Overhyped & Disappointing Films
Kung Fu Hustle
Not recommended.
Stephen Chow directed, co-wrote, and stars in this cartoonish parody of both Hong Kong’s wushu cinema and Hollywood’s gangster and cowboy movies. Unfortunately, I cannot use the term cartoonish in a good way. In better films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Mask, real human beings behave like cartoon characters, and that behavior contributes to the humor of the films through the great disconnect between what is real and what is imagined. Stanley Ipkiss puts on the mask and is transformed into a living, breathing cartoon character. Regular human beings become disconcerted and bemused by the strange events going on around them and to them, and we laugh at them. In Kung Fu Hustle, however, we are presented with human beings who already have, what are to the rest of us, superpowers. No room is left for the disconnect because we already expect the characters to be essentially magical. And so the comedy falls short because there is nothing unexpected for us to laugh at.
One of the great joys of watching a fine martial arts film is the awe that overpowers us when we witness the superior skills of the combatants. We know that at times, for safety reasons and to increase the prowess of the actors, wire work and stunt doubles are used, and we know that when the story is mythological certain characters will have powers that are nothing short of wizardly, such as the ability to walk in treetops. Unfortunately, Kung Fu Hustle cannot decide if it is a martial arts film, a myth, or a cartoon. There are a few scenes — a very few scenes unfortunately — that depict true martial arts prowess; and there are a few more scenes, like the one depicting lute players who can kill with properly tuned notes, that are mythological, if very much overdone. Sadly though, much of the movie is given over to not very funny slapstick, pointless cartoon action, and cheesy special effects. Roger Ebert wrote it was “like Jackie Chan and Buster Keaton meet Quentin Tarantino and Bugs Bunny.” Well, he was almost right, except Buster Keaton isn’t in it, Quentin Tarantino probably had something better to do, Bugs Bunny sent the Road Runner as his understudy, and Jackie Chan was replaced by... well... Stephen Chow.
This film is loaded with problems: Due to their selfish, criminal, misguided, and often creepy motivations and actions, it was impossible for me to connect with, relate to, or even like any of the characters, which made it impossible for me to connect with, relate to, or even like the film. The out-of-sequence story-telling seemed to be merely a gimmick, and added nothing to the effect of the story; rather, it seemed as if the film was filmed in sequence and randomly re-arranged for the sake of coolness. Rather than making the story more interesting, the non-linear story-telling revealed all of the surprises and the ending in the first half hour or forty-five minutes of the film. (Any comparisons to the superior film Memento are therefore false, being based, as they are, on a misunderstanding of the importance of that film's reversed story-telling to the audience's understanding of the frustrations the main character faces. In Memento, the story is told in short sequences in reversed time so the audience can never know more about the plot than the protagonist does.)
Knowing whodunit and how and why, as well as knowing all of the outcomes, doesn't diminish the effect of a more charming film with more charming characters (think The Thin Man), but all that foreknowledge accomplished here was to make me care even less, for within a half hour of the film's opening scenes I already knew I liked none of the characters, that I would grow to like none of them, that I despised all of their past and future actions and motivations, and that the unexpectedly weak story itself could no longer be sufficient to carry me to the end. I squirmed in my seat for the entire second half of the film.
The
Triplets of Belleville (Belleville
Rendezvous)
Not recommended.
In the opening sequence, a half-nude Josephine Baker-type is attacked and dragged offstage by monkeys who seek the bananas she wears as a skirt and a Fred Astaire-type dancer is eaten by his own tap shoes. So starts a not-for-kids cartoon that seems oddly obsessed with eating and the grotesque.
The art ventured into extremes of ugliness, like something out of Heavy Metal magazine, and the triplets themselves were downright repulsive. Not only was Triplets visually ugly, it was also creepy, annoying, and somewhat cruel. The characters have no dialogue, giving them a certain zombie-like quality and a eerie lack of depth. For a significant part of the film, the primary character, Grandma, communicates only by blowing a whistle. After a while, I wanted to strangle her with its chain. Fixing a flat tire with a dog is somewhat cruel, even in a cartoon. (Although, I was sympathetic here: that dog never stopped barking and whining.) Rescuing a frog only to have it squashed by an oncoming train is even more so. But cruelty and repulsiveness can be forgiven in a cartoon; being boring cannot. Denise and I completely failed to get involved in the movie, even though others in the audience were laughing, and we did something we have probably not done in years: We walked out of the movie about midway through.
From Here to
Eternity
Recommended anyway.
Perhaps because neither of us had never seen the film, and clips of it always feature the "romantic" scene on the beach where waves crash over Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster, both of us were somewhat disappointed by From Here to Eternity when we saw it on the big screen at the Avalon Theatre. The film isn't a romance, nor is it romantic; Kerr and Lancaster merely have a sex-based affair, with neither caring all that much about the other. Frankly, we wanted them to be in love, but I'm sure that in 1953 the scandal of the loveless extramarital affair was the point.
The film's performances and portrayals are what remains to recommend it; don't go in expecting a great romance, as we had done. With the exception, perhaps, of the usually much better Frank Sinatra, all of the stars give very memorable performances. Burt Lancaster exudes masculine presence, and Deborah Kerr makes the somewhat unsympathetic role of a neglected and lonely adulteress all her own. The military mindset seems accurately portrayed, and filming at Schofield Barracks adds to the realism.
Breakfast
at Tiffany's
Recommended anyway.
We've seen Breakfast at Tiffany's twice now, once on video and once on the big screen at the Avalon, and there is a great deal to recommend it. Actually, I can almost say I love it. Audrey Hepburn is delightful as Holly Golightly, a socialite/call-girl who seems so far gone into her own compulsions and fantasies that she'd be beyond saving. George Peppard's compelling performance as Paul Varjak, the novelist/gigolo who vows to save Holly from herself, raises the perfectly legitimate question, Why wasn't he used more often as a leading man? The final scene in the rain is just about as compelling as any ever filmed. Patricia Neal and Buddy Ebsen are also superb in pivotal supporting roles.
There is a major flaw that just cannot be overlooked, however: Mickey Rooney's racist caricature of Holly's Japanese neighbor Mr. Yuniochi. It seems to me that such an over-the-top portrayal might have caused some squirming even in 1961, but certainly it is distasteful and insulting to watch today. I haven't read Truman Capote's original novel, so I have no idea whether Yuniochi was portrayed in such a cartoonish manner there. I suppose the only excuse, should one be needed, is that WWII had only been over fifteen years when Breakfast at Tiffany's was filmed; perhaps not enough time had passed for racist attitudes about the Japanese (enforced by U.S. government propaganda during the war) to have dispelled. Still, even had the performance not been racist, had Mickey Rooney instead played an over-the-top, angry, white neighbor, would the performance itself be funny? Did the character add anything to the film in the way Buddy Ebsen's and Patricia Neal's characters did? The answer to both questions is no. Minus the racism, the character would remain pointless and annoying. When you rent Breakfast at Tiffany's on DVD, I suppose you can always use the scene selection button on your remote to skip over Mickey Rooney's parts. The rest of the film makes it worth the effort.
Movies
Books
Television
Photo Galleries
Under the Blanketing Night
Steve’s Poetry
The Jesus Limericks
Plato’s Republic, Book 11
Cubicles
Jeffreviews
John’s Poetry
Army Cadences
Fun & Games
Commercial Writing
Personal & Contact Info
Copyrights
Home