Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings5
lerxstwannabe's rating
Reviews7
lerxstwannabe's rating
I've never been a "Kung Fu movie fan". I can appreciate and respect martial artists, especially of the various Kung Fu schools, but as far as their on-screen portrayal... not so much.
It wasn't until I started to develop an interest in Wing Chun, that all references pointed me to this film. Other than Ip Man, the real "character" in this movie is his fighting style, which is what the movie is all about.
To digress briefly: Wing Chun is an extreme close-range Kung Fu style that is used as a defensive means to counter an opponent's attack. It was developed by a female Shaolin Monk, as a more streamlined version of their traditional Kung Fu. It's a style intended to give the advantage to a smaller, weaker opponent in a fight, by being as efficient and direct as possible and as it's history shows, works exceedingly well. It's also a more meditative fighting form that takes pride in its spiritual roots and relies on senses, and tactics, over strength and height. People often liken it to playing a game of Chess, first, and fighting secondary.
I bring this all up because, Donnie Yen captures the essence of this style to near-perfection! Like the fighting style, Ip Man, the first open teacher of it, was the living embodiment. You can see in Yen's acting, the calm, peaceful, mindfulness that separates this fighting style from others. This also makes the scenes where he unleashes hell on his opponents, even more brutal and visceral than most other action movies are when they try to portray the same types of combat.
The other bonus that I'm a sucker for, is the genre. I would reluctantly call this a "Kung Fu" movie, since I feel it is more of a period drama, than an action movie. The scenery, the story, the history and the drama are all things that get layered into this movie better than any others I've seen in this same genre, and even better than many mainstream, Hollywood movies.
Watching this movie, I felt the same kind of underlying, tension and anxiety building that I saw while sitting through more well known movies like "Unforgiven", "The Patriot", "The Professional" and even to some degree "Master and Commander"; any movie where you follow a hero you know can beat the snot out of someone and are just waiting for them to open up a can of whoop-ass at the right moment after they get pushed to their limit.
This is far from the traditional (cheesy), over-the-top, Kung Fu action flicks from the 70's and 80's. This one actually has charisma for the characters (especially the lead role by Yen) and a strong underlying story. It's production value is also top-notch and you'd be hard-pressed to find any more flaws in it than you would with a Hollywood release.
And no... the subtitles do not detract from the movie in the least!
It wasn't until I started to develop an interest in Wing Chun, that all references pointed me to this film. Other than Ip Man, the real "character" in this movie is his fighting style, which is what the movie is all about.
To digress briefly: Wing Chun is an extreme close-range Kung Fu style that is used as a defensive means to counter an opponent's attack. It was developed by a female Shaolin Monk, as a more streamlined version of their traditional Kung Fu. It's a style intended to give the advantage to a smaller, weaker opponent in a fight, by being as efficient and direct as possible and as it's history shows, works exceedingly well. It's also a more meditative fighting form that takes pride in its spiritual roots and relies on senses, and tactics, over strength and height. People often liken it to playing a game of Chess, first, and fighting secondary.
I bring this all up because, Donnie Yen captures the essence of this style to near-perfection! Like the fighting style, Ip Man, the first open teacher of it, was the living embodiment. You can see in Yen's acting, the calm, peaceful, mindfulness that separates this fighting style from others. This also makes the scenes where he unleashes hell on his opponents, even more brutal and visceral than most other action movies are when they try to portray the same types of combat.
The other bonus that I'm a sucker for, is the genre. I would reluctantly call this a "Kung Fu" movie, since I feel it is more of a period drama, than an action movie. The scenery, the story, the history and the drama are all things that get layered into this movie better than any others I've seen in this same genre, and even better than many mainstream, Hollywood movies.
Watching this movie, I felt the same kind of underlying, tension and anxiety building that I saw while sitting through more well known movies like "Unforgiven", "The Patriot", "The Professional" and even to some degree "Master and Commander"; any movie where you follow a hero you know can beat the snot out of someone and are just waiting for them to open up a can of whoop-ass at the right moment after they get pushed to their limit.
This is far from the traditional (cheesy), over-the-top, Kung Fu action flicks from the 70's and 80's. This one actually has charisma for the characters (especially the lead role by Yen) and a strong underlying story. It's production value is also top-notch and you'd be hard-pressed to find any more flaws in it than you would with a Hollywood release.
And no... the subtitles do not detract from the movie in the least!
I think the words that can best describe this are
"Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God!"
The Tick HAS RETURNED. Unlike the lackluster and horribly feeble attempt at a series in the early 2000's, this, my friends is the true "The Tick"! (Wait is that even proper grammar?)
In 1997, I was hanging on every single preview and commercial for the next Tick episode. Sadly, my hopes were crushed when I realized that the show which made my initial college years enjoyable, was cancelled due to low ratings?
The Tick has always had a bit of an identity crisis, only, it knew full well what it's identity is. The problem is, Hollywood/Network TV has no clue what the hell to do with it! They aired it relatively early, placing it in the Saturday morning cartoon slot, when the majority of its fan base was still nursing the underage-party- hangover from the night before. It's a cartoon that had an art style that fit well with the morning cartoons, but humor that flew well above the average cartoon watcher's head.
Some friends and I used to spout out "Tickisms" randomly throughout the day. When you go to jump something and land wrong, or fall - "Gravity is a harsh mistress". When you're playing an online game and the other players start talking in another language? "I can't understand your crazy Moon Language!" Even after these years, I still remember a few of them!
The 2017 return of The Tick has kept those Ticksims in all their glory! "Destiny's on the line, Arthur, and she's calling collect accept the charges" There. You see? Right there. THAT is a Tickism! This Amazon release of the series is rife with them and, my God, is it a glorious thing! Ben Edlund, the original creator of The Tick is also responsible for writing this series as well and it shows.
As for the specifics of this show, when I first heard Peter Serafinowicz's voice in the role, I did a tremendous double-take. "Is that? No it can't be! But wait is it?" Turns out, no, it is not Townsend Coleman, but holy hell, is it close!
So you have "the voice" of The Tick, reciting "the lines" of The Tick, being portrayed in the original writing style of The Tick. This is absolute gold!
If the cartoon had one issue, it was the lack of a plot that could span more than the typical episode. Characters and even their various situations would play out over a season or so, but the stories were all kept nicely in their allotted space. This makes it easy to watch an episode here or there, but after you know what to expect, you can miss a few and come back for some more quick entertainment here and there without needing to follow the whole thing. This may be good at times, but it can really affect the longevity of a series.
I was relieved to see that the entire story gets told along the Arthur lines, providing some real drive and purpose to the story over the episodes. The episodes, which can easily degrade into pure silliness, if not kept in check, are held together tightly with the "grounding" the Arthur story provides for them. Good move on their part.
Unlike the cartoon series and the short live-action, this one also starts to create a true "origins" story that it mildly delves into with the Tick and the entire backstory of superheroes and the city in general.
There is one divergence from the animated series that has to be noted: This is written like the comic book. The comic book was written for a more mature audience than the Saturday cartoon was. On Amazon, it has a TV-14 rating, which falls towards the more mature side of a PG-13 rating, possibly right on the "R" line. But they can get away with that on Amazon, so expect blood, frequent swearing (mildly) and an f-bomb here or there. But fear not, The Tick does not stoop to those levels yet. They are primarily reserved for his villains.
So any Generation X-er, growing up in the 90's, definitely needs to watch this show! Trust me, this "The Tick", is the real deal!
The Tick HAS RETURNED. Unlike the lackluster and horribly feeble attempt at a series in the early 2000's, this, my friends is the true "The Tick"! (Wait is that even proper grammar?)
In 1997, I was hanging on every single preview and commercial for the next Tick episode. Sadly, my hopes were crushed when I realized that the show which made my initial college years enjoyable, was cancelled due to low ratings?
The Tick has always had a bit of an identity crisis, only, it knew full well what it's identity is. The problem is, Hollywood/Network TV has no clue what the hell to do with it! They aired it relatively early, placing it in the Saturday morning cartoon slot, when the majority of its fan base was still nursing the underage-party- hangover from the night before. It's a cartoon that had an art style that fit well with the morning cartoons, but humor that flew well above the average cartoon watcher's head.
Some friends and I used to spout out "Tickisms" randomly throughout the day. When you go to jump something and land wrong, or fall - "Gravity is a harsh mistress". When you're playing an online game and the other players start talking in another language? "I can't understand your crazy Moon Language!" Even after these years, I still remember a few of them!
The 2017 return of The Tick has kept those Ticksims in all their glory! "Destiny's on the line, Arthur, and she's calling collect accept the charges" There. You see? Right there. THAT is a Tickism! This Amazon release of the series is rife with them and, my God, is it a glorious thing! Ben Edlund, the original creator of The Tick is also responsible for writing this series as well and it shows.
As for the specifics of this show, when I first heard Peter Serafinowicz's voice in the role, I did a tremendous double-take. "Is that? No it can't be! But wait is it?" Turns out, no, it is not Townsend Coleman, but holy hell, is it close!
So you have "the voice" of The Tick, reciting "the lines" of The Tick, being portrayed in the original writing style of The Tick. This is absolute gold!
If the cartoon had one issue, it was the lack of a plot that could span more than the typical episode. Characters and even their various situations would play out over a season or so, but the stories were all kept nicely in their allotted space. This makes it easy to watch an episode here or there, but after you know what to expect, you can miss a few and come back for some more quick entertainment here and there without needing to follow the whole thing. This may be good at times, but it can really affect the longevity of a series.
I was relieved to see that the entire story gets told along the Arthur lines, providing some real drive and purpose to the story over the episodes. The episodes, which can easily degrade into pure silliness, if not kept in check, are held together tightly with the "grounding" the Arthur story provides for them. Good move on their part.
Unlike the cartoon series and the short live-action, this one also starts to create a true "origins" story that it mildly delves into with the Tick and the entire backstory of superheroes and the city in general.
There is one divergence from the animated series that has to be noted: This is written like the comic book. The comic book was written for a more mature audience than the Saturday cartoon was. On Amazon, it has a TV-14 rating, which falls towards the more mature side of a PG-13 rating, possibly right on the "R" line. But they can get away with that on Amazon, so expect blood, frequent swearing (mildly) and an f-bomb here or there. But fear not, The Tick does not stoop to those levels yet. They are primarily reserved for his villains.
So any Generation X-er, growing up in the 90's, definitely needs to watch this show! Trust me, this "The Tick", is the real deal!
The last truly bad WWII film I ever saw was The Thin Red Line. Dunkirk seems to want to compete for that spot, but still comes in slightly ahead.
I like Nolan, I really do. Interstellar was one of my favorite movies, Inception was great and I loved his recreation of Batman. I also love WWII movies, Band of Brothers being one of the best stories ever to grace the screen, in my opinion. The entire time watching this movie, though, there was one nagging question I had: What if Spielberg directed this?
Chris Nolan really isn't suited to take on a film like this. Dunkirk is a historical drama, about one of the greatest feats in WWII. This has two strikes against Nolan; one is that it's a historical drama, unlike the rest of his portfolio. The second is that WWII is, by its very nature an "R" rated period (so to speak) and Nolan seems to thrive in semi-tame PG-13 violence.
"War is Hell"... yet nowhere in this movie do we ever sense that. There's a huge difference between gratuitous violence and realism, mind you and I am not promoting the former. Steven Spielberg is the master of understanding this. Some of his movies are rather violent, yet they use that to drive home the plot and atmosphere of the film. Chris Nolan really, really, desperately needs to take some notes from Spielberg in this area if he wants to be a true master of his art. The desire to stick to this catch-all, watered down PG-13 cash- cow rating, almost seems forced, considering the time period and the topic covered.
Realistic "R" rating aside, the tedium of the movie sets in rather quickly. Had I not paid money to see it, and waited for its TV release, I would have changed the channel about 15 minutes in.
This story sets itself up for about half of the film. It takes that long just to understand the characters, their motivations, their situations even their names. Once that's done, the movie starts to show us some promise and hopes to drops us into action, but ends up easing us down gently. Critics may commend Nolan for keeping an even momentum, not letting one part overpower the next - unfortunately it carries the momentum of a brick wall.
The history of Dunkirk is a fine example of human will and strength, it just doesn't make for a gripping story. The events that this movie cover, can be summed up in about 2 pages of a text book, not an entire novel nevermind a 2 hour movie!
A book editor once told me that you should always focus on telling the most interesting moment of a character's life. While the evacuation is interesting, in this movie, it seems the most interesting moments took place just before the events it covers. How did 400,000 soldiers end up getting pushed back to the sea? What battles were fought that drove them so far? What tactics failed so catastrophically?
Dunkirk tells half a story, with the more interesting half taking place before the movie starts. The two hours of this movie could have easily been compressed into 1 hour, with another 2 hours telling the larger story of how the events transpired that led to this point.
Acting wise it's hard to tell. Mark Rylance almost revisits his role as the Russian spy, Rudolf Able in (a much better film) Bridge of Spies. It works. His calm demeanor, yet screen presence is felt and you do make some connection with his character. Of course, that may also be because his character has one of the larger speaking roles throughout the entire film.
The rest of the actors are wasted, especially Kenneth Branagh, who has proved himself, time and time again, to be an "actor's actor", but has been almost sidelined for the duration of this movie.
I would recommend waiting for this film to reach a cable channel before you fork out the $12+ for a ticket if I would recommend this movie at all. As it stands, do yourself a favor and binge watch Band of Brothers in order to get a much more rewarding WWII experience.
I like Nolan, I really do. Interstellar was one of my favorite movies, Inception was great and I loved his recreation of Batman. I also love WWII movies, Band of Brothers being one of the best stories ever to grace the screen, in my opinion. The entire time watching this movie, though, there was one nagging question I had: What if Spielberg directed this?
Chris Nolan really isn't suited to take on a film like this. Dunkirk is a historical drama, about one of the greatest feats in WWII. This has two strikes against Nolan; one is that it's a historical drama, unlike the rest of his portfolio. The second is that WWII is, by its very nature an "R" rated period (so to speak) and Nolan seems to thrive in semi-tame PG-13 violence.
"War is Hell"... yet nowhere in this movie do we ever sense that. There's a huge difference between gratuitous violence and realism, mind you and I am not promoting the former. Steven Spielberg is the master of understanding this. Some of his movies are rather violent, yet they use that to drive home the plot and atmosphere of the film. Chris Nolan really, really, desperately needs to take some notes from Spielberg in this area if he wants to be a true master of his art. The desire to stick to this catch-all, watered down PG-13 cash- cow rating, almost seems forced, considering the time period and the topic covered.
Realistic "R" rating aside, the tedium of the movie sets in rather quickly. Had I not paid money to see it, and waited for its TV release, I would have changed the channel about 15 minutes in.
This story sets itself up for about half of the film. It takes that long just to understand the characters, their motivations, their situations even their names. Once that's done, the movie starts to show us some promise and hopes to drops us into action, but ends up easing us down gently. Critics may commend Nolan for keeping an even momentum, not letting one part overpower the next - unfortunately it carries the momentum of a brick wall.
The history of Dunkirk is a fine example of human will and strength, it just doesn't make for a gripping story. The events that this movie cover, can be summed up in about 2 pages of a text book, not an entire novel nevermind a 2 hour movie!
A book editor once told me that you should always focus on telling the most interesting moment of a character's life. While the evacuation is interesting, in this movie, it seems the most interesting moments took place just before the events it covers. How did 400,000 soldiers end up getting pushed back to the sea? What battles were fought that drove them so far? What tactics failed so catastrophically?
Dunkirk tells half a story, with the more interesting half taking place before the movie starts. The two hours of this movie could have easily been compressed into 1 hour, with another 2 hours telling the larger story of how the events transpired that led to this point.
Acting wise it's hard to tell. Mark Rylance almost revisits his role as the Russian spy, Rudolf Able in (a much better film) Bridge of Spies. It works. His calm demeanor, yet screen presence is felt and you do make some connection with his character. Of course, that may also be because his character has one of the larger speaking roles throughout the entire film.
The rest of the actors are wasted, especially Kenneth Branagh, who has proved himself, time and time again, to be an "actor's actor", but has been almost sidelined for the duration of this movie.
I would recommend waiting for this film to reach a cable channel before you fork out the $12+ for a ticket if I would recommend this movie at all. As it stands, do yourself a favor and binge watch Band of Brothers in order to get a much more rewarding WWII experience.