a quick post about "The Dark Knight"

Recently, a friend of mine asked me whether or not I thought the ideas presented in "The Dark Knight" could be separated from the source material. In response, I quickly drafted this messy little essay of sorts.
-----------------------------------------------------

Can the ideas presented in a Batman film be divorced from the source material?

Short answer: Yes.
However, the question should be asked and seriously discussed. Batman is a cultural icon that has persisted in the public conscious for seventy years now. Just as any film that depicts Jesus Christ is not interpreted solely in terms of what the film itself presents but also what is written in the Bible and what many centuries’ worth of theologians, any film that depicts Batman is typically interpreted not only in terms of what such a film presents but also what has been depicted in other media.
While the typical filmgoer is not all that knowledgeable about comic books, Batman is one of those characters that have permeated the overall modern popular culture. Because of radio and movie serials, the 1960s TV show, wildly popular movies, countless animated series, action figures, and video games, even someone who has never read a comic book likely knows who Bruce Wayne is and why he is Batman. Because of his popularity and 70-year existence, the premise behind Batman and (at least) some minor details are known by just about every man, woman, and child in the “civilized” world.
Because Batman is such a well-known character, it might be unlikely that a viewer would initially watch a particular Batman movie (for the purposes of this piece, I’ll focus on “The Dark Knight”) without making associations with prior interpretations of Batman. However, it is not necessary that a viewer discuss “The Dark Knight” while associating with previous incarnations of the characters presented therein. It is simply a lot easier to do so, and such associations allow for more discussion.
One can divorce the ideas presented in “The Dark Knight” from the source material/character by simply “emptying his teacup”. However, if that answer is too vague/eastern for you, then it may take some extra effort on your part to watch the film with eyes only for the film itself. I admit that I am unable to logically explain exactly by what method one might go about doing such a thing, but I do think that if I am able to do it, then most anyone else should be able to as well. As a lifelong Batman fanatic, perhaps I will naturally be subconsciously biased and never truly able to interpret “The Dark Knight” freely, but I can do my damndest to at least discuss the film without making reference to other Batman-related media (except for “Batman Begins”, which is excluded from such efforts because it is the progenitor of the filmic masterpiece that is the focus of this writing).

Let us look at how the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is portrayed in the film:
He is a self-proclaimed man with no limits. He keeps moving. He gets bitten, beaten, stabbed, and even shot, yet he continues to fight and run and do all of those things that physically distinguish Batman from lesser mortal men.
He is supposedly incorruptible. Even the Joker believes as much. He cannot be bought, bullied, or even negotiated with. It is interesting that he should be considered incorruptible when he is, in fact, a corruption – of law, societal ethics, and the sense of goodness as “light”. He works outside the law to enforce a sense of justice that is more in keeping with the law than breaking it. He uses methods that many people would not approve of, especially when used by authority figures (i.e., torture, invasion of privacy, blowing up parked cars, etc.). Most people would associate light with a concept of “good”, but here we have a “good guy” who is garbed in black, works at night, and stays mostly in the shadows. Or is he more like the Bat-Signal? A symbol, a beacon, a “light” in the sky or at the end of the tunnel?
In the film, Bruce Wayne/Batman is perhaps driven by more than a sense of simple revenge. The loss of his parents certainly inspire his actions, but he is not as haunted by their deaths as he is in “Begins”. He may be driven by something broader, deeper, more important, and more inherent. However, it is possible that his love of Gotham and his need to protect and clean the city may simply be the manifestation of his psychological need to please his father.
Whatever the reason for his mission, he certainly demonstrates a sense of “tunnel vision”. Like a horse with blinders on, he knows only to move ahead. He sees little besides the mission at hand. He may be somewhat distracted by Rachel Dawes or the Wayne Enterprises’ goings-on, but he is ultimately moving forward as Batman. For this reason, he may be considered something of a narcissist. The world revolves around Batman. Alfred has no life of his own (even beyond the duties of a normal butler, though this is also his choice). Bruce seems to only ever think of Rachel in terms of her relationship with him. Batman’s ego may very well be out of control. He wants to be a symbol, an embodiment of ideals. He cannot simply be a mere mortal.
Is it Bruce Wayne or Batman that displays this narcissism? Are they the same man? They could be two halves of a whole, or the protagonist’s personalities could be representative of an uneven dichotomy. Is Bruce/Batman representative of the duality of man? Is he more representative of a Freudian construct? Perhaps there is a vengeful, idealistic monster that is the superego; there is a misguided, hedonistic playboy that is the id; and the character we see on screen is the ego, balancing the two sides to live in the real world. There may also be the concept presented by Hermann Hesse in “Steppenwolf”-- that there are thousands, if not infinite, different personalities within one person. We may just see a few different amalgams in the different actions of Batman and Bruce Wayne.
In the film, Batman is supposed to represent the victory of good over bad, order over chaos, and Good over Evil. He does not kill the Joker. Instead, he captures him, choosing to let the authorities (the physical manifestation of order) contain him (the physical manifestation of chaos).


I have done my best to look at the subject strictly in terms of the film and the story presented therein. Were I to mention comics, Batman would actually be much more complex and difficult to figure out because of the many different writers who have handled the character over the last 71 years. Sometimes, Batman would be much kinder, or much worse. So, hopefully this can serve as a sufficient enough demonstration that a Batman film can be discussed without bringing up the comic books.

The Expendables

When I started reading about this movie (seemingly forever ago), I was super fucking excited about it. Stallone writing and directing a mercenary flick to star a bunch of action stars/lesser action actors? Fuck yeah!

Then, the first trailer hit. Still excited!

Then, all of the TV spots and other such promos. Not as excited.

Then, last night, I saw the flick at midnight. Excitement confirmed!

While the film may not live up to the expectations I had when I first heard about this movie being made, it is better than the promos make it out to be. It's exciting and action-packed and often funny. But you really go to see this movie for the actors.

Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham are great as competitive best friends who look out for each other, bicker, and crack many a joke. Jet Li is great in what is, for him, a rather small role. Dolph Lundgren isn't as good as expected, but still pretty good as the loose cannon of the group. Terry Crews and Randy Couture are sadly underused, but great when they're on screen. Mickey Rourke is his usual amazing self as an ex-Expendable friend.

David Zayas, Eric Roberts, and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin are all good as the bad guys.

And, of course, the cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger....... pure greatness.

It is somewhat odd to see some headliners taking a backseat. Stallone and Statham have the biggest roles, but it's kind of strange to see Jet Li as a sidekick and Mickey Rourke as a buddy who's only in a couple of scenes.

The action is pretty good, but Stallone's camera work is often too shaky and tight, and the CGI blood/fire/smoke often looks obviously fake. But the fight scenes and some of the more creative deaths are great. Seeing Stallone getting beaten up by Stone Cold, Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren going mano a mano, and Jet Li and Jason Statham double-teaming a bad guy -- these are all wonderful things to behold.

Of course, the real treats are the references. Stallone and Lundgren together again (Rocky IV), Statham and Li reunited (War), Randy Couture talking about his cauliflower ear. The best scene is probably the interaction between Willis, Schwarzenegger, and Stallone. Schwarzenegger and Stallone just go at it with the insulting jokes, and the audience just erupts. I love that a lot of lines are written specifically because of the actors playing the characters.

In case you can't tell, I definitely recommend seeing this movie.

(As an aside note, in a real fight, Dolph Lundgren would probably kick Jet Li's ass. Jet Li could probably kick a lot of guys' asses, but mostly he does flowery, gymnastic wushu, whereas Dolph Lundgren is a giant man who was in the Swedish army and is an experienced practitioner of kyokushin karate.)

Batman: Under the Red Hood

The latest movie from DC Animation/Warner Premiere is one of their best. “Under the Red Hood” really elevates the level of quality that we can expect from these little stand-alone flicks. The story is about as compelling as the comic book saga (“Under the Hood”). And it should be, since Judd Winnick wrote both.

Overall, the animation quality and character design are pretty good. The only complaints I have are that Bruce Wayne and Nightwing have terrible haircuts, the animation goes from good cel animation to crappy CG when there are vehicles involved, and the Joker doesn’t really emote when he laughs.

The voice acting is good stuff. Bruce Greenwood does well as Batman, though I think I still would have preferred Kevin Conroy. Neil Patrick Harris is pretty good with Nightwing, though, once again, the original voice actor probably would have been better. John DiMaggio makes for a good Joker, I think. While I love Mark Hamill, I like to occasionally hear a different take on the Clown Prince of Crime. Jensen Ackles shines as Jason Todd/Red Hood. Unfortunately, a lot of the actors in this movie who mostly do live action stuff are in the flick unnecessarily, I think. Many of them are underused.

The fight scenes are fun to watch; especially a particularly rough-and-tumble bout between Batman and Jason Todd towards the end.

I personally think that most comic book characters who “die” should stay dead (otherwise, their deaths are always meaningless), so I would prefer it if Jason Todd was never resurrected. Still, the “Under the Hood” comics make for good reading, and “Under the Red Hood” makes for good watching.

(The DVD is lacking a commentary, which saddens me, but disc 2 has a pretty good “documentary” about Dick Grayson [I’m not sure why they didn’t go with Jason Todd, or all the Robins]. There’s one of the customary “sneak peeks” at the next movie, and I am looking forward to “Superman/Batman: Apocalypse”, which will feature Supergirl and Darkseid.)

(Also, the “Jonah Hex” short on this DVD is excellent. The caliber of actors doing voices for this ten-minute cartoon is perhaps unnecessary, but it’s good stuff and Thomas Jane is great as the eponymous anti-hero. I never bothered to see the recent live-action movie with Josh Brolin and Megan Fox, but I know it can’t have been as good as this short because then it would have been successful.)

36th Chamber of Shaolin and Batman Begins

Here's a paper I handed in today for my World Cinema Traditions class. The assignment was to compare a foreign film with an American film. After spending weeks racking my brain about what movies I would compare, after a four-hour conversation I had with someone the other day about "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", I finally knew what I would compare.

The paper's title is "A Couple of Dudes Who Learn How to Kick Ass and Fight Injustice: The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and Batman Begins".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lau Kar Leung’s The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins each tell a story of a young man who removes himself from general society and enters an organization devoted to training and achieving a particular ideal. In both stories, the young man re-enters society in order to fight what he sees to be injustice. While they are united by some common story elements and themes, the two films differ drastically in style and cultural background.

Lau Kar Leung (also known by his Mandarin name, Liu Chia-Liang) directed the 1978 Shaw Bros. classic The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (also known as 36 Chambers of Shaolin and Master Killer). Lau was raised in a kung fu household. Taught from a young age by his father, Lau grew up to be a skilled martial artist. Schooled in the Hung Gar method, Lau eventually found work as an extra and choreographer on films depicting fictional adventures of the style’s most famous practitioner, Chinese folk hero Wong Fei-Hung. Lau parlayed this work into more and better film work, going on to choreograph such classics as the 1967 One-Armed Swordsman and the 1975 Master of the Flying Guillotine. Perhaps his greatest contribution to the history of chop-socky flicks, however, came in 1978 with The 36th Chamber of Shaolin.[i]

Starring Lau’s “martial brother” Gordon Liu (Liu studied under Lau’s father and the two became life-long friends), the film tells the story of San Te, a young man who rebels against the oppressive Manchu government during the Qing Dynasty era. Wounded in a fight after his family and friends are killed, San Te seeks sanctuary at the Shaolin Temple (actually a monastery). There, he asks to be trained in kung fu so that he might take revenge against the evil Manchurians. Though initially rejected, he begins his training by sweeping floors. After a year, his training begins in earnest and he swiftly progresses through the thirty-five chambers at the monastery. After years of training, he returns to general society and attempts to fight the Manchurian soldiers. After taking revenge on his family’s killer, San Te establishes a thirty-sixth chamber at the monastery, in which lay people are taught kung fu so that they can defend themselves against an unjust government.

The film’s depiction of an oppressive, militaristic government is interesting to note in light of the film’s release in 1978. The war in Vietnam had just officially ended in 1975. Many Hong Kong residents had fled the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong had also suffered under Japanese occupation in the early 1940s. In 1978, Hong Kong was still under British rule. The then-recent history of Hong Kong and the anti-military sentiments popular in western societies combined to influence many kung fu films, in which lone heroes or small teams would fight against oppressive occupying governments or evil invaders. Though common in Hong Kong kung fu films, the RZA (of Wu-Tang Clan fame) points out that the lone hero’s struggle against oppression is a universal theme. [ii]
While the political climate of Southeast Asia may have influenced the story, it’s unlikely that it had any influence on the style of the film. The style of the film is primarily influenced by two things: Lau’s background in the martial arts, and the method by which most Hong Kong films were made at the time. Lau’s kung fu proficiency and background as a choreographer dictated that the film’s primary focus would be the training and the fights. Hong Kong kung fu films are of a different nature than western action films, and the performers and directors often prefer to showcase skill through lengthy fight scenes rather than make action sequences tenser with tight editing. The fight scenes in The 36th Chamber of Shaolin are long, and Lau shows off his and the performers’ skills. Almost as important as the action is the set design. Though not necessarily an accurate representation of the Shaolin monastery in Dengfeng, or the training apparatus contained therein, the temple setting and the various kung fu training set-ups presented in the film are lovingly imaginative and service the story and San Te’s character development.

Aside from Lau’s martial background, the film’s style is partly determined by the “assembly line” method of production of Hong Kong films at the time. A biographer of Bruce Lee writes of the Hong Kong film industry:
"The Hong Kong-based film industry made films the way Detroit made cars: on an assembly line. They could wrap up a production in three days; a big-budget extravaganza might require a week. The Shaw brothers – Runjy, Runme, and Run Run – had almost singlehandedly set up the Hong Kong film industry. Shaw Brothers Studios was a mixture of purpose-built sets and sound stages where everything from pagodas to concentration camps were perched on a windy hillside overlooking Clearwater Bay. Shaw Brothers was the biggest studio outside of Hollywood and Europe, accounting for two-thirds of the “Chinese” films produced in the world. An average of seven features were always in production, while the sound-dubbing rooms were shared on a tight schedule of three shifts daily.
The secret of Shaw studios’ success was a hard-nosed policy geared to speed and economy. Films were shot without sound and, like Italian-made “spaghetti Westerns”, were later dubbed into whatever language was required. The films were often shot without a written script, more or less made up by the crew as they went along and “edited” directly on camera with few retakes. …"[iii]

This method of filmmaking often resulted in pictures that western audiences might think of as lesser in quality. Like most film studios, Shaw Brothers’ primary concern was profit, and the assembly line method worked just fine to that end. Even if Lau had wanted to make a sweeping epic that would take a lot of time and a lot more money, it probably just would not have happened.

Nearly thirty years after Lau Kar Leung and Gordon Liu made The 36th Chamber of Shaolin for Shaw Brothers, Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale made Batman Begins for Warner Brothers. In the film, Bruce Wayne is a child when he witnesses his parents gunned down in an alley. Unable to cope, he eventually runs away from Gotham, traveling the world and winding up in a Bhutanese prison. He is found and recruited by a secret organization devoted to their master’s concept of justice. Wayne is trained in the martial arts and ways of the ninja, but when asked to be an executioner he betrays his master and flees the organization. Returning to Gotham after seven years of absence, he dons a costume and uses high-tech gadgets to fight crime. While he attempts to take down organized crime and fight against the corruption that permeates the city, his master and the secret organization attack Wayne and attempt to devastate Gotham. He fights off the ninja, defeats his master, and saves the city, establishing himself as a symbol and weapon of justice.

The film is directed by Christopher Nolan. Half-British, half-American, Nolan blends different sensibilities when it comes to writing and directing. Batman Begins is a big-budget action movie that is an adaptation of an iconic American comic book character, while Nolan’s previous studio films could be considered psychological thrillers. He was born in England and received most of his education there, but he also spent time during his youth in the United States. Even as a child, he enjoyed making films, and continued to do so through his college years. His work as an independent filmmaker eventually led to his current status as an A-list Hollywood director.[iv]

Batman Begins was released in 2005. The major events affecting America at the time were the war(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the presidential election of 2004. While Nolan was filming in Iceland, England, and Chicago, American soldiers were fighting in the Middle East. In November of 2004, George W. Bush “won” his re-election. Perhaps the period of war and the political landscape influenced the development and success of the film. In the film, Batman does utilize technology that is specifically intended for use by the military (it’s noted that he essentially drives a tank). A part of what Batman is fighting against is the corruption of the city’s government. While those events may have influenced the film, it should be noted that the source material also provided suitable influence. In Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli’s Batman: Year One (1987), Batman fights against the corruption that infects Gotham City. In Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (1986), Batman drives a tank-like vehicle and references are made to Ronald Reagan and American military action. In Miller’s The Dark Knight Strikes Again (2002), the government controls the country through fear and the tactical use of the media, with the evil villain Lex Luthor behind it all.

The style of Nolan’s film is drastically different from that of Lau’s. While Lau’s kung fu classic is shot on a shoestring budget with relatively limited movement, Nolan’s big budget Hollywood production features much more movement and aerial shots of the grimy metropolis that is Gotham City. While Lau’s film is sparsely cut so as to show of the martial arts skills of the performers and Lau himself (as well as save time in post-production), Nolan uses much tighter editing in the fight scenes. This style of fight scene is supposed to have a jarring, confusing effect because Batman fights his enemies quickly and with deceptive tactics. While Lau’s color palette is broad, but typical, Batman Begins seems to be dominated by black and orange. Lau’s film is predominantly devoted to the training of San Te in the Shaolin Temple, but Nolan devotes less than a quarter of his film to Wayne’s training in the ninja camp and does not feature nearly as many training methods or apparatus. Also, while Lau tells a fairly straight-forward story, Nolan attempts to explore the psyche of his film’s protagonist by delving into his childhood and searching for what makes a man devote himself to an ideal (and what could possibly drive one to dress up like a bat).

While the films are very different stylistically, they share a great commonality in that they are stories about angry young men who work hard towards the goal of fighting some sort of injustice. San Te wishes to fight an oppressive government and avenge the death of his friends and family. Bruce Wayne at first wants revenge, but when he is robbed of the opportunity, he travels the world in anonymity, not knowing what he wants; he eventually makes it his mission to fight the evils that plague his city. San Te spends years training in the martial arts at a Buddhist monastery, eventually using his skills to take revenge. Bruce Wayne trains in martial arts and tactics with a secret ninja society, returns to Gotham to take down organized crime, and eventually saves his city from imminent destruction by defeating the organization that trained him. At the end of The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, San Te begins to teach kung fu to lay people so that they might rise up against the oppressive government and defend themselves against tyranny. By the end of Batman Begins, Wayne’s alter-ego has become a symbol for justice and he hopes to inspire Gotham citizens to stand up for themselves and eradicate corruption as he wages war on the criminal underbelly. Their journeys are certainly similar, though their intentions and the details differ.

The differences between the two films could be attributed to a number of different factors. One cause for the differences may be the time periods in which the films were made. Technological developments, as well as an increase in the “sophistication” of filmmakers (over time, people have had more access to a greater variety of films, so it stands to reason that filmmakers have a greater potential to make good films since they have an increasing number of films and filmmakers to learn from) could explain the differences between a film from 1978 and another from 2005. Another cause could be related to the cultural differences. While Hong Kong culture has partially been influenced by British culture and both Lau and Nolan would be used to crowded, polluted cities, the vast differences between Chinese and European-American sensibilities should be taken into account. The educations of the filmmakers should also be considered. Nolan is a college graduate, while Lau’s major skill is the kung fu knowledge passed to him from his father. Perhaps most important to consider is the simple fact that the filmmakers are different people. Different people naturally have different tastes, and when you add different time periods and different cultures, two films with similar story elements and themes are still bound to have many differences.

[i] Commentary/special features on DVD. Lau, Kar Leung. The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. Hong Kong: Shaw Brothers (Dragon Dynasty, DVD), 1978 (2007, DVD).
[ii] Commentary/special features on DVD.
[iii] Thomas, Bruce. Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit. Berkeley, California: Frog, Ltd., 1994.
[iv] "Christopher Nolan". Wikipedia. April 20, 2009 .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ran

Here is an essay I recently wrote for a World Cinema Traditions class. It is entitled "Nihilism, Chaos, Warfare, Samurai, and Disobedient Sons: The Joys of Akira Kurosawa’s Ran".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ran is written and directed by Akira Kurosawa. What can be written about Kurosawa that hasn’t been written a million times before? Genius. Visionary. Apologetic for his samurai heritage. Like many artists, he suffered from depression, particularly later in his life. This film was made in a time when Kurosawa had great difficulty securing funding and had to seek foreign investors. 1985’s Ran is worth noting not simply for its artistic merit, but for its connection to Kurosawa’s past and future.

Like most of Kurosawa’s most famous work, Ran is set in feudal Japan, the time when the warrior class known as samurai ruled. The Edo period, when samurai had been fully established as the ruling class, is one of the most well-known and important times in Japanese history. The era’s importance is evidenced by its continued representation in Japanese narrative fiction. Kurosawa’s films are evidence not only of the era’s importance to Japanese history in general, but also of the importance to Kurosawa’s personal history. Akira Kurosawa was descended from samurai. While many would think of samurai ancestry as a point of pride, Kurosawa was well aware of the harsh realities of life for the common people under samurai rule. He was apologetic about his family’s status as members of the class that personified inequality in Japan. While samurai were supposed to embody and exemplify honor, justice, discipline, loyalty, and service, in reality many were just as crude and cruel as any other warriors in human history.

The film Ran, however, is not a commentary on negative aspects of samurai per se. Instead, its primary focus in regards to samurai is that of loyalty. Hidetora, the head of the Ichimonji clan, is betrayed by two of his three sons. The only supportive son is the one Hidetora banished because of his early disapproval of Hidetora’s decision to abdicate responsibility. The disloyalty and conspiracy presented in Ran, as well as the story’s status as a tragedy, bear a striking resemblance to William Shakespeare’s King Lear. While Kurosawa did admit to seeing some inspiration in the play, his film is much more relevant to samurai history. While Lear makes mistakes, Hidetora has a distinctive past as a cruel warlord. The wife of one of his sons is in fact from a family that he had slaughtered in a power struggle.

Kurosawa’s films are rarely about one simple thing, however. Ran is more than a typical samurai film, and much more than a loose adaptation of a Shakespeare play. Aside from conspiracy and disloyalty, themes of the film include chaos, nihilism, and warfare. The very title can be translated in English as “chaos”. This is distinctly exemplified by the eruption of violence following Hidetora’s abdication. The protagonist spent most of his life waging war and slaughtering others, and in his twilight years he desires instead a more peaceful life. Shortly before handing de facto leadership to his oldest son, Hidetora holds a conference with neighboring daimyo (“warlord”, a feudal ruler of a Japanese fief) and uses diplomacy to end conflict and prevent further bloodshed. However, the peace is ephemeral, as the wife of his oldest son fuels the ambitions of her husband and his younger son, pushing them to wage war on their father. Hidetora descends into madness as the result of his Critic Michael Sragow refers to this as Kurosawa’s “trickle-down theory of anarchy”: "Kurosawa's monarch, like the Bard's, overburdens the bonds of family when he places his security on the shoulders of unsuitable and unready offspring. Hidetora's wishful thinking blinds him to the honesty of his third and youngest son, whom he banishes for bad-mouthing his scheme.
For Kurosawa, more than for Shakespeare, the monarch's real erosion of authority has its roots in the way he acquired power in the first place: through systematic pillage and slaughter." [i]

The chaos that Kurosawa demonstrates is perhaps simply a product of a depressing period in his life, and could very well be considered subsidiary to the theme of nihilism. There is nothing resembling happiness in the end. The characters are dead. Violence trumped diplomacy. Even the saintly Lady Sue, devout Buddhist wife to Hidetora’s second son, ends up beheaded. According to Sragow, Kurosawa said in 1986,
"What I was trying to get at in 'Ran,'and this was there from the script stage, was that the gods or God or whoever it is observing human events is feeling sadness about how human beings destroy each other, and powerlessness to affect human beings' behavior.”[ii]

If there are gods watching these characters and events, they either will not or cannot change them. The three possibilities this presents are all depressing in their own ways. The first possibility is that the gods will not intervene and cease the destruction; this can be depressing because it implies that the gods do not even care. The second possibility is that the gods are unable to intervene; this can be depressing because if the gods are powerless then one must wonder what humans could possibly do. The third, and perhaps most depressing, possibility is that the gods don’t exist and that humans are alone and solely responsible for their actions against one another.

This element of nihilism could simply reflect a general world-weariness of Kurosawa’s, or perhaps more specifically his views on his own old age. In his seventies, he could have been described as old-fashioned by audiences and critics looking for more exciting fare and shots that did not linger languorously over fields of dewy grass and immobile bodies. Roger Ebert touches upon this very idea:
"Akira Kurosawa’s Ran is inspired by King Lear but may be as much about Kurosawa's life as Shakespeare's play... Kurosawa has not told the story of a great man whose sin of pride drives him mad, but the story of a man who has waged war all his life, hopes to impose peace in his old age and unleashes even greater turmoil. There are parallels not only with kings but also with filmmakers, who like royalty must enforce their vision in a world seething with jealousy, finance, intrigue, vanity and greed. …
He was preoccupied with mortality in his later years. His eyesight was failing, he attempted suicide…
Ran is set in medieval times, but it is a 20th century film, in which an old man can arrive at the end of his life having won all his battles, and foolishly think he still has the power to settle things for a new generation. But life hurries ahead without any respect for historical continuity; his children have their own lusts and furies. His will is irrelevant, and they will divide his spoils like dogs tearing at a carcass."[iii]

Perhaps the nihilism in Ran is a filmic expression of Kurosawa’s depression and Hidetora is as much Kurosawa as he is Lear. While the inter-connected themes of chaos and nihilism are important and universally understood, the third inter-connected theme of warfare is certainly more tangible and could be considered more relevant to the Japanese. Kurosawa was in his thirties when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by atomic bombs. He lived for decades afterwards, able to witness and experience the long-term psychological and sociological effects that the loss of the war and ensuing globalization/Americanization had on Japan as a whole. According to critic Michael Wilmington,
"The secret subject of Ran—as Kurosawa explained to me in a 1985 interview—is the threat of nuclear apocalypse. The film is saturated with the anxiety of the post-Hiroshima age."[iv]

The film is actually set during a turning point in Japan’s history, when fairly effective rifles were introduced and their use established in feudal warfare. A matchlock model plays an important part in the destruction in Ran. The people of Japanese know all too well the effects of the newest, deadliest weapon available at the time. Even the fire that besets Hidetora’s retirement castle can be interpreted as a comment on something that can so easily wipe out everything it touches. (However, it should be noted that because Japanese homes have primarily been made of wood and crowded together, fire has been a problem throughout Japan’s history.) After all, the film was made toward the end of the Cold War, and Japan had fought with both the US and Russia before. The only country to have suffered a nuclear attack, the Japanese people were perhaps more susceptible to fear of nuclear warfare than any other nation.

Like most of Kurosawa’s films, Ran is a complex work of art produced by a complex man. The film is about no single thing. No single aspect of humanity is the primary focus. Akira Kurosawa was a master filmmaker, suicidal painter, and an elderly man who had great difficulty getting work and whose wife died during the production of this film. It should come as no surprise that this film portrays some of the worst aspects of humanity. When disloyalty causes a descent into madness and terribly destructive war, the world can seem as nothing but nihilistic and chaotic.

[i] Sragow, Michael. "Lear meets the energy vampire". salon.com. March 1, 2010 .
[ii] Sragow
[iii] Ebert, Roger. "Ran (1985)". rogerebert.suntimes.com. March 1, 2010 .
[iv] Wilmington, Michael. "Ran: Apocalypse Song". criterion.com. March 1, 2010 .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I highly recommend this film. Also, I totally cop to getting plenty of info from Wikipedia.

Kick-Ass

Last week I was fortunate enough to attend a screening and see "Kick-Ass" early.
I have only read the hardcover collection once, but I would qualify myself as something of a fan of the comic book.

I can say with confidence that the film does a great job. In some ways, it could be considered a bit better than the comic. This is because the director, Matthew Vaugn, does not simply use one method/style of directing. He tries different things for the action scenes throughout the course of the film, and the use of music is always a great bonus that doesn't come along with the comic.

While it isn't a perfect film, it's a damn near perfect movie. It's a lot of fucking fun.

Chloe Grace Moretz definitely steals the show as Hit-Girl. Nic Cage also does a great job as Big Daddy (in fact, his take on a Batman-esque character is his coolest action role since "Con Air"). Aaron Johnson at first seems like a strange choice for Kick-Ass, as the character is a skinny wimp in the comic, while Johnson kinda has a build. Nevertheless, the actor delivers. Mark Strong is pretty good as mob boss Frank D'Amico. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (commonly known as "McLovin") is typical as Red Mist (I'm just not a fan of the guy, he's always the same; also, he has a very distinct voice, so there's no way he could have a secret identity).

Some people might complain that plenty of the details are changed from the comic, but I think it all works out to be an exciting, fun, great movie. Comic fans should love it for all of the references made to comic books and the depiction of the world of fandom.

The jokes are good, the music's good, the violence is good. Just about everything in this flick is good. When it hits theaters, everyone should definitely go see it.

(On a personal note, the only thing that's ever really bugged me about the comic [and now the movie] is the idea of anyone going out to fight crime with NO martial arts training. I don't think even the lowliest of idiots would actually think to survive crimefighting without so much as a single boxing lesson.)

The World of Apu

I recently had the pleasure of viewing this 1959 Indian film by writer/producer/director Satyajit Ray. It is absolutely wonderful.

The final part of "The Apu Trilogy", this film follows Apu Roy, an unemployed, educated young man who lives in Calcutta. He does his best to live life as freely as possible, but this is is threatened when (through a series of circumstances) he is married to a friend's cousin. He and his wife live happily enough for a time, though they have no money.
Without overtly spoiling anything, the third act of the film is primarily about a depressed, older Apu struggling to connect with his young son.

This is a beautiful black-and-white film that stands high above every other movie I've seen come out of India. I once had a girlfriend who loved Bollywood musicals, and she made me sit through about twenty of those god-awful things. I think it's fine if that's your personal taste, but I personally find most musicals to be terrible, and I really can't get into foreign musicals.
This film, however, is nothing like those. The director actually grew up in a very arts-oriented home, and made his living as an illustrator before going in to films. He despised the happy-go-lucky Indian films of his time (and so would despise more modern ones) and sought to introduce the Indian public to the artistry that could be found in post-war films from France and Italy. He was particularly inspired by Italian neorealism (especially the film "Bicycle Thieves").

While many people would find this film difficult to sit through because of its long, lovingly held shots and lack of action, I think anyone who loves films should take a look at it.

(A note of minor interest: "The Simpsons" and "Futurama" creator Matt Groening has always been a fan of Indian films, and named the stereotypical Indian convenience store clerk character in "The Simpsons" after the main character of "The Apu Trilogy".)

Sherlock Holmes -- Martial Artist

Having seen "Sherlock Holmes" a second time, I feel more compelled to comment on the martial arts presented in the film.

In the Sherlock Holmes story "The Adventure of the Empty House" (1901), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes about Holmes's martial arts knowledge by having him refer to "baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling".
However, there is not and never has been any real martial art named "baritsu". The name is in fact based on a British martial system named Bartitsu. This style was developed at the turn of the last century by E.W. Barton-Wright. Barton-Wright had spent some time in Japan and learned a bit of Jujitsu and Judo. He was also an exponent of stick fighting, boxing, and Savate. Because of his wide knowledge base, Barton-Wright is considered to be far ahead of his time in terms of mixing martial arts styles in order to create a more effective fighting system (however, it should be remembered that there was a time before systematization ruled, and the old masters were knowledgeable in all basic martial concepts).

While in the film Downey's character does demonstrate a variety of martial capabilities, the word "baritsu" is never mentioned, and the fighting style the great detective utilizes appears to be much more akin to Wing Chun than anything else (in fact, a Wing Chun wooden dummy can be seen in the apartment at 221b Baker Street). This is most likely due to Robert Downey, Jr.'s real-life practice of the Chinese style. Downey likes to mention and demonstrate his love for the system to many interviewers, and he even gives his martial arts practice some credit for his recovery from drug addiction.

Holmes uses similar poses and the vertical fist espoused in Wing Chun. To be fair, though, he also uses some Jujitsu, boxing, stick fighting, and all-around dirty fighting. His fighting ability comes in quite handy when doing battle with the criminal element. He also likes to blow off steam and practice his technique by participating in bare-knuckle fights at a bar called the Punchbowl.

Jude Law's Dr. John Watson fights rather differently, however. While Holmes takes some time to mentally calculate his strikes and their damages, Watson just goes at it. He just hits anyone and everyone with anything in reach, including but not limited to his sword-cane. This could be because Watson is not such a calculating fellow, and is an ex-soldier (in my personal experience, military men tend to brawl rather than calculate).

The fights are interesting and fun to watch in the film. I think that they demonstrate a great blend of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings, director Guy Ritchie's love of Karate and Jujitsu, Robert Downey, Jr.'s love of Wing Chun, and just plain good characterization and visual acumen.

(Most of this stuff was from my own observation/general knowledge, but some additional info came from some interviews on Aint It Cool News and stuff from Kung Fu Magazine [and, of course, Wikipedia].)

Sherlock Holmes

This is a great movie. The action, acting, dialogue, and plotting are all great. The film looks good and the story holds.

Robert Downey Jr. kills as the great detective, and Jude Law is great in the supporting (but super important) role of Dr. Watson. These two actors together have some of the best on-screen chemistry I've seen in years. [Downey caught some flak from studio execs for kinda saying that the two could be lovers. I, for one, have always thought the friendship between the two partners/roommates should be presented as more than just that.]

Guy Ritchie has been accused of making things move too fast, but I think he's a master of pacing and knows exactly what he's doing. This movie just keeps moving and moving but never feels overly tense or strained. Everything serves the story and characters.

I'm a fan of the character in books, but I've never really enjoyed the movies or TV shows. Even though he's eccentric, Holmes has always been portrayed as a bit too stuffy for my taste. And Watson is always kind of the bumbling, ignorant sidekick. I have to admit that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories have been pretty accurately adapted in the past, but I'm one of many, it seems, who have always thought that Holmes should be portrayed as an action hero. And he should be. I love seeing Holmes jump out of windows, beat people up, and get in gunfights.

But Holmes is no two-dimensional character. While the cocaine addiction is really shown in this movie, the audience does see that Holmes's amazing talents and eccentric ways do often distance him from other people.

In short, go see it. (I say it's a much better film than "Avatar", but it may be unfair to compare the two since they are meant to serve somewhat different entertainment purposes.)

[I was hoping that the hints at Moriarty would be left at just hints, but I guess you have to spell things out for some audience members. I'm definitely looking forward to a sequel.]

Avatar

Over the last month or so, as the TV and all other media have been overrun by adverts for James Cameron's "Avatar", the internet buzz and word-of-mouth anticipation just kept building and building (and building and building and building). People everywhere were talking about the flick. My fellow film students, who I normally hear decrying most mainstream films, were always speaking of their anticipation for what has long been declared and promised as Cameron's opus -- a film to change film, a film to transcend all technological limitations.

After the first trailers and TV spots hit, people just couldn't shut up about how the Na'vi and their world Pandora looked. Everyone I knew would ask me if I was excited about the film. All I could say was, "Not really."

To the surprise of many, I had pretty much no interest in seeing this film. "Oh! But it looks so good!"

Not really. It looks COOL, but not REAL.

The story never seemed original. Many early reviews I read said that it isn't a film for people looking for original story or characters. So, even the big fans were admitting that it was all about the super cool CGI.

I kept telling people that I wouldn't pay to go see it, but if my dad or someone wanted to see it, I'd go. Why would I turn down a movie with family or friends (especially if its free)?

So, today I saw it. It was alright. The plot, characters, and dialogue are all very flawed in terms of logic, realism, cheesiness, and general originality. The film is mostly a series of pretty pictures. And that's fine. I don't deride anyone for wanting to see a movie mostly for its visual quality. That's a perfectly viable reason for movie-going. However, I'm a bigger fan of plot, characterization, and dialogue.

Now, while I didn't enjoy the plot, characters, or dialogue, I have to say that I was fascinated by all of the science-type stuff in the flick. I found myself thinking mostly about the anthropology, biology, botany, and etcetera regarding the Na'vi and Pandora. Those aspects were super interesting and I'll enjoy discussing these things with people in the future.

I recommend this movie if for no other reason than that everyone will be seeing it (although I still haven't seen "Transformers 2" or the latest Harry Potter movie, and I have no plans to). Also, it is pretty. And the science stuff is fascinating.

Up in the Air

Jason Reitman's latest film is, simply, wonderful. The director of "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno" has maybe made his best movie yet.

George Clooney stars as a professional ax-man who spends more than 90% of a year on airplanes, in airports, and in hotels. And he loves it. He is sent all over the country to fire people. He is very good at his job.

The movie is about a lot of things, really. It's about peoplelosing their jobs, a man who hates commitment, a young lady looking to live the perfect life, a woman looking to escape her life, and plenty of other stuff.

While some of the acting is off (because Reitman used plenty of regular, everyday people), George Clooney does an exceptional job. The film isn't as funny, perhaps, as either of Reitman's last two features, and it certainly doesn't have the biting social commentary of "Thank you for Smoking". It does have as much heart as "Juno" (if not more), but the audience doesn't suffer through Diablo Cody's forced quirkiness.

I got to see a test screening, so some things may still change before the movie comes out on December 4th. To me, the only things that would need changing would be to tighten up some lingering shots in editing, and add a bit more music to fill in some gaps. Otherwise, like I said, I think it's Reitman's best work.

(Also highly enjoyable: Reitman's re-use of some actors -- Sam Elliot, J.K. Simmons, and Jason Bateman)

The Stepfather

This remake of the 1987 "based on a true story" horror film is... Well, it was better than I expected.

I should say that I only wanted to see this movie for Dylan Walsh. I love the show "Nip/Tuck" and I wanted to see how Dr. Sean McNamara fared in something else (though he was the lead in "Congo", way back when).
His acting was definitely the best part of the movie.

While the movie is pretty typical, mundane slasher-thriller stuff, it is still fun. I was at first a bit reticent because it is rated PG-13. All this meant, however, was that there wasn't really any slashing, and there weren't any unnecessarily nude coeds (although practically everytime we see Amber Heard, she is either in a bikini or underwear). Unfortunately, there is at least one bad cut, and some rather obvious digital work.

While the music selection is good on its own, a lot of it is unnecessary. This comes out to be more of an MTV teen flick than a horror film in a lot of ways.

I suggest that if you go see this, you see it when and where and with whom you will have the most participatory experience. The movie is best when you're in a room full of people laughing, screaming, and yelling at the characters together.

Superman/Batman: Public Enemies

The sixth DC animated original movie is based on the issues/TPB by Jeph Loeb and Ed McGuinness.
Overall, it’s pretty good, but not as enjoyable as I expected.

The story is based on a great concept, but the plotting leaves a little to be desired, as does the dialogue. The fights are excellent, but the character sketches look like ridiculous action figures (Batman actually looks pretty good, though) (Amanda Waller is so grotesquely, cartoonishly fat that she looks like Helga from "The Oblongs") and the backgrounds and designs look like they belong in cheap Saturday morning cartoons.

The real highlight of the movie is the voice acting. Kevin Conroy is as amazing as usual as Batman, and Tim Daly and Clancy Brown are great as Superman and Lex Luthor, respectively. Allison Mack (known as Chloe on “Smallville”) is pretty good as Power Girl (but it’s hard to take her seriously as the character design has insanely large breasts and a butch haircut).
Sadly, Malcolm McDowell did not return as Metallo and John C. McGinley is not particularly impressive when he does his few lines. Also, the voice acting for Hiro (Toyman) is rather atrocious.

Despite its flaws, it’s still cool to see a bunch of B- and C-list characters go up against the two greatest superheroes ever.

I would suggest the deluxe edition DVD, though, for the special features. There is a cool little exploration (although my Psychology-major girlfriend was unimpressed) of the mentalities of Superman and Batman. There is a dinner conversation between Kevin Conroy and others involved in the production that is pretty cool for a Batman fan. There are two great episodes of “Superman: The Animated Series” that feature Batman and Superman teaming up. There is also a look at the upcoming “Crisis on Two Earths”.

8th

Hello, dear readers (few though you may be).

I have been rather busy for the last few days. I haven't written the next piece of "Batman -- Martial Artist" because I've been so busy (and in my head I'm thinking it will be rather lengthy).

I have been working as a Production Assistant on a short film being made by some fellow UCF students. As a PA, I've been doing a little of everything (I've dealt with equipment, recorded a small bit of the audio, dealt with some of the food [craft services], and even been an extra). It's been time-consuming and very tiring, but it's been worth it because I've gotten to work with some great people.

I know that none of you will probably ever see the film, but I encourage you to visit the production site at http://8ththefilm.blogspot.com.
The film is called "8th" and it is a nice little coming-of-age piece about friends having to separate. It's written and directed by a cool cat named Marcos, and produced by a cool chick named Rene.

Check it out.

Afro Samurai: Resurrection

I’ve been wanting to get “Afro Samurai: Resurrection” since it came out. And I finally did it! Yay for me (and for my girlfriend, who also likes Afro Samurai).
This time around, instead of being 5 OVA episodes, it’s an hour-and-a-half feature. The action is just as good as in the first “Afro Samurai”, and the voice work is as excellent as you’d expect (Samuel L. Jackson! Lucy Liu!) (retroactive props to Ron Perlman [!] for his work in the first, and Kelly Hu [!] for hers). And… Oh. My. God. The RZA’s music is as incredible as ever.

I love this movie, even though the story has its logic flaws. Despite the flaws in the logic and characterization of the villains, the movie does a great job of discussing Afro’s motives and methods (he killed so many people just so he could avenge his father, and now it’s only natural that there are family members of his victims who would want [and deserve(?)] revenge against him).

I made sure to spend the extra bit of coin to get the 2-disc special edition director’s cut. Spending that money got me some nudity, sex, and swearing in the actual movie. It also got me “over 100 minutes of special features” that include:
-exclusive insight from creator Takashi “Bob” Okazaki
-GONZO studios interviews about the Japanese side of production
-interviews with people on the American side of production (including the awesome Sam Jackson, and the gorgeous Lucy Liu)
-a cool behind-the-music thing with RZA
-a look at “Afro Samurai: The Game” (which I’ve played and loved)
-a cool feature about the Afro Samurai stuff at Comic-Con 2008
-insightful video commentary with the Japanese side of production
-a little booklet with art and stuff from the creator, director, and RZA

Anime. Hip-hop. Samurai. Sword fighting. Japanese culture. Black American culture. Samuel L. Jackson. Lucy Liu.
If you like ANY of these things or people, go out and buy “Afro Samurai: Resurrection”.

Ponyo

“Ponyo” is the latest film by animation genius Hayao Miyazaki. The same cat who brought us “Princess Mononoke” and “Spirited Away” has done a pretty cool movie about an adorable, magical goldfish who turns into a human girl.

Now, as a general rule, I’m not a fan of fantasy. Miyazaki, however, is a master of the genre and usually wins me over. I did enjoy “Ponyo”, but I don’t think it’s the masterpiece that most people are making it out to be. That said, I’m not sure if any of the Studio Ghibli films is better than the next, but personal preference winds up playing a big part in enjoyment of each film. I prefer the R-rated “Princess Mononoke” that contains violence and action and adults driving the plot over the G-rated “Ponyo” (the English version being about the love between the youngest Jonas brother and Hannah Montana’s sister).

I really enjoyed the action-y part in which Ponyo is running on the fish-waves (you’d have to see it to know what the hell I’m talking about). This part actually made me really want to see a Flash movie, and some of the underwater stuff made me want to see at least an animated Aquaman movie.

The other day in Japanese class, I overheard a girl talking about seeing the movie with a friend. Her friend was apparently like “This is dumb. I don’t get it. What the hell?!?” and she responded with “Just go with it. Let go of your expectations. You just have to sit back and watch.” I felt like this friend of my classmate had some fair criticism. There’s nothing wrong with you if you don’t like fantasy and want a movie to make sense.

Now, I was able to “let go” and just enjoy a kiddy fantasy movie, but it certainly wasn’t without its flaws. The number one rule for movies is that they shouldn’t break their own rules. A problem with this movie is that the rules aren’t very clearly established, so by the end I’m not entirely sure whether the rules are strictly followed or not. The end, unfortunately, is a bit anti-climactic.

The English voice cast is pretty good. I was originally a bit ticked that Disney went to such in-house pandering lengths as to cast Frankie Jonas (the little brother to the tween-oriented band the Jonas Brothers) and Noah Cyrus (the little sister of Miley Cyrus) in the lead roles. Surprisingly, the kids did well, though I think Disney should have gone with seasoned (adult) vets like Tress Macneille, Pamela Hayden, and Bumper Robinson (to name only a few). Tina Fey did alright. So did Betty White, Cloris Leachman, and Cate Blanchett. Liam Neeson was excellent as usual. Matt Damon was unnecessarily cast (his character had only a handful of lines! Why cast a big-name for that when you could get Billy West or someone like that for much cheaper?).
A problem was that the original dialogue doesn’t seem to translate well, so some of the actors are stifled by what seems to be bad writing.

Overall, I enjoyed it, but I don’t know if I’ll ever get the DVD. We’ll see. “Spirited Away” had to grow on me over time.

Terminator Salvation

This movie is amazing. It’s a fantastic war movie and a great story about underdogs fighting their oppressors.
I had some reservations about McG directing, but I figured he couldn’t do any worse than “T3”. Luckily, he did a great job and I think this movie stands well with the first two.
It’s filled with delightful little references and the look of it is fantastic.
This is the closest that Christian Bale has ever come to one-note acting, but he is great as John Connor.

I’m definitely looking forward to the DVD.

Star Trek

The new flick is pretty fantastic. While I’m a casual fan of the old cast, I think that these new guys do a great job.
This movie has great action and decent characterization, but it does lack the scientific and philosophical depth of some of the original episodes/movies.

I’m definitely looking forward to whatever else J.J. Abrams and the new cast and writers bring on.

(P.S. I intended to write a review after seeing it opening night, but I have definitely let the blog slip. So long as somebody’s reading it, though, I’ll keep it up.)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

It was alright. Certainly not the worst comic book movie out there, but not the best. There are some stupid, unnecessary shots and some lousy lines, but it’s still good that they made a solo Wolverine flick.

The first scene is rushed and WAY too melodramatic. After that, there’s a pretty kick-ass montage over the credits. Wolverine’s characterization is mostly solid, and most of the characters are presented fairly well. A big complaint I have is that there are about twelve back-flips in every fight. Also, some of the CGI looks really cartoonish. Wolverine’s claws looked great in the first three movies, but for some reason they’re pretty lousy and foolishly used in most of this movie.

While most of the actors do their jobs admirably, Hugh Jackman is certainly the best aspect of this movie. His acting is spot on. There’s a scene in which he gets his heart broken, and it is perfectly played. Hugh Jackman’s physique is impressive as well, though this is nothing new. Weak-ass pussies who never hit the gym should be inspired by this man who trained like an animal.

I read an interview in with the director in an issue of Wizard Magazine, and it was apparent that the director didn’t really care about the character. The movie shows that he doesn’t really do action well, and he should stick with drama/art films. If there is a sequel, I hope the producers go with a better, somewhat subtler action director than Gavin Hood.

If I go see it a second time in theaters, it will be because of Jackman’s great performance. Still, you should see it once. I know I’ll buy the DVD because I love Wolverine. If you do see it, make sure you sit ALL the way through the credits.

Dragonball Evolution

I was expecting worse.

I’m not gonna say it’s a great movie. Not even gonna say it’s a good movie. But it certainly isn’t the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Most of the acting is pretty lousy, and it’s pretty cheesy at many points. It’s effects-laden as opposed to substantive, and it isn’t clear as to whether it’s aimed at kids or an older crowd. Still, it has its genuinely funny moments, and some of the fights are fairly well done.

I’m a big fan of the series. I have been for years. When I was in elementary and middle school, I bought the toys, cards, comics, and seemingly countless videotapes. Even throughout high school, I enjoyed the comics and some DVDs. Now, even as I’m in college, I still read the comics and buy DVDs. I love the series. So, of course, I’d rather the film stayed more true to the source material. Even though it’s quite different in detail from the series, I think that the spirit is still there.

Justin Chatwin actually isn’t bad as Goku. Goku’s origin story is mucked up a bit, but this would force the filmmakers to go in a rather different direction if there is a sequel (though low box office could prevent this), and that could be interesting to see.
Chow Yun-Fat is great as Roshi. This was to be expected, though. Who doesn’t love Chow Yun-Fat? Idiots. That’s who.
James Marsters is pretty good as Piccolo. Piccolo really doesn’t have much screen time, though. And just how did he break out of the Mafuba?
Randall Duk Kim is pretty good as Grampa Gohan.
The rest of the cast is so-so, and often negligible.

There are many plot holes, unfortunately. How Piccolo got out of his prison is never explained. We never find out the origin of the Dragon Balls. Also, during the final fight, Goku’s (altered) origin is rather hastily explained. The first half of the movie is paced fairly well, and it’s not a half-bad quest/coming-of-age story, but then it starts to feel rushed. Towards the end, it’s feeling REALLY rushed.

Despite its flaws and great difference from the series that I love so much, I still think people should check it out. I’ll be buying the DVD when it comes out.

(I must note that I have no idea why they chose to call it “Evolution”. There doesn’t seem to be any real reason.)