Ugh... just plain ugh... why was the first 48 mins. of this film made? The director has an Ozu fetish, plainly, as they think nothing of wasting days trying to replicate the rich tapestry of Tokyo Story with an ill-disguised impatience and far less talent. Is it intended to be a critique of Ozu's work? I doubt it, the filmmakers I say do not have the courage to do such a thing. S/he even attempts to replicate Ozu's signature 'pillow shots' with far far less patience, using paranoid schizophrenic editing where it is plainly uncalled for. The actors struggle gamely on with their roles oblivious to the fact they're repeating lines already immortalized (seriously, I was reading the EXACT same subtitles every three minutes). What is missing? Ozu's deft comic touch, command of the stage and sparse use of melodrama to make a heartfelt critique of Japanese society. Instead at every turn we are to be bludgeoned by melodrama. And then the 48mins. are over and we have a side trip to Japan as clichéd as anything done previously (look for Kurosawa's Ikiru). And why must all foreigners in Japan look on askance at the Japanese pornographic manga? It seems a must for all Japanese movies, maybe I'll write in to Ebert's Movie Glossary with this one. The five stars are for the acting (which still can't save a scene where the old man dissolves into tears after looking at a magazine in his son's Tokyo apartment) and some attempt at Independence in the second half of the movie, despite how clichéd it may be.
Review of Cherry Blossoms
