Shaolin Iron Claws

1983

Staring: Tai Lung Chang, Yi Chang, Tao Wong
Director: Shih Hao Ko

Wow. Just wow. What an awful movie. That isn’t to say that this was a completely enjoyable film, while it is totally bad, it’s completely watchable.

The best part about this was that they reused the “Death Star destruction” segment of the Star Wars soundtrack. That’s right the “Lets blow this thing…” part. It was amazing.

I really tried to keep track of what was going on, I really did. Unfortunately I could not make heads or tails of the overall plot of the film. About 3 different things were constantly going on within the film. There was a man in a fedora, a “commander” (of what, we don’t really know), and two bumbling fools. My friend Matt picked this up in some sort of a “kung fu” box set, and shockingly it’s worth every penny.

There seemed to be about 20 different scenes with fighting in them, but none lasted more than a minute on average.

Verdict: * ½ /*****
Watchability: *** ½ /*****

Director Destroys his own film?

Wow. I'm a little shocked by this. Apparently the film Passio was a 6 year labor of love for director Paolo Cherchi Usai. What did he do when he was all done? He burned the negative. Well, not quite, there were a few prints made to be shown at a few festivals, but that's it. It'll be completely gone soon. It is hard to believe that after all the work the director put into the film that he'd just destroy it.

The unfortunate thing is that few people will ever know about this work, and will be forgotten very quickly in the backlog of thousands of other films that have come, and will come in the future.

This is like any play that you've seen. You remember seeing it. The performance was unique to that evening. But for the life of you you only remember bits and peices of it. The biggest difference is that is the medium that it's created in, and unless the show is a complete bomb, there won't be less than 10 shows produced of the play.

It will now be lost forever in the annals of time, so whatever message will only survive in the memories of the few who saw it. Sure, it was "radically different" (as the Director put it), but it'll also be long forgotten by the next Tribeca Film Festival.

ABC News:
No Theaters, No DVD Release for `Passio'

Shakespeare Series: Laurie and Atkinson

Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson in a Hamlet Shakespeare sketch:

Funny stuff, apparently from Hysteria 2!

Shakespeare Series: Romeo + Juliet

1996

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, John Leguizamo, Harold Perrineau, Pete Postlethwaite, Paul Sorvino, Brian Dennehy, Paul Rudd,
Director: Baz Luhrmann

How do you make a disaster of one of Shakespeare’s best works? It’s hard to imagine, but if something is made that looks like this train wreck, you’ve done it.

An unoriginal reworking of the story, in this case it is set as a modern day American gang story, it stays far too “true” to the original play to a point of absurdity. Instead of actually adapting it like the amazing West Side Story – review pending – they stuck far too close to the original play to “update” it so much. Perhaps they were going for the uniqueness of having it set “today” with people speaking the original lines and instead of toting bladed weapons – they walk around with “Swords” and “Dagger” guns. It seems very clever, until you realize how corny it is. On stage you can set these plays in any time period – its part of the fun unique way of doing it on stage.

I’ve seen “Two Gentlemen of Verona” as “Two Gentlemen of Verona Beach” – and it worked. A film adaptation would most likely be a disaster. Hey, wait a minute Romeo + Juliet was set in Verona Beach as well – and it didn’t work on the big screen. The thing that makes it work in that case is the limitations of the stage – you can’t dilute the story visually very much.

The first time I watched it I realized that the film would not work was towards the beginning – a fight at a gas station seemed to have been filmed by a maniac on a mixture of speed and cocaine. Bullets ricochet off of indescript objects, and cut back to them often in the fight. This is all in between John Leguizamo’s extremely fanatical “laughter” – which I suppose was supposed to set the mood of his character. Instead it just made the scene look like it was filled by a complete amateur who was trying to cut a 5 minute scene with 2 minutes of footage. It’s mostly downhill from there.

Verdict: **/*****

Hot Fuzz - The Review

2007

Staring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton
Director: Edgar Wright
Writers: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, (who both worked on Shaun of the Dead and Spaced).

Nicholas Angel is the best officer on the force. He’s so good that no one likes him. He makes everyone look bad. He’s messing up the averages for the rest of the force. So what’s to be done with such an exemplary police-man officer? Ship him off to some Podunk town in the country that has virtually no crime.

When he heads to Sandford, he begins to realize that not is all well with this “perfect” town. Overall the police force is some of the most incompetent people out there.

Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), is Angel's new partner and is as bumbling as you’d expect Nick Frost to be (he’s basically playing Ed – with a job - from Shaun of the Dead). His father, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent) is the chief inspector of the village. And the rest are completely useless.

The only person who actually seems sinister is Simon Skinner (Timothy Dalton), owner of the local supermarket. Timothy Dalton is perfectly cast in this role. Who would have thought JAMES BOND would have been so funny? It’s a shame he didn’t get more chances to show how good of a Bond he could have been – but hey, that’s another post.

Lets just say that this film covers just about all the bases of an action film. It exposes all the clichés and actually expands on others – bringing it all to such a sheer level of absurdity that you just can’t help to love.

Verdict: ****/*****

Minor Spoilers: Cameos abound in this film. Some familiar (and not so familiar faces) for an American audience may include: Martin Freeman (Tim in The Office), Stephen Merchant (The Office), Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge), Bill Nighy (oh, I think you know him), Peter Jackson, and Cate Blanchett.

Hot Fuzz

Taking a short break from the Shakespeare Series, I wanted to say that everyone should go and see Hot Fuzz. I'll probably not get to a review tonight, but I'll update this posting sometime tomorrow with a full review. I mean, I'll probably pass out on the couch watching an old 70s Doctor Who episode on public television before I can get to it.

Verdict: ****/*****

Shakespeare Series: Henry V - 1989

Staring: Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, Brian Blessed, Paul Scofield, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Judi Dench, Ian Holm, Christian Bale
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh

This is it. One of, if not, the best Shakespeare adaptations ever made. Sure Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet is great (there’s no doubting that as I already stated) but compared to this it barely holds a candle to this.

Another Kenneth Branagh directed/staring film, instead of the way Hamlet is created as an entirely new world, he keeps this story almost as a historically accurate film (as far as a Shakespeare play can actually be historically accurate). You could almost imagine that the cameras were *at* the battle of Battle of Agincourt. The cast, like Hamlet, is not wasted.

This story might actually be unknown to many of you out there so you’re forgiven (I kid…). It’d be more interesting to just read it, see a production of it at a theater, or just see the darn movie. Just for those who might think it’s “boring” there’s a fantastic battle towards the end. And for some of you more jingoistic people – the French don’t do so good.

According to Wikipedia, the English soldier who begins singing Non Nobis Domine at the end of the Battle of Agincourt is the film's composer, Patrick Doyle. The music that Patrick Doyle created for this film was utterly amazing. It is unfortunate that this man is not as well known as many other composers. Many who remember trailers from 15-20 years ago might recognize that some portions of this score were used in many of them.

Henry V won the Academy Award for Best Costume Design. The film was also nominated Branagh for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Director.

Verdict: *****/*****

Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet - 1968

Staring: Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey
Director: Franco Zeffirelli

The ultimate version of the tragic love story, the 1968 version has just about everything correct in it that other versions of the tale may lack. Some consider this the “definitive” version of the work – and I almost can’t disagree. You'll see my take on the 1996 ghastly work, Romeo + Juliet.

Not familiar with the plot of Romeo and Juliet? My God…

I think one of the strong points about the film is that the principal cast members – specifically Leonard Whiting (Romeo) and Olivia Hussey (Juliet) were actually young. So young in fact that Zeffirelli had to get special permission for a scene where 15 year old Hussey is topless (only for a brief moment). According to IMDb, Hussey wasn't legally allowed to attend the London premier of the movie as it contained nudity because she was under the age of 18. Bummer.

Imagine this though: Paul McCartney was originally asked to play the part of Romeo. Yikes.

Zeffirelli went on to direct Mel Gibson’s Hamlet.

Verdict: **** ½ /*****

Shakespeare Series: Hamlet - 1996

Staring: Kenneth Branagh, Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Billy Crystal, Robin Williams, Charlton Heston, Jack Lemmon, Rufus Sewell, Brian Blessed, Richard Attenborough, Judi Dench

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Writers: William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh

Again, I don’t think I need to spend time with a plot summary for this or any other Shakespeare film, so long as it covers the story almost to a T.

This film of epic length is certainly not a film to miss, that is, if you can stomach the 242 minute running time. That’s right the film is over four hours long. Completely unabridged – it apparently (according to Wikipedia) only adds a single word: 'Attack!'. This is truly an almost completely faithful adaptation of the play, no joke.

The striking thing about this film is the design and feel of both the sets and the dress. Very Edwardian. Oh, so you don’t know what I mean by that, hum? For the illiterate or uninformed, the Edwardian period covered the reign of English King Edward VII (which is funny because he was pretty much a German) between 1901 and 1910. So anyway, before I lose both you and myself in this, the architecture is very Art Nouveau (Which is my second favorite design type behind Art Deco), and surprisingly it is not distracting!

The almost all-star cast (Williams excluded of course, I kid… I kid) is definitely not wasted, and is only a slight distraction when watching. Shouts of “I can’t believe it’s HIM!” could come out of your mouth when a character is introduced.

Shockingly this film has yet to be released on DVD – so no luck people, you’ll have to catch it on VHS like all the old fashioned people (a real film buff should have one because there are still many gems that haven’t been released).

Verdict: **** ½ /*****

Shakespeare Series: Cat Head Theater

Continuing the Shakespeare theme:

Cat Head Theater presents: Hamlet

Funny stuff.

Shakespeare Series: Throne of Blood

1957
Staring: Toshirô Mifune, Isuzu Yamada,
Director: Akira Kurosawa

Because I can assume that not all of you are deadbeats and that most of you have at least seen or read Macbeth, I won't get into the details. However, after second thought I'll provide some backround as this one has changed around things ever so slightly. Washizu (Mifune) is Macbeth. Asaji (Yamada) is Lady Macbeth. Macduff doesn't appear and Washizu's fate is the same, yet very different than Macbeth's (you'll understand).

I actually read an unintentionally funny “review” which claimed – in jest no doubt – that Throne of Blood was actually not really Shakespeare.

Are they kidding? I certainly hope that behind it all that they didn’t believe a word of it. Throne of Blood is undoubtedly a Shakespeare adaptation. There is no precedent to measure when an actual adaptation quits being an adaptation (this of course is within logical limits as you can’t just claim that a film is or isn’t on a whim). There are no set standards to what are necessary or unnecessary changes – look at all the unnecessary changes that occurred in such films as Return of the King. Would someone claim that The Shining isn’t an adaptation of the book of the same title? Overall, the essence of Throne of Blood is untouched when it comes to Macbeth.

The interpretation of the film is certainly different than the play. Where Kurosawa succeeded in making a very slick and visually symbolic film, it was almost entirely devoid of what made the play really great – they psychological attentiveness to practically all the characters. Other than a fleeting moment, pretty much all the characters seemed resigned to their fates, or at least what they believed their fate really was.

With that said, as I mentioned before, the film was visually stunning. Practically every scene was filled with symbolism and details that will take at least one more viewing before I catch it all.

Verdict: *** ½ /*****

Robot Monster

1953

An incomprehensible sci-fi/horror film, and that is putting it mildly. The story follows some scientists/family as they are on some sort of scientific dig. (The location might be familiar as the place where Ash initially fell to the ground in Army of Darkness, among other films).

So anyway, all seems to be going so well, and very, very boring until suddenly, the story leaps forward, and everyone on the planet is dead, save the few survivors at the dig (and two other people trying to fly into space for some reason). That’s right, everyone is dead. And that’s not the most shocking bit.

The person who has orchestrated the entire thing – Ro Man, the “Robot Monster” – has set up camp in the exact same valley cave system. Now, Ro Man looks like a cross between a gorilla with one of those classic diving helmets over his head. His mission – to conquer the world. You’d think that someone who’s killed off 3 billion (remember 1953) would be getting praise from his overlords. Guess again. His bosses hate the job he’s doing, because he hasn’t “conquered the world” yet. There’s still 8 humans who have survived his “death ray.”

That’s right 2.6 x 10 ^ -9 % survival rate. Ro Man must really stink at his job. And folks, this is just the beginning.

Deserving of the title “so bad, it’s good.”

Verdict: * / *****

Grindhouse: Planet Terror

Staring: Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez, Josh Brolin, Marley Shelton, Michael Biehn, Bruce Willis, Naveen Andrews, Stacy Ferguson
Director: Robert Rodriguez

As I’ve already stated, I wasn’t impressed by “Death Proof.” This film surprised me quite a bit. Not knowing anything about this film aside from the cast, and that Rose McGowan had a gun for a leg (from all the commercials and the posters), I ended up being in for a great treat.

The film was more of a takeoff of cheap, corny, low budget, horror films of the era, and that works out to its advantage. The pops, scratches, burns, and even missing reels make the viewing experience that of a crummy, used up old copy of a film that you might see at a dollar discount theater, theater screw-ups.

The plot is razor thin, but enjoyable. They pull every cliché possible, from the man with the shady past, everyone connected in some way, and just about everything else under the sun.

Also, I don’t know how they did it but they made Stacy Ferguson not look used up! I’m just disappointed that it wasn’t Randy Spears as one of the soldiers as both my brother, Matt, and myself thought exactly at the same point in watching the film. I laughed, smiled, and all around had a great time with it from start to finish.

And there we have it. My mega-multi review of Grindhouse. I hope you all enjoyed it. If you haven't seen Grindhouse yet, go.

Verdict: ****/*****

Grindhouse: Trailers

This was the most exciting part of the film for me. Fake trailers made by big directors (okay, not “big” like Steven Spielberg, but ones that have had to some extent careers).

The film opens with the trailer for the Danny Trejo “film” – Machete. Of all the films, this would make the best movie. It is a pure “Mexican exploitation” film. Apparently Rodriguez wrote it in 1993 but never made it. Jeff Fahey also “stars” as the Well Dressed Man.

Werewolf Women of the SS, directed by Rob Zombie was a great takeoff of the “taboo” exploitation film. Of course if this was made it would be leaps and bounds better than his last two attempts. Udo Kier, Sheri Moon, and Bill Moseley “star.”

Personally the best was “Don’t” a trailer about a supernatural horror film which used the tried and true method of repeating words to the audience throughout. It was classic 70s cheese trailer, where it gives away every twist and turn the film can possibly make and only just stops before giving away the entire ending. “Don’t” was directed by Shaun of the Dead director Edgar Wright. Jason Isaacs “stars” and if you look close both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost appear. Will Arnett – Gob from Arrested Development narrates.

There’s also a commercial for a Mexican restaurant, Acuna Boys – Authentic Tex-Mex Food. Of course, like all older ads, the pictures are poor, washed out, and completely unappetizing. Nice touch. No one’s a big enough star except Michael Biehn as the sheriff.

I’m no fan of Eli Roth or any of his work, but even his contribution of “Thanksgiving” – a takeoff of “Halloween” where a guy dressed up as a pilgrim kills people – was hilarious.

Verdict: **** ½ /*****

Grindhouse: Death Proof

Staring: Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Ferlito, Jordan Ladd, Rose McGowan
Director: sigh…. Quentin Tarantino

Lets start at the worst and work our way up. What a wasted effort. Tarantino’s Death Proof is one of the bigger disappointments in recent memory for me. Very little of this film worked at all.

After an initial show of promise, the film’s “title” was “replaced” by the words “Death Proof” – the typical theater “rename” that used to happen once in a while to try and help sell a film – Tarantino decided to make an amalgam of both a Grindhouse film and one of HIS films.

Unfortunately it ends up a complete mess. The dialogue bits are hollow, meaningless, and totally pointless. Sure that’s what many conversations in cheap exploitation films are, but I’m going to THIS to be entertained, not to reminisce about how bad the dialogue was in those films 25+ years ago. I could tell you one thing after the film was over – Tarantino loves the sound of his own insipid writing.

While Robert Rodriguez’s film is borderline parody, but true to the formula which is just about the only way to do a good homage to a “jokey” genre which has all but died out – Tarantino’s shows exactly why there aren’t’ anymore “Grindhouse” flicks. The closest you get nowadays is the “Sci-Fi Original Pictures” every Saturday night (e.g. “Kaw” – a film about killer Crows). If I see Grindhouse again with people who have seen it as well, I’m leaving after the second set of trailers.

Verdict: **/*****

Grindhouse

2007.

The following 3 reviews will cover the aspects of this very ambitious film. Overall, the experience was mixed. There were some extreme highs, and severe lows. This is unusual for me, as almost every film I’ve seen for the last year in the theaters has been excellent (this started right after the abysmal Ultraviolet, and the only exception to my good track record is seeing the “comedy” - “Ricky Bobby”).

The trailers were gold. They were enjoyable, fun, cheesy, and spot on. Planet Terror was a rush from start to finish, and while some might find it more of a parody of the genre, it was closer to the “source” when it came to clichés, film errors, and paper thin plotting. Death Proof was a complete disaster. It was boring, and while it still had the clichés, but almost none of the dialogue was captivating, and the structure of it was boring. Dreadfully boring. I don’t want to dissuade anyone from seeing this film, but I need to be honest. It’s worth seeing once, and thankfully it’s halfway through the film so if you go back you can leave before it starts.

Overall experience: *** ½ /*****

Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur
1959

Staring: Charlton Heston, Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd
Director: William Wyler

Charlton Heston plays the title role of Judah Ben-Hur in this wonderful remake of the 1925 version (and to a lesser extent 1907 version) of the film.

Ben-Hur’s old friend Messala (Stephen Boyd) has returned back to Jerusalem. They’re happy to see each other, and all goes well until an unfortunate occurrence which ticks off the governor. The fall guy ends up being Ben-Hur’s household, and his mother and sister are thrown in prison and Ben-Hur is sent off to the galleys. He swears revenge on his former friend.

A wonderful segment which takes place in the sea comes next. I’d love to continue the plot summary but this film is almost too great to just write about.

Almost every single aspect of this film is perfect, and the Oscars it won are quite deserved. I’d write more, but come on, it’s Ben-Hur. If you’re a movie buff and you haven’t seen the film, what’s wrong with you?

Verdict: *****/*****

Passion of the Christ

2004
Staring: James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Christo Jivkov, Francesco De Vito, Monica Bellucci
Director: Mel Gibson

With it being Good Friday, I’ve decided to review a fitting film. If I have time look forward to two more fitting films this weekend.

So this little film from 2004 stroked up a lot of controversy. Personally a lot of it was undue, especially after finally seeing it months after it was initially released.

People decried it for being “anti-Semitic”, and that it would bring on a rash of anti-Jewish hate across the country. Not surprisingly, it didn’t happen. I think it’s because people underestimated the intelligence of the people viewing this film. An unintelligent “point” that I kept hearing after the film was release was “Well the Jews did kill Jesus”, which is simplistic at best, and dangerously stupid at worst. One first must know at least a little about the history about what went on. The Jewish leaders, who were afraid of Jesus’ perceived “power” were fearful of who he was, and who he could become. They were instrumental in having him arrested and getting the mob to free Barabbas instead. The arrogance of many of these people also wash over that ALL of Jesus’ followers were Jewish, along with Jesus as well. Christianity was a sect of Judaism until people like Paul the Apostle began to convert people outside Judaism. Anyway, back away from that tangent, the only people who would be “conned” into inciting hatred towards the Jewish people would have been people who already had an axe to grind with them in the first place. Seeing this film would not have changed someone’s mind either way.

If people weren’t using excuse one (above), they were using the “violence” excuse. It was brutal in it’s portrayal. Some movie reviewers claimed it was the “most violent” film they had ever seen. Highly unlikely, unless their entire library of films they’ve reviewed were all Disney animated films. As I said, it was brutal, but within that it was honest, and wasn’t over the top for over the top’s sake, which is pretty much what you get with people like Quentin Tarantino or schlock-horror “directors” like Eli Roth.

Say what you will about it, but there’s little doubt that the cinematography and editing of this film is near brilliant. And was entirely filmed using only Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew. A feat of modern filmmaking.

Verdict: ****/*****

Van Wilder

2002
Staring: Ryan Reynolds, Tara Reid, Tim Matheson, Kal Penn
Director: Walt Becker

With the upcoming release of the “sequel” to this 2002 comedy, I’ve decided to review this, even if it’ll end up being a short review.

Taking movie clichés from at least a dozen college and high school themed films, it feels as if – baring the over the top gross-out humor (special “glazed” donuts) – that this film fits in with most of the crummy ’80, somewhat funny but equally flawed comedies.

This paper thin plot follows Reynolds’ Van Wilder in college for his 7th year, refusing to leave because college is apparently the best thing you’ll ever achieve in life, and once you’re out it’s no fun. Of course, you could try to tell that to all the yuppies out there who party it hard every week after work. This is the major flaw, at the surface 7 years seems pretty ridiculous, seeing as most people take 4, and more commonly 5 years to finish school. To be totally honest I have friends who at this point won’t graduate “4 years” of college until their actual 7th year. Since we aren’t supposed to take the film seriously, why not just make it 8, 9, or even 10 years? Age problem with the supposed “seniors” - Tara Reid’s Gwen – no problem! Should have made them grad students. Fear of alienating the “younger” crowd? Who cares, people who aren’t in college don’t care about semantics of “undergrad” or “grad”.

Like most comedies of the late 90s and early 00s, there is not a shred of anything special in the way the film is presented. That is not to say that the direction or editing is bad, but that it is bland.

And like almost all comedies, the results are obvious from a mile a way, guy almost loses girl, guy wins girl back, and “learns” something along the way. At least this one has a few laughs in there.

Verdict: ** ½ /*****