Gene,

I meant visually cluttered, not narratively.

K,

ROBOCOP is more than mere product, so it doesn't apply to what I referring to in saying CA is a better than average. I meant an action film that was based almost entirely on commercial demands, that was made to fit certain demographics, and that's all.

And, yeah, in general HK action films just don't tend to appeal to me, so I sample every few years and none of it tends to stay with me. The last theater release I went to was TIME AND TIDE that was, with the exception of a couple of sequences, pure shit. Same goes for John Woo, the CHINA films, etc.. Like Hollywood action films, they seem to me just more lcd entertainment, only "foreign". I keep trying them as friends keep recommending them, but I've not seen much to change my mind. I'm sure that there are great films being made there, but they don't seem to make it through the distribution channels as dictated by the tastes of the action geeks, which in turn makes me hate the action films even more.

I really liked Time and Tide, even if the subplot about Tyler trying to do the right thing by the lesbian gal he got pregnant was a little too Luc Besson.

Was the version you saw dubbed? Apparently, the English dub dialogue isn't as good as the DVD subtitles. When I rented it, the English voices got on my nerves pretty quickly, so I switched to subtitles. The actors' actual voices helped a lot, and the subtitles were easy to follow.

Personally, I would rank most of the Hong Kong action movies I've seen a lot higher than any of the Hollywood action movies I've seen since "Black Hawk Down"... but then, my tastes are pretty quirky, so I don't think we'll ever find common ground.

But I'll definitely take just about any movie where the leads really do know a fair amount of kung fu over Cameron Diaz on wires doing an unconvincing job of beating up Crispin Glover... except for the "Once Upon a Time in China" series, which is basically unwatchable to me because of my Western sensibilities. The incidental music alone in "Once Upon..." II requires a lot of willpower to endure.

You might want to try something like The Emperor and the Assassin, which is a mostly slow-paced, but interesting look at feudal China with some cool sword fights and gorgeous cinematography. And the female lead is hot, so there you go.

Well, if Robocop is more than mere product, I can’t help but wonder why not Once Upon a Time in China or The Killer ... ? Relative to their respective industries, all three are big-budget, mainstream efforts which (to me) considerably transcend the expectations for such productions, and result in a too-rare, harmonious hybrid of “art” and “entertainment.” The only significant difference that I can think of as setting Verhoeven apart is that he’s satirical and somewhat self-aware, whereas Hark and Woo are not. But self-consciousness is only so much of a merit, at least in my book, and while Verhoeven’s satirical edge (when it works) might allow him to get away with some underhanded sophistication here or there (and let’s be honest, only here or there), he’s awfully clumsy in other departments. In any event, I find Hark and Woo’s lack of contempt for their audience somewhat refreshing. Additionally, their lack of self-awareness (supplemented by the dizzyingly whimsical manner in which HK movies are generally made) gives their more poetic turns the thrill of unencumbered spontaneity.

Ultimately, all three of these guys are, to my mind, trash-peddlers of a much higher order than, say, the Michael Beys and Jerry Bruckheimers of the world. Their work isn’t generally intended as high art, but – at its best – there’s something in it that makes you want to frame it and hang it up on your wall despite itself. I find that exciting.

Anyhow, bear in mind that I toss out the above not to be argumentative, but just for the sake of discussion; as for Charlie’s Angels, I’m sure I’ll post back here if I end up seeing it. I’m just puzzled, because if it’s nothing but pure commercial product to you, I’m unclear what it is that you’d be appreciating as “superlative” (other than Barrymore’s cherubic flab and Crispin Glover’s presence) ... what, for instance, might make it more worthy than, I dunno, Spider-Man, or Tomb Raider, or Scooby-Doo. It can’t be an “ironic” appreciation, I know, and even an un-ironic tolerance for the soulless demographic pastiche would seem, to my mind, to render all the above movies roughly equal.



As I understand it, there is very little real arthouse cinema made in the HK region. I do have the names of a few of the purported overlooked gems lying around here somewhere though.



: ) I like that music!


K

Yeah, Dumas, Chen Kaige and Wong Kar-Wai and Zhang Yimou, their work I'm familiar with, and I can get a list of the 5th and, now, 6th generation of Chinese directors, but I've not had much luck in gaining access to any of their work, unfortunately, much less Chinese films before the 80s.

And it was a subtitled version of T&T that I saw.

The latest edition of Cineaction is devoted to Asian art cinema for anyone interested.

K, I forgot to mention that I did receive your email, but I've been behind on my internet activities of late. Anyway, 3 points (and I never mind argumentativeness, unless it's from a fundamentalist):

First, I disagree that "Bay" doesn't denote just as much of a style as "Woo"; so on those grounds (of "personality" or "holography" or "auteurism"), I don't see one as being inherently inferior to the other. In fact, I'd actually rather watch THE ROCK than THE KILLER.

Second, it's been too long since I've seen ROBOCOP to defend it's "intellectualism", but I do know that, intentionally or not, Verhoeven has consistently provided us with films that reward repeated viewings. I'm not sure the same can be said of Tsui Hark and John Woo.

For anyone interested, the latest issue of Film Quarterly has a collection of essays devoted to the merits of SHOWGIRLS. There's a real gem among them (the last one).

Finally, I don't believe I could make a reasonable argument for CA being better than those HK flicks we've named, only that it's not really a different sort of animal (nor a less evolved one at that). My underlying point has been that HK action fans have nothing to get snootish about regarding American tastes in action films. Yes, there's nothing innovative about the action sequences in CA, but the extant techniques used are used effectively. Yes, there's nothing really fresh about the dialogue in CA, but I found the characters enjoyable enough to engage me. And in terms of the standards of a James Bond film, however low those may be, the villains of CA were far more fun. CA was exactly what I'd hope for in a big budget adaptation of a goofy tv bauble from the late 70s, if you don't like the interplay of the 3 angels in either version, you're not going to like what either has to offer. And the chunkier Barrymore is great for t&a. And, although not as fun as when he's making sandwiches or hiding dead stoner bodies, Glover is fun to watch. McG isn't a Woo, true, but he's not a Bay, either. But if you prefer to watch HEROIC TRIO, you'll certainly get no condescending stares from me.

My BEST SUMMER MOVIE on VIDEO: Miike's DEAD OR ALIVE. The bestiality scene alone is worth renting this one! Fuck that, buy it, it's MIIKE!

Charles,
Ah, I see that you did say "cluttered action sequences." I thought you were critiquing their fitness within the narrative as being mere "clutter," not that they were visually hard to follow. They didn't affect me so, but one man's meat, etc.

Well Terminator 3 was ok, I guess. It held my interest throughout the viewing. Nothing special, and the shortcomings (derivative plot, lack of characterization) tended to come to mind in the post-mortum.

2 notable things about it, though. First, the car wreckage-chase scene was more thrilling and engaging than the one in Matrix 2. I think a better sense of realism, and the idea that some human characters in the car might actually get killed, made it more involving.

The other notable thing is the ending (SPOILERS). Thing that annoyed me most about T2 was the optimism Cameron injected into it, as if to say with the fall of the Soviet Union we no longer have anything to worry about. The new film rejects that optimism, not only in the ending, but in the first shot of the film.

Mediocre film, good message.

What does all this yee-yawing have to do with Spellbound??? Go see Spellbound, goddammit.

Matthew

I'm trying to clear out a bunch of my VHS tapes. Some titles you guys might be interested in so I wanted to link it here. Please check out the thread in the Marketplace section for the details or just click here. Most are just $1.00 + shipping (and I do accept Paypal if you're hooked up with that.) I'd also trade clumps of 'em for single DVDs you might be looking to pawn off. Almost everything is in very good condition.

Highlights include some Japanese and HK movies, a few arthouse picks, and some WS Dir. Cut editions.

Also, I've got an extra copy of the Chinese HERO DVD, and Zu: Warriors.

K

So, I borrowed Charlie's Angels from a guy I know ... last night? The night before? I forget. While I’m sure you could all do just dandy without ‘em, here are my detailed thoughts on it anyway, because this is just how much free time unemployment leaves me with.

All in all, it was quite bad, but I'll grant that I experienced a twinge of reluctant enjoyment here or there. Some of the visual sensibilities were fun, and the action choreography better than I'd have expected, (even if the slo-mo Matrix-y effect was ridiculously overused.) I liked Crispin Glover, of course -- the aesthetic of his character was really nice, I just wish they'd done something more with him. I liked his menacing techno theme, too. Actually, I liked a surprising amount of the background music in the movie, and I can't get "Barracuda" accompanied by the image of Lucy Liu's marching efficiency expert out of my head.

As for the girls, they were hot and dumb, which I guess is the point, but also terminally unfunny and lost amidst a real snoozer of a script. (Not like I expected much from the script, but sheesh ... talk about a dull narrative.) Drew Barrymore was the only Angel whose death I was actively rooting for though. I really can't stand her. Why does she always talk out of just one side of her mouth? Is it cerebral palsy or something? Bleh. She made a very convincing boy though. Freakishly so.

As for McG's ADD-style direction and pace, I dunno – it’s pretty intolerable for the most part, but at his best, he achieves a kind of gleefully stylized Saturday Morning Cartoon pitch which – considerably perfected -- I could probably kinda dig on. I almost feel like McG has the vague potential to produce just the kind of “superlative,” fluffy, Hollywood style-ride Charles referred to earlier in the thread. I just wouldn’t personally say Charlie’s Angels is it. For me, Charlie’s Angels was, well -- I’d break it down like this: 35% pain, 40% boredom, 15% neutral stupefaction, and 10% stylishly action-packed silliness. While that’s a little short of my idea of a superlative anything, it’s actually a significantly better breakdown than I would’ve predicted myself giving it. ; )

Yep.


K

Madget, I certainly appreciate your thoughts on Charlie's Angels. I was laughing out loud through the whole post.

I agree with everything.

I had forgotten about the efficiency expert scene, sort of--just one of many things that made me wish they would have focused more on the Lucy Liu character and less on Cameron Diaz... who apparently was supposed to be the "hot" one.

Lucy Liu was damn funny in that movie doing her dragon lady routine, and she got the least attention so that we could see pointless scenes that weren't even funny like Diaz answering the door in Spider-Man underoos or dancing badly to "Baby Got Back."