This is terrible...

David Carradine, star of Kung Fu and Kill Bill, has been found dead. It appears to be a suicide (via hanging).

But the worst part is that I'm already reading comments like "I guess Bill killed Bill" and "Will they question Uma Thurman?" I pray this doesn't become a murder mystery, or else we'll just be hearing "who killed Bill?"

Come no, guys. The news just broke. Give it more than 5 minutes before you break out the morbid jokes.

UPDATE: It has now been confirmed that this 72-year-old man died during a sex act--auto-erotic asphyxiation--wherein he gets off from lack of air supply. The rope was found below both heads... if you know what I mean. I'm sorry, it's a sad thing to see him go, but... what a way. Bring on the jokes...

Short Review: Once.

Premise: A loser who lives with his dad above a vacuum cleaner repair shop and writes songs of woe for his lost girlfriend meets a Czech immigrant. They fall in love as they sing and record songs together.

Starring: Glen Hansgard and Marketa Irglova.

My Reaction: Above average (and sometimes even beautiful) songs. The movie was very documentary-esque in its filming style, adding to more of a realism. But I'm lost as to how people call this a feel-good movie. I thought the movie was so beyond depressing that even Hot Topic emo kids would be like 'get the eff over it already'. All the songs made me want to cut myself or something. There's even a scene where everybody is having fun, throwing a frisbee on the beach, and one of the songs is playing over it, and the scene is thus made sad and depressing. The movie is basically Lost in Translation as a musical, while replacing Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson with unknowns. Seriously, I saw so many parallels it was ridiculous. Both characters are in other pseudo-relationships that they want to make work, yet they fall in love with each other by hanging out around town. There's even a part where one of them tells the other something, and the audience (unless you speak Czech) has no idea what they said. Also, I actually had to watch this movie with subtitles. The movie was in English, and I needed subtitles. I could hardly understand a word that was said in this movie (mostly from the female lead, though). It also drags a bit (probably because it takes itself too seriously)--the movie isn't even 90 minutes, and by the time it was over, I felt I'd been watching for two hours. Overall a beautiful movie, but probably not one I'd watch again. Though I might listen to the main song of the film (the one that won the Oscar), as that's a very good song and did deserve that Oscar.


I Am McLovin!

UP.

Why was this movie so sad? Up is about Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner). As a young boy, he idolized adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), as did Ellie (Elie Docter), a young girl who lived nearby. The two form a friendship and make a bond that they'll follow Muntz to South America one day and have the adventure of a lifetime. They grow up, get married, and have a wonderful life. But as life goes on, the adventure never happens. And one day, once Carl and Ellie are old and gray, Ellie dies, leaving Carl to his house and all the memories the come with it. Unfortunately, the house is in the middle of a reconstruction zone, and one event after another finds Carl forced to move away from the only thing he has left. So what does he do? He straps hundreds of balloons to his house and lifts off to go live on a waterfall cliffside in South America like he always promised his wife. But he's not alone. Enter Russell (Jordan Nagai), a young boy in the scouts who needs one more badge to bump up to a senior scout. The badge? Assist the elderly. He just didn't expect to be accidentally dragged to South America to do it. Once there, they discover a large bird and a dog with a collar that allows him to talk. And both are somehow connected Charles Muntz. So Carl and Russell enter the adventure of a lifetime, Carl trying to get his home where he promised his wife, and Russell just trying to do what's right.

Obviously, this movie is a bit complicated. Well, at least until you really get into it. As such, the whole beginning is a massive setup for the better part of the movie later. At the beginning, I wasn't sure what I was getting into, and I kept telling myself I knew it was going to take off and become superb once the house is in the air. And boy was I right. I'm not saying the beginning is bad. It's very good, sometimes funny, sometimes depressingly sad. But it really is just a whole ton of setup for the true heart of the film.

Once they get into the air and make for South America, the movie really shines. It becomes twice as funny, twice as thrilling, and twice as beautiful. Really, the movie is gorgeous. Like WALL*E, the scenery and atmosphere is so much better than the animation of the people. Again, there's nothing wrong with the animation of the people, and it fits in with the urban world. But once they hit the jungle... as Aladdin says, it's a whole new world.

I saw the film in 3D, as well. And while I don't think this movie needs to necessarily be seen in 3D, I wouldn't pass it up. It would be like watching WALL*E in 3D. There aren't too many 'at your face' moments, but it's best because it brings the atmosphere and surroundings of the film to you. It was clear this movie wasn't filmed to be in 3D originally, as they had none of the usual 3D tricks. There were maybe 2-3 things that ever come flying out at you. But like I said, this movie would be good to see in 3D to bring the beautiful atmosphere around you.

The voice acting is good, though as a fun side-note... the whole time I was trying to figure out Carl's voice. I knew I had heard it somewhere before. And for some strange reason, I kept wanting to say JK Simmons, even though I knew it wasn't him. When I finally came home and looked up Ed Asner (Carl's voice), I realized where I recognized him from: He did the voice of J. Jonah Jameson in the old 90s Spider-Man cartoon. And, for those of you who live under a rock, JK Simmons played J. Jonah Jameson in the live action versions. So I thought that was funny how my brain was trying to make that connection.

There's really not a whole lot to say about the film. I keep wanting to compare this movie to WALL*E. Not in themes or story or anything, but in the beauty of the animation, the great music, or in how the film pulls you through so many emotions. I seriously nearly cried at least 3-4 times in this movie. But I also laughed, felt suspense... it's all there. And while I feel WALL*E is still the superior film, this one is great in its own right. By the time it had ended, I was feeling really good, and I had a big smile on my face.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Like the recently reviewed Drag Me To Hell, this is a very strong 'Whoa'. In fact, I damn near gave it a 'Royale with Cheese'. But the somewhat slow beginning, especially in comparison to the rest of the film, really notched it down just slightly. Think of this as a 4.5 out of 5).

(P.P.S. For clarification, as I've already gotten one comment snipping at me, by 'slow beginning', I didn't mean the incredibly beautiful and moving montage. I meant the sequence after the montage and prior to the house taking off. I felt it could have been paced just slightly better).

DRAG ME TO HELL.

If you're a fan of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy, you'll know what to expect here. It's scary, funny (sometimes silly), gross, over-the-top, and no-holds-barred. Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a loan officer vying for assistant manager against Stu (Reggie Lee). And when her boss Mr. Jacks (David Paymer) tells her new guy Stu is doing well because of his persistent attitude, she tried to pick up a take-no-prisoners view herself. Unfortunately, the first customer to show up as soon as this happens is elderly Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) who is about to be evicted from her home and has already pulled two loans. Christine tries to impress her boss and refuses to give the old woman the loan, which only results in a very upset old gypsy woman. Mrs. Ganush places a curse on Christine that spans three days, everyday getting stronger. And after the third day, the Lamia (a goat demon) will show and drag her to Hell for all eternity. So she must work together with her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) and psychic Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) to try and stop it before the three days are up.

My first reaction? How the heck is this movie only PG13? It feels way too intense for that. With the exception of hard language, it's really up there with the Evil Dead trilogy. It has some of the serious horror and creepiness of the first, the slapstick of the second, and the gross-out of the third. Though sometimes it did take it a bit far. And I don't mean in the no-holds-barred way. But for instance, the "anvil" scene. That just didn't work for me. It's a great idea, and probably brilliant on paper, but I feel the execution is something that could have only worked in the 80s and with Bruce Campbell involved (it's something where the facial expressions or a snappy one-liner would have come in handy).

The beginning of the movie is slow, but not in a bad way. Though at this point, you're really not sure what you're getting into. At first, it really feels like a serious horror movie (despite the stupid laughing teenage girls in the back of the theater). And it really takes a bit to find its tone of horror/comedy. At first it eases the comedy into it, and it's sprinkled here and there. But as it goes on, it really mixes it in. And it's honestly a perfect mixture. This is not a horror movie to take 100% seriously. And if you've seen the Evil Dead films, you should already know that.

There's not really any gore. There's only one scene with blood that really sticks in my mind (a nosebleed scene that's so over-the-top, only Sam Raimi could pull it off). But there are plenty of other bodily fluids for a plethora of gross-out moments. In fact, Sam Raimi goes old school. Much like the first Evil Dead film, he attempts what others seem to forget: wind, shadows, and creaks can be much more terrifying than anything else. Scares are in the anticipation. Don't get me wrong, the movie has it's jump-scares, but they're equally balanced with the old school horror. I would go as far as saying that Raimi did what M. Night Shyamalan couldn't do recently: he made wind scary.

The movie is decently acted, as well. Lorna Raver plays a very creepy old woman very well. And Justin Long plays the sweetheart boyfriend very well. Dileep Rao is fun as the psychic, too. And it's always a joy to see David Paymer. But, of course, the real joy was (the gorgeous) Alison Lohman. She could play it serious, and she could play it funny. There were a few parts where it seemed she tried a bit hard to be a badass, which just made it funny than anything. But then again, that was probably the intention.

Otherwise, there were some questionable CGI effects, but I didn't really mind that much. The Evil Dead films were the same way (regardless of being made back in the day). And all of that, along with the cheesy/creepy music and the fill-up-the-screen title, I feel this was more of a throw back to classic horror than anything. The film isn't without its flaws, but they're few and far between. This is a horror/comedy for the books, and Sam Raimi is back at the top of his game.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This is a very strong 'Whoa').

Short Review: My Neighbor Totoro.

Premise: When a dad and his two daughters move to a country home to be closer to their hospitalized wife/mother, the girls begin to notice a few fantastical things in their midst. At the top of that list is a giant furry creature that the youngest daughter dubs Totoro (a troll).

Starring: It really depends on which version you see (different voice actors). The biggest names for the newest English translation are Dakota and Elle Fanning.

My Reaction: Yet another beautiful Miyazaki film. After losing some faith with Nausicaa, he pulled me back in with Totoro. The beginning is a bit slow, though you steadily realize it's more of a character/relationship piece than a fantasy piece. Totoro is in the whole movie about 4 times. I particularly liked the relationship between Satsuki and Kanta, though there wasn't a huge payoff at the end, which was disappointing. Overall, it's a beautiful film (in artistry and story), and probably one of my favorite Miyazaki films (though Spiritied Away still carries that title). Oh, and how cool are the parents (especially the dad) in this movie? He totally went with everything his daughters said without any doubt.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

TV Review: Dragonball Z - Season Three.

This season took way too long to get through. Why? Because Netflix started messing with me for a while, and I didn't get a new disc for nearly two weeks. It literally kept skipping over a whole chunk of DVDs, even those that weren't on a 'short wait' or whatnot. But oh well. I've gotten through them now, so I can review them.

Season 3 is a bit unlike the previous two seasons: it doesn't have the setup that the other two had. This is mostly because all of Season 2 is basically the setup for Season 3. That's why I felt that they should be considered one uber-season (much like I know a couple parts of the "Cell" season got split up). But this isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. Instead of having to wait for episode upon episode for Goku to finish doing whatever it is he's doing and show up to the battle field, we pretty much have him from the start. And Frieza needs no introduction, as he was built up all throughout Season 2. So what we have here is an entire season of almost non-stop fighting and action.

Yet, even with a 6-disc action scene, the season still manages to do some crazy things... like put large amounts of focus on the unnecessary. Chi-Chi, for instance. Or King Kai's planet. Or Bulma. Though the Bulma scenes inevitably pay off with the (pointless) return of Captain Ginyu. And speaking of the Ginyu Force, was bringing them back into the show really necessary? King Kai eventually invites them to his little planet to face off against Tien, Chaotzu, and Yamcha to show the boys how strong they've become. Needless to say, they wipe the floor with them. But there were really just some unnecessary moments and flashes to other places.

This was especially true toward the end, and this was one of the big things I always disliked about the Frieza Saga. Frieza attacks the planet and gives it 5 minutes before it will explode, killing Goku while he escapes (he can live in space). Well, it apparently takes roughly 8-9 22-minute episodes for 5 minutes to pass. And it just gets ridiculous in one of the final episodes before Goku defeats Frieza. Frieza remembers everything he hates about Goku in a series of flashbacks. But it's not just a quick montage of flashbacks. No. It's about a half-episode long set of flashbacks wherein each scene takes about a minute to retell. It's like "We just finished watching the season... let me show the entire thing to you again... including scenes from this very episode." So you get to see a scene from that one episode about 3 times. Between that and King Kai repeatedly explaining "The planet is going to explode with Goku on it, so it doesn't matter if he defeats Frieza... he's still gonna die!" Seriously, Yamcha et al. must be idiots, because King Kai had to tell them that every single time they showed them (and they showed them often). I about laughed at one point when they ask "What's wrong?" It's like "he just finished telling you for the 50th time!"

I also have a couple other issues with the final episodes, including a couple major continuity problems. First of all (the smaller issue), there's a point where Vegeta and Gohan fight, Gohan gets the crap beat out of him, and Vegeta leaves. The very next episode shows Gohan perfectly fine and Vegeta just hanging out. Not only that, but Bulma then starts to hit on Vegeta (like, flirt with, not beat), after mainly being scared of and hateful toward him. Though I've always enjoyed the Bulma/Vegeta relationship, so I'm not too flustered. The bigger issue is with the Namekian dragonballs. They want to wish Goku and Krillin back (assuming Goku had died when the planet exploded) with those dragonballs, but discover that they could only be wished back to the place they died. But earlier on in the previous season, they used the same dragonballs to wish Piccolo back to life. He died on Earth, but he doesn't reappear where he died. He stays on King Kai's planet where he currently was, and they have to wish him to Namek. The continuity issue there is alarming.

There seems to be a lot of negativity here, but it's really a fun season. The action is great, though they really undermined Gohan's powers. He turns out to be one of the strongest fighters (if not the strongest) on the show, yet even with boosted ability, he's shown as mostly weak against Frieza and the Ginyu Force. But I guess that's hindsight for you. And the best thing about this season? The introduction of the Super Saiyan! That's right, Goku finally turns Super Saiyan, and it is epic. Once he does that, Frieza (mostly) gets his ass handed to him. It's great fun to watch. And I love how they use juxtapositions to show increased strength on this show (you see how strong Vegeta is, yet Frieza manhandles him... then Goku shows up and beats on Frieza, showing how much stronger Goku is than Vegeta).

Anyway, I don't have much else to say about the season. I already have disc 1 of season 4, so it won't be long before I get to my favorite stuff (the Cell saga(s)). There are a couple things to get through before that (Garlic Jr. and Androids, specifically). So, yeah.

TV Review: The Venture Bros. - Season Three.

I don't know what the difference was between the first two seasons and this one, but they apparently thought the difference included removing all censorship, which allowed them to add a whole lot more unbleeped cussing and a bit too much male nudity (with almost no female nudity).

I've heard numerous rants about this season and how it's the weakest season of the show, but I disagree. In fact, this is my second favorite season (after the second, and I liked this season better than season 1). One argument is that there's too much reliance on male nudity for jokes. I disagree. There's no more male nudity in this season than any other season. It's just that this season doesn't block it like the previous seasons.

There's also arguments that this season has way too much backstory. While it does have a lot of backstory, the whole season is far from pure backstory. There were maybe 3-4 episodes that I can recall that were really in-your-face about it. The rest I don't really recall much backstory. And if there was, they were quite subtle about it, much like any other season. And who doesn't like more developed characters?

Though I was disappointed in the little use of Dr. Orpheus in the season. He was moreso in the first half of the season than the second. And his daughter, Triana, had maybe one or two appearances, so there wasn't a whole lot of fun Dean/Triana relationship building. But I suppose I can understand it (moreso the lack of Orpheus). They don't want to go too overboard on him... then you won't appreciate him as much, I guess.

Also, one of the best focuses of the season was the ever-increasing roles of Henchmen 21 and 24 (which only makes me hate the very end of the season finale). Those two are such fun characters, and their duo dynamic is hilarious. It's especially funny when they start to realize their own 'main character-ization' and how they keep escaping death, as if they're becoming main characters in a story.

I realize I haven't really discussed the story of the season yet, so I should probably do that. Again, it picks up where the last season left off. The Monarch has married Dr. Girlfriend (whose name keeps changing now, becoming more along the lines of 'Dr. The Monarch's wife'). But a stipulation of their marriage is that The Monarch can no longer 'arch' (arch-nemesis) with Dr. Venture. So Dr. Venture gets a new arch-nemesis from the Guild: Seargant Hatred, a buff military-esque villain who is more concerned with having the destruction come when it's good for the both of them than just being a bad guy. But The Monarch won't give up... he misses arching Dr. Venture, and he tries to sneak in some arching with him when he can.

As such, the story for this season feels, at least to me, more fluid than previous seasons. There is a focus on backstory, but at least it never explains why The Monarch is so adamant about hating Venture (a running joke that would have otherwise been ruined). Everybody seems to have some purpose to what they're doing this season. Seargant Hatred isn't nearly as fun as The Monarch, but I think that's the point, especially by the time we get to the payoff in the season finale.

And speaking of the season finale, as usual, it is one of the best parts of the season. If this show can do anything great, it's build up to some of the greatest finales of any show on television. Even if they have a subpar season, the finale can still manage to bring everything together and make it awesome. And after the finales from seasons 2 and 3, the season 1 finale that I thought was so epic just pales in comparison. And as usual, they end with a big twist and some unanswered questions (as well as some death). Unfortunately, this season was the newest, and I'm not sure when the next season will be airing on TV. So I'm all caught up with the show and can't wait for it to start back up again... though now I'll have to watch it one at a time instead of numerous via DVD. Lame.

Anyway, as usual, if you enjoyed the previous seasons, I'd just keep it going. You'll doubtlessly enjoy this season, as well. Though it seems this season is hit or miss with some folks, so who knows. I guess it comes down to how much you like background information. But background info or not, it's still funny in its presentation. And I don't care if she sounds like a man (or is a cartoon figure), Dr. Girlfriend is hot.

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN.

I'm not sure what all the hatin' is for with this movie. It has its flaws, but it's still decent entertainment. The movie picks up a few years after the first, and Larry (Ben Stiller) has quit his night guard job to move on to 'bigger and better' things as an inventor. Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais) sells out with the museum, turning everything to the technology side of things. So that means quite a few of the exhibits have to go. And to where else? The stock room of the Smithsonian. But Larry gets a call from Jed (Owen Wilson) and Octavius (Steve Coogan) that all hell's broke loose, since the monkey stole the tablet of Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), which was supposed to stay back at the previous museum. But now Ahkmenrah's older brother, Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), wants to get a hold of the tablet, as it apparently has the power to bring back an army of the dead so that Kahmunrah can take over the world. So now Larry must team up with old friends and new, including Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) and General Custer (an almost unrecognizable Bill Hader), to fight Kahmunrah and his new henchmen, including Al Capone (Jon Bernthal), Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest), and Napoleon (Alain Chabat). And, of course, there are a thousand other things/characters/people that show up in the process...

Honestly, the movie wasn't bad. It has an almost unbearably slow and unfunny beginning, though. And the movie tries way too hard at times, just resulting in awkward moments of unfunny. And the CGI isn't the greatest, and there's way too much of it. Not to mention a few logical issues (the tiny Museum of Natural History has night guards, but the multi-building Smithsonian doesn't have any?).

However, once you get to the first major cameo appearance of the film, Jonah Hill, the movie starts to pick up considerably. And the Jonah Hill scene really is funny. Ironically, one of the best jokes in the film is basically the exact same joke, but extended on later in the movie by Hank Azaria. And the movie has a few good cameos, including Craig Robinson and Jay Baruchel (as well as 'that guy' Clint Howard, though I don't think he counts). And make sure to stick during the beginning of the credits for a fun joke with Jay Baruchel.

And the movie is pretty funny, though, like I said, it does try too hard at times. One of the biggest issues is that it tries to do too much. There are too many characters. Not to mention you can tell how every little thing is going to be important at some point in the movie, as Larry's initial walkthrough of the Smithsonian is a virtual "Chekhov's Gun" scenario. There's a focus on every little figure that Larry walks by as if ensuring "hey, make sure to remember this for later on!" But some of the characters were rather pointless. Although he's there the majority of the time, Al Capone was wasted. And the scene with Darth Vader had no purpose other than to get a laugh from Star Wars fans (it's basically no more than what you see in the trailer... maybe a minute longer). Oh, and did the movie really need to include the Jonas Brothers (regardless of not even physically being there?). Though, intentional or not, they do get a good jab in at their singing.

But there is some fun action. There's a great spoof of 300 near the end with a funny payoff. And the final fight between Larry and Kahmunrah is epic, though the music of the scene really helped (I want to find that song). That had to be one of my favorite moments of the movie.

There's not really a lot to discuss. It's a fun family film. There's good comedy, good action, and overall good entertainment. Though they never explain what happened between Larry and the Carla Gugino character from the first film. She's just... not there. Anyway, if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. It ups the scales a lot, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Though the real scene stealer? Amy Adams' butt.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. Must the Judd Apatow gang be in everything these days?)

TERMINATOR SALVATION.

Terminator is the kind of movie you can't go in expecting realism. I went with a group of friends to see this latest installment. One of them (and her boyfriend) were like me and enjoyed it. Another would thought it was awful. And the last believed it was a plague on all mankind and made her want to destroy things because it angered her so much. But she was also mostly discussing negatives that came from a realism perspective. Keeping that in mind, let's get into the review.

Terminator Salvation brings the story to the future and tells it through the perspective of 3 characters: Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) wakes up years after given the lethal injection having no idea what's going on, and he eventually comes across the next bunch. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is trying to keep safe with Star (Jadagrace) and do his part to help with the Resistance. And, of course, John Connor (Christian Bale) and wife Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard) are heading up the Resistance--or trying to, anyway. The upper echelon of the Resistance discovers a signal that could bring the downfall of the machines. By they also find a list of names of people who are to be assassinated within 4 days' time. At the top of the list are Kyle Reese and John Connor, and John must find Kyle and bring him to safety, as Kyle eventually becomes his father, so if Kyle dies, a crazy paradox happens and the future changes.

I've read plenty of reviews saying this is Sam Worthington's film, yada yada. And he does a pretty damn good job at his part. But the actor getting very little recognition, at least from what I've read, is Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. When I first heard that Yelchin was going to be in the movie, I raised an eyebrow. Then I heard he was Kyle Reese (much more recently, actually), and I started to really question. Don't get me wrong, I think the kid is a really good actor, but he didn't scream "badass action star" to me. However, I think he did a very great job in his role. He even managed to make his voice a little less nasally to help with the badassness.

I can go on and on about the really fun and mindless action of the movie, or any of the really well done CGI (even a particular CGI cameo looked loads better than, say, The Rock in The Mummy Returns). Even the camera shots and cinematography was excellent. But most other reviews have probably done those to death already.

The movie isn't without its flaws, but what Terminator movie is? None of the time travel stuff has ever made sense (the core of the story is paradoxical). Going into a film like this and then scoffing at the mindless action, the nonsensical occurrences, or the fanfare (like two specific lines, or the aforementioned CGI cameo) is to miss the entire point of this film and the ones that came before it. If I nitpicked, I could go on and on about issues with the movie, logical or not. Why would a metal android skid across water like that? How does the electronic device not short out in the lake? How can they do open surgery in the middle of the desert like that (Well, I suppose if LOST can do it...)? Not to mention issues that came with the surgery itself. And what was the point of the little mute black girl? She does one important thing in the movie, and that could easily have been done by Kyle instead. Was Moon Bloodgood's character necessary beyond a plot device? Why do the machines not recognize you-know-who as a machine earlier, but they do later once it's convenient? Was it really necessary to show the title twice within the opening credits? I could continue with logic issues, but I'm not.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was. It had great action, some good comedy, decent acting, and fun fanfare. I think it's a good addition to the series. Just don't go in with super high expectations or the need for realism. Take it for what it's meant to be and you'll enjoy it. For the record, the following score was really difficult to give. I wanted to give it higher (particularly for one of the ending revelations being pretty cool), but something was holding me back. Very enjoyable, though.


I Am McLovin!

LKMYNTS: Re-Cycle.

Man, I haven't done a Little Known Movies You Need To See in a long time. Anywho, I wasn't sure what exactly I was getting into when I started this movie. It had a synopsis similar to In The Mouth Of Madness and was directed by the typically hit-or-miss Pang Brothers. And even after the film started, I wasn't sure what I was getting into. I started it late last night and had to stop it about 30 minutes or so in because I was falling asleep (because of the time, not the movie), and I finished it this morning. And damn did I turn it off at the wrong (or right?) time last night.

The movie is about romance novelist Ting-Yin (Angelica Lee). After finishing a trilogy of best-selling romances, Ting-Yin wants to try her hand at horror/supernatural with her next book, Re-Cycle. But a mix of writer's block and her ex-boyfriend returning with news that he's getting a divorce with the woman he left her for originally keep her from really getting far with the book. But then, slowly, freaky things start happening to Ting-Yin as she comes to realize that the things she's writing, but then tossing away are coming back to haunt her. And soon she ends up in a completely different dimension full of "the abandoned" and needs to find a way home before this dimension destroys her completely. So she gets the help of a little girl and an old man to help her find her way to "the Transit," where she'll find her way home.

If you do research on this movie, one of the things you'll notice being said repeatedly is how it's so similar to 'such-and-such' movie/book. And that's true. But I also think that's one of the film's many brilliances. Whether intentional or not, the fact that the movie does feel so similar to other stories just ties in with the overall theme of abandoned (or 'recycled') things. Just in my personal opinion, and I've seen others agree, I felt the movie was most like the following: In The Mouth Of Madness, Silent Hill, Alice in Wonderland, MirrorMask, Dante's Inferno/What Dreams May Come (they're close enough to lump together), and Miyazaki's Spirited Away. Hell, I even found similarities to one of my own books, though I'm relatively sure they didn't take ideas from that.

Now I'm sure you're thinking "that's an odd mix of things." Well, it is. But it's because the movie is set up as one thing, but then twists into something else not too long after. The beginning starts off slow, building up as a supernatural horror movie. But around that 30/35 minute mark (right after I first turned it off to go to sleep), it changes completely. It still has some horror/scary elements, but it's more of a dark fantasy than a horror film. Ting-Yin's journey through the world of the abandoned is harrowing, scary, imaginative, and beautiful all at the same time. I loved all the little places she visits, but one of my favorite was like a live-action version of a scene from Spirited Away (though I'm sure it's from an Asian mythology). The little girl must guide Ting-Yin over a bridge riddled with the walking dead/spirits/abandoned/whatever, and Ting-Yin has to hold her breath as they slowly make their way across, or else she'll be noticed as an outsider... not a good thing.

Besides its obvious imagination, one of the best things about the movie is its beauty. And this movie is beautiful (in more ways than one). Visually, this film is utterly stunning. There are the more obvious stunning visuals that most will pick up on, but there's little nuances that the cinematically trained eye might pick up, as well. I just couldn't go on more about the film's visuals. Honestly, I was mostly afraid about the visuals (I saw a screencap on the back of the DVD box in the store... and out of context, it didn't strike me as stunning. In the film, however...). But, as I've said, they were amazing.

I can't say everything is positive about the film, though. It does have a few downsides. For instance, the first half of the movie is a bit slow and confusing. Even after Ting-Yin gets to the parallel world, it takes her a while before she meets anybody to tell her what's going on. So it's just kind of "throw in a scene, have a scare, she gets chased." Rinse, repeat. Though that really only goes on for about 10-15 minutes, I'd say. And it really only gets monotonous right before it stops doing it, so that's good. And although it does this, I still wished that there would have been more time spent in the fantasy world. I can't say the movie is poorly paced, but I would have liked it to have a few more 'down time' spots with some character/relationship building between Ting-Yin and the little girl. Instead, it kinda goes from major scene to major scene with maybe one brief interlude. Because as is, the ending of the film is the only place that really makes the characters a little more well-rounded. Otherwise, they're relatively flat.

Another issue for some people, though not me, is that the movie might become a bit too preachy. I don't want to say on what subject, because I think it should be a surprise, but I've seen plenty of things written about the film and how it's too preachy or whatever. Honestly, I don't think it is. I feel that the movie handled the subject very well, and people who get offended by it are too tightly wound to begin with. Don't get me wrong, it is a bit shocking at first, but it makes perfect sense in the realm of the story.

And even if you don't like that, how can you not love the ending? I don't want to touch on the ending too much, because I don't want to spoil anything, but I felt the ending was equally brilliant and ambiguous, leaving things up to interpretation.

Overall, the film isn't perfect (it could have used a bit better character development), but the Pang Brothers make a visual and atmospheric masterpiece. There really isn't that much of a story, but the film is more of an allegory, and allegories don't need to have fully coherent stories to be brilliant. I was going to give a literary example here, but then I realized that the example I was going to use deals with the exact same issue as the film, so any of you who knew the story could instantly pick up on the issue... I try to avoid major spoilers (for good films) at all costs. I really recommend the film.


A Keanu 'Whoa'