The Forbidden Kingdom

Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and two other actors who are almost completely unknowns.
2008

Don't listen to the reviews that indicate that this movie is frivolous or even close to silly . . .

because it's a Jackie Chan/Jet Li movie, for goodnesssake, and if you know either of those actors and their movies, then you know exactly what you're getting into.

Yes, it's about a guy who travels back in time 300 years to the past, and yes, he learns how to become a martial arts master in like, oh say, a week! and yes, Jackie Chan plays the drunken fool who is a master of the art and Jet Li is brooding, yet cool, and yes, there is a firey heroine with a chip on her shoulder and a knife that's faster than thought and yes there are cartoonishly evil villians who have terrible lines and yes it's about a quest for honor and glory and revenge and

it's just a great time to be had by all. It's fun. That's all it was meant to be, and frankly, anybody who goes into this movie looking for anything more than just a fun time is in the wrong theater.

And by the way, here are some mighty nice action stills from the film:


As for this one here ............................---->

Please let me tell you that this fight scene between our two heroes must have gone on for a beautiful ten minutes or so of great martial arts kicking-keister action and man, this viewer felt exhausted after they finally finished up!

WOW! Great choreography!

Iron Man

Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow

2008

Yup, definitely the action movie to kick off the summer. While not as action-intensive as last years Transformers (which, by the way, ROCKED!), this one has enough to keep you entertained but not overwhelmed. In fact, I could have used a little more action . . . possibly some more kicking of the Afghan rebels.

And of course, Downey plays a great character - a little more heroic than he usually plays, but I don't think there's another actor out there who pulls off arrogant character flaws the way he does, and in Tony Stark, he's got them. And it's good that the movie played to that, because it kept it (cringe to say!) in the realm of believability.

In addition, my 15 year old tells me that Marvel is planning a series of movies that will culminate in their Civil War series (currently running in comic book form) by the 2012 (which, incidentally, is when the Aztec calendar tells us that the world will end), and this explains why Tony Stark admits to being Iron Man at the end of the movie . . . it's a setup for the others to come.

I also read a great article (I forget if it was online or onpaper) about the fact that Marvel controlled this movie (rather then relegating it to another movie studio) which allowed them creative control - that, and a tightly written plot, made this movie entertaining all the way through,

Now that we are on the subjects of both well-written plots and Marvel's overall plan, I must mention that there is an ad for The Incredible Hulk, which I think Marvel plans to release later this summer. As we all know, the full length movie released a few years ago was a STINKER (deserving a row of exclamation points as well as all caps), but I must say that the trailer for this NEW Hulk movie seems to start fresh. That is, it doesn't reference the stinker in any way. In fact, at the end of the trailer, I rather expected to see this across the screen

THE INCREDIBLE HULK
THIS TIME, WE'LL GET IT RIGHT . . . WE PROMISE!

And I hope they do. Looking forward to it.


VG

Running Scared

Intense. That's really the only way to describe this movie - basically, if you like Sin City, you should like this one, as it has the same gruff look and hardcore violence, same camera angles and visual sequences. Yes, this movie looks like it could have been a Frank Miller graphic novel.

It also employs a plot device that has never failed to entertain me: the entire course of the action takes place on one given night. Straight through, beginning to end. That type of tight-knit span of time, it seems, always ensures that the action is fast-paced. Basically, never a dull moment.

Certain elements are disturbing, though - that of the pre-teen children who are completely dulled to the violence around them. With the son of the Russian, you can almost understand from his family life (the John Wayne-lovin' kid-beatin' Ruskie sumbitch), but the other kid, the son of the main character - while he has grown up around his tough dad, it seemed as though he had been somewhat sheltered from the graphic violence, and I suppose the movie does a fairly decent job of filling out these characters, I dunno.

There are a few plot devices that seem a bit contrived, though, and it lies in the redemptive aspects of both the Russian dad and our main character. To go into detail would be giving out some spoilers, andn I don't want to do that.

Suffice it to say, this is a tough movie - tough enough that I would have to say that, yes, it definitely is deserving of the tag line I read on the cover:

"Makes Kill Bill look like Sesame Street"


(Speaking of Sesame Street, watch out: the scene with the husband/wife and their little "kid movie set" in their apartment will make your stomach churn. And I will spoil this part: it almost makes you cheer when they get what they deserve!!)

VG

The Constant Gardener

Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz
2005 Focus Features

Both the wife and I enjoyed this film immensely, particularly because it has moments of great power and effectiveness. To give you a taste, a low-level British official to Kenya gets mixed up in a power game after his wife is brutally murdered - involving a drug company and some aspect of the British government. His wife however (whom he married on a whirlwind fling) turns out to be involved (which is, of course, what got her killed) . . . .

and that's just about enough to get you started. Don't want to spoil any more.

The two main aspects of the movie that were good for further discussions between the spouse and I afterward were:

One - the depiction of poverty in Kenya and southern Sudan. Note to movie viewers who watch for craft: watch how Fiennes' character has changed (as he echoes a sentiment from Wiesz earlier in the movie) onboard the UN plane, as he tries to convince the pilot to take a young girl with them.

Two - also alludes to Fiennes' character: my wife was disconcerted by his lack of grief over his wife's death. What I extrapolated was this: the character is a botonist and slightly aloof by nature and doesn't really seem confortable in any social situation and shows little emotion of any sort. Add to that the aspect that this woman just breezed into his life in London and then works her way into marriage just so she can follow him to Kenya. When the mystery starts to reveal itself he naturally has the question of "Did she marry me just to get to the country?"

However, one of the brilliant aspects of the movie, for me, was the revelation of the clues that she left behind. As Fiennes begins to investigate what she was investigating, he not only discovers what she did, but he also discovered that she loved him far more intensely than he ever loved her. And to me, that was the most tragic part of the movie - this realization that her love was pure and emotional and intense . . . that she knew him, trusted him, believed in him. More than he ever did in her. That is both beautiful and sad.

Exquisitely bittersweet.

VG





P.S. I thought I'd also add a map of the region depicted in the movie. Not to say that none y'all know where this place IS or nuthin' . . . but they DO say that yanks are the worst at geography!!