ithearod Reviews

Sailor Suit and Machine Gun (1981)

Queer juvenile Shakespeare

[9/10 · 18 December 2021]

Quite a good little film, when considering it as the sum of its parts. Has genuinely tragic themes running throughout. Coming-of-age, dynasty-inheriting, underdog team fighting, character betrayal, cruel overlord - this is Shakespeare as interpreted through the lens of latter-half 20th century Japanese pop culture.

Do not watch this expecting B-movie camp or over-the-top anime-like action. This film is played straight and not for laughs or shock value. Then again, it was made in 1981, so it predates all of that. Its roots are closer to 1960's yakuza drama. But, it contains the seeds of the freethinking extreme art house genre that Japan embodied in the 90's and 00's.

Set locations and cinematography are first rate and also set the bar for much of modern Japanese film making. Acting is clearly low level but can be forgiven. Contains just a touch of surreal situations and characters, again setting the tone for future Japanese film. Melodramatic in its ending, also a hallmark of Japanese film.

Some tremendous long shot cinematography and incredibly authentic childlike acting are the icing on the cake of this transitional film into the future of post-modern pop Asian cinema. This film should not be missed by fans of that genre, as well as historians and students. Highly reccomended.

Mr. Nobody (2009)

Unbearable, tedious, pretentious nonsense

[1/10 · 7 August 2021]

Long-winded, preachy, thinks highly of itself, and in the end, worthless. Had to skip through major chunks of wordless dialogue. Just unwatchable, not even pseudo-philisophical tripe. Awful, just tedious, boring, nonsense, awful. Seriously. I love good films. This is not a good film. This is a so bad its bad film. No redeeming value whatsoever.

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Terror (1991)

Would be funnier if it was actually funny

[1/10 · 30 September 2009]

But it isn't. Funny, that is.

If you wanted to, you could just skip this review right now and read some of the other spot-on reviews, reviews which also rate this mess a 1 out of 10. Everything those reviews say is absolutely true - the fourth-grade humor, the monotonous "jokes", the awful attempts at sounding like different voices (it was just one guy doing all the voices, right? it sure sounds like it).

And that's not to mention the EXTREMELY racist and homophobic comments that are spread liberally throughout the entire mess. Try to count how many times the "joke" gets made, "Is he gay? I think he's gay!" Ahh! Oh, I'm laughing so hard right now. Not really. You will lose count, by the way.

Just skip it, seriously. No camp, cult, rare, or any other kind of value to be had there.

Watchmen (2009)

"Silver Surfer and The Avengers Meet Dr. Strangelove"

[5/10 · 24 July 2009]

There's a reason "it took someone twenty years to make this movie" - because it was not necessary to make this film. It's past its time. It didn't need to be made.

It's just an 80's Cold War fear-flick. Go see Wargames, the first Terminator, or any other of the countless nuclear annihilation movies that got made in the 1980's.

If you didn't like this movie, don't blame yourself. It's not because it was three hours long (literature takes time, so don't blame anything for being too long, you're just too impatient); or because there was a blue dong wagging in front of your face every 20 minutes; or because there was a Muppet for the POTUS.

You didn't like this movie because it was two movies, neither of them particularly good, forced to share the same space (how Einsteinien).

Here's the two movies' plots, just to deconstruct for you.

Movie #1) Superhuman, godlike creature gets manipulated and used by supervillian/antihero to enact enormous machination to save/destroy human race. Think "Superman vs. Lex Luthor". There, done.

Movie #2) Unspectacular costumed heroes/crimefighting movie, replete with an assortment of character types. Think "Mystery Men". There, done.

Dr. Manhattan wasn't even a "Watchman", for crying out loud. He and they had absolutely nothing to do with each other, right? Just incidental acquaintances that quickly part company. Silly, really.

Now that this has been pointed out, won't someone please do a fan edit of this movie, like what has been done with the Matrix sequels, or the first two Spidermans, or Star Wars parts 1-3, or any other fan edit that comes to mind? You know, cut out the fluff and the blah, and boil it down to the movie the way it might have been made, lean and sensible and compelling? Or in this film's case, to separate it into the two movie it ought to have been.

I'd like to see the Watchmen in their own movie, sans the "Dr. Strangelove" counter-plot, personally. Someone, please?

Land of the Lost (2009)

More "writing by committee" movie-making - fails on many levels

[5/10 · 9 June 2009]

What might possibly have been a fun movie turns out to be more of the same from self-satisfied Hollywood: strings of tepid gags and bland writing, woven into gratuitous visual excess.

Disappointing to say the least. Even the several references to the original TV show were not enough to lighten this burdensome film-watching experience.

Jokes that go on too long, or are cut too short; utterly stale delivery of lines; total lack of charisma from everyone involved. Even Chaka's character does not come off right.

The only part that worked reasonably well was a sci-fi staple, delivered in the predictable "Enich" character plot-twist. But, not nearly enough to save the movie. The attempt at creating tension and release with the T-rex "Grumpy" character also fails woefully.

In all, not a lot to like. Skip it, you won't miss a thing. And I really wanted to like this film.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Swingin' the chain... swingin' the chain!

[8/10 · 19 April 2009]

This is a very funny movie! True, there are plenty of minor annoyances that could detract from the fun, but they are so insignificant.

Anyone who has made up their own dialogue to a movie while they were watching it will understand and like this movie. The writing is just clever enough, while still being sophomoric enough not to alienate more immature viewers with being too "intelligent" (a pity that even needs to be said!).

I agree that the movie's weakest points are the original content - the whole mono-breasted ninja subplot and sequence is hard to sit through and is just not that funny, to be fair. As is the entire "tonguey" subplot, and how it integrates with the "French aliens" finale.

But forget that - there are so many quotable lines of well-conceived and well-executed dubbing! A lot of attention was given to how the new dialogue blends with the actors' behavior and facial expressions. I absolutely love the "ventriloquists' fight" (and it's very darkly comic conclusion), the "large dark nippled guy", and I LOVE Ping - "O-weeo weeo weeo peeo!" This movie stands up to multiple viewings - there really lots of very subtle jokes and lines of dialogue that you won't notice until the second or third time around. For instance, listen very carefully to what you hear at the first instant of Ping's very first screen entrance - funny foreshadowing stuff! Yes, I am a HUGE MST3K fan, and this movie plays right into those preferences.

So endure the somewhat lame original content - but realize there are HUGE exceptions to this problem, most notably being the entire opening "fight with the baby" sequence, the "Chosimba" Lion King-James Earl Jones-voice-over bit, which brings me to tears (I still walk around saying "Chosimba..." to people, sorry you guys), and of course the muay thai cow, which is really, really superbly done.

And appreciate the movie for its strengths - the good writing, the really complex green-screen work (watch the extras and you will be impressed), the very clever and original dubbing (I find it hard to believe that the lead actor did all the voices himself, truly, hats off to him), and the care and thought that went into making a public-domain Z-grade kung fu movie int a really funny movie experience.

The original movie is "Tiger and Crane Fist", by the way, which I happen to have a copy of, and is a so-so movie in its own right, worth watching at least once.

Also, I love the closing credits theme song a ton! An amazingly catchy sitar-dance-groove riff.

Enjoy this movie!

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

I am SO HAPPY that I am not the only person to name this a SNUFF FILM

[8 March 2009]

I could not finish watching this movie. It is merely an exercise in horrific violence. Where, oh where, is the literal justification for the amount of vicious violence portrayed in this film? Is it in the Bible? I don't remember the Bible going on in such excruciating detail about the morbidization of Jesus.

This film is propaganda, plain and simple, agitprop of the worst and basest kind. Any person who claims this film has any merit at all is a blinded fool in that respect.

This movie is a SNUFF FILM. Watch it if you enjoy realistic(?) portrayals of people being killed.

Even slasher flics, which have as their sole purpose to frighten us with depictions of violence - A Nightmare on Elmstreet, Friday the 13th, etc - give much more honor and dignity to the victims of violence in those films! They do not torture and debase the victims for 120 visual minutes! Avoid this film at all costs. If you ever should come across a copy of this film that is privately owned, you should advocate as persuasively as you can its disposal into the nearest trashbin.

The God Who Wasn't There (2005)

thinly crafted, awkward conclusion

[6/10 · 8 March 2009]

The filmmaker proposes to offer the viewer a film in favor of the argument that Jesus might not even have existed (not a new idea, by the way, but one regaining prominence; reference a book like "Christainity and Mythology, by John Robertson, written in 1910).

What we get, however, is something much closer to a PPT slideshow of not very well researched, developed, or presented summaries of facts/arguments making that point. Added into this superficial treatment are mention of various quotations and events of questionable relevance to the topic; and several interviews that don't always give the sense of pushing the thesis forward. All of this gets mashed together with some mildly amusing public-domain Messiah film clips and a second-rate techno soundtrack.

The conclusion of the film, however, is where things really fall apart. The film which pretenses that it will discuss the question of Jesus' existence, ends with a somewhat too-embittered revelation by the filmmaker of his own former Christianity, a lengthy going-on about the doctrines and methods of his former Christain school, and a final, awkward, and just plain ill-executed and rather petulant interview with the director of that school.

(For the record, that school director essentially accuses the filmmaker of being disingenuous right in the middle of the interview. He politely asks to stop tape so he can have a discussion about the possible pretenses of that interview; and he ultimately walks off the camera and refuses to continue or complete the interview. It appears to me than this man was entirely justified in the actions he took; and this part of the film demonstrates that the filmmaker really lacks the essentials of good film-making, interviewing, or even editing.)

The "documentary" feels more like a personal memoir by the end, and thus it fails as a film for being dishonest and incompetent in the area it proclaims to offer the viewer materials for thoughtful consideration. That is too bad; because a healthy and skeptical critique of Christianity is an important thing. It is an idea which is being offered up more and more often by popular culture recently. I believe that is a good thing - it is an overdue response to the bully pulpit that Christianity has enjoyed for a very long time. There is much to say, and much that needs to be said on this subject.

This film, while well-intentioned, is a somewhat sloppy attempt at joining this conversation, and unfortunately might actually serve to provide fuel for the counter-counter arguments, i.e. arguments that serve to attack those who are critiquing Christianity. Sloppy art can only serve to embarrass, and portray those who support it in an unfavorable light.

As a reformed (read: former) xian myself, I can sympathize with the filmmaker's sentiments throughout the film. However, such a clumsy attempt might have been better waited upon, with some more time and thought put into the construction, and decision-making, that went into this film. Of course it is easy for us to say this, as we have not made a film, and this person has. But still, when dealing with such a sensitive and important subject, it is better not to misstep, to be as correct and objective as one can, for all the reasons aforementioned.

There are other and better films that attempt to do the same thing this film does. This film is not to be skipped, but needs to be considered for what it lacks, as well as what it presents.

** One final note, however - the film's discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is spot-on, and I have not heard anyone else say what this filmmaker says about it except myself - that TPotC was a horrible, perverse, completely over-the-top orgy of gratuitous violence, more closely resembling violence-pornography that any sort of sacred story. I, for one, only refer to Mel Gibson's film as "The Snuff Film of the Christ" whenever it comes up. Kudos to this filmmaker for making a point that really doesn't get made as it ought to be. **

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

extremely bleak, disturbing - take care

[8/10 · 12 February 2009]

FIRST IMPRESSION:

IF UNRELENTING DISPLAYS OF DEATH, PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MISERY will make you too uncomfortable, then I warn you, STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM. Remember - you cannot un-see something. This film creeps up on you. By the time you realize what you have gotten yourself into with this film, it will be too late. Trust this reviewer, this is not a film to be taken lightly.

Do yourself a favor and ignore any review that says this film was "not disturbing or upsetting". Most certainly these people are adolescents or children (or still possess the minds of those) and thus cannot comprehend what true horror, bleakness, despair, are. If you choose to contradict me, then I will simply place you in that category - of child: you have not lived long enough, or well enough, to know what horror is.

If you are a parent, and adult in a committed relationship, or any kind of working, responsible person who has obligations in their life, there are too many events in this film that will simply strike you dumb with anxiety and horror (no pun intended there, sorry).

It is not a bad movie, or one that should be avoided by everyone. It's a very well-made film, cinemagraphically superb, and literarily complex (too complex with its narrative form, actually, which only adds to its anxiety-inducingness).

But if you are not familiar with the modern genre of an unblinking gaze at bleakness, don't start here.

As well, the film makes many understated points about social and class inequities - in actuality, the entire film is just one big political statement. But only those viwers familiar with such kinds of concepts will be able to perceive them, at least past the first one or two.

The ending, by the way, offers absolutely no respite from the film; rather, it only serves to confirm the film's portrayal of inescapable, bleak horriblness. No one is saved; there is no salvation. Punishment is meted out either by one's own victims (in acts of revenge, hence the title), or by resigned and grim-faced executioners, who simply do what they must do, because it is in the order of things.

Again, beware. This film is quicksand and you will not be able to extricate yourself from it too easily. Be prepared for discomforting anxiety, both during the time, and after, you watch.

Hard Candy (2005)

Hard (to watch) Candy

[7/10 · 5 January 2009]

Look at the movie poster, for crying out loud! It's Little Red Riding Hood in a bear trap!

The reviewer who did us all the tremendous service of informing us that there is a coda to the original Grimm Bro's tale of "The Little Red Cap" in which the protagonist lures the wolf to fall to his death from the rooftop, cements this.

I was not prepared for this movie. It is disturbing, and not just because I am a man. The ways in which Haley taunts and torments Jeff psychologically as well as physically are truly cruel and punishing.

(BTW, if you're REALLY looking for a reference to Japanese pop culture, it's in there. It's the spin of the chair in the very first scene we see Jeff tied up, where Haley says, "You think this is torture? This is nothing." What's the reference? Go watch the first entry in the "Guinea Pig" series. If this movie disturbed you, stop at the first of those movies, though; you have been warned).

There were lots of inconsistencies, like for example how a 14 year old girl could get a grown man strung up from the rafters while he was totally unconscious. But that's just niggling. It is a modern take on a fairy tale, after all.

If you are a careful viewer, the brief but horrible power of the final scene, together with its extremely important and revealing dialogue, should carry with you long after the more obvious (but far overlong) scenes of awfulness have faded from your mind.

Bonus points: who can understand the point of Sandra Oh's character in the film? Meaninglessness? You decide.

A Christmas Story (1983)

Am I the only one who knows the "Classic" hype is total propaganda?!?!

[1/10 · 24 December 2008]

Okay, I was a teenager in 1983 when this movie came out. Let me tell you, NO ONE was talking about this movie, and I mean NO ONE. It was an invisible little movie that meant very little to anyone.

Fast forward 10 years, and see advertisements INSISTING it was "the Christmas classic you loved as a child!". Well, it wasn't. And it isn't. Yet, the marketers and TV stations obstinately still go on insisting that it is!

This movie is proof of one thing, and one thing only. That if you repeat a lie long enough, and loudly enough, people will eventually believe it.

The lie is that this movie was EVER a classic! It isn't. It wasn't. It's a poor, tired, unhappy excuse for a TV Christmas move, and anyone who thinks otherwise can not think for themselves, but instead allows ideas to be put into their heads by advertising.

There, I've said it. I've been wanting to say that for 15 years!

The Real Bruce Lee (1977)

The "Dragon Lee" film is what this DVD is all about

[7/10 · 3 January 2008]

Sure, there are several vintage clips of Bruce as a child on this DVD. I may be mistaken but I believe these are available elsewhere and in better form. There are also some essentially worthless clips of Bruce Lee doing Kato, and some Bruce Li clips.

Skip through all that if you like. Get to the "Dragon Lee" film, which begins near a waterfall with "Dragon" practicing. This begins one of the most surreal and satisfying bad kung fu movies you will ever have the joy to watch.

There is so much to describe, I couldn't possibly contain it all here. The plot is the standard baddie doing the usual "control all the local kung fu schools" routine, but here it is being done by some *really* fake-looking Japanese characters, who mostly all sport Hitler-style mini-moustaches. Wonderful! Later in the film they bring in their "champion" who is of mixed Japanese-German descent. Perfect! There's a lot of Japan-bashing going on here.

The real enjoyment of the film comes from this kind of thing:

• The wonderfully awful dubbing, some of the worst I've ever heard. Over the top evil giggling from the bad guys; WAY excessively long grunts and groans from injured thugs; and of course, plenty of squeals and whoops and "bucocks!" from the Bruce imitator. (Did Bruce ever really make that chicken sound? I wonder).

• The sets and costumes. Sets are horribly claustrophobic. There seems to be no space in the movie larger than an 8 x 12 foot sound stage, and most are even smaller. Costumes are painfully dowdy, raggedy, and crudely made, like cheap Halloween costumes.

• The kind of wire-work you only see in your dreams. You just have to see it to believe it.

• The almost total lack of back-story, or any attempt at providing a story of any kind. This movie plays out like a great Nintendo 8-bit game from the 1980's (if you know what I mean) - just tons of action. It jumps from action sequence to plot contrivance and back again, with the barest whisper of dialogue and characterization in between. There are actually one or two characters we see several times, who are important to the plot, but whom we never get formally introduced to! We know almost nothing about them, and so feel nothing at their involvement or passing. It's great, one-dimensional fun - never preachy, always entertaining.

Someone in another comment here said this was a Korean production, which would suit me just fine. The film *completely* lacks that Hong Kong or even mainland-China feel to it, and it is certainly not Japanese! Looking at a film like this, made in Korea in the early 1970's, is like finding a time capsule - you see things you didn't know existed, shown in ways you couldn't have possibly imagined.

The movie is like a fever dream that you just can't wake up from, and I mean that in a good way! Small, sweaty, illogical, and lots of unnecessary closeups.

The Man from Hong Kong (1975)

Great bones, lousy movie

[5/10 · 30 December 2007]

All the pieces are here for a terrific Bond-like movie - including the original Bond himself! How much more A-list can you get? Unfortunately, none of it comes together; it gets played out in typical Hong Kong style. That is to say, wildly erratic pacing, gaping plot holes, absolutely no concern for continuity of time or character, etc. It starts out so promising, with first-rate set locations, helicopter chases, Sammo Hung - and quickly, very quickly, degenerates into schlock detective yarn, and not even good schlock detective yarn.

Reasons to watch this movie? First of all, the theme song! "Sky High", by Jigsaw, is a very familiar pop song from the 70's that many of you will remember, for better or for worse... I personally didn't know it was written to be the theme song for this film, but that only adds to the whole "Bond"-ness of this movie (or failure therein).

Next reason - the chase sequences. Seriously: from the opening helicopter-vs-car quickie (wait until you see your head almost get taken off by that unpredictable flying car door, truly frightening!); to the on-foot chase that startles many dogs and gets free oranges to children playing jump rope; to the final, lengthy, multi-stage car chase that gets the brand-new love interest killed (look for Wang Yu's emotive shaking of a clenched fist over the limp body!), and many, many innocent drivers knocked about horribly in multi-flip car crashes, only to have them pop their heads out of the smoking wrecks, mouthing mildly amusing obscenities, or shaking their fists while standing in ditches next to their overturned vehicles.

Where does this movie go wrong? It's hard to tell. Having Wang Yu climb a drainpipe for ten stories, only to have him break through the same all-glass door he could have broken through in the first place is a good starter. Maybe it was when the grubby, chubby second Aussie cop bumps into the parked motorcycle while walking through some dialogue and they don't bother to re-shoot. Or maybe it was the sex scene with the random hang gliding journalist fifteen minutes into the movie that ends up providing almost nothing for the film except a quick way for Wang to get to the penthouse apartment for the final fight (shades of "Game of Death", anyone?) I wanted to like this movie, but it drags, the fights are just lousy (admit it, you all), and none of the pieces, from actors to locations, ever get used well at all. Like a wonderful movie poster come to life, and just as entertaining to watch as a movie poster for one and a half hours.

The Sword of Doom (1966)

interpretation of the ending of "Sword of Doom"

[7/10 · 9 November 2007]

I won't go on at length about the film, because others have already done so, and well enough.

I will add my opinion about the ending, though.

Let me begin by saying that I understand the film was intended to be the first part of a trilogy, and so the unresolved ending could easily be attributed to a "cliffhanger" ending that might be resolved in a second film; however, we don't get the rest of that trilogy, so we must contend with the film as a complete work of art.

With that in mind, I propose that the unresolved ending of the film - the sudden, freeze-frame ending, still within the throes of an unfinished combat - is meant to suggest this:

:::Ryunosuke has actually died at some unknown point during the final sword battle; what we are in the process of observing, then, is Ryunosuke in his own real and private Hell, an afterlife of endless opponents, brutal killings, and constant injuries to his own body, none enough to kill him, but enough to cause him pain and torment:::

The reasons I see to accept this idea are several:

1) The inn is now on fire; fire is an easy metaphor for Hell (certainly for Western audiences, but possibly for Eastern ones as well). As to that fire, no one is responding to it directly, as people would tend to do if a well-populated inn was burning. There is no sound or image of commotion, shouts, running for exits, etc., as we usually see during burning-building scenes, even when there is a battle going on.

2) The scene immediately before the final battle is focused on ghosts and hauntings - it begins with Omatsu telling the tale of the courtesan who killed herself in the now-unused room, and quickly proceeds to multiple images of Ryunosuke fighting the ghosts of his own victims.

3) The room that Ryunosuke is in, and proceeds to tear apart before the attack of the samurai, becomes almost supernatural - the curtain walls he cuts through are endless, repeating, circling back upon themselves - he cannot escape this room, even by cutting his way through and out. Then, the rooms of the inn he fights his way through become endless, maze-like, and repetitive, with no occupants except the endlessly attacking samurai.

4) The final freeze-frame suggests to the audience that there is no logical ending to this scene; indeed, it never ends.

So there you have my interpretation of the ending of "Sword of Doom". If you like it and ever quote it, please give me, and this review, the credit!

The Master Strikes Back (1985)

avoid at all costs; no pleasure in watching

[1/10 · 20 October 2007]

Let me say, I am having a hard time recalling a worse movie that I have watched. This movie made me feel dirty after watching it. And also stupider, if you can possibly imagine that.

It is a disgusting hodgepodge of unilluminating plot points, incomplete story arcs, and one-dimensional characters bouncing off of each other like pinballs.

As a cheap and vulgar substitute for a genuine, emotional experience (like what real films provide to viewers), this movie willingly, almost gleefully, draws the viewer through feelings of shamefulness and pointless wretchedness. You end up feeling not so much as manipulated, but assaulted, by the ugly, cheap crudeness of the movie.

I won't even bother with an attempt at a plot synopsis of this, not even a "train- wreck-of-a movie", more like a "scrapings-of-the-slaughterhouse-floor-of-a-movie". What I will say is that the available synopses of this movie as made available by the DVD releaser is about as accurate as the worst, most deceptive trailers that have ever led you into watching a movie you thought you were going to love, but absolutely hated.

There are some movies which we all lovingly call "bad". This is not one of those movies. This movie is simply bad.

I am not winking at you when I say, "avoid this movie". If you choose to watch it, you will be in equal turns bored to tears, contemptuously angry, and pitifully disgusted by what you see. There is no joy in this film. There is neither the difficult but necessary anguish that comes when witnessing good tragedy. There is only that horrible, hollow feeling that somehow, only the worst of Hong Kong movies can foist on their viewers.

If someone offers you the choice of sitting through this movie with no hands on the pause or fast-forward button, or biting off the tip of your own tongue, I say, "Get ready to bite, hard."

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

maybe if they actually WROTE this movie...

[6/10 · 14 November 2006]

...instead of just continually improvising lines, then picking what they thought were the funniest, and editing them together. You don't believe me? Watch the credits.

Ms. Applegate has growed up so nice, and can actually act! She shows a nice range of complex emotions. They are highlighted all the more because she is in contrast to the rest of the cast, which consists of entirely one-dimensional, one-joke characters.

The entire movie plays out in typical skit-humor fashion. With such a big send-up for the promo's and all, you wouldn't think that would be the case, but it is. The plot has that greasy, "made-for-TV movie" feel to it. The ultra-feeble attempt at creating some kind of thread throughout the movie (the boring though highly in-context "panda birth") has Ben Stiller's fingerprints all over it. Using it as the climax, and then not even having the balls to actually USE the damn thing, is so weak. (It turns into the BEAR PIT GAG?!?! OMG, just awful, tedious, unfunny - like watching an "I Love Lucy" episode at 2 AM because you can't sleep.) The weatherman character Brick, played as an autistic who has no ability to discern any kind of emotion or intuition, is mildly funny ("Loud noises!"), and there are a few set pieces that work well, like the first (and ONLY the first) meeting with the rival news team. But on the whole, there seemed to be too much of the awkwardly-progressing "romantic-comedy" story in the film, and not enough of what it ought to have been about, Ron Burgundy and his sexist, buffoon comrades.

I like Will Ferrel and think he has a good comic talent, but there's just something about the SNL alums that keep them from making "movies". Maybe "The Blues Brothers" set the bar too high, or "Wayne's World" set it too low. The funny thing is, this isn't even an SNL character flic, but it fails just as badly as if it were! This movie is not to be avoided at all costs, but there's lots more funny movies being made that are satisfying at levels that you want and need them to be. If I'm going to sit down for 90 minutes, there better be more offered to me than just a few stale characters delivering a few funny lines and making a few funny situations. I can get that mediocre level of satisfaction from TV if I want it, thanks. The Coen Brothers or Billy Bob Thorton can deliver funny films, that are at the same time satisfying film experiences. Why can't Will Ferrel and co.?

Anna in Kung-Fu Land (2003)

lighthearted romantic comedy (sexist-racist sub themes at no extra charge)

[21 October 2006]

You would think that HK films would have outgrown their terribly racist and sexist components as they have become more commercially successful in the global market - certainly their production values have kept up. But it must be the same tired hacks that write and produce this stuff as ever. Try not to notice the wildly sexist key plot elements as the male ad exec lead uses feigned romantic interest to seduce the half-Japanese female lead into his competition. It's not just a plot device, its the main plot element. Laugh along as he zanily tries to keep his real girlfriend from realizing that he has lured the woman under false pretenses - ha ha! Then, do your best to totally ignore the culturalist and racist component to the lead martial artist in the fray, the Towering Black Man. Blink and you will miss the homophobic poke during the creepy Hollywood-producer-as-sex-offender scene.

All in all, it's what you would expect from HK these days, or any days - wildly inconsistent poor-to-good action, combined with wooden acting and stale plot. Still, it was nice to see Yasuaki Kurata in his all-too-brief scene (cameo really) right at the beginning of the picture. He really is an amazing martial artist and even the little bit that we see there is a treat for the eyes. Go rent Fist of Legend and look for the girlfriend's dad if you want to see plenty more of him. In fact, do that and skip Anna in Bad Taste Land entirely. There are lots more and better romantic action comedies out there - do some work and find one for yourself, you will be happier.

Also, the bizarre misogynist girlfriend-shooting-the-female-interloper fantasy sequence was really awful - ugly to watch and unnecessary. The more I think about it, the more I realize there is a lot to dislike in this film.

To be avoided despite its alluring title and premise.

Budo (1979)

rather dated

[7/10 · 25 September 2006]

I'm sure this was a thrilling movie in its day - but look at the year it was released. This is pre-VHS time, so you saw this in the theater or you didn't see it. It must have gained quite a bit of myth about it.

By today's standards it is not only very lacking it its quality of film, but also in its content. There are hundreds of more incisive, thorough, and enlightening titles available than this. If it *is* worth it, it is only because of its vintage/cult status - you can say, "I saw it", when the old-timers start talking about the old days.

A great alternative place to start would be the BBC martial arts documentary mini-series "Mind, Body, and Kick-Ass Moves". You will be a lot more entertained and informed, as compared to this movie here.

Obviously the past cannot compete with the present in many respects, and if it weren't for the past there would be no present, but if you are limited on time or money, I would spend it on something else - you won't be missing much.

Ninja Terminator (1986)

Watch for the "Directions to the Restaurant" fight scene!

[7/10 · 4 June 2006]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS - (Although a movie like this could really never be "spoiled", it's so rotten to begin with!) Never in my life have I seen a fight scene with the premise being, "Fighting for information about directions to the restaurant". Keep a lookout for this scene. It begins and ends with nothing more than, "Pardon me, but where is this restaurant?", follows with serious ass-whipping, and proceeds to "So, are you gonna tell me where the restaurant is now?!", whereupon, the man points, and the camera swings, to illustrate the restaurant, a dozen or so yards away. Priceless.

There are countless gems in this "It's one movie, it's not two movies!" genre-film. (there's gotta be a name for the spliced B-movie genre, right?) I won't list them all. Suffice it to say that Jaguar Wong's part of the movie gets my vote for superior part of the film. Jaguar truly is one of the coolest men to ever have walked the earth. Notice how he *never* closes his lips, ever!! Chews his gum with his mouth open *always*! He is the coolest, and his kung fu rocks, a nice hard-kicking, joint-locking, modern hapkido style, powerful! See this if you have a chance. And watch out for those wild crabs!

Eliminators (1986)

Wait until you see the "mobile unit"!

[8/10 · 3 March 2006]

Wow, what a perfect Saturday afternoon B-movie! It has that very rare quality of B-movies, in that is is both aware and unaware of its campy status. Seriously, as the amazingly varied collection of characters adds up (river-rat, scientist, robot, ninja, cavemen, Roman soldiers, and on) you will never be bored. The special effects are just cheap enough to make you smile, but not so cheap that you won't feel satisfied. And there's a nice finish that really rounds out the whole experience. There is a lot to like, for kids or B-movie lovers, but somehow it never degenerates into the lesser-desirable qualities of the "so bad it's good" genre. It is an honest and successful attempt at comic-book entertainment. And really, you have to see that Mobile Unit in action! How cool is that?!?!

It's Pat: The Movie (1994)

surprisingly mean-spirited and unfunny

[2/10 · 7 November 2005]

I actually liked the sketch "Pat" on SNL. It was a fresh idea - honestly, how many other "andrognenous character-sketch" routines can you name? It had its limitations, and it sure as hell could have been pushed past the "Pat almost reveals his/her gender but then doesn't" joke that seems to have been the limit of its humor.

So when there was a movie, I thought, "Hey, they're finally going to push the character beyond the one-joke limit. I like Pat, sure, I'll like the movie!" Well, I was stunned at how ineptly and poorly executed the whole thing was. The Pat character is immediately portrayed as boorish, intrusive, insensitive, and a host of other undesirable characteristics. Who decided this is what Pat was about? Who thought this would be funny? And how does this relate to the SNL character, anyway? I see no resemblance at all.

Even Dave Foley, whom I love and who is well-known for his excellence at portraying long-suffering comic characters, cannot soften the unrelenting ugliness that Pat exudes. In addition, I really think they took the low road with the "Chris" character. Of all the androgynous names they could have chosen (Terry, Bobby, Sam, the list is long), "Chris" is so boring! And the style of androgyny that was chosen, "70's-esque flower child", complete with page-boy haircut, while certainly complimenting Pat's dowdiness, was just one more joke with a very short lifespan.

By the time you finally realize the ugly boorishness that Pat is all about is not going to be a short-lived bit, but is instead the main (and only) joke, and that you will get no reprieve at all, ever, through the entire film, it will be too late. You will have suffered through the whole film, with very few laughs, and entirely missed out on a "naive-but-loveable-doofus" version of Pat, that you might have expected to get.

Unmasked Part 25 (1988)

The Thinking-Person's Friday the 13th

[10/10 · 11 October 2005]

This film truly is an underserved masterpiece. It is not a "comedy", as so many are saying, this is *satire*, which is a completely different thing. It takes something real (the slasher genre) and spins it around until it means something, and forces you to think about what exactly that something is.

***MINOR spoilers in this review***

People who have mentioned the really gory opening kill scene as being shocking are absolutely correct, and not in the least because it is so unexpected. This scene is important because it lets us know that this movie will take its job of giving us a slasher flick very seriously - it won't skimp on the gore.

The movie develops as a typical slasher flick, but them takes its satirical turn - it lets us into the world of the slasher. We actually *meet* "Jackson" (nice turn on "Jason", indeed), hear him speak, hear his thoughts, and learn what kind of a person he is - because he is, after all, still a person, even if a monstrous and supernatural one.

Then, the major plot contrivance - we see him fall in love with a blind woman. Here the whole history of monster movies comes alive for us - here is your thinking-man's Friday the 13th. Echoes of Frankenstein and the blind host, King Kong and Fay Wray, and any monster that ever was charmed and tamed by beauty and innocence.

The Jackson character is revealed and developed in ways you could never even imagine - **this is the film's genius**. Don't be put off by people who call this "corny", it is not corny, because it is not meant to be taken at face value. Here is the satire, that a monster, one we have never known, (indeed could never have known, because he's a monster, after all!), being tamed and controlled in wonderful ways. There is actually poetry-reading by the slasher in this film! You will see Jackson read Lord Byron!! Prepere to be stunned! And of course it has its necessary, and quite nicely philosophical ending, when the movie contemplates the true nature of monsters, and shows us that monsters are monsters, and will always be monsters, regardless. A bitter ending.

Still not satisfied with this tour de force, the movie throws a tiny little existentialist coda at our feet in the closing scene, when even the monster is forced to confront his own unlikely existence, and we as moviegoers also must confront our complicity in the act of making the monster. You will see what I mean.

Overall, a superb film, more like literature for our modern age, than anything you have seen before. If the idea of engaging your higher intellect as you satisfy your base and carnal desires for violence appeals to you, do yourself a favor and see this movie, and don't forget to recommend it to your friends. I still cannot believe this movie does not have the cult status it deserves.