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.

First of all, it is directed by and stars Wong Jing, hardly a hallmark of quality kung fu films. Second, it has a funky sci-fi story element, and stars a funky little kid. Third, Jackie Chan is not in it.

What it does have going for it is action choreography by Tony Leung Siu-Hung, whose stock in trade seems to be turning out quality fight choreography without ever getting much credit for it. Here he action-directs a mix of martial artists and non-martial artists, with impressive results. Andy Lau, not particularly renowned for his martial arts prowess, really shines here as a nearly invincible kung fu machine, holding his own alongside the likes of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The choreography is innovative and fun, and the falls look agonizingly painful--pretty much all you could ask for.

I won't go much into the downsides of the film, as they are many, involving bad comedy (thanks, Wong Jing and Nat Chan), and that bizarre little kid playing with his magic crystal. In fact, the crystal is even more annoying than the kid--quite a feat.

Bottom line: you need to watch this film, and simply tune out the bad parts, because the good parts really shine. It's a safe bet that you'll be very impressed by the fight sequences here.

But don't let my crotchety critical opinion prevent you from watching this doc, since it is truly fascinating and, yes, emotional. All the good stuff is here, it's just in disproportion to Lisa Ling's screen time. Oh, and the CLASSIC part of this film is towards the end, when one of the the American fathers asks Lisa Ling in the airport, "So, when's the next 'Charlie's Angels' coming out?", clearly mistaking her for Lucy Liu (whom she does closely resemble). For me, that only drove home the point that Lisa Ling is not really anyone of consequence to the general public, and certainly not someone who should have been the focus of such a potentially amazing documentary.

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.

It is one of those films that's hard to discuss in depth without revealing things that are best left unrevealed until viewing. But suffice it to say that the film succeeds in basically every arena despite some subject matter that could have been lifted straight out of a soap opera--and not a great soap opera either.

The direction is respectful and makes excellent use of the beautiful seaside landscapes. The acting is especially effective through its restraint, getting across the inner longing of these damaged characters. And the story--though perhaps a bit bloated with certain characters and events that could have been cut out to tighten things--works powerfully on a basic level. This is a kid trying to find a parent (aren't all of us, after all?), but neither he nor his parent figure knows quite what to do with each other despite knowing that they each possess some missing piece of the other person's life puzzle.

Aside from the primary two characters--the teenaged boy and his would-be mother--there are several other key players, some more realistically drawn than others. The "evil stepdaughter and her evil father" were far too evil for no real reason, bordering on the cartoonish. The boy's troubled female friend has a tragic secret, but perhaps takes away too much screen time from the primary story to reveal it. On the other hand, the wacky, disco-dancing bar-maid friend brings an impressive amount of vivacity and realness to her fun-loving but sincerely caring character with very little screen time.

This is a cast of characters that are all fascinating and do hold your interest. It all makes for compelling viewing, and is definitely recommended.

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.