In Time

Okay,

Another day, another relatively decent movie. I've caught some other stuff lately (the awful straight to DVD Catch 44, the excellent Warrior, the omnipresent Hunger Games) but the scifi action flick, In Time, seemed the most interesting to write about. I also like the Good, Bad, and Ugly format from my last post, so I'll stick to that or lists. Helps keep me organized. Anyhow...

In Time - written, directed, and produced by Andrew Niccol, a man with a mostly good record. After all, he brought us my favorite Jim Carrey movie, Truman Show, a pretty solid Nic Cage flick with Lord of War, the interesting Gattaca, and the just plain horrid S1Mone.

If Niccol had a trademark, it'd be exploring the idea of humanity (and usually class systems) through an interesting lens. In Time seems to be the closest to a Gattaca meets Minority Report... its a dystopian future with a man trying to set things straight on the run from the authorities.

The Good

1. Production Values/Cinematography

In Time looks really polished and the set design and costumes are solid. I enjoyed the uniforms of the timekeepers and the muscle cars they drove around. Similar to Gattaca, its the far future, but things don't look "that" different, maybe even regressed a bit. I think movies that take this view of the future hold up a little bit better, as movies made in the 60s and 70s set in 2001-2010 show, things don't change that quickly


2. Justin Timberlake/Cillian Murphy

I haven't mentioned it yet, but this movie stars Justin Timberlake. Now I've enjoyed his acting in what I've seen so far... his supporting role in Alpha Dog was solid, he was the best part of Southland Tales, and his frequent Saturday Night Live appearances are pretty hysterical. He's playing a pretty standard stoic action type and doesn't have to display a lot of range, but Timberlake's good looks and charisma always help and I think he could be a viable lead in similar roles.

Cillian Murphy plays the sympathetic police antagonist. Its tricky because this part has already been played extremely well in some similar genre films (Colin Farrell in Minority Report, William Hurt in Dark City, even the Operative from Serenity). Murphy has played some memorable villains and instead of hamming it up, puts forth a somewhat subtle, nuanced performance. After seeing this movie, I'd be interested in how he'd play Inspector Javert (from Les Miserable).


The Bad

1. The Concept

Man is it silly. At the beginning of the movie, Timberlake has a voiceover that says something like "that is how things are, don't question it." To me, the enjoyment of the movie really hinges on whether or not you can swallow the central "time" plot idea. It just seems a little far fetched and full of plot holes. Without massive spoilers... there are so many problems with the movie (the ease at which the "time bank" is robbed, the fact that the barriers between time zones are guarded only with a pretty easy to walk past concrete barrier, etc)

2. The Villains

Cillian Murphy is too sympathetic, the guy from I Am Number 4 (Alex Pettyfor) plays a time criminal, but he's not particularly menacing, and the main time businessman is weaselly, but not out and out evil. On one hand, I think they were trying to put the "system" to blame but I would have liked to have seen a stronger more menacing antagonist for Timberlake to fight against. Even the other timekeepers/time police didn't seem really competent or threatening. Now in a dystopian movie like THX-1138, having the law enforcement be somewhat incompetent because no one really challenged them was interesting, but In Time just came up short when it came to the bad guys.


The Ugly

1. The script

Take The Fugitive meets Logan Run and have the character say the word "time" twice per minute and thats what we get here. It wasn't a particularly original story or characters and a lot of the dialogue is silly to say the least. Even worse, a lot of the character's actions don't seem to make a lot of sense (and there are too many "running against the clock" scenes).

2. The love story

Good lord its forced and also doesn't make much sense. Amanda Seyfried is attractive, but I don't understand why she'd fall for Timberlake so quickly except for the script said so. Also considering how risk averse the rich are in this movie, she played a lot of the more "exciting scenes" as relatively dull surprise. I'd think being in a high speed car chase would be utterly terrifying if you never took any risks (like swimming in the ocean for example). Considering the constant danger she's put through, the fact that she so ardently sticks with Timberlake just doesn't make a lot of sense. I realize they are both attractive and all, but it seems like a tacked on Hollywood love story in a movie that didn't really need one (wasn't Will's family enough motivation?)

So In Time, worth a watch, but definitely flawed... I'd give it a 5/10 - perfectly adequate, but don't go out of your way to see it.

Conan the Remake

Hello all,

I caught a little movie called Conan the Barbarian yesterday... a movie that I had zero expectations for (it got awful reviews and completely bombed - only making just over 48 million worldwide on a budget that approached 100 million). From the director of the Friday the 13th remake and the awful Vikings vs Indians Pathfinder and starring a complete unknown in Jason Momea (and no, I haven't seen Game of Thrones, I know hes in there) I was expecting the absolute worst.

What I got was definitely flawed, but pretty fun and watchable... So without further ado, the good, the bad, and the ugly from Conan the Barbarian...

The Good

1) Jason Momea as Conan.

Now obviously the iconic movie Conan is Arnold Schwarzenegger from the 80s flicks, so Momea had the toughest challenge of anyone in the cast (Except the villain, but I'll get to him later). Saying that, the physicality of the part was completley nailed. Momea isn't as big as Arnold, but he was a more nimble sword fighting and brutal dude. He also seemed to do the majority of his own stunts.

I don't know the Conan from the comics/books at all but I felt like this Conan was having more fun. He had this "battle smirk" and look during the fights that seemed totally believable for a lifetime barbarian warrior. The last part of the performance was that Conan is pretty much a jerk: he's very sexist, rude, extremely brash, and fairly stupid. It was actually nice to see such a politically incorrect main character. Yet despite this Momea, made him charming and likable and an easy character to root for. Bonus points to kid actor Leo Howard for making the young Conan a similarly great character: I almost liked his section of the movie more.

2) The R Rating

Conan the Barbarian from a plot standpoint is always going to be about the same... Conan avenging and wreaking violence on the bad guys. This is a hard R with decapitations, limbs getting chopped off, blood everywhere, pretty much what would happen if a skilled, ripped barbarian with a big sword took on a bunch of mooks. The violence isn't super stylized (no Zack Snyder bullet time here) and the movie seems pretty gritty with the fighting.

Also, we get surprising amount of female nudity. One thing that a lot of the adult 80s fantasy movies delivered was topless women and it was really refreshing to see here. At one point, Conan frees a bunch of slaves and instead of wearing some togas, the ladies aren't wearing much of anything. Now Conan's girl (who's a monk) has a toga on, but there is a love scene later where she takes it all off too. For the women, you get an uber ripped Jason Momea without a shirt for the whole movie, so to be fair, the guys and girls both get some quality eye candy.

3) Ron Perlman in a supporting role

I love Ron Perlman in almost anything he shows up in, he plays an intense elder barbarian (Conan's dad) and brings some class and acting chops to the early scenes as Conan's mentor. He makes the early section of the movie (along with the aforementioned Leo Howard) the best section and provides the adult Conan some great guidance and motivation


The Bad

1) Stephen Lang as Zim

If you don't know who Stephen Lang is (and I didn't by name), he's the evvvilll colonel from Avatar. Once again he recklessly chews scenery and constantly hams it up, I could tell he got the "comic/pulp novel" feel of the movie and just went for it. Lang also did much of his own stuntwork, which I can respect and the writing for his character was pretty strong to make him a good antagonist.

However, compared to the incomparable James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom from the original, as an antagonist, Zim falls flat on his face. For one thing, Lang is in good shape, but hes in his 50s and fights the much bigger and stronger looking Conan.. I understand skill vs strength, but I didn't buy that Lang could hold his own when Conan blew threw dozens of armored guards the whole movie. The original movie didn't have Thulsa Doom engage Conan in swordplay, his minions did the dirty work.

Also, Zim is billed as a warrior that no one has ever beaten, now he has some formidable henchmen, but I didn't get the sense of menace that James Earl Jones portrayed... He just isnt a super memorable villain and I think part of it is miscasting... if the producers wanted a more physical match for Conan, someone like a Michael Clarke Duncan type would make more sense. Speaking of which

2) The supporting villains

A big bunch of wasted opportunities here... Its odd because a movie that has two physical beasts in former MMA star Bob Sapp and former pro wrestler Nathan Jones (the giant bad guy from Fearless and the Protector) would seem to have great villains. Two problems: the supporting villains get almost no lines, no backstory, and act more like video game bosses than characters. Also, Conan beats most of them far too easily and almost comedically a couple times. Its frustrating when 55 year old Stephen Lang does better in combat than the 6'5", nearly 400 lb. Bob Sapp or the 7'1" Nathan Jones.

Also, Rose McGowan as the evil witch... the makeup is ridiculous, the acting is odd and not frightening, and the "magic" seems really up to the script. Watching the movie, remember what this character can do at the middle of the movie compared to what she does in the climax, and the problems in the script become really apparent.

3) The love interest

Rachel Nichols is attractive, but seems far too "Hollywood" in her makeup and looks and general attitude for a barbaric fantasy world. I also don't buy her fighting prowess: she's a pacifist monk yet can still handle a knife.

The Ugly

1) The production values

Now if 100 million was put into this movie, I want to know where most of it went. The sets felt like sets, there are some blatant matte painting/blue screens for the big vistas, and the whole didn't feel particularly epic. I hate to say "R rated Hercules the Legendary Journeys (the Kevin Sorbo show) episode"but it felt like that at times.

Now I read that the film was actually shot in Bulgaria and South Africa, so I'll the blame the director to show some establishing shots of how epic and huge the world is. I don't want to say "rip off the Lord of the Rings helicopter shots" but I never felt this huge fantasy world was anything more then some backlot sets and forests.

Also, despite most of the fighting being pretty realistic, there were a few too many obvious "stunts" where people fell huge distances onto "rock" and didn't get hurt. Also, the CGI at hand was pretty bad (the giant monster sequence, the mummy rejects, and the silly looking mask Zim wears) for a 100 M production.

2) The Story/Editing

This aspect was the most frustrating about the movie. I can't tell if it was the nine producers or 3 screenwriters (between them, they wrote Cursed, the Crow sequel, Dylan Dog Dead of Night, Sahara, and the awful Sound of Thunder) that were responsible for the weird script and pacing.

The best part of Conan is the opening 45 minutes or so, especially the stuff with the young Conan and Perlman. It almost follows a similar pattern to X-Men Origins Wolverine, where the longer the movie goes, the dumber it gets. The main plot thread about redemption was good enough, but the subplot with the villain being the necromancer king trying to resurrect his dead witch wife with the helmet of the MacGuffins... It just felt totally pointless.

Also, when the Macguffin is donned, Zim doesn't seem any more powerful. There's talk of him "conjuring up undead warriors and melting flesh" but he gets less accomplished then Disney's the Horned King during the climax of the Black Cauldron (throwback reference to my top villains blog post).

Finally, the movie is a hour and 45 minute before credits, but it seems too long and too short at the same time. All the characters except for Conan and Zim (and Conan's dad in the early going) are completely one note and underdeveloped. I'd have liked a little more backstory or dialogue for some of the supporting bad guys or the big dude whos Conan's buddy (who conveniently disappears often) or the "thief" character (who I think is in there just because the original movie had a thief).

However, some of the fights get really redundant and silly. Special note is the part towards the end when Conan enlists the thief character (who's also miscast and doesn't look nearly experience or old enough to be a master thief) to break into Zim's castle. There, he encounters a giant octopus (that looks like the kid brother of the moat monster from the first Lord of the Rings) and this big, shark man henchman. The whole sequence is purely filler, the thief is screaming the whole time like an Indiana Jones love interest, and this occurs in the last half hour of the movie!

Its especially jarring because the movie has been going for gritty realism for the most part (except for how Conan can get his ass kicked, fall incredible distances off a cliff, and then apparently be healthy enough to swim a half mile to a boat - but you can quibble with action hero invulnerability in many movies) and to see a SciFi Channelish CGI monster, it doesn't make any sense. I understand the original Conan had the giant snake in the temple scene, but there's no octopi anywhere else in the movie (except I guess the MacGuffin kinda looks like an octopus). Furthermore, the octopus isn't explained or used in the climax at all... I usually don't spoil an ending sequence like this, but it has no impact on the story whatsoever.


Final Verdict

Conan the Remake knows what it is (a gratuitious R rated 80s throwback) and has a more than capable leading man. Problems with the script, editing, and some weird casting choices hold it back from its ceiling.

I give it a 5.5/10... worth a redbox on a slow dayor a look on cable, but that's about it.

Kidnapped

Wow, Kidnapped... I just got done watching it and I'm not sure what I think of it... Definitely a movie that'll stick with you... Its a Spanish language home invasion movie - sort of a mashup of "Funny Games" and "The Strangers" with a hint of "Panic Room" thrown in.

I've noticed that a lot of recent Spanish genre films feature extremely long takes, something that Guillermo Del Toro and filmmakers behind [REC] both use very well. Of course, a long, slow burn has been a horror staple since the days of Universal and Hammer, but a lack of rapid fire edits feel particularly dissonant to an increasing ADD Michael Bayized generation. Strangely, the trend towards unflinching takes has largely ignored the horror potential of actual reality, something that director Miguel Angel Vivas seems well aware in this movie.

I wasn’t counting, but I’d be surprised to learn if there were more than 15 cuts in this 80 minute endurance test of a movie. “Kidnapped” (or as the subtitles reveal its original title “Hostages”) doesn’t stray far from the formula one has come to expect of such films, save for a jarring opening sequence that shows the aftermath for the previous victim. There are three thieves, dressed in black, and a family of three, whose only conflict appears to be that their daughter Isa wants to go out with her boyfriend. She is halfway out the door when the burglars burst through a glass window on the side of the house and proceed to tie up the women and dispatch one man to take the father, Jaime out to collect money from various ATMs.

Whereas most filmmakers would derive their tension from the unknown, Vivas often divides the screen into two as Jaime drives around the city to empty out his bank accounts and Isa and her mother Marta are tortured by the other two thieves. One can see the fear and desperation in Jaime’s eyes as he suspects the worst and Vivas simultaneously shows the audiences in real time what is actually happening to Jaime’s wife and daughter. The split-screen is really the only concession Vivas seems willing to make to break the reality he’s constructed, there's no humor or throwaway moments for an audience member to breathe. Sometimes the camera is trained on the floor or a shelf as conversations go on in the background, but for the most part in “Kidnapped,” the tension keeps rising to higher and higher levels.

Ironically, you don’t notice what “Kidnapped” is missing until well after it’s over – the characters, bad and good, all radiate intelligence and don't make any typical "why are they doing that?" blunders that lesser films are guilty of (I'm talking to you, Strangers). This masks the fact that the characters are fairly stock and people we’ve seen many times before. Also, the film is based in real time, but doesn’t work against a ticking clock, and up until the climax, the violence is inflicted psychologically rather than physically.

Although I was disappointed in the film’s ending and I'm not sure why. For one, it definitely doesn't betray the spirit and themes of what came before. “Kidnapped” is such a display of intense, downright muscular filmmaking that its shortcomings in the stock character department completely cede to its impressiveness as a lean, mean, thrill machine.

P.S. This one is unrated for a reason. I'm a pretty stoic watcher of film, but there's a particular scene that really made me go eeesh!

Dark Scandanavian Fantasies... and by that I mean Rare Exports and Trollhunter

Alrightey,

Instead of a post describing the terribleness that was Smurfs, the movie... I thought I'd write about two Scandanavian movies both featuring some dark takes on some fantasy characters. So I'm talking about the 2010 Norwegian found footage film Trollhunter and the 2010 dark Christmas tale Rare Exports.

Trollhunter got initial acclaim when it was played at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. Despite the positive reviews, it wasn't released in the states the summer and got a super limited theatrical release (21 screens), only making a shade over $250,000 domestic. Of course, because heaven forbid we expect people to read subtitles, a remake has already been announced (tentatively for 2014).

In general, I don't really care for the recent trend of "found footage" films such as the amazingly popular (and profitable) Paranormal Activity series. Heck, I hated Blair Witch Project back in the day. However, Trollhunter steps a little further and is less irritating then some of those other films. The setup, that the students are documenting bear poachers, means they are mindful of potentially dangerous subject material. There weren't many moments when I was screaming "put down the camera and run."

The acting by the students is credible, but Otto Jeperson as the titular Trollhunter steals the movie completely. He plays the fairly ludicrous concept completely straight (I can see Kris Kristofferson playing this part in an English language version) and as such keep the trolls as a believable threat. I also liked the various government officials in charge of "troll cleanup" duties. The whole movie keeps the fantastical elements grounded and never gets campy or "wink wink." There are some obvious nods (and less obvious) to the troll mythos. Finally, although modestly budgeted, the visual FX work is fairly top notch and many of the troll scenes are shot at night which helps with covering up CGI.

What didn't I like? For a movie trying so hard for realism, a lot of it doesn't make much sense. I find it hard to believe that creatures as immense as some of the trolls shown here could escape prying eyes (the cover of the DVD spoils the end). Also, the filmmakers are fairly generic, I realize the movie focuses on the trolls and the trollhunter, but I would have liked more developed leads. One last note, they try to go a good job for having the filmmakers stick with the troll hunter when they find his actual job, but I think they reacted a little too well to the fact that mythical trolls exist (the exchange is like... "you don't hunt bears?" "no" "then, what do you hunt?" "trolls" "we'll film that instead).

Overall though, I enjoyed Trollhunter for what it was - I think the problems with the movie come from that its a found footage flick about hunting mythical trolls in a realistic way in modern day Norway. The filmmakers made the absolute best movie possible given that premise.

Rare Exports, a Christmas Tale was marketed as an "evil Santa" movie and I went into it thinking it would be the Finnish equivalent to "Silent Night, Deadly Night" or "All Through the House" (2 American 80s killer santa flicks). Its actually a pretty serious, grim look into the mythology of an evil Santa told through the eyes of a young boy (played very earnestly by Onni Tommila) who would be a great lead for a Finnish remake of "A Christmas Story".

On paper, the movie seems very silly... An evil businessman tries to free a demonic "Santa" whos trapped in a block of ice in the middle of a mountain while Santa's depraved immortal elves close in to try and free their master. But theres a grit to the movie (in part due to the Finnish landscape, in part its because the movie never slips into parody. I actually felt parallels to a combination of Pan's Labryinth (with the super dark fantasy elements) and John Carpenter's The Thing (unearthing unknown evil from ice, the bleak setting) but its own unique film.

The reveal of "Santa" from the previews... brr... The actor Peeter Jakobi plays the part as a savage, scrawny beast of a man with a beard. Now, he eventually does end up wearing a Santa suit, but strictly for warmth. The first hour of this move in fact is a slow burning buildup with a lot of dread and suspense.

My biggest problem with the film is the ending. I don't want to spoil it at all, but I found that the adults suddenly following the boy's every order as well as "Santas" eventual fate both rang false. There's also a lot of action when I think the slower scenes play a lot better and truer. Finally, the movie is weirdly short... its less then 80 minutes before credits and I feel like with the established buildup, the climax would be more satisfying. Now I am aware that the director, Jamari Helander, expanded on two short films to make Rare Exports, but I wish that they had better direction for the ending.

Overall though, this is the best Christmas themed suspense movie since the original Black Christmas. The combination of music, mood, tradition (love how they use gingerbread), and acting makes Rare Exports one to check out and an early contender for my 2011 Let the Right In award (best foreign movie released in the US a year after its actual release date).

Neo Noir Fun!

Vengance (2009) and Bunraku (2010)

If you haven't heard of either of these films, well, you aren't alone. Both had tiny theatrical releases in the US and although Bunraku featured known stars like Josh Hartnett, Demi Moore, and Woody Harrelson, no one seemed to care much.

Film noir as a genre is one that I feel like I enjoy even though I haven't seen many of the classic Hollywood film noir pictures. Its also a really tough genre to pin down... Although everything I've read consistently states that film noirs feature antiheroes, tough moral decisions, low key lighting, use of shadow and contrast, interesting camerawork... Apparently whole books have been devoted to find out whats actually noir.

The two things I found interesting during research was that two of what I call noir archetypes aren't actually considered film noir. Or to restate, what two characters would you most think of if I said "name a basic film noir character"? Both the hard boiled detective and the sultry femme fatale are apparently not original to film noir. My favorite description from the 50s was that all true noirs involve dream-like, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel plot devices...

Anyhow, both of the above movies I'd place in the "neo noir" genre... Two of the most prevalent issues in neo noir are identity crises and questions of subjectivity as well as technological problems and social ramifications. Some of my absolute favorite movies have some basis in neo noir - looking over my shelf, films like Blade Runner, Dark City, Fargo, Memento, Out of Sight, Reservoir Dogs, Se7en, Minority Report... the list goes on and on...

So because most people probably haven't seen either Vengeance or Bunraku, I'll keep the plot descriptions light and try to be as spoiler free as possible....

Vengeance is a French-Hong Kong collaboration by prolific and acclaimed filmmaker Johnnie To. I am not familiar with any of To's other movies, but the biggest strength of Vengeance is the direction. The film's visual style just floored me at times. Its hard to explain, but think John Woo if he just got done watching a Sergio Leone marathon.

To has a talent for shooting "cool machismo" and in a era of silly wire work/bullet time fighting, it was super refreshing just to watch guys shooting pistols at each other. To’s brilliant emphasis on sound (or lack of), lighting, hero shots, slick angles and slow motion made the pow-pow bits highly memorable (the showdown near scrapyard is cool). There’s one gun party set in a forest, sporadically illuminated by moon light with no sound other than gun fire that's just breathtaking.

As far as the plot, it involves Vengeance... Without giving anything away past the first few minutes, it involves an older man (played by Johnny Halladay, the french equivalent to Elvis) who's daughter and family are gunned down by three Triad hitmen. The man, Costello, swears vengeance, and spends the rest of the movie trying to avenge their deaths by tracking down both the hitmen and their boss.

Hallyday made for an above the norm anti hero. With his emotion filled eyes, nonthreatening physique (the guy is in his mid 60s - far cry from an Arnold type) and a face that says “yes I’ve lived the hard life got a problem with that” he was ideal for the role. Special props to go three To regulars: Anthony Wong, Ka Tung Lam and Suet Lam. This quirky trio all shared an electrifying chemistry and gelled with Hallyday’s acting style effortlessly. Wong in particular really stood out – talk about an awesome screen presence. I'd never seen him before but I really loved his intense performance.

However, despite all this, Vengeance falls into the same "revenge" plot that's been done. There are a bunch of plot/logic holes here too (a lot of "Hollywood" aiming in certain scenes) as well as a total lack of police anywhere in the movie. Finally, although the movie has a lot of violent gunplay, the actual bullet impacts resemble a paintball fight more often then not. Although given the poetic nature of the film, that may be what they were going for.


Bunraku also relies on interesting visuals, although Guy Moshe seems to be going for a Sin City style Kurosawa film. The basic plot here is that in the future, all guns are outlawed after world war 3 so society basically backtracks to a quasi feudal system like ancient China. A woodcutter named Nicola comes to rise as warlord of all the world "East of the Atlantic" and hes got nine deadly killers as well as an army of red suited goons to back him up. The heroes are a no named drifter played by Josh Hartnett as well as a samurai played by Gackt (a super famous Japanese musician) who begrudgingly team up to take down Nicola (underplayed beautifully by Ron Perlman).

Its really difficult to describe the visual flair and style of Bunraku. Its a super rich, colorful film unlike Sin City but it features a similar stylistic approach. There's a great melding of animation and live action, also touching on classic western motifs and definitely oddly enough the musicals of the 50s and 60s. Although Hartnett and Gackt both look cool and have unique fighting styles, I didn't really get into them characterwise... they both have motivation, but they aren't very deep interesting people, mostly there to fight there quirky killers and armies of red shirted mooks.

Three things really elevate this movie beyond the average martial arts fight fest. I really loved Woody Harrelson as the bartender... He has great comic timing without being annoying, I felt like he had the most interesting backstory and character arc... Harrelson is a tricky actor to use properly but between Zombieland a couple years ago and now this its good to see him getting such good work. Will Patton plays the omniscient narrator and the narrator is almost his own character in the movie. Since good chunks are told in a quasi animated flashback, Patton's narration carries the movie through some of the more non linear perspectives (I love him in the opening too).

Finally, for me, the true standout and absolute scene stealer of the movie is Scottish actor Kevin McKidd as Killer #2. He mixes the danger and ruthlessness of Mr. Blonde from Reservoir Dogs with the charm and grace of Fred Astaire and is a super uniquely cool adversary. If you unfamiliar with McKidd (beyond his current role in Grays Anatomy) I'd recommend his star making turn as the lead in Dog Soldiers. I'm serious that the character belongs in the Darth Maul group of "awesome bad guy henchmen (maybe a future blog post there)" and is super memorable, especially points of the climactic fight scene.

So what doesn't work about Bunraku? Demi Moore seems bored, out of place and wasted as Harrelson's love interest. I wish Perlman was in the movie a bit more and he had a little more backstory to play. The fights with the 9 killers for the most part are really well handled, however, some of the fights against the armies of mook henchmen could have been cut down. Finally, there are a ton of plot holes here, but the point is more on the visual/feel and fighting rather then strong script. Gackt's character in particular is so archetypal I feel like I've seen him in dozens of other movies (Hartnett gets less focus and has less dialogue so I actually enjoyed him more). If you enjoy kung fu movies and or Sin City or want to see a memorable villain and an epic Hartnett mustaches, check out Bunraku.

So we'll see what we get next in the old Netflix queue. I'm really looking forward to Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale as well as 30 minutes or less. It was just ironic that these two movies literally almost came back to back. Until next time, that's all I have to say about that..


Patrick