dont_b_so_BBC Reviews

The Monkey King: Havoc in Heaven's Palace (2014)

Warning: The Monkey King (2014) has almost NO establishing and transitional shots or scenes!

[4/10 · 10 February 2014]

True to the Hong Kong film ethic of "stretching the dollar till it tears apart", The Monkey King (2014) tries to "re-cast" the first 8 chapters of the "Journey to West" novel (which would have needed or filled 8 features films like the Harry Potter film franchise) into the mold of Hollywood blockbusters like "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy-- but with less than one-fifth of the running time and budget of that entire trilogy.... and the result is something which finally made me realize how fans of the "Dark Material" novels felt when "The Golden Compass" (2007) film adaptation was released.

Much like "The Golden Compass" (2007), parts of the screenplay adaptation and even visual conceptualization in "The Monkey King" (2014) are understandable and even commendable-- so it never approaches the levels of outright travesty achieved by the likes of "Dragonball Evolution" (2009) or "The Last Airbender" (2010), where the casting alone beggars belief.... But whereas "The Golden Compass" (2007) has the excuse of having no "fore-runners" to look to for reference, "The Monkey King" (2014) simply makes apparent the sheer genius of earlier "Journey to the West" adaptations which adopted a firm, laser-like focus on just ONE single origin/back-story: e.g. "Havoc in Heaven" (1964) for the Monkey King and "Conquering the Demons" (2013) for Tripitaka.

And while I couldn't put my finger on what made "The Golden Compass" (2007) seem so generic and passable to me-- as I had not read "The Dark Materials" novels-- I could immediately tell what was "missing" from "The Monkey King" (2014)... there were almost NO establishing and transitional shots or scenes! Every time there was a change of scene or shots, I found myself forced to "recall" what was the "context/background" for what had just happened or what was about to happen-- only to remember I haven't actually been given enough "context/background" for whatever's happening in THIS film adaptation... it also didn't help that the lack of weight/momentousness in the movie is evenly matched by the lack of weight/momentum in the visual effects-- so I eventually gave up trying to care about this movie at all.

Even audiences who enjoyed this disjointed movie-- where "quick-cuts" were liberally used to "mask/disguise" continuity issues/errors-- were conjecturing whether at least an hour of film footage had been cut-out in the editing process? It may well be so-- but we will never see those footage because the producers simply didn't have the budget or time (patience?) to post-process them properly. As it is, the wildly varying quality of the visual effects (evident in the trailers) already reveal which parts of the production and post-production work were done in/by Asia instead of the US-- so that things can get done much "cheaper-&-faster" for a release date coinciding with the 2014 Lunar New Year Holiday... which begs the question of how paying less for lower frame-rates/details counts as getting something "cheaper-&-faster"?

The lesson that this movie teaches, which the producers of this movie (& "Dragonball Evolution", "The Last Airbender", etc.) will probably NOT learn, is that a lot of PRE-production planning is necessary for any effects-laden movie-- which is the real reason why Stephen Chow's "Conquering the Demons" (2013) started filming a year later, but was released a year earlier than "The Monkey King" (2014)-- cos no amount of post-production or editing can change the fact that you have filmed clothing flapping around inconsistently with the intended (or just plain unplanned?) direction of wind or movement....

But then again, like "The Golden Compass" (2007), astute marketing and distributing decisions have already allowed "The Monkey King" (2014) to turn a profit at the box-office (with promises of a sequel)... so the fact is, Hollywood no longer has the monopoly on "the blockbuster film as pop-corn entertainment". But while I have never grown tired of watching "Havoc in Heaven" (1964), "Conquering the Demons" (2013) or even reading Journey to the West-- because their mastery of their media (animation, live-action film and prose respectively) is such that their "set-ups" (whether slapstick, satire or melodrama) were as good as their "pay-offs"-- I don't see a reason to ever watch "The Monkey King" (2014) again... even though the cast and their performances (including a surprisingly expressive Donnie Yen) were engaging enough for me to sit through the whole thing.

Perhaps, much like Michael Bay's "Transformers" film franchise, "The Monkey King" (2014) will become some sort of commercial and technical milestone for the Chinese film industry-- but this also means that, like Michael Bay's "Transformers" film franchise, "The Monkey King" (2014) is filled with odd or ineffective cinematic "beats/moments", and therefore wasted opportunities: E.g. instead of having the classic "transformation chase-&-duel" between The Monkey King and the Heavenly Guard (Erlangshen) which served as a dramatic introduction and showcase of their transformation powers in the novel-- and was a highlight of the animation work in "Havoc in Heaven" (1964)-- the movie instead introduces the Monkey King's transformation powers in a "transformation-&-training tiff" with his fellow disciple... meh.

That's right, scripting/producing a movie by committee/consultation gives you the same nondescript product whether you are in Hong Kong or Hollywood... I mean, even the most "crazy-bad" kung-fu fantasies like the "Zu Mountain/Warriors" and the "Storm Riders/Warriors" franchises had a more discernible sense of direction/identity.

Man of Steel (2013)

I liked this movie (Man Of Steel, 2013) a little better when...

[5/10 · 24 June 2013]

...it was called Battle for Terra(2007), cos I actually CARED when the Terraformer started killing people.

...it was called Transformers (2007), cos even Michael Bay knew to show MORE than just 2 people (& 2 shades of colors) punching each other over and over again in extended action sequences.

...it was called The Hulk(2003)/The Incredible Hulk(2008), cos I didn't have to watch actors REPEATEDLY (struck a pose and) morphed into cartoon action figures and turned back into actors (to strike another pose), before morphing again into cartoon figures almost every other shot.

...it was called Independence Day(1996), cos even Roland Emmerich knew to STOP the relentless death and destruction after a successful show of force.

...it was called Superman II(1980), cos it's easier to suspend disbelief for a FEW silly but simple plots/premises than MANY stupid and convoluted ones.

...ET CETERA. ET CETERA

But too bad Zack Snyder decided to take his inspiration from...

...Bryan Singer's Superman Returns and made the sky look like it was going to rain all the time.

...Dragonball Z fight sequences without capturing much of the fun/excitement

... TV Commercials slogan and copy-writing instead of having actual dialog and characterization.

All this is faint and damning praise, of course-- still, kudos to Henry Cavill for managing to channel Christopher Reeves even more than Brandon Routh did in Superman Returns.

Tai Chi Zero (2012)

Tai Chi 0 = Something Old + Something New

[4 October 2012]

First off, I would recommend Tai Chi 0-- if only I can decide whether to recommend watching in the theaters or waiting to watch it back-to-back with its sequel on DVD... Cos most of my issues with Tai Chi 0 has to do with how it tries (& fails?) to "stand alone" as an inconclusive (inconsequential?) prequel. I mean, how would you feel if you found out that the hilariously "over-sold" trailer (in English, Mandarin and various Chinese dialects) circulating for Tai Chi 0 is actually a trailer for-- and contains footage from-- both this movie and its sequel?

It is also easy to see why Tai Chi 0 elicits such a wide variety of opinions-- it has something old and something new, and they are not so much "meshed together" as "layered on"... The old stuff is everything you would expect from an old-school kung-fu flick, and the new stuff is the latest fads in video-game aesthetics-- so depending on which way you lean, you might find as much "forced humor" (if you expected kung-fu drama) as "forced melodrama" (if you expected video-game hi-jinks). Nowhere as wacky and creative as Stephen Chow's Shaolin Soccer nor as elegant and nostalgic as Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, director Stephen Fung's Tai Chi is more of a new take on the "kung-fu film as comic-book fantasy" genre in the vein of the "Storm Riders/Warriors" franchise.

And as someone who enjoys an old-school kung-fu flick as much as the latest video games, Tai Chi 0 literally pulled me around in different directions. On the one hand, I liked that the corny 1970's convention of kung-fu actors shouting out their styles/moves now comes with animated sur-titles and graphics; on other hand, the graphical "overlay" somewhat distracts from the sheer joy of watching Sammo Hung's seasoned fight choreography being pulled off by actors who's gone through martial arts training. So for my tastes, the core story and conflicts are presented too fluffily while the visual gimmicks are sprinkled on too liberally.

Perhaps this is due to Tai Chi 0 being a prequel that sets up a main story and conflict which will only be seen in later movies-- despite a lengthy introduction of the protagonist's story arc early on, Tai Chi 0 is really about how the old master Chen and his daughter deal with the forced relocation of their village. And fortunately, veteran actor Tony Leung easily carried off the central drama of film as the old master Chen, while the newcomers simply played up their kung-fu movie stereotypes (feisty girl, dorky guy, etc). Tai Chi 0 starts hitting its stride in its 2nd half-- when this historically relevant but made-up narrative (the original Chen village, now a small town, is still around) comes to the fore-- and doesn't let up until old master Chen finally unleashes his kung-fu.

I mean, for all of Tai Chi 0's "light touch", there's no disguising the fact that this is an old-school "blood-and-gluts" kung-fu story in a historical-fantasy setting-- with 3 on-screen deaths of named characters in the first 15 minutes and another in the later half of the movie-- and had it gotten much better writing and directing, I'm sure I wouldn't have missed any of post-production stylistics one bit. Cos the final and best fight in the movie for me involved nothing more than getting Tony Leung into 2 months of Tai Chi boot camp, some good old-fashioned wire-work, and a big wind machine. But in contrast, one of my favorite bits was the protagonist running around the village like a first person RPG video gamer searching for a quest reward... See what I mean about this movie tearing me apart?

If I sound like I'm quibbling, I am.... Tai Chi 0 is quite enjoyable, if not really memorable, and does a good enough job setting up the sequel. But as a kung-fu film, it is just nowhere as coherent or satisfying as the classics-- cos where Stephen Chow or Ang Lee would take great care to introduce audiences to the "reality" of their kung-fu fantasies and set things up for dramatic/comic effect, Stephen Fung crams the protagonist's entire back-story into the first 15 minutes of the movie before dropping him into a side role-- and then randomly (cleverly?) adds glowing eyes, X-ray film perspectives and even a First-Person Sequence?!

So in the end, pardon me for submitting this review but reserving my vote until I get to see the sequel...

Space Battleship Yamato (2010)

Finally, a true "Space Battleship" movie... (i.e. more RTS than FPS)

[8/10 · 29 March 2011]

... should have been made by the people who made this "live-action" Space Battleship Yamato (2010) movie-- which is based on the Classic (first major "space opera"-- after Star Trek, before Star Wars) animated TV series of the same name , and much closer in style and content to Star Trek The Original TV Series... since it doesn't devolve into the teen-angst or "slo-mo" action of recent Hollywood blockbusters.

The source material is given many judicious "updates" which largely made sense to me from a story, if not production, stand-point: e.g. the talking robot "Analyzer" is now a "SIM" module which you can load into other devices and the aliens are now truly "alien" with technology and energy signatures which humans have difficulty detecting or understanding.... And the writing is smart enough to make light of the "old-schooled" stuff they keep-- like their costumes ("we're still wearing this?") and one-liners. In fact, there is so little "fan-service" or "sequel baiting" that non-fans probably won't realize that this is an adaptation of a 1970s TV animation series (using the ORIGINAL music)!

P.S. To anyone who thinks that the characters' reactions to the movie's apocalyptic story is unrealistic (taking time to make decisions, say farewells, mourn/salute the dead)-- just look at how real Japanese people deal with their earthquakes and tsunamis.

Owing to the fact that the Japanese "general movie audience" is not that much larger than the Japanese anime/manga audience, there is no faux issue of "re-imagining" the source material for a "new/larger" audience-- and the writers rise to the monumental task of "condensing" many epic, if episodic, story-arcs (which should have taken a trilogy, if not a series of 7/8 movies) into a single feature film... by focusing on the STORY! In fact, this movie is so tightly structured that the only really unexplained or implausible thing in it is probably all of the actors' great hair... and the secret lies in using sci-fi movie tropes (most of it actually originating from their source material), NOT explaining them-- since no amount of techno-babble will turn a plot device into reality.

Which is where, I believe, this movie will divide audiences into fans and non-fans of the source material (or sci-fi/anime in general)-- a downside of all this emphasis on story is, of course, a relative lack of characterization.... Though thankfully, anime stereotypes have at least one more dimension than their Hollywood counterparts and the casting is mostly SPOT-ON (you who believe skinny anime characters with fluffy hair do not exist in Japan, repent!) And some inevitably heavy narration and exposition which might have been risible were thankfully short, focused and well-delivered-- with a touch of self-awareness (*eye-rolling*) by the characters themselves. And as expected, veteran actors deliver their lines and inhabit their characters without batting an eyelid, while younger cast members are less convincing with their histrionics.

So while this might seem like a pretty generic space adventure to "general audiences"; it is and has always been intended as a treat for the fans. And this movie won me over for the simple fact that, after decades of Star Wars and Star Trek, it could still make me go "WOW..." every time an alien or a space-ship appeared, for all of 3/4 of a second-- because it's not what you have, it's how you use it!

For this is low-budget movie-making by Hollywood standards, so there is absolutely no "pimping" of expensive special effects-- which means that the only time you get to see the aliens/space-ships is when they are actually doing something ESSENTIAL to the plot. And sci-fi fans might also note that they got the relative speeds of capital-ships (bigger = slower) vs fighter-ships, missile-fire, warp-effects (almost instantaneous by comparison) RIGHT-- so there is no such rubbish as waiting for "visual confirmation" (which is meaningless in the vastness of space) or capital-ships "dodging" long-range fire (which would hit almost as soon as they are "detected").

All this means going back to the "bridge battles" of submarine/battleship warfare (this Yamato looks/works more like a submarine with a skeletal crew, than some cruise-boat or flying-city) which rely more on having good scripts/actors than special effects-- and people who don't think this can't be nerve-wrecking should see how they "set-up" the Yamato's SPLIT-SECOND "warp-maneouvers"!

The budgetary limits really start showing up near the end of the movie-- but if the money is lacking, the heart is not: the relatively simple yet distinct special effects design (transforming "2-stage" fighter-ships!) is always a pleasure to behold, even when very tight (or wide) shots are used in order to avoid rendering very expensive details. It may be just a few frames of CGI, but the "impact" will leave you re-playing it in your mind...

The real only disappointment for me, if any, would be how the human and environmental issues (Living with irradiated earth? Leaders making up "white lies"?) ever-present in the best of Japanese anime is left in the background-- as both the challenges and solutions presented in the story are essentially alien-related. I mean, I'm ashamed to admit to one of the more touching moments for me was when "Analyzer" finally took on its robot-form (hey, it had more lines than the "red shirts")....

Ip Man 2 (2010)

"Ip Man 2": A Movie History of Kung-Fu in Hong Kong

[8/10 · 29 April 2010]

This movie is probably the last chance to see Sammo Hung, & maybe Donnie Yen (barring his next movie "The Legend/Return of Chen Zhen"), in a hard-hitting modern-era fight/action movie (unless you're happy to have their stunt-doubles do the kicking/jumping)-- and together they have made a RESOUNDING statement on the endless bickering over Chinese martial arts (too few rules: e.g. rely on the skills/ goodwill of a master to "hold back" dangerous moves, etc.) vs. Western/modern stage/ring-fights-(too many rules: e.g. disallow dangerous moves, etc.)...

"Ip Man 2" may not be a historical movie, but it is easily THE film for introducing the uninitiated into the world of (Hong Kong) Kung-Fu Movies-- as it depicts Ip Man (successor of the Wing Chun fighting-style from Fo-shan, China) going through the "101" steps of setting up a martial arts school in 1950's Hong Kong. The old-school traditions and period settings are most authentic, despite many characters/events being largely fictional-- I mean, Ip Man (and his family) hasn't really aged even though the first movie starts in 1937 and "Ip Man 2" starts in 1950....

As a result of the somewhat meandering plot-line (Kung-Fu School "101"), "Ip Man 2" is so stuffed with side plots and characters that the drama sometimes seems diluted/unfocused-- but that means that it is also chock full of fights, lines, characters and even messages for audiences to catch/analyze (and rant/rave about)!

Familiarity with the first movie ("Ip Man", 2008) is not required-- though it helps as there were better (back-)stories and characterizations.... While the first movie could be considered a "melodrama with Kung-Fu", "Ip Man 2" is more about "Kung-Fu with melodrama"-- so returning characters and plot-points mostly play inconsequential parts (which are further reduced in the final cut), as a sort of bonus for people who "know".

But I should first WARN all "politically correct" audiences raised after the 1980s/ Cold War, that the 2 main Caucasian speaking roles are r@cist b@stards. The director promised to give Darren Shahlavi's character a back-story-- but that was apparently lost in the final cut, so kudos to him for virtually snarling out every line! No, don't try to tell me those r@cist b@stards are "unrealistic"-- unless you mean "formulaic/stereotypical", which is not the same thing.

On the other hand, audiences "nostalgic" for post-WW2 Asia-- and the rocky relationships between "natives" vs. their colonial masters (complete with some really OLD-fashioned accents and mannerisms)-- will enjoy the loving and lively way "Ip Man 2" runs through the gamut of 1950's Hong Kong (Kung Fu) movie clichés. And the first half of the movie has all the rustic charms of a black-and-white (Hong Kong) movie-- even as Ip Man is put through an entire series of creatively choreographed tag-team fights-- until things just get downright SERIOUS (& r@cist), with the appearance of Darren Shahlavi.

And this is where it actually helps NOT to have seen the first movie.... Apart from the predictability of the narrative structure, anyone "broken-in" by the first movie is unlikely to sit up and start gawking-- until the Sammo Hung vs. Donnie Yen table-top fight where Sammo Hung matches Donnie Yen blow-for-blow! If Donnie Yen plays the even-tempered, family-oriented "everyman", then Sammo Hung plays the ill-tempered, business-minded "everyman"-- with apparently inscrutable but passionate performances ("holding up" every close-up with just their eyes)-- both earning the audiences' respect, simply because they know when to GIVE it.

But as far as I'm concerned, the Darren Shahlavi vs. Sammo Hung ring-fight is the only "real" fight in this movie-- where Darren Shahlavi acts like such an @sshole, that you'll want to cheer Sammo every time he scores a hit. Cos when Sammo Hung gasps: "If it's an insult to Chinese martial arts-- then NO!", everyone who knows how senior he is in the industry (barring the likes of 70+ Lau Kar Leung) starts choking up.

Stage/ring-fights have never been filmed this way before-- because Sammo Hung has never directed AND performed them this way. If this movie lacked drama in the story/character department, there is plenty of it in the fights-- created with the kind of crazy camera-work and solid stunt-work that Hollywood can only imitated with CGI. Of course, it also helps that "Ip Man 2" is an Asian film made for Asian audiences, so the "logic/flow" of the fights is NOT constantly interrupted by "glamor shots"-- unlike say, Jet Li's Fearless, where Ronnie Yu hired Caucasian film-editors to edit the fights (cos it had Western investors/investment).

So if the fight choreography went "over your head", you either don't "get into" Kung Fu/martial arts movies enough... or just need to re-watch it to appreciate Sammo Hung's demanding fight "logic" (with "full" speed-and-contact) and "motion" camera (with medium-to-close "tracking" shots)-- which puts you "right there" and lets you see/feel HOW each attack/defense follows through. Where "Ip Man" felt like Donnie Yen having his say on martial arts ("Wu-shu") and the martial ethic ("Wu-de"), "Ip Man 2" feels more like Sammo Hung's having his say... about martial arts/artists obsessing over speed/strength/etc. instead of attacking/protecting the "CENTER-LINE".

And this is what makes the final fight with Darren Shahlavi vs. Donnie Yen (fighting as if he's been "possessed" by Sammo Hung) so remarkable-- showing not only the skills/techniques of actual martial artists, but also the employment/embodiment of actual martial arts principles... OVER form.

Like the first movie, "Ip Man 2" works as a mainstream/commercial movie-- but really shines as a Kung Fu/martial arts movie with many powerful (if old-fashioned) messages about the practice of martial arts and the martial ethic, which is the mark of a TRUE Kung Fu/martial arts movie.

Little Big Soldier (2010)

To Live in Peace, or Die with Dignity-- the "Laugh-tears" of a Little Big Soldier

[8/10 · 1 March 2010]

Little Big Soldier-- the only Jackie Chan movie that got me (& the audience I was with) laughing AND crying-- is easily the best of the Jackie's "legacy" projects, where he makes a point of taking on more mature/dramatic roles and working with more industry novices/newcomers. And despite a nondescript trailer lacking in any visual/action eye-candy and lukewarm previews from critics who didn't know what to expect, audience word-of-mouth has slowly but surely carried the movie to box-office success.

Based on Jackie's concept for a war-time "frenemy" road-movie, this is the closest he has ever come to making an "Indie" comedy, where the communication of the story/concept always takes precedence over the presentation of visual/action set-pieces. There is no doubt that Jackie's effortless acting and antics carried the film-- but it is also sensibly supported by a story/script from the newcomer director-cum-writer Ding Sheng, who knew how to flesh out the concept (& so earn his place as director) by adopting the setting of China's "Warring States" era.

As a TV commercial-turned-movie director, Ding Sheng instinctively trusted himself (& the audience) to get a "point/beat" within a precisely-framed 3-second shot (instead of those wide, sweeping or lingering shots done-to-death by cinematographers or MTV-producers turned directors)-- making much of the "foreshadowing" and "reveals" strangely subtle for an action-comedy. So much so that some critics will inevitably lose the plot... because true to the road-movie convention, there are many "pop-up" cameo-roles whose appearance/plot-lines are NOT explained-- except maybe with a 3-second shot (or a one-liner)-- all of whom are inconsequential on their own, but serve to add spice as well as depth to the story/characters.

Not to mention that readers of sub-titles might also miss the bits of cultural references/symbolism littered throughout the film... like the irony of a royalty who quotes classical poetry from memory, but doesn't know the plant from which rice is grown-- or the fact that calling someone a "little person" is one of the oldest/gravest insults in Chinese culture.

The hodgepodge of characters and plot-points sounds like a recipe for disaster, but the "low-tech" animation of some opening-titles and a flurry of short opening-scenes quickly and firmly sets the tone for a light-hearted fable/satire of a dark age-- so much so that the apparently rambling dialog and wildly varying accents (including one unintelligible language) seemed quite natural to it. In fact, a result of this movie following the "action-in-service-of-story/character" principle was that I frequently wanted to get past the action sequences and get on the story/dialog (a prequel/sequel would be nice...)-- so here is an "advanced warning" with spoilers: don't watch this movie if you don't want to see Jackie Chan as...

*SPOILERS START SPOILERS*

...a brazen coward who can't fight to save his own life. The only thing Jackie Chan hurt making this movie was his finger-- and the most impressive skill Jackie Chan showed was his singing.

But Jackie Chan is also the only one who could have made a bumbling rogue so endearing and hold this poignant period action-comedy together-- even edging out similar fare from Stephen Chow (who is more wacky than endearing) and wanna-bes like Zhang Yimou (who is more theatrical than comical) simply in terms of "laugh-tears". So much so that the whole theater burst out laughing even as his character breaks down for the only time in the movie-- because it was just such a "common/banal" result of war. In fact, there wasn't a single gag or joke that didn't add a little more to the story/characters-- so another thumbs-up for applying the "gags-in-service-of-story/character" principle.

And the "turnabout" ending of the movie is just icing on the cake-- being gently foreshadowed (it is pretty obvious that this is a "message" movie), it provides even more food for thought... and brings to fore the existential question faced by the Little Big Soldier: "to live in peace, or die with dignity"? But whether you agree with the ending/choice of the Little Big Soldier, the "out-takes" presented during the end-credits (a feature of most Jackie Chan movies) are there to help you "deconstruct" the movie with further hilarity-- and no one in my theater even tried to leave, until we were sure that the end-credits were absolutely over.

*SPOILERS END SPOILERS*

There isn't anything revolutionary in Little Big Soldier (except maybe personally for Jackie Chan as well as the novices/newcomers involved), but thanks heavens that the current generation of Chinese/HK directors is not asking audiences to condone shaky story-telling for the sake of some shiny set-pieces (like Hollywood-wannabes Zhang Yimou, John Woo, etc.). And I'll willingly pay to watch any movie that does NOT need me to switch off my brains before it can make me laugh/cry.

Kin-dza-dza! (1986)

The "Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie...

[10/10 · 14 January 2010]

... should have been made by the people who made Kin Dza Dza-- which is very much in the style/genre of the Hitch-Hiker's books, radio, and TV series created by Douglas Adams (but not the Hollywood movie), since they all have the guts AND the smarts to lampoon their own culture/ civilization.

The difference being, instead of a quintessential Brit (Arthur Dent of the books, radio and TV series-- not the movie), Kin Dza Dza features a quintessential Russian of the late Soviet Era who is always acting tough and trying to bluff his way through every alien situation-- all the while burning through his only trade-able resource by the sheer absent-minded force of habit. Not to mention that what got our protagonist into trouble in the first place, was his hubris in trying to call the bluff of an alien-- when he really should be getting some macaroni for the missus....

And true to his character, he continues making clever AND bad decision throughout the movie with an imperturbable air of irritation and authority. Oh, and there's a Georgian who gets caught up in the sequence of events, even though everyone keeps advising the Russian to dump him.

Ah, the overt racism that the Soviets had to live with in an alien world-- where everyone looks no different from them-- forcing them to make a living as caricatured entertainment for the aliens.... But this is just the first part of the movie! The Soviets eventually figure out how to outsmart the mind-reading aliens-- who naturally never allow themselves think of the truth-- by thinking up bad moves which the aliens immediately act on, since they are so used to second-guessing people.

Sigh, those good old days of satirical sci-fi, before people started losing the ability to look AND laugh at themselves-- highly recommended to anyone who still knows what satire is.

Bodyguards and Assassins (2009)

Twisting the Threads into a Rope

[6/10 · 17 December 2009]

How do you make a movie based on a known/historical event worth anyone's while, when the final outcome is already well-established? Well, the answer that "Bodyguards & Assassins" provides is: not "with lots of new twists", but "with lots of heart". That's right, this is fully-commercialized blockbuster film-making at its most sincere-- where the previews were reporting how often it made test audiences cry.

I mean, with the casting of 12 named stars (each of whom could have headlined their own movie), the building of a full-scaled outdoor historical set, and an array of prize-winning martial-artists/ action-choreographers, etc.-- this film is about as "gimmicky" and "review-proof" as movies can get. But the cast strives to put their roles before their persona and become masters of the "wordless stare", the set stays quietly in the background without any panoramic sweeps of the camera, and the fighting is mostly shown in short, brutal bursts... which means audiences unwilling to read subtitles or do some research should just skip it-- since it packs an emotional punch rather than a visual one.

Make no mistake,"Bodyguards & Assassins" is almost the complete antithesis of the "mindless action movie" (the "thoughtful" action movie?)-- in fact, action sequences get "cut-off" at every opportunity just to remind you who and what these people are fighting for... so that the violence is always awashed with the tragedy, not thrill, of witnessing the "march of history" (as historical fiction, there's no real question as to who lives and who dies in the end).

Having realized from the box-office and critical success of "The Warlords" (2007) that the Chinese audience is a thinking one (i.e. Chinese blockbusters can be mentally "engaging"), the production team decided to pack a quintessentially Chinese socio-political melodrama into a historical tear-jerking actioner-- presenting the events of 15 October 1905, Hong Kong as the bitter fuse that sparked off the next 6 consecutive years of rebellions (occuring after end of the movie) leading to the fall of the Qing Dynasty. In fact, the script is so solid that you might find yourself wanting more of the drama than the action-- because the movie is paced/ structured as an unrelenting series of ever-tightening expositions (& related fighting) that reveals more and more about the people and the "fin de siecle" that is the real heart of this film... before all the build-up is gently released with a teary eye and a few end-titles.

Such an approach should have been doomed from the start, but the accomplished film-makers (much like the historical figures in the movie) mostly managed to weave all the disparate elements into an ensemble act that is not dominated or resolved by "leave-your-brain-at-the-door" action set-pieces or CGI eye-candy. The historical setting called up a whole host of period clichés, while the varied casting and side-stories drew attention to any uneven acting and editing-- but the expert directing and sharp dialog made 3-dimensional characters out of 2-dimensional stereotypes, while veteran actors Tony Leung Ka-Fai and Wang Xue-Qi ably anchored the film as a rhetoric-spewing revolutionary ("The day of reckoning is here!") and his reluctant financial-backer ("how much money do you need this time?"). There are some production flaws with less-than perfect make-up, CGI, etc.-- which are expected (& understandable) in Asian productions... but there is also an air of "authenticity".

So this is an "action" movie to watch, if you feel like having a good cry-- over all the little people who contributed to the success of the 1911 Revolution... unless you actually need the movie to tell you who Sun Yat-sen is, which means you are not really its target audience. This is Chinese cinema going back to its good old roots of tapping into the collective memory of its blood-stained history-- and digging out a few more shades of gray.

The Storm Warriors (2009)

Storm Warriors-- THE "Magic-(Kung)Fu" Comic-Book Movie

[4/10 · 9 December 2009]

Green-screened movies and manga/ anime (graphic-novel/ cartoon) adaptations are a dime a dozen these days-- so what makes "Storm Warriors" (based on a Hong Kong "wuxia" comic series) any different? Well, unlike Hollywood movie adaptations which tend to tone/ dumb things down for wider/ mainstream appeal, or Japan movie adaptations which try to stuff all the original story/ characters in, Hong Kong movie adaptations are generally about entertaining their fan-base-- even at the risk of becoming self-referential/ indulgent "B"-movies.

And the "magic-(kung)fu" style/ stance aptly known as "Mastery of Ten Thousand Swords" shows up right at the beginning, as if Hong Kong/Chinese cinema is staking its claim as the rightful home of "magic-(kung)fu" movies. Jedi Knights can only ape, but never muster up, THIS much style.

That's right, "Storm Warriors" is an unabashed attempt at THE "magic-(kung)fu" comic-book movie-- complete with comically symbolic names and philosophical kungfu-babble, as well as the requisite series of achingly slow 2-minute "power-ups/ stand-offs" followed by dizzyingly fast 2-second "fights/ contacts", etc.. By starting right at the END of the story, "Storm Warriors" shrewdly (shamelessly?) avoids any semblance of story-telling or scale... in favor of merely showcasing the "end-game" battles that are being fought-- with NO explanations for the uninitiated.

And unlike its prequel "Storm Riders", which tried semi-successfully to make a "realistic/ conventional" movie based on an earlier story-arc in the same Hong Kong comic series, this movie simply aims to realize the experience of reading/ re-imagining its "wuxia" battles-- with frequent "fades-to-black", extreme close-ups and closely-edited montages... and once I realized/ accepted I was watching a manga/ comic-in-motion, I actually had fun "interpreting/ analyzing" each "panel".

In other words, just go and do your own research if you didn't "get it"... and if you didn't have fun watching it, you're obviously not its target audience-- "wuxia" fans waiting to see the next stage in the cinematic realization of "magic-(kung)fu" battles (the opening "Mastery of Ten Thousand Swords" is now CANON in "wuxia"-fantasy cinema). Never mind if you missed (like I did) the "magic-(kung)fu" movie craze started by the "Buddha Palm" in the 1960s (filmed in black-and-white) or the "Warriors of Zu Mountain" in the 1980s (filmed with wire-fu)-- thanks to the advances in green-screen and CGI technology, "Storm Warriors" is able to show you some of the wild "magic-(kung)fu" battles envisioned by generations of "wuxia"novelists/artists with all their crazy chi/energy.

Of course, you can fault the directors/ writers for the lack of story/ character development-- or just blame it on comic fans who already know the story/ characters (the comic series ended ages ago), as well as "wuxia" genre fans who will able to figure it out (most of it "wuxia" clichés), or even the investors who wouldn't put up the money for a 9-hour trilogy upfront.... But you can certainly see where most of the money went-- though I wished more of it was spent fleshing out the first half of the movie, instead of endlessly "leveling-up" in the second (where budget limitations really show).

Personally, I admire the producers'/ directors' guts (foolhardiness?) in splurging on the EFFECTS and scrimping on the script (instead of the other way round like most films with a tight budget). Eg. The lighting/ texture of CGI-background/effects matches with the live-action actors so well/ evenly that it usually does NOT distract/ detract from the movie (always the highest compliment for CGI); and the choice/ ability to light/ color the film with "natural/ ambient" light is a welcomed sight for sore eyes strained by heavily color-corrected sci-fi/ fantasy movies (hiding their CGI in "soft sepia", "cool blue", etc.)-- so "Storm Warriors" aimed rather low, and mostly hit its mark.

In short, this movie is nothing if not "pulp/cult", and a "guilty pleasure" at that too-- the story/ characters may not resonate, but the visuals can certainly be relished... depending on how you liked them. For me, there were at least 2 things (no, not the two male leads) that they got right: "Mastery of Ten Thousand Swords" at the very beginning, and "Capricious Dance of the Demons" at the very end-- but there was really a lot of "filler" to get through...

City of Life and Death (2009)

Bearing Witness... to the City of Life and Death

[10/10 · 1 June 2009]

There is a harrowing slow-motion sequence in City of Life and Death which encapsulates the experience of this movie for me-- the shot of a few women in an attic looking up as they realize something dreadful is happening outside, followed by a Japanese soldier getting up to inspect his "work" under the open sky. In this movie, the audience is simply (and cruelly) asked to "bear witness" to a Conquest-in-progress-- without (the comfort of) being able to understand or do anything about it. And the basic nature of Conquest is, now as always, "revelling on the ruins of your enemies' civilization" (to paraphrase the director).

So while the film is framed around the "Safety Zone" established (by John Rabe, Minnie Vautrin, etc.) for the first month or so during the conquest of Nanjing(Nanking) in World War II, the establishment & workings of the Safety Zone is hardly the focus of the movie. Which means, unfortunately for gore-hounds and hate-mongers, that the scope of the film is limited when it comes to events happening outside the Safety Zone, e.g. the head-chopping competition reported like a sports series in Japanese newspapers-- but perhaps the Japanese should be the ones making movies about their head-chopping champions.

In other words, this is one of those art-house "war movies" (no, "Schindler's List" doesn't count-- try "La Battaglia di Algeri") which will probably disappoint all kinds of people from action-junkies to history-buffs. And as the movie is filmed in Japanese, English, German and a variety of Chinese dialects, not to mention Mandarin spoken with various accents, only "speed-readers" with an interest in art-house films should give it a try-- as most audiences will be reading/needing subtitles most of the time.

This is because this movie is a self-declared memorial (from the film's opening titles) to the victims of Nanjing, 1937-- filled with broken bodies and minds, but also imbued with a life-loving spirit. It may be roughly divided into 3 sections which I will call (from the invaders' viewpoint) "Shock and Awe", "Rest and Recreation" and "Mission Accomplished"-- or if you prefer, "The Men", "The Women" and "The Future". The movie proceeds chronologically, but there is no real narrative flow to speak of as the audience is put into the shoes of various characters who are not privy to the "big picture". There is also no real dramatic or character development to speak of, since most these characters are just trying to stay sane or alive. And in this way, the movie quietly rises above most genre films (including "war movies")-- because every single frame of it (down to the fictional "end-credits") is pure cinema.

From the realistically "mute" sound-scape barely scored with any music-- coupled with the crystal-clear sounds of "live" shots and explosions... to the realistically "smokey" landscape adjusted to monochrome (it was filmed in full color)-- catching every grain of dust/dirt wandering in and out of focus. Every shot is a window into the blasted hell-scape of Nanking. And with very little opportunity for emoting and "acting", every single cameos (like the Caucasian roles-- would love to see a movie about Minnie Vautrin) are given unforgettably sharp and natural characterizations.

The first half-hour or so of the film presents the invaders in "Shock and Awe" mode, as they systematically "mop up" all the resistance and the men in Nanjing-- giving the audience a chance to take a long, hard look at the faces of the refugees/ prisoners-of-war. However, the main bulk of the film shows the invaders in "Rest and Recreation" mode, having fun like the youths that they are-- even at the expense of the women in the Safety Zone. The film concludes with a short epilogue after the collapse of the Safety Zone, when the invaders take full control and celebrate their "Mission Accomplished"-- but with a symbolic twist at the end shows who really had the last, bitter laugh.

The fact that this film was released in Mainland China, which doesn't have a movie-rating system, may give some the impression that it was made for mainstream or "general" audiences-- but it's probably just that Chinese parents are expected to do a bit more "homework". So apart than sharing my feelings about this film, I would give potential audiences a word or two of advice:

1) Watch the director Lu Chuan's earlier films like "The Mountain Patrol" first to get a taste of his film style/ language-- as his is a kind of neo-realism or cinema verite (completely different from the Danish Dogme films or "Reality TV") designed to immerse the audience in the film environment, rather than to convey any plot or character. To make the most out of a mountain of research, the director has simply chosen a few significant historical events (and created a few fictional "composite" characters for them)-- to make the audience "live through" the winter of 1937 in Nanking.

2) Do a little research on what was happening in 1937, (as well as the Chinese Army's last stand in Shanghai, before they gave up China's then-capital Nanking), to get a historical perspective of what happened before and during the events in film-- with some basic historical background in mind, it will be easier to understand what is being conveyed by each shot or scene-- this film is not a substitute for historical research and the director certainly does not claim to have the last word on Nanjing.

...

**SPOILERS**

...

P.S. If you didn't get all of the symbolism in the last scene-- one of them is "Fatman and Little Boy".

The Dark Knight (2008)

Amazing Work... for a Serious Superhero Movie

[7/10 · 3 April 2009]

The Serious Superhero Movie Movement has been going on for a while... from the Hulk reboots to the X-men franchise-- but none of them is anywhere as good as the Dark Knight (2008). Packed with solid production values and strong dramatic performances, the deal is sealed by the Seriously Psychotic Joker Character of Heath Ledger, who inspires equal amounts of fear and hate through the sheer unhinged power of his performance.

Written & directed more like a crime drama involving a serious vigilante rather than a comic superhero, the film manages to create and maintain an amazingly consistent and convincing pace and atmosphere. Gotham City feels like a real city threatened by crime although we never really see the crime syndicates and dirty cops at work; and the Joker feels like a criminal genius even though his level of dementia could never have allowed him to plan and lead like a crime boss. So the heightened level of realism can sometimes work against itself in places where the film still applied "superhero movie logic/ conventions"-- i.e. where superheroes/ criminals get things done too easily/ conveniently. I mean, I can accept that all of Batman's gadgets work-- but enter and leave Chinese airspace without authorization? Err, the last American aircraft that tried it in 2001 was captured on Hainan Island.

Doesn't really break any genre conventions-- the characters are still stereotypes despite the great characterizations, and the imaginative script still led to an ending stinking of post-cold war propaganda ("we need a common enemy/threat to unite us", blah X 3 is not really that smart/ meaningful-- see Watchmen, etc.)-- but it certainly made for a great ride.

Watchmen (2009)

Substance saves Style... barely

[5/10 · 8 March 2009]

This comment is written for 3 groups of audiences:

1) To all Zack Snyder (& all MTV-style movie) fans-- still BORED the hell out of me and made me want to quit the movie;

2) To all "Watchmen" (the graphic novel) fans-- LOVED the characters, concepts, etc.-- which totally "saved" the movie for me.

3) To all casual movie audiences-- it might be really good FOR a "Watchmen" adaptation or sci-fi/super-hero movie, but the last time I would go see a movie (or rate it highly) SOLELY for its source material or CGI was more than 10 years ago.

Yes, it's THAT obvious-- "Watchmen" is yet another film where the source material is adapted in a good enough way, WITHOUT making it a good enough film. The pacing is odd, the climaxes are off, blah X 3. I can so understand why some audiences feel "undecided", "meh" or even "torn" about the film.... To Zack Snyder-- "slo-mo/ panning/ etc." alone does not make a scene more exciting/ important/ beautiful/ etc., you need to "set it up" (with directing/ scripting/ acting/ etc.).

So there is only 1 really good thing I can say about this movie-- it made me want to read the graphic novel (which I haven't). Which means it gets a 5/10 (="meh/undecided/torn") from me, which is really for the creators of the graphic novel and not the movie-- because a film should be more than merely an advertisement or detailed "rendering" of its source material.

Ip Man (2008)

"Wing Chun, Ip Man."-- Donnie Yen.

[9/10 · 18 December 2008]

No wonder Ip Chun (Ip Man's son, consultant to this movie) was so pleased-- from the twinkle in his eyes to the lifting of his feet, Donnie Yen inhabits this movie like he is possessed by Ip Man. And as Ip Man himself explains early in the movie: "the key is the person."

Revolving around the central (true) event of Ip Man rejecting the Japanese's "request" to train their soldiers when they occupied China and eventually sparring with them, this is essentially a genre movie built around the martial arts set-piece (Wing Chun vs Karate, see the trailer) "exploding" mid-way through.

And what a movie they have built up around their central show-piece! Taking on the common martial arts/Kung Fu Movie theme of "what can one martial artist do against a turbulent world/time?" (one of the movie's promotional tag-lines), the story "hook" is not whether Ip Man will win-- but rather when he will be forced to fight and what would happen when he does. And the notable level of acting, scripting, production, etc. --highlighting not only Ip Man but also the plight of his family, friends and townsmen-- really ramps up the drama and "heart" for audiences who might not care for the genre. One evidence for this is how "Ip Man" garnered 12 nominations for the 2009 HK Film Awards in both the acting/directing and technical categories-- though it really stands out as a killer Kung-Fu Film, and consequently won for Best Action Director and Best Film.

In short, "Ip Man" is quite a good ("mainstream") movie-- but a great martial arts/Kung Fu (not "action", as Donnie Yen points out during interviews) movie. And some telling numbers explain why:

There are around 12 fights or so (depending on how you count them) evenly spaced throughout the film, with Donnie Yen in almost half of them-- with 3 or so weapon fights (not counting guns) and 5 or so group fights (anything with more than 2 people)-- which is why this is a martial arts movie, and not an "action" movie (no explosions, chases, shoot-outs, etc.). The shortest fight takes about 10 seconds and his longest runs around 2 minutes-- which gels with Donnie Yen's belief that real people fight to win and don't "pose, talk, fight, run, and... pose, talk, fight, run and...". Together with the miscellaneous violence (guns, etc.), the audience is virtually given an "adrenaline shot" every 5 minutes or so to give audiences something to laugh, cry or even cheer about.

Of course, it also inspired in me a new-found respect for Wing Chun (Ip Man's school of martial arts)-- as well as action director Sammo Hung's "tight" choreography and camera-work (in China/HK, action directors control the camera as well as direct the actors). The close-to-mid range shots make it easier to "catch" the stunt doubles... but just like everything else in the movie-- blink and you'll miss it!

For much like Wing Chun, everything in this movie get to the point quickly-- so that at over 100 minutes, the movie feels much too short.... But thank you, Wilson Yip (the director), for respecting the audience and not belaboring the "message"-- for a movie that is basically a war/ nationalist melodrama, it manages to unfold as elegantly as Ip Man's character (& Donnie Yen's acting).

But for those who care about the "downside": this movie is only loosely "based on" Ip Man's life-- in that the earlier parts is a dramatization of various accounts, the middle section is highly exaggerated (1-to-1 vs many-to-1 sparring), and the end is completely fictional (read: lead to an end-fight). And as a "World War II side-story" about a simple people in a small place (Foshan, China), there are only a few lines of text and transitional scenes depicting the Japanese invasion/occupation of Foshan (the director didn't have the budget to show how Foshan lost 3/4 of its population)-- though it manages to be quite effective, especially for those already familiar with the history. But those craving more creativity, complexity or completeness in this movie will be disappointed-- especially by the rather haphazard way the movie "wraps up" Ip Man's life at the end (when it wasn't certain whether/how a sequel would be made).

Whatever the quibble, "Ip Man" heralds a break-though in realism for "grounded" martial arts/ Wushu movies; the way "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" heralded a break-through in surrealism for "floating" martial arts/Wuxia movies. It is clearly made for fans of Wing Chun and Kung Fu Movies-- and it makes no apologies for that (thank goodness for no "foreign" investors-- though it means that this movie is unlikely to get foreign distribution).

Red Cliff (2008)

John Woo's "Chi Bi": Inspired by History, Influenced by the "Classics"-- but Made Just for "Fun"

[3/10 · 28 July 2008]

I usually try to take note of movie publicity because expectations justifiably and inevitably shapes appreciation-- but I didn't "connect the dots" when John Woo said he wanted to make an "upbeat" movie about the historical battle at Chi Bi (literally "Red Cliff", by the Yangtze River) in the winter of 208 CE and aimed to reach the level of "Troy" (2004). I mean, how do you make an "upbeat" war/historical movie unless it is some kind of fantasy or comedy, where the violence/politics won't really trouble you? And apart from the size of its production and budget, Troy doesn't really set any admirable standard in film-making....

In short, I found this movie "interesting", though neither "enjoyable" or "unbearable". So this movie may be worth your time/ money if you want to see John Woo have "fun" with a historical event or the sight of certain actors in period costume/roles -- just don't expect a new movie "classic" (even the "fun" or comedy is nothing special) or John Woo to rise above his "level" ("gun-fight" style editing). This is because, having some idea about the events at Chi Bi, I couldn't help noticing that John Woo's "Chi Bi" doesn't really "build on", let alone "measure up to", the prevailing "classics" inspired/influenced by the historical battle-- i.e. the 14th century novel (Romance of the Three Kingdoms) still re-printed annually, the 1990s CCTV drama series based on the novel (now on DVD), or the computer/video games (Dynasty Warriors, etc.) currently in their 10+n'th versions, etc..

That is to say, it doesn't have the epic sense of tight plotting in the novel, rounded characterization in the TV series or audacious fun of the games, etc.-- and for almost every good or workable new idea in the movie and there is some kind of "mis-step" which undermines it, so that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. This might have something to do with the way John Woo went around commissioning separate scripts (NOT re-writes) for the movie and then "combining" the bits that he liked (no legal/copyright issue here, since the writers were all duly paid and credited) right up till the time shooting was scheduled to begin-- when Chow Yun-Fat purportedly left the production because he did not have a complete script. For example:

*WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD*

1) Zhuge Liang dusting himself off in Sun Quan's court and raising a cloud of dust-- would have shown how far and fast he had traveled, but only showed that he was too scatter-brained to dust himself off properly before entering.

2) Zhou Yu stopping military training to listen to a flute-- would have shown how highly he regarded music, but also made his military training look sloppy.

3) Sun Quan hunting a tiger-- would have shown the hunter's courage, if only there was the budget or effects to show a sufficiently fearsome tiger.

4) Liu Bei making shoes for his sworn-brothers and saying he's "used to it"-- would have shown his humble beginnings as a shoe-maker, except what does being "used to it" mean?

5) & so on and so forth....

If this sounds like a bad case of mixing Hollywood practices with the HK directors' habit of "shooting from the hip" or simply John Woo "biting off more than he can chew"-- well, it shows in the lack of an established sense of "flow", "scale" or "depth". The scenes move from point A to C and characters X to Z in a way that feels like a series of movie highlights, with the overall result resembling more the kind of costume drama commonly produced by the Chinese film industry rather than any significant milestone (other than the size of its production and budget) in Chinese movie-making. Not that old-fashioned (HK/John Woo-styled) Chinese costume drama is necessarily a bad thing, of course-- I mean, it's literally asking to be laughed at/ spoofed (the "humor" is that obvious).

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The Monster-Movie Version of Hulk

[5/10 · 17 June 2008]

This for me was the live-action MTV-styled re-make of the old campy cartoon version of Hulk. It essentially consists of 3 action sequences heavily underscored with music that tells the audience what they should feel, interspersed with exposition scenes so basic that the cast (with the likes of William Hurt, Edward Norton, etc.) can't really do anything with it-- complete with a predictable plot that makes all the other summer blockbuster movies of 2008 look smart by comparison.

But were the action sequences worth it? I'd say it yes, if that's the only thing you came for (and I admit I loved the "Hulk Smash!" bit). I didn't even mind clock-watching in-between the action sequences when the phoned-in (un)dramatic performances made me groan-- at my age I am no longer such a fan of the cartoon Hulk or the campy characterizations in this movie.

So this is almost the exact opposite of the moody old live-action TV series or Ang Lee's 2003 movie version of Hulk, where Banner spends more time in human than in Hulk form and you get some kind of Jekyll-and-Hyde drama. The 2008 Hulk is Frankestein-styled movie, where you go just to watch the monster do his stuff, and any drama is directed MTV style so as not to slow the movie down.

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

Kung Fu Panda-- A Worthy Addition to the Kung Fu Movie Genre

[8/10 · 10 June 2008]

Watching this movie should easily explain why the Kung Fu Movie Genre simply refuses to die ever since movie technology was brought into China in late 1910s-- Kung Fu is essentially about self-cultivation, and so usually involves a human-interest story no matter how simple or complicated the plot is. And as others have noted, despite the lack of any real originality (Kung Fu Animals have been long existed in Chinese fantasy literature/ animation, see 1965's "Uproar in Heaven")-- Kung Fu Panda is done with such style and skill (or the Chinese would say, "Kung Fu") that it easily explains, again, why the Kung Fu Movie Genre simply refuses to die.

In a word, the whole "Kung Fu Animals-imitating-humans-imitating-Animal styles Kung Fu" gimmick WORKED (not to mention the comical sight of a Panda imitating other animals)-- because I was enjoying the detail and complexity of the Kung Fu Animation in much the same way I would enjoy the athleticism and aesthetics of real-life Kung Fu Action. And unlike some western attempts at Kung Fu Movies (most recently, The Forbidden Kingdom), Kung Fu Panda suffered less of the awkwardness in mixing foreign languages/ characters with Chinese languages/ characters-- because it is populated solely by animals (Peace Valley is basically a poultry & pig farm/ community) and consistently set in fantasy/ mythical China (duh, there are Kung Fu Animals...).

So I will give Kung Fu Panda the honor of rating it as a Kung Fu Movie-- being rated "G" (in most Asian countries, "PG" in most western countries) is no excuse. MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS follow:

1) Most Missed-Opportunity Fight Scenes: Oogway vs. Tai Lung, Tai Lung vs. Peace Valley, and all the other "flashback" fight scenes-- we never really get to see how amazing or dangerous Oogway or Tai Lung can be.

2) Most Spectacular Fight Scene: Tai Lung vs. the Rhinoes-- things were blowing up and crashing down in a way which would have made Tsui Hark & Stephen Chow proud.

3) Most Well-Choreographed Fight Scene: Po vs. Sifu-- truly a compendium of some of the best chopsticks moves in the Kung Fu Movie Genre.

4) Most Awesome Fight Scene: the Furious Five vs. Tai Lung-- it was just awesome to see the Furious Five teaming up in their only fight scene (the sparring scenes don't count), which would have been perfect if they had a chance to do Formation Fighting.

5) Most Fearsome Fight Scene: Tai Lung vs. Sifu-- the only "serious" fight in the movie, because both fighters were able AND willing to kill each other. Sifu would have died if this movie was made for an western adult audience (or made for/ by the Chinese).

6) Most Predictable Fight Scene: Tai Lung vs Po-- Po defeating Tai Lung with the use of natural and environmental advantages (ala Jackie Chan) actually took the "edge" off this climatic fight in favor of comic relief and made it look too easy for Po (Tai Lung has beaten everyone else), so much so that the final blow looks questionable. It might have worked with a (Hong Kong, not US) Jackie Chan or Stephen Chow for the right balance of comedy & drama, but Jack Black's style of (over-)cockiness diminished any real sense of danger for me.

7) Most Unexpectedly Beautiful Scenes: the 2-D Opening Sequence-- because the "distorted" perspectives of ink-painting and shadow puppetry aesthetics actually work better in 2-D; and the almost monochromatic "passing" of Oogway-- because it was SO simple.

8) Most Unexpectedly Funny Scenes: "I wish my mouth was bigger" Noodle-scene, "Maybe you should have another look" Acupuncture-scene, and almost every one of the precious few moments given to Mantis (or any of the Kung Fu Masters at the temple)-- it was just unusually comical having them actually act/ talk "normally" (real Kung Fu Masters are usually quite sedate/ focused), instead of over-acting like Hollywood comedians.

My only gripe is that beside Po, none of the named characters such as the tortoise Oogway (Chinese for "tortoise"), the master/ teacher Sifu (Chinese for "master/teacher"), the tigress Tigress (erm, you get the idea), etc. were given enough screen time-- despite having more interesting personalities and back-stories than Po, the typical Kung Fu Movie protagonist (see Jackie Chan's late 1970's break-out Kung Fu Movies). A prequel about how the fastidiously over-achieving Sifu managed to warp Tai Lung into an unscrupulous over-achiever would be much appreciated... and yes, I smell a toy/ TV/ movie franchise.

Oh, and a final word about the beautiful Chinese landscapes and architecture-- well, I'm a bit hard to please cos I've seen & climbed the real thing (looks to me like Tai-shan or Mt. Tai, with its 10 km stairway, mixed with various other parts of China)... but yeah, the animators did a GREAT job. ;)

The Forbidden Kingdom (2008)

So says Jet Li, "Westerners may prefer Chop Suey" ,

[4/10 · 21 April 2008]

This is a movie I would love to hate or hate to love, I can't decide which--because for every really cool moment there is an equally cringe-worthy one. It's made of chopped-up bits of stories and characters from other movies and stories-- so the funny moments work quite well as spoofs or tributes (like "Top Secret" or "Epic Movie"). But every time it tries to settle down and build up some kind of convincing fantasy world or moving characterization, the movie either grinds to a halt (I become "dis-engaged") or falls apart at the seams (I "notice" what it tries to do). So instead of a regular review, maybe I'll just give a blow-by-blow account of the parts which I wished were just a bad dream I could wake up from.

1) Loved the opening titles which were full of retro-humor like the opening titles for Shaolin Soccer, but the first jarring moment was the opening action sequence-- which could not even rival the wire-work and special effects of the 1998 HK kung-fu fantasy "The Storm Riders". Production standards of kung-fu fantasies have risen by leaps and bounds in the last decade-- so the only reason I could think of, was that this movie deliberately "toned it down" for kids (such as Jet Li's daughter). After I accepted this, I stopped shaking my head.

2) Second jolt came from the modern day scenes, which immediately felt like a fantasy/ movie version of modern reality that I've never actually been to-- no wonder Rob Minkoff was able to create a fantasy/ movie version of New York in 2 Stuart Little movies. But even though I accepted this, I couldn't help closing one eye or the other for the next 5-10 minutes.

3) Things suddenly improved when the story moved to the fantasy ancient China (Rob Minkoff should stay away from real-life dramas), until people starting speaking English and Mandarin "randomly". It confused me for the next 10-15 minutes until I heard the Jade Emperor himself give orders in English-- when I finally accepted that English is like the "Mandarin/ official language" of fantasy ancient China (like in Bertoluccis's "The Last Emperor", the world-famous fantasy movie made in China) and only the under-educated would actually speak Mandarin (or be spoken to in Mandarin).

4) Once I accepted that the action would be kid-friendly and that English was the official language, the next half-hour was quite enjoyable-- especially since I have some knowledge of the genre/ actors (that the movie is spoofing or "referencing"). But once Jet Li joins the gang, after a fight which is THE high point in this movie, things could only go downhill-- starting with a training sequence with lots of literal translations of Chinese sayings, which make little sense in English. I would probably have found it hilarious... if I wasn't so busy trying to figure which Chinese sayings they were and what they actually meant.

5) But literal translations of Chinese sayings were just the beginning of all the sombre moments which only became more cringe-worthy as the background music kept trying to reach a crescendo. Next came the young girl's back-story and all the other serious "character/story" moments-- which ARE done WITH such PATHOS that IT'S hard TO take THEM seriously OR laugh AT them, just like it's difficult to read a sentence with every other word capitalized for no apparent reason (other than to inject some rhythm in the delivery/ pacing). Rob Minkoff should really stay away from character dramas.

6) Thankfully, after I have been rolling my eyes for about 5-10 minutes (you can tell I've been looking at my watch), the white-haired witch arrives with an action sequence that distracted me from the bumpy script-writing/ directing-- I don't blame the actors (in fact, I would applaud them) because I don't know how else they could have managed. But then it's back to more "character/ story" moments-- as I fidget and try to last the last half-hour for the final action sequences.

7) The final action sequences were a plentiful and welcomed relief from all the "heavy" acting/ plotting, which I never became invested in-- but like the opening action sequence, it's a Chinese-American dish of "chop suey" ("chop suey" is not really part of Chinese cuisine), i.e. they look like the bit-fighting/ side-action sequences that you can find in the better HK action movies. But after all the melodramatic music and lines, I felt that the final action sequences just couldn't live up to the over-blown premise ("a duel to the death!", "there's a kingdom at stake!", etc.)-- and the character deaths had no impact on me because they were pretty much stock characters.

8) The short epilogue closed the movie nicely, with maybe just one or two cringe-worthy moments (when Old Hop reminded me again of fantasy/ movie version of reality)-- too bad the rest of the movie wasn't quite so coherent and consistent. All in all, it was an enjoyable but forgettable movie for me-- I wouldn't mind watching it on endless late-night re-runs, but I'm glad I didn't have to pay for it.

Dragon Wars: D-War (2007)

A Blockbuster B-movie of a Korean Legend set in the US-- is it a sign that the end is nigh?

[3/10 · 29 January 2008]

{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}

The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.

In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).

Lust, Caution (2007)

"The Ghost Who Serves The Tiger"-- the depravity at the heart of "Lust Caution"

[10/10 · 28 January 2008]

Near the conclusion of Eileen Chang's novella "Lust Caution", she mentions an old Chinese idiom about "The Ghost Who Serves The Tiger"-- which is based on an old Chinese legend that a person who gets eaten by an tiger may turn into its servant "Ghost" and lure new victims to it. Variations or extensions of the legend even requires hunters to entice or distract these "Ghosts" with offerings of food or clothes, so that tigers can be trapped or killed without the protection of their servant "Ghosts". And like all "true myths", there is no modern or moralizing "why" to explain how such a legend arose. The idiom is traditionally used as an admonishment against aiding or abetting evil-- so there is something undeniably depraved at the heart of "Lust Caution".

This idiom doesn't make it into Ang Lee's movie "Lust, Caution" (because the movie doesn't use any kind of off-screen "narrator's voice") but all of its implications do-- the Spy is the "Ghost" who serves the Collaborator ("Tiger") and the Collaborator is the "Ghost" who serves the Invader ("Tiger"). Ang Lee knew, like all astute readers of Eileen Chang, that the novella was deliberately ignoring war or spy stories conventions by using the Japanese invasion and occupation of China as a historical backdrop for a subtle study into the perverted psychology of these "Ghosts". And like Eileen Chang, who was aware of but uninterested in the likes of Ian Fleming and John LeCarre, Ang Lee makes very few compromises to the existing expectations of the "spy novel/film" genre:

1) The dialog is ONLY in the languages or dialects which the characters would be expected to speak, so most audiences will be reading subtitles at some point (unless they know Japanese, English, Mandarin, Shanghai-ese, Cantonese, etc.).

2) Most of the movie is composed of a series of fractured flashbacks, with virtually NO expositional scenes-- so it is up to the audience to research the context (i.e. what was happening in China) and piece together a narrative (i.e. what was happening to the characters).

3) Blood, sex and violence is minimal (1 on-screen death, 2 practice gunshots, etc.), and presented in a way which makes audiences squirm in DISGUST rather than squeal in delight-- because they appear to be happening to "real/ human" characters instead of sex symbols or action heroes.

4) The core mystery of the movie, "was it 'love'?" (or "what kind of 'love' was it?"), remains unexplained or inexplicable and is OPEN to audience interpretations-- because the characters themselves are blinded or confused by their own emotions.

5) The film (or specifically Eileen Chang and Ang Lee) walks the fine tightrope of telling a cautionary tale without cheapening or glamorizing its sexual and political elements, and avoids turning into the "The Ghost Who Serves The Tiger"-- unlike spy or war stories which (knowingly or unknowingly) serve as "advertisements" for espionage or war.

So this is a "challenging" film by most standards, bearing "rewards" only if you are able to meet its challenge (of actually looking into the character's eyes and engaging with them). And audience reactions will unavoidably depend on how acceptable they find Eileen Chang's "feminism" to be (in letting "women behave as women"), or how "mainstream" they want Ang Lee to be (in making "art films for the masses"). Hence, the misleading promotional line in western film markets is "Ang Lee makes (an attempt at) a sexy spy thriller"; whereas the overwhelming conclusion in Chinese-language film markets is "Ang Lee (successfully) makes an Eileen Chang film".

Hearts and Minds (1974)

Time Capsule of 1974 sentiments: when the US thought it had already won a war it was going to lose

[10/10 · 30 December 2007]

I remember watching a few "Yankee" musicals as a kid and enjoying them as silly entertainment (maybe I was the silly one) and clips of them start off this documentary, which jolted my memory and reminded me that they were part of a comprehensive campaign to promote US overseas war efforts. And the rhetoric heard throughout the documentary was almost as "bad" as the Maoist rhetoric of the Cultural Revolution in China, except that the US was by far more polished and convincing. Nixon saying "the US has shown a degree of restraint unprecedented in the annals of war...", by which he probably meant that we should thank the US for not using the atom bombs again, probably ranks near the top the long list of misguided beliefs and "white lies" showcased in this time capsule of 1974 sentiments: when the US thought it had already won a war it was going to lose.

So kudos to the director who quickly proceeds to ask the fundamental question: "why do they need us there (Vietnam)?" The honest answer given, only after the director was ridiculed as a "sophomore", actually started all the way from "Sputnik"-- no wonder then that people have to keep asking why they have been involved in this or that war, because the truth was so convoluted. But all these explanations start to sound hollow when the Vietnamese launch into their own centuries-old historical/ narrative tradition: where they have been fighting in defense or for independence against Chinese, then French, then American Imperialism-- it seems that someone conveniently forgot to ask how the Vietnamese saw things at their end, using the justifications that the Vietnamese were just "children", "savages", etc..

Made in 1974 after the Paris Peace Accord of 1973, this documentary shows various people in the US reflecting on its involvement in Vietnam and sheds light on why the US didn't get involved again when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in 1975: the US never had a clear, consistent or compelling reason or plan to be in Vietnam ("I think we are fighting for the North Vietnamese", says a truck driver) in the first place-- to the point where a veteran says "the reason we went over was to win this war"-- and they thought they had achieved victory in 1973. The US only began to wake up and accept the true nature and effect of their involvement after 1975, when draft dodgers were finally pardoned.

The Warlords (2007)

"The Warlords"-- a cure for that millenia-old curse called "the Spirit of Sparta"

[8/10 · 20 December 2007]

I want to start this review with a warning because, like the other 2007 Chinese movie "Lust Caution" with a similarly "monochromatic/ realistic" palette, the marketing of this movie is basically an attempt to entice people who might be uninterested in the actual themes of the movie-- the truth is, "Warlords" can only be considered a "heroic war epic" if "Lust Caution" can be considered a "sexy spy thriller". In other words, nasty war sequences (like the nasty sex scenes in "Lust Caution") were filmed to show the "why's", not the "how's". In fact, after a small-scaled (only a few thousand men involved) but "FULL-ON" (Infantry + Archers + Musketeers + Artillery + Cavalry + Jet Li) battle set-piece in the first half of the movie-- which actually left some members of the audience physically shaking-- it became very obvious that the movie/ director (much like "Lust Caution") has very little interest in depicting the actual events of the war.

Only the opening titles will tell you that this war, specifically the Taiping rebellion of 1850s-60s, resulted in the loss of 70 million lives-- so people thinking to satisfy their blood-lust with this movie should be forewarned that after all the characters and premises have been introduced, the remaining years of fighting are only "depicted" through various montages and cinematic/ plot devices. In fact, I find this movie more a connected series of stark war stories/ vignettes about coal mining villages, boy soldiers, etc. than anything else. In short, anyone coming in clueless about that part of Chinese history is unlikely to learn much by watching this movie-- the British and the French, etc. were encroaching, the Hui Muslims and Shandong rogue armies, etc. were rebelling, Empress Dowager Cixi was power-grabbing, and everyone was making "deals"... no 2-hour movie will show you all that.

But there are still some problems with this movie, which made me take away a few points. Being an Asian movie, weaknesses in effects and production values still show up here and there (some "dubious" CGI and such). And being a Hong Kong-styled commercial release, the need/ decision to cut its running time down to 2 hours made it feel "over-edited" to me. E.g. By cutting out all the love/ sex scenes, I "knew" about the romantic relationships, but didn't really understand it (a bad case of "tell but don't show"); and during lengthier shots and scenes, the director/ editor kept cutting back and forth as if he didn't trust the strength of the actors or the script to hold up the tension. But enough with the reservations-- let's get on to the good stuff.

1) CINEMATOGRAPHY. Most films are color-corrected to bring out their colors and contrasts, with sci-fi/ fantasy/ effects movies (and cinematographer-turned-directors like Zhang Yimou) being the most notorious for doing this. But this film was color-corrected to "drain out" the colors so that it looked like some historical film footage from the 1860s, if such a thing were possible. And when some colors do appear, they only gave the film a fable-like mood of a legend being re-told. This heightened sense of "(sur-)realism" set by the cinematography was so powerful that there were only sobs or silence from the audience for the length of 2 hours.

2) ACTION CHOREOGRAPHY. Hong Kong action directors/ choreographers must be pure magic-- because they can still create hair-raising action sequences when thrown into the lot with clueless first-time action directors like Peter Chan (with Ching Siu-Tung in this movie), Ang Lee (with Yuen Woo-Ping in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"), etc.. The 4 short action sequences (2 battles, 2 fights) and various "bit-fighting" in this film are swift, precise and brutal-- nothing to drool at in the way of wuxia or comic-book violence, but with enough "in-your-face" realism to put this movie above the equivalent of any PG-rating in most film markets. And Jet Li, without displaying any martial arts "forms", was simply riveting to watch.

3) SOCIAL COMMENTARY. The "commentary" is at once blatant and subtle-- and this is the reason (over and above the action sequences) for the positive reviews and word-of-mouth coming from viewers who "get it". It is blatantly clear that all sympathies lie with the "little guys" or "underdogs"-- and yet everything remains quite subtle because none of the characters sees enough of the "big picture" to sell the audience any underlying messages. By setting the story in the twilight years of the Taiping rebellion (the film ends in 1870), it easily makes the point-- without anyone actually having to say so-- that the government wasn't eager to end a conflict which yielded political/ economic profit. The movie was just brimming with ideas.

4) SIEGE OF SUZHOU. This siege, which started off the 2nd half of the movie, was where opinions really divided between the die-hard war/ history fans and more regular movie audiences-- because the director's true vision started coming through with a quiet but almost complete turnabout in pace/ genre. In a film filled with arresting/ disturbing images, the highly "romanticized" (and near-"mythical") introduction of a remaining rebel leader pushes the characters' personal dilemmas to an almost "ethical/ spiritual" level (the founder of the Taiping rebellion claimed to be the "Brother of Christ" and named his regime the "Heavenly Kingdom of Taiping"). It might make or break the rest of the movie for some viewers.

I could go on about the rows of rice offerings or shoes with wooden name-tags, etc., but would rather keep this review relatively spoiler-free. However, something should be said about the "historical accuracy" of this movie-- there is none, because all the names and events have been "changed". E.g. Jet Li's character is now named Pang Qing-yun, which (in Chinese, literally "clouds in the sky") reflects his ambitions, etc.. So apart from the general historical context/ outline, all events and characters portrayed in the movie are fictional....

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Another "Resident Evil" Sequel

[2/10 · 1 September 2007]

I think the title of my comment says it all-- but I'll just fill out the 10-line comment requirement by pointing out that it fulfills the same pretty actors in pretty sets with goofy acting making goofy dialog "vision" that the director achieved when he made Resident Evil. Basically, he has been making the same movie with different props and plots-- except that the formula doesn't work with the "aliens" or "predators" (it didn't even work in the "Resident Evil: Apocalypse"). As a direct-to-video release I would have given it 5 out of 10 or higher for big-budget production values-- but as a movie theatre experience, it certainly fails (even if it never aimed that high in the first place).

So as much as I enjoyed the special effects (& seeing the "aliens" and "predators"), I have to agree with the other comments which pointed out that the penguin was about the most convincing thing in this movie.

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Fine Film, but a little lacking in background and drama

[6/10 · 14 August 2007]

Great cinematography by Christopher Doyle, great music by Peter Gabriel, great story/ premise, etc.-- but all-in-all the film was just good, without being great. Trying to convey the background or drama through visuals and music can be a great way of present a straightforward story-- but a controversial premise like that of the "Rabbit-Proof Fence" requires more "depth" than stunning visuals and emotive music can give. So I am a little disappointed that the director or screen-writer stayed on the level of presenting archetypes instead of "confronting" the issues in this social/ historical drama-- more screen time was spent on the landscape and the chase than the history or characterizations.

Troy (2004)

Taking the Myth/Legend out of a Myth/Legend leaves us with....

[5/10 · 11 August 2007]

not much of a story. You see, the Fall of Troy had already became such a great myth/ legend by the time the ancient Greeks RE-told it, because not much was actually known about it-- so story-tellers "took in" all the myths/ legends, which made it into such a great myth/ legend. So modernizing or humanizing such a story by "taking out" the myths & legends risks taking away its context and significance, unless the resulting gaps in characterizations, social backgrounds, critical events, etc. can be "filled in" in an equally meaningful manner.

But all the movie does is retain the bare bones of the story-telling with impressive production values-- it is quite watchable but possibly the least interesting version of the Fall of Troy I've come across.

Yoru no Shanghai (2007)

A Light, Sentimental, Romantic Comedy

[6/10 · 31 July 2007]

At first, I thought this was going to be a movie about culture clashes, but it turned out to be a "language-clash" movie where people speaking different languages are basically the same. And I have to give the scriptwriters a little credit for developing a screenplay where the two leads don't understand each other's speech for the entire length of the movie. It's the kind of fanciful comedy with realistic touches-- though getting lost in China without speaking the languages can lead to far worse than the comic "random-ness" in the film.

But people who can't be bothered with subtitles should just forget about this movie-- in fact, with the number of languages (Japanese, English, Mandarin) and dialects used in this movie, this movie may need to be seen twice before anyone can catch all the dialogue or performances. This is a movie about linguistic (& other) barriers to communication-- so what makes it very confusing the first time around may actually make it more meaningful in later viewings, because most of the jokes are in the frequently "mis-matched" multi-lingual dialogue .

The main story and characters supply all the ingredients for a light, sentimental, romantic comedy, although the movie only gets really interesting half way through-- when the lost Japanese guy realizes that the lady taxi-driver is too nice to leave him stranded and tags along as she tries to look up her love interest. Which is why I wish the two of them were given more detail or screen time-- instead of spending 10-15 minutes of the movie on the 4 or 5 inconsequential secondary characters added for contrast or comic relief, who were more distracting than intriguing.

There's nothing to rave about in this film but lots of lovely little moments: like when they write out their names in the air for each other, or when they complain about each other over each other's complaints (since they can't understand each other anyway). The two leads are fun to watch because they misunderstand each other 99% of the time (you have read the subtitles to know this)-- making it really wonderful whenever they do make a connection. And the Chinese director deserves some credit for scripting and directing the Japanese half of the scenes and dialogue so smoothly that it looks like a Japanese movie half the time.