Crazy Rich Asians (2018) Review
This film was the talk of the town more than a few years ago and was portrayed as if it was the triumphant return of the romantic comedy when it was anything, but that.
director: Jon M. Chu
writers: Peter Chiarelli & Adele Lim
starring: Constance Wu, Henry Golding and Michelle Yeoh
genre: Comedy | Romance
released: 15 August 2018 (USA), 23 August 2018 (Germany), 30 August 2018 (Australia)
based on the novel: "Crazy Rich Asians" by Kevin Kwan
This film was the talk of the town more than a few years ago and was portrayed as if it was the triumphant return of the romantic comedy when it was anything, but that. Its plot is nothing new once you strip it away of its clichés and horrendous notions on romance and lacks many situations of genuine comedy. It is unfortunately the opposite of what has been sold by both the media and critics as it’s a bland production of a romantic adventure no one should partake in or hope for.
story:
A Chinese American professor Rachel (Constance Wu) is invited by her partner Nick (Henry Golding) for a big family wedding in his homeland of Singapore. She will soon come to find out that he had been hiding from her his family wealth and celebrity social status. Not to also mention the possible repercussions of their relationship because of it.
thoughts:
The film is called ‘Crazy Rich Asians and at many times within it and to the point of ridiculousness, it keeps reminding us of this fact. With situations where they show rich people go crazy by having a massive bachelor party on a huge cargo ship or have lavish parties nonstop and drive expensive cars and have expensive dresses in their trunks on standby. In addition to how many saw the film as a message against greed and an excess of wealth. Which the film can be seen as that as it portrays almost everyone that is wealthy to be a either a snob, in-morale, immature, or a hick with money.
However, how could this movie be a commentary on wealth when it’s never taken seriously by the production of the film in talking about the actual repercussions of Nick’s family’s wealth by his actions. For example, is his family wealth tied to his social status? Would people stop doing business with them if he married an outsider? Will he lose claim to the family wealth and be in poverty and will he lead his family down that path? No one asks these questions in the film and the only one who even hints at these possibilities is Nick’s mother played by Michelle Yeoh. A character who is portrayed as this ultra conservative and terrible person that is only looking at her own self-interest. Which is partially true, but on the other hand she’s the only one looking out for the family's well-being and the fact that she backs down in the end is somewhat unconvincing based on the character that was created for the film.
As with Michelle Yeoh’s character of Eleanor’s improper treatment, the same could be said about Constance Wu’s character of Rachel. First, and foremost the fact that she was an economics professor in the film didn’t really come to any usage except only for one scene in the film where she had to sit down next to someone of financial importance and not an exceptional scene on its own within the film. Besides that, would it have made any difference if Rachel was nurse or a hairdresser? Aren’t we supposed to follow Rachel because we like her as a character and personality and not for her profession alone? As the scene they used to introduce her was terrible in its short and rushed explanation of game theory and just to show her ability that she can dupe someone. Couldn’t we as the audience understand and see naturally that her character's actions and behavior such as with Meg Ryan's character in 'You've Got Mail' were intelligent and admirable? And as mentioned thereafter she never else in the film gets to genuinely show what she’s interested in or who she really is. She mostly driven to places or reacting to other people's impressions of her and her relationship. The only time she gets to show her true colors and where you start to see the tough individual that she is when she has a showdown with the conservative mother of Henry during the ending played by Michelle Yeoh. But instead, never actually does she deal with her own mother, who lied to her and didn't reveal a good amount of family history that Rachael deserved to know. And for that matter she never even gets mad at Nick who for a year never told her about his wealth, history, or tenuous relationship with his family.
Additionally, to get back to the point that you never really get to know her character or personality, you never get to understand why also Nick fell in love with her in the first place and was willing to risk it all for her. For that matter why does she even fall in love with Nick as well? As throughout the film he is portrayed maybe as the most loyal and trusting companion on Earth, which also makes him to put it mildly quite boring. Furthermore, they aren’t very many moments in the film where it’s just the two of them on their own to see what chemistry they have and why they are a couple in the first place. It’s very interesting that the production chose to do a movie about how a relationship would survive once it’s faced with a culture shock when it only allowed barely 10 minutes to see what the couple’s world and relationship even was in the first place. It should be a given that romantic comedies need to make it believable that romantic partners are willing to be together and have chemistry and that you in the process as the viewer would fall in love with them. As if you did a poll and asked audiences of romantic characters who are most lovable not only in looks, but character and personality, it would be difficult to imagine that Rachel and Nick would come out anywhere near top.
Moreover, to make things worse, there is an odd subplot in the film of Nick's cousin which is hard to understand its relevance. It’s possible the production had nothing else of value to place in and needed to shoehorn something to pass the time with some extra soap opera drama in the mix. However, the drama the cousin was going through is worse than Rachel's as she was married and with kids. So, it offsets Rachel's drama with a worst case of family turmoil and made the film distract from plot A that needed much more focus.
They are reasons why many might have liked this film, but the most obvious for it being a simple romantic ride with a lot of eye candy in the mix. Naturally, this is also tied to the modern-day romantic comedy genre in general and its terrible portrayal of its female and male characters with its new-founded clichés and the creation of unrealistic stereotypes on them. For example, the ‘knight in shining armor’ who doesn’t ask the ‘damsel in distress’ to change in any way and is to accept her exactly for who she is. Despite of the fact, that his world goes topsy turvy, no matter the cost to him or anyone else associated as well. Additionally, this comes in combination with the heroine having almost nothing to learn or to be wrong about, such in this film's case of one's family's local culture and business ties. As the lead character Rachel in this film had no arc to make her grow as a character or take a step back and see if she can be a better person herself by doing something different. Lastly, the film's plot was manufactured in such a way that the opportunity for her to do anything different didn’t exist. Almost every situation Rachel is in she's either treated unkindly or being consoled after the fact. The biggest issue is the fact she is unaware of what their relationship might do to his family's wealth. She is throughout the film oblivious to it and unconcerned still by the end of the film.
Verdict:
If you want a subpar romantic comedy that was inflated beyond belief, then 'Crazy Rich Asians' is the way to go. Its humor is mostly forceful, its situations of rich debauchery uninspiring and the outsider educating the local culture about how to live and act shtick is pitiful.
Personal Rating:
2 out of 5 Stars