The Film Thugs Movie Show

As a film lover I came of age in Austin, Texas (specifically The University of Texas School of Radio, Television, and Film) in the mid/late 1990s. For those of you in the know you recognize that I was at one of the epicenters of the “indie” movement. Granted, there had been very similar movements before, but this was the first one ever market as such. In truth, it was the birth of the studio indie era. Say what you will, but a film with a 20 million dollar budget, produced by Fox is a studio film even if they call themselves Fox Searchlight.

Now, being in such an indie heaven, and a guy, there were two things that would come to dominate my film world; the first being Quentin Tarantino (he was UNESCAPABLE in the mid 90’s), and the second being Hong Kong action cinema. As I lived about two miles from “I Love Video,” (one of the best indie video stores in the nation) I found myself able to worship freely at the altar of Chow Yun Fat, Ringo Lam, Jackie Chan, Tony Leung, Yeun Biao, and Sammo Hung with regularity (thanks to a large selection of HK action films of questionable origin, and by questionable I mean ones that had blue screens at the beginning with the words “REC” and “PLAY” in the corners.).

Since those days I have soured on the HK a bit. I don’t know if it’s maturity as a person (the action isn’t all I need anymore), sophistication as a film lover (smaller, more subtle things move me more these days), or burnout (I watch A LOT of these movies), but they just don’t really do it for me anymore. This mostly goes for the director of this film, Mr. John Woo.

Once upon a time I walked into a Blockbuster Video and picked up one of the three John Woo movies they carried (Hard Boiled, A Better Tomorrow, and The Killer), having some experience with Asian cinema (I’d watched some Kurosawa in High School), I decided to go with the most accessible looking of the three, A Better Tomorrow. Thinking, “a family melodrama is a family melodrama.”

Little did I know. Little did I know.

I quickly owned copies of all three and watched them repeatedly. Then, I discovered “I Love,” and my life was over.

At this time, something wonderful happened, John Woo came to America! All I could see were bigger budgets, bigger explosions, and bigger gunfights, if anyone could figure a way to have a guy shooting 3 guns at the same time, it was Woo.

Then, something less than wonderful happened. I watched his American films. How the hell do you go from “Hard Boiled,” to “Hard Target?” From there, my worst nightmare began to unfold. Could my favorite action director really… suck?

Well, I won’t say yes, I won’t say no. What I will say is, “Hard Target,” “Broken Arrow,” “Face/Off,” “Mi:2,” “Paycheck,” and “Windtalkers.”

Something was wrong. He hadn’t grown. He wasn’t doing anything new, different, or exciting. He was spinning his wheels and basically parodying himself.

It was with that in mind that I sat down to watch “Red Cliff.”

How was it?

It was good, really good.

This movie is EPIC. It is epic in scope, epic in story, epic in visual style. Everything about it is big. I am a fan of epic films. “Lawrence of Arabia” is possibly my favorite movie of all time. This isn’t “Lawrence,” but it definitely took some notes.

It is the story of the Battle of Red Cliffs, one of the most important moments in Chinese history. Now, it is hard to follow at times. I admit that has more to do with my total ignorance of Chinese history. These are legendary figures, and I figure most Chinese people have some frame of reference for.

Basically, it is the attempt of The Han Dynasty to take over the southlands of China and gain control of the territory controlled by warlords and unify the country. In addition to being vastly outnumbered, the southerners have to contend with years old feuding between their factions. The only advantage they have is superior strategy, and a more versatile group of warriors.

This is as simple a synopsis as I can provide. The story is very involved and to attempt any further summary would only add confusion.

What I will say is, this is a very good movie. Yes, the old John Woo conventions are there. There are doves (thankfully they are not fire, bullet, and explosion proof this time), slow motion, and repetition of shots. But the overall production is so much bigger, more expansive, and more advanced than anything he has done before.

John Woo has grown up. The visuals are stunning. The camera work is complex, and moving. The character development is subtle and effective.

This is the John Woo I always knew was out there.

In the past what has really made Woo stand out was the complex relationships between his characters. In “The Killer,” it’s the camaraderie between the cop and the professional killer, in “Hard Boiled,” it’s the interplay between the deep undercover cop and the hard boiled detective obsessed with his capture, and in “A Better Tomorrow,” it’s a man trying to help a younger brother who hates and doesn’t trust him,

“Red Cliff” focuses on a group of warlords (two in particular) who form a team and use their cunning and intellect to take on a much larger army. The development of these relationships make the film.

The interactions between Zho Yu (Tony Leung), San Quan (Chang Chen) are particularly strong. Both men are powerful charismatic leaders, both men are extremely intelligent and cunning, and both men realize the strengths brought to the table by the other.

This is a long movie, but by no means a dull one. At times you do feel the length, but there isn’t anything in it than can be removed without losing something vital from the script. If you want to see an action director grow up and do something really spectacular than I strongly recommend this film. This isn’t a passing, “hey, it’s Saturday afternoon, let’s watch “Red Cliff,” so bear that in mind going into it. This film is an investment, but one that is well worth it. It’s not your typical John Woo but, in this case, that is a good thing

Jim here. So, I watched "Gentlemen Broncos."

One of the things I love the most about movies is getting to watch a young director develop. Seeing a style go from very basic to sophisticated, while still retaining the sensibility that made it so energizing in the first place is an amazing thing. Being a music fan and hearing the changes in Clapton's style, while realizing that it is still very similar to what he was doing as a young man is the same to me as watching The Departed and seeing how Scorsese has developed over the years.

Then you have the ones who don't change. Sometimes this is great. BB King hasn't really gone through much transformation in the past 30 years but is there anyone out there who can find fault with what he does? Sometimes it's not so great. Who really wants to hear the same album over and over again.

This is the case with Gentlemen Broncos. Jared Hess made his name with "Napoleon Dynamite" and I dare say has not lived up to that name since. His follow up "Nacho Libre" wasn't exactly received as warmly, and his latest "Gentlemen Broncos" doesn't quite live up either.

Hess revels in the world of the outcast and the underdog and has kind of fallen into a trap. What once seemed fresh, interesting, and grotesquely fascinating has become stale, forced, and off-putting. That isn't to say it isn't a good movie. It is just that. Good. Not great. Not particularly entertaining or memorable. Just good.

"Broncos" is the story of Ben, a young aspiring sci-fi writer who uses his writing as a way to deal with his father's death. We don't get much more development on him. He's like Napoleon, we know he's an outcast and that seems to be all we need to know.

Ben (the wonderful Michael Angarano, whose work I have loved since discovering him as Young William Miller in Almost Famous) has written story called "The Yeast Lords: The Bronco Years," which he enters in a workshop contest judged by his idol Doctor Ronald Chevalier (Flight of the Conchord's Jermaine Clement in a show stealing, star making, fucking BRILLIANT performance) , more on him in a bit. Ben hopes to win the contest and get published. However, Chevalier, suffering a years long slump, steals his book, makes a few changes (most notably changing his hero into a tranny and publishes the book as, "The Chronicles of Brutus and Balzaak."

There is some wonderfully absurdist humor in this film, but then absurdist humor is Hess' wheelhouse. But therein lies the problem. Absurdist humor works, but only to a certain point. At that point if you are not completely with it, you are left way, way behind. That is how I felt for most of this film. He took things that were charming and funny in his earlier work and made them too much. Instead of Pedro we get Lonnie, who was creepy and a little gross. Instead of Deb we get Tabitha, who is a little bit more aggressive and a lot more a major pain in the balls. Instead of grandma with her llama, we get Ben's mother's obliviousness and hideous clothing designs.

All in all this film does not work. But, there are a number of good things to offset the bad and keep this film from a tailspin.

The good-

Mike White as Dusty. This is yet another grotesquery of a character, but he works. There is a quiet sleaziness to him that is fascinating. He also has the funniest snake moment I have ever seen. You may not like it, it's rather low brow, but I have ophidophobia (a terrible snake phobia) and it made me laugh out loud and rewind three times.

All of Sam Rockwell's scenes. Saying that Sam Rockwell is good in something carries about as much weight as saying Ben Kingsley is good in something. Really? Sam Rockwell was GOOD! No shit? What else can you tell me? Is water still wet? Is the sky still blue? Rockwell is outstanding as both Bronco and Brutus. The flashes to the book are outstanding. It is cheap sci-fi, but good cheap sci-fi. Every time they go into a passage from the book it is solidly engaging and entertaining. And the different performances given by Rockwell just reinforce him as an acting powerhouse who is counting the days until he gets his first Oscar.

Jermaine Clement. I have no limit of good things to say about him in this. It is possibly the greatest comic performance in a movie this century. He is Cristof Waltz good. And if you know me, you know how massive a statement this is. The few scenes he is in make the film. He is an arrogant man who truly does not see his arrogance. His scenes range from in depth descriptions of the art he created for his "Cyborg Harpies" trilogy of books, to furiously deriding a woman for wanting to name a troll "Teacup," to advising adding the suffix -anous to any name to create an acceptable sci-fi name. (I am a bit half on half over being known as Jimanous).

The problem with "Gentlemen Broncos" is that, with the exception of a few well written characters, brilliant performances, and interesting scenes, feels stale. I feel as though I am seeing someone trying to recreate and make me care about a time when they were doing new and exciting things. I enjoyed it some, but it is something I don't ever intend on rewaching.

Jim here. I finally watched Gran Torino, and it really was as good as everybody says it is. Gran Torino is the story of a recently widowed Korean war vet/retired auto plant worker living in a rapidly changing area of Detroit. He is, to put it mildly, a bit "cantankerous."  His time is spent maintaining his house, drinking at the local lodge, and drinking beers on his front porch while he looks out and grumbles about how his neighborhood is changing.

It may seem odd that I would describe a character who gives a young Asian man advice like, "You're wrong, eggroll, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I may not be the most pleasant person to be around, but I got the best woman who was ever on this planet to marry me. I worked at it, it was the best thing ever happened to me. Hands down. But you, you know, you're letting Click-Clack, Ding-Dong and Charlie Chan just walk out with Miss What's-her-face. She likes you, you know? Though I don't know why! Nice girl... nice girl, very charming girl... I talked with her... yeah. But you, you just let her walk out right out with the Three Stooges. And you know why? 'Cause you're a big fat pussy. Well, I gotta go. Good day, pussycake," as not being racist, but I think it makes perfect sense.

Jim here. So, tonight, on the advice of The A.M.P., I watched "The Time Travelers Wife." The only conversation I've had involving this film was an argument with a coworker about what constitutes a "gay" act. Apparently, the book this movie is based on has a scene where the time traveler in question runs into a younger version of himself and an act of oral sex occurs. It was my contention that performing this act on a man, even if that man was you was a gay act. My friend considered it the same as masturbation. I disagree. That is a loophole that someone was using to justify his desire to experiment. Hey, man, just go for it. But I digress. The film in question is one I avoided for a while thinking it was just a chick flick, and in my defense it was, to a degree, advertised that way. To classify it that way is to do a rather great disservice to a really good film. This is the story of Henry, a man who, like Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five, is "unstuck" in time. He travels back and forth to different points in his lifetime. Unlike Pilgrim he doesn't just end up in his body at that time. No, he arrives naked and confused. This leads to all manner of problems as he is unable to control when he goes and when it happens. The story mostly involves his relationship with a woman he met after he met her when she was years younger than when he first saw her. This will make sense. Getting into the main plot is where this film takes a rather significant jump from the typical time travel piece. While a good deal of time is spent on him, and how he deals with the situation, an equal or greater amount of time is spent on her. How does this sort of thing impact the people he loves and is closest to. The way these themes are handled is what sets this apart from the typical romantic comedy. it doesn't feel cheap or forced. As I feel with horror films, sci fi films are only as good as they could be without the sci fi element, and there are real world parallels that can be drawn from this. The issues are no different than if the relationship were with someone who is completely distant emotionally, who has a drinking or drug problem, or for any reason keeps people at a distance. This is, at its heart, a film about relationships and what happens when two people who truly love each other have a major obstacle to overcome. This might not be for you, but I found it to be an enjoyable and touching film that was well worth the time.

Jim here.

There is something I find frustrating. You’ve seen those Netflix commercials where the happy customers talk about how wonderful the service is, right? It’s a great idea and a decent ad campaign.

So, you ask, what is my frustration? If you look closely you will notice that the customers shown aren’t exactly long time users. In fact, the old timer of the group appears to have been there for just about a year.

One. Year.

I opened my subscription to Netflix in 2002. Just to be clear, I have been with them for 8 years and have yet to make it past first base, yet they are picking out china patterns and calling a priest for some guy who just showed up.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Netflix. In fact I think it might be one of the best services around. Not one of the best video services, but one of the best services PERIOD.

There is one thing that I would love to see added that, I think, would make the service better. It’s something I call “Netflix Roulette.”

“What is Netflix Roulette?” you ask.

Simply put, you give up control of one of your rentals. You don’t lose it, but if you choose, you abdicate control to the forces of fate. For example, I have a four at a time plan. Were I to adopt the “Roulette” feature I would only be able to see 3 of my rentals on the website. The fourth would only tell me if it was received or out. I would not know what movie it was until I open the red envelope.

“Why would you do that?” you ask again.

Well, as I said before, I have been a Netflix member for 8 years and am obsessive aobut adding movies to my queue. In fact I have, on two separate occasions, reached the limit of movies allowed in your queue at one time.

“There’s a LIMIT?!?!”

Yep. It’s 500.

That’s right. More than once in the past 8 years there have been more than 500 movies I have felt the need to add to my queue. How does this happen? Well, in essence you have to have a certain level of fanatic detachment. You have to be fanatic enough to want to see everything, and detached enough to add anything without thinking. View it now has exacerbated this problem significantly. But, so far as your at home queue exploding like this, there are three ways.

1) It is a movie I genuinely want to see, or see again. These are classics, new releases, hard to find, and otherwise essential films that I feel I must see for one reason or another.

2) Curiosities I add because I have heard something, or liked the poster, or the writer, or the director, or the actor. These are things that I know nothing about other than some superficial reason for possible enjoyment.

3) I got really drunk and started adding shit at random for no discernable reason and have no recollection of them being in my queue.

Now, I try to play queue roulette by only paying attention to my top 10, that way I get the occasional surprise. But, if you knew that one of your movies would be one of these totally random films that you may or may not have added in a drunken stupor, wouldn’t that add a bit of excitement to the whole affair?

This game leads to many surprises, some of them pleasant. But I’m not going to lie. For every good/great movie you get, there will be 4-5 awful/perplexing films.

My first review is for one of the latter.

Now, for each of my reviews I am going to try and include a poster or other image that I have modified to show my true feelings about the film.

That being said, my first roulette movie is…..

That’s right. “The Hammer,” starring Adam Carolla and directed by Charles “Legally Blonde 1&2” Herman-Wurmfeld found it’s way to my home. Now, I think this was a combination of 2&3. I think I was drunk and thought, “Man, you know who was occasionally funny on that radio sex show? Adam Carolla, that’s who! I’m gonna watch the hell out of this movie!”

That is the only explanation I can give.

This movie doesn’t make sense. By that I do not mean that the plot is convoluted (it’s about as straightforward as you can get), or the narrative style was over the top (it isn’t). What I mean is, this movie was a terrible comedy, and a somewhat terrible drama.

Look at the poster. You can tell what they are going for. The problem is, what they think is a funny image is actually kind of tragic and disturbing. It almost looks like someone getting sucker punched, but not in a funny, slapstick way. Therein lies the rub.

This story doesn’t work as a comedy. It is a drama with a few (very few) funny moments in it, but by no means is it a comedy.

It is the story of a former boxer turned construction worker who, after sparring with an up and comer (a younger, faster, stronger fighter that he somehow knocks out) at the gym where he teaches a beginner boxing class is offered a chance to train for a shot at the Olympic boxing team. In truth, the coach is just using him as a free left handed sparing partner for his true prodigy. From here it is a collection of the typical sports movie clichés. He doubts himself, everyone else doubts him, he meets a woman who believes in him, he believes in himself and pulls his shit together and begins to fulfill his potential.

The problems are many.

1) Carolla’s character is a total loser. Yes, he is somewhat loveable, but it is revealed that they only reason he stopped boxing was because he wanted to sit on the couch, get high, and watch cartoons. I know what they are going for, but it is not a sympathetic lead. Also, at no point does he physically look like he would last 10 seconds in the ring against the other fighters.

2) The antagonistic characters (there are two of them) seem to serve no purpose other than to make Carolla look sympathetic. It’s obvious and feels a bit forced.

3) The romance doesn’t make much sense. Carolla is set up as such a loser that when he gets this young, attractive lawyer to go out with him the audience is asked to take WAY to big a leap of faith. You know he is a nice guy, but he is basically an overgrown teenager who is jumping a bit to far into the deep end of the adult pool.

4) All the other characters feel programmed. By shoehorning comedy in the motivations for their actions feel forced and disingenuous.

Here’s my biggest problem. Had this been framed as a drama, none of these would have been issues. If he had quit because he lacked the confidence and the entire movie was about him reclaiming that, you would have empathized or sympathized with him. As a comedy, you are too often invited to laugh at him.

This movie could have been like big fan. It could have presented a comedian in a dramatic light, using sports as a way to show how a misfit tries to fit in. Instead, we get a cheap feeling cartoon that lacks the fortitude to go all out.

Hell, had they gone all out with the comedy that might have worked. The problem with the film is the same as the problem with the character, it is unwilling to commit to being something. It just sits on the couch, getting high and watching cartoons instead of using its potential.

Should you see this film? No.

Should I have reviewed it? Maybe not.

The odds were you had no intention of watching this, and I can’t even pretend to dissuade you of that. But, I promised myself I would review the next thing that came from Netflix, so here it is. Look at it this way, I saw it so you don't have to.

I should be posting something again tomorrow, hopefully it will be a bit more serious.