NINJA ASSASSIN.

For any of you who know me well enough, or any of you who just listen to the LAMBcast, you'll know I've been relatively excited about Ninja Assassin. Therefore, it's no surprise that I went and saw the first showing available this morning. Was it what I expected? Yes and No. The movie is about Raizo (Rain), a former ninja who decided to leave his clan and fight the ninja themselves (like an assassin of ninja... hence the non-redundant title, Ninja Assassin). We also have two Europol agents, Ryan (Ben Miles) and Mika (Naomie Harris), who stumble upon a scandal involving political assassinations that seem to have been committed by a ninja clan. Of course, everybody thinks they're crazy, at least until Mika starts being hunted down for knowing too much. But Raizo steps in to protect her, and they have to work together to stay alive while trying to bring down the clan.

The first thing that I noticed about this movie that I didn't expect was the amount of blood and gore. Good God, there's a lot of it. From the start, when a guy's head gets sliced (horizontally) in half and fake CGI blood splatters everywhere, you know you're in for something. I actually wasn't bothered by the amount of blood in the movie as much as I was bothered by the amount of CGI blood in the movie. It's in Tarantino amounts here, but instead of gushing from hoses strapped into fake stumps or whatever, it's just gushes and gushes of technically nothing. It isn't anything that bothered me enough to dislike the movie, however. And it isn't all CGI... in fact, when you get real fake blood instead of fake fake blood, it's all the more welcome.

The second thing I noticed was that the acting wasn't nearly as bad as I had read in early reviews. Sure, it's nowhere close to Oscar-worthy, but it's also nowhere close to, say, The Legend of Chun-Li from earlier this year. And I bring up this particular movie because the Naomie Harris/Ben Miles scenes reminded me a lot of the Chris Klein/Moon Bloodgood scenes from said movie. Fortunately, though, they weren't nearly as poorly written nor as horribly acted. And I have to say, Naomie Harris is a freakin' chameleon. Raise your hand if you've actually realized that this is the same woman who was Selena in 28 Days Later... and Tia Dalma (AKA the weird Bayou woman) from the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. And then we have Rain, who I've had my eye on since his brilliant (and award-winning) performance in I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK. Also, for those of you who don't know, he's also a South Korean pop star (which is what makes a certain "boy band" joke in the movie funny, but which will be lost to the majority of the film's American audience).

The third thing I noticed was that the action was really freakin' cool (not to mention it's all actual stunt men and little-to-no wire work, which I think adds to the cool-factor)... but it's not the whole movie. In fact, the first half of the movie is backstory interspersed with action scenes. It flips back and forth between three main occurrences: 1) Raizo's childhood being raised as a ninja, 2) Mika and Ryan trying to figure out the ninja conspiracy while not being killed, and 3) action scenes. It's mostly when Raizo's story and Mika's story converge that the action really picks up. Everything up until that point is really good, but everything after that point is awesome (and almost non-stop). In fact, had there not been any action throughout the whole movie except for the climax scene up through the final fight between Raizo and his old master, I would have just dubbed it a slow burn film and been content. Because seriously, that final fight is epic in both the choreography and in the filming style (anything from filming through a burning wall to just the silhouettes behind a lit sliding door... and more). OK, maybe not wholly content (it is a violent ninja movie, after all), but it was still an awesome climax nevertheless.

Story-wise, one thing I wanted to point out was that it could have used a bit more building up of the relationship between Raizo and his "rival" (the guy who always calls him "brother"). I suppose you see them competing against each other growing up, and he's involved in a very important moment in Raizo's life, but outside that, there wasn't really anything that made their bond strong. Because of this, their big fight scene near the end had less of an impact... or at least not as big as the one between Raizo and his old master.

Anyway, on the one hand, I expected it to be a cheesy action movie about ninjas. But what I got was an awesome action movie (with some strong horror elements, especially toward the end) about ninjas with a couple cheesy moments tossed in here and there. So I guess it met my expectations and then some. I was thoroughly entertained, albeit a bit thrown off at first by all the backstory in the first half of the film. I guess I wasn't expecting, what's the word... character depth (:P)? But it's there. And the movie is great fun.



A Keanu 'Whoa'

Thoughts On The 28 _____ Later Movies.

I thought I should do a thoughts on on two of my favorite horror movies: 28 Days Later… and 28 Weeks Later. Unlike the previous thoughts on segments, however, this one will be both a discussion and a set of reviews (including scores). So why not just do a 2 In 1 you ask? Because there’s more I want to talk about than just the acting or cinematography or whatnot. Plus, it’ll be easier to focus on both movies simultaneously.

So first and foremost, I need to bring up the most discussed topic on these two movies: What, exactly, are The Infected? Well, they’re not zombies. I repeat:

They are not zombies.

I love zombies. I’m a zombie fanatic. I’ve studied them left and right, from the voodoo variety to the heights of George Romero and the lows of Uwe Boll. So I can safely say that to be a zombie, you must have the following three primary characteristics:

1) You must be dead.

This is key to being a cinematic zombie. You have to be a reanimated corpse, whether slow or fast for whatever reason.

2) You must eat human flesh.

This is second most important, and most obvious, trait of being a zombie. Zombies eat people. That’s why they’re so fearsome. They don’t just go for brains (as the awful Return of the Living Dead movies portray), but any bodily flesh.

3) You can only be killed via brain damage (such as a gunshot) or decapitation.

Shoot them in the knees, they’ll get back up and continue stumbling for you. Cut them in half, they’ll pull themselves with their guts dragging behind them. Set them on fire, they’ll keep on after you (at least until the fire damages the brain). No matter what, the only things to keep a zombie down is damaging the brain or severing it from the spinal column.

So, taking all of these three key characteristics into mind, let us look at The Infected:

1) They are not dead. They’re living people (albeit very angry living people).

2) They do not eat human flesh. In fact, they don’t eat period (they end up starving to death by the end).

3) They can be killed just like any other human being can be killed (as portrayed quite a few times in both movies).

The Infected follow none of the key traits of a zombie. Therefore, they’re not zombies. They’re highly enraged humans who have lost all other thoughts except for the primal urge to destroy. And that’s what they do. They use what they have (teeth, fingernails, etc.) to attack a person until they either die or become infected themselves.

So now that all of that is out of the way, we can get to my thoughts on the actual movies. I think both movies are extraordinary in what they do, and they both do different things. Days is the more philosophical one with strong characters and strong character growth. You really feel for the main group and their plight and journeys. And you feel awful when things happen to them. Weeks, on the other hand, focuses more on the heart-pounding, nonstop suspense and the family unit. But that’s not to say you don’t feel for the characters of the sequel. You do; just not in the same way. Days had a slow pacing with the suspense spread out, allowing you to really get some calm, character-knowing moments. Weeks, however, was almost non-stop action, so while you might have really liked a character and felt for them (such as Doyle), you really don’t get to feel you really know them, if that makes sense.

The next big thing to notice about each movie is the visual styles of each. Days has more of a grainy, hand-held, realistic approach, while Weeks is more mainstream high-def camera work. However, where Weeks loses in the grainy picture, it gains in the unique situations that the main characters get put into. When Andy gets stuck in the dark garage full of people, and they start becoming infected, you wonder how on earth he’s going to get out. Or when they go into the subway tunnels and it’s pitch black, so they have to rely on the night-scope and vocal orders to get through safely. Both movies have a unique style for what each does, and both work amazingly well. I would also like to take this moment to mention one of my favorite shots out of both movies, which just so happens to be in Days: When Jim first enters the church (and after passing the ‘the end is fucking nigh’ in blood on the wall), he looks down from the balcony to see a bunch of dead bodies sprawled out right underneath a painting/stained glass window of bodies sprawled out on the ground. It’s just beautiful imagery.

As for acting, Days is far superior. Cillian Murphy knocks it out of the park as Jim, and his character growth is astounding. He begins the movie as a nervous, naïve-to-the-situation, what-the-hell kinda guy. But by the end, he’s a badass, taking charge and wrecking havoc against the military guys. Naomie Harris as Selena probably has the biggest character change, though, going from heartless, tough-as-nails, take-no-shit, I’ll-kill-you-in-a-heartbeat kinda gal, to a caring, loving, compassionate individual (though still pretty tough). Brendan Gleeson as Frank the loving, though worried and protective father was great. You can’t help but feel for him and his dead-set mission on finding the military base so that his daughter can be in safe hands. If there were any downfalls in the acting, it would be Megan Burns as Hannah, Frank’s daughter, who talked really blandly half the time as if she were stoned (though, she is stoned for the entire climax, so that might be alright…).

The best performances for Weeks, on the other hand, were Robert Carlyle as Don (mostly because of his eyes and facial expressions)--at least early on in the movie, anyway--and, of course, Jeremy Renner as Doyle, who is the most likeable character in the movie. And I like him even more, as I saw in a behind-the-scenes that he shares the same opinion with me on the not-zombie issue. As for the kids… well, with real names like Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton, who needs anything more?

It really goes without saying that the winner on the suspense level is Weeks. I’ve said it before, but Weeks has one of the greatest and most suspenseful movie openings ever. And the openings for each movie really show the differences in the two movies. After the monkey sequence, Days has about 10-15 minutes of Jim walking around a beautifully desolate London all alone, slowly realizing that the entire city has seemingly evacuated completely. And then he reaches the church, has the run-in with the priest, and then is chased for about a minute or so before there’s a huge explosion, and that’s it.

Weeks, on the other hand, has a few first slow minutes before there’s a break for quick suspense, then another minute to catch our breath, and then about 5 minutes of non-stop, heart-pounding suspense. And not only that, but there’s so much emotion in that little time frame, especially with Don’s escape.

The two movies were compared in level of greatness with George Romero’s original films. Days was like Night of the Living Dead: classic and amazing. Weeks was like Dawn of the Dead: taking everything great in the first, and making it even better. I used to agree whole- heartedly with that statement, but I really think now that both movies really do two different things in amazing ways that it’s hard to say which is better than the other. The style of Days, uneasy and slow-moving, worked for the story it had to tell. But the style of Weeks, fast-paced and terror-filled, worked for its own story, as well. So in the end, they’re both great, and they’re both two of my favorite horror films. The third one better come soon. But for now, I have to give the two that are currently available both an equal score.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I totally forgot to mention this, but the main musical theme in both movies is one of my favorite horror movie themes ever. Purely amazing.)