The story is about a Chinese immigrant named Ming, who lives in New York City and works as a bicycle deliveryman for a low-rent Chinese take-out joint. He's deep in debt to loan sharks, who kick off the film by attacking him with a hammer and informing him that he has until midnight to come up with $800 or the remainder of his sizeable debt will be doubled--as, presumably, will be his hammerings. He is able to borrow some from friends, but the rest he must make in tips delivering egg rolls, chow mein, and the like--and we learn that in order to reach his $800, he'll have to earn about twice as many tips as he's ever earned before in a single day.

It's a compelling set-up, but unfortunately Ming is anything but. The filmmakers really managed to cast 99% of this film really well. Too bad the remaining 1% was their star. The actor who plays Ming, Charles Jang, is animated and amiable in interviews, so it's a mystery to us why he chose to play this character with all the pluck of a catatonic mental patient. He conveys no sense of urgency and nary a hint of personality. His character is entirely impossible to empathize with, as he goes from delivery to delivery, not so much as bothering to utter a single word to any of his customers. When a colleague of his explains that he'll need to up his customer service to earn bigger tips, he flat out refuses.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd never tip someone who didn't even say a single word to me during a delivery. In fact, I'd kinda' want to punch them in the face. And I basically wanted to punch Ming in the face for the entire film. I didn't care whether he earned his $800 or not, and I didn't buy any of the friendships that his colleagues seemed to have with him. His contemptuous attitude and total lack of effort to solve his own problems was simply repellent. This is a guy that no one in real life would lift a finger for, because he certainly wouldn't return the favor. And simple every-day occurrences seem to baffle and sideline him--a bicycle deliveryman in New York City shouldn't be completely thrown out of orbit when he gets a flat tire. That kind of thing would happen several times a week, if not daily.

Are the filmmakers trying to imply that Ming is actually retarded? Because if not, his actions make no sense. Either way, it's not surprising that he's behind on his loan payments, because he doesn't even seem to possess the requisite mental capacity to put on a pair of slippers. Luckily, even though Ming is an emotional no-show, some of his delivery customers offer up some fantastic performances while he stands awkwardly silent in their doorways.

But enough ranting about Ming. The main reason that this film actually works is all the footage that was shot at the restaurant. The film was made on an amazing budget of only $3000, so they couldn't afford to create their own restaurant set or shut down the one they filmed in. All the footage was shot while the restaurant was operating, using some ingenious trickery (that you don't suspect while watching) to pull off the illusion that the actors are running the place. I really can't gush enough about the restaurant footage, because it's all pure gold. The cooking, the chefs joshing around, the simultaneously sweet and sour lady working the counter, and the all too familiar parade of self-important, penny pinching customers who would argue for five minutes to save an additional quarter at this already bargain-basement eatery.

This filthy, anonymous hole in the wall is the backdrop to an endless carnival of bizarre human interaction that will absolutely delight any fan of this crazy species of ours. When the restaurant closes down at the end of the day and the staff go their separate ways, it's almost impossible to believe that this was just one random day in their lives, and that tomorrow will bring even more of the same.

I very highly recommend giving this film a watch for its fantastically energetic restaurant scenes, but be prepared to be patient any time Charles Jang is onscreen. But heck, some of you are bound to enjoy his Ming character even though I couldn't. And if you do, I envy you, because then this may just be your perfect film.

The "Zatoichi" films and TV series from the 1960s and 70s had been so pleasantly burned into our collective minds; the news of this film had some of us ecstatic, some pessimistic, others feigning disinterest while secretly keeping their fingers crossed. Zatoichi is like the Japanese Wong Fei Hung: a warrior folk legend who is, for better or worse, in the public domain. As such, the story has been sequeled, remade, reimagined, and rebooted many times over the years, often with mixed results. The 1980s saw a decidedly Caucasian Rutger Hauer unofficially take on the role in the USA-made "Blind Fury". And, more recently, one-of-a-kind Japanese actor/director Takeshi Kitano ruffled feathers in 2003 with his unique action/comedy/musical take on "Zatoichi", featuring himself as the iconic samurai--but with a bleach-blonde do.

So 2008's "Ichi" had spectacle written all over it before it was even done filming--albeit spectacle of uncertain specifics. Would this be a somber period tale of a stoic samurai? An action-packed popcorn flick with little regard for tradition? We all patiently held our collective breath in anticipation of what this film would bring to the table. And now that we've had the fortune to experience it, we can gladly report that it is an undeniable success.

Haruka Ayase's Ichi is a terrifically understated yet intense female warrior, particularly sensational in her un-sensational-ness. The traditional hallmark of a great cinema samurai is an almost effortless ability to dispatch foes. There are no fantastical aerobatics or elaborate take-downs a la Donnie Yen, no grindhouse excess a la "Machine Girl", just a quiet woman who reluctantly fights, but fights without reluctance. During the film's steady boil up to the satisfying finale, the filmmakers never lose sight of the fact that the characters are the focus of the film, not the action.

We highly recommend giving "Ichi" a look, and we're sure you'll appreciate the integrity of its storytelling as much as the superior aesthetics of its cinematography and the choreography of its action sequences. Sit back, settle in, and embark on a quietly determined quest of vengeance with Haruka Ayase in "Ichi".

Eastwood gives possibly his most searing performance as a crotchety old man who seems to be losing his grip on everything that holds meaning to him, and yet continues to hold on tight in the face of inevitability. He's a war veteran who's seen and done horrible things in the name of god and country and simply wants to live out the rest of his life in peace and dignity. But the world around him just doesn't seem willing to do everything his way. And that's where his blood really boils.

He's unapologetically racist and unbending in his world view. And he's none too pleased when a family of Asian immigrants moves in next door to him, with their smelly food and strange customs, and their seeming involvement with a small time local gang. But after a strange series of events, he is forced to look past the prejudiced facades he's erected around them and see them for who they are: fellow humans. And it's not long before his life becomes intertwined with theirs, to an amazing degree.

This is my favorite Eastwood performance, and one of my very favorite of his films as director as well. His constant simmering and relentless glares of pure disdain fly off the screen, making you at once afraid of, repulsed by, and sympathetic towards this broken old man who is just trying to stay true to a code which has worn sorely out of adjustment from years of reclusion and hard-line extremism. Yet as this character evolves, we get to see the best of both his old and new selves, as his particular powers are put to use towards good ends rather than bad. It's almost as if this man were a phoenix who burned his own soul to the ground, only to rise up from the rubble in a powerful selfless ascension.

You'll have to see it for yourself to judge. But do make sure you see it.

The story has nothing much to offer IMO, it's just another implausible slasher plot with a hint of supernatural mystery. That could well be your cup of tea--in which case, more power to ya'--but it's not mine. Whatever.

Where this film truly succeeds is in the visuals. And as far as I can tell, this is due primarily to two people:

1. Cinematographer Jonathan Sela makes almost every scene in this film look like a masterpiece photo or painting. At first it's a bit of a sensory overload--all the overt shadows and artificially tinted scenes--but once you adjust to it a bit, you can start to really appreciate that each shot is just visually amazing. You could pause the film at any random frame from start to finish and sell prints of that frame to art collectors. Color me impressed.

2. Director Ryuhei Kitamura. I have enjoyed his films in the past, though perhaps never to the point of rabid obsession that his many fans seem to feel. However, his creativity and confidence in shooting this film is undeniable. There are some really "out there" kills in this film, that are filmed in some really "out there" ways, but in this day and age when we've all "been there, done that" cinematically, I appreciated Kitamura's having the balls to push things forward a bit, even at the risk of going too far. And just for the record, I think he walked that line perfectly here. I'm the first to admit that the CGI in this film is not quite up to task, lots of the blood and other elaborate camera effects are obviously not real. But I'm willing to overlook that since the creativity behind them was so very impressive and fun and fresh.

This film is no masterpiece, mainly because the story simply becomes too outlandish and fantastical for its own good by the end of the film (and, again, your opinion will vary depending on your tastes). But the film works both because of its envelope-pushing visuals, and its incredibly gory and plentiful kills. Check your brain at the door and bask in the orgasmic aesthetics on display here.

But then a curious thing happened. The movie won back my attention. I found that I was repeatedly reminding myself that this was just a movie, these were only actors. It kept sucking me into its reality over and over again. And before long, I had to admit that, despite its quite unoriginal plot, the film was doing an admirable job of surpassing all my expectations. And, unlike its contemporaries, it got better and better as it went on, building suspense and amping up the scares to a near fever pitch.

"28 Days Later" was a watershed moment in zombie filmmaking, it redefined the parameters of zombiehood and victimhood, and the plight of the survivor. "Rec" doesn't redefine anything, but it does refine it, offering up possibly the most effective--and efficient, at only 75 minutes--telling of this old story to date. If you can find enjoyment in this feat--as I did--then you're sure to be impressed.

Why did I wait? This turned out to be one of the best martial arts movies I've ever seen. Yeah, sure, it's not realistic that this little chick could kick all this ass; but let's call a spade a spade: we don't watch martial arts movies for realism. Uma Thurman got to do it in "Kill Bill", and Jeeja Yanin deserves the same kind of props for the incredibly acrobatic, intricate, and downright dangerous screen fighting she unleashed in "Chocolate".

I know that giving a film 5 stars is a loud statement, and I'm not trying to state that this film is perfect. It's not. Definitely not. But despite its imperfections, the action was just so fun, the choreography so exciting and often unexpected, that I'm willing to err on the side of generosity for this little film that could.

I, for one, can't wait to see more of Jeeja Yanin. If this is just her starting point, I can't imagine what else she could achieve onscreen in the coming years.

In many action films, the fights are performed by screen-fighters and are heavily stylized so they "look good on camera". But here, somehow, the director defies all of this by showing us authentic Karate performed by two non-actors, true Karate masters, and it's a spectacle you will not soon forget. There is no camera trickery, no fast edits. These fights are short and fast and devastating, their goal to disable an opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible. And you'll be rewinding and replaying them over and over.

The film culminates in an exhausting and ferocious battle between two masters, filmed almost entirely in one take. In later interviews, the cinematographer recalls the spectacle bringing tears to his eyes as he filmed. These two martial artists and their director poured all their formidable years of training into this fight, and the result is a stunning document of pure Karate and pure filmmaking.

Upon viewing the film for myself, I could definitely agree that it was weird. It seemed as though the director and cast all had some type of oddball shorthand that was unique to them and them alone. In the context of "normal" movies, it was quite unusual. But in its own context, it totally worked.

There are about 35 different Wilson brothers in the film--maybe even a couple dozen more that I didn't notice--but it's Owen that really steps up and makes his mark here with what has become his trademark overly-sincere buffoonery. Coupled with director Anderson's tendency to focus on the insignificant and the anti-climactic, the result is an impossibly quirky, original, and fun story about a group of pathetic would-be robbers.

In my opinion, this is far and away Anderson's best film. I also loved "Rushmore", but this film is much more innocent and fun. As for Anderson's later films--well, I'd just as soon he keep his mopey, depressed, self-indulgent white people to himself. Stick with the early flix for a quirky good time.

This is one of those films that appears to be about one thing and then kind of takes a turn all of a sudden and ends up really being about something else. So I don't want to ruin anything for other viewers. But the overall story is about an awkward high school freshman named Colin, who spends much of his time doing medieval reenactments with a local group of--well, dorks. But, just like the people in "Trekkies" and "Spellbound"--and, yes, "King Of Kong"--their dorkiness is also their charm. It's the fact that they don't live their lives like everyone else that makes them interesting in the first place.

Colin hasn't seen his dad since he was less than a week old, so he's come to rely on his mom, brother, and one of his fellow reenactors--an incredibly caring man whom Colin refers to as "my knight"--for support. It is his relationships with all of these people that serve as the foundation for this touching portrait of adolescence.

There you have it in a nutshell. If you like underdogs and outcasts, people trying to forge a path in a world that often feels very foreign to them, then this film should hit the spot. 14-year-old Colin's candor and insight, and his unflinchingly honest humanity, are a true breath of fresh air.

Watching the film the second time, with the filmmakers narrating and filling in the backstory on the whole production, I was amazed to find that this was in fact almost the exact opposite of the laissez-faire film I thought I was watching. The filmmakers and cast actually prepared with many months of rehearsals, where they took ideas from a loose script and improvised their own dialogue and actions on top of it, which in turn became the new script. And I was amazed to hear director Ramin Bahrani mentioning in passing that in one scene taking place inside a garage, they actually put out some bird feed so that they would have a pigeon wandering around in the background--or that in another scene they rode a bicycle through a large puddle before filming so that the puddle would be rippling in the background--or that doing 50 takes of any given scene was common--or that they went through countless footstools, an insignificant prop I had hardly even noticed on first viewing, before the director resorted to borrowing one from his local laundromat because it was the only one he liked.

This was no low-energy film. In fact, it was probably one of the most obsessively sculpted films I've seen. And yet the result is a paradoxically spontaneous, "real" feeling.

Some viewers may prefer a bit more of a traditional storyline to go with their obsessively sculpted faux-documentary ultra-realism; and hell, maybe I would too. But I can't deny that I was enraptured by what I saw on the screen from start to finish, and that it left an exceptionally pleasant, warm aftertaste. So I say kudos to the cast and filmmakers for a truly unique and soulfully rich film. I eagerly look forward to viewing more of Ramin Bahrani's work.

It did.

The basic story has been recounted elsewhere (such as in our product synopsis), so I'll refrain from rehashing it here. What you need to know is that this is an amazing story of a man whose spirit had been broken, who had built walls around himself to the extent that he would rather sleep on the streets than give the American government--or in fact society--another chance after he had been so thoughtlessly tossed into an internment camp for Japanese-Americans during WWII, completely disowned by his native America. After being physically released from the camp, his mental internment continued inside his own head, a sort of self-imposed solitary confinement. To see those walls begin to come down as the filmmaker takes this man into her home and begins to shower him in a kind of selfless maternal giving, well, it's just a beautiful thing.

This film has so much going for it, it would be easier to list the types of people who shouldn't see it than those who should. Simply put, this film is the perfect prescription for anyone who wants to see people connecting with each other in meaningful ways, or be reminded that humanity is still alive and well in America.

There are lots of little nods to the kung fu flix of old that will likely appeal to genre fans, but I couldn't help wondering while I was watching the film who the intended audience really was. True genre fans would likely find this film to be childish and unengaging on the whole. Casual fans whose primary exposure to the genre has been through crossover films like "Crouching Tiger" would also likely find this film lacking in emotional depth and motivation. And kids--well, kids would probably like most of it, though a lot of the violence did seem a bit harsh for a young'un. I guess the idea was to make something for young teens whose parents might have been Shaw Brothers fans back in the day? I'm just guessing here.

The bottom line is that if you're watching this with your 13-year-old son, you'll probably come away mildly entertained and he'll come away with possibly a new favorite movie. But if there's no 13-year-old boy in your scenario, then you might want to skip this one and seek out something a bit more decisive--a movie that has actually something to say or at least an innovative way of saying it.

The only word that keeps popping into my head when I think about this movie is "cute". If "cute" is enough for you to justify a couple of hours, then more power to you. Otherwise, don't lose any sleep over missing this one.

So why didn't they just make a "normal budget" movie with grown-up cameras? I later learned that the low budget was the film's primary selling point to the studios in the first place. Apparently the filmmakers basically approached the studio and said, "we can make a great horror movie for $X". To which the studio said, "Rock on!". Which they did.

And in that context, "Cloverfield" is nothing less than a spectacular success. However, personally, I'd rather have seen these talented filmmakers given a bit more cash to play with. The film does wind up feeling like a bit of a tease at times, as it's clearly lacking a lot of the big, impressive shots that we want to see.

Plus, I have to deduct some points for the ridiculous decisions some of these characters make. I know that's par for the course in a horror flick, but come on. It's not impossible to make a horror movie that's smart too. A little bit more effort in the script would have gone a long way. But anyway...

There you have it. The final choice, as always, is yours to make. I say check it out.

Here Sammo plays a criminal ne'erdowell who talks policeman Jackie into helping him smuggle a shipment of arms away from both a corrupt police force and a gang of bad guys. Yuen Biao plays a rival police officer who always seems to butt heads with Jackie, but eventually concedes that they are on the same team.

There are some truly classic action sequences here, primarily Chan-centric ones (which is, of course, to be expected). Of particular note is the bicycle chase/fight, and Chan's death-defying fall from a clock tower (a stunt which nearly cost him his life).

But this really brings me back to my original point. Though Chan's high-flying and boundary-breaking stunts often proved to be the most memorable aspects of his films from this era, they are often more noteworthy for their blatant dangerousness than for their contribution to the film as a whole. And in that context, Sammo, as second-banana, comes to the fore in this film as well as most of his others, with a solid, "meat-and-potatoes" performance that's just plain fun to watch--whether he's defying death, defying a mahjong table, or simply defying a healthy diet.

The film's strongest point is its star, Ken Watanabe, whose portrayal is at times wincingly effective. The scene in which he collapses into a shrill, squealing breakdown in front of his wife was agonizing--in a "good" way. I totally bought him as the character he was playing. (On a selfish note, I did miss seeing him perform in English with a Japanese accent, since he has one of the coolest Japanese accents of all time. But that's my issue, not the film's...) Overall, a job very well done for Watanabe.

The film's primary drawbacks--aside from the painful subject matter, which may or may not be a drawback to you depending on your level of masochism--are twofold. First, the story, while compelling, felt too simple to fill out a 2-hour movie. There's not much to it aside from the protagonist's disintegration and its effect on his loved ones and colleagues. As a result, the second issue I had was that the establishing portion of the film (let's say, the first hour) felt repetitive. We keep witnessing Watanabe's lapses in memory and his resulting disorientation, over and over. You can only see this happen so many times before it gets irritating. It's one of those instances where the director should have opted to imply and summarize rather than explicitly show each single event to the audience.

The bottom line is that this is a very good film if you view it as a "tour de force performance" or as a "moving story". But as a film on the whole, it does have some flaws, primarily its tendency to overstate through repetition. But I say it's well worth a watch for anyone.

Reviews so far seem to be divided into two camps: "zero stars" or "five stars". It is my suspicion that the "zero stars" reviewers went into this film expecting a "straight" action film, and as such were insulted by what could easily be misconstrued as an illogical, mindless procession of action insanity. The "five star" critics, on the other hand, may have instead allowed the movie to define itself, as it most brazenly does, as one of the best dark comedy satires ever made.

The general premise is that Clive Owen plays some type of nearly invincible modern-day gunslinger. He accidentally gets sucked into an overly elaborate plot between an endless supply of bad guys (headed by an unexpectedly-cast Paul Giamatti) and a newborn baby whom they want to kill, having already offed its mother. Clive must now protect the baby--with the help of a prostitute (Monica Bellucci) who conveniently specializes in lactation fetishes--and himself from the constant barrage of baddies and their bullets.

But the plot is really irrelevant.

Things start within the first few minutes, when Owen begins a massive gun battle with dozens of bad guys--WHILE DELIVERING THE BABY. After it's born, he "cuts" the umbilical cord by shooting through it. If you can't see the crystal clear humor in this ludicrous sequence of events, then this movie is not for you. If you can, then you're in for a treat; because this movie has it in spades. What ensues is basically 90 minutes of Clive Owen performing ridiculously impossible feats via some of the most hilarious, fun, and exciting action sequences ever filmed. It's a rollercoaster ride that you will never forget. And even if you're just in it for the action, you'll be pleasantly surprised to see that it more than gives the best output of John Woo a run for its money.

Writer/director Michael Davis has redefined both the comedy and action genres here, with a prodigious flair for--well, seemingly everything. We can't wait to see what he does next.

The basic story is that a very small group of diabolical computer hacker geniuses decide to bring the entire country to its knees by shutting down pretty much everything--yes, everything. Using their laptop. Their powers seemingly know no bounds--except when it becomes inconvenient for the story--and the big, stupid government is impotent against them. Enter New York detective John McClane (Bruce Willis), the one man in the country--the world?--physically able to survive their gauntlet and stop them. Also enter an oh-so-witty young computer hacker who is apparently the one man in the country--the world?--mentally able to outsmart them via his own computational inclinations. What are the odds that these two would wind up together? 100%. And so the two must track down the bad guys and put a stop to this madness all on their own with no help from anyone (almost).

Thankfully, in addition to that mega-powerful laptop, the bad guys have a couple martial arts prodigies on their team (of course). This provides an excuse for some really awesome fights, featuring the amazing Cyril Raffaelli ("B13"), and the ever-popular Maggie Q. But Bruce Willis is no slouch either. Despite a complete lack of formal martial arts training, his character seems able to hold his own against these two. I should note that he also fares quite well against several non-human foes, such as a fighter jet and a helicopter (in what is probably the single coolest helicopter destruction in cinema history).

All of the action sequences, however implausible, are phenomenal. My typical thought-process trajectory during an action sequence in this film went something like this:

1. This movie is retarded
2. Oh come on, they wouldn't actually...
3. Oh shit, they're actually going to...
4. Oh my god, that was the best [X] I've ever...
5. This movie is BRILLIANT!

Now, before I get ahead of myself here, I should qualify some of these comments... In addition to being one of the best action movies ever made, this is also one of the stupidest. Bruce Willis's John McClane has surpassed "superhuman" and proceeded ridiculously into "superhero". The bad guys laughably use a mobile laptop to effectively shut down the entire country in a matter of minutes. A baddie gets rammed straight into a concrete wall by an SUV at full speed, then survives to put up an acrobatic fight. And the entire plot disintegrates when we discover that the sole motivation behind the terrorist attack is money--which they can't just get electronically using their super computer wizard powers? But it seems that the filmmakers made a conscious decision to overlook these issues--and MANY more--with a little wink to the audience to let them know it was intentional. They decided to film a Wile E. Coyote cartoon rather than a logical progression of events. And the result is so blatantly over-the-top, so undeniably fun, that you won't stop grinning guiltily until the end credits roll.

The story begins with Matsutaro (the excellent Ken Ogata, from Yoji Yamada's "The Hidden Blade" and "Love And Honor") at his late wife's memorial. With an incredibly compact bit of dialog we learn that there is little else but bad blood remaining between him and his daughter, and that he is moving out of his home to places unknown. Thus we follow his move to a run-down, shabby apartment building where we can't help but wonder if anything other than solitude and regret await him in the final phase of his life.

Immediately upon moving in, he discovers that his neighbors--a woman, a man, and a child--have some very serious problems. The woman appears to be more or less a strung-out prostitute; the man her unemployed junkie boyfriend; and the child an odd, withdrawn, and dirty little girl who always has a pair of homemade angel's wings on her back. It is quickly revealed to Matsutaro that the girl is living in a horribly neglectful and abusive situation, and that her immediate future includes the potential for all manner of horrific fates including sexual molestation and even murder.

After a particularly creepy bit of molestation at the hands of her mother's boyfriend, the little girl's cries stir Matsutaro into action, and he effectively kidnaps the young girl with the dual intention of showing her a better life and making up for his own regretful and abusive past. The two set off together on unsure footing on a journey with no definite destination, only a definite origin from which they both wish to escape.

The girl, who thinks her name is "Brat" after being referred to as such for so long, bears the physical and emotional scars of a chronically abused child--screaming whenever she is touched, her little body covered in bruises and scrapes. It is this portion of the film that is perhaps the hardest to watch, as we see the debilitating consequences such a horrific life can have on such an innocent being. Nonetheless, through patience and caring, the two slowly develop a trust as they travel together. It eventually becomes clear that their idyllic journey is destined to be cut short when the police become involved at the inexplicable behest of the child's despicable mother.

This very touching story features beautiful cinematography, and a lovely simple score that emphasizes the purity and simplicity of these two characters' desires. The quiet longing of the old man and the young girl for healthy human interaction, despite pasts that have taught them that they will never find it, is what moves this film forward; and the filmmakers leave a good deal of ambiguity in the characters' motivations and fates, which audiences may either appreciate or resent depending on their expectations.

There are several films with similar story points--a crusted-over adult teaming up, either willingly or otherwise, with an abandoned or troubled young child. This one, along with the 1998 Brazilian film "Central Station", top my list. Other films to consider along these lines include the fantastic 2003 French film "Monsieur Ibrahim", with an amazing performance by the great Omar Sharif; and perhaps 2001's "Mostly Martha", which I didn't enjoy so much but is widely held in high regard.

The film's most elaborate and well-choreographed fights take place in the ring, where the prison's inmates square off against each other in illegal fights set up by the Russian mafia. These are really the centerpieces of the film, and Scott Adkins--who plays the super-super-evil antagonist Uli Boyka--is phenomenally talented at this type of screen fighting. However, this is also one of the film's shortcomings, since we basically see one fighting style over and over again.

There are several other fight scenes that take place throughout the prison, as our hero (Michael Jai White) is forced to defend himself against Boyka's gang. These are mostly brief and therefore not very noteworthy.

We won't go into the many suspensions of disbelief that this film expects its audience to perform. Suffice it to say that the film's logic is shaky at best. But if you're just here to see some action, and you're a fan of "in the ring" kickboxing (and you don't mind waiting for it to come in spurts), this one should satisfy nicely.

After about 30 minutes, director/fight choreographer Koichi Sakamoto and his Alpha Stunts team kindly relieve you of your despair with a nice action sequence that is so enjoyable that it actually redeems the previous 30 minutes. Yes, even the action is low budget--you can see padding and mats where the stuntmen fall, you can see wires from time to time, you can see a boom mike or a crew member just at the edge of the frame--but that doesn't matter, because the action is still so far beyond your run of the mill action flick that you can't help but enjoy it. These guys are some of the best in the business, and it's just plain fun to watch them work.

Yes, there's bad acting from two guys whose biggest previous credit was "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie". Yes, there's horrible ADR. Yes, the video quality is total crap. But still, you can't get Koichi Sakamoto stunts anywhere but from Koichi Sakamoto himself. And if the guy isn't as well-funded as some of his inferior contemporaries, I'm more than willing to cut him some slack in exchange for a stellar bunch of fight scenes. And on that front, "Extreme Heist" delivers.

It does seem unlikely that people living in that era would have questioned the restrictions imposed on them to this degree; but the director's application of a somewhat modern perspective to the plight of lower caste samurai and citizens of mid-19th century Japan makes for a very compelling story. Highly recommended.

Regardess, it's terrific to see footage of legendary real-world fighters like Benny "The Jet" Urquidez in the ring--jeez that guy's vicious--and respected martial arts instructors demonstrating their techniques and theories for you in person rather than just explaining them. All in all, this was a captivating and highly informative watch.

"Shaolin Wooden Men" is more or less in the vein of some of our favorite Shaw Brothers movies, with some fun kitschy gimmicks to make it original--like the awesome (but, let's face it, ridiculous) automated wooden fighters of the film's title. All in all, a very fun flick, which should absolutely fit the bill for old school fans. Just don't come in here expecting "Police Story" or something, because this is a different Jackie Chan.

Maybe because the convoluted, self-absorbed nonsense that's unfolding on the screen can always be accurately predicted to continue to be convoluted and self-absorbed.

The end result is that this is simply a 2-hour long masturbation session by one-hit-wonder Guy Ritchie, whose "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" was a real treat; but whose subsequent films have been nothing more than self-congratulatory "look what I can do" marathons, with disorienting and needless camera effects that serve no purpose other than to draw attention away from the story and to themselves--away from the characters and to the director.

And, just as an aside, could Jason Statham stop? Please. Just fucking stop. The grumbling, unintelligible dialog thing has gotten old now. Speak the fuck up and enunciate, or shut up.

Jackie Chan (in a very, very small part) is supposed to be a Japanese racer, even though he's Chinese and speaks (unsubtitled) Cantonese throughout the film...? And every time he appears on screen, a clichéd little "generic Oriental music" cue is played. Why didn't they subtitle his lines? Presumably because they didn't even consider him worth understanding. They obviously didn't care what nationality he was, or what language he was speaking. He's just there as "the zany Oriental guy". Cannonball Run is both a low point in American filmmaking and a fairly disturbing bit of social commentary on mainstream America's views of Asians at the time.

If you're looking for an incredibly slow-paced film with every single one of America's worst TV and B-movie actors and celebs from the 1980s, then this film is right up your alley. If you think all Asian people look and sound the same and aren't worth understanding anyway, then by all means, check this one out. But if you're expecting a funny film with lots of action and cool cars, the Cannonball Run will bring your evening to a screeching halt far short of the finish line.

In the near future, after World War 3, society has apparently decided that, in order to avoid future wars, everyone will inject themselves with this emotion-suppressing drug every day. Not only that, but all artifacts that contain emotional content (all art, music, poetry, etc.) are destroyed by the Tetragramaton, the special police force assembled to keep order in the numb new world. When one of their elite officers misses a dose of his drug, he starts having feelings and sympathizing with the rebels.

There's more to the story, but let's just start picking this thing apart with what we already know.

1. All of society has opted to inject themselves with an emotion-suppressing drug daily in order to perpetuate this new lobotomized utopia. NOT. Even in the film itself, one of the "underground resistance" members explains that if they cut off the supply of the drug for even a day there would be a major revolution. Which begs the question, wouldn't people be missing doses or going off the drug entirely ALL THE TIME? Clearly, if the drug has to be INJECTED DAILY and causes woefully undesirable results, you're going to have a massive domino effect of people going off the drug constantly. However, that issue is ignored entirely.

2. While people are on the drug, they are essentially emotionless. No grief, no anger, no ambition, no love. Clearly this is a hypothetical situation posed by the writers: "we could avoid conflict by lobotomizing ourselves, but then we wouldn't be human", but even so it falls flat. Because no one wants this hypothetical future, and furthermore the effects of this drug on society are so ill-defined that it literally makes no sense. If people were stripped of all emotion somehow, they would not act like the characters in this film. Each character has a certain robot-like quality on the surface, but each character is also clearly experiencing a wide range of emotions and acting on them. Each over-zealous police officer that goes beyond the call of duty, each time Taye Diggs is on screen gloating something or other over his partner with that goofy shit-eating grin, each time ANYONE DOES ANYTHING more than what was exactly asked of them by the government...all of these things are the result of the very emotions of which they are supposedly devoid.

3. Another sore point is the film's definition of illegal material, such as paintings, poetry, music, "old timey" furnishings and knickknacks... Those aren't things you can define and rule illegal, because those things are an inevitable side-effect of a human existence. Even in the drugged "emotionless" world, their culture still contains heavily stylized architecture, clothes, cars, weapons... But wait, these things are supposed to be illegal now, people aren't supposed to be able to have the emotions necessary to create these things. But wait, somehow they did. How is this possible? Shouldn't all of these things have been designed using arbitrary design decisions that result in the most efficient production costs and methods and end uses? Yet they clearly were not, as all the police wear leather dusters and drive Cadillacs.

Aside from all these holes and inconsistencies, aside from the fact that this whole film feels like some kind of simplified morality tale for a third grade special education class (fascism = bad, freedom = good, you = stupid), and even aside from the fact that the basic premise of the film (the hero "waking up") is a complete rip-off of so many other movies (most notably and most recently "The Matrix")...aside from all of that, the film is SO BORING AND SLOW that you'll just be sitting there drooling on yourself waiting for the action scenes. And when they arrive, you'll probably continue waiting for them because you might not even notice that they happened.

The action scenes are odd, derivative, short, and uncompelling. The basic idea is that all these police officers have trained in some kind of bizarre method of gun fighting whereby the shooter stands in the middle of a group of enemies and kind of bends and ducks and turns around IN ANTICIPATION OF where the enemies will fire, then shoots them all, and doesn't get hit himself. If you buy this for even a second, you deserve to have to watch it. This is so preposterous and ridiculous to watch that you'll find yourself wondering exactly how stupid the filmmakers thought their audience was. Mix in some "Matrixey" electric-guitar-with-hip-hop-inspired-drums action music and you've got yourself some of the most derivative and boring action sequences of all time.

The most fun part for us was finding ways to make fun of the film. Because sitting in silence watching it is just too depressing. Every time a character says "Tetragramaton", try to find something else to replace that word, like "Chlor-Trimeton" or "Decepticon", or "Super Famicom". Get interactive, scream some smack at the screen. You'll feel better.

But let's not waste any more time on this snoozer. If you're looking for futuristic action or a "the hero wakes up" type of story, just see "The Matrix". If you're looking for a highly intelligent morality tale about a not-so-unbelievable future humanity, see "Gattaca". Do not buy this film, do not rent this film, do not think about this film. If we all just look away and try to clear our minds, maybe we can pretend blissfully that it just never happened.

THE REAL STORY:
There's a serial killer on the loose (played by Darren Shahlavi). He's knocking off the world's martial arts champions one by one in a series of death-matches. In fact, he's not so much a serial killer as he is a severely disturbed martial arts champ who's just too good to lose a fight. Detective Chuck Baker (played by Chuck Jeffreys, whose credits include characters such as "Mugger", "Bad Guy", "Dark Cloud", and "Thug") is in charge of catching this elusive killer, but is getting nowhere fast. His boss is Chief Hutchins, AKA "Ranting And Raving Police Chief Cliché Number 1" (played by aging Frank Gorshin, who was the original "Riddler" in the Batman TV series). It seems that Chief Hutchins is unhappy with Chuck's progress in this case, so he decides to call in an old friend (who's actually not old at all, but is retired nonetheless) to help--ex-cop Ken O'Hara (played by kickboxing and karate champ Gary Daniels). It is alluded to that Ken is a "mind hunter", some kind of intuitive genius detective--a la "Manhunter" or "Red Dragon"--but they VERY quickly drop that idea when Chuck asks the Chief what a "mind hunter" is and the Chief just kind of shrugs and says "I don't know...".

Under direct orders, Chuck goes to Ken's house to ask for his help, and Ken does the whole "I don't do this kind of work anymore, I'm retired, I just can't deal with all this aggravation any more" shtick. Chuck pulls the old "Fine then, be that way you big stupid, I didn't want your stupid help anyway, stupid" and then leaves. Things are left this way until the killer strikes again, this time taking out Ken's wise old Japanese martial arts instructor, and now Ken's pissed and wants revenge. Ken comes into the police station and says "I'm in". Now we proceed quickly to another cliché, when Chuck starts up on the "Fine, you can pretend to help with the investigation, but just stay out of my way you stupid worthless pile of stupid jerk stupid head". Of course, after they begin working together on the case, they slowly come around and learn how to love, bla bla bla, which is good, because that's when we can get on to the martial arts.

THE REAL FIGHTS:
Within the first ten minutes of the film, it was apparent to us that this wasn't just another b-grade action flick with lots of slow, muscle-bound guys punching and throwing tables and chairs. The film starts out with a nice fight sequence as the killer takes down his first champion opponent. You'll notice that the acting sucks, you'll notice that the sets look fake, you'll see wires and boom mics in the top of the frame, and you'll notice the dialog is so full of clichés that you could probably recite the actors' lines right along with them. But, what you'll also notice is that someone actually choreographed these fights, choreographed them with some real style, and took the time to get good physical performances out of the fighters. All the bad sets and dialog quickly fade to the background as the fights come to the fore. This is about the time you should start thinking back to the credits, and remember...Produced by Ng See Yuen and Keith Vitali, Directed by Tony Leung Siu Hung...ah yes, this all makes sense now. This film is pretty closely related to some of the classic Jackie Chan flix. And by the time the first fight's over, you'll be hooked, anxious to see what other tricks this film is gonna' pull out of its hat.

The story plods along, and a lame sub-plot is revealed where we explore Ken's failing marriage and neglected family. And we could easily have done without the fat pervy computer geek who watches poor-white-trash stripshows on his computer and pisses into a thermos so he doesn't have to leave his chair when he pulls "all-nighters"... But the thing is, you're actually starting to LIKE these actors by this point, despite their bad acting and horrible dialog, because you've seen what they can really do. For every bad joke or sappy sentimental moment, there are two moments where the guy totally kicks someone's ass. And so, as the two mis-matched cops learn to love each other, we the audience learn to love them as well. And once you've learned to love, well, you've learned to live. And once you've learned to live, well, once you've learned to live it's just about time for the final showdown with The Killer, which is a real blast (horrible pun intended).

In short, this film is just a series of feeble excuses to progress from one fight scene to the next, and we're more than happy with that. Check your brain at the door, get yourself an economy size bag of popcorn, and get ready for some extremely fun, low budget, made in the USA action!