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.

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.

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.

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.