Kung Fu Hustle

This movie has it all: slapstick comedy (that's right out of a "Looney Tunes" short), martial arts, and dazzling spin-kicks and arm-twists that are all courtesy of Yuen Wo Ping ("The Matrix," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). In this picture, which is set in 1940s Shanghai, China before the revolution, Chow stars as Sing, an aspiring gangster who wishes to join the notoriously lethal "Axe Gang." The Axe Gang rules much of the city's underground with an iron fist and their demands are absolute. But the accident-prone Sing and his chubby companion (played by Chi Chung Lam) wander into Pig Sty Alley, posing as Axe Gang members. The Axe Gang doesn't bother with this slum very much because it's so poor and plus, it's already under the tyranny of the vicious chain-smoking Landlady (Qiu Yuen), who runs things along with her husband Landlord (Wah Yuen).

Things become complicated when the real Axe Gang shows up, and the Gang is attacked by a trio of kung-fu masters who had been living there. The Axe Gang members are quickly defeated in the ensuing chaos while Sing and his companion are captured by the fleeing gangsters. The two are allowed to join, but are demanded a deed of loyalty - kill someone. For the next 45 minutes or so, Chow is off the screen, and we focus mostly on the tenants of Pig Sty Alley, as the kung-fu masters square off in dazzling skirmishes with Axe Gang acolytes, who are masters themselves. Landlady and Landlord are also later revealed to be masters too.

Chow reenters the picture and remains on the screen until the closing credits, where he, donning a white outfit a la Bruce Lee himself, takes on the remaining gangsters in a free-for-all reminiscent of the "Crazy 88's" scene from "Kill Bill." As it turns out, he is a kung-fu genius, in that he's had the power to master martial arts since birth (I must say Chow does display some impressive moves of his own). He then does battle, in the film's most over-the-top sequence, with The Beast (Hsiao Liang), who is the most feared kung-fu master of them all.

This is a brilliant action-comedy from a mind that seemed destined to bring forth something like this to the masses. The film plays out a lot like a collision between every great martial arts movie we've ever seen and then adds a heavy dose of slapstick and Chow's sly wit. You'll laugh at Chow's comedic antics, as every great kung-fu flick gets its fair share of comedy. It's just kind of funny, since I was watching "Enter the Dragon" (1973) last night, which is considered the greatest martial arts movie ever, and then today I watch "Kung-Fu Hustle," which could be called one of the greatest parodies of the genre.

Though some of the humor might be lost on American audiences, I found myself laughing quite a bit. It definitely caught on to me as Chow also pays sly homage to his heroes, both Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, who made the genres Chow pays respect to. It's all done in a deliriously comic fashion that also doubles as a visual feast for the eyes. The film also contains a rather touching subplot with a mute girl Sing once saved from bullies, and it really got to me because of the cheesy music that cues up whenever they are on the screen together.

I expect we'll see a lot more of these types of pictures that are going to be cherished by a devoted following in the future. Stephen Chow has crafted a funny, brash, and action-packed picture that's sure to remain with the masses in the coming years.

Strange Days

Strange Days seems to take on a cult status with each passing year. This film came out in 1995, but is almost prophet like in its ability to summarize our current obsession with technology and experiencing artificial stimulation through computers (e.g. Wii and other interactive games). This film reminds us about the danger that comes along with our constant need for stimuli, and how it detaches us from human contact, desensitizes us to violence, and makes the abnormal seem normal.

The great thing about this film is that it came out 5 years before the year 2000 and didn't try to look to futuristic, as far as fashion, and the cars. No one was using a space craft to get around.

There are three acts in this film: the descent of Lenny into a personal living hell, which is linked with his ex-girlfriend, Faith, who he believes in, despite her penchant for self destruction. Through flashbacks, we see at one point Lenny was a decent cop. Act II is the present time, where we see the seductive nature of the SQUID and the danger is possesses, and how real feelings and emotions are downloaded and traded as a commodity. You also see this edgy undercurrent of "end time" doom felt by everyone, from the murdered rapper Jericho One, to the cops who feel that the urban undercurrent in society, is asking for a level of respect they don't deserve. Order is hanging on by a loose thread and everyone is trying to escape this reality through the use of the SQUID. Act III, is where the price is paid for murders and deception. The order is restored after chaos ensues. Lenny comes out on the other side as a restored person.

Visually, this film is very stimulating, it almost seems like overload in some parts. But this is what the director wanted us to feel, the sense of chaos and impending doom. As far as the acting, Finnes is great, but so is Tom Sizemore, Wincott, Lewis, and of course Angela Basset. She is almost like Virgil to Lenny, guiding him through a maze of hell and hoping he can see the error of his way. She is vulnerable in her love for Lenny, but makes it clear he cannot sacrifice her, or the future of the city, for Faith or the SQUID.

This film had a lot on the plate-racial tension, misuse of technology, sex without emotion, and the blur between lies and truth, which were offered up through the media images of Jericho One. He spoke the "truth" of his reality, but lived a different reality. This film spoke to the idea of media manipulation, which is very rampant in our present culture.

We finally make it to the New Year and after the riot, the truth is restored. When Lenny passes out and wakes up again, I saw that as his rebirth. He has known all the long that Mace loves him, but at the end he is ready to reciprocate that love and that is why he beats on the limo glass to get Mace out of the car. The movie ends with a lover's kiss, which reminds the audience, love is an emotion that cannot be manufactured.

Donnie Darko

Lynchian? Perhaps this is the only way in which a summary of Donnie Darko can be compressed into just one word. This film is an absolute mish-mash of varying styles and genres, but has the added bonus of succeeded in its amalgamation of styles which quite frankly makes it one of the great films of not only the 21st Century but perhaps in cinematic history. Am I over-hyping this film? Perhaps not nearly enough.

A surreal blend of dark humour, science fiction, teen drama and high school angst, Donnie Darko is a mind tripping, thought out journey through the life of one adolescent as he comes to terms not only with the arduous task that is puberty, parents, school and friends, but that his perceived delusions and eccentricities will make him the only one that can save the universe from complete destruction. This may sound like a garbled mess but it works wonderfully due to the way that the director, Richard Kelly, manages to tell convincingly all aspects of this story in a way where nothing feels, forced, nerdish or out of place.

Guiding Donnie through the time ridden paradox that is this film is be-musingly a six foot tall bunny rabbit named Frank. While Franks identity may become somewhat clearer throughout the course of the film, his presence works on several levels (as indeed does the film). Not only is he a mental figmentation but he is also a manifestation of the teenage angst that raged (or will rage, depending) inside all of us. The need to rebel and break free of rules, moulds and confines to cope with the fear that comes with having to grow up. On top of this there are many referential notes to make with Frank, that first and foremost of "Watership Down", which itself is present in the film make reference to how Donnie and Frank mirror their rabbit counterparts fiver and the spectre that haunts him with tales of the worlds demise.

There are more obvious analogies, the simplest of which is Alice In Wonderland and how the White Rabbit provides the means for the hero to return to where they are supposed to be. Unfortunately, it's far too difficult to go into too much detail without having to ingrain a spoiler at the top, because many of the films key notations are inward and secular, as they constantly repeat themselves in varying formats, but by the same token provide a film which can be interpreted by all viewers in different and personal ways.

Donnie Darko succeeds because it gets the small things right. The made for cinema cut is slightly more Lynchian than the directors cut due to the absence of some notable moments and thereby lacking the continuity, and so I'd have to recommend the Directors Cut due to it being somewhat more coherent (although that's not essential) and providing a deeper explanation as to the events which transpire. Moments where Donnie is playing on an Arcade machine, and the importance of placebo's are key plot moments but are lost on the viewer without the Directors Cut. But whichever version the subtleties of plot and character developments keep the viewer hooked. The interesting twists and turns of the story whether it be human drama or science fiction are exceptionally well written and perfectly acted. Suffice to say this film works on more levels than one, and will leave a deeply profound affect on all those that want it to.

Donnie Darko was credited (if all the critical acclaim and general love by all fans of cinema wasn't enough) as being in the top ten of fifty films you must see before you die, and to be honest I couldn't have phrased it better myself. There is little to say without spoiling the film for those that haven't seen it and there is little I can say which hasn't already been said about this film. It is for want of a better phrase a modern day masterpiece, an exercise in cinematic achievement highlighting an ability to tell stories which many thought was all but lost. Few films are worthy of pedestals, and while the amount by which tens are brandished around on IMDb, few films are worthy of a ten. Donnie Darko deserves it all. Maximum.

Irreversible

Why do people bother to do such disturbing movies? Isn't movies made for the purpose of entertainment? I think that would be a stupid statement to make. Books aren't edited just for entertainment, paintings aren't done for the sole purpose of entertainment, then... why would movies be filmed looking for that goal? I think we can never get used to violence, but movies make it look cool and unrealistic-realistic –if that makes sense. Even movie's fake blood will look real to us compared to real blood, which is more like red paint mixed with water. But we would be terrorized if someone would aim a gun at us. We're not getting used to it.

Irreversible is a bold statement against rape, but also a great study on primal conduct in an age when things are so calculated and 'civilized'. The fact that the most brain-driven of the two guys (Pierre) is the one that smashes the 'killer's' head, is a clear example of the path that Noé wants to show us. We are violent, even when there's no need for it. Our world is violent, and that violence is not only waiting for us around the corner, but waiting for us from the inside, waiting to burst with all of it's hatred like we never even thought. A dream can be turned into a nightmare in a matter of seconds, due to the most stupid thing we can think of.

La Tenia didn't attack Alex because she was so damn sexual and beautiful, but because he hated her and what she represented, and that's the reason behind most crimes. Not money, not sex, but pure hate and a feeling of superiority.

Most movies will portray violence as a poetic thing, even the most intelligent ones. Think about Taxi Driver, one of the most crude films ever. It's violence has style and looks cool, although it's not, and it's very real. The same goes for American History X. In Irreversible, violence is not a camera looking for a cool angle in a fight, a la Fight Club, but a smell, a scream, a glimpse of something horrible that is still there when you're so stupid to dare to open your eyes. There's no escape once hell breaks loose, and you can't go to hide under your mother's skirt and wait until it's gone. Nooo, it will go after you like a rabid dog, and you will suffer.

Yeah, Irreversible's got two of the most horrific scenes ever depicted in a film, but also one of the most beautiful love moments –Alex and Marcus in the bed, sharing spit and words of love, as most of us do when we truly love someone. This movie, for all it's cruel and merciless punches, never makes you say: "Man, that was cool." It will leave you feeling ashamed of having the same nature inside you. It's a beautiful film for all the bravery it took to make it.

Driving Miss Daisy

This movie is all about the relationship of the characters, and I can't think of any more perfect actors to play these roles than Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy.

Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy) is a buttoned-down, prim and proper, emotionally stifled elderly Jewish woman, living in the south. When her son Boolie, (Dan Akroyd) fears that his mother is no longer capable of driving herself, he hires Hoke, (Morgan Freeman) a middle-aged African American, as her driver. The movie centers on the sometimes contentious, funny and poignant relationship between Miss Daisy and Hoke, with the discrimination of the south used as a backdrop.

Jessica Tandy is superb in this role. She brings depth and realism to Miss Daisy, and plays her idiosyncrasies well, without turning her into a caricature. She is both victim to her past and advancing years, and victimizer of those around her. Anyone with an aging parent will relate to the difficult, yet fragile Miss Daisy.

Morgan Freeman is outstanding as the long suffering and ever-patient Hoke. Cheerful, always positive and with a down-to-earth, commonsense approach, he endears himself to Miss Daisy ever so slowly and carefully. Even while suffering the insults of racism, he maintains his composure and while injured by the slights, doesn't let them define who he is.

In addition to the two main characters, Dan Akroyd does an outstanding job as Boolie, the frustrated yet loving son, barely capable of juggling the demands of dealing with both a high maintenance mother and his equally high maintenance wife Florine, skillfully played by Patti LuPone.

A special treat is the performance of Esther Rolle as Idella, the no-nonsense, say-it-like-it-is housekeeper, who has learned to accept her role in the household of Miss Daisy, without it affecting her.

You will be charmed by the cast, and equally charmed by the story. With an excellent soundtrack and visuals, this is a mesmerizing poignant journey into the lives of well-defined, complicated and very human people. Enjoy the ride!

Good Will Hunting

I kept rewinding the part in the credits where it said that the movie was written by Ben Affleck. And then I kept looking at the DVD box that said that he won an award for it as well. Never really liked him as an actor, but I guess he has some strength in writing.

So the film is about a young adult named Will Hunting. We see that he lives alone in a small house because his parents abandoned him, works as a janitor at MIT, and spends most of his nights with his friends at bars. But what we also learn in this movie is that Will Hunting is a genius; he has incredible strengths in the fields of not only mathematics, but in all other subjects as well. And when a professor finds out that it was Will Hunting that solved the two Algebraic graph theory problems that was supposed to be solve by a student, rather than a janitor right outside his hallway, the professor goes out to help Will. Under the professor's supervision, Will must educate himself more with Algebraic graph theory class with the professor and sees a therapist two times each week.

The rest is just about him trying to find himself. This movie is great and nobody can doubt it. I mean, the message that the movie brings really entertains me because sometimes we can not judge others for just how they may act everyday. It also shows how there are many individuals out there in the world that may have really high IQs, but do not know how to apply it to daily life. And that is what Will Hunting exactly is.



Now I have seen Robin Williams a lot in stand up comedy and he was really funny. And there were some parts in the movie that Robin Williams was funny. But I am telling you, the Juilliard studying really came out in this movie. He was persuasive with the character he was playing and had parts where he had to keep expression that many actors struggle to have. And those actors are not even comedians like Robin Williams. Matt Damon also acted well going from charismatic joking to deep depressing attitudes. However, I really did not care for Affleck or Driver's acting. It was alright. The thing was that once you saw Damon and Williams act, those two were okay.

The only problem I had with this movie, was that there was unneeded raunchy dialogue and cursing during the back and forth discussions with Will Hunting and his little entourage. I get it that the movie takes place in South Boston, a ghetto if you may say. I mean, I have seen movies where cursing is used a lot more than this film, but there were scenes in this film where you really wanted them to be poignant and because one of the character said the f-word in an incorrect spot during the dialogue, it ruins it. This goes for Damon, Affleck, Williams, and Driver.

But this movie really tied up things great in the end. Everything that may have been confusing all comes down well in the end and you get a piece of reality once you finished this movie.

Repulsion

Repulsion is one of the three English films Roman Polanski made in the UK, the other two of them were Cul-De-Sac and Fearless Vampire Killers. Some have rumored that Polanski only did Repulsion to finance his next film Cul-De-Sac, but ones who have seen Repulsion know that it's not even close to the truth. Roman Polanski succeed to bring unconventional issues people weren't yet familiar with on the screen in Repulsion. The film shocked its audiences and was edited, banned and rated-18 in many countries. It follows what Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) started - modernizing the horror genre. Actually on the surface Repulsion resembles Psycho, but it of course doesn't have some of the typical elements of American cinema, that Psycho has but then Repulsion also doesn't have the same complexity and Hitchcock's masterful work that Psycho has. Still Repulsion stands out as a very important film in the history of horror and in the history of cinema. Repulsion dealt with themes that still were unfamiliar for the British cinema.

A young Belgian woman, Carol (Catherine Deneuve) lives with her sister, Helen (Yvonne Furneaux) in London. Helen is dating with a man, whom Carol can't stand actually she couldn't care less about dating, men or sex. The breathtakingly beautiful Carol walks down the streets, awakening the desires of men; by trying to avoid and hide, she actually only reinforces the things she fears. When a man - Colin - tries to get to know Carol; her repulsion of men starts to take radical forms.

The fact what makes Repulsion so great is that it works brilliantly just as a psychological thriller. But it is so much more than that. If one looks at it just as a thriller, one will get entertained but might feel a bit confused at times. Since the story has its complexity, symbolism and sudden change of perspective and narrative.

Repulsion starts with a documentary introduction of Carol: we watch her as an outsider. We see what she does, how she acts and how other people act around her. Suddenly Polanski takes us out of this calm perspective and puts us in Carol's life full of paranoia and despair. We are in the world of a schizophrenic. This sudden change of perspective is brilliant and an important thing what makes this film work. We have the same reality Carol does: the house falling apart, the nightmares and the fantasies. As many of us know the house in Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) symbolizes the human mind - the mind of Norman Bates. It's divided into three floors just like Freudian psychic apparatus: id, ego and superego. In Repulsion the symbolism and reflection between the apartment and Carol's mind is different but still very clear, perhaps even clearer than in Psycho. The house is a reflection of her mind; the walls of it are decaying and falling apart. Harassing hands come from the walls. The rabbit is rotting. These are very poetic elements, which add a great visual touch to Repulsion. After this horrifying sequence - or act two, we are released and once again change the perspective to an outsider. We are free to observe the situations from the outside just as the other people in the house. The film ends in a similar documentary feeling where it started from. We see a picture of Carol's family. We see Carol looking at her dad with a vacant stare. One could argue about the meaning of this, but to my mind it has always been pretty obvious that her father abused her. In result of which Carol had got a repulsion of men and sex.

One can watch Repulsion as a psychoanalytic survey of the human mind and schizophrenia. But it can also be seen as a description of virginity and about the fears of losing it. It builds on the basic biological facts that turn into something very complex. Carol walking down the streets, awakening sexual urges in men. The progression of Carol's alienation shows in her inability to do everyday chores, which is shown to us in poetic 'shock' pictures. To the place of doing ordinary things, Carol starts to lean on violent actions: her primitive fears have taken the control.

There are several ways to look at Repulsion and that's what makes it so great. It can be seen as a psychological thriller, a psychoanalytic or a sexual moral survey. It also studies the standards of our society; the fear of losing virginity, the repulsion of sex, sexual abuse, trauma, schizophrenia and despair are the main themes of the film. I had only once seen it before on TV. If I had to point out a flaw in this film, I'd say it's that it cannot be watched very many times. Well basically it can, since it works as a thrilling, entertaining picture but the depth and complexity of it is not enough for ten views. I felt like I didn't learn anything new on my second watch. But it's fine, not all films have to be like that this still is Roman Polanski's highest achievement - even that Rosemary's Baby is a brilliant classic. If you get a chance to see this on the big screen, seize it. The experience of seeing this in a theater, cannot even be compared with seeing it on a small television screen.

The Hidden

Very few films can effectively combine the gritty drama of a police action flick with science fiction (save for "Blade Runner"), but this film achieves that. Basically, a police detective played by Michael Nouri, along with a supporting cast played by Richard Brooks, Ed O'Ross and B movie veteran Clu Galager, are at wit's end with an epidemic of violence. Seemingly normal citizens are going beserk and shooting up the city. Adding to Nouri's headache is a mysterious FBI agent (played by "Twin Peaks" star Kyle McLachlin) who seems to know more about the crime spree and its cause than he is letting on.

The film features great car chases, exciting gun battles and even a surprise ending. It's not a spoiler to say that the "hidden" is actually an alien parasite that invades the body of its hosts. The parasite craves power, altering the pleasure sections of the brain and removing annoying things like morality and common sense. When the body is too damaged to continue, it simply leaps to another body.

 The film is actually an allegory on crime in America, especially drug use where seemingly normal people use drugs like cocaine to get high or use guns to feel powerful. Then, they literally change overnight and begin to do things they've never done before in order to maintain the high or feeling of power. All the victims in the film represent the hapless members of society who have to deal with these jackasses. Nouri and friends represent the police who do everything they can to stop the problem, but still find it's not enough.

Overall, the film can be hard to follow. The sound on the tapes can be a little hard to hear at times, but just seeing Claudia Christian of "Babylon 5" as a possessed stripper will make you overlook this flaw. She's dynamite, especially in the scene where she gets hot and heavy with a polyester-wearing pimp wannabe, who definitely doesn't die with a smile on his face.

Oh, and beware. "The Hidden" was such a surprise hit that the producers unwisely made a sequel. Avoid it at all costs. Even with the surprise ending, this film doesn't need a sequel.

Straw Dogs 1971

American astrophysicist David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) is a wimpy pacifist who grows tired of the strife and violence raging across America. Along with his pretty young wife, Amy (Susan George), he travels to George's hometown in Cornwall, England. Sumner quickly finds that beneath the idyllic scenery and veneer of small-town friendliness lie a clannish society based on violence and exclusion-ism. A group of townspeople begin playing a series of increasingly vicious pranks on David and Amy, culminating in Amy's rape by two of the more repulsive townspeople (Del Henney and Ken Hutchison). Things still continue on, until David takes in the village idiot, Harry Niles (David Warner), after hitting him with a car and tries to save him from a mob who saw him abduct a young girl. David tries to sort the situation out peacefully, but before long he finds himself resorting to violence to defend himself and his home.

"Straw Dogs" is an amazingly powerful film, and a widely misunderstood one as well. Critics who seem unable to analyze films on anything but surface meaning accuse it of glamorizing sadism and violence; feminists harp on the film's rape scene and the portrayal of Amy, denouncing the film as a chauvinist fantasy. Both readings of the film are wholly off-base. Although perhaps not as deep as some of Sam Peckinpah's other works, it's easily his best shy of "The Wild Bunch", and deals with a deep (and disturbing) topic: humanity's lust for and glorification of violence and death.

Say the name Sam Peckinpah to anyone and what comes to mind? In pretty much every instance, the answer is violence. Graphic violence, slow-motion shoot-outs with bright red blood spurting out of bullet wounds. This is a simplistic way to look at Peckinpah; in his best work (Ride the High Country, The Wild Bunch) he created deep themes and well-rounded characters worthy of a classic novel or play. Even some of his weaker efforts, like Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid and Cross of Iron, have interesting ideas to present, even if not entirely successful. But, it is certainly true that violence - its effects, its terror, its place in society, and, most of all, social enjoyment of it - is a central theme of Peckinpah's films. Merely judging "Straw Dogs" on the fact that it IS violent is childish and simplistic; it's much more fruitful to address WHY Peckinpah opted to make it violent, and what he's trying to say.

"Straw Dogs" is perhaps the ultimate distillation of Peckinpah's views on violence. Peckinpah was an ardent fan of Robert Ardrey, the playwright-anthropologist who hypothesized that humans are inured to violence by instinctual urges rather than social pressure or upbringing. This is a very hard view to argue with, for in spite of hypocritical denunciation of violence in the media, the raging street violence, crime, warfare, and violent action movies, TV shows and video games, indicates that the human race thrives on and revels in killing - no matter how much we may like to think otherwise.

"Straw Dogs" endorses Ardrey's world-view: the people of our out-of-the-way hamlet are easily driven to violence, their sins mostly overlooked by the hypocritically pious town leaders. Even a pacifist like David Sumner is not immune to the allure of murder; his claims of standing up principle (defending Niles, the murderous village idiot, from a mob) are dubious at best. The film has been read as a revenge fantasy a la Death Wish, which is ridiculous; Amy doesn't even tell David about the rape. Rather, it's a cumulative revenge; a man stuck in a small town with no friends, fed up with violence in his own culture, his taunting and torment here, his unhappy marriage to his wife, and his own weakness, allows his long-repressed rage to explode. In the end, even David Sumner is capable of horrific violence; not only that, he enjoys it. And the sheer visceral thrill of watching vile bad guys get handed their just deserts implicates us in the violence as well; none of us are innocent, and all of us are guilty.

Peckinpah's direction is effective, presenting violence in all its glory and horror; he succeeds at showing an externally beautiful but inwardly hideous small town. The cast is good, if unspectacular: Dustin Hoffman embodies David Sumner as impotent professor and makes his transition frighteningly believable. Susan George is quite good as Amy, the confused, repressed young girl who married a guy who isn't right for her. The supporting cast is adequate, with T.P. McKenna and Del Henney giving the strongest performances as the well-meaning but ineffectual Sheriff and the most sympathetic of David and Amy's tormentors.

Straw Dogs is a powerful, disturbing mediation on violence, with a power and force that few films a possess. It is a true masterpiece.