Golden Chicken 金雞 (2002) – Hong Kong
Samson Chiu’s Golden Chicken is trying to be endearing satire, but its combining too little to chew of actual Chinese social changes with silly sex gags is exhausting. And is it really all that funny, plot revolving around prostitution and erotic favours, a stock market crash and unplanned parenthood? Actually yes, but a cookie-cut formula dissuades your liking it. It’s never close to golden.
Sinking Sex Satire
Kam (Sandra Ng), an eccentric prostitute in Hong Kong, is victim of an attempted robbery in a small ATM lobby. Eric Tsang plays the robber, a desperate, job-less man, but she has no money, only stories. Then the power goes out, and the doors lock. He looks around for an exit, and she’s laughing. It’s just what she needs; expected. Haha, I guess. Haha?
Because she is friendly and open and talkative – traits earned of a loving service life – Kam tries to make him laugh, telling of her preceding years as a hooker. And he, like us, does not want to hear it, but, well, we’ve got to pass the time somehow.
For what this film crafts of plot, you might giggle and smile. Many of its flashback stories are chuckle worthy I suppose, but all of it is stupid regurgitation of bettered comedy. Unless you’re a newer incarnation of a Chaplin or a Keaton, body humor formed for gags should be avoided, or at least worked in with light steps, Too many jokes here are dependent on the camera’s closing in magnified shots of crotches and feet. That’s a taboo somewhere, I just know it, and wish was upheld and saluted during the pre-scripting and shooting.
Mike Mitchell’s Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo (1999) tackled similar subjects without much success, and I’m regretful for having watched another copied comedy in hopes for difference, of change.Progress?
On the surface, the acts are colorful and fierce, like Kam’s leopard wardrobe, but who cares? If the beginning was sad and depressing lead up, supposed contrast, the end is a nice and neat optimism, far too conventional. Look, everyone’s happy toward the end, and oh look, the credits -*yawn. Is this spoiler? No. Salvation.
Don’t see this. Don’t
Background characters’ perform with flatness, like a spilt cola, and the dialogue is too exaggerated. The narrative conforms, too circularly, to Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero’s Journey,” and the hero’s a hooker.
I can laugh and play too with funny stupid movies, but this one raises the bar. Is this wasted time?
I’ve been scratching my head for many minutes trying to solve this question now: why are there so many fans of this film? There’s a sequel that arrived in 2003, and then, this year, a third was released. Oh man, could it have really been good and I’m too blind or thick to have read its underlying message more clearly? Tell me, please. What is it I’m missing? Please! I’ve gotta know.
It’s wild and crazy, too messy. The shots are kind of close and cool. But the jokes! Why are the jokes so shallow? Do adults, hell, kids find this funny? endearing?
So nonsensical and stuffed to the brim of ridiculousness, the events unfold of too much necessity for plot progression, and less from inspiration, impatient to try a hand at genuine warmth for character complexity, not exactly charming. Yeah you’ll laugh a little, but not nearly enough. You don’t have to see it in a hurry, but those with an inclination to laugh out loud on topics ranging from bizarre to stupid will enjoy, regardless.