The Wing Kong Exchange (feat. Inferno)

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

No Holds Barred - Part 2

Welcome back to the second part of our mammoth review of No Holds Barred, or Der Hammer as its known in Germany. Between you and me, I'd think Der Hammer would be a better name for a film starring Greg Valentine rather than Hulk Hogan, but hey, what do I know? Anyway, when we left yesterday, Rip and his lady friend Sam had just left the diner and were heading to their hotel. Once they arrived, Sam was horrified to find that they had to share a room and even worse, a bed. Rip tries to prove how much of a gentleman he is by putting up a curtain between the two but before they sleep, they have a heart to heart about not having time for relationships. Rip confesses that its hard to meet the right woman but Sam thinks he's being patronizing. Rip turns out the lights but he has trouble sleeping and so decides to do push up's to relax. This wakes up Sam, who wonders why the bed is shaking, and this is what she sees when she pulls back the curtain....

So you've got a hot chick in her bra and panties on one side of the bed and a dude in his briefs on the other and you SHOW THE DUDE??!? Yeah, I don't get it either, but Sam doesn't seem to mind and even stares at it for a few moments. A little later, Rip decides to elbow drop the bed while getting into it (seriously) and it breaks, causing Sam to fall into his arms. She won't have any of it though, and tells Rip to get off of her because she's not one of his groupies and to take his curtain back. Rip responds with one of the greatest lines in cinematic history...

"you don't need THIS, you built up more walls than I ever could."​

That is some seriously high concept stuff right there, well if you're writing for a soap opera that is. Amazingly enough, Hogan delivers that line with all the gusto of a soap opera star, and one has to wonder why he never tried getting into that line of work. Oh wait, wrestling is a male soap opera, how silly of me to forget that. Rip leaves to go sleep on the couch (in his underwear I might add) while Sam goes somewhere else. Where does she go you ask? Why she goes to see Brell, because she's been working for him all along, and when she tells him that she's built up more walls than Rip ever could here's his response...

Now that's how you deal with an emotional wall, you smash it down with your woman-hating fist! Sam goes crying to Rip and he takes her in, totally forgetting that she was trying to fuck him over because hey, she's about to put out. He's on the couch with her and is on his way to second base when Zeus appears on television and Rip stops what he's doing to watch. Yes, you heard that right, he STOPS making out with a hot chick because another MAN appears on television. As if the scene with him doing push up's in his underwear wasn't enough homoeroticism for this film already. However, there's actually more to come, as the next day Rip is out doing some charity work when the following helicopter makes a landing....

Yes, Zeus has come to make a challenge and he's come to do it in the homo-copter. I don't know about you, but I'd take him a little more seriously if he wasn't flying around in something that even the dudes from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy wouldn't be seen in. Rip doesn't seem to take him seriously either (you can't blame him, that helicopter really is gay) and so Zeus flies off to go play with unicorns and ponies while Rip looks on. Instead of dwelling on this though, Rip decides to pick up where he left off with Sam, but some dude is attacking her in her parking garage so he deals with him first. He deals with him by crotching him on the front of his motorcycle before driving him into the tree while saying "Harley and me and you in the tree" as I sit back, totally baffled at how this film didn't win the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. I mean, with dialogue like that, how the hell could it lose? Anyhow, while this is going on, Rip's brother goes to watch Zeus fight, which is a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? Because he's Rip's brother and he's near Zeus, and you know what happens to Rip's brother when he's near Zeus? That's right, THIS happens....

Zeus beats up poor Randy so severely that he actually has a facial expression for a change and when Rip finds out he heads to Zeus' gym and has a freak out episode. This isn't made any better by seeing Brell on the television and so Rip does what he does best, he strips to his underwear and does push up's. No, just kidding, he actually smashes a mirror and looks on in horror as he realizes he was simply looking at a projection of Zeus. This scene is actually pretty surreal and easily the best in the film so far, but that's probably just because I'm on my 6th beer. Rip trashes the rest of the gym and then goes to visit his brother, where he shows some real emotion by crying at his bedside. You know, I could make fun of the man for crying but he's just so goddamn manly when he's doing it that you can't help but want to become a woman so you can bear his fucking children. In fact, I cried along with Rip and I feel more fucking manly because of it, so yeah, Rip rules. Brell announces that there's going to be a fight coming up in two weeks between Rip and Zeus and so the training montage begins. How does Zeus train you ask? Well take a look....

That's right, he fucking punches concrete blocks to pieces bitches! Do you honestly want to mess with a dude who punches concrete blocks? Yeah, didn't think so, and apparently neither does Rip, since instead of training he's spending all of his time helping his brother rehab. Included in these touching shots are scenes of him gingerly massaging his brother's legs while also helping him learn to walk again. This will become important later so keep it in mind. Sam shows up to the big fight but gets kidnapped by Brell and taken to his suite. Brell uses her for leverage and tells Rip that he has to go down (more homoeroticism) and stay down after 10 minutes or it'll be curtains for him and his bitch. Rip don't like nobody threatening his bitch, so he tells Doc and his brother's friend to go find her while he heads out to the ring to "Rip 'Em". The match between Rip and Zeus goes pretty much how you'd expect the standard Hogan match of the 80's to go, with Zeus getting in almost all the offence before Rip begins his magical comeback. At the same time, his comeback has inspired his brother to make a comeback of his own as we see here...

That's right Rip's brother can now MOVE HIS FINGER!! The power of Rip has defeated his paralysis. Wait, wasn't he walking two scenes before this? Now that's what I call a fucking plot hole the size of the Grand Canyon, but man does it ever make this movie THAT MUCH BETTER!!! Rip continues his thunderous comeback and starts his standard no sell of everything until Zeus takes off and heads upstairs. Before he does so though, he takes the time to put the boots to Rip's brother, because nothing says heel like using your heels right? Zeus gets distracted by how much of a bad ass he is, which allows Rip to sneak up on him, attack him from behind before hitting him with a double Axe Handle (apparently his finisher here) right off the balcony and THROUGH THE FUCKING RING!!! Zeus is dead (and drooling) and Rip heads for Brell in his little observation tower, but Brell uses the threat of harsh language by once again calling him a jock ass before backing into some electrical equipment. The result of this can only be described as jocking...positively jocking.

The entire audience realizes they've just witnessed a man electrocuted to death and what do they do? They fucking cheer, that's what they do, while Rip celebrates with his brother before giving us one final "Rip 'Em" sign to send us home happy. That's what the goddamn 80's were all about and I swear there's no better snapshot of the entire decade than No Holds Barred, a fucking classic to be sure. It's got wrestling, electrocutions, punching concrete blocks, STAN MOTHERFUCKING HANSEN insulting dudes with small dicks, a dude shitting his pants and Hulk Hogan doing push up's in his underwear. What the hell more can you ask for from a movie? The short answer is nothing and while its not a good movie from a critical standpoint its a fucking great piece of entertainment. I'll split the difference, go 5/10 and recommend it to all wrestling fans and also to people who like gay helicopters, because there's bound to be a few of them out there too.

"Until Monday....RIP 'EM!!!"​

 

[Postman Dave]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Great review man, totally sold me on seeing this.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Great review man, totally sold me on seeing this.

Thanks man, it was a break from my normal non-spoiler style but I really enjoyed looking at it in depth.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

La Casa Muda

Laura and her father, Wilson, head to a cottage in the country owned by their friend Nestor. He has hired them to clean it out in preparation for its sale, and they decide to spend the night before beginning work the next day. After Nestor leaves, Laura and Wilson settle down for the night, but soon Laura hears strange noises coming from somewhere in the house. After her father disappears while investigating these noises, Laura heads into the dark recesses of the house in an effort to find him.

La Casa Muda, translated to The Silent House, is a Uruguayan horror film released in 2010. That alone makes it something of an anomaly, as Uruguayan cinema is normally reserved for politically charged films, and sometimes years go by without any national releases. Supposedly based on true events from the 1940's, the film attempts to tell an eerie story in a stylish fashion. While it tends to work in certain areas, it fails in others, and the end result is a film that seems to miss its true potential. There are some effective moments in it to be sure, but more often than not it finds itself meandering around with little to do and no real narrative to drive it forward. Much like the Daniel Radcliffe vehicle The Woman in Black, released earlier this year, it spends way too much time focusing on one character walking through a supposedly haunted house, and its just as ineffective here as it was there. The fact that it is a rare horror film from Uruguay is undoubtedly what brought it a lot of initial praise. Unfortunately simply knowing a film is a rarity doesn't necessarily dictate that it will be great.

"Desperately searching for a script."​

The film is directed by Gustavo Hernandez and based on a screenplay and story written by him along with Oscar Estevez and Gustavo Rojo. The film is purportedly shot in one single take, though it is obviously not. The fact that there's an editor credited at the beginning should be a dead giveaway, but there are also numerous times where the camera fades to black in order to change the scene. I believe that this apparent "single take" idea was meant as more of a marketing tool than as actual fact, and so I can get past it even though it does seem rather dishonest of the filmmakers. The film itself is shot fairly well considering the amount of motion occurring with the handheld camera, and the lighting in particular is very strong. The fact that it took three people to write it kind of bothers me, simply because I found the story to be fairly tepid until the bizarre twist towards the end. In fact, a lot of this film doesn't really have any story at all, and so I have to question why it took three brains to fire out this relatively simple concept. Along with the solid photography, the soundtrack is quite strong, peppered with some chilling ambient music as well as a couple of creepy tunes. I did feel that including a song of children singing was an attempt to go a little Argento on us partway through, but it didn't really work the way I believe it was intended to.

"She's hiding from talent."​

Florencia Colucci, who is cast as Laura, is a decent actress, but she's in way over her head here. It would take a miraculous performance from one much stronger than she to allow yourself to become invested in her plight. It's not entirely her fault mind you, nobody could be expected to sniffle and cry their way through a house with virtually nothing happening for extended periods of time and make it entertaining. Also, I must be more of a pussy than this chick, because if I heard
strange noises and then saw my father get mauled after investigating I'd be leaving the fucking
house immediately! She of course does not, and before its over actually exits before heading back in again as I scratch my head and wonder why. I mean, getting out of the place once wasn't enough for you? What the hell kind of twisted and sick person is Laura anyway? Actually, as we find out towards the end, she's one very disturbed individual, though that comes across as rushed and almost feels tacked on. I was reminded of a French film called High Tension which featured a similar ending but at least had the benefit of some solid kills to make it worth watching. The other featured performers are only in the film for a few moments and so there isn't much to say about them in either a positive or a negative light.

"Sorry guys, she ain't snapping off nudes."​

When the film works, it works well, but unfortunately there's just not enough here from an originality standpoint to take it to the next level. There's your standard jump scare, though done with birds instead of the usual cat, and trust me, its about as effective as it is in every other film. They also do an interesting gag with a Polaroid camera that develops way too fast, which seemed kind of pointless to me though I understood its "creep" factor. They actually return to the Polaroid gag a little later and it works a lot better this time in what I felt was one of the only truly scary moments in the entire film. Unfortunately that also leads me to question how a Polaroid camera could exist in the 1940's, when the supposedly true events from this film took place. I know its being picky, but cameras like the one used in the film were not manufactured until the late 1970's. At one point I thought that this was simply an updating of the original story and made to be set in modern times, but a footnote at the end clearly states that the Polaroid photos were found during the original investigation. Of course that then raises the question of how they were discovered when Laura was clearly seen burning them after the end credits but hey, why try to think these things through logically? Speaking of the credits, I actually found the random Polaroid shots shown during them to be the single scariest element of the film. I also found the setting of the house to work pretty well from a claustrophobic standpoint, but again it just simply wasn't exploited enough to really make me care.

"The writing was so bad it literally killed this dude."​

The biggest complaint of all though must lie in the shocking reveal towards the end. Without spoiling it for you, the big secret of the house really didn't do a lot for me. I admit that I didn't really see it coming, but that doesn't mean that it worked effectively. It was more of a "why the hell did they just do that" moment than a "wow, I can't believe they just did that" moment. It bothered me for a couple of reasons, one of which I've already mentioned as being its similarity to High Tension's twist ending. Along with that, it just seemed very amateurish to me, as if the writers and director had no idea how to cohesively clear up their story and just threw darts at a board of random plot devices until they came up with one they liked. It's not intelligent and its not thought-provoking, its simply a cheap way of closing out a film that never really found its legs. I guess I can't fault them for attempting to shock the audience, but again it just didn't really work for me. At the end of the day, La Casa Muda is pretty much nothing more than a chick walking around in a house for 80 minutes or so, which is about as good as it sounds on paper. Fortunately she's a lot nicer to look at than Daniel Radcliffe, but that's not enough to save the film from falling way short of what it could have been.

"Not the best time to be going for a neck rub."​

La Casa Muda was shot on a remarkably low budget of only $6,000 USD, and though I don't have any estimated returns I'd have to imagine it made some money. It was also well received by critics and was even submitted to the Academy as a contender for Best Foreign Language film, though it did not make the short list. Uruguayan films do not come along that often and so it is a nice treat when one finally does, particularly one that gets such a buzz behind it. Unfortunately I think that it would be best for the Uruguayan's to focus on their soccer documentaries and their politically charged films in the future, because horror just doesn't seem like their cup of tea. It's not a horrible film, but the fact that it could have been so much more really sours me on it as a whole. Perhaps if the house in question had been a little more silent, things would have turned out differently. 5/10.

"Tomorrow, from the ashes of this film comes a remake that defies the odds."​

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Silent House

Sarah heads to her family's cottage, along with her father and uncle, in order to clean and close it before its put up for sale. After her uncle leaves to meet with an electrician, Sarah and her father notice some strange noises in the house. After investigating, the lights suddenly go out, Sarah's father disappears and she's left all alone in the dark house...or is she?

Silent House, released in 2012, is an American remake of the 2010 Uruguayan horror film La Casa Muda. As we looked at that one yesterday, I felt it only fair to look at this one today, if only to compare and contrast the two versions. I had initially not planned on watching this film, as I wasn't a huge fan of the original, but I'm glad that I did. While its still not anything amazing and certainly not a great horror film, Silent House proves to be the exception to the rule that all remakes pale in comparison to their original counterparts. While American remakes like The Ring or The Grudge tend to be rather lacklustre, Silent House actually proves to be a more competent and coherent film than the one that inspired it. That's not to say its without some of the same problems that plagued the original, but it cunningly disguises those with a keen eye for detail, a stronger lead performance and a more structured story. If nothing else, Silent House shows that there's hope for American remakes yet, and while I'm still wary of the concept, at the very least I'm willing to give more of them a chance.

"Careful, if you fall in the movie will be over too quickly."​

The film is directed by the team of Chris Kentis and Laura Lau and written by Lau based on Gustavo Hernandez's screenplay for La Casa Muda. You may remember them as the two filmmakers who scored a major box office hit in 2003 with Open Water, a tension filled tale of two people trapped at sea with some nasty sharks. As I wasn't really a fan of that film, I was worried that they would turn this one into more of the same. Luckily they show some remarkable restraint in comparison to that previous effort and a great deal of maturity as filmmakers. Lau's script makes it much easier to get behind the main character and is generally more realistic than the one in the original. The changes made to the story actually serve to make it more interesting, even though it still doesn't turn out a whole lot better than La Casa Muda's. The dialogue is once again kept to a minimum, which is also good, because it starts getting absurd during the big reveal at the end. Meanwhile, the direction is tight and the pace is brisk, which makes it more interesting even though its essentially the same film. Once again, it clearly isn't one long cut, and actually the visible ones are even more noticeable here, but it doesn't hurt the film once you get past the blatant promotional lie.

"Illuminating one hell of a nice rack."​

Elizabeth Olsen's Sarah is much easier to get behind than Laura from the original. She's better looking, has more of a "spunk" to her (a requirement for all strong horror heroines) and is just generally more appealing. She still doesn't manage to hold your interest when she's wandering around the house, but as with La Casa Muda, its not her fault so much as it is the situation
she finds herself in. Olsen also does a good job of conveying a sense of unease when dealing with a character at the beginning named Sophia that she doesn't quite remember. This character, played by Julia Taylor Ross, is interesting later on in the film and I enjoyed her performance for what it was. While it was partially due to the dialogue she had, I felt the actress did a good job of delivering her lines and leaving me with some interesting thoughts as to her motivations. Eric Sheffer Stevens is pretty bland as Uncle Peter, though at the very least he isn't over the top like Adam Trese is as Sarah's father. To be honest, I felt his performance really distracted from the film towards the end and he just came across as a total caricature of the character that he was supposed to be.

"If you'd just stayed down we wouldn't have had to deal with your awful acting."​

Silent House distances itself from La Casa Muda in several ways, most of which are to its benefit. It takes just a little longer for the scarier stuff to start, which helps to create a much greater feeling
of impending doom than there was in the original. This also leads to the scenes with Olsen wandering through the house seeming not as long and drawn out as they did in the original, which was a major issue I had with that film. The house is also a lot bigger this time around, which makes it a little less claustrophobic but also gives it way more places for intruders to hide. I actually prefer it like this, since the claustrophobic aspect of the original didn't really work all that well anyway. The basement alone here is way creepier than any room in the original house and I was pretty unsettled during her travels in it, particularly when she stumbles across a rickety old bed. The initial house escape sequence in this film is also better done than the original, if only because we've already become firmly invested in Olsen's plight. Finally, this film is not as darkly lit as the original, which I felt could be a blessing at times and a curse at others. There didn't seem to be as much pure tension in this one as in La Casa Muda, but the manufactured tension worked a lot better. The good old Polaroid gag makes an appearance here as well, and its about as effective as it was in the original, so that's also a good thing.

"What exactly is she trying to unlock?"​

Another thing about this film that I felt greatly distanced it from the original was the more coherent explanation to the story. Where the original attempted to be too ambiguous with the shocking twist ending, this film at the very least made it a little more obvious. Without getting into details, there's just way more evidence provided here for the audience to make their own conclusions as to what exactly is going on in it. There's also a fair bit of imagery that's designed to play with the viewers mind, but all of it does indeed have its place in the grand scheme of things. My only real complaint about the story here is that I felt it was left unresolved in the end. One character may have suffered for the crimes they committed, but it appears that another may have gotten away with theirs. Perhaps this was due to that character not being as directly responsible, but I still felt it was something that was left open that probably should have been closed. At the same time, I felt that this film seemed to be a copy of several others not including the one that it was based upon. While the original reminded me of High Tension, this one bore some similarities to The Strangers as well, itself a pseudo-remake of the French film Ils. I don't mind films that are similar to others, but I would have preferred to see a little more originality in this one, even though it was based on another.

"I told you to stay in the damn house!"​

Silent House was shot on a budget of $2 million and earned over $16 million at the box office, which isn't stellar but certainly isn't bad. It didn't receive much critical praise but I still feel it has a little more to offer than the film that it took its inspiration from. At the very least, it proves that Elizabeth Olsen is a performer to keep an eye on in the future, as she did a good job getting me invested in her character here. It also managed to make me realize that I shouldn't be so hasty in condemning remakes without giving them their fair chance. While its not great, its good enough for me to recommend, particularly for those who like to jump when things go bump in the night. 6.5/10.

"Tomorrow, a tale best told in the dark...since its dark you see."​

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

The Book of Eli

Thirty years from now, the world is a barren wasteland. People make do with what they can scavenge, and some resort to cannibalism in order to survive. In this chaos, a solitary man named Eli travels west, carrying a book that could hold the secret to mankind's survival. When a ruthless warlord learns of the book, he will stop at nothing to take it from Eli and use it for his own evil ends.

The Book of Eli, released in 2010, is a post-apocalyptic thriller in the vein of The Road Warrior or the lesser known A Boy and his Dog (a poster for that film is actually seen on a wall at one point). While those films sought to create a pseudo-realistic portrayal of this bleak but possible future, this one turns up the volume to 11 and attempts to turn that future into what can only be described as a video game. While it does feature some thought-provoking material and some strong individual performances, it also has a tendency to go way over the top at times. This hurts both the realistic feeling of the story itself and also the way it resonates with the viewer. I appreciate any filmmakers attempt to create something truly unique, and at times those involved here actually do. Unfortunately it seems that too often they end up drowning in their own excesses, creating a fractured view of a flawed yet eerily believable world.

"The Book of X-Box?"​

Directed by the Hughes Brothers and written by newcomer Gary Whitta, the film is technically sound and is shot particularly well by cinematographer Don Burgess. The Hughes Brothers hadn't done a whole lot since 2001's From Hell, but their previous work on Menace II Society and Dead Presidents showed a certain flair for filmmaking that could not be denied. Here they manage to take some lofty ideals and corral them together even though they also seem to be trying too hard to be methodical. For instance, I felt there was way too much walking done in the film and that it really served to bore me from time to time. With a length of 107 minutes, the pacing should have been much more tight than it turned out being. Whitta's screenplay has its moments, but it also has a lot of filler and his scenarios really reminded me of cut scenes from a video game. In fact, I was not shocked to see that Whitta's only previous work had been on the video game "Prey" and that he had been an editor for PC Gamer for several years. While he did bring some interesting ideas to the table, too often he allowed his characters to turn into caricatures of themselves. Even with the strong cast that was assembled for this film, those caricatures are sometimes too hard to look past.

"All these books and not one copy of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?"​

Denzel Washington is cast as the lead, Eli, and plays his usual bad ass self with a slight twist. I'll get into that more in a moment but I have to say that he was simply fantastic in the film. Washington always has a way of making each unique character a part of himself and here his performance is no different. He is simply riveting in every scene and a real treat to watch. Luckily he's great, because he spends a lot of time with Mila Kunis, who is most certainly not. Sure she's nice to look at, but if she isn't in lesbian scenes with Natalie Portman, her acting skills go right down the tubes. Seriously, at one point I thought Meg Griffin was arguing with Denzel about wanting to see the book instead of a totally different character, which is what she should have been. Gary Oldman is suitably creepy as Carnegie, the man who wants to steal the book and use it for personal gain. Oldman shows some remarkable restraint considering the way his character is written and turns in a fine performance, though not one of his best. Meanwhile Ray Stevenson hams it up as a hired gun, Jennifer Beals flashdances her way through the part of a blind woman while Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) and Frances De La Tour go beyond over the top as a pair of cannibal hippies.

"Nice to see that Busch can still get product placement in even after an apocalypse."​

The film is technically sound, with the above-mentioned strong cinematography and a great soundtrack to compliment the performances. There are also some severely stylized fight scenes throughout that look really cool but don't provide much in the way of substance. Perhaps my favourite of these is the one right at the beginning where we see that Denzel is so strong his blade of steel can knock a chainsaw right out of a man's hands! To be honest, if it was meant to set up Eli as an ultimate ass kicker, it worked. Why then did I need to get another scene with him doing basically the same thing about 15 minutes later? It's almost as if the Hughes Brothers felt they had to continually top themselves instead of simply telling a good story with a logical conclusion. Speaking of topping themselves, there's another scene a little bit later on featuring a shootout that I can only imagine had hardcore gamers standing up and cheering. They even made sure to have a couple of guys fly around on wires after they're blown up for good measure. Finally, as I mentioned above, the pacing is way off with this film and I felt it dragged for long portions. As I had kind of figured out what the end game was going to be about 40 minutes in, I felt myself getting frustrated that it wasn't moving along faster to this inevitable conclusion.

"This is the shittiest basement I've ever seen."​

Fortunately I am a positive Fuji and so now that I've dissected the things I didn't like about the film its time to talk about the one thing that is great about it. That would be the allusion to the fact that the character of Eli is in fact both blind and being led by God in his actions. There are several moments where it seemed obvious, at least to me, that the character was at least partially blind. From some choice dialogue like "we walk by faith, not by sight", one can infer that he is in fact a messenger of God, chosen to protect this sacred book until he's told to deliver it unto the rightful heirs. The fact that he's blind allows his other senses to take over and rule his judgements of those around him, in essence rendering him a true agent of justice. The real question then becomes whether he's truly acting as God's hand or has he simply been enlightened through reading the book and realized his true calling. This ambiguity works very well, and though the film tends to miss the mark a lot of the time, it still leaves some questions at the end, which is always a good thing. So while it has its fair share of faults, it also has some strong acting and a relatively thought-provoking story, enough for me to recommend it with only some mild hesitation.

"If only I could read this damn thing I'd marry it!"​

The Book of Eli was shot on a budget of $80 million and earned just over $157 million at the box office, which is surprising considering the concept. I think that if it had been marketed to a slightly younger crowd and some of the violence removed to avoid an R, it would have done even better numbers. Still, its not always about numbers, its about the film itself too, and while its flawed, its not all bad. As long as you're thinking about it when its over, the film has done a good job and that is certainly the case here. The future may indeed be bleak, but if more films like The Book of Eli come along it will undoubtedly be interesting. 7/10.

"Tomorrow, Denzel's a man on fire, and he's still got a gun."​

 

[JakeYourBooty]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Dude I am so happy you are doing Denzel movies...and your next one is one of my favorites

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Dude I am so happy you are doing Denzel movies...and your next one is one of my favorites

Mine too, but unfortunately that'll be the last Denzel one for now, was just filling some old requests. I'll come back to him shortly though, since there's a few others of his that I want to cover.

 

[JakeYourBooty]

Inside Man would be a good one

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Inside Man would be a good one

I've actually never seen it so yes, it would be good to cover.

Man on Fire

John Creasy, an ex-CIA assassin, has retired and is slowly drinking his days away, having given up on life. One day, an old friend of his, who is now living the good life in Mexico, sets him up with a rich family who require a bodyguard for their young daughter. Creasy reluctantly agrees and slowly builds a relationship with the girl, allowing him to readjust to the real world. Then the unthinkable happens, the child is kidnapped, and Creasy begins a desperate search for her while his old demons and violent inclinations start to boil to the surface.

Man on Fire, released in 2004, seems on the surface to be a standard vehicle for its star, Denzel Washington. Its only once you watch the film that you realize its actually a profoundly in depth character study and an emotional rollercoaster that breaks from standard Hollywood archetypes. Taking a perfectly realistic story and tweaking it just enough for a film audience, it manages to easily toy with the emotions of its viewers while still providing its fair share of action and suspense. That it is so well balanced is a testament to the work of everyone involved, and while its not his best known film, it certainly features one of Washington's strongest performances. At the end of the day, its a piece that shows the darkest individual attempting desperately to grasp a simple ray of light. Though that may not be easy for most of us to understand, the fact remains that there are people in the world who struggle with this sort of thing daily, a point that Man on Fire gets across quite well.

"All it needs is a little more cowbell."​

Directed by Tony Scott and adapted by Brian Helgeland from A.J. Quinnell's original novel, the film is a true slow burn, taking a great deal of time to set up its story. Luckily Scott is one of the top directors in Hollywood and is more than capable of pacing it properly to tell that story in a logical way. His direction here is up to his usual high standards (set in such films as Revenge, True Romance and Crimson Tide) and he's certainly proven oven the years that he's more than just Ridley Scott's baby brother. Of particular note here is his use of the hand held camera to create a more vibrant and realistic type of shot. While some films like The Blair Witch Project tend to overuse that particular effect, becoming more annoying than anything else, Scott knows just when to quit before that happens. Helgeland's screenplay is exceptionally strong as well, allowing multiple characters many opportunities to develop while maintaining a strong focus on the overall story. I haven't read the novel on which the film was based, but I can imagine not a lot of liberties were taken in adapting it for the screen. Paul Cameron's cinematography here is also superb, really highlighting the beauty and ugliness of the Mexican landscapes that the film takes place in. Above all else though, Man on Fire is a film about characters and the scenarios they find themselves in, and Scott assembled an absolutely top notch cast to fill those roles perfectly.

"See, reading ain't not so hard you know."​

Denzel Washington may not have been the original choice for the role of Creasy (Robert De Niro was in case you were wondering) but he certainly proves to be more than adept at playing the part. In fact, as I stated earlier, I think this is simply one of his best overall performances. He easily shows a wide range of emotions with the character before doing a 180 and reverting to the cold killer that he was in the past. His cold and near emotionless way of dealing with his enemies during the second and final act of the film is quite chilling even though he's meant to be the hero. He also has some great chemistry with a young Dakota Fanning, who to her credit manages to hold her own while working with him. Fanning already had quite the career for an actress so young, but this film firmly cemented her place as one of the hot young actresses to watch for in the future. Meanwhile, her parents, played by Marc Anthony and Radha Mitchell, do great work in running through the gamut of emotions that they should be. More excellent support comes from Christopher Walken (as a friend of Creasy's), Rachel Ticotin (as a reporter), Giancarlo Giannini (as an AFI agent) and Mickey Rourke, who steals a scene or two as Anthony's sleazy attorney. Even the bit players are strong here, and though none of them were household names, each was more than up to the task of giving forth their best efforts.

"Why you always gotta' be profiling the brothers?"​

As with Scott's earlier film Revenge, Man on Fire is essentially about, you guessed it, revenge. Revenge films are always interesting to me, regardless of the subject matter on display, but there are a couple of rules that must be adhered to in order for them to work. One, you must feel some degree of empathy for the agent of revenge, in this case Creasy, since if you don't why should you care that they're taking revenge in the first place? Second, the revenge in question has to be merited. You can't just go around sticking bombs up peoples butts because they made fun of your mother or peed on your front lawn, since really, who cares about stuff like that? Man on Fire gets these two simple concepts right, it makes Creasy a completely compelling character from the beginning and places him into a situation where revenge is the only logical path for him to follow. Its not enough that he failed in his task of protecting the child but that he lost the very person who had slowly been helping him become a human being again. I'd say that's more than enough justification for his rampage and while some of his tactics could be considered immoral or underhanded, he's dealing with the scum of the earth here so what else should he do? Besides, revenge is a dish best served cold anyway, and man does Creasy know how to do that. It's not always pretty and its overly violent at times, but again, these are seriously bad people so its almost enjoyable to watch them get their comeuppance in the most hideous of ways.

"Tattoo on the face? Yep, you're a douche."​

As far as issues with the film go, I really only have one, though its pretty significant. I realize the importance of establishing both the character of Creasy and his relationship to Pita (Fanning). What I don't understand is why it needed to take so long. This film clocks in at just under two and a half hours and honestly, it really dragged at the beginning. Luckily Washington's killing spree is more than worth that wait, but I really feel it could have been shortened by about 15 minutes and nothing would have been lost. As well, even with the extremely strong middle act, the film kind of falls off its hinges towards the end, where it appears another act has been inserted even though we thought the film was already over. I've never been a big fan of the "multiple ending" thing in films and would have preferred that they'd just gotten it taken care of the first time around. However, the final ending itself is superb and certainly leaves the viewer rewarded if somewhat saddened at the same time. At the end of the day, Man on Fire gives you what it promises, a man on a full out rampage, hell bent on destroying every scumbag in his path. That it takes a little long to get there is not that big of an issue, because once it does you'll be more than satisfied.

"That's what you get for making fun of my goddamn shirt."​

Man on Fire was shot on a budget of $70 million and earned over $130 million at the box office, making it a very successful revenge film when compared to some others in the genre. That's most likely due to the ease in which it tackles emotions and relationships between its characters while also offering up the requisite amount of violence needed in a film of its type. There may be better revenge movies out there, but not many have the strong sense of morality that Man on Fire does. That is what makes it not only truly unique, but also a film that's certainly worthy of your time even if it takes a little more of that time than you'd expected it to. 8/10.

"Next time, the fire will come from the sky."​

 

[Postman Dave]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Book of Eli was surprisingly good, great concept.

 

[Mitch Buchannon]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Yeah Fuji you definitely need to see Inside Man. One of my favourites and IMHO Spike Lee's best movie.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

American Psycho

Patrick Bateman is living the American dream. He's young, wealthy and successful, able to afford the finest things in life on a daily basis. However, Patrick's American dream also holds within it a stark nightmare, an insatiable bloodlust that is growing increasingly strong. As Patrick's world starts to unravel around him, he allows himself to go completely insane, with devastating results.

American Psycho, released in 2000, is a somewhat controversial film based on a controversial novel of the same name. Deemed near un-filmable for years following its publication, the project moved from one studio to another until Lions Gate decided to take a chance on it. Though its nowhere near as graphic as the source material on which it is based, it still became a polarizing film for several reasons, including its portrayal of violence against women and its ambiguous conclusion. While it may not be the easiest film to watch at times, it still stands as an excellent piece on mythical male superiority and the glorious excessiveness of the 1980's. Relying on a healthy dose of the darkest comedy, strong performances from its principal cast and an impeccable attention to minor details, it manages to transcend genres and become a truly original film. It may indeed be a film about pure evil, but one things for sure, pure evil never looked this good.

"Truly les miserables..."​

The film is written and directed by Mary Harron with additional script work from frequent collaborator Guinevere Turner. Harron had already brought herself to the attention of the indie film elite with her quirky 1995 film I Shot Andy Warhol, earning praise for her unique and insightful style. While it took her much convincing to get the job here, she more than shows her capability in handling the sensitive material on display. Her camera work is minimal for the most part, choosing to focus heavily on close ups of her actors, but it works to great effect considering the themes the film touches on. She also chooses to shoot the violence in a subdued manner, allowing for the imagination to take hold and convincing the viewer that they've seen a lot more than they actually have. This can also be credited to the cinematography of Andrzej Sekula, who employed a similar style to great effect in films like Reservoir Dogs. The screenplay by Harron and Turner is significantly altered from the source material in certain areas (it had to be to avoid a potential X-rating) but it still gets its point across very well. Most interesting to me is the not so subtle feminist approach to the film that they took, portraying men as mostly insecure morons who desperately yearn for any sort of superiority they can find. While there are some high concept themes going on here, the film is first and foremost a character study, and they certainly found a good actor to play that particular character.

"Well it looks like someone's a Slayer fan."​

Christian Bale is cast as Patrick Bateman and while he still hadn't become the star he eventually would, one can see here that he was definitely on his way. His charismatic performance simply dominates every facet of this film and he is riveting to say the least. He easily moves through several complex emotional states and never lets any one of them get too out of control. Perhaps my only complaint with him here is that his Welsh accent seems to pop out from time to time, particularly when he's yelling at people. Other than that minor quibble, Bale is certainly the one to watch this film for and I'm surprised he didn't even merit consideration for a Best Actor Oscar, especially considering his performance here is infinitely better than eventual Oscar winner Russell Crowe's was in Gladiator. Willem Dafoe lends some legitimacy to the film in a great little role as a detective who questions Bateman on several occasions while Chloe Sevigny shines as Bateman's receptionist. In fact, her chemistry with Bale is exceptional and leads to perhaps my favourite scene in the film, where she accompanies him to his apartment and talks about relationships while he tries to decide what instrument he'll use to kill her. Reese Witherspoon also pops up as an annoying socialite and the only thing that bothered me about her is the she wasn't killed off. If it had been a straight up horror film, she definitely would have taken an axe to the face at some point during it. The other supporting actors, who mostly play colleagues of Bateman, are all good in their roles and form a sort of faceless individual, which is another key element to the story.

"Alright boys, its dick measuring time."​

As I mentioned before, there are strong feminist overtones to the screenplay here, particularly in the mythical male superiority category. These wolves of wall street are portrayed as nothing more than insecure little boys who seek to prove their dominance over the pack through the design of their business cards or their ability to procure reservations at posh restaurants. If these are indeed the dominant members of our society then it speaks volumes as to how much trouble we're actually in as a whole. While the feminist message is overt, it is balanced out by the violence against women on display, but again that is simply used as a tool to argue the males insecurity around women in the first place. This isn't the first "horror" film to take a feminist stance, Slumber Party Massacre (coincidentally also written and directed by women) did the same years before, but this one really delves into the heart of the matter. At the same time, its graphic images of gratuitous sex and violence epitomize the decade in which the film is set. Truly no better example of the excess of the 80's exists and that includes films that were actually shot in that decade. Before going further into the secondary theme of the film, I'd also like to quickly point out how nice it is to see Toronto so well represented on film. I've been to several of the locations that they used for restaurants and the club that they attend partway through the film is the good old Phoenix Concert Theater.

"Let the gum rubbing commence."​

The secondary theme in this film is that of mistaken identity, though through apathy rather than any other reason. Many characters in this film are interchangeable with another (which is why the colleagues all seem so similar) and indeed some even mistake each other for different people through the course of the film. Is it that difficult to understand how though? These people are all carbon copies of each other, with only slightly different facial characteristics or haircuts to distinguish them. Even Bateman, who attempts to be an individual, has basically no original thought outside of his killing, as even his reviews of both food and music are repeated verbatim from another's source material. The film also raises several questions with its ambiguous ending, the biggest of which is whether the events that we've just witnessed actually took place or are simply the dark fantasies of an obviously disturbed mind. Ultimately we have to decide whether to believe Bateman's final confession for ourselves. Was it real or imaginary and if it was real, why do so few people seem to care? This lack of caring is clearly exhibited by both a real estate agent and Bateman's own lawyer, two people who should be more interested in what he has to say than they seem to be. On the other hand, if its imaginary, are Bateman's fantasies simply a way for him to rationalize his marginal existence, much the same as his need to spend money or get designer business cards? These are not the easiest questions to answer, but they certainly allow American Psycho to stand out and become open to the sort of interpretation reserved for truly great films.

"Talk about making damn sure the wig will never come off again!"​

American Psycho was shot on a budget of $7 million and earned over $34 million at the box office, not a bad take considering its controversial subject matter. It also helped to propel Christian Bale further into the upper echelon of actors and proved that even something very touchy can resonate with an audience willing to embrace it. Its influence can be seen throughout pop culture today, most notably in the television series Dexter, and its ambiguous ending still fuels intense debate. American Psycho is the first truly great film of the 2000's and a solid slice of black comedy cheesecake for those who are willing to fatten themselves up on the misfortunes of others. 8.5/10.

"Tomorrow we skip on over to the hospital for a little more feminism...and murder."​

 

[TroyTheAverage]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Great review. I was hoping you would give some insight, or at least your thoughts on if it was all in his head or if it was real. Loved Bale in this performance too.

 

[Fuji Vice]

Re: The Wing Kong Exchange

Great review. I was hoping you would give some insight, or at least your thoughts on if it was all in his head or if it was real. Loved Bale in this performance too.

Yes, I believe it was all in his head, though the most important question is still whether Patrick Bateman is even a real person or simply a persona created by someone else? One friend of mine has a theory that Paul Allen is actually the main character and the Bateman persona is his. That's a little out there but he has given some plausible reasons for it. I tend to think Bateman is simply just another faceless and nameless person who is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and so creates this fantasy life to feed his ego. Look at the sex scene with the two women, or this gif in particular...

:flex:

He doesn't even care to look at the women he's banging, he'd rather look at himself, because when it all comes down to it, his body is all he really has. Whoever Bateman really is, he's pretty pathetic, and all the money and prestige he has can't buy him any level of importance to anyone significant.