A group of hippies are bored so they hold a black mass and resurrect Count Dracula (Christopher Lee.) Dracula arranged the whole thing to get revenge on the Van Helsing family. Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham) is one of the hippies. When some of her friends turn up dead and then she goes missing, her grandfather and occult expert (Peter Cushing) goes looking for her.
MY THOUGHTS
Should have been called Drek-ula.
I know Hammer's films tended to be on the cheesy, campy side, but this goes TOO FAR. It's in Limburger territory.
The closest thing to creativity in the screenplay is the lead hippie's name is Johnny Alucard - yes Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards. Far out man... Some of the hippie lingo and one-liners are so bad it's amazing the actors didn't wince while saying them ("Laura will be there. A bit drained, but she'll be there.") Plot-wise its the same old tired Dracula story.
Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are both fine actors, and in their signature roles, Dracula and Van Helsing. They deserve much better than this steaming pile. They also hold the distinction of being the only two actors in the film who don't give a completely embarrassing performance.
The music seems to be from an entirely different film or it could be made up of rejected theme songs from 1960's game shows. They should have just used the theme from the Benny Hill Show - it would have been just as effective.
If you do decide to see Dracula A.D. 1972, make sure you have some holy water, garlic and a crucifix or you may not survive.
In Texas, where high school football is practically a religion, one very competitive team strives to overcome extreme pressures from the community, their coach (Billy Bob Thornton) and their everyday lives in order to succeed and make it to the state finals.
MY THOUGHTS
Based on a book (based on a true story) Friday Night Lights faithfully creates the struggles of small town high school students trying desperately to succeed and impress their coaches and community.
It's an incredibly difficult task to tell an entire high school football season in under two hours... and as a result the film moves at a very brisk pace filled with many montages. Several games are completely skipped over. Sometimes all we see are brief highlights of the important games.
The high school players are introduced and all there's time for is the basic gist of the character. So, they are very stereotypical and cliched young lives (one is an egotistical hotshot, one has an abusive father, one is caring for his sick single mother, etc.) We learn little more about the young players (other than their hopes to play in college,) but the young actors are so effective in their roles that they appear practically fully-fleshed.
Lucas Black (as the quarterback with the ill mother) is excellent in his deeply emotional role as the center of the team. Garrett Hedlund also shines as the running back with his abusive ex-football playing father (Tim McGraw) that he's trying to please and impress.
These character introductions are done very fast in the film and its impressive that we understand these players before the 30 minute mark in the film.
The game scenes create as much tension as you would find in the fights in the original Rocky. The in-game action rivals even the best NFL games... with many jaw-dropping hits.
The film also matches Rocky's main theme that the struggle is far more important than the actual win. This theme is far more effectively achieved by using a team sport rather than a solo sport like boxing.
Football is a sport that doesn't translate as well as others to the big screen like boxing... but Friday Night Lights is by far one of the best football films.
An alcoholic down-on-his-luck boxer Tully (Stacy Keach) spots 18-year old boxing hopeful Ernie (Jeff Bridges.) He sends the young man to his old manager (Nicholas Colasanto.) Soon, Ernie is a rising star but gets sidetracked when his girlfriend (Candy Clark) gets pregnant. Tully is a migrant laborer picking walnuts and onions for handouts in between drinks and hooks up with another hopeless drunk (Susan Tyrrell.) His frustration with their relationship convinces him to start training to box again. He convinces Ernie to return to the ring as well... but can he stay away from the bottle?
MY THOUGHTS
A deep and meaningful character piece.
Fat City fits the 'mold' of the many intimate personal films of the early 1970's...stories that were never told that way before or since in the Hollywood mainstream. Films like Five Easy Pieces, The Last Detail, and Mean Streets are great examples of this sadly short-lived freedom that filmmakers had before the onset of blockbuster-itis killed creativity.
The story is of two boxers headed in opposite directions. Boxing is used only a metaphor here and not the gist of the story. The sport merely represents the everyday struggle of life. To fit this lack of focus on the sport, the boxing scenes are not central to the story and are shot very ordinary - unlike the fights in Rocky or Raging Bull would be later.
Above all, the performances make the film work. As usual with character studies, there isn't much of a heavy plot. It's more of the average everyday occurrences that happen to everyone. All of the actors bring a realism to their parts and have the freedom to make the roles their own without the encumbrance of a rigid plot... almost as much as the actors in the films of John Cassavetes.
All the characters are essentially losers... but they're oblivious to this.
Stacy Keach is certainly the standout performance. He is a drunk deadbeat whose life is in the toilet and would rather float in the bowl than try and climb out. He's been taken in by the American Dream, chewed up and spit out. Yet, we get to know this loser and even care about him despite his numerous flaws. That's very hard to pull off but Keach succeeds.
Also adding to the realism, much (or all) of the film seems to be shot on location using real crummy places that the characters would inhabit in Stockton, California. It's all shot with natural light, giving it a grittiness that's missing all that Hollywood gloss.
With so many gems in director John Huston's resume, Fat City is certainly overlooked... but it is a masterpiece that deserves FAR more recognition.
1932 - First National Pictures/Warner Brothers
Directed By Mervyn LeRoy
SYNOPSIS
3 schoolmates meet up after 10 years. Mary went to reform school (Joan Blondell,) Vivian went to a prestigious boarding school (Ann Dvorak) and Ruth on to a technical college (Bette Davis.) Vivian married a wealthy lawyer (Warren William) and had a boy. She’s unhappy in the marriage and takes the child with her on a vacation without her husband. While at a pre-sail party, she falls for Michael (Lyle Talbot) and leaves the ship and shacks up with him. Mary finds out where she is and tells her husband who comes for the child. He files for divorce and asks Mary to marry him. Michael owes money to gangsters and decides to kidnap the kid. The gangsters (Edward Arnold, Humphrey Bogart, Allen Jenkins) hold Michael, Vivian and the kid in safe keeping until they can get the ransom money.
MY THOUGHTS
The above (long-winded) synopsis makes Three On A Match seem like a long drawn-out soap opera that could be a 6 hour TV miniseries… but in reality the film clocks in at just over an hour. It’s very economical filmmaking. Every second is there in order to advance the plot. No fancy, artsy, self-indulgent camera shots, no meandering sub-plots, no foreshadowing or subtext - it’s just the high speed rollercoaster ride complete with lighting-quick dialogue that defined the Warner Brothers films of the 1930’s.
The breezy pace keeps characters (or the audience) from stopping to think about their actions. There are more than a few head-scratching moments. This is most evident in the relationship between Warren William and Joan Blondell’s characters. ‘Match’ moves on so quickly to the next part of the story that the audience never gets a chance to say “Wait… what????”
The film certainly fits the bill as a pre-code film. The violence and racy double entendres that defined the pre-code era are not as strong here as in other films, but Vivian’s blatant infidelity and lack of care for her child definitely wouldn’t fly after the Production Code was strictly enforced in 1934. It’s not explicitly mentioned, but it’s clear that Vivian also develops a drug (cocaine?) habit along with her rampant alcoholism and develops dark circles around her eyes by the film’s end. These elements give the film a rougher, darker edge that would virtually disappear a few years later.
Joan Blondell and Ann Dvorak shine in their bad girl roles. One starts out bad and goes good while the other starts good and goes bad. The rest of the characters are not as dynamic and as a result less memorable. Bette Davis’ character barely has an influence on the story and spends most of her screen time on the periphery.
Three On A Match is still a unique and eye-opening film and a great example of pre-code film.
All teen Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) wants is to get laid. When his mother's boyfriend (Zack Galifianakis) gets into trouble the three of them hide out in a trailer park. There, Nick meets Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday) and falls in love. His family soon leaves and Nick must find a way to get back to be with the girl he loves. After committing arson and getting Sheeni kicked out of a prestigious school, Nick must now avoid the cops and convince Sheeni he's the guy for her.
MY THOUGHTS
C.D. Payne's novel Youth In Revolt is probably the funniest novel I've ever read, so going into the film adaptation I was expecting a lot. There was far too much going on in the novel to fully translate into a film without a chainsaw being taken to the text. And it was.
The film works as a sort-of Cliffs Notes version of the book. Several memorable set-pieces and characters are severely trimmed down or cut completely to fit space of the film, leaving a hollow shell of what was, yet the highlights are strong enough to tell a decent story.
Youth would have worked perfectly as a mini-series. At one time, MTV was trying to develop one that never came to be. To fit as a feature film, too much had to be sacrificed to tell a truly hilarious and memorable story. This 'butchered' version of Youth In Revolt is merely OK. There are several laugh-out-loud moments, but were FAR more hilarious in the book.
Payne's novel followed a daily journal format, which is abandoned for the film. This loses a sense of immediacy and an understanding of the real working of Nick's brain, which made him seem far more real on the written page.
The film, however, was perfectly cast. Michael Cera was born to play Nick and his alter ego, Francois Dillinger. Nick is the same impish socially awkward type that Cera has been playing since Arrested Development. Francois represents something completely different. He's dangerous and conniving and the complete opposite of Nick. Cera is able to show far more range than he's be allowed to in other films. It would have been nice to see more of Francois, but much was lost in translation to the screen.
The rest of the all-star cast, including Fred Willard, Steve Buscemi, and Jean Smart provide solid and often hilarious support, but their truncated parts left me pining for the book.
Without reading the book I would have found it hard to connect with the oddball characters and likely hated the film, but reading it allowed me to somewhat appreciate the film, and yet watching the film made me want to go back and read the book again instead.
Fired computer programmer Flynn (Jeff Bridges) breaks into his former employer's computer system to retrieve a file that would prove he created the company's most profitable video games instead of company head Ed Dillinger (David Warner.) The master control program (MCP) sucks Flynn into the computer. Inside, Flynn meets Tron, a program created by (and looks like) his friend/coworker, Alan, (Bruce Boxleitner.) He must help Tron overcome and take down the MCP.
MY THOUGHTS
I've been geeking out about the upcoming sequel to Tron (Tron Legacy) and decided to revisit the original. I was never a huge fan of the film as a child. I found the film confusing (both plot-wise and all the jargon) and very boring except during the major effects sequences.
Upon my revisit, I found a very intriguing and intelligent film that was often misunderstood.
The plot is very simple. Look at it as a take on Spartacus. Flynn is taken from his normal life and made to become a gladiator in the virtual world, much like Spartacus. He teams up with an ally to create a better world.
Much of the jargon has become commonplace to anyone with a basic computer knowledge in today's world and that helps alleviate much of the confusion.
Tron was released the same year as the equally misunderstood and ahead-of-its-time Blade Runner. Both were similarly trashed by critics and turned up dead at the box office only to later gain a large following. Blade Runner is a deep film and Tron is no different. The real and virtual worlds of Tron create interesting parallels that are sealed by the closing time lapse shots of the city showing (ground and air) traffic moving along much like data moving along circuits. The corresponding actors in each universe help to show how both worlds are interrelated.
The performances are strong especially Jeff Bridges and David Warner as the villain. Bridges' badass Flynn keeps the film from getting boring (to a now older viewer!) Boxleitner has the thankless role as the bland all-good hero but still is able to create an unique character.
The then-groundbreaking special effects of 1982 don't equal the resolution and detail of your average 2010 production, yet are still very effective today. They definitely create an otherworldly look that represents an abstract virtual world and still work as great eye candy today.
Tron is still a unique and different film in 2010 and hopefully it's sequel will be equally as groundbreaking and uniquely cool.
A young man (Cliff Lok) quests to be the best in kung fu. He discovers one of the best masters around is in prison, so he gets thrown in jail. He meets the man known as The Tiger (Kien Shih) and demands a fight. The Tiger wants nothing to do with him, so he knocks The Tiger out and escapes from prison with him. The Tiger has many enemies outside of prison and the young man must fight them all off to preserve his chance to fight him.
MY THOUGHTS
An unremarkable but serviceable kung fu film.
The plot is threadbare, but you usually don't turn to kung fu films for intricate plots - it's all about the action. Shaolin Tiger Claw delivers fight after fight. The film was clearly a low budget affair, so you don't have the best fight choreographers. The choreography is still strong, but after awhile each battle starts to look like the one before. The fights are still very entertaining to watch, filled with many flying fists and the occasional weapon. Some of the fights are very lengthy, yet no one ever seems the least bit fatigued, which is more than odd.
Cliff Lok was clearly chosen for his fighting ability as the lead. He lacks the charisma and screen presence that made people like Bruce Lee, Sonny Chiba and Jackie Chan some of the big stars of the genre.
He's followed/assisted by a young woman. Her role is never explained. Is she a girlfriend/friend/sister/hired assistant? Who knows. She's just there.
The lackluster DVD transfer makes the low budget cinematography look even worse and the unusual dubbing takes most of the emotion out of the characters.
I went into the film worn out after a long day at work and just wanted some mindless action-filled entertainment and Shaolin Tiger Claw delivered just that.
John Dillinger (Lawrence Tierney) is arrested for a petty theft and is sent to prison for several years. While behind bars, the somewhat innocent Dillinger makes several friends and is released a hardened criminal. He launches an escape attempt and frees his pals. The group launches one successful bank robbery after another and soon Dillinger is labeled ”Public Enemy #1” Soon the FBI catches up to the group and arrests or kills all but Dillinger, who hides away in Chicago. One night his girlfriend suggests they go see a movie…
MY THOUGHTS
A not-so-completely accurate take on one man who’s crime spree captivated a nation.
It’s very odd the first take on John Dillinger’s story would be from B-movie ‘powerhouse’ Monogram. With Dillinger’s popularity, you would expect a major studio, especially Warner Brothers, home of the gangster, or another would have tackled the story. It has a very clear beginning, middle, and violent end complete with a great crime doesn’t pay message. Instead, a super-low budget version was released in 1945.
That low budget is clearly evident time and again. Throughout the film, several sets turn up again and again barely redressed.
During a montage of the gang’s violent exploits in the Midwest, a map is superimposed over the action. You can clearly see El Segundo and Culver City! Dillinger the movie may have been filmed in the Los Angeles area, but Dillinger the man was not robbing banks there! It must have been the only map they had on hand?
Despite the low budget, the filmmakers were able to capture something special by doing the film as a noir, with excellent actors.
Lawrence Tierney shines in his first major role as Dillinger. He’s not very accurate to the real Dillinger, but comes across genuinely ruthless and frightening. It’s a perfect example of some of the dark characters he would later play from Born To Kill through to Reservoir Dogs.
His gang is also not accurate and are not the famous actual gang members like Pretty Boy Floyd and the like. The group is made up of some unknown characters with the familiar faces of great character actors Eduardo Ciannelli, Marc Lawrence, Edmund Lowe and Elisha Cook Jr. All are equally outstanding. They all have distinct personalities despite little time to fully develop their characters.
The dark story and the cinematography perfectly fit with the film noir aesthetic popular at the time. The cinematography is not as artfully expressionist like noirs from the major studios, again due to time and budget, but it still works.
“The Woman In Red” may just be the ideal film noir ‘femme fatal’ from the real world, but Anne Jeffreys falls flat. The character knows just how evil Dillinger is from the start (he robs her) but is somehow able to turn a blind eye, even after she sees him gun down an elderly couple. Even after that she stays with him and helps him to escape. We never understand why. How could someone love another who is so ruthless and vile to the world and uncaring toward them? The character never develops into a fully realized person and suffers from a lack of screen time.
Despite this wasted element of the story, Dillinger is still both an excellent gangster film and a solid noir.
1936 - Warner Brothers
Directed By William Dieterle
SYNOPSIS
A detective (Warren William) is a suspect in the death of his partner. While investigating the death, he’s pulled into the struggle for a rare horn from the days of Charlemagne. Meanwhile, he tries to romance one of the three parties questing for the jewel laden instrument (Bette Davis) as he’s trying to make it with his secretary(Marie Wilson.)
MY THOUGHTS
The Maltese Falcon is masquerading as a horn this time.
This was the second of Warner Brothers’ three takes on Dashiell Hammett’s classic novel The Maltese Falcon - the third time would definitely be the charm.
This version is totally played for laughs. Guns are pulled, shots are fired, people die but the script is never more than a second away from an attempt at a one-liner. Much of the humor falls flat. The film frequently has some truly bizarre humor that’s so abstract that it would be better suited on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim lineup. This style of humor totally negates any realism and makes the film too cartoon-y.
Satan Met A Lady was made just 2 years after MGM made Dashiell Hammett’s other classic The Thin Man into a major hit. There’s no doubt as to why Warner’s went the comedy route, trying to cash in on the other film’s success. ‘Satan’ fails in every way The Thin Man succeeds.
Warren William tries to be as charming and whimsical as William Powell in The Thin Man, but it’s a pale impression and doesn’t suit the story. Much of the bizarre humor comes from his nonchalant (and very unreal) reactions to the dramatic situations around him. He’s accused of his partner’s murder that he didn’t commit, yet jokes to anyone (including the cops) about how he killed the guy.
Bette Davis is completely wasted. The other supporting parts, which would help to make the 3rd version so great (Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet, Gladys George, Elisha Cook Jr., etc.) are completely unmemorable in the 2nd version.
The film flopped on its initial release and its easy to understand why. It only managed to make its DVD release as a bonus feature in the 3-disc DVD set of The Maltese Falcon.
One of the holy grails of filmdom, the practically mythic director’s cut of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis was long thought lost.
Guess what they found when going through a warehouse in Argentina (of all places) in 2008? A copy of the of the negative of the original cut.
The print wasn’t stored properly and was in very bad shape. A bit of the unseen-since-1927 footage was forever lost (only a few shots) but 25 minutes hadn’t been seen since its debut in Germany. It was a major find! Using the found print as a reference, scholars were able to restore the (formerly heavily truncated) film and add its missing pieces with it’s original editing intact. The ‘new’ footage is heavily scratched and is not in the proper aspect ratio with the rest of the film, but you could compare it with some very important music of the 1920’s (like Louis Armstrong’s Hot Five’s and Hot Seven’s recordings) it’s not in the best of shape, but the historical importance far outweighs its desired fidelity.
The newly added footage is in bad shape, noticeably different from the rest of the film, but expands the scope of the film and is necessary to help flesh out everything. The film is now almost 3 hours in length and a bit long for a modern audiences to take a silent film, but essential. The missing scenes make this classic film even better.
I found the film at times confusing when I originally saw the heavily edited version for mass consumption many years ago. Kino Films found more several minutes of unseen footage back in 2002 and the film made a little more sense, but still some confusion existed. This confusion simply did not exist in the ‘new’ version. Everything needed was there.
The new print features a newly recorded version of the original musical score, which fit the film’s action perfectly. You can hear the orchestra turning the pages of the score and members even coughing. This perfectly replicates a band playing the music live in the theater.
Getting to see this epic on the big screen was a major treat and I look forward to it’s DVD/BluRay release later in the year. If you can’t see it in its limited theatrical release, definitely seek it out when it’s released in the home market later in 2010! It’s like seeing this masterpiece for the first time again.
After a singer is found strangled, the man she was having an affair with (John Phillips) is arrested and sentenced to die for the killing, even though he professes his innocence. His wife Catherine (June Vincent) and the singer’s estranged alcoholic songwriter husband (Dan Duryea) team up to find the real killer. They believe a nightclub owner (Peter Lorre) is responsible and get a job as a musical act at the club… but the killer might be someone close to them that they don’t even suspect!
MY THOUGHTS
A great twist ending helps to lift Black Angel above the usual film noir crowd.
The atmosphere of noir is in full effect. Universal Pictures was still a B-movie studio, so the shorter shooting time meant Black Angel wouldn’t be as ‘arty’ with extreme contrasts and shadows like bigger budget noirs, but it has plenty of atmosphere and some truly effective camera shots.
The opening shot of Duryea walking on the street seems to almost be from a bird’s point of view and the camera then sweeps up several stories to the singer’s apartment shortly before her death. It’s not as well known or as great as the long opening tracking shot in Touch Of Evil, but is still effective. The later drunken point-of-view shots from Dan Duryea’s character create a definitely woozy feeling. It’s some of the best drunk/drugged POV shots ever done in film that I've seen.
The atmosphere certainly helps to create some memorable performances.
Dan Duryea, with his voice and slicked-back hair, comes off as a perfect sleazebag - ideal as a noir protagonist.
Catherine is not your usual noir ‘femme fatal’ but a sympathetic and good heroine. June Vincent brings out the bestin the role, especially as a singer.
Peter Lorre is always a delight to watch and here is no different. His character is merely a red herring, but he adds his unique blend of humor and menace. The supporting performers, like Broderick Crawford, all bring their A-game to the B-movie.
The film’s twist ending is cleverly done and is much better than anything twist-ending king M. Night Shamalan could ever come up with.
Black Angel is somewhat forgotten and should be rediscovered and put higher up on the list of outstanding film noir.
2005 - Paramount Pictures
Directed By John Singleton
SYNOPSIS
When their adopted mother (Fionnula Flanagan) is killed in a store holdup, four adopted brothers (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre (3000) Benjamin and Garret Hedlund) reunite for her funeral. When they find out she was a target and murdered b hired gunmen, they spring into action to find those responsible and make them pay.
MY THOUGHTS
A perfect ‘guys movie.’
Director John Singleton has long had the 1970’s ‘blaxploitation’ films as a major influence and Four Brothers bears this as strongly as his take on Shaft in 2000. The gritty urban landscape of Detroit (really Canada) looks like the setting of any number of those 70’s films as does the cinematography and the use of natural lighting. The soundtrack even features Marvin Gaye’s “Trouble Man” (from the film of the same name) and Willie Hutch’s “Brothers Gonna Work It Out” (from The Mack) along with many other Motown gems.
The film also works as a western (albeit with an urban setting.) The story is a simple revenge that could just have easily been set in the old west. Just the guns would be different. Even the characters would translate nearly seamlessly.
The four brothers, despite their obvious racial differences, all actually act like real brothers. Mark Wahlberg and the others created these very different (and fully realized) characters that all gel perfectly together like real brothers would interact. They give each other crap, but definitely make sure no one else does. This adds even more realism to the film than the setting and cinematography. We get emotionally invested into the story deeper and care more for these guys because they seem like real people. When one of them falls in battle, we feel the pain of the loss along with the brothers.
The film is filled with great badass action scenes. The major gun battle outside the family’s home is the centerpiece of the action. The entire sequence is completely awesome. Shot composition and editing tell the story perfectly and create as much tension as the flying bullets do. Dialogue and sound effects are there, but are unnecessary. It’s a perfect action sequence… and one of many of the great aspects of this outstanding action-packed film.
Young kung-fu film geek Jason (Michael Angarano) finds an old staff in a pawn shop and is transported to ancient mythical China. He discovers the staff was once belonged to the Monkey King (Jet Li) who is imprisoned in stone. by a ruthless leader (Colin Chou.) He teams up with a drunken beggar (Jackie Chan) a young woman seeking revenge (Yifei Liu) and a monk (Jet Li.) The four set out to return the staff to the Monkey King and set him free to conquer the evil in the Forbidden Kingdom. Along the way the beggar and monk teach Jason to defend himself for the epic battles ahead.
MY THOUGHTS
Though it clocks in at only about 1:40, The Forbidden Kingdom is a truly epic tale and epic in scope.
The story is like a kung-fu blend of The Lord Of The Rings and The Wizard of Oz. Its quest and mythical and magical aspects clearly owe much to Rings (as well as other kung fu films and the mythology that inspired them.) The screenplay was by a westerner (John Fusco) so it’s likely Rings played some part in it. Despite the fantastical aspects of his new adventure, all Jason wants to do is go home to Boston. This and his final scene in China show the influence of Oz.
The cinematography by Peter Pau is absolutely breathtaking. I’m not exaggerating at all by saying you could make any shot into a photograph worthy of a museum… even the most mundane shot in the film like a standard exterior shot of the front of the pawn shop. The images are so vivid, full of color and contrast. It’s a real treat for the eyes. The film’s on-location shooting serves as the ultimate travel commercial to visit China. From bamboo forests to the Gobi Desert, everything looks amazingly beautiful. The cinematography is made even more beautiful on blu-ray.
When you have two martial arts legends like Jackie Chan and Jet Li working with master fight choreographer Woo Ping Yuen, you know the fighting will be amazing. And it is. The two legends square off in an epic battle before their characters befriend each other. It’s an epic, jaw-dropping battle in the middle of the film… and somehow each successive battle becomes more inventive and thrilling than the last. Woo Ping is to fight choreography as Busby Berkeley was to dance choreography in musicals… simply the best.
The script allows for plenty of the physical and silly humor that Jackie Chan is known. His drunken beggar (fighting drunken style) is an obvious nod to the film that made Chan a star nearly 30 years ago, Drunken Master. His skills are as strong as ever in The Forbidden Kingdom.
Jet Li is known for being more stoic than Chan and that’s how the monk is. The script plays to his strengths too. Li does get to be more flashy and goofy as the Monkey King. Both roles are a perfect contrast. His fighting skills are equal to Chan's.
I had only ever seen Michael Angarano in small supporting roles in many dramas like Lords of Dogtown. I was unsure if he could pull off a physically demanding lead role in an action film… but he proved me wrong.
The Forbidden Kingdom would be a great film to introduce kung fu films to preteens. The violence might be too strong for kids younger than 10-12. The film has the morals/philosophy of kung fu in balance with the action. There’s no sex/nudity and you could count all the foul words spoken on one hand, with fingers to spare. The presence of a westerner would also help allay the cultural differences. The fantastic action along with the mystical elements would certainly hold the attention of young eyes.
Thankfully, the film is not just for younger audiences. The Forbidden Kingdom can, and should, be enjoyed by everyone.
After nearly a month and a half without internet service (thank you AT+T!) this blog is back up and running. I spent my internet outage time watching movies and will be putting up these new reviews in the coming days.
Posts
