Sushi Girl Review: Does This Geek-Studded Cast Deliver?

Olivia Saperstein July 24, 2012 7

For the Fanboys and girls of Fantasia International Film Festival, the screening of Kern Saxton’s Sushi Girl was the ultimate premiere (in fact it was so packed that even press had trouble getting in), but whether it lived up to expectations is debatable. Why so much hype, you ask? Oh just because of its geek-studded cast, namely Mark Hamill (Star Wars), Noah Hathaway (The Never Ending Story), James Duval (Donnie Darko, Doom Generation), Sonny Chiba (Immortal Combat) and Tony Todd (The Candyman is also an executive producer).

Fish (Noah Hathaway) gets released from his six year prison sentence and is immediately re-united with his gang of diamond thieves, lead by Duke (Todd) in a faux-Asian Temple of doom. Accused of hiding the diamonds that were lost in a pre-prison heist, he is in turn tortured by the answer-seeking clan members, each using their own stylistic device. A beautiful woman (Cortney Palm) is hired as a sushi serving dish, who mustn’t make a peep as the men eat off of her body, and she can’t help but remain a looming presence as she silently witnesses the gruesome events that the evening produces.

Regardless of one’s strain to find redemption, the film reads as an overzealous attempt at badass cocaine-infused viscera, with exaggerated performances that imitate Tarantino, Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez (i.e. Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Grindhouse, Snatch), to the point of parody. Rather than utilizing an authentic approach, it seems that Kern was trying to re-create something that has been exhausted. The script, while surely containing the offensive, waggish humor typical of its genre, again barely brought anything fresh to the surface. At one point, Mark Hammil’s character, Crow, refers to Asians as “soy n*ggers,” and there was even a Mom joke tossed in for…flavor?

The talent pool contained exceptional potential, yet was constrained to a chlorified above ground swimming device rather than a free flowing expansive body of water. Hammil channeled a clown-like Phillip Seymour Hoffman/ Truman Capote character, but overplayed his whininess like a spoiled birthday girl. Andy Mackenzie’s biker Max, a huffing and puffing werewolf rather than a bitter bad boy, and Todd’s Duke a snarling monotonous snake. Talent was apparent, but all strained criminal theatrics rather than relaxing into the underground world of theft.

Sushi Girl is the perfect example of “good on paper,” as from the outside, it gets everything right. The cast, cinematography, and music (Shirley Bassey’s Diamond’s are Forever” secured a spot on the soundtrack) were firmly in place within the sugary canon of action-thrillerdom. The narrative structure itself was strong–a mysterious woman wearing deadly blowfish on her ta-ta will always be more than enough to keep an audience engaged. The repartee was outrageous, and the violence that included chopsticks, glass bottles, and brass knuckles, enough for me to tear at the pages of my notebook during the screening. Yet in the end if a structure has weak support it is destined to crumble–regardless of its glitzy paint job .

  • http://twitter.com/kevinkelly Kevin Kelly

    Where can we read your review of the film?

    • SnakeMajors

      I’m not a critic by profession, but you can read a review that I felt was fairly accurate to the experience I and most others in the audience at Fantasia had right here: http://www.soundonsight.org/sushi-girl-is-delirious-demented-an-emotional-zombie-film/

      Clearly, this film is not for everyone, but I feel that if you’re going to diss it, at least get your details right, and show that you know what you’re talking about, that’s all. The line in the review I mentioned above that describes the film as an “emotional zombie film” elucidates that there’s much more going on underneath the surface than Ms. Saperstein picked up on.

  • SnakeMajors

    I’m no cyber bully, Mr. Erdem. I just think she’s way off the mark on this one. I appreciate her attempt to be a bit balanced in her portrayal of the film, but I think she’s condemned it for the wrong reasons. Those details aren’t simple typos, by the way, they’re broad misunderstandings. There is a huge cultural difference between someone who credits a song to Kanye West’s shameless remixing and someone who realizes that said song is an original 1970′s Bond title track. It’s not an obscure song. The version in the film also has NO rapping by Kanye, which makes the mistaken identity more confusing, as if she couldn’t have even bothered to do a little research before writing the review. This means she’s completely unaware of the original and has a very shallow understanding of pop culture. As pop culture plays a significant part in this film’s surface level enjoyment, it’s no wonder she didn’t get a kick out of it. That would be fine if it simply wasn’t her cup of tea, but she’s demonstrating reasons why she didn’t understand it, while purporting to be an authority, hence presenting her false information. Furthermore, the other details she gets wrong show that she wasn’t very attentive and glossed over many intricacies of this film and it’s characters and the deeper meanings presented by the situation and interactions. This review simply should not be trusted for accuracy. Maybe the film requires more than one viewing, but only having seen it once, I can say there’s much more going on in this story than this critic presents, and all the details she got wrong are glaringly obvious. 

  • Tet28

    I see hardly any falsified detail. I was at the screening too, and it seems to me she got it spot on. 

  • Tet28

    Plus the Kanye thing is kinda BS to me, just because she may have mistaken versions, doesn’t mean she didn’t get the Bond allusion. It is sampled after all. 

  • SnakeMajors

    It’s not about the Bond allusion, it’s about the concept that she was too lazy to get her facts straight. As for other inaccuracies, they weren’t mom jokes that were made, and the derogatory racial slurs were, among other things, character power plays. They weren’t just thrown in there for shock value. Everything about this film was deliberate. The point I’m trying to make is that her understanding of the elements at play in this film are very surface-level and therefore miss the point. 

  • SnakeMajors

    Oh, and they weren’t pencils, they were chopsticks. Characters even refer to them directly in the dialogue. If you couldn’t remember that, you weren’t really watching the film.