KungFu-tse Reviews

Open Season (2006)

Knock-off of every CGI animated movie previously released.

[6/10 · 12 October 2006]

I'd have to agree with the critics on this one. When you release so many CGI movies with talking animals, there is a point at which mediocrity becomes common place. Open Season is no exception.

It seems to me that a lot of these movies released this past year revolve around this basic formula. 1) A plot involving talking animals. 2) Hire celebrities to do the voice acting (need at least one comedian). 3) Have a main character and an annoying obnoxious sidekick. 4) Have some simple plot in which the main characters are on a journey and have to reach from point A to point B.

When watching Open Season, I couldn't help but notice the parallels to Shrek. Boog (the bear) = Shrek, and Elliot (the deer) = Donkey. Need voice actors? Easy, let's hire two comedians (Mike Myers & Eddie Murphy vs Martin Lawrence & Ashton Kutcher). Plot? Well, let's just make them stranded somewhere and they have to reach from point A to point B. In this case, from the forest to Boog's old home. Of course, I could make the same case with Finding Nemo (comedians Albert Brooks & Ellen DeGeneres, main character and sidekick, travel from point A to point B plot).

Now don't get me wrong, I love Shrek and Finding Nemo. The problem is that when you have two great movies like these released previously, you can't help but notice how much Open Season recycles from previous movies. Open Season lacks any emotional charm or comedic originality. Another problem I had is that a lot of the jokes are based on clichés and stereotypes (Scottish squirrels? Male deers = high school jocks? Ducks = French resistance? Female skunks = black women?).

If there's any redeeming value in this film, it would be the fact that I watched it in IMAX 3D. It looks amazing. Wearing the 3D glasses, I could see each individual patch of fur on Boog's back and the characters literally came out from the screen.

Is this movie good for the kids? Yes. It had some laughs in it and it does bring about a moral message about the preservation of wildlife. It's a good way to kill and hour and a half. But don't expect to see anything new or original in this film.

Three... Extremes (2004)

Excellent directing and editing but little shallow on the story.

[7/10 · 15 October 2005]

I just saw an early DVD screening at the Dallas Comic Con. I was looking forward to this movie because Park directed "Old Boy" and I've seen Miike's work in Audition and Ichi the Killer.

Anyways, here's what I thought of all three parts:

1)"Dumplings"

I like the premise of this segment. Without give away the secret ingredient, let's just say it's very disturbing. My only complaint about this segment that it ended a bit abruptly. I liked where it was going and I wish it went a little further. Hopelly, Hollywood would try to remake it and go all the way with the story.

Please note that after going home, I checked on the web and I learned that there's a 90 minuted extended version of it. You can check LoveHKFilm.com for a review. I'd like to see how that turned out.

2)"Cut"

This segment was pretty amusing. I especially liked the twists and turns towards the end.

My only complaint is that the plot wasn't very original. I mean, come on. How many times have you seen a guy tied up and some crazed maniac puts him through hell with mind games. Can you say "Phone Booth"? "Saw?". Also, it's again one of those stories where if the main character did something smart, it would have been over already.

Overall, I enjoyed it very much (especially the end). Good acting and dark humor, but unfortunately it seemed like something I saw on TV already.

3)"Box"

I really loved this (not surprising since I like a lot of Miike's previous works). You're left guessing as to whether it's a dream or reality. What's really going on here?

I especially enjoyed climatic moments where it's all silent and your eyes are focused on the activity on screen.

If I had any complaints, it's the ending. Was that supposed to be a twisting and shocking ending? Because if it was, I wasn't impressed. I was left in confusion. I remember one lady who walked out with me after the movie and said "Huh?" when talking about the ending.

Overall it was a good movie. It was well directed, well edited, sounded great, and looks fantastic. Some of the stories (especially the first part) really need an American remake. Unfortunately, it was the script that needed some work. The first ended too abruptly, the second seemed like something you've seen before, and the third had a confusing ending.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Not the same without James Cameron

[5/10 · 6 June 2004]

I'm surprised that Arnold even bothered to participate in another sequel without James Cameron as director. It was James Cameron wrote and directed both the first and second Terminator movies. Both movies were classics.

The main problem is that Jonathan Mostow, director of this movie, fails miserably to imitate the genius style of James Cameron. T3 is littered with bad music, cliché dialog, and terrible editing and cinematography. Mostow is about as mediocre of a director as one can be.

Honestly, this movie should have never been made. The Terminator series has been spoiled. The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that the special effects were good and that Kristanna Loken looked absolutely gorgeous.

But that's the problem. The main focus of attention was the special effects and Loken. This movie doesn't have any rememberable dialog like the previous one, nor does it capture the audience's emotions during scenes of drama.

Do yourself a favor and pretend that this one never existed at all.

Citizen Kane (1941)

You need to take a film class in order to understand it's greatness

[9/10 · 6 June 2004]

The first time I rented and watched Citizen Cain, I actually fell asleep. This was shortly after AFI listed it as the #1 movie of all time a few years ago. I didn't understand the movie at all and I certainly didn't understand why it was #1.

Now I realize how ignorant I was.

Last year, I took a course in college on Film (I'm working on being a film director myself). Citizen Cain was a topic that the professor brought to us early in the semester. This would be my second time viewing the movie. But by this time, I had a basic understanding of film history, shots, camera angles, script writing, etc.

You see, you have to understand what movies were like before Citizen Cain, and after. Citizen Cain was a revolutionary movie in terms of edition, camera angles, and story. It was also ahead of its time.

Let's start with story. The movie starts with his death. The entire story is told through interviews and flashbacks by everyone who was involved with Cain. Unlike other movies with a linear narrative, this movie required you to think and put all the pieces together.

Another big thing was the way light and dark was used. High and low camera angles were used to the extreme. I can't point out every single one but you could ask a film expert point them out.

Another big thing was that the movie was pretty much a satire of William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper mogul. I recommend watching the movie "RKO 281" with Liev Schreiber and James Cromwell so you'll know what I'm talking about.

Sadly, the movie failed at the box office. It wasn't until years later when critics saw the movie and realized how great it was.

So if you saw Citizen Cain and didn't get it, I don't blame you. I didn't get it the first time either. It's largely due to the fact that the movie is so old, so there's a large generation gap. Also, you need to know a bit of film history, what happened during the making of this film, and how this film influenced virtually every film make after.