Reviews

There's probably some historical value to watching the Bund, since it more or less started Chow Yun Fat's career, and there might be a good story in there somewhere. But this movie isn't so much a movie as it is an entire TV series lopped into bite-sized pieces with a butcher knife and stitched together with barbed wire.

Essentially it seems to try and tell the entire story of the series it's based on (I say based on, but the movie is actually a compilation of scenes from that series, without any original footage that I can tell) in as few scenes as possible. Characters appear and disappear without explanation, musical cues cut out in strange ways, and major plot points seem to be leapfrogged in order to allow the movie to achieve it's brisk 100 minute length. I could follow the broader story but often didn't understand the details in any given scene, and any emotional impact it might have carried if told properly was entirely lost as I just tried to keep up.

It's possible that if seen in its original serial form it'd be worthwhile, though the production quality certainly doesn't live up to Hong Kong cinema of the time. But given the choice between seeing this movie and not seeing the Bund at all, I'd say the latter is the better option.

Also, shoutout to them using the intro to "Time" by Pink Floyd for suspenseful scenes. I somehow suspect they didn't have a license for that.

I can't claim to know anything about the history of the Sand Pebbles, and I only know a bit about the actual historical period it took place in, but I would imagine that this story made some people unhappy. It's set in a time in history where America was someplace it probably didn't belong, but of course, that didn't make the American soldiers in China villains.

Set during the time of Western occupation of China in the early 20th century, the movie does its best to portray its subjects fairly, with nasty and kind Americans and cowardly, duplicitous, and noble Chinese. Nevertheless, it's hard to come away from this movie without seeing the racist mindset from which it comes.

I don't mean this as an insult, necessarily, as a piece of film history it can only be judged by the standards of its time. As a piece of entertainment, however, its moral discoveries that "the Chinese are perfectly capable of learning how American technology works!" and "they're just trying to get ahead, look how reasonable they are when they can speak English well!" are basically the stuff of children's cartoons these days.

These flaws and the awkwardly antisocial nature of Steve McQueen's character make the first two-thirds of the movie drag in parts, no matter how good the production values are (they're very good). That still isn't quite enough to drag down a very strong ending, however, where the path the movie takes manages to keep you guessing until the very end.

Some compare this movie to a Chinese take on the new Sherlock Holmes, a seemingly paranormal, period mystery explained over the course of two hours with more than its share of action along the way. All of those similarities may be true, but Detective Dee attempts to bite off more than two hours can chew.

It suffers from abrupt scene transitions, almost completely absent character development, and extremely short fight scenes that I can't imagine would satisfy anyone watching for the kung fu. Not that those scenes seemed to serve any purpose to begin with, most of the reasons for the grand kung fu battles seem to be contrived because it's a movie about old China, of course they do kung fu.

The worst sin this movie commits, however, is its plot, which grows increasingly preposterous as the movie continues. By the time the movie had run its length, I had gone from pleasantly acquiescent to a few strains on my suspension of disbelief, to rolling my eyes at a movie that's no more plausible than the recent GI Joe.

I won't take it away from the film that it was very imaginative and more than willing to be original, while surprising the audience in ways that didn't seem *too* outlandish. All in all, it's the sort of movie I'd like to have on in the background - if I could speak Chinese.

If you break down Gran Torino into its constituent parts, it doesn't look like much. Movies where a racist white guy learns to respect others are a dime a dozen (though most were written at least ten years ago). There's just something about the way it's done, however, that feels genuine instead of sanctimonious. Maybe it's the "offensive" banter or the attention to the details of Walt Kowalski's life and the lives of his Hmong neighbors. I found the ending to be a real surprise, too.

It has two main problems, in my eyes. The first is acting; I'm sure you've read it before. Okay, maybe Eastwood had trouble finding professional Hmong actors, so he needed amateurs there, but the priest was just horrible, and there's no short of young Irish men in Hollywood. Second is the Hmong culture card - more than once, the plot progresses because Walt, despite his best efforts, ends up as the benefactor of some serious Hmong gratitude. Maybe everything they did was totally realistic, but just from what I know about human nature, I feel like observations of ritual probably take a back seat even among the Hmong when it comes to a guy who gives you constant abuse like Walt.

No one really calls the Guy Ritchie gangster films a series, but if RockNRolla had gotten a bit more right, it might have been akin to the "Man with No Name" trilogy, same actors, same general story framework - RockNRolla, of course, brings in none of the actors from his previous Mockney gangster flicks, unless I just didn't recognize some of the smaller parts. This is its first mistake, not because I insist on getting the same actors, but because he seems to have done a much better job in the past. All of the characters seemed to be written to have some personality, but many either didn't have enough screen time or weren't cast well enough to be as compelling as the past installments. As a result, I only ended up rooting for one character of the bunch, possibly because he was the narrator. As a result, what I got in the end was a series of moderately entertaining scenes that had absolutely no impact on my emotional state when it reached its surprisingly simple ending (no montage to show you where all the characters ended up, here).

While this movie conveyed the message it was aiming for well, it lacked a central narrative to keep the viewer compelled. Some would cite the nonlinear storytelling as the reason for this impression, but in fact, I would say that if the story had been told from beginning to end, it would only have made the movie more monotonous, with an hour of dying on Iwo, then the rest following the three flag raisers as they do the same thing over and over again until it's done.

The acting was quality, if not exceptional. The gore definitely didn't hold anything back. If there's one thing I'd say that Clint wants the viewer to come away with, it's that war doesn't have a happy ending that makes all the horror okay with those involved. At the same time, he refrains from making any blatantly anti-war remarks. War may be hell, but there's no suggestion in the movie that it's entirely unnecessary.

On the cover, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang sounds like a mystery movie with a bit of humor. Maybe like Hollywood Homicide.. not that I expect any of you have seen that movie, or that any of you should. BUt you should see this. All the actors are really funny and convincing in their performances, even as terrible things are happening. The mystery is definitely there, but you aren't really expected to understand everything that happened even when the movie ends. Still, if you do understand, you'll notice that it's a genuine noir mystery underneath it all, with no unexplained leaps of logic. There's an action element there, too, but in more of a Michael Madsen sort of way where it's not the centerpiece of the film, just a tool for building up a climax.

All sorts of people are talking about the political satire of this movie. It contrasts American stupidity (the same stupidity that exists in the country with most of the finest universities in the world)with Foreign pansiness, coming to the inevitable conclusion that we need both types in order to get by in the end.. but it does so in a way that isn't at all apologetic to the pansies. The most centrist remark that this movie makes is to say it's better not to blow up an entire country in order to save the world.. not very centrist at all, I think.

I came out of this movie unenlightened, and though I had laughed throughout at the cheap humor, and a few scenes that were so outrageous that one couldn't help it the first time, I also came out fairly sickened at its treatment of politics While I don't agree with actors, they're certainly better spoken than Trey Parker gives them credit for, and better spoken than he himself. In the end, I decided, these are people who have contributed far more to the American public in their movies than South Park has, and perhaps that gives them a right to have their opinions heard. Its not as if anyone listens, anyway. And it leaves politicians untouched, unmentioned even. Not a very political movie after all, is it?

At the end of the day, I decided it deserves six stars for entertaining me while in the theater, but no more because I felt that the laughs were almost completely shock value and would deteriorate given repeated viewings.

Most of the time when a film is hugely popular, I end up agreeing with the majority, especially when it's an action/scifi flick. With both "Spiderman" movies, I've disagreed.

Perhaps I'm simply too much of a nerd to appreciate the very human spin Spiderman has been given by Maguire, though I should venture to say I've never collected comic books, and my familiarity with this particular series is limited to the old Fox Saturday morning cartoons (remember the days when those were something to look forward to?). I'm sorry, but I don't sympathize with the saintlike, penniless genius who's going through a major crisis and responds in a manner that suggests he's quite in touch with his feminine side. Not to imply anything about his sexuality, of course, but I'm an adherent to old-school macho stoicism, and Peter Parker does not display it, despite pursuing a "great power brings great responsibility" lifestyle. How about the responsibility not to become an emotional wreck? I guess being a superhero is hard on the wallet, but I'm sure there's a way he could make things work without breaking any laws. I don't recall his financial situation being quite so dire in the cartoon, and if it is indeed an affectation of this particular rendering, it is an unnecessary one.

Maguire's attempts were somehow more acceptable in Spiderman (1) when he was a full-scale high school geek. Now that he's a superhero, I have trouble forgiving the unterminable stupid look on his face. Additionally, Kirsten Dunst doesn't make me think of MJ Watson, or a community heartthrob.

The comic book story of the movie takes up half its total showing time at most, and is fairly simple and formulaic. Scientist loses sight of his original philanthropic intentions and commits dire offenses in the name of progress. The film fails to explain why Octavian's AI tentacles have so much stock in the success of his project. I realize they think, but why should they *care*?

The quality of the film, ignoring the genre it's in, is certainly less than most give it. Iffy CGI, an inability to decide exactly what sort of movie it is, comedy/romance/action/drama? leads to unbalanced distribution of time for its scenes. It has a poor ending, as well, suffering from the more forgivable LOTR 3's multiple fades as all the loose ends are tied up. Still, let me be positive for a moment, after all, I rated it a 6. The acting is good, the action well-choreographed, and the drama occasionally moving, and it scores on most of its comic notes, even if Spiderman hits the bottom of an alley a few too many times.

I should first let you all know that I have never seen the Hellboy comic book, nor the source material for many of the comic movies that have come out recently, though some I enjoyed, and others I did not. I certainly did enjoy Hellboy, and don't regret the price of admission... however, I don't expect I'll buy it on DVD.

In its favor is Ron Perlman, as expected, who puts up a flawless performance in his role. Also, a plot that only tells you the absolute basics keeps things moving at a pace too fast to leave you yawning. Working against it is the performance of other actors.. most notably Selma Blair, who simply offended me in her presentation of some of her lines. Did she shoot up tranquilizers before the filming? Also, Del Toro takes absolutely no shot at achieving depth for the story.. making it all like a sort of long cartoon. Finally, the special effects, though heavily relied upon, are flawed enough that they can take away at times.

Clint Eastwood is known, in my mind, for directing films that show humanity, primarily the male segment, as it really is. And that is exactly what you get when you make an outing to see Mystic River. He achieves this with the help of unfailingly excellent acting from all fronts.

The film is not a failure at mashing together a number of different genres. It is a genreless story, which includes all the aspects of the murder case as they need to be shown, so that you can sympathize with Bacon, Penn, and Robbins' characters to the fullest. You feel suspense when the characters do, and are intrigued when they seek the answer to a question.

The primary controversy in this film is its ending. This is partially because what actually happens at the end is controversial, and Eastwood is not willing to let us know what he had in mind. We are expected to look at what we have learned about the characters throughout the story, and look at their final actions, and decide what has happened to them, and why they did what they did. It is up to us to judge their decisions, and we don't have any narrated monologues to help us. This film will not inspire you to be a better man, but it will help you know what a man is.