Dragonball Poster.

I know I've already posted once today, but this is just a short note: How is this not the most awesome thing ever (at least, if you were a fan of the Anime and know you're just in for mindless fun)?

YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN.

To come out and say it straight up… this movie was very hit-and-miss. Zohan (Adam Sandler) is an Israeli counter-terrorist and overall lady’s man. In fact, he’s the best there is. But Zohan dreams of a better life, away from all the violence, in America to be a hairdresser. So after faking his death in a battle against The Phantom (John Turturro), Zohan travels to America, shaves his beard, cuts his hair, and continually tries (and fails) to get a job. He ends up meeting Michael (Nick Swardson), a basic loser who lives at home with his mom, and gets a place to stay. He also eventually, and reluctantly, takes up a job at a Palestinian hair salon as a hair sweeper. But when his boss Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui) finally gives him a shot, the place becomes a regular hot spot. Unfortunately, a big business guy, Walbridge (Michael Buffer), is trying to buy out all the small Middle Eastern businesses in order to build a big mall in their place. And, also, cab driver and terrorist Salim (Rob Schneider) recognizes the Zohan immediately from the day the Zohan stole his goat. Craziness ensues.

As I said, the movie was hit-and-miss. It was the same jokes over and over and over again: penis, hummus, penis, hummus, penis, penis, hummus, penis, Mariah Carey, penis, penis, hummus, hackey sack, electronics store, penis, penis, hummus, hummus, penis, Mariah Carey, penis, and finally, spurting hummus out as a metaphor of an orgasmic penis… you get the point. It was typically the jokes in between all the repeated ones that were the funniest (probably because it was a break in the repetition). The over-the-top action wasn’t as bad or annoying as I thought it would be. It worked pretty well, though there were moments where it tried too hard (like the ping pong grenade toward the beginning).

Nick Swardson really had some of the funnier parts of the movie (pretty much like any movie he’s in… like Click or The Benchwarmers), and he was really underused in it. But there are some pretty good cameos in the movie, as well, though I won’t spoil who. Though some were better than others. And the parts that were funny were pretty funny; they were just kinda few and far between.

On the visual side, this movie had quite a bit of male nudity (mostly Sandler’s backside, though I figure it was a stand-in). However, there was no female nudity. I take that back: there was female nudity, but not the kind the audience deserved. Though the actress who played Dalia really was rather hot.

The biggest problem with the movie was that it had way too much going on. There were too many plots. There was the hairdresser plot, the terrorist plot, the Phantom plot, the business-buy-out plot, etc. There was just too much going on and crammed into this movie, even if it was almost two hours long. And the climax of the movie was damn near anti-climactic and cop-out, while the ending of the actual movie nearly made me wonder why I had sat through the movie, as one of its biggest plots was rendered pointless (and almost hypocritical). And not to mention that about halfway into the movie, the hairdresser thing just kinda… goes away. You spend the first full half of the movie watching Zohan leave his old life, come to America, try to get a job, finally get a job, start to succeed at his job… and then it just stops. It’s exchanged for a romantic subplot with Dalia that comes out of nowhere.

All that aside, though, the movie did have some really funny moments. It wasn’t horrible by any means, but it wasn’t the best comedy I’ve ever seen, either. I’d say it was relatively average.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Pre-Emptive Strike Thursdays.

Otherwise known as P.E.S.T. This is a new feature I've been thinking about trying out. What it basically does is review movies before I've seen them and/or before they're released by giving my opinions and scores on how I think it'll be. Then, after I've seen the movie, I can compare and contrast my original thoughts with my thoughts after having actually seen it. Hence the title, Pre-Emptive Strike Thursdays. Though if a movie decides to come out on a Wednesday or Thursday instead, I'll hold PEST on Tuesday... and it'll still be PEST. So for now, here are my pre-thoughts on the big movies coming out this week.


Title: You Don't Mess With The Zohan.

Pre-Thoughts: I think that while the whole hair dresser thing is a bit silly, the goofball action/comedy might be fun. Though it does look a bit too over the top and unrealistic (and that's a bit of an understatement). I'm not super excited about the movie, but I'll probably be checking it out.

Pre-Score:

I Am McLovin!


Title: Kung Fu Panda.

Pre-Thoughts: Jack Black silliness in animation... I think it could be fun, but I'm not sure yet. It seems like it'll be highly formulaic, cheesy, and will probably have a lot of fart/juvenile jokes or something (he sits on the tiger's face in slow motion just in the trailer...). I think it'll be a lot like Mulan... but without the musical aspect... and centering around the Eddie Murphy dragon instead of Mulan herself. Plus, I think 'ska-doosh' says it all.

Pre-Score:

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Short Reviews: George Washington.

I’ve never watched a movie that was more self-contradictory than this. I can’t even give it a full review, so I was forced to do it this way. And no, it's not about the first President of the USA. (And I know my 'short reviews' are getting longer and longer... but whatever).

-----------

Premise: A bunch of friends in a run-down, no-name town try to cover up a tragic accident. The movie shows how it affects them, most specifically a young boy named George with a rare handicap that gives him a soft skull so that any heavy hitting or large amounts of water can do a lot of brain damage.

Starring: Nobody famous.

My reaction: I was excited to see a movie with a primarily black cast that didn’t focus on the hardships of school or family (as a huge point, anyway), or about racism or any of that. Instead, everybody in the movie, black and white, got along fine and everybody lived in a gutter-town, so it all basically went unspoken. The first 5 minutes or so are amazing. I thought I was in for a real treat. The cinematography is amazing throughout the entire movie. Dirty and beautiful at the same time. The music is also good, yet haunting. The voice-over narration felt real and not forced or dry. But the dialogue would switch from something like beautiful slam poetry to cheesy or crap. The story went nowhere, yet things were always happening. The ‘tragic accident’ doesn’t happen until at least an hour into the movie, and George’s ‘hero’ persona goes absolutely nowhere, as well. The acting could go from amazing and natural, especially for child actors, to really, really bad. There were some shots that I had no idea why they were even included, as they added nothing whatsoever, interesting or pretty though some might be. It could have been something really special, and there were moments, I thought, that really shone through. But overall, everything fell through, and the movie just seemed to be full-of-itself artsy with no real purpose except to be full-of-itself artsy. I can’t even score this movie, because there were some really amazing things about it (the cinematography, the music, or some poetic dialogue), but for every good thing, there was an equally bad thing to negate it. Don’t you hate movies like that?

Side-Note: As I just looked them up, the director/writer and cinematographer both are going to be helming those same positions (except for the writer part) for the upcoming Apatow-produced Pineapple Express. This both excites me (as it will be visually stunning, hopefully) and worries me (for obvious reasons).

WTF

2 In 1 (Altered Opinions): Sunshine and Metropolis.

This 2 In 1 was originally going to be a separate review to introduce a new kind of article, but I found a second movie to help with a similar theme. The theme for this entry is altered opinions. What I mean by that is that my original opinion was either good or bad, and after rewatching the films, my opinion changed. In this case, for both movies, my original opinions were both negative and became more positive. The first review for this one is a short one, as I've already reviewed it once on the blog (Sunshine). The second review is of the Anime version of the movie Metropolis, made back in 2001. And as an afterthought, I just realized that both movies somehow have importance with the sun... So let's get to it.

Sunshine.

Previously, I reviewed this movie with a big rant about the awful ending.

Well, I finally got myself to give it another viewing. I have to say, it was much more enjoyable the second time. To take the focus off the ending for a moment, I must reiterate just how amazing the visual effects are. I even noticed things I missed the first time around and began to appreciate it even more on a visual level.

As for the ending, I guess because I knew what to expect and knew exactly what to look for, I understood everything a whole lot more. Everything I didn’t understand about the ending the first time through, I understood more this time. I appreciated the insanity of Captain Crispy, as I dubbed him, and the reason for why he was doing what he was doing. I still feel the movie could have gone a different route, but the route it did go is more appreciated by me now. I get it fully and even like it more.

However, I still don’t care for the super-speedy blurry cam every time Captain Crispy is in the vicinity. That was just as annoying the second time through as it was the first.

Overall, the first 2/3s are still far superior, but I enjoyed the third act quite a bit more this second time around. I’m still not going to rate the movie, though, because I don’t want the ending to bring down the score of the amazing majority.

---------------

Metropolis.

When I first bought (impulsively) and watched Metropolis for the first time quite a few years ago, I remember disliking it quite a bit. All these years later, I finally decided to give it another shot. It’s based on a Manga that’s based on the original dystopian flick of the same name from the 1920s. It’s a futuristic tale where robots and humans live together, but not in harmony. The massive city of Metropolis has finally built their Ziggurat, a modern Tower of Babel. But there are many levels of the city: the surface level (the 'good part of town', so to speak), area 1 (basic working class and slums level), area 2 (factories), and area 3 (sewage). But now that this Ziggurat, which allows the user to distort sunspots on the surface of the sun to therefore cause radiation to cause all robots to malfunction, has been built, it needs somebody to constantly run it. Duke Red, head of a corrupt side of the government, has Dr. Loughton create the perfect robot (a human-looking android, basically) named Tima so that she can be said tool. Meanwhile, a Japanese detective and his nephew, Kenichi, come into town to arrest Dr. Loughton for illegal operations. But Duke Red’s apparently adopted son and right-hand assassin, Rock, strongly loathes robots and believes his ‘father’ should sit on the throne of the Ziggurat, so he attempts to destroy Tima. However, he fails, and Kenichi ends up travelling through the lower areas with Tima while trying to stay alive as Rock continually tries to kill them.

Now, while I still don’t think this movie is a masterpiece, I appreciated it a lot more than I remember doing the first time. The animation is done very well (though a bit too cartoonish, if that makes sense, with the overly large noses on some characters). Though the action of the movie looks great, especially with anything Rock does. The music, I thought, was very fitting. Most of it falls somewhere in the vicinity of the 1920-1950s, and at least half of it is jazzy. The song during the climax scene was done very well and works really nicely with all the destruction and such.

The problem with the movie rests with the characters and the plot. I’ll start with the characters: For being around each other so much, they barely interact. And when they do, it’s usually Tima repeating ‘Kenichi’ over and over again. There’s no character development or connection. I really don’t feel anything for any of the characters. It’s just kind of like… they’re there.

As for the plot, it really feels like there was a lot missing. The movie could have been longer than it was, really (which might have helped with character development). For instance, Kenichi and Tima start off together in area 3 with this cleaning robot. The next thing we know, they’re leaving area 3, and they’ve nicknamed the robot ‘fifi’ for no apparent reason. And they get this big attachment to the robot, yet there wasn’t shown enough interaction for it to really show us. Similarly, a little bit later, Kenichi and Tima come across a group of resistance fighters. But we aren’t shown them actually meeting or introducing each other. There’s about two or three minutes talking about how they want to overthrow the government… and the next thing we know, we’re seeing a full-out coup d’etat. There were no forms of transitions anywhere in there. Nothing. It felt like there was 30 minutes of the movie just missing, like there should be a whole section of the movie with Tima and Kenichi hanging out and talking with the resistance guys. And there are other scenes and moments just like those throughout the movie.

Not to mention that the case the detective dude is trying to solve isn’t a mystery to the viewers, as we saw everything that happened. Detective mysteries are only effective if both the detective and the audience are equally in the dark and have to figure it out simultaneously. Otherwise, it’s boring and silly.

So really, if you’re a fan of anime or sci-fi (such as Blade Runner), watch this one, if anything, for the animation style, the atmosphere, and the music. The story itself isn’t too bad, but there’s a lot lacking. A bit more length could have helped this issue, as well as character development and such. The good and the bad really kind of cancel each other out, for the most part. And although I’d like to give it one notch higher, I’m afraid the whole movie just doesn’t cut it enough to grant it that score.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

THE STRANGERS.

I saw this movie last Friday, but I had to finish the blog-a-thon before I could post it. But here it is now. But before I get into the actual movie and review, I must set up my personal experience for you first, because I didn’t really see the movie. I haven’t had a movie-going experience this annoying in a long time… but here goes. So first of all, this is an R-Rated horror movie. LEAVE YOUR KIDS AT HOME, DAMNIT. As the trailers were going (including a very misplaced Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 trailer), this young kid is already whimpering and damn near hyperventilating (from the scary trailers, not from seeing Alexis Bledel). As the opening credits start rolling, the two guys that are with this kid are jabbering away to each other, and if the kid says anything, they immediately shush him, but then keep talking themselves.

But finally, after about 10-15 minutes (not like I missed anything in that boring beginning anyway), they stop. Then, right before ‘the strangers’ show up, some toddler starts babbling incoherently somewhere in the back of the theater (I’m closer to the front). I mean, this kid is making noises I didn’t even know could be made. And then when the suspense starts, the kid starts crying. And all I hear is crying from the kid and ‘SHH’ from the mother. Finally, I hear a stage-whisper of “I’ll take him outside.” So they start descending the stairs as noisily and as slowly as humanly possible… only to stop at the entrance/exit ramp to watch the movie from there, instead. She never takes him outside. The kid is still crying. Let me repeat that:

Kid is crying.

Stops at bottom of stairs to watch movie.

Kid is still crying.

She’s still watching movie.

Kid is still crying.

SHE’S NOT TAKING HIM OUTSIDE.

And she never does. Eventually the kid reverts back to incoherent babbling, mixed with laughing shushes from the mother. And so the mother never takes the kid back to their seat, but decides to remain closer to me near the entrance/exit ramp. This continues for at least the first half of the movie before I finally realize the kid has stopped making noises completely.

So I’m finally trying to get into the movie… and remember those two guys and the other young kid from the beginning? Yeah, one of those guys’ cell phone goes off. He catches it pretty quickly, so I shrug it off. I try to get into the movie again. Then the kid with the guys starts talking again… and they shush him… so that the two guys can start talking again.

All of this finally dies down… until, you guessed it… the babbling/crying kid starts acting up again. It was like Circus Babies, trampezing back and forth. So anyway… that was this movie experience to let you know how this review was affected by that experience. Now to the actual review…

Imagine the potato sack boy from The Orphanage all grown up and having moved on from shoving and locking people in bathrooms to mentally torturing and killing. James (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) have just left a wedding reception where, apparently, James asked Kristen to marry him… and was denied. They groan about for 20 minutes or so before a girl shows up asking if some random person ('Tamara', I believe) is there. Not long after, three people in masks show up and start psychologically torturing the couple.

That’s about all there is to it. I didn’t really care about the characters at all, and I realized this toward the end when Scott Speedman goes missing from the movie for about 10-15 minutes or so, and I realized I wasn’t even worried about what the heck happened to him. The acting was about as bland as Liv Tyler’s voice. But the writing was the big issue of the movie, as already implied by the not caring for the characters bit. The whole first 15-20 minutes of the movie is all about how they’re drifting apart now that the proposal was denied and how they need time apart from each other and really don’t even want to speak to each other (which is odd to me in and of itself). And then, out of nowhere, they start making out and he starts to pull off her panties to have sex.

Funny side note… around this time, one of the guys with the kid behind me told the kid “close your eyes” when Scott Speedman started to pull off the panties. Might I just relay that you’re in a freaking R-RATED HORROR MOVIE? This isn’t Kung Fu Panda, sir. You shouldn’t be bringing that kid here to begin with. If you’re gonna show him torture and murder, he should be able to see something more endearing and natural like sex.

So anyway, there is actually a fair amount of suspense that did hold my attention some of the time. But the movie was really a one-trick pony: have the strangers show up randomly in the background, shift camera, look back, show them gone. Or… have a noise in the other room, show something that wasn’t there before. Rinse, repeat. It was the same tricks over and over again. And they were effective the first few times, but by the end of the movie, it’s really old. If the poster (which is a scene in the movie) isn't enough, here's some examples of how the movie basically works via picture form... through the majority of the film:

And no, much like the other pictures, she does not know she's being followed at this point in time. And no, they never learn to turn around, but always keep their eyes straight ahead.

Not to mention the end of the movie itself. There’s all that build-up for… that? That’s it? And you don’t even SHOW it? Not to mention the very last frame was beyond predictable.

So here are a few other random tidbits of likes/dislikes:

-I liked how, at least in the house, the only music was on the record player.

-The cameraman had to have Parkinson’s disease, because that camera was unnecessarily bouncy, even in scenes that were supposed to be straight, calm shots.

-The movie, on the whole, was quite predictable.

-When Liv Tyler falls down and hurts her leg (horror movie cliché), she’s crawling around on the ground for the next 5 minutes or so like she could barely stand (as portrayed in the last picture). Then, not even 5 minutes after that, she’s walking around no problem. Seriously?

-The only reason this movie was rated R had to be because of more than one F-bomb… because there was relatively little blood, with two scene exceptions, and there was very little actual physical violence. Most of the horror came from psychological things being done, which is all fine and dandy. I'm no gore-hound (in that I need it to be scared). I actually prefer psychological horror.

The movie on a whole wasn’t God-awful, and it’d be okay to watch on Showtime or whatever when it comes on TV. But it really isn’t worth rushing out to the theater to see. The main characters (good and bad) could have been deeper, the story could have been tighter, and the movie could have used a lot fewer clichés. It was suspenseful, from the parts I could focus on, but that’s about it.

Stupid parents.

Feed Me, Seymour!

(P.S. The audience experience really didn't have an effect on my rating... I would have felt the same regardless. It was just an interesting story to add on to the review, really).

Bizarre Noir #7: Batman Begins.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoyed the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Batman Begins.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: Superhero!

I’m sure you probably wouldn’t think of a Batman movie as noir, but it is. It has the majority of the common elements. Batman is a detective, for all intents and purposes. He always has a strong female counterpart. He has a troubled past, and he’s a troubled person. And there’s no darker or grittier of a setting than Gotham City. And it has never been grittier than in Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan’s revamp of the series takes us back to the very beginning on how and why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) first became Batman. After leaving to discover the dirtiness of the world, Bruce is found by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a spokesperson for a group known as the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But when Bruce finds out what they’re really about, he backs out and returns home to Gotham to butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). But all is not well in Gotham. Crime is higher than ever with crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and the mysterious workings of asylum owner Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy). So Bruce, with the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), gets the cool gadgets to use as Batman, and then gets the help of policeman Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to help bring down the crime of the city.

Obviously, there’s a load of big names in this movie, so the acting is phenomenal. Christian Bale, to me, is the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne. The only acting downfall was Katie Holmes, but even she wasn’t completely horrible.

There were quite a few things when I first heard about this movie that I thought were mistakes. For instance, the look of the batmobile. I thought it was ridiculous… until I saw it on film and realized it was awesome. Also, as much as I love Gary Oldman, he wasn’t exactly how I pictured Gordon, but he pulled it off, as well.

The cinematography is great, dark, and gritty, as it should be. Christopher Nolan has a great style that was really fitting for the world of Batman. And all the action is cool, especially the batmobile chase through the streets and rooftops. Batman is dark and mysterious, yanking people from the sky, hiding within the shadows, etc., which is exactly how he should be.

The only negative I can really give it is that, on subsequent viewings, I find it’s way too long. I always have trouble getting through the whole thing. There’s two interconnected stories in the movie, so I know a lot is important, but there just feels like some of it could have been trimmed a bit to make it slightly shorter. Other than that, the movie is great, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #6: Fallen.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

------------

Fallen.

Year of Origin: 1998.

Director: Gregory Hoblit.

Why it's bizarre: It's a supernatural/horror/thriller.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this one, though it’s a great one, nonetheless. Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has finally caught sadistic murderer, Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). And it’s finally time for his death sentence. But during the whole death sentence thing, Mr. Reese speaks in funny languages and does some odd things. But Detective Hobbes simply shrugs it off. That is, until after Edgar is put to death, when people start being killed in the exact same way that Edgar Reese killed. At first, Hobbes and his partner, Detective Jonesy (John Goodman), think it’s a copycat killer. But after following some clues that lead to speaking with one Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz), Hobbes starts believing that it is, in fact, a demon named Azazel that can pass from person to person via touch. And now Azazel is seemingly framing up Hobbes as a murderous and crooked cop, much to the chagrin of police lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland).

There’s a couple other good-name actors in the movie, such as James Gandolfini and Robert Joy, and the acting all around the board is really good. Elias Koteas does his role at the beginning subtly, yet maniacally. Denzel is good as always, and, hey, it’s John Goodman. And while James Gandolfini’s character is, for all intents and purposes, pointless, it’s still done pretty well. The only real shaky ground when it comes to acting is Hobbes’ nephew, Sam, but it’s a child actor, and they aren’t all Abigail Breslin's or Haley Joel Osment’s (whatever happened to him, anyway? He did some video game voice-overs…).

The story isn’t as sci-fi channel cheesy as it sounds. It’s done very well, and with a two hour time-frame, the movie is quite capable of pulling it off nicely. The scenes that involve chasing through large crowds with Azazel going from body to body are really cool. And the song (‘time is on my side’) that he sings and/or whistles throughout the movie is pretty creepy.

The cinematography is excellent, much like any good noir film. And speaking of noir things, there is voice-over narration by Denzel, done in a very Denzel kind of way. And along the same lines, there’s a nice twist ending that’s pretty awesome. Oh, and the music is classic cop/noir jazz saxophone, so it fits nicely with the rest of the feel of the film.

There’s not much else to say about this movie. If you like noir or movies that deal with the supernatural, you should definitely check this one out. It has a great cast and a really good story that culminates into a really good climax and awesome twist.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #5: Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Welcome to the fifth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

----------------

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Year of Origin: 1999.

Director: Jim Jarmusch.

Why it's bizarre: Hip-hop listening black assassin who follows code of the samurai.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a movie that mixes gangster rap with the Italian mob and an African American hit man who follows the code of the samurai? And if you have, have you also wondered what it would be like if Forest Whitaker was said hit man? Then you’re in luck! Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker), after being saved by mafia member Louie (John Tormey), becomes the man’s personal hit man, and Louie becomes Ghost Dog’s ‘retainer’. You see, Ghost Dog lives by the way of the samurai, a very philosophical code for life. However, eight years after their fateful meeting, Louie contracts Ghost Dog to ice Handsome Frank (Richard Portnow), one of their own. Nobody was supposed to be there… except a mafia bosses’ daughter, Louise (Tricia Vessey), was there to witness the entire event. So now the bosses are forced to try to find this mysterious Ghost Dog (as he’s only contacted through carrier pigeon) and get rid of him. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong guy the mess with.

Ghost Dog is not an action movie by any means. It’s more of a drama and/or philosophical movie. Each little section is separated by voice-over narration from Forest Whitaker reciting something either from philosophers or from the code of the samurai. Otherwise, Forest rarely talks. The only people I think he ever talks to are Louie, a young girl, and his best friend—a Haitian ice cream vendor named Raymond who only speaks French. And that latter relationship is the most endearing. They never understand what the other says, but they both get each other completely. And just the look on Raymond’s face at the end is just… well, you’d have to see it. The relationship between Ghost Dog and the girl, Pearline, is great, too. Pearline is really just like a young, female version of Ghost Dog himself.

There’s a lot of symbolism in the movie, from bear references to the cartoon clips that the mafia guys watch to… well… just about anything. The whole movie is very symbolic and very well done. And the link between hit man and samurai is a great connection, with their ways of life and even the way Ghost Dog handles his gun.

As for the acting, let me just say that this was one of the first movies that turned me on to the amazing acting ability of Forest Whitaker. Pearline is your typical child actor, giving a few stiff lines. And while the cheesy repeated lines in different languages between Ghost dog and Raymond could make it a bit hard to watch at times, the two characters were still endearing to each other. (Now, could I have thrown in any more metaphorical innuendo for an erection?).

Really, the only thing that might bring this movie down a small notch would be the very goofball mafia men. They really aren’t your typical mafia guys. They watch cartoons, sing along to rap, argue with a kid throwing toys at them, and any other number of emasculating or embarrassing things. They seemed to be more like mafia wannabes than actual hard-asses.

But as for the action, for the very little there is, it’s pretty cool. The way Ghost Dog goes about killing people is really cool, and sometimes imaginative (talking about the pipe/sink kill here). And Ghost Dog can really be a badass, especially with his cool little machine thing that can start cars and figure out codes. But, as I said, there’s not that much action to really talk in depth about, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Overall, if you go into this expecting more of a slow drama with a lot of symbolism and philosophy, along with some great acting by Forest Whitaker, then you won’t leave disappointed, much like the people who go into the movie thinking “hey, it’s a movie about a hit man. There should be some awesome action!” Think of it more along the lines of a very much more indie version of Leon, and with even less action than that. Oh, and the soundtrack is composed by the Wu Tang Clan’s the RZA. So yeah, anyway, it’s a great movie that I really recommend.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'