If you read my last two reviews, you'll see two important items that I feel I need to remit here. First off, I read some good books in college and whatnot--some that effected the way I percieve art. And two, that a great story stays a great story, you really have to bring something novel to it before I'll notice some intelligence.
The reason I bring this up, is because I was forced to read James Joyce's piece-du-resistance, Ulysees. I finally understood the concept of analogy through that work. I also learned that great literature is not always written well, but that's another story. This movie is the tale of Ulysees, complete with Cyclops and Sirens.
I also bring this up is that the original tale, the Odyessue is a great story, so it takes something really well worked before I'll take notice.
I did take notice, and it wasn't because George Clooney is proving himself to be a very good (looking) actor.
I had heard prior to the rental that this was based on Ulysees' tale and noticed that I quickly forgot that and really just watched the action unfold. It is something comedic, but in the oldest form of the term: it's not laugh-out-loud humor, it's more subtle and intellectual.
Three escaped convicts in the rural, depression era South get wound up in a governor's campaign while singing one of the best soundtracks in year's? I never would have thought. It's original, and should be rewarded as such.
The images are shot through a yellow-hued lense and the colors show a world that is borderline black and white. It's like watching a movie by candle light, very effective. There are several unique moments, like the camera riding the view from the top of a tsunami or the long tack the camera takes without edit before the closing credits.
A very good movie. You might even say, "it's bone fide."
Monday, June 28, 2004
Movie Review: Underworld
I blame Shakespeare, I really do. I mean, you make a damn good story like Romeo and Juliet, die, wait a few gazillion years and poof...Hollywood beats the living shit out of it.
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Movie Review: The Stepford Wives
I have to admit, if hindsight is really 20/20, well, I really did have some good teachers in high school and college. When I go back and realize the stuff they subjected me to, it was, in all actuality--quite good stuff. I mean, I had to read The Catcher in the Rye, and at first, my teenage brain came up with the ever deep response of:
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Movie Review: The Ring
I work with kids, and it's amazing how, in the press, all I hear are organizations screaming about violence and sex in the movies. And they're probably right, I agree. But what's truly amazing? How many of the kids I see get to see these kinds of movies with full knowledge of their parents.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
Movie Review: Shrek 2
I've always loved hating the summer season of movies. Nothing arty at all, mostly sequels.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Movie Review: The Transporter
Ever hear of a guilty pleasure? It's something we patently know is bad for us, yet we indulge for the sheer thrill of it. I mean, hello? Britney Spears? She lipsynchs her concerts people!
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Tao Meditation: Mercy
I really liked today's poem from my Tao book, it spoke of one of the few times to rise above the nature of things. The item was with mercy. I agree. For so long I've wanted to crack the living crap out of some people, but still, they live. A sign of a love that goes well beyond me.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)