The Film Thugs Movie Show

So, I'm going to skip the clever images and extensive, exhaustive background here and get right to it.

I saw the new "Karate Kid" tonight, and to be blunt, I think it is far superior to the original. I was flat out opposed to this when I first heard about it, and am willing to admit that I was wrong. Very wrong. There are many people who hold the original up to an unrealistic standard that it outright does not deserve. Yes it is a classic of my childhood and I have many fond memories of it throughout my life. It was not a perfect, or for that matter particularly good movie. If you don't believe me try watching it again divorced from your childhood. If you remove the nostalgia you are left with a fairly mediocre film.

This is not to say that the new one is a masterpiece, but there are SEVERAL flaws in the original film that are corrected in this one. In his rather positive review, Roger Ebert observes, " The original was one of its year's best movies. The new one lacks the perfect freshness of that one; there aren't many surprises, as it follows the 1984 version almost point by point."

I am going to disagree with the "one of its year's best movies," line, but more on that at another time. What I am going with is "it follows the 1984 version almost point by point." What makes this film superior is when and how it deviates from the original. There are some things I have always had a problem with in the original and I am going to discuss each one of them alongside how the remake fixed them.

What happened to dad?

In the original series Daniel's father is not mentioned until almost half way through part two. You don't know if mom is divorced, you don't know if dad died, you don't know if he ran off before Daniel was born, you don't know if he was some magic virgin birth spawned by midi-chlorians. You don't know anything about him. That is a HUGE sticking point for me. How do you not mention dad? He had to go somewhere and what happened to him is going to have a huge impact on how Daniel develops as a character.

In the remake you get one shot, just one, that explains the entire thing with subtle beauty. Before a single line of dialogue is spoken we are given a shot of the door jamb in Dre's room. On it you have lines marking his height at different dates and the respective significant events. It goes from "got first tooth," to, "hit first home run," then abruptly stops at, "dad died." That might seem morbid to list, but it is obvious that this is Dre cataloging his life in the only way he knows how, and when his father dies that suddenly stops because part of his life is over. Before he leaves, he takes a pencil and marks the wall at his height, far above the last mark and writes, "Moved to China," as his last action before leaving the only home he's ever known.

The move.

This is one of my biggest problems with the original. You are given no real reason for the move. Yes, there is mention of a job with "Rocket Computers," but that seems to vanish almost immediately as she becomes a waitress/manager in training for "The Orient Express Restaurant." This makes the move feel less like a character situation and more like a plot device. We don't see anything that Daniel is leaving behind, we don't see any gain to the move, all we do see is a situational necessity that creates a fish out of water scenario which doesn't play very true.

In the new one mom has a job that relocates her. There is a solid, actual reason for it. We not only see the room where Dre spent his life but we also see him saying goodbye to his best friend. This adds weight. Here he is moving for a definite reason that is beyond his control and leaving an actual life behind. His last moments in his room were especially moving for me because I've been in that situation before. When I was 8 my dad was stationed in Panama for 3 years and I had to pack the only room I'd ever known to move to a country where I didn't know anybody, didn't speak the language, and seemed like it was on the other side of the world. I remember sitting in my packed up room and feeling so overwhelmed, and that feeling was captured perfectly in this movie.

Mom

Mrs. LaRusso exists because Daniel needs at least one parent to keep it from being a movie about a homeless kid learning how to stand up to the rich kids who keep him from eating from their dumpsters. She isn't developed beyond, "grinning and optimistic." She might have more going on, but we never see it. With the exception of her making breakfast once and driving her son on the most awkward first date in movie history that doesn't end with Ben Stiller's dick caught in a zipper, she is a non entity in his life. In fact, Daniels entire homelike is left out of it. This makes his character less real. Instead of being someone we can relate to he becomes someone who moves from necessary situation to necessary situation. He is a function of the plot, instead of the plot being a function of his actions.

Dre's mother is an actual, believable parent figure. She takes him to his first day of school, goes out and does things with him, and notices when he is out late with the stranger who is teaching him how to fight. Basically, she serves a purpose.

Fish out of water.

The original was pushing this point. Yeah, moving from New Jersey to California is a culture shock. People have natural tans, it doesn't look like Bosnia, and everything doesn't smell like garlic and sewage. But it's still basically the same culture.

Moving to China, on the other hand. Not only does he not know the language, he doesn't understand the customs, the culture, etiquette, anything. He is literally as far away from everything he knows as he can get.

Daniel/Dre.

The problem with Daniel stems from many of the other problems in the film. He is a stereotypical teenage geek we know very little about. He gets stuck in this situation that has no real gravity (the move), and ends up in a fight with some guy because he doesn't know when to mind his own business and gets in over his head. I want to like him more but the movie gives me no real reason to.

Part of how they fix this is by making Dre much younger and smaller. You feel for him. He is not only a fish out of water, he is a fish out of his depth. He is the new kid who talks to a girl and ends up getting his ass kicked, hard. You feel for the kid because not only is there nothing in his new world he can relate to, there is nothing we can relate to. With him as our only guide we see everything as he does, so his triumphs and defeats hit us especially hard.

The bully/girl situation.

The 80's were an interesting time in American movies. There was this phenomena of the preppy bad guy that was embodied by Bill Zabka. Now, if you read any interview with Zabka he comes off as one of the nicest guys out there. But in the 80's we fell in love with the outsider and Zabka was the antithesis of this. So we get this guy who has money, confidence, and popularity which in the world of the 80's means ASSHOLE before he can even open his mouth to prove or disprove it. In the original we meet Johnny and are immediately programmed to dislike him. They make him pushy and a bit of a jerk, but not some completely evil prick, all we know is that he is the opposite of Daniel and therefore is bad. But really there is no reason to see him as the bad guy. Not because he is a good guy, but because they spend so little time setting him up that you are forced to make assumptions with no grounds.

The girl situation makes me a bit nuts too. We are not given any reason to really think Ally would be attracted to Daniel. During the 80's all you needed was the girl talking to him and that becomes the motivation. You aren't given a reason, it's happening so that is the reason.

The bullies in the remake are hard, mean little bastards who just plain don't like Dre. There is no real reason given, but as he is the foreigner and is talking to a girl who is a close family friend of one of them there is some motivation to be found. This is where the fish out of water strengthens things. He has no idea what is going on and neither do we, all that we know is this guy thinks a line has been crossed. Not only is this guy hyper aggressive, the whole unknown aspect of it makes him the situation that much harder.

Also, the girl is more believable because she is in a very strict culture and is fascinated by the new guy. He is different and doesn't try and force her to be anything, so her interest is easier to buy.

Miyagi/Han

I am not going to disparage Miyagi at all. He is iconic and all that but there are some very big gaps with him. First off, Pat Morita wasn't a martial artist. It is hard to believe that an old man who can barely kick above his knee is an ass kicking machine. There are some interesting avenues that are left unexplored. He is a Medal of Honor winner who lost his family 40 year earlier. This is heartbreaking but they don't really go much further with it. He is more of a sketch than a fully drawn character. Also, we are not given any reason to buy his relationship with Daniel. It happened, so we are supposed to accept it. Think what you want about this, but I have watched that movie closer than I should have and there is no development there. We go from him not talking, to suddenly they are hanging out, to he is training him. We don't see any bonding happen.

First off, Jackie Chan can kick the world's ass. This is fact. So right off the bat it is easy to buy him as a martial arts coach. I am not going to spoil this but you are given quite a bit of believable bonding between him and Dre. You see it happen, you see him grow attached and you see Dre help him as much as he is helping Dre. It is a very strong and fully developed relationship that is moving.

Sensei Kreese/Master Li

We are given little information about Kreese other than he is a hard assed ex-soldier who teaches hyper aggressive karate to a group of impressionable teenagers. He does go way overboard at the end, and it is a little bit of a surprise. He struck me as someone who would want Daniel beaten in public. Not taken out, but defeated to show how bad ass he is. His change is a bit too much for me and it happens too quickly.

Master Li, on the other hand, comes off as a dangerous egomaniac. His school is adorned with massive pictures of him and he teaches a bit beyond the, "Strike hard, strike first, no mercy," ideals of Kreese. The first time we see him he slaps a child for not striking another child who is on the ground. "We do not stop when our enemy is on the ground," he tells him. "Our enemies deserve pain." He is not about victory, he is about total destruction of your opponent. The scenes with Kreese upset me, the scenes with Li sicken me. You believe that Li wants to see Dre injured, not to show the superiority of his school, but to show what happens when you question him.

Training

The original is famous for the wax on/wax off, sand the floor, paint the fence, side to side training scenes. Yes, they are iconic, but they leave quite a bit to be desired when it comes to actual martial arts training. He never spars with Daniel, you never see LaRusso throw a punch in an actual combat setting. You get one scene of blocking, one scene of punching, then a bunch of balance training. Think about this, the first time you see Daniel kick is in the tournament. He would not have made it past the first match.

Now the training here does not have the same iconic feel, but it does have a more realistic vibe to it. Dre is taught how to combine blocks with punches, kicks, sweeps, and grapples. He learns how to use the moves together and actually fight. When he starts winning it is believable. You see what he actually learned come into practice so it feels like what's happening should be happening. He learned a style that works, he isn't winning because the script needed him to.

The two tournaments build in a very similar way, but the remake builds the tension better. You see him challenged, you see him struggle, but you also see his training kick in so you believe it. They also replace Joe "Bean" Esposito's "You're the Best," with "Higher Ground," by The Red Hot Chili Peppers. As a kid of the 80's I love, "You're the Best," but as a fan of punk and hard rock, "Higher Ground," got me more into it.

Li's character makes more sense in the tournament, partly because of the addition of one line. Where Kreese says, "I don't want him beat," Li says, "I don't want him beat, I want him broken." This ups the ante. You know this man has no problem with kids getting hurt, so the idea of him taking pride in the dismantling of a 12 year old isn't surprising. This kid challenged him, so he deserves to be hurt. Oh, and the way he is taken out of commission is brutal and very deliberate, there is no question.

Dénouement

I have always had a problem with the denouement in the original film. From the landing of the crane kick to credits roll is less than 30 seconds. All you get is, "You're all right LaRusso," and that's it. For a movie that clocks in at 2 hours and 6 minutes to spend that little time untying the knot is unacceptable. It just yanks the rug out.

The new version doesn't add much in the way of time, maybe a few minutes, but it is what they do with that time that makes it great. I'm not going to give anything away, but there is a lot that happens here and it is very moving.

All in all the new version does a better job with the story than the original. It is better paced, more believable, more emotional, and delivers the message better. The original is still a classic of my childhood, but the new one is something that took that frame and painted a better picture.

Oh, and for those who complain about movie companies, "ruining your childhood," by doing movies like this, invest in some therapy. If your childhood rests on the sanctity of "The Karate Kid," you may need to get out more.

I wrote this at 4 am. I will probably re-write it. It rambles a bit.

Movie adaptations of old TV shows have become the norm these days. This isn't due to some creative drought in Hollywood. It's simple economics. People go see them, so they keep making them. It really is that simple. The fact that almost every one of them sucks doesn't stop the studios from making them because it doesn't stop us from seeing them.

How do they keep this many people coming back to the theatre over and over again to see movies that most people know up front are going to suck. Because while the movie machine was getting worse at making movies they were getting much better at making trailers. Most of the truly awful films that have come out lately have had outstanding previews.

Granted, it has become a cliché to say, "Well, all the best parts were in the trailer," but people still go to the movie. Why is that?

Personally, I am no longer effected by trailers. The only previews that excite me are for the smaller movies that are by directors or writers I know well. Those pull me in. Well, that is about half true. For the big budget movies, the first time I see a really awesome preview I do get excited. I can't wait to see the movie. For about five minutes. Then my memory allows reality to set in and I'm over it. Those are for the good ones. The bad ones, the cheesy, recycled, formulaic pause at the end before the big flash of action and sound scare the crap out of you previews get a nice, loud laugh out of me. But the ones that at least try to be different hold me for a minute.

But lets be honest, you can tell most of those are going to suck.

It is because of this that I no longer go to the theatre that much. This year I've gone about as many times as I use to go in a month. I've gotten over the experience and the spectacle and want something more.

But there are a few things that I cannot resist the pull of. Being born in 1975 I am in the nostalgia wheelhouse for what is happening right now. Thankfully most of these proprieties mean nothing to me.

Dallas? Don't care.

Scooby Doo? Couldn't give a shit.

Inspector Gadget? Fuck off.

You see, I spent part of my childhood on a military base overseas, so my version of childhood, with a few exceptions, were crap shows that the networks gave to the military to show for free. So I got a few episodes of half season cop shows, soap operas and game shows.

Basically, you do a Hawaiian Heat movie and I'm there. I know, you've never heard of it, I know the theme song.

There are a few exceptions, and two of those have recently been taken out back and shot in the head. But the third, I still had hope for.

The first two are Knight Rider. I had the talking KITT car with Michael Knight action figure, "I shall activate the Turbo Boost," as well as the hot wheels set that let you bust through an 18 wheeler. Yeah, that was how I rolled. And The Dukes of Hazzard. I still remember going to McDonalds to get the car shaped happy meals and being pissed because I kept getting Daisy's Jeep and Uncle Jessie's Truck. Granted, they were cheap, paper thin plastic, but getting the General Lee was like dying and going to heaven.

Then the remake/reissue what the fuck ever you want to call them. First, Broken Lizard made a.... Well, it looked like the General and had a blonde and a dark haired fellow who went by Bo and Luke, but the rest. Let's just say I preferred Coy and Vance (look it up). Too much was way, way wrong.

Well, I though that was as bad as it could get until I saw the Knight Rider series. I just... I would rather not say anything about that.

The third was most likely my most treasured.

In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

I had the complete collection of figures, I ate Mr. T cereal, if I could get hold of it, I owned it.

Why do I tell you all this? So you can understand where I come from with this review. Because if I can like this movie, you most likely will too.

If on 6/14/2010 around mid afternoon you heard a strange sound, it was the sound of my childhood screaming this:

Is this a perfect movie? No. Is it a solid action film? Yes.

Granted this does fall victim to the choppy editing that has come to dominate action films today, but by and large I don't mind too much. Yes, it is kinetic and could be slowed down, but it does not ruin the impact of the action scenes.

Let's go point by point here and see how the movie stacks up.

1) Plot.

Series: Well, the plots of the series are a bit repetitive. Someone has a problem, no one else can help, and they are able to find and hire The A-Team. Typically episodes were feel good social issue things. There area gangs in our area, there is a corrupt businessman doing corrupt things.

Movie: The movie is basically the back story, it is the story of the credits. There is a lot going on. The team is sent on an off the books mission, framed, and face court martial. The escape from prison and go about clearing their names. It gets more confusing. Much, much more confusing, but it's still entertaining.

Advantage- Draw. I love back story, but I also love commandos helping a neighborhood because a mobster slapped a shoeshine boy (actually happened).

2) The cast.

Lets go one by one here.

Hannibal- I love Liam Neeson, but he is no George Pappard. These are very different performances. In the series they are already established on the run, so Hannibal is a bit less restrained. In the movie he is in full military mode. You do understand what makes him such a great leader more here than in the show. This is where there is the greatest difference. Neeson is the commanding officer, no question and there is a bit more of a military vibe among them.

Advantage- Draw. Peppard was the original choice for McQueen's part in Magnificent Seven, but I cannot vote against an Irishman.

Face- Bradley Cooper surprises me. Not that long ago he was the awkward guy in Alias that was not in Jennifer Garners league. Now he is the suave cool guy in his movies. This vexes me greatly. Templeton "Faceman" Peck is the scrounger of the group, the James Garner from The Great Escape if you will. And both men played that part believably. There is a subplot with Face in the movie that is a bit much for me, but I didn't hate it. Dirk Benedict was born for that part though and everything he ever did as an actor made him the logical choice for it, so there were no, "Jennifer Garner wouldn't make sex with him (even though she did) on Alias," moments with him.

Advantage- Series. To quote Cooper himself, "If you look up handsome in the dictionary there's a picture of Dirk. I don't know what word I'm next to." Plus, I am biased toward the name Dirk for some reason.

BA- This is an interesting one. As much screen time as T got with this character, there wasn't much development beyond, he likes kids, hates flying, can drive and build shit. But he was Mr. T. "Rampage" Jackson is an interesting choice and they do a bit more with him. Some of it feels a bit much, but it doesn't feel forced. Plus they make his relationship with the team, particularly Murdock stronger. Oh, you also see why the former airborne ranger is afraid of flying, which is pretty cool.

Advantage- Draw. Hard to call this. If I take nostalgia out, I go Jackson. But damn, nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Murdock- This one surprises the hell out of me. Dwight Schultz played Murdock in a very busy, kinetic, showy crazy way. It was never 100% if his insanity was an act or not. As a kid I loved him, as an adult, not so much. Then comes Sharlto Copley. DAMN! He destroys it. His Murdock is insane. Very insane. But that insanity is what makes him good at what he does. He is the best because he is to crazy to be afraid of death. It seems like genuine quirky insanity and he is outstanding.

Advantage- Movie. This one surprises the hell out of me, not that I went with Shartlo, but because it wasn't even close.

3) The Plans.

In the series the plans were never discussed, they just happened. The van was always involved, and there were always, ALWAYS hubcaps with dynamite in them. There was a ton of gunfire, but the only time anyone ever got shot was when Face got shot during a robbery at a Chinese restaurant. Basically, a bunch of shit happened, gunfire, the van comes flying through a fence or wall, Frisbee hubcap explosions, "I love it when a plan comes together," and scene.

The movie you get the actual planning. You get Hannibal's, "Being one step ahead isn't a plan," philosophy. There is a definite sense of military strategy and planning going on, so you get to be part of the club when that plan comes together. Oh, and the plans are quite a bit cooler. Oh, and people die in their plans. A lot of people die.

Advantage- Show. Yeah, the movie had cooler shit, but they didn't have EXPLODING FRIZBEE HUBCAPS!

4) The team.

In the series the team dynamics were more implied than anything and you didn't really get the strength of their bond as a combat unit. Granted, it was there, but it was done in a more "made for TV" fashion. In the movie, there is a real sense of these guys as a unit that is a family. Most of this is done by showing how they functioned in the military, which the show really couldn't do. Yes the show was great, but there was a kind of, "just accept it," vibe to the whole affair. Also, the relationship between BA and Murdock seems more real. Murdock calling him Bosco, his real name, was a nice touch.

Advantage- Movie. They spent a bit more time developing it, and it worked for me.

This puts us at a dead tie.

So, what am I saying here. If you like the series you will probably like the movie. If you want to see a fun action movie, you will like it.

Remember, this is a remake of a TV show from the 80's manage your own expectations.

I clearly remember, as a young man, going to see a film called, "No Retreat, No Surrender." My friend Adrian and I somehow got my parents, I believe they stayed through for it, to take us to the Fort Clayton theatre in Panama to see this because it promised to be so awesome. Just to clarify, we lived in Panama, the country, at the time. This wasn't some hard to find film that we had to track to a Latin American country just to be able to watch it on its original release.

There is a possibility my parents were forced to endure this, I don't remember. The few things I do remember are:

My friend and I feeling like bad asses because we got to sit away from whatever parents brought us.

A plot that 34 year old Jim calls laughably ridiculous, but that 11 year old Jim called the greatest movie ever made.

An overacting, big eyed martial artists who sat by doing the splits between the ropes in his corner.

(pictured- "acting Russian," and dudes staring at Van Damme's ass)

I am going to be honest. The first of these seems like a particular dick move on my part. Dragging your parents to something of this magnitude is one thing, abandoning them to enjoy it on your own kicks that up a notch.

The plot... In this case, Wikipedia has done a fine job outlining this, and I will let it speak for me.

Jason Stillwell is a young karate student who trains in his father's Los Angeles dojo. One night after training has finished, the dojo is visited by members of an organized crime syndicate. Jason's father is attacked and has his leg broken by Ivan Krushensky, the hired thug of the boss.

The family moves to start a new life in Seattle. Jason has a hard time adjusting and is picked on by the local bullies. One night after being beaten, he is visited by the ghost of Bruce Lee. After being trained by the ghost, Jason goes from a below average fighter to near invincibility. Local fighters organize a fight in an arena between themselves and fighters from the crime syndicate, setting the scene for Jason to meet up with Ivan and settle the score once and for all.

I really wish I could call this synopsis a base exaggeration or an egregious lie, but it is not. This is the actual, factual plot of this film. Someone watched "The Karate Kid," and thought, "You know what this movie is missing? A Russian bad guy! We hate Russia! This is a slam DUNK!! Also, ghosts. Why weren't there any ghosts in it? What? Did people stop liking ghosts all of a sudden? Bruce Lee, he did karate, right? He did karate good and people liked him for it. SOMEONE FIND ME A TYPEWRITER AND SOME MONEY! Looks like I'm in the movie bid-ness!"

Bruce Lee has my favorite bullshit ghost sensei martial arts training lines in film history in this film. That is a very specific category, I know, but I created it SPECIFICALLY for this line.

Using a glass of water and a glass of Diet Coke he passes this pearl of ghostly kung f... I mean karate wisdom on. "This is the cup of your knowledge (lifts the water), this is the cup of my knowledge (lifts the Diet Coke)." He then proceeds to dump the water out and fill the cup of Jason's knowledge with is carbonated karate wisdom. It blew the ass off my 11 year old mind.

Why am I mentioning a film so bad that it doesn't have a DVD release (for perspective, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is out on DVD, this isn't)?

I am mentioning it because of reason number 3. This movie came out in the 80's when the prevailing attitude toward multiculturalism was, "an accent's an accent, foreign people are interchangeable!" So when casting a Russian martial artist, the criteria were apparently, in order of importance,

1) Martial arts ability.

2) Muscular physique.

3) Ability to so cool splits.

4) Over the top facial expressions.

.....

100) Cooking ability

101) Actually being Russian, having visiting Russia, having met a Russian, having heard a recording of a Russian, or being able to locate Russia on a globe (in the 80's this last one would have been MUCH easier).

Given these exacting standards the choice seems to make itself, and the world was introduced to Jean-Claude van Damme. This film would lead to a string of very popular martial arts movies, a startling number of which required him to dance, and an even startling-er number required us to see his ass.

Surprisingly, he became very popular in the mid to late 80s/early 90's Hollywood martial arts renaissance. Unsurprisingly, that popularity didn't last very long. By that I mean it didn't even last into the mid 90's. Not to say he didn't continue making movies, oh, God did he ever keep making movies. Those movies just never really found their way into theatres. This isn't to disparage the man. Fame is a tricky bitch, just ask Leif Garrett, who I am trying to disparage.

He retained enough global fame to keep making movies, just not enough for them to be any good. This wasn't something that just happened to him. Steven Segal, Jeff Speakman, Don "The Dragon Wilson," and others were victims of the Hong Kong invasion. Suddenly, they were competing with Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Yung Biao, and Sammo Hung. When you are competing with fast, kinetic action done by people who literally risked their lives doing their own INSANE stunts, and who are being pushed on the public by Quentin Tarantino at the height of his popularity, you are going to lose your audience.

So, Jean-Claude and the others vanished into the world of direct to video. Then something interesting happened. Van Damme and Segal returned. Not in the way one would necessarily expect, but they came back.

Segal returned in his own reality show, "Steven Segal: Lawman," where he attempts to slap the crime out of New Orleans and brings the idea of "delusions of grandeur," to almost UNIMAGINABLE heights. Van Damme returned in JCVD, a critically acclaimed, post modern take on fading celebrity and the idea of "the hero" influenced by the works of Jean-Luc Goddard.

That's right, this is an honest to GOD Goddard inspired Van Damme film! I know what you're thinking. 15 years ago, hell 2 years ago, if I had told you that Van Damme would be in a modern French New Wave film about identity, you would have rightfully laughed in my face. You can still do this, but I can back my shit up now.

JCVD is, first and foremost, an entertaining film. But to say that is to undermine what it really is.

Returning to Brussels from America, where he just lost custody of his daughter, Jean-Claude is forced to stop at a post office to get a money transfer because his bank account is empty, he has no cash, and his credit cards aren't being accepted. He is also about to be released by his attorney because his check bounced. This isn't some comedic approach to show you how down and out this guy is, it is a very realistic portrayal of a man who is as down on his luck as a man can be. While at the post office he stumbles onto a robbery, is taken hostage but the police think he is actually pulling the robbery.

I was surprised at many things in this film. Firstly, Van Damme can act. I don't mean that in a, "he can get by on screen," way, but in a, "holy crap, might he be a good actor," way. The most impressive moment is a monologue, delivered directly to the camera that is riveting. The monologue brings the second big surprised. Van Damme appears to be completely devoid of ego in this film.

Would Segal deliver a monologue in any film where he states, "It makes me sick to see people... who don't have what I've got. Knowing that they have qualities, too. Much more than I do," or that shows him begging his agent to get him a part in a studio film at scale (actor minimum wage) just so he could be in a studio picture, or taking a part in a bad sequel to a bad movie, just so he could have some money to pay his lawyer so he might get his daughter back? Would he put a scene where his child talks about the embarrassment and harassment he caused them? "Lawman proves that he lacks the self awareness to do this.

So, what does this film tell us about Van Damme? Well, he might be silly, but he understands that he is silly. He isn't the star he once was and he has accepted that. In other words, he has grown up and actually has something akin to perspective about his life and fame.

(pictured- grown up perspective)

Yes, this is a movie and not real life, but for an actor to take a role as themselves that puts this much on the table is remarkable. He humbles himself in this film. Not in any grand way, but in a very simple and powerful way. In laying himself bare as being a flawed human being. This is a ballsy movie that ultimately delivers.

That being said, this is a very stylized film. It uses many different narrative tricks and gimmicks and I have seen it criticized for that. Those criticism are bullshit. Every director uses these tricks and gimmicks, many very good directors use quite a few of them in their films. That is what directors do.

I chalk a great deal of the criticism of this film (there isn't much, but there is some) to cinematic snobbery. There are people who simply won't get past the fact that it is a Van Damme movie, even though it isn't a "Van Damme movie," if that makes any sense. This is a very honest and moving piece of film if you allow it to be.

Let me be clear. You need to check your Jean-Claude baggage for this movie. If you bring it in you will be disappointed and miss a very good film. If you leave it at the door you will see something different, something unique and fresh, something risky and honest. And isn't that something we have been lacking lately?

So...

Turns out I use to have a Xanga. For those who don't know, Xanga is like MySpace, only just for blogging. And like MySpace it still "kind of" exists.

I recently logged on and checked out some of my older writing. By older I simply mean writing from early 2005. Most of these writings are movie reviews. Since this site now exists I have decided to repost some of them here. There will be some things that are repetitive from the show, but these are the early drafts of those thoughts.

Each time I post one I will refer to it as "A Big Jim Classic," because I am a bit egotistical and self deprecating at the same time. Here is my first installment.

5/24/05

If “Sith” means “Shitty Movie” then the “Sith” truly had their revenge.

So, a guy walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender goes to the end of the bar, audibly opens his zipper and a few moments later returns to the man with a tall glass of warm yellow liquid. The man, wanting a beer, fails to notice it and drinks the fluid. He quickly spits the mouthful of piss he just drank across the room. Wounded he goes home.

A few years later the same man walks into the same bar. He orders a beer from the same bartender. The bartender goes to the end of the bar, you hear the zipper and a glass of warm yellow liquid is placed in front of the man. The man, not wanting to believe that the same thing could happen twice, decides to drink it again. The piss goes flying and the man goes home rejected.

Yet another few years pass and the man returns to the bar. He orders a beer from the same bartender and the zipper ritual is repeated. The glass is set down and the man. Well, let’s just say if that third glass of piss was a movie it would be called “Revenge of the Sith”.

Congratulations George, you got me to guzzle piss once again. Another $8.00 for you, you fucking scumbag.

I am only looking for three things when I go to a movie.

1. A good story that is told well.

2. Interesting characters that are compelling and believable in the world they inhabit.

3. Dialogue that is in some way plausible or at the very least believable.

What did I get?

1.Interesting story told badly (contact was made, long fly ball, goes foul for strike one.)

2.Horrible characters with no development (strike two)

3.Dialogue that sounds like it came from a 15 year olds piece of fan fiction (strike three)

George Lucas, strike out king. Right on, shitbag.

I am going to try and do this with minimal spoilers, but fuck, we all know where the story is going.

Main problem, the action in this movie did nothing but facilitate the original trilogy. There was no development of characters, no (plausible) motives given. It was just an exercise in getting from point A to point B. There was no dramatic tension, the action didn’t flow from one scene to the next building to the climax. Every scene existed to set up what came next.

Second problem, too much shit that didn’t matter at all.

General Grievous, totally unnecessary. There was no point to him at all, none, do not argue this with me.

With the exception of the Dukoo/Anakin fight and the Anakin/Obi Juan duel, none of the actions scenes had any meaning other than to show off ILM’s fancy new tricks. Nothing advanced the plot.

The dialogue, Jesus Christ on a crutch, just thinking about it almost gives me apoplexy. Lucas doesn’t seem to realize that expository dialogue (dialogue that just tells the story) is boring and it is better to try and show things than have the characters tell them.

I got a nice earful about why Anakin becomes Vader but didn’t see why he did it. Lucas had the chance to work a brilliant string of Machiavellian influencing of Anakin to lead him into the trap of his emotions, but no. We get to see the most powerful Jedi ever subjugate himself as the bitch of a man he could easily defeat. Let me repeat that. ANIKIN COULD HAVE BEATEN PALPINTINE WITOUT BREAKING A FUCKING SWEAT. But no, he immediately hits his knees and is tonsil deep on the man before you can say “What the fuck?”

Basically this movie was fucked before one frame was shot. The screenplay sucked and wasted a ton of time developing ideas and story threads that were unimportant and left the most vital story twisting in the wind.

In short, I have seen better film on teeth. I hate you George Lucas, not because I feel you betrayed some movies that I loved as a kid, but because you are a lazy storyteller who pissed away the opportunity to create a masterpiece.

Jim here.

So, I watched “The Informant!”

At first I was unclear as to why they had the “!” in the title. By then end it made sense.

“The Informant!” is about Mark Whitacre, a vice president with Archer, Daniel, Midland who begins working with the FBI (through an oddly fascinating turn of events) to expose price fixing in his companies agriculture business, specifically in lysine production.

Sounds exciting, right? Strangely, it is.

What makes this movie work is a combination of writing, directing, and acting (I know, I know. No shit? Good writing, good directing, and good acting make the movie work? Such insight.) Perhaps I should say a balance between the three. Scott Burn’s script (based on Kurt Eichenwald’s book) has a very manic and slightly insane feel, which you really need in a movie that focuses on a man trying to tape record meetings about a company limiting production levels of lysine to set market value at an inflated rate. It’s a hefty task that is pulled off spectacularly.

Soderberg shows the restraint that is his trademark. It doesn’t play like a comedy, which is what makes it work. He never allows the characters to know that they are being funny because they don’t think they are being funny. If Whitacre thought, for a minute, that he was funny, this movie would be painfully awful. The oddly out of place, almost manic music plays against the very calm and almost serious editing tone to create a feeling that is just slightly off, and that fits the world these people inhabit.

Matt Damon is fan-f’ing-tastic. Looking at his work, I don’t think this man can make a bad movie. Yeah, he made some less than great ones, but since becoming a name he has chosen carefully and done some great work. Damon is my favorite type of actor. He does good work in good movies and he keeps his private life and private views private. To me, he is nothing more than what ever character he is playing, and I have absolutely no interest in him outside of that.

This movie is very much the Matt Damon show. Don’t get me wrong, Count Bakula (my little nickname for Scott, but don’t you try and call him that, you aren’t as close as we are) is outstanding as always, and Joel McHale has one of the greatest facial reaction scenes ever (pay attention to him in the Chinese restaurant). But this is ALL Damon.

The three main elements (writing, directing, and acting) come together perfectly in the film’s voice over scenes. At first they are adult ADD ramblings that show just how out of it Whitacre is. He’s in an important business meeting and his thoughts ramble off to his mispronunciation of the word centimeter throughout his early school days, or he obsesses on the German word for pen. Slowly these devolve to show just how unstable his character is. They are brilliantly written and show the progression of this character brilliantly, they are transitioned into and out of skillfully and you feel like you are in the mind of the character as he just gets bored, and the acting on them is outstanding as Damon makes it believable that this guy would be thinking this at this time.

While the movie does drag at times it is a satisfying comedy that I enjoyed very much. It is most definitely worth your time. Now watch it and tell me the ! doesn't make sense.