Dot 2 Dot (2014)
This film is the definition of a wasted opportunity. It's too short, it deals with too many different subject matter while never really meaningfully discussing any of them, and it's direction and cinematography at times are beautiful and at others fall short. This is not a good film, and that's a real shame because it could have been something special.
Dot 2 Dot by Amos Why (Napping Kid) is a hit or miss film very much like the previous Chinese film I reviewed Tik Tok. It's a film about a woman who moves to Hong Kong to help teach language (I believe it's another form of Chinese although I could be wrong). When she moves there she feels alienated and grows obsessed with solving dot to dot puzzles left behind by a man obsessed with his childhood. That plot actually sounds really interesting, but this isn't really how it plays out; instead the film loosely follows that narrative while introducing other story beats that don't really amount to much.
I think that's this film's biggest issue. The main plot itself is interesting enough to warrant it's own movie, but instead we get a love side plot, references to the past, bloated sequences filled with montages that don't lead anywhere, and too many random moments that don't have any baring on the main plot whatsoever. This isn't inherently an issue; often films will use separate moments from the main plot to help develop a character. However, in this film this isn't really the case as there's very little development to be had. Take the main male character, Suet-chung Wong (Moses Chan, Napping Kid): his main character trait is that he is obsessed with the past, both his own and Hong Kong's. As a result of this he uses dot to dot images that he was fond of as a child to create images that are symbolic of parts of Hong Kong's past; areas that were once theme parks but are now stations have an elephant dot to dot to symbolise the elephant they would see at said theme park. You get the idea. And this is a novel and interesting concept, except it's so poorly pulled off here. For one, the only mentions of his past, outside of characters literally accusing him of being too tied down by his past (got to love that exposition dialogue), are brief flashbacks of him stroking a dot to dot book. We don't get any real substantial reasons for why he's obsessed with his childhood, nor why he feels such a strong connection with Hong Kong's past. On top of this he has various other undeveloped traits that seem to end up nowhere. For example, at the beginning of the film he washes out a plastic bottle he used before binning it. It's to make him seem environmentally savvy, which is great, but where does it play into the rest of the film? It doesn't really. And it's strange because part of me thinks this is a movie about how Hong Kong has changed, how the newly built stations have replaced parts that were beloved by people of his generation, but this doesn't come across and it's a real shame.
Okay, so why exactly doesn't it come across (I'm getting there I promise). Well like I said before there's too many sub-plots. The main two characters are trying to figure each other out, the teacher initially trying to figure out the dot to dot puzzles, and then they both start leaving each other puzzles to solve. That's all fine and dandy. The issue is the side plots. There's a love plot between the main male lead and a female co-worker of his (for some reason). There's a sub-plot of the female leads relationship with her sister (or friend not really sure). There's a sub-plot of the female lead teaching a language class. There's one about a burning department store. You get the idea. And some of these do lead into the main plot, but the issue is that they sort of lead into it and then they're dropped immediately. They never feel resolved, and ultimately feel pointless. If you removed the romantic sub-plot between the male lead and his co-worker the film wouldn't change. It's those sorts of plots that end up bogging down the main story and forcing the writer (also Amos Why) to spread out his narratives. He should have just focused on the one narrative point instead of incorporating all the others.
There's more issues and I feel like I'm being overly negative so I'll try and speed up. The first is the over abundance of characters. There's far too many and none of them have anything meaningful to add nor do. They just sit around and tell the audience what the main character is thinking or should do next, case in point the character they call "Fat Man" who just talks to the main female lead about all the puzzles she has to solve. Another issue is the random moments in the film that don't amount to anything. Dialogue is said that just feels pointless, like the so called "Fat Man" saying he didn't understand what the female lead said so she has to repeat herself. It doesn't add anything and it wastes time. Or scenes like when the male lead and his friend are on their bikes and a guy tells them they can't bike on that bridge. Like who cares? What is this adding? Then there's also the issue of the ending. I'm going into spoilers here, but honestly I don't recommend watching this film anyway. Basically at the very end of the film, the last three minutes, the two characters finally figure out that they're the two people leaving puzzles. Then the film just ends. We don't get any satisfying resolution to their relationship and it makes the rest of the film seem pointless. It's reminiscent of the ending of Blade Runner 2049 in which the main character is finally reunited with someone they've been searching for the whole film and then it just ends. It makes me feel as if I've wasted my time investing in their relationship, when they're not going to bother showing us the fruits of their labour.
On top of that their relationship is odd (swear this is my last narrative complaint), and that's a real shame. Essentially, after she starts to notice the dot to dots lying around the city she figures them out and the male lead sees this and wants to leave more clues. But then she decides to leave him clues and somehow they both start having the same ideas or something. The problem here is that Amos Why seems to have skipped over important scenes because there's no real flow to their relationship. One minute she's figured out these clues, and the next they're one in the same outsmarting each other as if they've been playing this game for years. It's really confusing and all over the place, and again had Amos Why cut out the other plots, and instead replaced them with a more fleshed out version of the main plot with more nuanced characters and narrative beats, it could have been great.
Technically this film is a bit of a roller-coaster. It seems competent in its cinematography at times, sometimes it even looks stunning, but other times theedges of the lens are in frame, and often the camera will use depth of field on strange objects (it'll be positioned behind one random object that'll be out of focus, and the rest of the frame will be the actual subject.) It just seems like a whole bunch of different cinematographers worked on this. The editing is odd too. It'll cut to random unrelated footage, that sure looks great, but is really out of place. It does this during conversations as well which is odd, the characters will resume talking but suddenly we'll get a shot of leaves or something. I also had a sound issue (although it may have been my headphones or laptop) where part of the film felt as if it were recorded in a bathtub. Please comment below if you had a similar issue. It was very off putting.
Ultimately this film is a shame. It could have been excellent, it really did have an interesting sounding narrative. But it's let down by incompetent storytelling and cinematography and that bogs it down so it's a slog to watch. I wouldn't recommend this, there are better Chinese films like Our Shining Days which I've also reviewed. This is absolutely one to pass on, although I hope one day someone tries this story again and succeeds.
2/10
Dot 2 Dot by Amos Why (Napping Kid) is a hit or miss film very much like the previous Chinese film I reviewed Tik Tok. It's a film about a woman who moves to Hong Kong to help teach language (I believe it's another form of Chinese although I could be wrong). When she moves there she feels alienated and grows obsessed with solving dot to dot puzzles left behind by a man obsessed with his childhood. That plot actually sounds really interesting, but this isn't really how it plays out; instead the film loosely follows that narrative while introducing other story beats that don't really amount to much.
I think that's this film's biggest issue. The main plot itself is interesting enough to warrant it's own movie, but instead we get a love side plot, references to the past, bloated sequences filled with montages that don't lead anywhere, and too many random moments that don't have any baring on the main plot whatsoever. This isn't inherently an issue; often films will use separate moments from the main plot to help develop a character. However, in this film this isn't really the case as there's very little development to be had. Take the main male character, Suet-chung Wong (Moses Chan, Napping Kid): his main character trait is that he is obsessed with the past, both his own and Hong Kong's. As a result of this he uses dot to dot images that he was fond of as a child to create images that are symbolic of parts of Hong Kong's past; areas that were once theme parks but are now stations have an elephant dot to dot to symbolise the elephant they would see at said theme park. You get the idea. And this is a novel and interesting concept, except it's so poorly pulled off here. For one, the only mentions of his past, outside of characters literally accusing him of being too tied down by his past (got to love that exposition dialogue), are brief flashbacks of him stroking a dot to dot book. We don't get any real substantial reasons for why he's obsessed with his childhood, nor why he feels such a strong connection with Hong Kong's past. On top of this he has various other undeveloped traits that seem to end up nowhere. For example, at the beginning of the film he washes out a plastic bottle he used before binning it. It's to make him seem environmentally savvy, which is great, but where does it play into the rest of the film? It doesn't really. And it's strange because part of me thinks this is a movie about how Hong Kong has changed, how the newly built stations have replaced parts that were beloved by people of his generation, but this doesn't come across and it's a real shame.
Okay, so why exactly doesn't it come across (I'm getting there I promise). Well like I said before there's too many sub-plots. The main two characters are trying to figure each other out, the teacher initially trying to figure out the dot to dot puzzles, and then they both start leaving each other puzzles to solve. That's all fine and dandy. The issue is the side plots. There's a love plot between the main male lead and a female co-worker of his (for some reason). There's a sub-plot of the female leads relationship with her sister (or friend not really sure). There's a sub-plot of the female lead teaching a language class. There's one about a burning department store. You get the idea. And some of these do lead into the main plot, but the issue is that they sort of lead into it and then they're dropped immediately. They never feel resolved, and ultimately feel pointless. If you removed the romantic sub-plot between the male lead and his co-worker the film wouldn't change. It's those sorts of plots that end up bogging down the main story and forcing the writer (also Amos Why) to spread out his narratives. He should have just focused on the one narrative point instead of incorporating all the others.
There's more issues and I feel like I'm being overly negative so I'll try and speed up. The first is the over abundance of characters. There's far too many and none of them have anything meaningful to add nor do. They just sit around and tell the audience what the main character is thinking or should do next, case in point the character they call "Fat Man" who just talks to the main female lead about all the puzzles she has to solve. Another issue is the random moments in the film that don't amount to anything. Dialogue is said that just feels pointless, like the so called "Fat Man" saying he didn't understand what the female lead said so she has to repeat herself. It doesn't add anything and it wastes time. Or scenes like when the male lead and his friend are on their bikes and a guy tells them they can't bike on that bridge. Like who cares? What is this adding? Then there's also the issue of the ending. I'm going into spoilers here, but honestly I don't recommend watching this film anyway. Basically at the very end of the film, the last three minutes, the two characters finally figure out that they're the two people leaving puzzles. Then the film just ends. We don't get any satisfying resolution to their relationship and it makes the rest of the film seem pointless. It's reminiscent of the ending of Blade Runner 2049 in which the main character is finally reunited with someone they've been searching for the whole film and then it just ends. It makes me feel as if I've wasted my time investing in their relationship, when they're not going to bother showing us the fruits of their labour.
On top of that their relationship is odd (swear this is my last narrative complaint), and that's a real shame. Essentially, after she starts to notice the dot to dots lying around the city she figures them out and the male lead sees this and wants to leave more clues. But then she decides to leave him clues and somehow they both start having the same ideas or something. The problem here is that Amos Why seems to have skipped over important scenes because there's no real flow to their relationship. One minute she's figured out these clues, and the next they're one in the same outsmarting each other as if they've been playing this game for years. It's really confusing and all over the place, and again had Amos Why cut out the other plots, and instead replaced them with a more fleshed out version of the main plot with more nuanced characters and narrative beats, it could have been great.
Technically this film is a bit of a roller-coaster. It seems competent in its cinematography at times, sometimes it even looks stunning, but other times theedges of the lens are in frame, and often the camera will use depth of field on strange objects (it'll be positioned behind one random object that'll be out of focus, and the rest of the frame will be the actual subject.) It just seems like a whole bunch of different cinematographers worked on this. The editing is odd too. It'll cut to random unrelated footage, that sure looks great, but is really out of place. It does this during conversations as well which is odd, the characters will resume talking but suddenly we'll get a shot of leaves or something. I also had a sound issue (although it may have been my headphones or laptop) where part of the film felt as if it were recorded in a bathtub. Please comment below if you had a similar issue. It was very off putting.
Ultimately this film is a shame. It could have been excellent, it really did have an interesting sounding narrative. But it's let down by incompetent storytelling and cinematography and that bogs it down so it's a slog to watch. I wouldn't recommend this, there are better Chinese films like Our Shining Days which I've also reviewed. This is absolutely one to pass on, although I hope one day someone tries this story again and succeeds.
2/10
Comments
Post a Comment