The 36th Chamber of Shaolin

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin

50 Years Later The 36th Chamber of Shaolin Endures as a Kung Fu Classic

Amongst fans of kung fu films, The 36th Chamber of Shaolin is widely regarded as the greatest kung fu film of all time. While I'd argue that Once Upon a Time in China, or Enter the Dragon may be more deserving of that designation, I won't argue about the overall quality of The 36th Chamber of Shaolin.

The film stars then-newcomer Chia-hui "Gordon" Liu, a Yul Brynner lookalike in  the story of real life Chinese folk hero San Te, a young man who joins the Shaolin Temple to learn kung fu to teach the people of his village how to fight back against the Ming Dynasty thugs who oppress them. What follows is an extended series of training scenes as San Te learns kung fu by performing what seems at times to be meaningless tasks in various "chambers" of the Temple.

Therein lies both the film's greatest appeal, as well as its greatest weakness. To fans of martial arts, the realism and discipline in the rigorous training is the highlight of the film; it doesn't get any more pure than that. On the other hand for more general audiences, the plot seems stuck in neutral while we spend nearly half the film's running time with the hero in training for his future revenge plans.

Nevertheless, the influence of the film can't be denied. Nearly all subsequent martial arts films, including American films like The Karate Kid and Kill Bill, owe at least their training sequences, if not more to The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, not to mention other stuff films like The Empire Strikes Back, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and the music of the Wu-Tang Clan.


The Good: 

• the cinematography and fight choreography are top-notch
• bits of Buddhist philosophy

The Bad:

• takes the patience of a Buddhist monk

Stuff to watch for:

• an opening credit sequence of Liu practicing kung fu is almost ballet-like in beauty
• perhaps the best fight scene involving a three-section staff (sānjiégùn) ever filmed

Pairing: Chicken McNuggets with B-Dubs Asian Zing sauce, and hot tea.

The Verdict:
**** out of *****

Moana

Moana

Disney does what Disney does best

Sometime around 2004 Disney was in a slump. The last few in-house animated films, Home on the Range, Brother Bear, Treasure Planet, etc. were largely forgettable, while their partner Pixar was killing it with the likes of Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., and The Incredibles. The solution of course was to ditch 2D animation in favor of 3D (though that wasn't their only problem as the next film Chicken Little, can attest). In any case, one of the last actually memorable films before that transition was the Polynesian not-a-princess film Lilo & Stitch, a commercial success (though not as great as Disney had hoped, never taking top place at the box office), but still critically acclaimed (and bearing a suspicious resemblance to The Iron Giant). Having already done an Asian princess (Mulan), and the long-overdue African-American princess (The Princess and the Frog), and still trying to exorcise their less-than ideal indigenous princess (Pocahontas), it's probably not surprising that they decided to give another go at creating a Pacific Islander not-a-princess in the 3D era.

Which brings us to Moana. Honestly Moana slickly grabs and repackages a lot of the things that worked best in previous Disney films (anthropomorphic islands in the Pixar short Lava, traditional island music of The Little Mermaid, and the growing cultural sensibilities that began with Mulan and evolved through Lilo and Stitch and beyond

While none of the songs are as memorable as those from the heyday of The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast, they at least give the illusion of authenticity, with "Moana's Theme", and "You're Welcome" (who knew "The Rock" could sing?), being the main standouts.

Basically the plot is a straight up Hero's Journey story with a female lead - an eight-year-old not-a-princess (as they take pains to remind you) princess story that hits exactly all the right notes to make it an instant classic. You know you're being manipulated, but it's still hard not to like it.


The Good: 

• no talking animals
• no shoehorned-in love story
• a semi-decent David Bowie rip-off

The Bad:

• the sea is an ultimate deus-ex-machina; saving our heroine from a watery grave countless times

Stuff to watch for:

• post credit sequence
• references to many other Disney movies

Pairing: if you don't have access to anything traditional, any Tiki cocktail will do.

The Verdict:
**** out of *****

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 2

The finale like its protagonist is a redeemer.

Last film is one of the best.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 suffered from summarizing way too much plot, and really should have been expanded to two films - making the concluding book adaptation a trilogy - but given they decided to do it in two, it's best they made the first part the overstuffed one, because that freed up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 to be the worthy climax we all wanted.

With a few of the horcruxes destroyed, Harry and friends set out to destroy the rest - which leads them back to Hogwarts, and a final showdown with Lord Voldemort and his army, who lay siege to the castle.

Finally we get epic fantasy that is less Chronicles of Narnia, and more Lord of the Rings. And, best of all, everything holds together well. There are only a few small plot holes (unlike part 1, which was rife with them), and generally everything makes sense. Granted, it's all a little predictable, but at lest it's dazzling enough that that doesn't matter so much - besides, most of the series' fans also read the books, so there wasn't going to be much room for surprises anyway.

The Good: 

• All the major plot lines are resolved

The Bad:

• A bit predictable

Pairing: Blood orange shandies and Reese's cups (10 points if you get why)

The Verdict:
**** out of *****

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 1

Worst film in the series... unfortunately there's no way to skip it

Harry and friends running aimlessly through
some foggy woods. Very apropos.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is not a short book. At over 600 pages, no two hour film (or two and a half hour film in this case), could possibly do it justice. So the producers wisely chose to spit it into two films. Unfortunately, it's still not enough. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 probably makes sense if you've read the book - but as is, it's a choppy mess. The film opens with the muggle world completely upended - people going into hiding and basically living in what seems like a war zone. When did this happen? What's going on? Who knows - it's never adequately explained... though the conclusion we are supposed to draw is that at some point Voldemort declared war on the muggle world to get Harry.

But it doesn't stop there. The protagonists, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, move from scene to scene with amazing rapidity, and little explanation. Character's motivations are often inadequately explained, and almost no scene in the movie makes sense if you spend too much time thinking about it. Things happen for no reason, and to top it off, the main characters - who have been through a lot at this point -  act unbelievably stupidly, walking into traps, following ghost deers, and stripping naked and jumping in frozen lakes without telling anyone what they're doing. There's also a ton of amazing coincidences. Finding inscriptions in books like and just knowing they're important, teleporting (what's the point of magic trains and broomsticks anymore) to just the right place next to the lake with the relic they seek by accident... the list goes on and on.

Evidently, even split into two long films, still too much ended up on the cutting room floor. The deleted scenes, available on the DVD elucidate some of the plot holes - but not nearly enough. Unfortunately there's no way to skip this film - it's part one of a two parter, and as bad as it is seeing a disjointed two-and-a-half-hour film, walking into part two without seeing this one first would be ill-advised.

The Good: 

• School's out - things get real
• The effects and cinematography are top-notch, as is the acting. In fact, nearly everything that did make it into the film is fantastic.

The Bad:

• It's a patchwork quilt of scenes strung together. If you're new to the series, don't even think of starting here.
• Hermione comes across as a total b*** in this one.

Pairing: Order a whole pizza... you're gonna need it!

The Verdict:
*** out of *****

Harry Potter and the Order of the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

One of the best HP films, but also one of the most frustrating

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince poster

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince opens with some mysterious forces of darkness destroying a bridge on the Thames for apparently no reason. Maybe it's explained in the books, but if so, the movie omits even a hint of an explanation.

The unexplained destruction of the bridge is just the first of many such plot points in the film. The title refers to the owner of Harry's potions textbook, which is filled with notes on advanced spells that allows him to excel in that class, but later Ginny and Harry decide the book is bad - and there's no explanation for that, nor why rather than destroy it they decide to hide it.

There are many more examples, but you get the idea. Anyway, the film concerns Harry's attempt to stop Draco Malfoy, who he believes is working for Voldemort, but under Snape's protection. When Snape is named the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, we know he's going to be the villain du jour.

And that's what makes this one of the best films. With Dumbledore directly involved we finally see some high-level magic employed. There's still a lot of teenage romance, and Quidditch matches, but we also get a lot more magic and destruction.

The Good: 

• The stakes continue to rise. For the first time the series seems to flirt with real danger
• The look of the film is much darker thanks to cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel (making it the only HP film nominated for a Best Cinematography Oscar)

The Bad:

• Harry seems a little tangentially involved in what is more about Dumbledore vs. Voldemort
• Rowling seems determined to pair Harry with Ginny and Hermione get with Ron

The Verdict:
**** out of *****

Halloween (2018)

Halloween (2018)

Halloween movie poster

In 1978, Halloween kicked off the slasher genre. And, while it remains the single best example of the genre, the same cannot be said for its many dreadful sequels and reboots. Beyond spotty, the franchise, like its iconic villain Michael Myers, refuses to die, yet keeps coming back like a flat, emotionless, and often terrible stalker.

For the films' 40th anniversary, it is reboot once again, with a sequel to the original that wisely chooses to ignore all the intervening films. But is it successful? Sort of.

The good part here is that the film reunites Jamie Lee Curtis reprising her role as Laurie Strode with Nick Castle, the original Michael Myers, and writer/director John Carpenter back as Executive Producer, creative consultant, and of course music composer.

The rest of the cast is merely adequate, with some odd casting choices, like Judy Greer as Strode's daughter

The film is pretty much a direct homage to the original, with a lot of references to that film, including some shot-for-shot recreations. In some ways it relies a little too much on this slavish loyalty to the original, yet it is the complete opposite of that film in one crucial way. It lacks a master like Carpenter at the helm. Carpenter's original was filled with tension, with the killing coming after a long buildup. This film however is long on on-screen killing and gore, almost from the get-go, but short on suspense.

Still, given how low the bar has gone with this franchise in the past, we'll take it.

The Good:

• Jamie Lee Curtis as an older, damaged Laurie Strode is outstanding
• Carpenter's signature musical score

The Bad:

• Lacks the jolts of Carpenter's original; to some extent Wes Craven's Scream is a better homage
• If you have a prisoner who is ONLY known for killing people on Halloween, why for the love of God do you choose to transport him between facilities on October 30th?
• If Laurie moved to a new house, how did Michael know where to find her?

Stuff to watch for:

• probably the only mainstream film to reference Repo Man
• references to every other Halloween film even as it ignores them

Pairing: Popcorn and Apple Cider

The Verdict:

***1/2 out of *****

Halloween (1978)

Many movies are good for Halloween. But one film is Halloween...

Halloween

Halloween movie poster

Halloween changed everything. There are few films that have had as great an impact on the genre.

The story is painfully simple, an escaped lunatic returns to terrorize his old neighborhood on Halloween night. And, while the escaped lunatic story is a time-honored tradition predating the film medium itself, never has it been more effectively presented.

To be fair, the film is a tad bit dated (it predates M.A.D.D. and Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign big time); and the acting by some of the supporting characters is horrendous - (the children are better actors than some of the teenagers here). But some of the acting is quite excellent - we all know how it launched the career of Jamie Lee Curtis (heir to her mother's scream queen crown) - but also noteworthy is the performance of Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis, the relentless and compassionless counterpoint to killer Michael Myers; Loomis will stop at nothing to see Michael stopped, hippocratic oath be damned!

Halloween has a pretty long buildup by modern standards. But all of that is worth it for the last white knuckle twenty minutes, which is some of the scariest, edge-of-your-seat storytelling on celluloid. It's noteworthy that for most of the film, a majority of the characters are totally unaware of the danger, and despite the film's reputation as the King of Slasher movies, there is actually a very minimal amount of gore here.

Other things to watch for in Halloween:

- John Carpenter created and composed the "stalk and kill" theme music imitated by so many, it's performed by the Bowling Green Philharmonic (John and his friends)

- the one popular song of the day used in the film is "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Öyster Cult, it fits this film like a glove - and the scene where it plays will make you chuckle

- The Thing (later remade by Carpenter) and Forbidden Planet are prominently featured on TVs throughout the movie

- Can you pick out the characters named after characters in Hitchcock films?

- another classic Cadillac to watch for in this one - this time a black Fleetwood

***** out of *****