Reviews

Well, where to start? South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was one of the funniest movies of 1999. It has the same weird 2-dimensional animation, the same foul-mouthed characters and the same bizarre plotlines that have made the TV show so popular, but Parker and Stone have taken it to a whole new level with this movie. And surprisingly, the humour isn't just Howard Stern-esque, lowest-common denominator type stuff, despite what you may have heard. South Park is absolutely the most blistering, insightful and explosive social satire to appear on the big screen in years. And its funny too.

Does this movie shock the viewer with almost unbelievable levels of profanity and vulgarity? Yes, that's the point. But is it funny? Absolutely. If you can get past the surface stuff, what's underneath is a very intelligent, and very needed, skewering of American people and politics today, especially those who represent the so-called "right wing."

Good satire has to be shocking to be effective and understood. Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in the 18th century shocked contemporary audiences by proposing that the poor be used as food for the rich. It was an effective way of pointing out the inequalities of life in Britain at the time. In the same tradition, Parker and Stone point out the absurdities of American politics through shock tactics with this film. And they also make a hilarious movie.

As a Canadian, one of the "victims" of Stone and Parker's film, I find it extremely amusing to read all the comments posted by outraged Americans warning all of the dangers of this "filthy" movie. To me (and many others, it would seem, judging from the movie's popularity) it is obvious that by putting down Canadians (and everyone else) Stone and Parker are actually making fun of Americans. Most especially (though by no means exclusively, everyone gets ripped here), they are poking merciless fun at the mainstream, white, middle-class conservatives in the United States today. You know, the kind that complain about violence and swearing in movies and then go bomb Serbian civilians.

One of the messages of South Park is that kids get their values from their parents, not from movies. In the wake of Littleton and the resulting knee-jerk reaction from American politicians of every variety to blame the tragedy on the media, guns, Marilyn Manson or whatever, this message is even more effective. Too many Americans blame everyone but themselves for their problems. The South Park parents' overreaction to the "crisis" of Terrence and Philip and their declaration of war on Canada satirizes the similar attitudes of those the movie is making fun of. And yet everyone but these people get the joke! They just see the violence and swearing in these scenes and declare that South Park should be banned! Its influencing our children! And they fail to see that they are behaving exactly like their cartoon counterparts! Here the movie is absolutely brilliant, and so accurate its almost sad.

So there you have it: South Park is a cutting, iconoclastic social commentary that's also extremely funny. I haven't laughed as hard watching a movie in years as I did when watching South Park. Its hilarious, and there is an important political message to it. So ignore the naysayers, go see this movie, and give it an honest chance. You won't be disappointed.

Rating: 9.5/10

Okay, a lot has been written about this movie, emphasizing both its negative and positive points. First of all let me that say while the negative points far outweigh the positive, the movie is not entirely without merit.

I am a huge fan of the books, and I suppose I am a "self-titled" expert on everything Tolkien. I admit, I would love to see every single minute detail from the literary work make its way to the big screen. I could argue that the story is so great there is really no need to change very much at all when it comes to plot and characters in a movie adaptation of the books. I would prefer that the film makers make no changes whatsoever to the storyline, and ultimately I would love it if my own personal interpretation of the books "came to life" as it were, on the movie screen. But I know that's not going to happen. I also know however, that the great weaknesses of this particular version have very little to do with "artistic interpretation" on the part of the director. Despite what some have said, the film really fails on its own merits (or lack thereof).

First of all, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the story that Bakshi almost certainly never even bothered reading the books. How could he possibly then make any kind of adaptation of them, faithful or not? The plot and character changes are made at random and to no apparent end, and have nothing to do with the requirements of the medium of film or directorial interpretation. How else do you explain intermittent use of "Aruman" for Saruman, Boromir the Viking, the pantless Aragorn or any other of the hundreds of examples I could bring up?

But as bad as these mistakes are, the film simply fails to interest the viewer, whether you or familiar with the books or not. The incredibly dense and rich background narrative of the books is glossed over in a couple of minutes at the beginning, apparently using shadow puppets, leaving the uninitiated wondering what is going on and those familiar with the story just shaking their heads. It is not artistic expression. Its a cost-cutting device. The truly bizarre and featureless backgrounds are even worse, almost totally depriving Middle-Earth of its wonderful and extraordinary scenery. The renditions of most of the characters are almost as bad.

Despite this, I do think the movie succeeds in at least presenting a great story that deserves to be told, albeit with many narrative problems, the worst of which is an inexplicable cutting of the story off right in the middle. The animation, though strange, is quite captivating in places if you can get past all the glaring mistakes in the plot. Thus I do own a copy of the movie on VHS, which I actually watch now and then, possibly just because I'm such a die-hard Tolkien fan. But the greatest thing about it is that it increases my anticipation for Peter Jackson's upcoming live-action version in that it would be hard for it to be much worse than Bakshi's.

Us Tolkien fans are a strange and demanding lot, and it is certain that no film maker, no matter how talented, can ever satisfy us all. But they should at least try to make a good movie. Bakshi apparently did not do this. In fact, I have no idea what he was trying to do. If he was trying to butcher a wonderful story with uninspired plot editing and weird animation effects, then he succeeded.

Advice to Jackson? Stay as close to the original story as possible while living by the rules of film. It won't be an easy task, but if successful I'm sure his efforts will be appreciated by all. The Lord of the Rings is one of the greatest stories ever told, and it deserves to have an honest and worthy portrayal on film.

Rating: 5.2/10

Okay, so its not "The Killer." Its a fast-paced movie with little story but great action and plenty of style. Its not up to the standards of the Chow/Woo collaborations that came out of Hong Kong in the late 80s and early 90s, but its still great fun.

"The Replacement Killers," a story of an assassin with a conscience (yes, we've seen this before) was my introduction to Chow Yun-Fat and Heroic Bloodshed-style cinema in general. I must say that when I first saw it I was blown away. The action sequences, though paltry compared to those in, say, "Hard-Boiled," appear hyper-kinetic and downright innovative as presented in American cinema. And Mr.Chow is cool personified. Furthermore, even with limited dialogue (he's still learning the language people!) its clear that the man can act. He conveys much more emotion and presence with his eyes alone than many actors do with all the dialogue in the world. We see his tortured soul when he peers through the scope of his sniper rifle, wrestling with his decision to do the right thing, and we know he means business by his dark brooding glances in the night club. We see his guilt when he sees his reflection in the mirror. Then there's Mira Sorvino, an amazingly beautiful and talented actress, who's obviously having fun here, and looks as good as ever as she guns down the villains. A very good supporting cast also plays its roles expertly.

Antoine Fuqua is not the greatest director ever. But he knows style, and the film is one of the most visually and stylisticly impressive action movies I have ever seen outside of Hong Kong. Furthermore, while the story is weak, the dilemma that John Lee faces is a real one, and the decision he makes is heroic. We all hopes he saves his family, and kills as many bad guys in as cool a way possible along the way. In this way the movie engages the audience and works in doing what it set out to do: be a very cool action piece, with bullets and sunglasses standing in for plot and dialogue. It works far better than, say, "The Corruptor" which repeatedly seemed to forget it was an action movie. "The Replacement Killers" never does, and it delivers on its own premise. If you don't like that premise, fine, don't watch it. But it does succeed at what it tries to do.

Conclusion: TRK is a good and under-appreciated movie, 7.5/10. It is a fine introduction to Chow and the genre; after this move on to "The Killer," "A Better Tomorrow" and "Hard-Boiled," all of which combine action with story and characterization in a way you have never seen or imagined in American cinema.

"The Corruptor" is a movie that can't quite decide what it wants to be. For a long time I couldn't figure out why I didn't like this movie as much as some of Chow Yun-Fat's earlier work. Unlike many, I enjoyed "The Replacement Killers," and I was looking forward to this one, his second American effort. Upon seeing it for a second time, I think I have it figured out.

The classic Chow/Woo collaborations that came out of Hong Kong in the late '80s and early '90s worked so well because the storylines were fairly simple, and the emphasis was on mind-blowing action. Themes such as brotherhood, loyalty and redemption were strongly emphasized. In short, they were myths. And they worked exceptionally well.

Then, when all the Asian stars came to Hollywood, starting with Jackie Chan and followed by Chow, Woo, Jet Li, etc. this classic formula was imitated, but American film makers just haven't got it right yet. "The Replacement Killers" tried, and I think succeeded in a limited sense. The action was good, but Chow's acting ability was not fully used. Still, it stayed successfully away from the "American phenomenon." Too often, American film makers take successful film concepts, then throw a bunch of sex and profanity in, seemingly at random, to make it "grittier," or "more realistic." Unfortunately, this just makes a good concept confused and reduces its impact. "The Replacement Killers" remained focused on action at all times and thus succeeded to a point.

Other times one genre is unsuccessfully grafted on to another. Thus we have "The Corruptor." It takes the Hong Kong "heroic bloodshed," format and for some reason tries to make it into "L.A. Confidential." The excessive violence so popular in the HK films seems out of place and gratuitous here, because it is presented in the same context and the same world as where illegal immigrants are tortured and killed and corruption works its way throughout the NYPD. Somehow, both legitimate genres are denigrated as a result. The action seems anemic if you take the movie as heroic bloodshed, and if it's taken as film noir, the violence seems unrealistic and stupid. So it fails on both accounts.

Still, its great to see Chow acting in an American movie, and he has an undeniable screen presence here, as always, while Wahlberg is competent enough and the supporting cast is pretty good.

So, to summarize: The story is a little too convoluted and remains somewhat unconvincing; the action, such as it is, is good, especially the chase scene, but doesn't work in context because it is presented in a framework of gritty realism. Finally, at the end of the movie, there seems to be no clear point to the film; unlike with the HK films, the viewer is left with no understanding of what the whole thing was really about. Add to that the rather unsympathetic main characters, who more often than not come across as pathetic losers than anti-heroes, and the movie really doesn't work.

Rating: 6.8/10, but it would be less if it didn't have Chow Yun-Fat, my favourite actor, who does his best to try and save the film.

I came across the film Swing Kids while I was in the early stages of learning to swing, and was looking for some scenes to learn from. Not until I took it home and watched it did I realize how powerful this movie really is. And yet, I had heard nothing about it except that the dancing was incredible. Why is this, I wondered. I think what it is, is how much people try to suck out of it before deciding whether it is a good film or not. They pick at it and search it for its flaws. Well wake up folks, it isn't perfect. Why do we do what we do? Why do we assume, because perhaps it isn't 100 per cent historically accurate, or because the sacrifice for swing doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice, that it is poorly made and must be discarded? When will we watch the movie, and realize that people, this was one hell of a story. The kind of story that still to this day, I know if I pop it into my VCR, and watch it for the 100th time, it's still going to shake me to my core in a way that puts me back to 1939 Nazi Germany. The sacrifice for swing, wasn't merely a sacrifice for keeping their records, or being able to have an exciting social life, it became the symbolism of going against what you were being forced to become. Going against what you know is wrong. So let me just suggest to everyone, in not only this movie but others as well, it's about time we stop noticing all the problems and start enjoying movies. 'Cause if the story's there, it's all you need. A little jumpin' and jivin' in there, well that just makes it all the better. Swing Kids, highly underrated, but still the best movie out there today, in my opinion of course.

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but after reading some of these reviews... people who like The Matrix have little education and an underdeveloped personal philosophy?!?! Because I like The Matrix, I don't know what movies really are? Well, I could say something about arrogant elitist views here, but how about this instead: Its a freakin' movie! And an absolutely stunning one at that too. The negative reviews this movie has received are curiously similar to what some have said about the new Star Wars. My question is, has everyone forgotten how to enjoy entertainment for what it is, entertainment? As in escapism? Somehow thats become a bad word recently, yet escapism is a vital and incredibly important part of our culture. From time to time we all need to enjoy something that just plain rocks, and this movie is it.

But it "steals" everything from other movies. SO!?! Show me one single piece of successful art or entertainment in the last 20 years that "didn't" borrow heavily from earlier works. Thats the way it works people! Do you think every good movie or other work of art exists in a hermetically-sealed universe, free from all outside influences? Please! If you're so concerned with your "art," please just go home and watch your pretentious, overblown art-house movies and leave the entertainment to those of us who still know how to enjoy it.

Now, onto the movie itself: well, I can't add much to what has already been said. The best effects EVER, awesome action, and a "gasp!" plot! That's right, this movie has a very good central concept, the acting is fine and the effects carry the movie, just like they're SUPPOSED to! Imagine, the acting isn't up to the standards of Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane! And the story isn't as good as that of Pulp Fiction or Fargo! No! Yet somehow the movie still works, on its own strengths. And these are many. The violence is artfully done and is a sheer pleasure to watch, and the characters all emanate pure cool with their long black trenchcoats and automatic weapons. The shootout at the bottom of the office tower was so good I saw the movie twice just to see it again. For those of you who think you're auteurs, better than the rest of us, stay away from this movie. It might offend your delicate sensibilities. The fact that the movie is so popular must just herald the downfall of society for you. But for those of you who can still enjoy a rockin' good movie that actually asks you to think, I absolutely recommend The Matrix. Its definitely in my all-time top 10.

Rating: 9/10

BTW, product placement is a fact of life everyone. I didn't even notice the Nokia phone. I was too busy actually watching the movie.

Before seeing a genuine Hong-Kong produced John Woo movie, I thought I knew what action was, and what the action-movie genre was capable of. I was wrong. The Killer was the single most impressive, awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping action movie I had seen in years, and is now one of my favourite movies of any genre. It is #2 on my all-time list.

Why? First of all, the well-known poetic violence of the super-charged action scenes make for a tremendously exciting film. These combine choreographed bloodshed (there is an almost constant stream of bullets) with raw emotion that puts even the best Hollywood actioners to shame. Look at Hollywood action movies today; almost all Hollywood action is inspired (not to mention plagiarised) from the "heroic bloodshed films," the best of which is The Killer.

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are only the most obvious examples of American directors to put Woo's trademark stylized violence to use, and neither handle it as well as Woo.

But beyond this, the characters and the story are what drive this movie and what truly set it apart. The story of the relentless cop and the vicious killer is only the latest in a long line of detective stories, starting with Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Allan Poe in the 19th century, and continuing in every cop show on TV today. The hero and the villain are practically the same; they are only divided by an almost arbitrary line called the law. In The Killer, both "Mickey Mouse" and "Dumbo" are unrelenting, capable, though misunderstood, professionals. Their motivations differ, but they both have the killer instinct. The classic storyline of the interaction of the two characters who eventually realize their similarities and end up working together has been seen before, but never has it been used to such effect as in The Killer.

Woo's familiar themes of brotherhood, betrayal and loyalty also reach their cinematic peak in this movie. The viewer not only wants to see the next pyrotechnic action scene, but is actually concerned with the lives of the characters, an element that is almost always lacking in typical Hollywood fare.

Finally, the gun-battle scenes, when they come, are simply the most spectacular, mind-blowingly violent, yet strangely beautiful, action scenes ever imagined or filmed. And last but not least, is the unbelievably powerful screen presence of Chow Yun-Fat, as always cool incarnate. His effortless lead and the tension created by his playing off of co-star Danny Lee make The Killer as close as I have yet seen to the perfect action movie. I recommend it to any hard-core action fan and also suggest Hard-Boiled, though Woo's American efforts thus far have not been up to his Hong Kong works.

Rating: 10

What can I say about this movie that hasn't already been said? It seems to arouse the most violent emotions, either for it or against it. Personally, I see it as one of the most impressive movies ever. The range and intensity of emotions evoked by the experience of watching this movie is incredible. Mallick is a movie-making genius. It is truly like nothing else I have ever seen. Like Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, The Shawshank Redemption and a few others, it leaves an indelible mark on the viewer, one that lasts far after the initial viewing.

It is unfortunate that this film was released so soon after Saving Private Ryan (which is another great film, though not to my mind on the level of The Thin Red Line), because the comparisons become unavoidable. However, the movies are very different, except for their subject matter. Perhaps the impact that SPR had on audiences made them unreceptive to another war movie, but I don't think that adequately explains the largely negative reception TRL received. I can't explain this reaction, nor why TRL was not awarded a single Oscar, even though it was a far superior movie to anything else that was running against it.

The brilliant non-linear narrative of TRL may also have something to do with it, which may be confusing to some viewers. However, if you are willing to look beyond the typical constraints imposed on most movies by unimaginative directors and commercial demands, what you get is a motion picture that is truly unique. It offers insights not only into war but into human nature itself. This is The Thin Red Line. The movie's use of voice-overs and repeated forays into scenes that don't flow like most Hollywood films has been called boring and obtrusive. I found it to be a wonderful technique that is much more along the lines of how the human mind operates. Memory, emotion and experience are conveyed in a way that is probably impossible in the traditional structures of Hollywood movie-making.

To put in one way, after viewing both TRL and SPR, I had the feeling that while SPR re-invented the war movie, TRL re-invented the movie itself. I would strongly recommend this movie to anyone. Rating: 10.