Reviews

I write this with confidence. Back in the 1970's a big budget film "flopped". The critics panned it. The director was mocked for spending too much time and money on a movie about a subject that America was no longer interested in, the Vietnam War. The film? "Apocalypse Now." Where is "Apocalypse Now" now? In the list of all time classic films, where it belonged from the moment it was released. Where are the reviewers who panned it? Some of them are probably writing scathing reviews about "47 Ronin" at this very moment, because they just don't "get" "47 Ronin" the way that they did not "get" "Apocalypse Now." What Roland Barthes called "Blind and dumb criticism"..."I do not understand (your art), therefore you are a fool." If you want to get your money's worth, you are going to have to do a little homework before you see "47 Ronin." Nothing tough. Just go on line and read the back story. No, it will not be a spoiler. Every Japanese person knows the story. The film's producers assume that you know the story. Imagine going to see a movie about King Arthur if you know nothing about King Arthur. I can not even imagine what it would be like to see "47 Ronin" if you did not already know the story---however, I suspect that your reaction would be something like "Huh? This didn't make any sense. I couldn't follow the story. I don't understand the characters' motivation. The ending was unexpected." If you really want to "get" it, make sure that you have at least a basic understanding of Japanese history and culture, and (especially) Buddhism. Every oriental martial arts movie you will ever see is a Buddhist parable. If you do not know the meaning of the phrase "attachment is the root of all suffering" and if you do not understand that dualism is the ultimate evil, you are going to wind up confused.

Now the spoilers. If you have read the back story, you know that Keanu Reeves' character is not the hero. The hero is Oishi, who must avenge his master. If you watch the movie thinking that Kai is the hero, you are going to be confused and disappointed. Second, if you forget that this is a Buddhist parable, then you are going to be mighty confused when Kai breaks his vow and uses tengu magic. In a western, dualistic film, breaking your solemn vow to yourself is a sign of weakness and usually merits a speedy death. If you are a Buddhist, embracing the darkness--the thing you fear the most---is a necessary step towards enlightenment. The 47 Ronin of the title embrace their "ronin-ness"--the fact that they are outcast, outlaws and break the Shogun's law in order to do the right thing. Zen Buddhism is very important in Japan, because it allows people who have an almost obsessive compulsion to follow the law no matter how inappropriate it is a chance to step outside the box from time to time in order to do something that needs to be done. That is why the story of the 47 Ronin speaks to the people of Japan. These are men who did all the wrong things for the right reason---and their society rewarded them for it. Yes, suicide in this case is a reward. Remember that "death" at the end of an oriental film does not mean you lose. If you die without fear, then you achieved enlightenment in your life.

I found the movie enjoyable on a visceral level, too. It made me cry, which few films do. The art was spectacular. The supernatural elements, especially the Tengu Forest were wonderful. My only complaint is I would have preferred to have the Japanese actors speak Japanese---I think requiring them to speak English handicapped them a bit.

One of my favorite films. Laugh out loud funny---and disturbing at the same time. That is a hard combination to pull off. The secret are the two lead actors who play the title roles. They are so funny and so talented and they play off each other so well that if this was a slice of life film where nothing much happens it would still be worth watching. But this is not slice of life. This is a carefully constructed mystery which questions the nature of reality and personality and memory. And it stands the test of time. I first saw it in the mid 1970s. I watched it again last night. It was great both times and every time in between.

I am surprised that there are so few reviews for this movie considering the fact that so many directors have copied it. Case in point, Mulholland Drive which has over a 1000 reviews. How can an "homage to" movie get so many more reviews than the source material? Especially when the source material is so good!

The most important question for anyone trying to decide whether or not to see this film in the theaters is "Is it more like Pitch Black or the fluffy sequel?" Happy to say, it is more like Pitch Black. That isn't a spoiler, is it? I don't think so. If you have seen the previews or read the newspaper reviews, you have already figured that out for yourself. Glad to see the franchise getting back to its roots.

Now, about Diesel's voice. It is amazing. Seriously the most amazing voice since Orson Welles. I usually hate voice over narration, (think Harrison Ford ruining "Blade Runner" or Tom Hanks going on about a "box of chocolates") but in this one it worked. It worked so well, that as I watched the movie, I began putting together a sci-fi version of "Heart of Darkness" in my head. Welles was always supposed to do Kurtz but never got around to it. Just set it on an alien world and have Diesel play the conqueror-gone-native that you don't get to see for the first half of the film so by the time he shows up he had better be something special a la Orson Welles in "The Third Man".

Don't get me wrong. I love the whole Alien/Aliens feel of this film, with Riddick as the Alien/Aliens (who will he leave alive?). But if I had been completely engrossed in the movie, I would not have had the time to pitch another film idea to myself, now would I?

The reviewers who say that this movie does not have a story, are absolutely correct. This is essentially an opera disguised as a movie. Absolutely beautiful to watch, perfect editing, music, costumes, set. However, if you are not familiar with the subject matter, you may find it difficult to get emotionally involved.

My suggestion: before you watch this film, watch "Ip Man" a wonderful movie that covers the events that take place before "The Grandmaster" and which develops the character of Ip Man, Bruce Lee's master, so that you feel that you know him, the way we all "know" Robin Hood or King Arthur or any other western cult hero.

Then, when you see "The Grandmaster" you will be so familiar with Ip Man's myth that you will not need any exposition or plot or story in order to enjoy what is probably one of the most beautiful films that I have seen in years. Breathtaking does not do it justice. I was riveted. If I close my eyes, I can still picture some of the more memorable images.

Sometimes, getting stuck into the wrong genre can kill a film. If you watch this one expecting to see a horror flick, you will be so disappointed by the end that you will want your 90 minutes back.

First, the bad. In the early parts of the movie, everyone (including the director who should know better) say their lines as if they are on a stage rather than inside your television. Everyone, that is, except for the delightful girl playing the violin. I just love her. I suspect that the "we are taking part in a stage play" acting/cinematography was deliberate, since you could make an intellectual argument that it feeds into the theme of empty people trying to fill their lives with art. However, intellectual concepts about art do not always make good art. I recommend that anyone making a movie pay careful attention in the editing room. If it does not look good there, it won't look good in the finished project, no matter how brilliant the director/star's mental footnotes.

Now, onto the fun parts. If you do not get to see Angel from Buffy dressed in women's underwear, wrapped in Christmas lights, strapped to a chair being tormented by Alan Cummings, you have missed one of life's joys---much like Honey Badger as in "Honey Badger don't give a s**t." Sometimes, poor taste is what we need to slap us awake and make us pay attention. This scene is character John Vandermark's masterpiece. It is low brow, silly, horrifying, ohmygodIcantbelievehedidthat art, but it is art. And John is rewarded with fame, riches and the undivided attention of the object of his love returned from the grave as a ghost. Too bad he is now a hollow shell of a man (literally) by movie's end.

Best lines in the movie. Girl playing violin asks what that smell is. John replies that it is "passion". She counters that it's not, it smells like her dead hamster.

John Waters understands that sometimes art smells like a dead hamster.

Four Academy Awards? Or was that five? And a nomination for Best Director? Did I watch the same film the critics watched? The "Hugo" which I saw had 1) bad acting 2) inappropriate music 3) plot holes big enough to drive a semi through.

Yes, the cinematography was lovely. The editing was competent. The lighting/color/ costumes created a steam punk paradise. However, the lead actor was so bad that I found myself cheering on the train. Most of the male actors (with the exception of Christopher Lee and Jude Law) appeared to have been coached by someone with Asperger's. What on earth was Ray Winstone doing in this movie? For that matter, what kind of drug did they feed Ben Kingsley? Here is a suggestion for those who are thinking about watching "Hugo." Watch "Sexy Beast" instead.

About halfway through the movie I considered turning down the volume and watching it as a silent film. That is how bad the Howard Shore score was. No, the music itself was not bad. It was the way the music was used to create dramatic tension thick enough to choke a bull moose--when the action on the screen called for something light, whimsical, comedic. Note to the director. If you are going to use solemn, ominous, LOUD music, you need to be prepared to deliver a punch line that is solemn and ominous.

And then there is the Joseph Campbell problem. As in if the screenwriters had read their Joseph Campbell, they would have done a better job of creating an epic fantasy, which is what I think this wanted to be (based upon the Howard Shore score). Basically, this story is the Fisher King---except Kingsley's motivation is all wrong. (Here comes the spoiler). The Fisher King becomes ill, because his kingdom is ill. Kingsley throws away his art and career and every shred of humanity he possesses---because the critics no longer like his work???? Where was the extended footage of the horrors of WWI---mustard gas and trench warfare? Where was the son killed in battle? THAT is Fisher King material. I guess Scorsese did not want to scare the kids. Except, if he did not want to scare them, why the scary soundtrack? Make up your mind, please.

By film's end, I found myself indulging in a fantasy of my own. What would the movie have been like if someone who actually knows how to do dark children's fantasy, like Tim Burton had directed it? Three stars for being absolutely lovely to watch. Now I am going to go watch "Sexy Beast" so I can remind myself what good acting is.