are still on display (e.g. filial guilt, patriarchy).
3. This then leads me to my next point. What is the big picture? Sure we could convert this movie to have an all white cast and the general story-line and characters would not have to be completely revised, I concede that. But, to me the appearance of an all Asian cast in big budget Hollywood - twenty-five years after "The Joy Luck Club" - means a lot. I think even if you take the plot at its worst - dreary, old garbage - and the inclusion of Asians as mere tokenistic market-pandering, I still stand by this film. Because to me this film is a gateway to all the things that people have been so frustrated and disappointed about, it is a film that in its very existence can forge the path for much broader and deeper representation or discussion. You will not be able to overturn all Asian stereotypes or perfectly represent all Asians overnight, it is an ongoing process that begins by giving the "asian-face" more airtime. Plus I thought the way females were portrayed in this film has been misconstrued and under-evaluated. Just saying.
Watch the film and see what you think.
34 of 55 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this