Movie Review: Collateral

Feel free to continue to detest Tom Cruise and yet see this movie.

Ohmygod! I've admitted to hating one of the biggest stars this meager universe has set eyes on! He is, like TOM CRUISE! He's a marquee name!

Yeah, so's the word, 'Exit.'

I really did try to like Tom a long time ago. I saw an inkling of his abilities back in Born on the Fourth of the July and again in Magnolia. I even noticed a tad of ability in the over compensated Minority Report. I have to admit he is a good performer. And he has my respect in that department. I don't have to like him because of that.

But then reality takes over. Yes, he did follow Born with Days of Thunder (which was actually released prior) and Mission: Impossible. I mean, Mission: Impossible was a freegin ensamble television show, with like, twenty characters.

Then Tom moves in as producer. Ooops. Twenty gets reduced down to one.

See what I mean? He may play the press like a fiddle, but his ego is right there, right on his sleeve.

And yes, I admit, the whole thing about being called gay and suing people. Like being called gay is a bad thing. It could hurt him. Hello? Wolverine is playing a gay man on Broadway and doing part three and made Van Helsing.

And his problem is, um, where?

Well, nowhere, depending on this movie. This is an excellent movie. Here I am going on and on about why I hate Tom Cruise--but why I love this movie? That list is going to go far beyond that. Besides, hate takes so much energy.

Michael Mann. To me, he did justice to the book Red Dragon by the slightly superior Manhunter in the late 80's. His Last of the Mohicans was fantastic--a movie that follows the book. Heat? Very warm, thank you. I like the guy. His movies have a certain auteur quality you just don't see in summer blockbusters. The camera continues to move (but not the herky-jerky stuff you see in Baz Luhrmann) and makes something that could come off as a one act play--two men meeting a taxi--into something surprisingly engaging.

Yes, this is the tale of two men meeting in a taxi. It starts off without a rush, a surprisingly honest piece of written dialogue, with Jamie Foxx as a driver. He talks with his charge, the up-and-coming Jada Pinkett Smith (I'm sorry, but the Smith family is about to take over Hollywood, frankly. We might want to prepare by buying tickets NOW), and it's natural, almost improvisational. I had never seen Jamie Foxx in the movies before. All I know is that the entire cast of In Living Color probably should have been canonized--it seems each one of them is worthwhile. He, unlike his costar, is a true natural. He reminded me of Spencer Tracy, swept up in a world that he never wanted but is strong enough of handle. Tom wants the head shots, Jamie just wants to be in the picture.

Ebert mentioned his hesitancy of seeing Jamie do Ray Charles justice in his next bio pic, Ray. No worries. I'm thinking I need to get a ticket for that one too.

That was a tangent, wasn't it? Anyway, Max (Jamie's character) picks up his next customer and gets tucked into a murder spree, with Tom playing a contract killer. I don't want to elaborate, because the film is so unique, further explaination will kill the zing of the tale. But I found the writing to be crisp, and the placement of elements not forced or set up.

In other words, I was surprised, consistently. Several times. Not easy to do.

And I think you will be too.

Movie Review: De-Lovely

I want to thank Moulin Rouge, the post modern musical from four years ago. Or maybe I should blame it. For without it, wouldn't have seen the recent upsurge of Hollywood musicals. The problem? No one is taking the time to see what happened before--like watching a few New York stagefests to see exactly what a musical is made of.

Which brings us to this latest ditty. It was an interesting time to release this picture, amoung the hullaballoo of Spidermen and Aliens vs Predators. I'm thinking that they did it as counterprogramming, figuring not everyone goes to the big budget special effects fests the summer churns out.

So in that manner, it was a nice respite from getting my ears blown off from a loud sound system or being treated like an idiot with a plot that a nine-year-old can grasp. De-Lovely is borderline art house in that respect.

Now I have two reviews for this movie. Mine and the critical one. For myself, I liked this movie. I knew the words for a majority of the songs, having been brought up on the musical theatre and pop standards. This movie is a Cole Porter dream, telling his life story in the form of a Hollywood musical. At certain points throughout the movie, you can see current music talent warbling Mr. Porter's hits in the background (or foreground), adding the needed lift to scenes. I sang right along and went starry eyed at the cameos.

But now the critical stuff. Folks, this is a middle ground movie. It has too many good and bad parts that don't mix. I blame the writing. I always do. The storyline tries to bring a new twist to Cole Porter's life. The problem? Outside of being gay and married to a woman, there's not much interesting going on. He was boring. In today's day and age, being gay isn't nearly enough to be enthralled, or at least, it shouldn't be. His relationship with his wife, played excellently by Ashley Judd, is a very large part of the film and where it does hit it's few high notes. They have a very unique relationship, more like a best-friendship, that gives each strength in ways I did not predict. But it's not enough to stretch a movie over two hours.

Yes, two hours. I felt like I was watching a European movie--they have no concept of editing overseas, it appears. There were sequences that went way too long and some that were not even needed.

Musicals are surreal, plain and simple. They are usually self-effacing and celebratory. They even talk about it during the movie, where Cole, facing death, played by Johnthan Pryce, wonder if the opening number should be a ballad or not. So there is some knowledge there. But then they don't even listen to themselves. There's a huge dance number to end the picture on (yeah, my heart sang!) and then they cut to Cole at the piano with Linda Lee, his wife. How sweet but not needed at all.

What Hollywood needs to do is what they did when talkies were born. Los Angeles producers ran out to New York to grab all the playwrights they could find. Why? To write good dialogue. Boy, those days are gone. Seems like they are combing some elementary schools these days for words on paper. New York is experiencing a certian theatrical comeback since 9/11, trying to woo tourists back to their perspective houses. Why not mine these great showboats, Hollywood? It's an idea. This movie could have benefitted, that's for sure.

It's not to say this movie is so bad, you shouldn't go see it. Kevin Kline's respectful turn as Mr. Porter is Oscar caliber, really. You can see his theatre training in the ways he plays the room in scenes. And I've already mentioned Ashley Judd. It's nice to see her not play a cop in some bad mystery for once. Here's a niche for her, dramatic acting. She's got the skill for it.

This is surely a middle of the road pic. If you like Cole or theatre, go for it. But you aren't into dramatics, well, then maybe the Alien flick next door is the answer.

Movie Review: A Streetcar Named Desire

What can I say that's new and hasn't already been said about this movie? Not much. What I'm hoping to do is remind people that there are many good movies that are still out there, all one has to do is open their eyes.

I rented this title after I heard Marlon Brando died. I figured it was time to visit it again. I was glad I did.

My partner and I had a discussion during the movie that defined the concept of classic. As we watched Marlon Brandon, delts flaring on the steps outside of his apartment, screaming, "Stellllaaaa!" we wondered, if there was a remake, who could do it?

Now think about this, folks. A Streetcar Named Desire has been remade numerous times. Not on the big screen, but on stage. It was a play and it becomes very apparent. You can look away and the dialogue is so crisp and descriptive, it sounds like a radio show. There was a time when dialogue and acting was all that was needed to propel drama. But I digress from my point. My point is, everytime this play is performed, EVERYONE compares it to this movie. Heck, if you were forced to read this in a lit class, Marlon's shirtless black and white photo is plastered on the cover.

This defines a classic; its wholly it's own, there's no way you can repeat it. Star Wars first three movies are classic; its current add-ons are not. They don't have that spark. Yul Brenner is the only person you can identify as the King in the King and I.

We could not find a decent example of who could play that role other then Marlon Brando. Same goes for Kim Hunter and Vivien Leigh.

They define classic. An excellent movie. Yes, it's long and boring, but if you can appreciate art, you'll do fine.

Movie Review: I, Robot

Living here in the shadow of the once mighty "Silcon Mountain," it's easy to remember the birth of the techno age. Fourteen year olds purchasing Audis; old people learning a keyboard and a typewriter are the same thing. Clinton was still doing unmentionables in the White House (actually, there are still unmentionables going on, it's just less exotic these days). But as with all things--when we see the good, we have to see the bad. It was only a matter of time before we saw technology as villian. It only made sense as it took such a large role in our daily extravagances.

The Terminator had already been born and died in the late 80s, early 90s and besides, he had moved onto the governor's mansion. We saw a rash of really crappy titles hit the market trying to ride the wave. Hackers and the Net come to mind. But then the Matrix took evil technology where we wanted to go. We were hooked. We wanted to know the logical outcome to this success.

Robots. The Matrix said that technology's evils would come in the form of robots. From what I understand (from my copy of the hugely underwatched Animatrix, by far better then some of the work in the film's sequels), one robot killed it's master and the civil war between robots and humanity began.

Honestly, I have to thank Star Trek, before I go on. I wouldn't have understood any of this pursuit of humanity theming so imperative in this movie without the input of the character Data on Star Trek:TNG. Without him, I would not have appreciated the movie I, Robot.

You see I, Robot covers the same bases as Matrix and Star Trek. There's really not much new. In this plot, it appears that the creator of 2035's largest robot manufactures has been murdered. And since robots are programmed to not kill humans, this 'future noir' begins. Picture a 1940's gumshoe with huge issues with a given suspect (cliche then as it is now), his mole who is on the inside (cliche then as it is now), the usual suspects (cliche then as it is now) and you have a Dashiell Hamett tale.

And this movie as well. Folks, there's nothing new here. The movie tweaks that famous formula by having one of the robots possibly commiting the crime. Is the robot possibly overriding his programming, ya know, becoming more human?

See what I mean? Thanks Star Trek.

Are the robots actually planning some kind of take over? Thanks Matrix.

Now, here's the part you'll be shocked about.

I did like this movie.

The current edition of Entertainment Weekly talks about the current lack of 'stars' on the big screen. We just aren't seeing the Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks of the 90s being formed. Obviously, they've got their eyes shut, I believe. With Clint Eastwood either mayoring in Carmel or making sappy dreck and Arnold holing up in Sacramento, who's going to lead us in the action department? Tom Cruise is too heady. Have you seen the preview for Collateral? Will Smith. Let's say that again, shall we? Will Smith.

Where have you been all my life? Still buff from Ali and obviously edging up his acting quoteint from the same movie, he's my pick for today's action hero. The dude is funny, dynamic and puts what little dept there is available to him in an action film up there. He's buff and a good guy. I began to think of all the action films, good or bad, he's tried. He's working on it. I see that Entertainment Weekly might have found a new John Wayne, if they want him.

And his activity is so strong willed, I wanted to see what happened to him through the movie.

What also worked? This is a science fiction. And science fiction and movies have always had a very healthy relationship. You have to have a big screen to capture the scope. These kinds of stories need the room to have thousands of robots attacking; they need the budget to create these robots, so visually delicious. And I have to tell you, thank God this movie was made in terms of digital characterization. I thought their only input was going to be JarJar Binx and the Hulk, and that's pretty sorry. Wait until you see the machine known as Sonny in I, Robot. He has a flexible skin YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. It's the very definition of eye candy.

So if you like sci-fi, I'd recommend this movie. If you are a bit jaded by the summer runs of movies, maybe not. Hopefully, I've conveyed this is not a clear GOOD or BAD movie. It's one of those grays that snarls up all movie going traffic.

Movie Review: The Bourne Supremacy

It's always the question if art reflects life or if life reflects are. I'm not going to venture a guess, especially these days, where the conservative right loves to point out that all of life's screw up can be found somewhere in the media. I like to think it's more complex then that, that's for sure.

Such is the path that leads me to the Bourne Supremacy. With 9/11 hearings completed, we've seen that the screw-ups are really all over the map. But it's not just one screw up, but several working in tandem for a really big f--- up. I couldn't stop noticing the similarities here.

Here, we have an experimental spy that screwed up due to a faulty wiring and amensia (the Bourne Identity) and the various government agencies trying to act like it's not their fault. Of course, the theme is carried on, to a grander scale, in this very complete sequel, The Bourne Supremacy. Where again, the government is up to no good and not doing what they are supposed to do.

Hmmmm, sound familiar?

I mean, if everyone had done what they were supposed to do, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened as well, right?

Same here, a rogue agent becomes a liability. Not good.

Oh, the parallels between life and art don't end there. How about a large oil company using illegal funds?

Corporations doing bad things? Never heard of that happening.

All of this noticing, I'm not mentioning the good stuff. This is a good movie. It's just like reading a good book. There's plot twists, actions sequences and stellar acting. I supposed the most natural thing to do would be to compare it to Bond spy movies, but really can't. The villains in those movies come off as megalomaniac, not politicians. And the goons that killed in each? I have to credit to Bourne, these bad guys are Bad. Meaning, they don't drive up in hoards to massacred off by the hero. Instead, we have goons that are adept at killing and fight back, using intelligence and guile to attack Jason Bourne. It adds a dimension of fear into fight scenes.

And yes, Jason is a fine specimen, I have to admit. Matt plays him with a certain reflect, as if he doesn't want to be a killer. Fight scenes are fast and furious, but when they are completed, there's a look of regret on his face. He even walks slowly away after killing one henchmen, as if there's no joy in his job. Matt has made the right choice in maintaining this franchise. If the scripts continue to be as good as they appear here and in the original, I look forward to the next title, The Bourne Ultimatum.

Sequels, I'm learning can really be a treat, and I should not have complained about them earlier. I must remember, I love comic books, and what is that but one sequel after another? It's like coffee with old friends. You look forward to see who they are doing and what changes have been made, but the familiarity continues. Here is a good sequel. Right up there with Spiderman 2, the Godfathers, the early Star Wars and yes, Toy Story 2.

I really recommend this movie.

Movie Review: Elephant

It's hard to review this film, due to the personal nature of it's presentation. I was deeply effected by the events of what happened at Columbine High School so many years ago. The wounds go deep. It almost effects me a bit more then the issues related 9/11 and the current fallout. I say this as a precaution for you the reader--my bias I cannot explain for privacy reasons, but it will most certainly be evident in this review, I'm sure.

I saw this movie for a variety of reasons. I like art movies, that much we have established. I like gay and lesbian issues and this had two, a minor plot element and a gay director. And of course, for more personal levels that I choose not to explain. The title is borne of the concept of an elephant being in the room and no one is talking about it.

It's EXACTLY how I felt about the Columbine massacre. Acts of violence are sad, wholly evil entities that devour more than they kill, meaning we might see the immediate piles of blood, but the effect lingers via survivors and onlookers. Looking at that standpoint, the issues at Columbine were an expression of some of this societies' ills personified. Michael Moore, who I do love as a filmmaker emphasized the issue of guns in this nation in the award winning Bowling for Columbine. It's an excellent analysis. Guns are too widely available.

But it isn't the only issue of what happened at Columbine. Like September 11th's committee just announced, it was a series of unfortunate events that worked in tandem to create the short lived hell.

I look at it symbolically.

The boys were in a microcosm of the world outside. Like the striated system of the haves and the have-nots, where everyone is filed into those who are above and those who are below, these boys were told they were to be the bottom. They were teased. They were mocked. And they lashed out.

The problem was, they did have everything, everything that could keep them happy. The confusion had begun. They could not experience the world as they were promised.

Sounds like most of America. We are promised we should dream big. But we will not get part of that pie, people, it's becoming more and evident to me.

*I'm going to go out on a limb and off on a tangent here, for I know of no other place to mention it. The killers' parents denied being part. They said they didn't know what their boys were doing. They just handed them the cash and moved on. I don't buy it one iota. I have too many friends with kids, know too many families. I cannot have kids of my own. A person who doesn't know what their kids are doing should not be having kids. It's part of loving and living in a family. Those parents were part of the issue, and it angers me greatly that they deny it. There, I've said it. Back to the story.

Their families aren't even mentioned in this movie. Instead, we are given glimpses, through a series of flashbacks, of these youngsters' lives. The movie rewinds, and we see them from a different angle. Their dialogue is unrehearsed and difficult to hear, as if real. Their costumes  are merely the actor's clothing. And each take goes on and on and on and on, without edit, like life.

So where's the movie part? Instead of dealing with the issues, the filmmaker goes and creates art so severe, he alienates  of those who are to benefit from the message. Did I say message? There is no comment as to the reason for the murder spree. It's sad really, that such a touchy subject is given barely the lipservice it deserves. I'm hurt.

Art is created and does not truly live until it is seen. A book is written and has yet to find life until it is read by someone. You hang kids' pictures on the fridge, not really looking for comments, but the art doesn't live until someone looks at it, correct?

Here is a situation where there is too much art. It's as if Gus Van Sant, the director, made it to defy criticism. You can't look at it, you can't be empathetically to this movie. It's that surreal. The art part never comes to life.

And as for the famed homoerotic overtones? What? The killers kiss, out of range of the focus of the camera. So? All it said to me was that they might have been getting out their homosexual urges via massacre. I don't buy it. It wasn't developed at all. It angers me further.

It's sad really. I'm thinking of working on a similar story just to justify this all.

Movie Review: Lost in La Macha

I have to tell you a wee secret.

One of my top ten all time movies is Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It was a stinkie piece of work, but I loved it. It had grandeur and a theme I could relate to. I became a vicious watcher of the director's work, Terry Gilliam (he's the only American involved with the ever quotable Monty Python comedy troupe from Britain), and his brand of imagery. I loved Time Bandits and really thought the 12 Monkeys had one of the key performances of Brad Pitt's career.

But each film suffered from a horrible plague if you ever read the trades. Mr. Gilliam tended to excess. My beloved Baron film was 10 million over budget before principal photography had even begun.

He was being despised by Hollywood, sadly, because of the business he was running, not by the quality of his work.

So when I read the story of Lost in LaMacha, I knew I had to pay it a visit.

Call it the summer of documentaries, my friends, because that is what this is becoming.

Yeap, another documentary. And worse?

Another good documentary.

Notice I say 'good,' not great. I think in this MTV generation of rapid editing personal camcorders and boomers' recent discovery of reality television, the documentary format is getting more and more structured and therefore, readable by a large audience.

So there's nothing new here, I'm afraid. Sure, it's great to see a film in true production. This beats the tram tour at Universal Studios anyday. The movie starts strong and shows all the work that goes into preproduction and how making a movie really is hard work. I say this because so many want to be involved with filmmaking without realizing the emotional commitment--this is technically when art and business collide--and the way the process can be very tortured.

In this picture, Terry decides to tackle the tale of Don Quixote. What's interesting is the obvious, but not mentioned, parallel between Quixote's dreaming of a world not there and the movie's director. But the fascination fades as the reality of a faulty production hits. Problem after problem unfolds, as if Murphy's Laws were unleashed by a wrathful God, and the movie tanks and isn't finished.

The problem is, when the ordeals mount and mount, it becomes a bit scary and we begin to feel like the filmmakers, drowning in an unforgiving sea. It's sad, really, because we like everyone involved (check out the giant he hires) but they suffer and no falling action is brough for us to bring us up from the hellish experience. I'm reminded of the dissatification I felt after watching Star Wars Parts One and Two. The pall could not be removed as I realized that the character of Anakin is going to end up evil. I don't want to see that. I don't think many people want to. So they hold back liking the movie.

Same here. So I only rank it as good. See it if you want to see the film process or are Terry fan. Yes, Johnny Depp is in it briefly and yes, he is still strangely profound for his few moments.

 

Movie Review: Stuck on You

I have to admit to I rarely go see comedies in the theatre. For me, they are the provence of stage work, where the laughter helps the performance and enhances the interactions. I've noticed over the years that I rarely attend movies that could be defined as 'comedy.' I'll go see if I'm with a group who insists or it's mixed with another genre, like a musical comedy, but rarely upon it's own.

Okay, yes, I'll go see Disney cartoons...those could be thought of as comedies, I suppose.

So I rent movies, like this one, Stuck on You, by the Farrelly Brothers.

I gotta give it to the Farrelly Brothers. They have an amazing ability to protray people with exceptional circumstances in a manner that is humanizing as it is humorous. I mean it. Really. I noticed it here and in There's Something About Mary. People with special needs are shown as they are, warts and all, but are surrounded by an entourage that truly is the scum of the Earth--making them seem all the more real. Mary's younger brother was obviously a man with a severely limited intellectual capacity, but he was the only normal one, it seemed, in the bunch in that he never was softed to the eyes of the audience.

Same goes for the tale of Walt and Bob (?) Tenor. They are conjoined twins of distinct personalities and woes. But the world around them seems to be the one with the real problems, through it's lack of acceptance or inability to understand.

Now don't get me wrong. There is severe juvenile humor placed throughout the movie and it gives it the R rating it deserves. If you saw There's Something About Mary, you know what kind of bathroom humor I'm talking about.

I give credit also to Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear. They work well as a team and come off as understanding each other. I really am impressed with Matt. He really has outdone himself in avoiding the pitfalls that have befallen his compatriot, Ben Affleck. Instead of trying to become a marquee name, he's done parts that have expanded his repetoire and his ability. Like this movie. It's not bombastic; it wasn't a hit. It was simple and sweet. Bravo for both.

Overall, a decent movie. No complaints.

Movie Review: Chuck and Buck

I love watching these art movies this summer! It's just one nice surprise after the next.

Damn. I spoke too soon.

Then, Chuck and Buck arrived in the queue.

I am still wondering why on Earth this movie is made. I kept thinking of that reason for pop art, Andy Warhol, who, in his own way, said that art is pretty much anything. A can of soup. A movie of a person sleeping all night.

I could only wish this movie had as much reason for existing. I've not a clue what I watched. I rented it on a recommendation from Entertainment Weekly's reviews. I tended to agree with them.

It's good to see I've developed my own mind apart from their critics. There is no amount of acting, writing, directing or spectacle that makes this movie worth watching. It's an interesting premise that might have looked good on paper but the finished product does not do a thing.

It's the tale of two childhood friends that briefly reconnect after years of growing apart. One has matured and grown up (Chuck, looking like a photocopy of Matt Gibson from Dharma and Greg) the other is still stuck in his formative years, those being the best days of his dismal life (Buck).  Buck begins to stalk his former friend even after several obvious communications that they are not to be in contact.

But here's the thing, people would have called the police at the amount of involvement Buck invests in his stalking. No one seems to do this, no matter how intelligent they are protrayed. I started to think that perhaps there was some kind of underlying reason, like they felt pity for Buck or something--which would be completely contrary to what's presented, for Buck is a throughly dislikable character. In fact, I hated all these people, I did not care if they lived or died and that's not a good thing.

Really, I'm almost angry at watching the movie, and I don't believe that was their intention. In fact, I doubt they had an intention at all. So why make it? Was it, like Warhol's can of soup, so we can watch art? Screw it, the soup can was more interesting in so many ways.

Not a good movie at all.

Movie Review: Taboo

Okay, I give up. I'm moving to Asia, I'm thinking.

Combine these last two movies (Fleeing By Night and this one, Taboo) and what my research suggests, I can think it might be  a better place for people of my persuasion.

This latest movie, Taboo, plays directly into that. It is a gbl film that isn't afraid of itself and doesn't reduce itself by having stereotypes or swishes for a less sophisticated audience. In it, a young, handsome man and excellent swordsman joins a local militia in support of the shogunate. He is incredibly beautiful in comparison to his more hardcore brethren in the army. He begins an affair with another soldier and soon the men begin to argue who shall have a date with him. The jealousy runs unabated and becomes a concern for the commanders.

Where the movie works is in that the homosexuality is treated as a part of life. Texts I have read (most notably Male Colours by Gary Leupp, Comrade Loves of the Samurai by Ihara Saikaku, and the Love of the Samurai by Tsuneo Watanbe and Jun'ichi Iwata) show, while not as prevalent as in Greek culture, homosexuality was accepted as a normal part of everyday life. It was even encouraged, (as it is slightly in this movie), for a man may wish to protect his lover moreso then an average compatriot. Even in the book and miniseries Shogun, when the main character becomes stranded in Japan, they offer him women and he refuses, so they offer him a man. He becomes furious and the Japanese look on confused.

It's as if the Japanese had never see homosexuality as a bad thing--not until they came in contact with the gaijin.

Asian movie making, aside from martial arts films, I've noticed have a completely different feel then European and American films. It seems, at least to me, that American films really emphasize plot; European films really emphasize character. For example, in a movie like Pulp Fiction or Citizen Kane, the movie toys with the storyline, bouncing about itself in flashbacks and sudden changes in direction. European movies take their time to let an individual grown before our eyes. Life is Beautiful has the narrator gradually understand the sacrifices his father is making, and truly, it becomes a beautiful, character driven work.

Then there are Asian films. I'm beginning to notice a sense of the ascetic. It's as if the image itself is what is important. The main protagonist in this movie, Kano, is always shot in profile to highlight his smoldering looks. The grounds are manicured. It's as if the wind blows on the director's command. There's an inherent beauty and a nice change from the heavy pacing and hurried attitudes we see here in America. This movie is no different.

Now, yes, I'm fully aware of my bias here. You've seen me mention my books above; you should already know my love for martial arts. So it really should be no surprise that I liked this movie. Is there martial arts? A little and it is used very well. Kano is shown as being an incredibly adept fighter. But when asked to fight his lover, his skill falters, and the commanders see. What a way to use fighting as part of a story. The fighting does, however, peter out by the end of the film.

I really do recommend this film, if it is something that remotely interests you. It was a sleeper/surprise and well constructed.

 

Meditation: Sleep

I still have problems sleeping. Here I am, enjoying my summer vacation and still, it takes me forever to unwind at night. I'm a night person, I know that. Look at me now. I'm here writing while my beloved is snoozing away. But even after I finish my nightly writing, I still lie there at night and worry.
 
About work. About what's going to happen with the next elections. What's going on with my friends. Sleep doesn't come quickly.
 
Even my meditation (not this daily writing, but the actual sitting down and letting go) has been interupted. My mind wanders and cannot focus this summer. Last summer? Not a problem. I sat everyday without incident. This year? Nada.
 
What am I so worried about? I feel fine, damn good, if you were to ask me. Been exercising everyday and finally doing some creative writing. I have time to cook and clean. Walk the dog. Even lost a few pounds.
 
I can honestly say I am well.
 
Then bed time comes. I lie there everynight and stare at the dark, hearing every noise and whatnot. Is such maliase the sign of something bigger going on? Am I attuned to something just beyond human existence? A listlessness that is all pervasive?
 
I will survive, of this I can be sure. I will eventually sleep. The benefit too, of summer is that I can sleep in, which I do. I even treat myself to naps when my chores are done for the day.
 
Poe once said, "sleep. Those little slices of death. How I loathe them."
 
Perhaps I'm merely suffering for my art, the problem with having a creative mind. Anyone else experience this?
 
So I keep writing. Maybe one day, I'll sleep well. I miss it too. There was a time when i would keep a sleep journal, complete with a dream annotation. Maybe I should try again. Just like Joseph in the Bible. I could interpret dreams.
 
*I know this is not a movie review, but there's something I've noticed these last few days. I write my movie review and then I'm geared up to write creatively. It's as if I warm-up to writing, so that's why I'm here and back to my Zen meditations and poetry book. Thanks for you time. I think I'm ready now. I'm not, after all, ready for bed.