For example, most people would agree that Asians in general are under-represented in American cinema--meaning, they simply don't appear in many films at all, regardless of positive or negative roles. But the possible explanations for this are myriad. Perhaps there are cultural issues that discourage Asians from pursuing serious careers in the dramatic arts. Perhaps there are cultural issues that prevent Asians from performing in a manner that appeals the mainstream America--one interviewee suggests that there's not a lack of Asian actors, but a lack of TALENTED Asian actors. Or perhaps mainstream America simply has some deep-seated discriminatory feelings towards Asians, prompting filmmakers to cast non-Asians in their films--meaning, maybe casting Asians in films makes the films less profitable.

In the panel discussion segment (on the US DVD), a representative from the Screen Actors' Guild explains that in fact all ethnicities are represented in ratios that correlate to their percentage of the total pool of actors. For example, Asian actors make up approximately 2% of SAG, and they get approximately 2% of the acting work in Hollywood. Latinos make up about 4% and get about 4% of the work. Etc. This would seem less to indicate an industry-wide conspiracy to avoid Asians as it would a cultural issue that's keeping Asians from pursuing acting careers in the first place. Or is it discimination that keeps Asians from getting their SAG cards? These are issues on which I'm no authority, but they sure seem worth investigating further if you're going to imply widespread racism in the entire industry. But this information was nowhere to be found in the film proper, it was only in the DVD special features.

The possible explanations for the Asianlessness of Hollywood are many but none are properly addressed. Rather than painting a picture of what seems to be a bigger problem, the filmmakers focus instead on the opinions of a few individuals who mostly prefer to say simply that Hollywood doesn't want Asians. And maybe that's 100% true, but a bit more context would surely have helped either way.

What this film does well is to provide some historical information on the rise and fall of the Asian leading man, fascinating interviews with several generations of Asian actors, and several very moving personal testaments as to what it's like to be an Asian actor in Hollywood. If you're not looking for "fair and balanced", this documentary is fantastic. I was, and I felt let down by the overall lack of context and counterpoint.

Another priceless bit of footage involves a man who was previously a North Korean border guard, who was essentially forced to escape to South Korea in order to save his own life. He goes into great detail about his escape, but clams up and becomes teary-eyed suddenly when asked if he ever thinks about the repercussions on his friends and family after his escape (we learn later that it would be common practice in North Korea for them to be tortured and/or killed).

Where this film differs most from previous documentaries like "A State Of Mind" is that its footage was obtained in an underhanded, sneaky manner. The journalist here, Lisa Ling, apparently posed as part of a small film crew that was accompanying a group of Indian doctors who had obtained permission to travel to North Korea to perform as many as 1000 surgeries in approximately one week to cure the country's many blind people. Apparently an insufficient/poor diet can lead to this type of blindness, which can very easily be cured by swapping out the patient's damaged, clouded lens with a new artificial lens--a process which surprisingly takes only minutes. This medical team gets a big star from us for performing this free service, which North Korea otherwise could not afford to provide its people. But the journalist here, Lisa Ling, uses this mostly as an excuse to "sneak" herself and her camera crew into the country, where they begin to film without permission before they even land at the airport.

The footage they get is fascinating (any footage of North Korea would be), but what is worrisome is the fact that they went on to broadcast this documentary worldwide and release it on DVD, as if to rub North Korea's face in it. Rather than go through the proper channels and gain permission to film in North Korea (which, granted, may well have been impossible), they came in under false pretenses and grabbed footage where they could, burning their bridges every step of the way. One can't help but wonder what implications this myopic action will have on future documentarians hoping to film within the country's borders, or whether this will hamper future vital humanitarian aid efforts--or, more worrisome yet, what implications this will have for the film crew's government-appointed escorts, who may be held responsible for allowing this deception to occur right under their noses. The North Korean government is, after all, inclined to use torture and murder to punish those who have failed in their duties. Was the documentary footage obtained really worth these possible repercussions? Hell no. We would have been more than happy solely with "approved" footage. "A State Of Mind" pulled it off beautifully, why couldn't these people?

Another big turn-off about this film was its curt dismissal of the previous documentary "A State Of Mind". Lisa Ling essentially implies that it was unimportant since it showed only what North Korea wanted to show. We couldn't disagree more, and we found that documentary to be far more interesting and well-made than this one.

Lastly, this documentary ends abruptly, as if the filmmakers literally just ran out of money and time at the last minute. Who knows why they opted to end their film in such an amateurish manner, but they did, and it is a particularly uncomfortable way to end the viewing experience, when there are so many serious issues that would have benefited from at least a brief summarization.

Despite its drawbacks, however, the documentary does provide footage from Inside North Korea, as promised. And whether the footage was shot with or without permission, that is in itself well worth viewing. We recommend that you do just that if you have the chance.

This movie is unique in that the story's protagonist, in many ways, wasn't the focus of the film. In the end, the film was as much about the people around him, and the changes that happened in the wake of his life, as it was about his life itself. In this sense, the film is allowed to broaden its scope somewhat, to allow various characters to evolve and various peripheral events to unfold, without feeling like it's lacking focus. Consequently, at the end of the film, the viewer feels like he has gone on a journey with an entire town rather than just one man, without sacrificing any of the intimacy of a traditional story's more "focused" structure.

A success on all fronts, "Udon" is yet another example of exceptional Japanese filmmaking--filmmaking with sincerity, humor, insight, technical mastery, and undeniable intelligence--filmmaking that other countries would do well to study. This isn't a film about box office gross, or about appealing to the lowest common denominator. This is a film about a story, about a place, about a cast of appealing characters. Indeed, there are few things in life finer than watching a film that was clearly made by master storytellers who first and foremost just wanted to tell you a tale. And "Udon" delivers just such an experience.

Besides that, the movie was pretty good, and funny. Jackie is a spoiled, lazy rich kid and finds himself accidentally involved in a plot to steal his nation's treasured art. True, the plot is rather thin, but somehow I didn't miss it. There's enough going on that I found this movie very enjoyable.

In terms of martial arts...
A serious martial arts student will be disappointed. There are very few sustained fight scenes. In the finale, all he does it go "aya" and does a frenzied hyena act, finally throwing bags of rice at the opponent. If you're a Jackie fan, and/or want to see some of the unique sporting events described above, you will probably enjoy this film. MARTIAL ARTS RATING 3/5

Perhaps where this film excels is in the "nonsense comedy" department, though the meaning behind many of its colloquialisms are entirely lost in the absurd literal translations (see www.FlubTitles.com for highlights). Our feeling is that the uncomfortable mix of comedy and violence in this film serves to undermine itself in both directions. And, seeing as how neither the comedy nor the action are noteworthy, that's not a good thing.

In the end, though the film has an impressive cast and director, it fails to deliver the goods. We recommend skipping this snoozer and finding yourself either a good comedy or a good action flick rather than this failed attempt at both.

Our favorite examples of director Mina Shum's comedic brilliance include the "karaoke microphone as the hand of God", and the "lazy Susan P.O.V. camera". The irreverent youthful mischief of the younger sister Pearl (Frances You) is also presented in a way that maximizes the humor of her character without exploiting her sincerity. Sandra Oh, as usual, pulls off her comedic scenes with a humanity and a seemingly effortless comic sensibility that comes across with such effectiveness thanks to the three-dimensional character of Jade that she has created. Once Oh creates this empathetic and believable character from her first scene in the film, it serves as an unshakable foundation upon which she can layer nuance upon nuance while never coming across as excessive. Consequently, both her dramatic and her comic scenes are heartfelt and moving.

We've worn out at least one copy of this film on VHS, and have been anxiously awaiting the day that it would be released on DVD. Lord knows why it took so long for this relatively unappreciated gem to finally see the light of day on DVD, but we're very happy to see that day finally arrive. We hope that once you've seen "Double Happiness" for yourself, it will surely find a special place in your collection and in your heart, as it has for us.

PROBLEM #1 - THE ROMANTIC SUB-PLOTS:
So there's this kid, Bond, and he falls in love with his teacher, Kim, and vice versa... And it's supposedly this big scandal because, "Ooh, a teacher seeing a student, ooh!" Only, the teacher is probably even younger than the student, so who cares? Plus, the student is never in class; and when he is, he's asleep; and why is he even going to school (college?) anyway? He wants to be a professional fighter. So anyway, he's in love with his teacher, and also the teacher's male friend/roommate is in love with her, and also her cheating ex-husband claims to be in love with her...but who cares? All we want to see is Bond training and getting better and kicking ass in the fighting ring. Yet we're forced to sit through the most tedious and tiresome courtship of all time instead. If the filmmakers had completely ditched the entire romantic sub-plot, the film would have been much, much stronger.

PROBLEM #2 - THE ACTION DIRECTION:
For a film that's half action and half romance, if the romantic half sucks, the action half better be damn good. Unfortunately, that's not really the case here. All the fighting centers around the "Star Runner" tournament, which is a free-style fighting competition. Fighters are allowed to use any styles they want--even including dry humping on the floor like the real-life, pay-per-view free-style fights we've all seen on TV. (Thankfully, there's no dry humping in this film, but they get close a couple times.) So the fight scenes aren't your typical variety where there's a lot of room to move around, stuff to climb on and jump off of, props to hurl, etc. It's just two guys in a ring just beating the crap out of each other back and forth--sweat flying, faces puffing, eyes sealing, etc. So while it's dramatic, in the way that a boxing movie would be, it's not very exciting or creative. And the direction really hurts the film here, because it cuts every few frames, and it's mostly close-ups so you can't see exactly what's happening or in what sequence. If we wanted to see an American action film, we would have; but you're in Hong Kong, guys, we hold you to a higher standard in the fight direction department.

NON-PROBLEM #1 - OLD SCHOOL ASS-KICKERS:
Here's where the movie redeems itself, or at least approaches doing so. Gordon Liu plays a coach at Bond's training gym, which is a treat. He doesn't do any fighting, but it sure is nice to see him back up on the screen, even in a limited capacity. Then we have David Chiang, another Shaw Bros. master, in another very small but cool role. And finally, we have Ti Lung, as a wing chun master that teaches Bond a kung fu trick or two. Love it. How cool is it to see these guys in a modern movie? Hopefully this is a trend that will continue. Rounding out the ass-kicking portion of the cast are Chin Kar Lok and Max Mok, neither of whom would be considered "old school", but both of whom kick ass and don't seem to get enough play in films these days. Hong Kong filmmakers, if you're listening out there, set these guys free with a camera and a stunt crew some day without entangling them in lame comedy and romance sub-plots and you'll have a real winner on your hands.

So, in conclusion, this film was basically all about the cameos for us. The fight scenes didn't really do much for us, and the romantic story was indescribably irritating. If you're a fan of boxing films, Hong Kong romances, or just badly want to see some of your old school faves, give "Star Runner" a look. But if you hated "The Karate Kid" or can't stomach more than your yearly recommended dosage of sap in one sitting, you should probably just skip it.

In this bizarre film, five seemingly independent stories somehow come together: A man kills and buries his wife only to find her quite alive when he arrives home--over and over again; A salaryman, with a wife and two kids, sees a famous hypnotist only to be permanently turned into a man who thinks he's a chicken; An advertising executive loses it and comes up with some of the most vulgar commercials ever seen; A gang of young criminals find out they have homosexual tendencies; An English assassin (played wonderfully by British soccer player Vinnie Jones) looks for new clients.

Somehow director Gen Sekiguchi, pulls all these stories together with hilarious effect. Sekiguchi isn't even really a film director. This was his first and only effort to-date. His day job is directing commercials for TV. Which is why this all works so perfectly. The visuals in this film are STUNNING. The sets, costumes, and props combine to create surreal scenes. The colors are incredible. Hopefully you'll be watching this on a large TV. The acting is first rate. I found myself looking forward to whenever Vinnie Jones was on screen. His acting was over the top and funny beyond belief.

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.