October 30, 2008
Slasher Movie Roundtable
Slasher movies – innovative horror subgenre, or just "some stupid killer stalking some big breasted girl who can't act who's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door"? To discuss the relative merits of slasher cinema, we have four people who may have taken their love of scary movies a little too far: Drew Edwards, writer and creator of Halloween Man; Tim Seeley, writer and creator of Hack/Slash and artist on Halloween: Nightdance; Stefan Hutchinson, writer/producer/director of the documentary Halloween: Twenty-Five Years Of Terror, and writer of Halloween: One Good Scare, Halloween: Autopsis, Halloween: Nightdance, Halloween: 30 Years of Terror, Halloween: Sam and Halloween: The First Death of Laurie Strode; and Russell Hillman, editor of Halloween Man.
WHAT WAS THE FIRST SLASHER MOVIE YOU SAW?
Drew - Friday the 13th Part III. At the drive-in, like God intended. And it was love at first sight.
This stands out as an important memory from childhood. I remember someone at our church telling us not to see Jason movies, because when they finally made thirteen of them, it would start the apocalypse. They were 'evil' movies. This of course only made all of the neighborhood kids want to see it even more.
I think it's funny because those movies have gone on to become Americana. But back in the 80s? EVIL!
Stefan - That would be Halloween, which is different to other slasher films in that it's really one of the originals - one of the films that spawned the blueprint. Prior to that I'd been watching monster movies and gothic horror, so this was something completely new to me.
Tim – A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge!
Russell - I was a latecomer. I had a friend at school who loved the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and we watched part 3 [A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors], followed by 1 and 2. It was the weekend after part 4 [A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master]. came out, but they didn't have a copy in the video shop so we had to make do with the first three. I hadn't seen that many horror movies at the time so this was a real eye-opener.
I still don't like part 2.
Drew - Maybe it's because my expectations have been lowered by repeat viewings. But the last time I watched Nightmare on Elm Street part 2, I found myself actually *Gasp* enjoying it. It's got a kinkier vibe than the others, and I kind of dig it now.
Stefan - I think it's alright too. I certainly prefer it to the goofier sequels that started afterwards.
Tim - It's actually a very GAY kinky movie. Not that I noticed that when I watched it as a kid.
Drew - Yep and it works for me. Freddy is kind of sexually ambiguous anyway.
Tim - But, yeah, the gay kinky aspect of Freddy 2 is kind of amazing, if not just for the way it flips the 'final girl' thing, by making it a guy... but it retains that weird feminine sexuality thing.
Stefan - The Burning is like that too, if not as openly homoerotic as Freddy's Revenge! One thing that's interesting is that if there is a 'Final Dude' then he's usually emasculated - he's not a male that corresponds to how 'guys' are in horror movies. He's usually socially dysfunctional in a lot of ways, rather than some buff football player. He's the guy that is the target of bullying. The stereotypical gender roles are interesting in that sense, because they're not equated to the actual physical bodies that the leads have. A lot of the film theory on these movies (of which there is very little - basically Carol J. Clover, Vera Dika and their various acolytes) is built around the Freudian stuff - that in the end, the woman becomes the bearer of the phallic symbol as she kills the villain - the starting roles are reversed. I don't think the filmmakers really considered this though. I think they just copied what went before without thinking about it too hard!
Drew - While not a slasher movie in any real sense, I sort of feel like that song and dance was perfected in the Evil Dead movies. Ash is basically a male 'final girl'.
Russell - OK, you've persuaded me. For you guys, I'll give Freddy's Revenge another try.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD SLASHER MOVIE?
Drew - I think the design of the killer/monster is very important, naturally. The death scenes need to be inventive as well. But most importantly, I think the victims need to be appealing. Even if it's merely on an archetypal level.
Stefan - That's a tough one. I don't think there's any one thing, and the mistake people make is that there is just the formula and nothing else, which isn't really true. All of the best films in this sub-genre have something that puts them above their peers. Halloween has its style, Friday the 13th has its raw brutality, etc.
Tim - Likable victims, a creepy, yet likable antihero/villain/slasher, and inventive death scenes.
Russell - Not much I can add here to what's been said. It needs something to mark it out from the pack (like Stefan says, the best ones have something that puts them above their peers).
CONVERSELY, WHAT MAKES A BAD SLASHER MOVIE?
Drew - Wow! That's actually the tougher question of the two. Even a bad horror film can be entertaining.
Tim - If it's neither fun, nor scary, it's not a good slasher movie.
Stefan - Most people who are out to make a quick buck and just put out the basic ingredients - final girl, boobs, a few notable death scenes. Because the basic elements of a slasher film are so basic and obvious, you need to have something more to keep it fresh.
Russell - Again, I think Stefan pretty much nailed this one. I'd say the mark of a bad slasher movie is the same as any other kind of bad movie - lack of respect for the audience. The other day I watched Sorority House Massacre 2, and that's just awful. There's a scene where they tell the story of what happened in the house five years ago - and it's just footage from [the unrelated movie] Slumber Party Massacre. The house is completely different inside and out, and the people they describe as the killer's wife and daughters all look to be about the same age as one another. Plus - somehow - unsexy toplessness.
HAVE FILMS LIKE THE SCREAM SERIES AND BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON MADE IT HARDER TO TELL A SLASHER STORY?
Tim - Not at all. If anything, they've made it easier, since now a savvy audience knows the 'rules' and they can enjoy it more when a film cleverly plays with their expectations.
Drew - Those are spoofs. Did Young Frankenstein make it harder to make gothic horror films? No.
Stefan - Maybe Scream did for a little while, but that's mainly because horror was in a bad place anyway when that came out. What Scream demonstrated was that audiences are familiar with the conventions of the slasher film. However, it also celebrated that the joy of watching these films is seeing the inevitable play out in fresh and surprising ways. We don't need to be ironic, tongue-in-cheek, or smug to make a good slasher movie. We just need to put some effort into it. As for Behind the Mask, it didn't really crossover to the general audience, so in that sense it doesn't matter.
Drew - I think what Scream did so well is that it hammered home this idea of the horror movie 'rules'. And for a while it was fun, but then it got to the point where it was rammed down our throats. I'd love to see some new horror movies that forge their own set of rules instead of working off this shared mythology we've invented.
Stefan - I completely agree. I think it points to a bigger problem with the horror genre in that so many people working in it now are horror fans and ONLY horror fans. They're not bringing any fresh ideas or influences with them. If you look at people like John Carpenter, they weren't just schooled on horror directors, but on the whole of cinema up until that point.
Russell - They've certainly made it harder to tell a formulaic slasher story. Or, at least, they should have.
I think Behind The Mask should have been bigger.
WHAT'S YOUR FAVOURITE SLASHER MOVIE?
Drew - It's not a perfect movie, but I have an overwhelming fondness for [Friday the 13th Part VI:] Jason Lives.
Stefan - Outside of Halloween (because I'm always raving about that one), it's probably Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. I love that movie. It's brutal throughout, it's not campy in any way and they actually gave the characters more depth than usual. It punches, kicks and screams in all the right places.
Drew - While I'm not sure I'd agree that it's devoid of camp. I do think Final Chapter is probably the first movie where Jason is fully realized. You have the now iconic hockey mask throughout the entire movie of course, then Jason seemingly rising from death in a morgue, and he's just this force of nature from that point on. Prior to that, the series used a lot of POV shots. You were the killer. Here Jason was the star and out in full force.
Stefan - I'd say that he's used as sparingly in this film as he is in the previous two myself. Even though there's no surprise to his look as it carried over from Part 3, he's still kept very much in shadows and shot from the waist down until the latter half of the movie.
There's one shot in The Final Chapter that plays perfectly on the POV shot. It's when one of the twins is outside about to leave, and the camera moves towards her like a predator, making us think we're seeing from Jason's perspective. However, the camera surprisingly carries on right past her, and then the murder occurs behind the camera - we see the shadow of it occurring on the wall as lightning flashes. I think that's a beautiful and clever moment in that film.
The big changes to the Friday the 13th formula, for me anyway, occurred with 5 [Friday the 13th: A New Beginning] and 6. In 5, it becomes almost solely about bodycount. There's no build-up to any of the deaths. Characters appear only to be killed a scene or two later. The rhythm to this film is completely at odds with the four that came before it, and it looks very 80s, whereas the first four, because of the grainy cinematography, feel so much more timeless (well, maybe not part 3 as they had lots of light in that one). Part 5 is neon and overlit throughout. There's no mystery in the frame. Then 6 comes along and Jason IS the star. They don't keep him hidden at all in the whole movie.
I guess that's why I don't care for any of the films after the fourth entry
Drew - The original four movies to me almost have an EC comics look to them, even though I doubt that was by design. That grainy look you're talking about is the thing I keep seeing the recent remakes trying to recreate, and it always ends up looking like a Nine Inch Nails video instead. Like I said, I think it's kind of strange that they'd do that. The Hammer remakes of the classic monster films work because they have their own feel and look.
I think they all look pretty 80s though. The originals are early 80s, so there's still that slight 70s vibe. The others (in the Paramount series) have a more mid-to-late 80s look. All of the movies are very much of their time, but it's not a bad thing in my opinion. I found and loved old Universal horror films on video as a kid, and part of what I liked about them was that they were like little time capsules. I think with DVD, we'll see a whole new generation of Freddy and Jason fans.
As far as only sticking to the original four? I've already declared my love for the entire franchise. I even love Jason Goes to Hell, which is a terrible movie. All the other kids on my block loved Star Wars and I loved Jason Voorhees.
Stefan - That film, in the unrated cut, has the ridiculously awesome tent spike kill. I was watching it for the first time some ten years ago with my then girlfriend in Canada, and her grandmother, a cute little Indian woman who spoke very little English, who decided to join us at that point, and I was floored and she was quiet. Too quiet. Needless to say I ejected the VHS straight away...
Drew - See I love watching horror movies with people who aren't fans - They still get really scared. My wife and I went to see Shaun of the Dead (not a scary movie in my opinion) with one of our friends. She isn't a horror fan like we are, and she was terrified. I stopped watching the movie and started watching her reactions to it. I think as horror fans we start to get kind of jaded. We know all the tricks, whereas people like our friend still have this primal gut reaction.
Tim - The first Halloween... but I really, really like TRICK or TREAT.
Russell - The original Halloween is such a perfect movie, it's really hard to pick anything else... but I'm going to do so anyway. Nightmare on Elm Street 3, as it's pretty much the borderline between original Freddy and special effects showcase wisecracking Freddy. (This conversation has put me in a real Freddy and Jason mood.)
Drew - Jason Lives has one of my favorite images in any horror film, hands down. There's this part where one of the camp counselors is walking by this grouping of windows, totally unaware that Jason is on the other side. It's perfect and creepy looking. I'll take a stand for that movie any day of the week.
AND YOUR LEAST FAVOURITE?
Drew - The remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That's actually one of my least favorite movies period.
Stefan - Gotta be Don't Go in the House! Admittedly I didn't see an uncut of it, but even so. There's a scene in a nightclub where the main slash-happy character freaks out that is unintentionally hilarious.
Tim - The worst one I've seen, technically, is Asbestos Felt's Killing Spree, but that's actually a pretty fun movie. The ones I've enjoyed the least are the PG-13 remake types... When a Stranger Calls or Prom Night.
Russell - Well, the aforementioned Sorority House Massacre 2 is a pretty low point.
ARE THE RECENT REMAKES SUCH AS TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, HALLOWEEN AND PROM NIGHT, AND THE FORTHCOMING FRIDAY 13TH AND MY BLOODY VALENTINE A GOOD THING?
Drew - I think the retro-slasher films have a fighting chance at being our generation's answer to Hammer Horror. But so far they haven't produced anything overly interesting to me. I thought Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning was entertaining enough. Much better than the prior film anyway.
I think they're kind of weird. You have these slick, Michael Bay produced movies all trying to look like low-budget movies from the 70s and 80s. So they have kind of a strange feel to them. I'm not sure that I like it.
Stefan - For the studios making the money, sure. Half of the time though, there's really no need to remake the originals as what we've seen so far could easily have been adapted into sequels. I'd be more interested if these remakes were approached in the same way as some of the 80s remakes were. You know, films like The Fly and The Thing - radically different from what they were based on. The new ones seem like pale imitations of the originals, lacking the atmosphere and nostalgia-factor that made you ignore their shortcomings. I'm really sick of seeing green filters and shakycam too!
Tim - What they lack in originality, a lot of these remakes do bring in a new audience. So, they are good for that. Some of them have even been okay.
Russell - By accident or by design, I've managed to avoid them all so far, but I'm looking forward to the new Friday. Whether it will be worth seeing is another matter.
Stefan - Actually, I'm looking forward to the new Friday the 13th too. The original Friday the 13th is a classic, but it's a classic through age and influence rather than quality, so to me it's not a Holy Grail like Halloween is. I'm hoping this one is going to be a lot of fun.
OUTSIDE OF LICENSED TIE-INS AND HACK/SLASH, THE SLASHER SUBGENRE SEEMS UNDERREPRESENTED IN COMICS COMPARED TO SAY, VAMPIRES OR ZOMBIES. IS IT HARD TO MAKE A SLASHER STORY WORK IN COMICS?
Tim - I don't think so. I just think there's less fans for the genre.
Russell - It's difficult, but not impossible, as has been proven. I'd like to see more people give it a try.
Stefan - In some ways, yes. You lose the visceral nature of the violence, and more important that that you lose movement and sound, which are integral to the formula. You also lose the audience participation and make it a solo experience. You'll find that most slasher comics go the violence route or the campy route. Both are considerably easier to pull off in comics than actually telling a serious and genuinely disturbing story. It's only the latter slasher films that were really 'fun' - the earlier ones were considerably more serious and terrifying. I'd like to see more of that in comics.
Drew - If anything you'd think slashers would be right at home in comics. They wear masks and funny costumes. In fact, why isn't Batman running around hacking up teenagers? I like the sound of that! Move over Marvel Zombies, make way for DC Slashers!
RECOMMEND AN UNDERRATED SLASHER MOVIE
Stefan - There's not many that are underrated now, because all the gems have a cult following. The Burning is worth a look and should be on the shelves of any slasher collection. I'd also cautiously recommend The Prowler. It's not really a good film, but when it's brutal, it's really fucking brutal.
Tim - Just one?! The Burning is a gem. I recommend Midnight Meat Train, which is a recent Clive Barker goodie.
Russell - Yeah, I finally saw The Burning a week or so ago, and I have to echo the recommendations. Also, I took a recommendation from Tim's Hack/Slash lettercol and checked out Cherry Falls. Better than I was expecting, although the identity of the killer is fairly obvious.
Drew - Candyman, even though it's more of an 'Urban Gothic' than an outright slasher movie. I think it's probably one of the best horror films of the 90's.
Tim - I wanna throw in Nightmare Man. It was one of the HorrorFest flick last year, and stars my friend Tiffany Shepis. It's a really fun movie, with a nice twist on the genre that wasn't as obvious and glaring as Haute Tension.
IF SOMEONE WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT SLASHER MOVIES, WHERE SHOULD THEY START?
Stefan - Tough one, because the slasher roots are everywhere throughout horror history. Normally I'd say Halloween, but that's not really representative of the genre due to its lack of blood. I'd probably recommend the original Friday the 13th. Either that or they could jump in at the deep end and spend 90 minutes with Maniac, which is probably not the best idea for the uninitiated!
Tim - Jim Harper wrote a great book called LEGACY of BLOOD which covers everything you need to know.
Russell - I need to track down Legacy of Blood, but I can't find it anywhere nowadays for anything approaching a reasonable price. There's also a handy little book called Pocket Essentials: Slasher Movies which gives a few good tips.
Stefan - I'd also recommend Games of Terror by Vera Dika. It's an interesting read and less phallocentric than Carol J Clover's Men, Women and Chainsaws!
Drew - Rent the original versions of Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Halloween. Watch them all in one go, alone, with the lights off. Consider your cherry popped.
Now if you want a deeper understanding of the genre I think you need to go back much further. Even something as seemingly unrelated as the Rouben Mamoulian version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has proto-slasher DNA in it.
Russell - As for the movies, the start points of the Halloween/Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm Street sagas would work quite nicely.
YOU'RE CLEARLY ALL HORROR MOVIE BUFFS, ARE SLASHER MOVIES YOUR FAVORITE SUBGENRE?
Tim - For sure. Vampires come in a close second.
Russell – Pretty much, yeah. It's grown from the Freddy fandom of my early teens to discovering the original Halloween, through Scream and its imitators, up to the present day. I like a good zombie or werewolf movie, but give me a guy in a mask hacking his way through a bunch of teenagers and I'm happy.
Stefan - I'd probably say so. I also like horror films that aren't strictly slashers, but incorporate certain elements. I'm thinking of films like Tenebrae, Nightbreed, Candyman and as Tim said, Midnight Meat Train. That was great fun. A lot of recent slasher films have been 80s throwbacks, which don't really do enough for me. Haute Tension was pretty good until they tried too hard and blew it with that retarded twist at the end.
Drew - Ya' know, not really. I'm more of an overall horror fan than swearing loyalty to any one sub-genre. I love slasher movies when they're well done and I love the big icons like Jason and Freddy. I love Leatherface because I'm from Texas. But I'm just as likely to watch an old gothic from the 30s as a slasher movie. It really depends on what kind of mood I'm in. I'm not sure that I can pick a favorite.
Lately I'm at the point where I'd like to see something really bold and new from the horror genre. I think I'm over torture porn (a term I hate by the way) and we haven't seen any new iconic characters in a good while. Where's the new monsters? Where are the new villains? That's what I want to see. It kind of makes me sad that the best this generation has is the Jigsaw Killer. I don't think he's all that iconic either. My 91 year old grandmother knows who Jason Voorhees is. Jigsaw Killer? Not so much.
WHO IS YOUR FAVOURITE FINAL GIRL?
Stefan - Corey Feldman, hands down.
Tim - Laurie Strode/Jamie Lee Curtis. Marilyn Burns too.
Drew - Laurie Strode. Hands down.
Russell - Heather Langenkamp as Nancy Thompson from the first Nightmare on Elm Street
FINALLY – WHAT'S YOUR FAVOURITE DEATH SCENE?
Drew - Today? Jason stabbing the jock, the using the bed to snap him in two in Freddy vs. Jason. Tomorrow I might answer something different. But I love that scene dearly. It always puts a smile on my face.
Russell - Thinking of Nightmare on Elm Street 3 from earlier brings back memories of the puppetry scene, so right now I'm going to say that.
Or the garage door scene from Scream.
Or the sleeping bag scene from Friday the 13th part 7. Or the soundproof glass scene from Scream 2. Or the entire cornfield party rampage from Freddy vs. Jason.
Tim - Jason X. Liquid Nitrogen dip followed by face shatter.
Drew - That was awesome. If I ever felt guilt, Jason X would be my guilty pleasure
Stefan - It's gotta be in The Intruder, when one poor guy gets his head put through a bandsaw. I first saw that when it was mistakenly released uncut in the UK on the Colorbox label, and man, that was really something. Watching that made me feel I was definitely seeing something I shouldn't be, and I'd found a gem.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 12:00 PM
May 21, 2008
Ten Scenes That Weren't In The Movie.
by Russell H
10. Mercedes Ruehl learning a very valuable lesson about Antwerp in The Mosquito Coast (1986)
9. The polystyrene sequence with Danny Glover and Fairuza Balk in Serpico. (1973)
8. The scene in Broadcast News (1987) where Bruce Boxleitner experiences Photosynthesis.
7. Nashville (1975) – Jeremy Irons doesn't smoke a pipe.
6. The scene in The Colour Purple (1985) when Roger Ebert and Def Leppard have to stop the Superbowl.
5. Faye Dunaway's upholstery technique, The Brdge on the River Kwai (1957).
4. Robert Mitchum serenades Richard Dreyfuss, Dangerous Liasons (1988)
3. Martha Plimpton making her own copper-bottomed saucepans in Fort Apache: The Bronx (1981).
2. On the Waterfront (1954) – Lindsay Wagner redecorates her windmill
1. Matthew Broderick's birth trauma, King Ralph (1991)
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 12:00 PM
June 07, 2007
10 Great Big Movie Douchebags
There are many things that contribute to making someone a douchebag. An overinflated sense of self-worth. A worthlessness despite pedigree. And an inneffectiveness that, when all is said and done, borders on the pathetic.
But douchebags aren't jerks. Jerks are generally more effective and/or aggressive than douches. Johnny Lawrence was a jerk. Biff Tannen was a jerk. Anakin Skywalker was a jerk. These guys below? Douches.
Fred O'Bannion, potrayed by Ben Affleck in Dazed and Confused
Ah, young Ben Affleck before we knew who he was. And even then did we hate him. But not for the usual "overexposed famous guy of middling talent" reasons, but because the character he plays in this film is a tremendous douchebag. A super-senior, O'Bannion takes way too much delight in the paddling that was the apparent birthright of any senior in high school in 1970's Texas. If you've not seen the film, let us put it this way: he might be the poster child for anti-hazing laws. Just shy of homoerotic, and pretty far from being playful, the guy is just nasty.
There are some other reasons to hate him- he's a bad winner at pool, his muscle car is painted an ugly gray, he has 70's hair- but all of the paddling he gets into is plenty. The sheer joy he expresses as he's spanking the freshmen... well, we wonder what freaky things O'Bannion might have gotten into later in life. The icing on the douchebag cake is that when he gets his comeuppance (they dump paint on him) he has a total hissy fit, storms off and is never seen from again. And that's it. Not much of a villain, there eh? More of a douchebag.
Obi-Wan Kenobi, potrayed by Ewan McGregor and Sir Alec Guinness in the Star Wars films
"Luke, I know that the only family you've ever known has just been killed by stormtroopers, but this girl asking for my help? She's your sister. You're not alone in the universe. Come with me and we can help her."
But Obi-Wan never said that, did he? Instead he just lies to Luke. Like, a lot. Then equivocates like a douche when called on it. "Certain point of view", my ass. In fact, when you get down to it... it's really his fault Luke and Leia kiss in Empire.
But, even before that, he was pretty lame. He has to go to the alien equivalent of Vic Tayback for clues because he can't figure something out. He can't handle one bounty hunter on his own. He can't tell his Padawan is secretly married, in violation of the Jedi code. And, after lopping the limbs off The Chosen One, he leaves Anakin alive and smoldering to become the most evil bastard in the universe (next to the Emperor). He really was a pretty lousy Jedi.
And, let's be honest here, magically disappearing is a douche-y way to die.
A controversial choice, to be sure. But, a douchebag, he is.
Ed Rooney, portrayed by Jefferey Jones in Ferris Bueller's Day Off
HE WAS ON THE TV SCREEN WHEN YOU WERE IN THE BAR! RIGHT ON THE TV SCREEN! LOOK UP, DOUCHEBAG!
Man, there's a lot of competition for high school principal douchebag, and, honestly, this almost went to Principal Vernon from The Breakfast Club. But he was really more a jerk than a douche. He did, after all, get Bender into detention for weeks upon weeks.
Rooney, however, has an ineffectiveness about him that lands him squarely in the douche camp. He can't tell a 17 year old in a trenchcoat from an adult. Can't tell a boy from a girl. Misses endless opportunities to catch Ferris. And ultimately breaks into the Bueller's home (by knocking a dog unconcious with a potted plant), gets beaten up by a girl, has to ride the school bus home, and ends up eating a handful of warm gummi bears.
Bill Lumbergh, portrayed by Gary Cole in Office Space
Part of what made Office Space such a great movie, is that there's no clear antagonist in the film. The enemy is the 9 to 5, not any one master villain behind it all. The movie rails again the button down, day in day out lifestyle that so many of us have to endure to put food on the table, and that's a special thing. It's interesting to see a movie that can get you rooting for the hero without giving you a villain to hiss.
It did give us a supreme douchebag, tho. Bill Lumbergh.
Oh, Lumbergh. You're just so terrible. What would you be without passive aggression? What could you be? You ooze it from your every pore. Your suspenders and pink shirt radiate it. You're the worst boss one could ever imagine, and somehow we've all worked for you; or some aspect that is you. And yet you're not someone to really be hated, at least from the outside. We don't have to work for you, we just look at you and grimly smile at the memory of the last boss we had that made us work extra and smiled about it. To us, you're just a harmless douchebag. But if we worked for you, I am certain that we'd pee in your coffee.
Walter Peck, portrayed by William Atherton in Ghostbusters
When else than in the 1980s could one of the villains of a movie be a bureaucrat from the Environmental protection Agency? The EPA! The good guys. The guys who keep our waters clean. And our air fresh!
But no, in Reagan's America, the EPA was evil. The EPA's endless rules and regulations hampered small business owners. Including small business owners who kept dangerous amounts of ectoplasmic entities in the basement of a rundown firehouse.
Enter Walter Peck. The man who gets a court order, shuts down the containment grid, and has the Ghostbusters arrested. Like many small-minded bureaucrats, he can't see the big picture, but luckily those above him can, and he gets kicked out once the mayor realizes that New York needs the Ghostbusters.
And you could tell he didn't really care about the safety of New Yorkers. He just didn't like Peter Venkman. Well, you know what kind of people don't like Peter Venkman? Douches.
Starscream, voiced by Chris Latta in Transformers: the Movie
You can hear it in your head: "Of course, mighty Megatron." That voice. That oddly shrill, whiny, cocky prick tone that can only mean Starscream. You know the dirty bastard, from the comics to the cartoon to the movie. Starscream's a big ol' douchebag. He talks shit, but when it's time to back it up? "Decepticons RETREEEEEEAT!"
And then the movie. Was there anything more satisfying than seeing him finally get capped for all of his treacherous bullshit? But then the show went and screwed it all up and brough him back as a ghost. An indestructible ghost. A shrill, indestructible ghost. Lord, what a douchebag.
Merovingian, portrayed by Lambert Wilson in The Matrix Reloaded
Merovingian: I love French wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language, French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculis de ta mire. You see, it's like wiping your ass with silk, I love it.
...it's been about ten years since I last looked at a French textbook, so I have no real idea what he's going on about there. But I am reasonably certain that those are the words of a douchebag. The biggest, most douchey thing he is responsible for? Count the minutes he took up onscreen during Reloaded/Revolutions as valuable movie time entirely wasted.
Prince Humperdinck, portrayed by Chris Sarandon in The Princess Bride
He lost a fight to an invalid because he was too worried about his pretty face.
He was going to kill Buttercup. He did kill Westley. He employed the evil Six-Fingered Man. And he was mean to Miracle Max.
Humperdinck was well on his way to evil jerk-dom.
Except... his plan sucked. Rather than just go to war like a man, he had to come up with a convoluted plan that involves having to murder his own wife and blaming the country he wanted to go to war with. But, hey, guess what Humperdinck?... You're the prince. You're going to be king. If you decide to go to war... everyone has to pretty much go along with it.
And his grand plan? Beaten by "true love". Lame. Douchebag lame.
Caledon Hockley, portrayed by Billy Zane in Titanic
There's not a lot we have to say about this guy. I assume we've all seen Titanic by now, right? So we are all aware of why this prissy douchebag makes the list. Is it framing hunky young Leonardo DiCaprio? Trying to buy the love of young Kate Winslet? Shooting wildly at the pair of them as the boat starts to sink? Trying to pussy out off of the boat by pretending to be a child's father? His general arrogance and self-importance? His 'rich white guy' act?
We don't know, either. Pick a couple. We like to focus our hatred on him in his entirety, as a sort of focal point of our hatred for Titanic in general. But for all of his time on screen, there is not one moment where you can look at him and not seem him acting like a total douchebag.
Carter Burke, portrayed by Paul Reiser in Aliens
There's a reason none of us ever bought Paul Reiser as a romantic lead on Mad About You. And it's because we knew that he'd let a facehugger suck on Helen Hunt if The Company told him to. When you get down to it, Burke is the smarmy, douchebaggy Lumbergh-esque business guy taken to sci fi extremes. So concerned with profit and his future employment, he would, literally, endanger the entire human race to cover his own ass.
So, when things turn to shit and securing an alien to take back becomes unlikely, what does he do? He tries to get a facehugger to implant an alien into either Ripley or an EIGHT YEAR OLD LITTLE GIRL.
Preferably both.
Douche.
Discuss this article in our forum.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 12:00 PM
April 18, 2007
Pulp Fiction vs. Battlefield Earth (Free Pass or Not?)
by EdContradictory
You know the deal. You're hanging out with friends, maybe you're all over at someone's house. Maybe you're at Friendly's splitting some quesadillas. But, inevitably, after the talk about jobs and politics and the weather runs out... you're left staring at each other, unwilling to discuss the issue hanging over everyone's head. Like the Sword of Damocles.
Namely: Was Pulp Fiction such a great and importantly fantastic movie that merely being in it gives John Travolta a free pass for all the dreck he's been in since?
In other words, is Pulp Fiction more gooder than Battlefield Earth is more bad?
So let's get the simple part of this equation over with first. Battlefield Earth is an awful movie. How bad is it? It was so bad that I re-watched it for this article and as I watched it, my brain erased the very memory of watching it in order to protect my fragile psyche. All I know is that Travolta is in platform shoes, some dudes learn how to pilot planes, and Forest Whittaker is in it.
But there are many other Travolta films that are also bad. There's Phenomenon, wherein Travolta gains the powers of a Thetan Level 7, but then we find out it was just a brain tumor. There's Michael, where he played an angel with Andie MacDowell, who, it is important to mention, cannot act. And White Man's Burden, the one with Harry Belafonte where Travolta's a minority. And there's... that other movie where he played that guy... who did that stuff.
So, there's a lot of bad. But, on the other side of the equation, there's Pulp Fiction. And Pulp Fiction is so fucking amazing, none of those shitty films matter.
I remember the first time I saw Pulp Fiction. I remember sitting in the theater stunned at the end. My friends and I just staring at the screen and slowly acknowledging the outside world again. And when we finally had the wherewithal to notice each other again, we just smiled. We knew, we knew, we had just seen something amazing. So amazing that in years past I wish I could remove the memory of the film from my mind so I could watch it new, all over again. How cool would that be?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're going to say it was derivative. That the narrative structure was gimmicky. That the characters were over the top. You know what I say to that? Fuck you. Fuck you, you Forrest Gump loving son of a bitch. Sam Jackson was robbed and you fucking know it!
Glowing briefcase? Cool. Marvin shot in the face? Cool. Adrenaline shot to the heart? Cool. The Wolf? Cool. The scene with Butch in the cab? Not completely awful. "Bring out the gimp"? Cool. Jules' wallet? Cool.
The feeling and mood of Pulp Fiction might have been copied to the point of being tiresome since then, but in 1994 it was still new and unfamiliar and unique. In fact, without Pulp Fiction, the 90s would have sucked. It would have been all John Hughes baby movies. The nineties were Pulp Fiction and Pulp Fiction was the nineties. It doesn't matter that a bunch of crappy directors came after that and copied Pulp Fiction and married Madonna. Pulp Fiction is a diamond, brilliantly gleaming, and their shit can't stick to it.
Look at it this way: Pulp Fiction is so amazingly amazing that without it, Battlefield Earth wouldn't even exist. Travolta used the clout he had from being in the most important film of the nineties and used it to make the worst.
Years from now, decades from now, which will be remembered? Will we even remember Travolta was in a film called Battlefield Earth? Does anyone remember that Jimmy Stewart was in The Magic of Lassie? Hell, no. People don't even rememebr that he was in Fievel Goes West. You remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It's a Wonderful Life.
So, in closing, even if you don't currently believe that Pulp Fiction's awesomeness outweighs Battlefield Earth's badness, know this: Ultimately you're wrong and twenty years from now when you try to spread your dirty lies, people will laugh at you. Just as I laugh at you now.
Read the same author rant about Wolverine, Spider-Man, and bone claws.
Discuss this article in our forum.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 09:00 AM
January 24, 2007
Look Back In Anger: HIGHLANDER
by Pete Goodrich
Christopher Lambert is sort of a terrible actor. By sort of, I suppose we mean 'Is.' He's not much of a ladies man as his low heavy brow and massive fivehead do not make for 'Hollywood heartthrob.' Admittedly his deep, penetrating gaze is due to him being legally blind, but vision impairment is no excuse for shitty acting. For an example, please see... Christopher Lambert. Though he was born on Long Island, he was raised in Switzerland which accounts for his bizarre, unspecified accent. He's like a French Mushmouth. Take a look at his IMDB page, and you will see a slew of straight-to-video crappiness with some weird French-lookin' movie titles mixed in. This is not news. Well, except for perhaps the French films.
We all recognize that Christopher Lambert is not a star. But I think that all of us, as geeks, would agree that his finest work was 1986's Highlander. We all have fond memories of the swordfights and the romance and the tales from different eras. We knowingly forgive Sean Connery playing a Spaniard ("My name is Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez. Laddie") because he's Sean frickin' Connery, we all know that the Kurgan is just the baddest ass of all movie badasses, and gosh darn it Highlander was just plain awesome, number one and the best. We love Highlander. We remember it as being awesome.
My friends, our memories are wrong. This movie is bullshit, and does not deserve the warm place in our memories that it has. Myself, I was perhaps eleven years old when I saw this catbox of a movie. I didn't know any better then and I'll wager that you didn't either. I watched it again last night, for the first time in years and years. And I tell you this: IT SUCKED. A lot. I will admit that it was at least laughably bad, so it wasn’t the worst time I’ve had watching a movie. But for my attempt to see it as 'so bad it's good' a larger part of me was saddened to see that this happy movie memory of mine for so very long, was so very bullshit. Let us take a look, shall we?
There will be no spoiler protection added, as this movie is old enough to drink.
Problem #1: THE ACTION AND F/X
In a word: dated. I know that we are all pretty spoiled by the standards of today. Both special effects and fight choreography are greatly improved from what they had been back in the day. We can’t expect a lot of wire-fu and shit from lightly trained (I assume they were trained somewhat) American actors in 1986. But I remembered the swordfights being a lot…faster? More brutal? Better? Yes, I remember the sword fights as being better than what we get. It’s just the standard movie “And thrust and parry and swing and clash! And thrust and parry and swing and duck! And thrust and parry and…” It was not as innovative as I remembered it to be. Why did I think it was so nutty? Was it because it was in a parking garage? I cannot explain this.
And as for the F/X... Whenever an Immortal takes his enemies head, he is suffused with a weird, eldritch energy (The Quickening) that causes tearing winds and electrical energies that affect the area around him. Which means that the PA’s bust up a lot of windows and have some fun with the spark machines. The first time we see it, the Quickening is so powerful that it causes the cars in the parking garage of Madison Square Garden to break their windshields and headlights and rev their engines uncontrollably! Incredible! Not cheesy at all! Oh wait, yes it was. Big ups to whoever decided that the other perk of the Quickening process would be that a huge spotlight goes up in the background.
These criticisms are not unique to Highlander, but still one that has to be noted in order to fully explain how and why this movie is actually not very good.
PROBLEM #2: WHAT?
There are movies that are so powerfully entertaining, that they give you pause. This movie is not one of them. Take for example the interrogation scene with the police that MacLeod (false identity of Russell Nash) has to go through. They (rightly) suspect he had something to do with the headless body they find in the shattered parking garage at Madison Square Garden. Apparently they had a hard time believing that this foreign-sounding antiques dealer digs the 'rassling shows. The banter and wit exhibited here…yeah.
Garfield: Are you a faggot, Nash?
Connor MacLeod: Why, Garfield? Cruisin' for a piece of ass?
Garfield: I'll tell you what happened, Russell. You went down to that garage for a blow job. But you didn't want to pay for it.
Connor MacLeod: You're sick.
That's a dandy comeback. YOU ARE THE BURN MASTER! Well Officer Garfield then flies off the handle and pops MacLeod one in the face, so our hero then gets up and starts pounding the bejesus out of a police officer in a police station. Which yes, is a little ridiculous…but more ridiculous is that they let him leave right after! I guess a sketchball who was found fleeing the scene of an unexplained murder can get away with that shit in the 80’s. But how? I know not. A bit of a plothole with this scene, which also ties in with the largest minus this movie has going for it being that Connor MacLeod is kind of a dick.
PROBLEM #3: CONNOR MACLEOD: KIND OF A DICK
I understand why he was dropping so much attitude in the police station. Makes sense, if you want your hero to be tinged with a little anti-heroism, you give him some snappy patter and a disrespect for authority. Whereas Highlander went whole hog, and just made him an utter prick. I'll admit I felt bad for him in olden times when he got kicked out of his village; but everything about 80's MacLeod was just plain Dick. One could say that it was centuries of longevity that led him to his cold, cynical attitude.
But on the other hand, Connor MacLeod is a pretty creepy asshole throughout this movie. In the origin flashbacks I suppose one could forgive it as “It’s the 1500s! Of course he’s going to treat a woman as an object! Where’s Braveheart?!” Which I suppose is fair, and his relationship with his wife in olden times is actually shown to be quite happy and uncreepy. There’s some weird male wish fulfillment going on in one bit with his Old Wife in the 1500's. After sex wife Heather MacLeod replies “You can do that to me forever if ye like me lord.” One supposes that line was there for ironic purposes, but watching it...just plain weird.
And then in the 80’s, MacLeod has become a weird, stalker dick. It is incredible that his behavior in this movie actually manages to win him the girl. I guess she could not resist his magnificent jutting brow. Forensics examiner/ancient sword expert (I shit you not) Brenda Wyatt has been investigating traces of ancient sword metal she found at the site of the first battle of the movie. MacLeod’s ancient sword metal. He follows her to the bar for…no good reason. He mumbles something at her telling her not to follow him…although he had just followed her to the bar from the crime scene. He looks intensely creepy as he does so. And of course, as any rational individual would do she then starts to follow him into a shadowy alley. IT IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL THAT SHE DOES THIS. He of course grabs her from behind and puts her hand over her mouth because he sensed the Kurgan was lurking nearby, but I bet he would have done that even if the Kurgan wasn't there.
Later on, she goes to his office to try and get more insight into MacLeod, who then unleashes his powerful pimp powers!
MacLeod: Can you cook?
Brenda: …yes.
MacLeod: I think we should have dinner.
And she says okay, and invites him over. To her house. Where she would then cook dinner for him. And when he comes over, he starts going through her stuff. To be fair, it was all a clever ruse on Brenda’s part as she had hidden a pistol and a tape recorder in a box on her bureau. In her bedroom. Away from the dining room where presumably she would have taken him for dinner.
And finally in the “WTF? Why does she dig him?!” category, is the scene where he proves to her that he is in fact an immortal. By putting an ancient blade in her hand, and forcing her to stab him. And then they fuck. And keep in mind, throughout all of this he has fixed her with a gaze that I am sure he intends to be "intense and smoldering," but in actuality is more the "psycho looking dude on the bus’' variety. Yet still, he gets to nail her and then lovingly caress her 80s bangs. And Brenda of course ends up chained to a billboard by the ol' Kurgan as bait for MacLeod, and the circle of objectification is complete.
All movies ask for a little suspension of disbelief, but I kind of get the sense that Highlander expected us the viewer to just shut up and eat the shit they shoveled at us. I found the "Immortals who can only be killed by beheading" stuff to be more believable than the love story, which got equal screen time. It's not something you'll notice when you're a preteen and just learning about girls in the first place, but twenty years later this shit sticks out like a sore thumb.
But don't hate me for this, I admit there are good things in this movie too. The Queen soundtrack is brilliantly hilarious. Apparently they were so moved by the love story between Connor and Old Dead Wife Heather they wrote the song “Who Wants To Live Forever” just for the movie. This is notable only because it’s fun to sing along with the music whenever it comes up again later in the film, which is often. You can’t go wrong with a Queen soundtrack; sometimes it’s what tips a movie over the top from godawful to awesome. You can see which side I feel this movie is on, whereas Flash Gordon is only made more awesomely bad by the Queen soundtrack.
And of course the best part of Highlander- the only truly enduring good thing in this movie- is the character of the Kurgan. Clancy motherfucking Brown trumps all, and if the movie had been all about him and his quest to behead a sleazy Christopher Lambert I would go back in time to see the movie twenty times. He does the crazy/menacing thing so very well. The scene where he terrifies Brenda into submission (not kidding) by going on a crazy joyride down the streets and sidewalks of NYC is just amazing, and the bit where he steals an old couples station wagon and goes for a crazy drive with her clinging to the hood…well, that’s just great stuff.
A surprisingly normal looking picture of the Kurgan.
So what have I learned from this little exercise?
1) I might be totally wrong. This one film spawned 4 sequels (another one getting ready for video as we speak), a TV show, several novels, a comic book, and one terrible animated series. So you know, if majority rules and popularity is what counts then I am totally wrong about the movie sucking. So…yeah. I’m not wrong.
Hey, I’ll admit that the mythos as a whole has grown to the point where it’s bigger than the movies. And that’s cool. I used to like the TV show a bit. But I used to say that the only good Highlander movie was the first one and after last night I know that is simply untrue.
2) When Rob Liefeld stole this concept for his own long ago and rightly forgotten idea of ‘The Externals,’ I thought it was bullshit that he so blatantly copied one of the more interesting elements of the film franchise. It’s still true. I just wanted to remind you of that.
Your mileage may vary of course, but I think the past twenty years have elevated Highlander to a level that it really doesn't deserve. If anything, this movie needs a remake. With better actors, FX, fight choreography, and script. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Go on, watch it. Let me know what you think. But beware! You might end up shattering a favored childhood movie memory as I have. It's not the biggest thing to lose, but I know that it sort of bummed me out when I realized how bad this was. Shit, now I'm afraid to go back and watch Flash Gordon.
Our previous Look Back In Anger: 1996
Discuss this article in our forum.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 09:30 AM
December 06, 2006
Star Wars: Attack of the Afterthought
by Weston Kenley
There was a time when I use to love this saga unconditionally. I remember playing with the toys while the vinyl soundtrack played in the background, having the bed sheets protect me from unseen monsters, and wearing out the VHS copy of Empire Strikes Back because I needed to watch it over and over again. The movie held such majesty in my mind at the time. All three of those movies could do no wrong in my book. I worshiped them like many people of my generation. It wasn't until I went with my friends to see the re-released version The New Hope that the loyalty of my fond memories was tested. As I sat there in that darkened theater, watching my favorite franchise in its natural habitat, I realized that this movie was not what I was suppose to see. It was like I stepped into the wrong theater, and as my punishment, I was forced to watch all these small nightmares holding together my once perfect dream. Suddenly I was left to question my love of a childhood staple. Why did Jabba the Hutt not look right? Since when did Greedo shoot first? And, who the hell is Biggs Darklighter?
My heart ached at these first few changes, and I hoped that they would not continue, but they did. I'll admit, when I first heard that Mr. Lucas was going to "enhance" a few scenes in the originals and finally make the prequels to the story, I was excited. After all, this fantasy was his baby, but nothing prepared me for the idea that he was going to ruin our memories with all his changes. Though, the enhancements to the sound and lighting effects bended seamlessly; many of the new scenes, themes, and characters did not. At many points during the re-releases, I even found myself distracted by the smooth CGI layered with the graininess of the original footage. It was like he had forced adverse puzzle pieces together, which threw off the final image that we were expecting to see.
This single idea then spilled over into a motif, that would continue until the final credits of Revenge of the Sith, as Mr. Lucas used his will (and lack of foresight) to mutilate the filmed fantasy of a whole generation. There were so many points that could have been improved, if he had only taken the time to study his previous work, before going back to make changes and carry the beginning of the story forward.
I know that Mr. Lucas has said that he is happy with these films, they were now as he intended them to be seen, and that everyone who disagrees with that, can shove off. Well if that's the case… Mr. Lucas, OK, you're right. How could we argue that you've successfully made a bunch of inconsistent, poorly acted, over-compensated, B-quality fantasy movies (that had the all-too-real-possibility of being amazing) when you apparently planned for them to suck all along? If I were you though, I'd try to shoot a little higher when creating the crown jewel in your legacy of film. Howard the Duck will only carry you so far towards greatness.
Since I'm here though, let me make 10 suggestions, that range from general to specific, but they all might have made for a better film collection, or at least, one that would have been not-so-damaging to the spirit of all those who believed in you...
1. Remember what things look like if you’re going to show them in multiple places. In the re-release of The New Hope and the pod race scene of Phantom Menace, Jabba the Hutt's eyes are yellow, but in Return of the Jedi they are red-orange. Yes, that pretty insignificant, but really, the look of Jabba during his introduction (in Jedi) was never repeated again in any of the films. Maybe that was because you decided to not put enough effort into recapturing the image of Hutt that so many people fell in love with. This is the same reason that Yoda in Phantom Menace was a such a farce image. If you're going to use CGI for everything, why use a half-ass-puppet for Yoda in this movie? It looked like he was hiding taffy from the rest of the Counsel, by shoving it between his gums and upper lip. It tore a tiny hole in consistency of the character image, and could have been saved by going CGI from the start, but there IS a dark side to that...
2. If it's not broke, don't go spending a few million to fix it. CGI doesn't always trump everything else in the rock/paper/scissors of visual effects. God knows that some things were not originally as you intended, but that doesn't mean they were wrong. Really, if you had left a lot of the CGI changes out of Episodes 4-6, people would have still loved it regardless. Giving the Sarlacc a beak was like putting Mick Jagger lips on the Mona Lisa; you made a joke of a masterpiece. Just like Greedo shooting first cheapened the badass nature that we came to expect from the first second we saw Han Solo. I mean, did we really need to see a complete song and dance number at the beginning of Return of the Jedi? Don't get me wrong, some CGI was good and effective, but you have to take a note from the Gambler, and know when to hold em’ and know when to fold em’. With that said...
3. Recycle ideas and plastic, not characters. Having C-3PO, R2-D2 and Chewbacca intertwined with the overall story was unnecessary. There was no need for them, when new characters would have been done fine (if not better) in their place. If anything, having them all there damaged the way that all the stories were connected. Case in point, if R2-D2 didn't have his memory erased at the end of Revenge of the Sith, what was to stop him from telling the whole story to Luke and the rest of the gang during the second half of the saga? What about Chewbacca? Wouldn't he have mentioned to Han that he knew, and also fought along-side, one of the greatest Jedi Masters of all time? Sure a few of the characters needed to be brought forward, like Luke's foster parents, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and the Emperor. I was even cool with a young Boba Fett being thrown into the mix, but a lot more effort should have been put into new characters. Oh yeah, about that...
4. Why create new actually-interesting characters when you can use real-life stereotypes for free? Right? The whole thing about fantasy is that it doesn't have to be mirror our world completely. The Trade Federation didn't have to look and sound like some mockery of Asian businessmen, and Watto didn't have to resemble some Italian junkyard owner. There are billions of different personality traits in our world to pick from, why choose the ones that are so cliche? Having Ben go to a poor illustration of a "space diner" is one thing, but to have him meet up with a freakish alien version of Mel Sharples (from Alice), is just taking it too far.
Star Wars was about originality of it characters and all that was lost in the prequel trilogy. When we saw Chewbacca for the first time, we wanted to know more about him and other Wookies. The same can even be said of Admiral Ackbar and his fellow Mon Calamari. I would have loved to see that race of characters carried forward into the prequels. Hell, many of the more interesting aliens, like the Sullustan (Nien Nunb's race), could have been made more prevalent this time around too. Instead, we were shown all these new creatures that lacked individual personality, which thinned out an original trademark of these movies. Since we're on the subject of lack-of-depth...
5. It's possible to write an exciting sci-fi love story that isn't a Lifetime Original movie in space. A lot of people blame Hayden Christensen's stellar "I am a tree, hear me cry" performance on the lack of depth in Anakin Skywalker's character, but it also has to do with the love story itself. Some of the hardest scenes to get through were those involving the love of Anakin and Padmé Amidala. The age-difference included, the whole affair came across as the story of a powerful politician falling for her creepy, and incredibly religious, stalker. Jerry Springer would kill to have guests like that! From the first moments, there is something about their love that is just not right (and I’m not talking about how Jedi’s aren’t suppose to have lovers). Much of the way they came together seemed so contrived. Not like the story of Han and Leia, which developed from, and in spite of, a clash of personalities and ego. It would have been far more interesting to see Anakin and Padmé discover their feelings for each other, and develop it, during some well-placed tense situations.
In fact, all those scenes, with them running gay through the fields, should have been replaced with the two of them being hunted by Aurra Sing, the Jedi bounty hunter. That would have killed two birds with one stone. On the one side, you would have brought in one of the truly great (and left-out) characters of the Star Wars universe; giving us some possibly amazing fight and chase sequences. Plus, you would be making a more believable situation where two people would discover that their feelings run deeper than expected; while creating a clear bond between the two. Actually, I’m even going to take it one step further…
6. Death is important and it only happens once… so let’s not mess it up. Padmé dies of a broken heart? Huh? What? Mr. Lucas, did you have somewhere else to be, when you were finishing up this script? It would have probably been easier, more plausible, and just totally hardcore, if Anakin stabbed Padmé with his lightsaber causing her to go into labor, and eventually die. This would have perfectly illustrated how far gone Anakin had slipped into the dark side. Plus, it would have eliminated the need for that whole “screaming NO! with the force” scene at the end, which was totally out of character for Darth Vader, because he should be like Shaft; once the suit goes on, he’s a stone-cold motherfucker.
This also brings up another death that should have been done with a bit more planning, the death of Qui-Gon Jinn. At the end of Revenge of the Sith, Yoda mentions that Qui-Gon was the first Jedi to figure out how to transcend death, but when Qui-Gon died in the Phantom Menace he didn’t disappear. It would have been more interesting to see him die and vanish, with a look of surprise on Obi-Wan’s face, because he wouldn’t have known what was happening. Beyond that, even if his death remained the same, it’s just crazy that we didn’t see one scene of Qui-Gon reappearing to Yoda for the first time in Jedi history. That, of all things, would have made our day, but I guess you were too busy ruining the illusion…
7. You know, it’s not really a religion if it’s based on science. Some things are better left unexplained. The mystery of its miracles is power station of religion, and it kills the defensive shield when the mystery is wiped out. We don’t need everything to be explained for us to believe in them. I think I would be heart-broken if I found out that the Burning Bush was just a herb, possibly called Dictamnus albus, which is native to southern Europe, north Africa and southern and central Asia, that also happens to secrete an oily residue, which is prone to combustion due to excessive exposure to the sun. It would no longer be a mystery. Just like, we didn’t need to know that the Force was actually little microbes in the cells of all living things, allowing the Jedi to have special abilities. We enjoyed the mystical nature of the Force as it was. If you’re going to elaborate on anything…
8. Silly Mr. Lucas, your tricks with the Force are for kids! I know you didn’t make this movie for the fans. God forbid you might throw a bone to the people who put your kids through college, but you really could have made up some more cool new moves that we hadn’t seen a Jedi do before. Even in the books, there are Jedi that use the Force to control other things, like the weather and water. Yes, it was nice to see Yoda kick ass, but I’d like to think that some of the Jedi could have been a bit more insane with their stunts. Mostly, the Jedi were left to look like faster versions of Luke in Return of the Jedi. With so much more training than him, the Jedi of the past should have had a little bit more going for them. Instead, you gave us an Obi-Wan that was prone to being injured, and a Yoda that didn’t expect the Emperor to use his lighting blast, right out of the gate. I mean, the only real badass things Mace Windu ever did, was to constantly have that “I’d rather be killin' the motherfuckin' Sith” scowl on his face, and his over-powering of the Emperor, but even then, he and the other members of the Counsel were not that impressive. Hey, speaking of that word…
9. You need a phrase book like a redneck in Tokyo. It’s cool to be cute and have Count Dooku repeat something that Vader said in original trilogy, but did we have to hear “Impressive…I see that so-and-so has trained you well” a bunch of times? Really, couldn’t they have mentioned something about the lightsaber dueling techniques they were using instead? Or maybe have one person question why they weren’t trying this other move instead? Oh that’s right, Mr. Lucas, you didn’t bother to come up with a variety of attacks for the Jedi to use, because you were too caught up trying to figure out how to insert pop stars into the battle sequences. The banter during the fight scenes seemed to rehash the same lines that you came up with 30 years ago. Seriously though, most of the dialog in the prequels was sub-par compared to the beautiful moments of wit and class you created in the original trilogy. Co-writers probably could have helped you with that but…
10. You need to get off the Control… I think you’re addicted. As much as I know that you were going to make these movies your way, you probably would have had a better response if you took some advice once and awhile. You didn’t have to direct all the prequels, you know? Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were still pretty amazing, even if you weren’t the one calling all the shots. Honestly, The Phantom Menace probably would have turned out great, if you had talked over all your “great ideas” with people that understand a thing or two about consistency, plot development, non-annoying character profiles, and maybe even the Star Wars universe beyond the movies. It’s one thing to work towards making your version of art; it’s another to piss on all the other art in that category (even your own) during the process.
In many ways, it seems like you woke up one day, decided to make the prequel movies to Star Wars, and three days later you started filming without a second thought about it. Not only that, you also decided that it wasn’t important to try and make a movie that that fans will love. After all, who needs fans? They’re only the ones that made this idea of yours, a franchise. Do you think people are going to be saying 20 years from now how good those prequels were? Probably not, Mr. Lucas. It’s more likely they’re going to say something about how you had this one-of-a-kind great idea, but through laziness and greed, you ruined it for the world forever. Instead of being a wonderful moment of our lives, it’s a tarnished memory of our childhood, but you know what? When all was filmed, watched, and done; it wasn’t the acting, or the effects, or even the characters that made these movies bad… it was you, Mr. Lucas. You made these movies the lackluster non-event that they were. I hope your ego sees that some day, and you do your best to correct it in the future projects…
And do us a favor, don’t make anymore of your Star Wars movies.
We can’t take much more of this abuse. Thanks.
Discuss this article in our forum.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 09:00 AM
June 08, 2006
Foreign Film Watch: Chinese Fists & Korean, Japanese & French Swords Pt. 2
by Won Kim
Part II:
Slice & Dice: Korean wu xia, A noble French chevalier and pretty Japanese super ninja.
Last time we discussed two films co-directed by Yuen Woo Ping Jet Li's new film Fearless and Tai Chi Master 2005 with Jacky Wu Jing. I will close this update on martial arts films with some recent contributions to the time honored wuxia, swashbuckler and chanbara genres.
Director Kim Young-Joon's previous film, Bichunmoo, was a movie criticized for its complex plot, and its fight scenes that were so jazzed up they looked like they belonged in a rock video instead of a kung fu movie. In contrast Kim's new film, Shadowless Sword (Korea 2005), has a lot going for it: good looking popular actors with a decent level of physical skill in the major roles, the participation of choreographers from Yuen Woo Ping's stunt team, location shooting in China, and fantastic production design. The plot is simplicity itself. Whereas Bichunmoo was a muddled variation on The Count of Monte Cristo, Shadowless Sword sports a straightforward pursuit plot akin to Peckinpah's Getaway that frames a variation on the age-old Arthurian fable, The Sword in the Stone, wherein a young man learns (or in this case re-learns) what it means to be a king.
10th Century Goth Villains!
It's 926 AD. Mongol warriors threaten to topple the Balhae Dynasty, and half of the country's armed forces have chosen (1) to side with the invaders, and (2) to dress goth. The loyalists in the military need a legitimate figurehead to rally the people to their side. Unfortunately, turncoat hit-squads have killed the king and almost all of the heirs to the throne. Then one loyal general remembers a prince who was exiled nearly a decade and a half ago, so they dispatch Soha, a highly trained young swordswoman, played by the beautiful action star, Yoon So Yi (memorable as the irritable taoist superwoman in Arahan) to find and the last remaining prince and then rendezvous with the armed forces at a predetermined location.
Yoon So yi and Lee So-Jin, the noble Soha and the dissolute Prince.
However, the assassins also remember the young exile, and are in hot pursuit. If that weren't bad enough, the young prince, embittered by his years in exile, is highly suspicious of anyone representing the dynasty. Moreover, he has turned to fencing stolen objects d'art to get by, and has since built a large network of fellow criminals to fall back on when he feels the need to disappear. Not only must the dissolute young man re-learn what it means to be a leader, he has to be convinced it's a desirable thing to do.
Whereas looking at Fearless from the perspective of Hong Kong's kung fu films of the 90's really isn't the best approach to that film, it's perfectly suited to the strengths and weaknesses of Shadowless Sword. When the film opened in Korea, local critics charged that Kim hews too closely to the example set by HK directors Ronny Yu (Bride With White Hair) and Tsai Hark (Dragon Inn, Swordsman). On the surface, this argument sounds ridiculous. The Chinese have been making period wuxia adventures and kung fu films since the turn of the last century. Anything produced in those genres will bear unavoidable similarities to those previous efforts. Also, it's not as though emulating their work in the genre is necessarily a failing: it all depends on how it's done. Witness Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon which successfully wedded the tension of Jane Austen's domestic dramas with the conventions of the wuxia genre. The 2005 film Duelist is another good example: there director Lee Myung-Se's creative use of lighting and digital editing breathes new life into the genre. However there is some merit in the Korean critics argument. This is evident in the way Kim Young Joon shoots fight scenes, and in the way he directs his star, where paradoxically he falters by not following his forebearers closely enough. Even though Kim is working with members of Yuen Woo Ping's stunt team this time around (the same people who graced Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger with inspired, easy to follow, wire assisted sword fights) Kim insists on shooting the fight scenes in such a frenetic style that it's often hard to clearly see what the actors are doing, thus diminishing one of the pleasures of the genre. True, the balance between clarity of movement and wire assisted spinning is far better in Shadowless Sword than it was in Bunchimoo there is still room for improvement. I do hope the director tips the balance further in his next outing. Excessive spinning gets old fast.
Yoon So-Yi as Soha.
Another characteristic of the wuxia genre is the combination of simple linear plots and one dimensional characterizations. Shaw Brothers directors like Cheng Cheh and Lar Kar Leung, and the independents of the 90's, like John Woo and Tsai Hark, got around this by having their actors to play their roles as heroically as possible. However for this to work, all of the principals have to perform their roles with an equal level of melodramatic intensity. Actors who do not follow suit end up looking bland in comparison. Oddly for a director who so clearly loves martial art dramas, Kim directed Yoon So-Yi, the woman who has to carry the picture, to play Soha with a great deal of restraint in half of her scenes. Thus while she once again proves herself a competent action star, her Soha comes off as curiously bland through much of the picture, especially compared to the intensity shown by Lee Seo-jin as the fallen prince, the magnetic Lee Ki-Yong as death squad leader Mae, and Hyun Joon Shin, who positively boils with barely restrained rage as Mae's commander. Though there is a reason Soha is so reserved around her reluctant charge, this important revelation comes rather late in the story. Her performance makes much more sense on second viewing once the audience has that critical piece of information. As it stands, however Yoon's restraint distracts from the film until her character finally begins to show some warmth, a little over half way into the film.
Lee Ki-Yong as Mae.
Lee Ki Yong deserves note. She makes Mae's intense hatred of Soha and her slavish devotion to her commander, compelling, and you end up wanting to learn more about the roots of both passions. The overall production design and cinematography is top notch. Shadowless Sword remains worth seeing for its period spectacle alone, and those fight scenes where wire work isn't so prevalent. In many ways Shadowless Sword is a big improvement over the director's previous effort, but he also has a ways to go. I hope he gets the chance. The man clearly loves the genre.
In terms of production values, Shonobi Honpen or Shinobi: Heart Under Blade (Japan 2005), equal those in 2002's Azumi. The similarities don't stop there. Both films are set in the peace enforced by the Tokugawa Shogunate after decades of bloody war, and both films feature cute, pretty stars in lots of fast, special effects assisted ninja action. The style of the fight scenes recall, but do not copy, those in the anime feature film, Ninja Scroll.
Joe Odagiri as Gennosuke, and Yukie Nakama as Oboro.
That alone should be enough for many action fans. However, Shinobi Honpen is saved from pleasant mediocrity by a better than average script. Two young, skilled martial artists meet and fall in love. As their clans, former rivals, have been at peace for some time, they hope their union won't meet too much opposition. However, fearing the ninja could be used against the Shogunate some day, the Shogun sets the clans against each other, and our young lovers face harsh, unwelcome choices. That the production begins as a transparent variation on Romeo & Juliet (and with a nod to Zhang Yimou's Hero the young lovers remind me of Broken Sword and Falling Snow) then leads the viewer to a sounder and more satisfying ending than expected, is a credit to Kenya Hirata, who adapted Futaro Yamada's novel. Shinobi Honpen may be a simple popcorn movie but (like Azumi and Aragami) <>Shinobi Honpen works. Recommended.
I wish I could say the same about On Guard! (Le Bossu, France, 1998).
Daniel Autieul as the eager swordsman Lagardere, a Chevalier in heart if not in name.
On Guard features a great cast headed by Daniel Autieul, a lot of decently choreographed fight scenes, and a fast moving script. Unfortunately all those pluses cannot save On Guard! from the unimaginative cinematography and routine editing that rob this action packed, old fashioned swashbuckler of it's a natural spark. With the right director (Christophe Gans? Luc Besson? Richard Donner? Tsai Hark?) On Guard! could've been great.
Foreign Film Watch: Chinese Fists & Korean, Japanese & French Swords Pt. 1
Discuss this article on our message board
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 01:53 PM
May 12, 2006
Foreign Film Watch: Chinese Fists & Korean, Japanese & French Swords Pt. 1
by Won Kim
Part I:
Real Life Kung Fu Heroes.
Be forewarned, spoilers follow in the detailed discussion of Fearless below.
Many of us think fondly on the Hong Kong Action Cinema of the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s. For approximately ten years, the colony churned out a nearly unbroken stream of fun popcorn movies, films whose sheer entertainment value an unabashedly sentimental and resonant themes appeal to audiences across the globe. I quickly became enamored of John Woo’s urban “bullet ballets (like The Killer), Johnnie To’s triad stories (like The Mission) and the art films of Wong Kar Wai (In the Mood for Love). These films showed us that Asians could blow up cars, shoot each other, and break each others’ hearts, as well as anyone else, and look good while doing it too. However, when it came to martial arts movies I retained a stodgy preference for the ‘bricks and baseball bats’ kung fu films of Chang Cheh (Five Venoms), Lau Kar-leung (Thirty Sixth Chamber of Shaolin), and Sammo Hung (Prodigal Son) over Jackie Chan’s comedies and wu xia epics in which daoist supermen spun around so fast during fight scenes you couldn’t see what the performers were doing. It wasn’t until fairly late in the 90’s that I finally turned onto one of the great pleasures of the period: the kung fu films Yuen Woo Ping and Jet Li worked on together in the 90’s.
Jet Li as Hung Gar Kung Fu master, Dr. Wong Fei Hung in Tsui Hark & Yuen Woo Ping's Once Upon a Time in China series.
Working with Maverick writer-director-producer Tsai Hark, Yuen and Li collaborated on four of the six films in the wildly successful Once Upon a Time in China series, that set a new standard for kung fu films of the era. Instead of a skeletal plot that served as a vehicle for one set piece after another, Once Upon a Time in China and its sequels featured appealing characters and fully developed stories mixing proud nationalism, broad comedy, social commentary, romance and breathtaking action sequences that artfully blended the usual brutal exchanges with wire-enhanced moments of physical grace. Li's Wong Fei Hung (only the latest in a long line of stars who played the role, including Jackie Chan) battled prejudice, ignorance, fanatics, violent colonial carpetbaggers, agents of the Imperial powers, government officials, desperate martial arts masters, gangsters and dangerously deluded cultists. He led a group of students (who provided most of the comic relief); was romanced by his youngest aunt by marriage and met major figures of the day, including Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the father of the short lived Chinese Republic. (I highly recommend the first two films in the series.)
Though Li eventually broke with Tsai, he and Yuen Woo Ping continued to work together on Fist of Legend (a remake of Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury and probably Li’s most popular film in the West) and Tai Chi Master, a wonderful send up of the legends surrounding Daoist sage Zhang San Feng, credited in legend with creating the exercises that evolved into Tai Chi Chuan among other things.
Jet Li as Hua Yuan Jia, here facing off against Hans, Head Coach of a Unit of Guardsmen from one of the European Colonial Powers in Fearless.
The imminent release of Yuen Woo Ping and Jet Li’s most recent collaboration, Fearless, China 2006 gives us an opportunity to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of that marvelous period as it’s almost impossible to watch Fearless without comparing it with their previous work together. One drawback of the 90’s kung fu films was the combined effect of low budgets and breakneck shooting schedules. Despite bravura camera work and lighting, you couldn’t help but notice the occasional minor gaffe, a discordant background detail, inopportune glimpses of people gawking at the filmmakers in the background, etc. Today, films like Wong Kar Wai’s 2046, the crime thriller Infernal Affairs Hong Kong cinema attest to how far the Hong Kong filmmakers have come, despite the East Asian currency crisis of the mid-nineties and gradual re-absorption into China, while recognized directors from the Mainland have always had the resources to mount grand epics like Farewell My Concubine and Hero, but operate with far greater restraints on subject matter.
In this sense Fearless is a Mainland film. The period detail is perfect, and the outdoor photography and aerial tracking shots of action scenes are beautiful and stunning. There are numerous fight scenes, and action fans will be glad to know Li puts down his opponents hard in this one. If Fearless does turn out to be Li's last martial arts movie, (reportedly old injuries threaten to put Li in a wheelchair if he continues) Li’s going out on a high note. (Many will not need to read further, in deciding whether or not to see this film.) As such the script demands a lot from Li as an actor. We're used to seeing Li play man children like the protagonists of Fong Sai Yuk or stoic bad asses, as in Kiss of the Dragon. Grafted onto some of the known facts about the life of a real-life martial arts folk hero of the early 20th Century, Fearless is the story of an arrogant bad ass, who pays dearly for his hubris, and after a wandering for while, earns a hard won redemption.
The historical Hua Yuan Jia.
In his youth the historical Hua Yuan Jia (1867 - 1909) was a sickly child, and was bullied by older children. Compounding matters Huo’s father judged Huo too frail to ever develop sufficient skill and strength to master his martial arts and refused to teach his son. Huo’s response was to observe while his father taught others, and practice what he managed to pick up on his own for ten years. After Hua prevailed against his peers in street fights, his father finally accepted him as a student. By the time Huo was an adult China was in disarray. The central government was in decline, and warlords, gangsters, competing political factions and the colonial powers, including Americans and Japanese, came to China, seeking to take advantage of the central government’s weakness for economic gain, and carve economic niches for themselves out of sections of the country. Before long it became common for people to refer to the Chinese as “Sick Men of Asia”, and Chinese morale was at an all time low.
Jet Li's Hua sizes up an afternoon's challengers.
Accustomed to fighting public challenges against his countrymen, Hua accepted challenges from a number of foreign fighters and won, gaining immediate fame. He then sought to make use of his newfound renown and founded the Chin Woo School. He opened the door to all Chinese so they could strengthen themselves, improve their self-image, and some day help defend the country from further foreign encroachment.
The historical Chin Woo in its' early days.
Soon however Huo died. He had ingested medicines prescribed by a Japanese physician (who left China the day before Huo died) which gradually destroyed his lung tissue. Many Chinese believe Hua was poisoned on the orders of Japanese Imperial government who wanted further demoralize the Chinese. However, Huo's legacy outlived the Imperial Powers. After Huo’s death, branch schools were opened in other parts of China and across Southeast Asia, and in time, Europe. The organization survived the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and Shanghai, World War 2, the Civil War between the Nationalists and Communists, and repression during the Cultural Revolution. Chin Woo still exists today as something akin to the YMCA, a chain of gymnasiums open to the public where members can learn basketball, baseball and other western sports as well as the dozen or so kung fu forms that formed the basis of Huo’s fighting style.
Jet Li as Hua's student, Chen Zhen in Fist of Legend, a remake of Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury.
Long time action film fans will be interested to know that Fearless is a dramatic prequel of sorts to Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury (and of course Li’s version of the same story Fist of Legend). Both of these earlier films told the story of Chen Zhen, a student of Master Hua, who seeks revenge on the Japanese for his teacher's death. In Lee’s version Chen Zhen succeeds in striking a blow against Japanese Imperialists, but pays the ultimate price for his rampage. (In Jet Li’s version, Chen Zhen lives on to wreck more havoc on the Japanese in Manchuria). Rather than glorify violent revenge Fearless dwells instead on the high price paid for arrogance, emotional immaturity and a lust for ego-gratification, which puts the onus on Li to expand his range as an actor. In Fearless he brings an intensity of feeling to Huo’s brutal rise to prominence and the inevitable fall. If Li is undercut at all, it's due to decisions the directors and editors made during the latter two thirds of the film. But here, in the first third of the film, Li shines as a fighter and as an actor.
Bastard!
It’s quite jarring to see Li play such a bastard. His Hua keeps pushing his luck, and pays a terrible price for his hubris.
Shattered over his grievous losses, Li's Hua stumbles off into the countryside. We next see him near death in rural Thailand where rural villagers take him in.
Here the film's weaknesses become readily apparent. Here Director Ronny Yu stages shots evoking scenes in other films, using them as emotional indicators instead of actually telling a story. For instance, there is a shot late during Hua's interlude in the village, where Hua tells a villager who cares for him that he has to leave. By this point in the film even Hua has our sympathy, and the actors (and the director) could have chanced more. Instead we get a compositional swipe of a shot from in Peter Weir's Witness where Harrison Ford's detective bids Kelly McGillis' Amish woman farewell. The same could be said of the blurred point of view shots in the last third of the film which recall the use of the same technique in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. This kind of cinematic short hand is becoming more and more common and never fails to annoy. However I am sure genre fans will likely forgive these failings. Fans of Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest films of the 70's have forgiven worse, and Hua's quest for redemption will resonate with viewers.
In this Fearless is more than a throwback to the 90's. The majority of the films of the “Hong Kong New Wave” were about entertainment pure and simple. However successful the new big budget films from Mainland China, Hero, Warrior of Heaven and Earth, House of Flying Daggers, The Promise and now Fearless, aren’t made solely to please audiences, or even make a return on the producers' investment. These films are products of China’s ongoing quest for a new place in the community of filmmaking nations.
Jet Li in Zhang Yimou's Hero.
Since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, filmmakers on the Mainland have been searching for the right formula for their own crossover martial arts films, a grand big budget epic that will please critics and audiences, East and West. (It didn’t surprise me to learn that expatriate HK director John Woo recently bought a house in Beijing. The man goes where the work is.) In this context Fearless is an attempt to bring together the entertainment value and crossover potential of the kung fu film (as distinct from the wuxia, or historical drama) with a sober, mature examination of the costs of violence and a story of human redemption.
In this Fearless is hardly unique: dozens of kung fu films play with the same themes. However, in most cases, however resonant, those themes were subordinated to the need to string one fight scene to another. Fearless is an attempt to push the kung fu genre into the realm of cinematic biographies like Spike Lee’s Malcolm X. Li’s Hua rises and falls hard. He goes into exile and achieves a kind of awakening. In the last third of the film Li’s Hua returns to public life. He finds a way to turn his dangerous skills to a larger, higher purpose, and is cut down for his efforts. It’s a testament to the power of such themes that the film works. As part of China's quest for recognition Fearless is a step in the right direction, but the Mainland filmmakers aren't quite there just yet.
The film's biggest problem is the result of choices made by the filmmakers while assembling a cut for distribution in the West. The European and American editions of Fearless begin with a public challenge match where Hua battles the first three of four martial arts experts from the colonial powers: a barehanded boxer, a spear fighting coach, and a master fencer. Then the film takes us back to Hua's childhood. We travel the whole of the protagonist's life before the film concludes with the fourth match, when Hua faces Shido Nakamura's Anno, a master swordsman and karateka. This kind of narrative structure is a time-honored story telling device, and usually works fine. However, the lack of build up to Hua's final match deprives the film's climax of its potential power. Also, coming as it does so soon after Hua's quick rise back to the top of the martial world, and the founding of the Chin Woo organization, it all seems rather sudden.
This was a late editing decision, made to cover for scenes cut from the original version. As is often the case with big budget Asian productions, 40 minutes of material were cut from the film, ostensibly to make the film more attractive to distributors in the West. Lost was an entire framing sequence where Michelle Yeoh, playing a diplomat who makes a pitch for wu shu (an athletic performance art based on standardized versions of the old kung fu forms) being accepted as an Olympic sport. Also cut was an entire subplot set during the Thai interlude, one that climaxes in a major battle scene that has been described as “pivotal” online. (Images on the net indicate a night time battle with Thai warriors at night).
Missing in Action: Li's Hua takes on Thai warriors.
All I can hope is that the original cut (that will be available in Chinese and Thai, without English subtitles, will someday be made available here, with English subtitles, in the US. If nothing else I want to see Li's Hua's battle with the Thai warriors. The few images available on the net look great.
Jackie/Jason Wu Jing as Yang Luchan in Tai Chi Master.
For those who really need a taste of entertaining spirit of the pre-takeover, pre-currency crisis Hong Kong filmmaking, I suggest checking out Tai Chi Master (China, 2005). Please note: I am not speaking of the 1993 film, also titled Tai Chi Master starring Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, based on legends about Daoist immortal Zhang San Feng (also called Twin Warriors) but a marginally more fact-based movie film (actually a two-hour compilation of major plot points and fight scenes from a successful 2002 TV series) about the youth of Yang Lu Chan, founder of the Yang Style of Taijiquan.
The historical Yang Luchan (1800-1873) sought to become a great martial artist. He’d heard that the Chen family practiced a formidable art called taijiquan but clan rules forbade teaching the art to outsiders. He became a servant of the Chen family, spied on practice sessions and practiced on his own. When discovered Yang trounced his captors and earned the respect of the teachers. He was accepted as a student, and given permission to teach.
Northern Praying Mantis expert Yu Hai as Chen Zheng-Ming, Yang Luchan's teacher.
Where Fearless is dark and serious, Tai Chi Master (2003) is breezy. It's an utterly enjoyable popcorn movie, leavened with generous helping of good humor loaded with fun fight scenes. The writers jazzed up the story to include cross-dressing daughters (likewise not permitted to study tajiquan at that time), battles to defend the village from attackers, challenges from rival martial artists, and much imperial intrigue. Wu Jing (often hailed as the neglected ‘should-be’ successor to Jet Li’s kung fu star crown) utilizes recognizable Chen style movements throughout the film - even more so than the heavily wire-assisted mix of Yang and Chen style technique that Jet Li employed in the 1993 feature film.
Featuring actual Chen Family Style movement!
This telling detail actually makes a lot of sense. There are readily distinguishable differences between the postures in the Yang and Chen style forms. This story takes place before those changes were made, so it makes sense that when Jacky Wu Jing fights in THIS film, he uses characteristic Chen style movement and techniques. Another treat for people practicing internal stylists is a series of matches between young Wu-Jings Yang Lu-Chan and Xu Xiang Dong, who plays Dong Hai-chuan, the founder of Baguazhang The character’s movements are clearly based on Baguazhang circle walking and ‘palm changes’ (strikes, throws and deflections). Even with soap-ish story elements cut from the re-edited, subtitled 2005 version, Tai Chi Master is a real treat to anyone who has studied Chen or Yang style for a year or longer, and has some knowledge of push hand applications drills, chin-na practice or sparring. It’s also pretty damn entertaining. Whereas Fearless is not an entirely successful effort for a Mainland Chinese cinema that is trying to assimilate the lessons of the West and claim larger audiences worldwide, Tai Chi Master 2005 really is a throwback to the golden age of 90’s Hong Kong action cinema. A key element missing from the recent big budget martial arts films is humor, something Tai Chi Master 2005 has in abundance. I want to see the rest of the TV series. I hope it is subtitled in English someday. Discus this article in our forums.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 09:58 AM
by Won Kim Short Looks at Three Oscar Contenders From Asia & A Festival Favorite. I was surprised to learn that countries actually nominate the films that compete for the Best Foreign Film Oscar at the Academy Awards. (I thought academy members nominated stand out films that screened at the international film festivals.) Equally surprising were some of the films that get nominated. In recent years China’s Hero, Hong Kong’s In the Mood for Love> and Japan’s Twilight Samurai certainly deserved their nominations. Those films were well directed, beautifully shot share a certain dramatic gravitas. In contrast, this years entries from South Korea, China and Hong Kong were all crowd pleasers at home, but I question if they are strong enough to compete for an Oscar. In some cases there are clearly better films to choose from, and in one case, however meaningful one comedy might be at home, I question how readily it’s import will translate abroad. A pleasant mix of drama and comedy, Welcome to Dongmakgol (2005) is the Korean nominee for the best foreign film award. Closely adapted from a successful stage play, Dongmakgol has the look of an extremely well-produced episode of M*A*S*H. The look suits the story: with the exception of a few scenes set on the mountain outside the village, and quick shots of American military radio traffic, most of the action takes place squarely in the center of town. The comic elements and the ‘theatrical quality’ of the production already separates this story from most cinematic treatments of the Korean War era, of which the bombastic melodrama Taegukgi: Brotherhood of War is a good example. Separated from their company, three North Korean soldiers barely survive an ambush. Stumbling away from the carnage, the injured, bloodied men run right into a simple-minded farm girl on a mountain trail. She leads them to her village, high up in the mountains. There the soldiers are stunned to learn that somehow, miraculously the inhabitants have been spared the ravages of war. In fact they are completely unaware a war is going on at all. More surprises are in store. The villagers already are putting up an American fighter pilot, badly hurt in a crash landing. Soon two lost South Korean soldiers, join them. A tense stand-off results. I held my breath watching the last third of this film. Dongmakgol could have ended up as yet another variation on “Lost Horizon” where the soldiers either (1) learn the meaning of peace by being assimilated into a low rent rural version of Shangri-la, or (2) “Seven Samurai”, where the soldiers band together to fight off outsiders or (3) the soldiers could turn upon themselves, resulting in a nihilistic bloodbath, or (4) learn they stumbled into a time warp, as in < Star Trek and change the course of history. I shouldn’t have worried. I’m pleased to report the film comes to a solid conclusion - a strangely fun spin on the notion of sacrifice. Jeong Jae-young, the pugnacious squad leader in Silmido, the abusive boxer in No Blood No Tears) is the senior of the North Korean soldiers. Shin Ha-Kyun, the deaf mute factory worker in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and the alien hunter in Save the Green Planet plays a South Korean demolitions man. While they make the tension between soldiers feel very real, the script doesn’t give them the opportunity to show the range they’ve displayed in earlier roles. Likewise Kang Hye-Jeong (Mido in Oldboy), who is fun as the simple-minded farm girl. The peasants seem there primarily for laughs. Welcome to Dongmakgol is well-made and entertaining: I wish it were more. Like Forest Gump I imagine it will mean much more for domestic audiences in Korea than it will to members of the academy. I agree with those who say it’s a bit light for academy award consideration. Were it up to me, I would have opted for Duelist to represent South Korea despite that films tendency to polarize audiences. Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Golden Globes, director Chen Kaige’s (Farewell My Concubine) The Promise (China, 2005) is an engaging storybook fantasy. The results aren’t half bad, if you can forgive the mystifying production design of the early battle scenes. This sequence has a bizarre Loony Toons feel, one that is underscored by the use of outside battlefield weapons by some of the soldiers, and cheap-looking computer animation. (I could not help but wonder if the director consciously intended to ape the style of the CGI in Stephen Chiao’s dark violent comedy Kung Fu Hustle here.) Here the process shots are unintentionally hilarious, at worst laughably bad. It took me three viewings to get beyond them. This kind of approach works in Stephen Chiao’s films because his comedies are essentially genre farces. However The Promise is meant to be taken straight. Like Welcome to Dongmakgol, The Promise features an A-List cast. Hiroyuki Sanada (Twilight Samurai) plays Guang-Ming, the Master of the Crimson Armor, a ruthless, if sleazy warrior general. Cecilia Cheung (One Nite in Mongkok is Qing-Cheng a concubine and Princess who is so beautiful that she can bring an army to its’ collective knees. Dong-Kun Jang (Taegukgi: Brotherhood of War is the slave Kunlun, who runs (and sometimes flies) so fast, he can break the time barrier. Kunlun’s utterly guileless and as dopey as Forest Gump. These three are ably supported by Ye Liu Purple Butterfly as the guilt ridden assassin Snow Wolf, Nicholes Tsu (Time & Tide) as an envious Wu-Haun, the Duke of the North and Guang-Ming’s greatest rival (whose ultimate motivations made we wonder if he was a parody of Yu Yi-Tae’s Wu-Jin in Oldboy) and Hong-Chen (Together) as the Goddess Hanshen, who offers Guang-Ming and Qing-Cheng glimpses of the future while exacting devils’ bargains from them the whole time. Once the battle scene is over the special effects settle down (though for no lack of drama, action and beautiful costumes and sets) and the story turns out to be the stuff of epic children’s adventure stories (were it not for some brief and racey plot elements). There’s a fair amount of magic, intrigue, betrayal and adventure. There's even some time travel, and almost every shot is beautiful, if at times, silly-looking. The film is worth seeing as all-out no-holds-barred fantasy. Whether an audience finds The Promise entertaining or laughable depends on how willing the viewer is to forgive its’ excesses, and buy into the simple fantasy world on offer here. As an Oscar contender, I don’t think The Promise has a chance in hell: the film asks far, far too much from the audience. Foriegn Film Watch: Award Season (Part II). Hong Kong director Peter Chan, is best known in the West for his 1996 film, Comrades: Almost A Love Story a film with Leon Lai and the great Maggie Cheung, as a pair of immigrants, and eventually lovers, from the Mainland, whose lives in early 1990’s Hong Kong, and later, in the United States, criss-cross each other’s over a ten year period of time. The film swept “Best Film” awards across Asia, and made a respectable showing at the international film festivals. Then Chan left directing, seemingly for good, concentrating on producing the films of protégées under the aegis of his United Filmmakers Organization in Hong Kong, a company noted for high production standards and strong source materials. When I heard he was directing a new film, I had high hopes. Comrades remains my one of my favorite films of the Hong Kong new wave, and one of only two that aren’t art films or an action melodramas. Chan’s Perhaps Love (2005), the academy award nominee from Hong Kong, is an ambitious production about an equally ambitious production, a Broadway style musical being shot in Beijing, essentially a film, within a film, within yet another film. A Beijing-based filmmaker, (Jackie Cheung) assembles his cast, unknowingly reuniting his lover, business partner and lead actress (Zhou Xun, who is best known for her role in Balzac & the Little Chinese Seamtress) with a rising Hong Kong heartthrob and romantic lead (Takeshi Kaneshiro, last seen in House of Flying Daggers), who was a film student in Beijing, when Zhou, then an impoverished street kid, and struggling would-be actress, befriended, loved then left him for other men, men could advance her career. When the director has to step in to cover for an actor who backed out of the project at the last minute, “the stage is set” for a complex mixture of film business drama, musical production numbers which underscoring the characters emotions in the present, and flashbacks to Zhou and Kaneshiro’s characters’ shared past. The film’s great strength is it’s realistic (if a bit clichéd) depiction of three people whose lives and loves are twisted by the cold-blooded competition that fuels the film industry, set against the backdrop of the colossal logistic undertaking that is the making of a big budget movie. These scenes make for solid, even riveting drama at times, particularly those scenes depicting Zhou’s and Kaneshiro’s actors salad days in a snow covered Bejing, and Cheung’s director’s struggle to reconcile his need to deliver a successful film with his fears he is losing Zhou’s affections in the present, set (and shot) so Where the film falters are in some of it’s musical numbers, that underscore the feelings and emotions driving the characters, in the past and the present. These scenes vary in impact depending on who is doing the singing. Jackie Cheung, a long time singing star in Asia and an often under-rated actor (in part because he hasn’t made many films in his long career, preferring to focus on his music career) walks away with his production numbers, where the lyrics are set to music that recalls the great operatic solos in musicals like Les Miserables. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Kaneshiro and Zhou, who don’t quite pass muster as Broadway-level performers. That’s not to say there aren’t some really good musical numbers here, my favorite being Zhou Xun’s visit back to the harsh Beijing slum of her youth, where she faces an uncomfortable truth about the price of her ambition, amidst a chorus of singing and dancing whores in cheongsam dresses, a set piece whose style owes much to director-choreographer Bob Fosse’s (All That Jazz, Chicago) influential mix of striptease and dance. Kaneshiro, who has made a pretty decent art film career of playing men caught up in their contradictions in films as varied as Flying Daggers and Chungking Express, is fine here. It takes a bit longer to warm up to Zhou Xun’s character, whose child like good looks belie her cold blooded, iron will to succeed at any price, but by films end, she’s utterly sympathetic. However understated his troubled, preoccupied director, Jackie Cheung is great from the start. He’s made few dramas in his film career (the best likely being July Rhapsody). I hope he makes more. Korean actor Jee Jin-Hee (likely best known here as a detective in the Korean serial killer movie, H) is almost unnecessary as a kind of Phantom Stranger-type character, a figure who subtly pushes people towards emotional realizations they need to move on with their lives. He’s decent in the part, but given how little he does in the film, I was amazed his part wasn’t cut out of earlier drafts of the final shooting script. I recommend Perhaps Love with some minor reservations, for the Chan’s interesting way of telling the story, inter-cutting between past, present and on-set production numbers. Also notable is his depiction of the hard life of young would-be actors and filmmakers in Beijing, his re-creation of life on sets, and the stories satisfying and surprising resolution, where everyone gets what they need, if not necessarily what they want. However I question how much English-speaking audiences enjoyment might be mitigated by the uneven quality of the musical numbers. (I do admit, that inadequate subtitles might have made it difficult to immerse myself in Kaneshiro and Zhou’s musical numbers. I simply don’t know enough Mandarin to be able to say for sure. In my opinion however, all this does is but more of the onus on Kaneshiro and Zhou to carry their musical numbers with the physical qualities of their performances. If Jacky Cheung pulled it off, in his relatively understated musical scenes, where he’s sitting most of the time, Chan should have pushed Kaneshiro and Zhou should have done more to step up to the challenge.) A Recent Festival Favorite: Shot in a style reminiscent of the work of American independent filmmaker and actor, John Cassavettes, Butterfly (Hong Kong, 2004) is unsparing look at one woman’s struggle to undo ten years of denial and “come out of the closet” as an openly gay woman. A 3o-year old married school teacher and mother, Flavia (Josie Ho) daily routines and family life are hopelessly upended when she notices twenty-something songwriter and musician Yip (Tian Yuen) quietly shoplifting a meal in a supermarket. Drawn to the Yip, Flavia begins a passionate affair with the younger woman. As Flavia and Yip’s relationship develops, we learn that the younger Flavia (played by Isabel Chan in flashback) had been involved with a political activist named Jin when the two girls were in high school, a relationship that lasts into their college years. A key event for both woman is the 1989 the massacre of pro-democracy protesters in Tiannamen Square. The televised footage of the tanks rolling over victims galvanizes activists all over Asia, including Jin. Her increasing radicalism, and Flavia’s slavish loyalty to her emotionally weak mother eventually tears the girls apart. Jin disappears, and Flavia buries her feelings for women. She shortly marries the distracted, but well-meaning Ming (Eric Kot in a strong sympathetic performance) and gives birth to a daughter. Flavia’s affair with Yip, forces Flavia’s to face ten years of denial, with painful, but unavoidable consequences for all involved. Though Jose Ho has very little dialogue in this film, nevertheless, the focus is squarely on her character's emotional state as she struggles to reconcile her re-emerging lesbian instincts with guilt over how her previous relationship ended, the needs of her husband, child and parents in the present. Like some of the finest Chinese actresses: Gong Li (in any of her early films with director Zhang Yimou), or Maggie Cheung (in Comrades, In the Mood for Love), Josie Ho manages to communicate the torrent of conflicting emotions raging within with the simplest of looks and gestures. Butterfly is a great showcase for her talents. The film's one great flaw is it’s running time. 124 minutes may not seem overly long for a feature film, but the film could have shed up to 20 minutes without losing any impact (in fact, it might have had more. As it is, it feels like it meanders a bit). One obvious place to cut is the surfeit of flashbacks. Though they serve a necessary purpose in the narrative, there are far too many of them, forcing the viewer to maintain focused concentration to follow the storyline. Some struck me as utterly unnecessary. Regardless, it’s a great role for Josie Ho, and the filmmakers don’t cop out when showing the painful consequences of not living true to oneself. Not everyone emerges from the tale unscathed. Butterfly remains the best treatment of homosexual themes out of Hong Kong since Wong Kar-Wai’s Happy Together came out almost ten years ago, which likely accounts for the accolades the film received at seven Asian and European film festivals. Love & Pathology: A Guaranteed Crowd-Pleaser Funny, after two weekends of would-be Foreign Film Oscar contenders from Asia, the most entertaining film I watched this weekend had to be the 2004 French hit comedy Love Me if You Dare, a loving portrait of two young person's shared pathology. This is the way Bonnie & Clyde should’ve been. Highly recommended for those looking for sick laughs akin to Secretary. Note: For Fan fans of Oldboy, the Tartan Extreme Region-1 DVD Edition of Director Chan-Wook Park's (Sympathy for) Lady Vengeance is due out May 5th.
Posted by YourMomsBasement at 02:00 PM
In the time since my last FFW review, I've seen at least a couple dozen films, mostly from Asia and Europe, quite a few of them in the last few weeks as the All-region, and region-3 DVD editions of the Asian holiday season releases finally became available here in the states. Below I've summarized my response to the six new films: dramas, horror movies and fantasy-action-comedy hybrids, that made the strongest positive impression on me. I've also added my 'second thoughts' on two action films I gave a second viewing. Without question the strongest foreign films I’ve seen over the last three months are, The Duelist, Election and Head On. The Korean novel Damo is a complex, multi-faceted tale of a highly skilled 17th century undercover policewoman who, while investigating an widespread counterfeiting conspiracy finds herself caught between her loyalty to her adopted brother and commanding officer, and a charismatic revolutionary who might just be her real, flesh and blood brother. The story features a large supporting cast, much intrigue and the occasionally, huge battle scenes. It was adapted for television a couple of years ago, and became one of the most widely seen miniseries (14 episodes) in Asia a couple of years back. Director Lee Myung-Se wisely pares down the complex story of Damo for Duelist (Korea, 2005) placing the emphasis on the doomed attraction between the two young people, whose only common ground, is their incomparable skills at knife, sword and staff fighting. For them, it’s virtually a language of lethal movement. In Lee's version of the tale, a crude, tomboyish 17th Century policewoman finds herself unaccountably attracted to an elfin assassin at the center of a grand conspiracy to destabilize the economy. As the two are near polar opposites, as well as being on opposing sides of a lethal conflict, their infatuation with one another is sure-fire recipe for tragedy. However, Lee Myung-Se surprises with his daring and inventive use of color and light use and startling changes in tone and tempo. You really do have to leave your preconceptions and expectations at the door before watching this film. Duelist mixes elements of lowbrow comedy, lethal martial arts action, a complex conspiracy and romantic fantasy adventure. Far more tightly paced than the director’s previous film, the self-indulgent but highly influential Nowhere to Hide, Duelist is also a rare visual treat. The compositions, color, use of lighting, martial arts and dance choreography are simply stunning. Empty your head and Duelist will transport you. If you must, think of it as a great big live-action anime epic and you'll enjoy it just fine. Despite a tendency to polarize audiences, Duelist comes highly recommended. Region-3 editions are available. Turkish director Faith Akin’s Head-On, (Germany, 2004) won a well-deserved Golden Bear at the 2004 Berlin Film Festival, and this engrossing drama is a gift to anyone who’s grown up in an immigrant household that followed different, much more constraining, rules than the rest of the world outside. As such, this intense story won my heart hands down. The film opens on the 40-year-old Cahit (Birol Unel) who is utterly convincing as a Turkish immigrant who long ago rejected his own culture, became a small time punk rocker. His “moment” having long passed him by, Cahit ekes out a living collecting bottles and busing at a bar, and seems intent on killing himself slowly with alcohol. One night Cahit smashes his car into a brick wall and he winds up in a state-run mental hospital for observation. While the in-house counselors decide whether or not he’s too self-destructive for unsupervised existence, another patient, a failed suicide Sibel (and earnest, clear-eyed and sympathetic Sibel Kekilli) approaches him with a daring proposal. Desperate to escape the suffocating code of behavior that her immigrant parents insist she lives by as a young Muslim woman, Sibel proposes she and Cahit enter into a marriage of convenience. In her parents’ old world way of thinking, a woman is essentially chattel, and once married her parents will butt out of her life, leaving her free to party and generally find her own wild way in life. In return Sibel promises to keep Cahit in soaked in booze. He refuses, but Sibel persists, and eventually, she wears him down. After a tense interlude where Sibel and Cahit struggle to convince her family that his proposal is sincere, they marry, and for a time the arrangement works. Sibel goes dancing every night, and beds a series of young men. In the distance, Cahit watches in amusement, drinks himself into happy stupors, and on occasion sleeps with another aging veteran of the German punk scene, Maren (Catrin Striebeck), a rather burnt out looking hairdresser. In time room mates Sibel and Cahit become loyal, if unlikely friends, but not before the contradictions of their arrangement catch up with them, making for riveting drama in the latter half of the film. Available in a region-1 DVD edition, Head-On is highly recommended, especially for anyone who has grown up trapped between two cultures. Election (Hong Kong, 2005) is an excellent ensemble drama set in the tradition bound world of an old and powerful triad organization, the 50,000-member strong Woo Shing Society. Periodically, respected elders, "Uncles", led by Teng (Wong Tim Lam) elect an executive director, a Chairman, who leads the triad for limited terms. The current Chairman, "Whistle" (Wang Chung), is due to step down, and two high ranking capos, the calm, collected politician, Lok (Simon Yam) and an aggressive fire-brand "Big D" (Tony Leung Ka-Fai) are vying to become the next Chairman. The story takes us up and down the ranks of the organization. We witness Lok and Big D's political maneuvering before the "Uncles' vote, followed by a proxy war for possession of a physical token of triad leadership, the Dragon Head Baton, hidden away in Mainland China. This race involves and consumes soldiers from all levels of the organization: an intelligent and slick capo (Lous Koo), the pathological Jet (Nick Cheung), the hard core Kun (Lam Ka-Tung) and the righteous, if dim, Big Head (Lam Suet). Reportedly To's depiction of the rules and customs governing triad life is based on extensive research. If so, it makes fascinating viewing. To manages a great balance between tense debates and negotiations involving Uncles, under-bosses and pragmatic high ranking police officers, and shocking bursts of violence betwee
Retired wushu athlete Xu Xiang Dong as Dong Hai Chun, founder of Baguazhang.
Look for Part Two next week...March 02, 2006
Foriegn Film Watch: Award Season
Discuss this article on our message board.January 24, 2006
Won Kim's Foreign Film Watch: the Last 6 Months
