Amon's Chopsticks

Hmmm, that's good Brucespoiltation.

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:03:00 +0000

Nothing is better than The Ninja Strikes Back. Unapologetic, crass, despotic, gratuitous, illogical, pointless, plagiarizing, exploitative, and above all, proud to be all of these things without any compromises. From beginning to end, the most entertaining and funny movie I've seen in decades. A film my brother labeled as Brucespoiltation, with the one of the most well known Bruce Lee imitators of all, Bruce Le (who looks nothing like Bruce by the way, even taking into consideration of the stereotype that “all Asians look alike to whites” – oh, most Asians I know also think the same about white people – but Le is not even close to Lee); you have to love other cast, notably Chick Norris – yes, that’s “CHICK” Norris, not to be confused, well, they want you to mistake it with Chuck, and with Bolo Yueng (from Enter the Dragon fame – the big Chinese guy that fought John Saxon), and Harold Sakata (007 Odd Jobs fame – they even play the Bond theme when he graces the screen). The opening credits music is a composite mix of Lalo Schifrin Enter the Dragon theme – about 5 second worth – I guess to keep from getting sued – mixed with stylistic and sheik 70 themes that is interchangeable from action film to funky jazz music for porn.
Ninja doesn't waste time on logical set up of plots or witty dialogs, rather just focuses of chaos and violating, not only the laws of physics but the laws of logic and the laws of its own universe and existence which is the 1970s. Forget Boogie Nights, Dazed and Confused, or all of these retrospective films that tries to capture and dissect the social stratosphere of the 70s, Ninja Strikes Back is the quintessential 1970 movie, and it achieves this without even trying. Ninja will always be my argument for the importance of bad movies, for the duality in all things, greatness cannot exist without colossal failures, but there is value and beauty in failure. This is not to say parody movies are great by definitions, these movies making fun of multiple movies, Meet the Spartans, Date Movie, Epic Movie, etc., with the exception Airplane or films by the Zucker brothers and Abrahams including Top Secret and to a lesser extend Hot Shots (I liked Part Duex a lot more for the jokes are less obvious and more broader than Hot Shot which seems to be obvious and limited to mainly parodying Top Gun), because Airplane set the rules for the genre, as well as broke conventions of film narrative; however, these “frat boy” parodies (seriously, the writers of these movie, starting with Spy Hard, were frat boys sitting around watching Hot Shots thinking they can do better and had a friend in “the Biz” with connections, thus the rest is history, lesson #1 in Comedy humility, what you think is funny might not be funny to others) that cost nothing to make and if 100000 frat boys out there go to see these films (which if you look at the weekend box office takes, they do, and will probably continue to do so), that’s $10 a ticket 10x100000 that’s at least one million, and, apparently, there are a lot of frat boys or frat boys at heart people out there that continue their support for the Friedberg and Seltzer team, god help us all. But on a cost effective scale and when compared to Ninja Strikes Back, these frat boy parodies fail micro economics 101 (I would think most frat boys who spend most of their time going and enjoying films like Meet the Spartans wouldn’t last more than half a semester in any course requiring some logical); where Frat Boys re-shoot and then inject their humor, Ninja just out right steal and exploit. In a way; there are little to no compromising with Ninja, logic is a needless distraction, why even bother? That’s where the frat boys fail as filmmakers, even on a moronic P.O.V. it cannibalizes its own genre and narrative for empty laughs, freshmen humor, and infantile logic that even an eight year old would not accept. Not that I’m trying to find emotional reciprocity with these films, but there is nothing there, no wit, no charm, no timing, these are all the right components that existed in Airplane, Kentucky Fried Movie, Naked Gun, Top Secret, Hot Shots Part Deux. Frat Boys tells a joke and hangs on that joke to make sure you get it, I guess they are always used to having to explain everything to other frat boys around them, so this carries over to other aspects. So the digressive lesson here is it’s ok to watch bad movies, as long as it’s a bad movie with heart, regardless of what was the intended purpose might be, sometimes it’s easier to laugh at a tragic failure than a parody of tragic failures.

From Fantasy to Funerals

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:27:00 +0000

The winner for best foreign film this year is Yojiro Takita's Departures. I saw this film while visiting Taiwan for this past Chinese new year. Departures was quite popular in Taiwan as well as most of Asia thanks to it's Buddhist theme of life and death, positive and negative actions, a gateway to another existence, what-have-you've-done-with-your-life-when-death-comes-knocking Ikiru-esque meditations. You would think the Japanese are tired of asking these questions in their films (See Paul's review of the criminally underrated The Funeral), but apparently the answers talented writers and directors have been giving are unsatisfactory. It was by chance that I decided to watch Departures. Up until my plane ride back, Yojiro Takita was under my radar; however, the first film that I saw of Takita holds the prestigious title of being the first date movie with the Wife, the black magic feudal Japan fantasy meets Sherlock Holmes shaman Onmyoji. Though Onmyoji hit theaters in Japan in 2001, it did not make it to the U.S. until 2003 when I saw it with the Wife on our 1st date at Piper's Alley in Chicago, I believe I still have the stub somewhere to get the exact date. After watching this film, I did more research and found out that Takita has been in the business for over 20 years, now approaching 30 years. I didn't think much of the style of Onmyoji, just your standard mixed genre where the occult meets religion mixed with action, a dash of politics, and of course romance (even some homoerotic sensibilities between the two male leads), of course romance, after all it's the Japanese. At the time, I can't say I really liked the attempt to mix genre's so wildly from different facets of the scale; but having revisit the film on video, I can see what Takita was shooting for, and to some extend, beautifully crafted with a few minor and unmentionable holes in the plot, but over all, not a bad personal introduction to Takita. Onmyoji was so successful in Japan that a sequel, creatively titled Onmyoji 2, wouldn't be too far behind. The hunky Mansai Nomura return as Abe no Seimei. Wife, having been and still is a Japanese drama (soap opera) expert, has a detail knowledge of stars, actors, actress and told me at that time that Mansai is considered to be quite the sought after actor and is known in the female circle as the "muscular guy." What is intriguing was not Takita's Onmuoji 1 and 2 but the film in between that should have caught the attention of the U.S. art film scene but was overshadowed by the success of Twilight Samurai which hit theaters 2 months before Takita's When the Last Sword is Drawn made it to Japanese theaters. So the success of one killed the possible success of the other. Having seen Yoji Yamada's follow up to Twilight, I might have to say that luck, not craftsmanship was the contributor to the success of Twilight, obviously Shuhei Fujisawa's beautiful novel and story helped a great deal. In retrospect and after Departures, my money is on Takita which seem to be better endowed with artistry and composition more than Yamada, if you have seen Twilight Samurai and was hoping Hidden Blade to be a better follow-up but was disappointed like me, pick up When the Last Sword is Drawn and your faith in reflective-existential-humanist samurai films will surely be reinvigorated. So the road leads to Departures.

So Masahiro Motoki play Daigo Kobayashi, a cellist in an orchestra that has just seen it's last day and like many people in the world, he finds himself jobless. Daigo then decides to move back to his hometown with his wife to look for work. He mistakes a job listed in the classified ads entitled "Departures" thinking it is an advertisement for a travel agency, of course it's not. It's actually for a "Nokanshi" or "encoffineer," a "funeral professional" for a funeral home. While his wife and others despise the job due to the social stigma that comes with the title, Daigo takes a certain pride in his work and begins to perfect the art of "Nokanshi," acting as a gentle gatekeeper between life and death, between the departed and the family of the departed. The film follows his profound and sometimes comical journey with death as he uncovers the wonder, joy and meaning of life and living...and of course we have all been bitten by these melodramatic Japanese humanist flares many times before, so if Departures got the Oscar, why not Hula Girls? What about Swing Girls? The Star Maker? Christmas on July 24th Avenue? Always? No? Nothing? Well, reason number one is that Takita had nothing to do with these other films; and that is the main reason as well. Takita has a fantastic sense of timing mixing irony with melancholy to bring sincere joy, not sentimentality, to a dreadful situation, which is the downfall of similar themed Japanese films. While other are too busy trying to milk tears artificially from your eyes, Takita doesn't let the story beat the tears out of you; rather, with a poker-faced direction and juxtaposition, accepts what responses naturally flows out of the viewer. He is not an emotional pornographer like most recent Japanese drama film directors; he has a very naturalistic style that pours out passionately to shows life and energy in mundane ritualized gestures of preparing lifeless bodies for the afterlife. There is passion and beauty in this irony, and Takita's genius is never to sells you his genius, but to let the characters and their actions do all the work naturally. A style without style, formless and transcendent, the likes of which have not been seen, at least by me, since Teshigahara's Woman of the Dunes.

The Bitterness is Strong with this One

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:37:00 +0000

Yes, "originally intended 2.00:1." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium, right. But how come you only go back to mutilate the great films in 2.35:1 scope, why doesn't the 1.85:1 get any love? Why not Dick Tracey? The Conformist, (there's a double pun in that title and your actions), how about Last Tango (will put a whole new spin on the butter scene, or not). Ladyhawk...Ishtar...Bulworth...Little Buddha? Oh I get it, because these were crap, so there's no use of defecating on these films, only the ones everybody likes, Reds, Apocalypse Now, The Last Emperor, the ones you won lots of awards for. The others, nah...Unifascism more like it. And that's all I'm going to say about this subject and forever destroy all of my respect and admiration for Mr. Storaro and Bertolucci (mainly for letting Storaro con you into destroying The Last Emperor for personal gain), as a director, well, Stealing Beauty, The Dreamers, is it me or you have become a perv that likes to direct underage girls (and boys) to take off their clothes? Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio?

That's one bitter Last Emperor Espresso

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:13:00 +0000

I'm glad that unlike most DP Vittorio Storaro have fully embraced the digital HD medium. That being said, cropping the original aspect ratio for the films that he shot for DVD release is terrible. See the Criterion DVD release for The Last Emperor, VS approved version has been cropped and zoomed to fit 2.20:1 from it's original 2.35:1 to accommodate your HD TV sets of 1.78:1 AR. This is sacrilege. I know, I know, who I am to say this, it's more his work than mine (or ours - the fans and the viewing masses), but being a fan and one of the viewing masses, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, it has become a collectively shared, cherished aesthetic property. When others poke fun or scrutinizes the film, the fans are the first to champion the piece, therefore, there's a level of mutual responsibility by the film makers and the film fans to respect the original work of art on all levels. Star Wars shouldn't be retouched and re-shot with new scene 20 years later for the sake of commercial appeal to a new generation, screw the new generation! It won't mean as much to them as it means to the generation that first experienced it fresh. It's a different time, different social, political, economic culture; people think differently, no matter what you do to the film(s), it will be accepted, or rejected in a different manner under different times and situation. Secondly, if you (VS) really intended for the film to be 2.20:1 then why did you shoot in 2.35:1? Then you should have shot it in 2.20:1 or at least matted the 2.35:1 down to 2.20:1 for the theatrical projection. This is a bunch of BS, I was mad, but ok, I'll accept directors going back to old materials and editing in previously un-used scene(s), but DPs butchering the frame and composition to sell DVDs, forget it. I'm really sad that Bertolucci or even Criterion themselves gave no opposition to such an obviously anti-scholastic decision, especially since there are very few "decent" (even half-way decent) editions of this film available on DVD. Please see the screen shot comparison at http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/lastemperor.htm and you will see the extent of the damage. It's heart breaking because the transfer of the criterion is so amazing, as always. Dear Mr. Storaro, since you find it so easy, non-nonchalantly even, to defecate on your previous works, not just The Last Emperor (I've heard you also re-framed Apocalypse Now and Reds for DVD release), may I suggest not to waste other people's money and time, including community of fans and admirers of your work, first, acquire all remaining prints, including negatives, inter-positives, etc., of your work, and you will have an unlimited supply of floss for your teeth, so much so you can even sell your own brand of dental floss, dental hygiene is very important, and there's just too much money on the table for you to waste time with petty, drop-in-the-well, DVD releases. Perhaps your own brand of toilet paper. I wonder how brilliantly photographed film will feel on my ass; perhaps blissful, please don't squeeze the Last Emperor can be your commercial tag line. Perhaps you can poke holes in it and make a coffee filter, espresso of course. Or baby diapers for your grand kids (or yourself in a few years), or perhaps recycle them to be reuse to film such modern classics as Meet the Spartans or any of the gems directed by Tyler Perry. Please use your imagination, oh...excuse me, you have obviously already filed bankruptcy in the imagination department.

The Sun in My Eyes

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:23:00 +0000

About the Sun, I completely agree with Paul on his review of the Sun, however, where the movie failed for me was the absolute miscast by Sokurov to pick Robert Dawson as MacArthur. This was a tragic and a huge miscalculation on all fronts, and quite frankly, and amateurish mistake by a decent director. Having seen Moloch but not Taurus, the Sun being billed as part of Sokurov's "tetrology" about emperors, dictators, rulers, etc. (Moloch was about the dead-pan, social aspect, dissection of Eva Braun and Hitler). With all of his past flaws aside from past films, let me focus on the Sun. Robert Dawson is a decent man, I'm sure, trying hard to bust through the wall with his "big break", and by all means Sokurov handed him fastidiously MacArthur on a silver platter, couldn't have been better for Mr. Dawson. And most genuinely (potentially) great actors will come up on top and deliver; and there are also the other half of the acting population who are handed a "big break" and of course faded away like ice in water. I believe, sadly, Robert Dawson fits the bill of the latter. If you were to carefully comb through the credentials of Robert Dawson you will see that even as an extra, the films he appeared in as an extra in are third tier films. Films that you don’t just miss Dawson if you blink, they’re films of the caliber that if you blink and you forget everything about the entire film. Let’s play a game, I will now pretend to be Sokurov and review Mr. Dawson’s resume, what will be the one role that will convince me to give this heavy character of MacArthur to Dawson. The Competition, Richard Dreyfuss 1st attempt at a lead in a movie (Not in Close Encounters of the 3rd kind, I consider the SFX and the Aliens, and some degree Truffaut, as the leads), flanked by soon to be Mrs. Spielberg and Mrs. Ex-Spielberg, Amy Irving. Dawson, you played “Recorder Player” humm, ok, ok, that was you first officially gig, it’s ok, let move on. The Couch Trip, let me just sum this dismal masterpiece with the list of the lead cast, Dan Aykroyd, Walter Matthau, Charles Grodin, Donna Dixon, ok, let me stop before I become sick inside, you played “man at party.” Humm, let’s keep going. Your next one is a TV movie, lets save us both the embarrassment and skip that one. Ok, then we got, dear god, Fletch Lives, yes, that Fletch Lives, yes, that Chevy Chase, ok, same as the last one, let's just skim through it and see what catches our eyes, Class of Nuke’Em High, part II-Subhumanoid Meltdown no less, blah, blah, blah, meaningless TV film extra roles. Obscure B-movie roles, moving up from being extra, getting more meaty rol….oops, back as an extra as the Embassy Employee in The Card Player, then a lead role in a TV movie, then here we are, The Sun. The audition was phenomenal, astounding, ridiculously brilliant, or maybe Dawson came cheap and money was tight (money is always tight or Dawson just uses his tongue very well…so be the case, because in the end the movie is not entirely about the relationship with Hirohito and MacArthur (not entirely), however, Issei Ogata, didn’t come off the acting boat like Dawson, especially Edward Yang’s masterpiece Yi Yi: A One and a Two. For me is a matter of what both actors bring to the role, Ogata brought his A game, he had to, this was the Emperor of Japan we’re talking about, both prestige and stigma attached to the role, while Dawson brought what he has under his belt, Recorder Player, Man at Party…this singularity, is the discrediting factor of The Sun’s inability to move beyond meditations in caricature to a complex character study between two people that lead two nations through a war that neither men completely understood and to a certain extent; wanted involvement. Dawson’s weak link snapped the whole chain that is The Sun. In the end, Sokurov is as much to blame for such negligence as Dawson’s own acting. Movies like The Sun do not direct themselves. Check out Downfall, the German counterpart to The Sun, of course Hitler was a more well define evil of WWII, and in some ways easier to dissect than Hirohito (I feel a bit over done here by Bruno Ganz – ironically was considered for the part of Schindler in Schindler’s List – but I guess you have too be crazy and over the top to murder 8 million plus people). Hirohito is not so easily labeled as most of the outsiders of Japan (including other Asian countries that suffered under the cruelty of the Imperial Army that quickly dismisses Hirohito as guilty by association) have come to believe. I know a lot about Hirohito, and both side of the argument, my ancestry and hatred for the crimes of the Japanese Imperial Army of WWII refuses to give quarter to anything Japanese of WWII, in the same respect, the facts are so squeaked and manipulated to the point that I have very little confidence in Hirohito’s involvement or disengagement with the goings-on of the Pacific conflict to make a rational assessment; and who knows if the facts were manipulated to protect Hirohito from persecution, because if the embodiment of Japan was on trial for crimes against humanity, then all of Japan would also be sticking it’s head in the noose as well. But is responsibility and reconciliation such a bad thing? I don’t know, ask a German.

Final thought is only to say that The Sun, as Paul states, labors hard not to be a political podium to the viewers; but in the end, it can’t help but get involved into the political canvas, especially when you are speaking of Hirohito and MacArthur or else it will be a shoe seller trying to sell shoes without shoe strings…yeah…good luck with that, so I would personally believe that Sokurov should have spent more time with his actors and less time trying not to be political; or if he is insistent, may I suggests remaking Marie Antoinette? You can't get less meaningless or political as that. Sayonara, The Sun.

Memories of Matsuko on DVD with English Sub.

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:43:00 +0000

We don't really get any deals with anybody, but we love movies too much not to share our channels with the zero readers that are a bit shy at leaving us comments, so FYI whoever is reading this; Memories of Matsuko is an amazing movie. Be one of the coolest people on your block to see this film first, even before it hits US theaters, show off to friends and love one. Girls will want to sleep with you and maybe even men too. If you are adventurous, you can buy the movie at www.Sensasian.com, they have about two DVD versions, with very good prices as well as a VCD version at a cheaper price, but get the DVD, it's couple bucks more, but the picture and sound quality is important for this film. The bare minimum DVD is dual layer with DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1. no extras, just the menu and film. There is also a Special Edition that has a bit more extras, but of course a few dollars more than the basic DVD. Or if you are a bit more conservative with your DVD purchases, look into the Asian "Netflix" called eHit at www.eHit.com. MoM DVD is available for rental, a bit of a wait, but worth every minute. eHit is also a very good resource for Asian film rental in general. Enjoy.

300: I didn't think they could remake The Eternal Jew

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:55:00 +0000

Thermopylae, the Spartans last stand at the hot gates defending their rights to enslave the Helots, force them to work the land, and send out youth death squads to commit murder on the ones that seems to be getting a bit too independent (how’s that for a run-on sentence?); nice work, very nice indeed. So I’ve read countless of forums and review on this film by Zack “metaphor-less” Snyder and based on the comic-book, or the cosmopolitan term graphic novel by Frank Miller. First and foremost, I love Frank Miller, if I had a first born, and he was into collecting first born; well, you know. So no questioning my love and admiration for Frank, undisputed since the first day I cracked open the mint binding of Frank Miller’s the Dark Knight Returns, you couldn’t convince me to curse his name. Like most public school kids who knew a lot about small arms and close to nothing about classical history; a question was thrust upon me three years back as I was checking out of a Home Depot store, making a purchase for a supplies for a now much regrettable small indie filmed I volunteered as a grip on (if you’re that interested, look up my name on IMDB – I know, exactly), What was the single most important battle in Western Civilization? A well educated and intelligent man would have really thought about it and had enough character to say “I don’t know” if that was the case, I was neither of those things, so I guessed my ass-off. They were not even educated guesses, as random as I can come up with movie titles starting with the word “The Battle…” After losing patients with my complete lack of investment in a half decent answer to his question; Thermopylae (and I’m sure he followed with “you idiot” to himself), even the minimum wage cashier nodded her head in agreement with my friend, “I’m afraid he right” she said. Yes, we needed that validation, I’m sure. Cut to: Parking Lot, he continues on to tell me the story of the 300 Spartans and King Leonidas sacrifice against the massive Persian army of Xerxes. How we would all be speaking Persian now if the Spartans did not slow down the Xerxes enough for the Athenians to prepare for the Persian. Since we get our laws, some of the language, culture, anal-sex, from the Greeks, we would have none of that if Xerxes descended on the capital. True. But besides from being misinformed, I’m terribly stubborn and like to check things out for myself. He’s right. However, there are certain undisputable facts, mixed with some exaggeration en mass. So I found out what I could. Last summer, during my knowledge accumulating (whom am I kidding, surfing the net for movie news), I found out they are turning 300 into a movie. Great! Love Frank, know a lot about Thermopylae. A small note, incase you haven’t noticed by now, between the months of February and May is known widely in Hollywood circles as a dumping ground; too early for Oscars (they will never remember you), and people are thawing with the winter weather, outdoor activities increases, no one wants to spend two hours in a cozy theater; hence the high quality of materials that get a pre-memorial day hit. Look at the history, look at what is released in the spring, films that either cost nothing to make, or filled with nameless actors as if they were giving out fake names, movies that have sat on the shelf for years that even Joel Silver wouldn’t touch even if you pour pounds of cocaine on the print. So I was a bit suspicious at their motive for releasing 300 during dead time. What was pretext are now the past, and the gambled work against the back drop of political clashes that parallels the film. A typical Hollywood film provokes some love, some hate, and some gray areas. Not 300. The consensus is, love it and the other side calls you a Nazi sympathizer; hate it, and the other side says you are unpatriotic and are against freedom, Frank Miller’s interpretation of Spartan freedom. It’s noteworthy to point out that Frank was inspired not so much by the actual events at Thermopylae, but rather the 1962 film 300 Spartans (once again, bunch of Brits playing Greeks and Spartans; and not a very good movie at that, but while I reserve judgment on Frank’s muses, you do have to take into account that 300 is based on a graphic novel, and is very sympathetic towards the Spartan, nothing short of pathos reminiscent of Jet Li’s last scene in Hero. Which brings me to the point that the context of this story is nothing more than Frank’s adolescent psyche hero worship; and there’s not really anything malice or indifferent about that; (here comes that big BUT) but, Zacky boy, in my opinion, was a poor choice to direct mainly attributed to the fact that he does not know how to control his story. Visually stunning, but ultimately meaningless, made solely for the frat-boy, by a frat-man I’m sure. This movie is so full of ambiguousness where they should be clear and clear on things they should have been a bit more ambiguous it leaves me flat; walking out angry, but not so sure what I am angry about. Similar to the first time I saw the Eternal Jew. A very well done prapagandoc, but sick to my stomach to think that people believe this. Speaking of Indiana Jones's arch enemies, was it not Hitler who said "the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." I think it sums up this film and the people's reaction nicely. Another Nazi side note, to stir up morale and fighting spirit, the German propaganda machine of WWII used the story of the 300 Spartans to "uplift" the troops to kill for Deutschland. Not that the allies were completely innocent of pure propaganda themselves, everybody is guilty on this subject, but within it's lascivious context, the Nazi believed that the Spartans are the descendants of the original Aryans, Atlantians, so in their mind, is not so far fetched to believe a lie that is so preposterous. Only small lies are doomed to fail, so take note all of you boys and girls out there, if you have to lie anyway, make it monstrous, like this film. Everything about this film is highly argumentative on both side, everything is flexible and manipulate-able; so it is pointless for me to list all the fact versus myth and story telling. I offer no solutions if you are looking one, only if by some odd logic that 300 can be considered as a sequel to Zacky’s first flick, the remake of Dawn of the Dead, which in all fairness was an entertaining movie, but also lacked the social commentary of the original, not that I think all too highly of George Romero, but it was at least something more than just a zombie movie; however, not the remake, and definitely not 300. I don’t want to attribute that to incompetence on Zacky’s part, but it seems to be very anti-scholastic endeavor, almost purposely; hence a frat-boy flick directed by a frat-man.

A Poll about a Pole

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:59:00 +0000

Hey you! Yeah you! Should I send this letter to Ebert, Roeper and the Chicago Sun-Times? Let me know…yes you…let me know what you think! Leave me a comment. Yes or No? Hurry, the more time you waste, we lose another misguided film enthusiasts to this moron each and every minute. Stop the madness! Unlike them, your opinions matters to us!

You can learn a lot from Dummies Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:25:00 +0000

Some of the biggest blunders of the last century: Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, the Design of the Spruce Goose, Monica Lewinsky’s decision to work late one night, Donald Trump’s hair cut, Howard the Duck and Lucas’s decision to return to directing, and Ebert settling with Richard Roeper. In the words of Ebert quoting Jean Luc Godard quoting himself in the book JLG on JLG, when you criticize a movie, the best way is the make the criticism into a small movie in itself. Apprently this was one of a very few times Ebert decided not to follow this advise. I didn’t think much of it at the time about Siskel’s replacement; a seat was open, have to fill it, but no one said you had to put crap there. OK, OK, that’s a little immature. Let’s break it down, Ebert knows what he’s talking about, typically, he will back up his opinions with certain facts, anecdotes, journalistic intuition, etc. to sell you his ideas and opinions. Roeper’s favorite movie is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Not that this high school comedy by the great 80’s teen comedy master (also from Chicago) John Hughes is a bad movie, but if you express your opinion on anything so strongly, with great passion and enthusiasm; even if that opinion seems ridiculously benign or non-objective, you could still earn some cred and respect from peers in your industry and colleague. The whole film industry atomizes itself around this idea of acceptance and pats-on-the-back, there are no rooms for claims of self-important criticism which only translate to nothing more than opinions express out of indulgence; and what monkey on this earth can’t do the same through the act of public masturbation? I don’t care if you choose the Toxic Avenger over Lawrence of Arabia as your favorite movie of all time; but when that opinion is questioned, defend Toxic Avenger like the plane was going down. Though it is only a matter of opinion, be it my opinion, I believe Roeper’s reviews are soulless, dispassionate, lacking insight, lacking character and validity to ever be considered or regarded as a “well expressed opinion of a film expert.” So picture my disbelieve as I watch the Oscar’s red carpet and saw an uncomfortable RR trying his best to be witty and relevant with passing celebrities; how truly sad I was to see people of little substance being interviewed by a callus statue carpet ornament, and here I am, getting a poor review of how my past year and a half in the retail shoe business have been lack luster. Maybe Roeper and I should swap, but even then, I don’t hate my current boss that much. And folks, that’s why I hate Richard Roeper, and you should too. Its fun, go on, say something bad about him, you’ll feel a lot better toward that movie you liked and he thrashed. Dear friends, I end with Love and Squalor.

You can learn a lot from Dummies Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:23:00 +0000

So I got my review at my day job yesterday, not a very good review, shockingly bad actually, my utter lack of maturely and professionalism has lead me to due nothing more than a revenge review on movie critics, mainly Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-times. This issue has been sitting in front of me like a juicy porter stake since I saw him at this year’s Oscars, filling in for Roger Ebert (there’s a fat joke in there somewhere, but I’m sure he’s heard it all, so I’ll move on). A bit “his story” lesson about me. I grew up Northwest Indiana; affectionately refer to as “the Region” by the rest of Indiana. We were heavily influenced by Chicago that I still don’t understand why we just don’t separate from Indiana and latch onto Chicago anyway; Hammond, Indiana to be exact. To me, even at a young age, films and movies were as important as a priority as eating or going to the bathroom. Not really understand English to well when I first arrived in the spring of 1980, I would watch a lot of PBS, you know, all those learning shows; ZOOM (with their stripe shirts signing that lyrically bankrupted song of their’s), 3-2-1 Contact, Electric Company (mainly for the Spiderman segment, because it was cool), and not so much Sesame Street (felt it was a bit too childish for me, yeah, I was too mature at the age of 8 for Sesame Street, go figure), so I came across this show with this rather large guy and a tall skinny balding guy arguing and talking about something and showing movie clips in between. At first, I just thought it was cool to see movie clips on TV (it was the early 80s, give me a break, not a lot to do for an 8 year-old); as I progressed with my English, it started to make sense that they are talking about different aspects of the movie, criticizing it [how cool is that job?], so I watch the show more and more, which at the time was called Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, with the thumbs up-and-down thing. Then they moved from PBS to WGN (channel 9 Chicago) then changed to At the Movies. Their old show on PBS was given to two of the most idiotic film critics ever to set eyes on films (look for their own little review soon), I’ll leave their names of the list for now. Back to S&E, then they moved again to CBS (Channel 2, Chicago) this time simply, Siskel and Ebert, far enough. And once again, they left their legacy with WGN to, even more incompetent critics, Rex Reed and Bill Harris (somebody owes somebody a favor?). Oh, I can’t wait to talk about Reed and Harris, how they gave such a poor and offensive review of Platoon, saying and I quote (I still remember to this day), “the American people just don’t want to hear anymore about Vietnam, we are tired of it, let it go.” I ran out with friend and we snuck into Platoon that very weekend after seeing Nightmare on Elm Street 3. Then a few weeks later, Platoon getting a lot of praises and awards, they had a special episode devoted to how great Platoon was. It does not take a mature mind to recall all the credibility I had for these gods who get paid for writing and talking about their opinions on movies they’ve seen. This is fact, not made up; you are welcome to research for yourself. ACT II, for the most part, S&E were fair, and they made good arguments; some films I disagreed when I was young, then revisited them when I was a bit older and understood more, and then I agreed with them wholeheartedly, e.g. their reviews of Top Gun; flying jets, Kelly McGellis, things blowing up, young Meg Ryan, songs by Kenny Loggins, with the exception the latter, this was gold to an 11 year-old boy (of course I discovered the homoerotic subtext in my later years, but let not digress), but S&E thought the romantic interlude between Cruise and McGillis was labored and pointless. When you like a movie, and you like a critic, you almost which that they too would share the same opinion as you. They didn’t go for Top Gun; but in a form of Johnny come lately, seeing the movie again later in College, completely agree, so these guys actually know what they are talking about, I guess they don’t just give out Pulitzers to anybody. OK. Credibility is high. Then I saw Beyond the Valley of the Dolls…then…Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (both are written by Ebert…let me ask the readers this, What do you want me to say? I wouldn’t say my respect for the guy dipped, come on, it was directed by Russ “big boobs” Myers (need I remind you again, I was still a relatively young man). Suffice to say that I continue to try and catch their show and reviews every chance I got, even down in West Lafayette Indiana. Then came the 2nd half of the 90s when I moved back home and into the big city. Things didn’t seems to make sense so much; thumbs-up on Speed 2? Thumbs-down on Air Force One? Up for another Jan de Bont flick The Haunting, down for Fight Club. What going on?! ACT III, it was unfortunate for Siskel, personally I felt that I share a personal relationship with these two guys watching them as I was growing and enjoying their, sometimes stagy but fun, verbal fights; though I really thing there was a better movie than Babe 2: Pig in the City for the 1998 year, you gave it the #1 movie of 98, so be it, given your condition and credibility, you’re allowed; besides, Ebert had Dark City, also a good movie, but nothing better that year? I could have sworn different. So Siskel past away, and for a while the chair across the aisle was being filled by unattractive people flanked by unmitigated opinions. No one was smart enough or strong enough to slug it out with the big man, with endless knowledge of movies and Pulitzer under the belt (which he never seizes to remind people), no one really stepped up. Enter Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times.

Coming Soon: Why we all hate Roeper

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:32:00 +0000

Boredom and a complete malcontent for moronic critics with paper thin cred has provoked me to retaliate against the injustice to films, stupidity incarnate; Richard Roeper. Also featuring: Roger Ebert you’re on thin ice; Pulitzer – Schamolitzer, even I, one of the biggest Godard fans in the world don’t drop JLG’s name every chance I get. They should have a system to re-evaluate your worthiness to retain the Pulitzer after you decided to hire Roeper, at the very least, recommended you for a psych evaluation. Look for this and many other exciting critiques on critics in the not too distant future.

Ni Hou Ma?

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:06:00 +0000

Since Paul (to my surprise) enjoys Three Time, and its 2/28, let me dig my claws into the flesh of Hou Hsiao-Hsien for a moment. Since I can never write about Hou in an elegant nor on an academic plane as Paul can, I’ll leave the review for Flowers of Shanghai on the table for Paul. If you are familiar with Hou, it is easy to just dismiss him as a self-indulgent, pornographer of nostalgia. Like all myths and facts, this is half true and half false. My best description of Hou, if labeling people is your thing, would be that he gives an emotional response to the social and political climate of his youth. We are all nostalgic creatures, if you are not there yet, trust me, you will be, eventually; for Hou, I think these are his personal reaction of the particular period as it is references to changing ideas and values (jacked it straight from Paul, I’m a lazy, lazy man), without a particular answer or solution. I don’t necessary believe that he’s suggesting there is anything wrong with the social norms of a particular period, e.g. how the social consumption of opium was an accepted doctrine in Taiwan’s history, i.e. Flowers of Shanghai. Hou let us peek into these periods through his non-judgmental eyes, as if these are contemporary pieces and all of the actions and ideals of his character are the ideals and believes of modern sensibilities. Hou is a true transporter of your emotions, a bus driver that takes your emotions back to a different time with a different frame of mind; alas, a pornographer of nostalgia (bus driver, would it be better if I said train conductor? Airplane pilot perhaps? I apologize for such a pointless digression). I don’t believe that he is so concerned with shifts of social paradigm from one period to the next, or the obvious similarities or differences in people of different periods or class, this would seem too trivial to address. So then; what is he trying to say? How can anyone be so neutral about such a dynamic period; youth, and more importantly youth in the fluxing politics of Taiwan, China and Japan? Every period, within its own construct is a “period of change”; no generation ever defined itself as a generation of complacency, “well, we never really did anything in my generation, son, nothing really happened, just went to school, got a job, got married, paid taxes, and accepted everything for what it is.” But the current US administration and the lack of response by its denizens come pretty close to a generation of complacency; but that’s another rant all together, but we all believe, in a very pompous and self-righteous path that WE (our generation) changed the world is some way, in some form, be it the inconsequential revolution of fashion, music, pop culture, at least WE will be remembered for something, right? Nice try… as mentioned, en mass, in the past, besides from being lazy, I am an optimistic pessimist, I endearingly await the end, and in that end, nothing WE did will really amount to the dirt we will rest on anyway. So why make films about our beloved youth, why write bloggs about other people’s movie about their beloved youth? I need something to do to past the time before my box lands in the hole. I’m sure Hou, to some simplistic sense of existence agrees with me. Anyway, in the end, either over-complicating or over simplifying Hou’s intentions, or hoping it’s somewhere in-between, his movies seem to provoke a fundamental character of the human condition that entertaining or not, artistically sound or not, cannot be denied or overlooked as well as dismissed for self-indulgent boredom… whether its boring or not. So the best I can do after wasting people’s precious internet porn surfing time is to suggests some of Hou’s right hand movies, only if you enjoy Three times and want to elevate this relationship to the next level (I hope it works out for the two of you in the future, keeping my fingers crossed). His quintessential, I believe, is City of Sadness. The nostalgia in Three Times does not even come close to the nostalgia in City of Sadness; mainly because it deals with the taboo subject of the 2/28 incident. A good movie to watch… well today, no other successful directors of Taiwanese origins, not a one, would even go near 2/28. I would highly point you to City of Sadness before Flower… though Flower fits nicely into the number #3 slot. I eagerly await Western debut, currently in post-production, Le Ballon Rouge (the Red Balloon). But do give some attention Japanese language Café Lumiere, and take heed to Millennium Mambo, and least we neglect Goodbye South, Goodbye. These should keep you nice and cozy during these cold winter nights or at least a weekend or two.

Paul's Great Review of Three Times

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:39:00 +0000

For some reason I could not comment on you posted review of Three Times. How retarded is that? Can't use the site...shameful, so I am posting a new blogg to answer your review.

What a great review! Man, let me post a question in SAT form: Paul's review is to Goddard as Amon's review is to______.

A. Uwe Boll
B. Ed Wood Jr.
C. Joel Schumacher
D. All of the above

I think it's obvious.

BTW, I have a copy of Region 2 Curse of the Golden Flower, just came out today, I will let Raul pass it to you, and also look for A Battle of Wits, The Banquet, and A World Without Thieves. A little old but worth the time nonetheless.

Have you scene the trailer for Premonition, they don't seem to mention the Japanese Premonition of 2005 at all and the story does not sound that much alike, but coincidence or straight-up jackin' with a slight tweaking? To be debated once I see this series of masterpieces of Hollywood creative bankruptcy.

Low I.Q. on Vali's day

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:21:00 +0000

Since its Valentine’s Day, I guess I should get all of the romantic comedies out of the way. I.Q. 1994 Directed by Fred Schepisi (the same talent that brought you mediocre films with high profile casts, Russia House, Fierce Creatures, Roxanne, Mr. Baseball), a talented “mismanager” of talent. At least he’s in good company. What can I say, Walter Mathau as that-smart-old-guy-that-you-just-put-frizzy-white-hair-on-another-old-guy-it- automatically-becomes-that-smart-old-guy. I think his name is Einstein or something like that, brought a man back to life using lighting bolts or something to that effect. It’s sad when you get to the age where you can play Einstein, and that role annuls all the other great roles before it. Walter will be mostly remembered for Grumpy Old Men, and sadly, Dennis the Menace and sadder still, Grumpier Old Men, but there are entire libraries of great films that this generation will probably never care to pick up and ignore completely, that Walter Matthau did some beautiful works. To name a few, Hopscotch, Little Miss Marker (come on, I was a sentimental kid), Bad News Bears (nobody plays Buttermaker better, I like Billy Bob Thornton just fine, but nobody), The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3 (one of his best foul-mouth roles ever), actually there’s too many to name, but I have to mention King Creole, Elvis’s 4th movie, dark movie for the king and Matthau as crook/mentor played with amazing calm intensity, my favorite of The King’s movie BTW (digression – originally the lead role was intended for James Dean, but Elvis lobbied hard and won it in the end after Dean passed on it. On a sad note, this was the type of roles The King really wanted to do, something with a lot of weight, but ended up as a whore to the money making and exploitative machine of the Colonel Tom Parker, and ended up making fluff pieces to promote his music, a true Greek tragedy). Since is Vali’s day, let me be nice, I actually like I.Q. It’s been out since 1994, and amazingly, this is my first viewing, yes, I know, not that there hasn’t been an equal share of people urging me throughout the years to watch this movie, but it all just came down to the fact that I believe at the time that there are better movies for me to spend my time watching than Matthau playing Einstein and Meg Ryan play his equally smart niece (that right, that is comedy enough if you ask me). But to be fair, it not a bad movie, nothing fantastic and a bit over indulgent with lighting and composition with for what it is, your typical cookie-cutter romantic comedy, that at times seems to be quite impressed with itself than the audience. And for the love of god, can all of these actresses stop playing scientist, please, huh, please, before I loose it and take a rifle up to a clock tower to solve this problem. They are driving me crazy: Elizabeth Shue: The Saint, and Hollow Man (I guess she felt she didn’t say what she wanted with the idiot blond scientist role in the Saint so she had to reprise), Mira Sorvino: Mimic, Meg Ryan: I.Q., Helen Hunt: Twister, Kathleen Turner: Baby Geniuses, even though the list is endless, let’s just end on Baby Geniuses shall we. At the very least they should try to understand a tenth of what they are saying, or else how do you expect us to accept the fact that you understand what your character is saying? I rather pay to see Walter Matthau playing Einstein as the futuristic cyborg terminator sent back in time (programmed with an Austrian accent, which Einstein had – well, more of a Swiss, but Swiss, Austrian, German, the Nazis didn’t seem to know the difference) to kill the mother of the future leader of the human race, just as appropriately ridiculous as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, wait he did play Genghis Khan, The Conqueror, I gracefully withdraw my ranting. Hollywood, you win again. Some great movies to watch for you romantics out there, Needing You (HK, 2000) and it’s companion piece A Moment of Romance (HK, 1990, don’t let the title fool you, it’s a sad ending) Chungking Express (HK, 1993), Love Undercover (HK, 2002), Love Letter (Japan, 1995), and where would love be without the French? Amelie, Hiroshima Mon Amor, The Lover, and the Americans, Sixteen Candles, Casablanca (if you’re alone, a little Boggy goes a long way), Say Anything and the Sure Thing, oh what the hell, make it a Cusack triple feature with Hi-Fidelity, Black Belt Jones (just seeing if you’re paying attention) Xanadu (I know, I know, give it a shot, you’re obviously dateless if you’re reading this, what do you have to lose, your millionth viewing of Lord of the Rings?) and Annie Hall, you need a little Woody on Vali’s day. Ones to stay away from, anything with Meg Ryan, yes, including I.Q. and Sleepless in Seattle, especially Sleepless in Seattle, Titanic (trust me), Bed of Roses (as sappy and crappy as they come – I wish I can articulate this better…umm…umm…no I can’t, it’s pretty crappy), Ghost (unless you have bucket near by, then by all means indulge), which reminds me, not that anyone would remember, Wisdom (if you generally like to watch bad movies with friends on Vali’s day or any other day, then this is your movie, Directed by one time boyfriend of Moore, Emilio Estevez, purely priceless) and Xanadu (for the same reason that I said you should watch it).

(s)+Diamonds=gay romantic comedy Partner(s), kinda

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:34:00 +0000

With all of my (insert pretentious swagger) accumulated movie knowledge, you’d think I start this blogg with something slightly more…more…well, no easy way to say this without offending Mr. Dave Diamond (the director of this film), well, actually, with a name like Dave Diamond how hard is it to offend, come on, man; meaningful. The film is Partner(s) 2005 written and directed by Mr. Dave Diamond. Somewhere along the line, a marketing intern mustered up enough guts to stand in a boardroom brainstorming session to say “you know what will make this movie cool and unique? Put parenthesis “s” at the end of Partner. That would really make it stand out.” So the wife enjoys renting movies and not watching it, love it, heavy weight champion of DVD rental neglect. I, for one, hate to waste a rental, everything she brings home from Hollywood video or her Chinese rental place (except for the Japanese and HK dramas) I watch completely, beginning to end, even if it’s bad, complaining all the way from beginning to end, I watch. So, meat and potatoes shall we, a young lawyer exploits office politics and homosexual stereotypes to win control over a high profile case (involving a gay man suing a company for firing him because he’s gay) in which if he wins, will lock his chances of making partner of the firm. Without spending more time than I need to explain the intricacies of Partner(s), let me just give you my feeling on an emotional response to this film rather than an academic assessment, which would not be fair to this effort to show the gay lifestyle in reference to heterosexual lifestyles, and how funny the contrast can be. Not very I’m afraid. Partner(s) falls into the pigeon hole of similar gay movies of the 90s (Jeffery, Love, Valor, Compassion!, Billy’s Hollywood Screen Kiss, Percella Queen of the Desert, and I’ll mention To Wong Foo Thanks for everything… just for the sake of mentioning, because I believe this movie is far from what the gay or transsexual community is trying accomplish), trying to be unisex while dispelling sexual stereotypes and prejudices, but in the end, it highlights the differences rather than presenting a case of similarities. Add to the fact that Mr. Diamond seems a bit uncomfortable with the hetero scenes, almost disgusted with the act itself. So the love between the two main characters seems a bit labored and dispassionate, lacking in chemistry. However, surprisingly well acted; the main characters as well as some of the supporting actors are quite good in their roles, the tragedy is they are not given anything decent to chew on, and most of the office characters are one cliché after another (I’ll spare the details) acting in roles that seems to be nothing more than an extended episode of Three’s a Company. And the tragedies keep flowing, Saul Rubinek and Michael Ian Black, two good actors that I can only assume owe somebody a favor. One thing Mr. Diamond is good at is “establishing shots.” Man is he good at that, establishing shots everywhere; however, I have no freaking idea what city this movie is supposed to be in. Elevated train, palm trees, LA sunsets, Canadian skyline? And no, I will allow Mr. Diamond the argument that it’s universal, it can be in any city, (The Matrix can be in any city, Partner(s) cannot) then why the obvious shot of downtown LA? Lastly, there is this long and unexpected post script at the end of the movie telling us what happened to all of these mildly bland characters after the this initial story ends, you mean it continues?! It was surreal to say the least, 1) I don’t really care enough about these people to know what becomes of them, including the supporting cast, even some of the extras got a post script, I’m not kidding 2) the movie is exactly the same with or without the PS, only with the PS will take longer before you finally hit the stop button on the DVD player. My recommendation? Get your hands on a Chow Yun Fat HK flick call The Eight Happiness directed by Johnny To, Chow Yun Fat gives an amazing performance for such a small movie as a womanizer that falls in love with a women but has to pretend he’s gay to get close to her and win her affection. Chow Yun Fat acts gay amazingly well to say the least. In the end, the answer lies in Asia cinema, always the case.

So much, so little

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:01:00 +0000

So my lovely wife loves to rents these (sometimes) straight to DVD romantic comedies and then not watch them, and I'm not one to waste a film, especially in the troubled times of excess and wastefulness and global warming and all (just doing my part to save the world...I'm sure my devoting my precious time to watch bad movies is helping the rain forest in some way, I'm sure of it!), nothing can go to waste. So she rents these movie, Partner(s), 2005 dir. Dave Diamond (yes, I know), I.Q. (yes, that I.Q. Walter Matthau as Einstein, and she wonders why I have never sat through this movie in it's entirety...Matthau as Einstein being a major factor, the people that were involved with making this movie lack the obvious...I.Q. to know this was a bad idea...I'm sorry, just couldn't resist the pun), and the third flick, the one and only (her choice BTW, I had nothing to do with it)Rudy Ray Moore in Petey Wheatstraw the Devil's son-in-law, yes, Dolemite himself. So in the end, I end up watching all of these movie by myself while she periodically looks over at the TV from her computer table. I know you can't wait, but I'm tire so what I think of these movies will have to wait...and amazingly, I manages to squeeze in some movies that I want to see, Pen-Ek Rantanaruang's follow-up to his DVD cult success known as Last Life in the Universe, a second viewing of Andy Lau in A Battle Wits, the dismal Chinese interpretation of Hamlet known as the Banquet, and The Queen and a second viewing of The Departed...lastly, the brilliant and the entertainingly hardcore Shaw Brothers on crack The Demon Lute, if you can get your hands on it, grab a twelve pack, a few friend and enjoy...I humbly accept your gratitude in advance.

An intro...sorta

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:10:00 +0000

So I've been putting this Blog thing off forever...really, almost one day shy of forever. I took a persistent and patient friend to actually sign me up to get me feeling guilty enough (since he did all the work to sign me up) to get me here. So why post my movie two cents and share them with the world ("the world" being limited to perhaps an unfortunate few that are absolutely bored with porn or illegal online downloads or both and happens to run into my blog) when any chump that's had the displeasure of sitting through [insert your most hated film here] and with in moments of the rolling credits, made their - perhaps insignificant - opinions known on the internet. I think I just described 99.9 percent of internet users, not even exaggerating one bit...well, maybe a little. I attended a script writing seminar once (misguided youth of very little importance), and they started the seminar with the encouraging words; "writing (in general) is the biggest hobby in the world..." I pay how much for them to tell me this? As if I didn't noticed the hundreds of semi-delusional Trekkies (oh, I know they're Trekkies, trust me) confidently taunting and waving their scripts in their hands, bragging to the guys next to them that, "this is it man, this is the one...it's H-O-T, hot!" as I pretentiously in a very modest, self-righteous way, roll my eyes in the distant back row. So everybody can write, everybody's got a story to tell, and everybody has an opinion about everything, including other people's opinion. So millions of years of evolution and we are reduced to nothing more than bickering to strangers about how much we hate another stranger’s opinion, e.g. IMDB forums, good god, man, get over it. So why this? Because I know more about movies than you...don't think so? Bring it... no, seriously, I have no idea why I'm doing this...

Waiting for Amon

noreply@blogger.com (Amon) — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:01:00 +0000

We are patiently awaiting Amon's arrival.... patiently ..... waiting....