VinceChan.net

This is the first meme that I am featuring on this blog. A meme is an idea that is spread quickly among media and people alike. On some level, it resembles a chain letter (if the meme asks for you to pass the idea to someone else).

I chose this movie meme as it is non-intrusive, and engages people in a topic where I enjoy discussion. According to movie critic Roger Ebert, this are the 102 films you need to see before you can be considered “movie literate”. I also crossed out the movies I’ve seen!

1. “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) Stanley Kubrick
2. “The 400 Blows” (1959) Francois Truffaut
3. “8 1/2? (1963) Federico Fellini
4. “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” (1972) Werner Herzog
5. “Alien” (1979) Ridley Scott
6. “All About Eve” (1950) Joseph L. Mankiewicz
7. “Annie Hall” (1977) Woody Allen
8. “Apocalypse Now” (1979) Francis Ford Coppola
9. “Bambi” (1942) Disney
10. “The Battleship Potemkin” (1925) Sergei Eisenstein
11. “The Best Years of Our Lives” (1946) William Wyler
12. “The Big Red One” (1980) Samuel Fuller
13. “The Bicycle Thief” (1949) Vittorio De Sica
14. “The Big Sleep” (1946) Howard Hawks
15. “Blade Runner” (1982) Ridley Scott
16. “Blowup” (1966) Michelangelo Antonioni
17. “Blue Velvet” (1986) David Lynch
18. “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) Arthur Penn
19. “Breathless” (1959 Jean-Luc Godard
20. “Bringing Up Baby” (1938) Howard Hawks
21. “Carrie” (1975) Brian DePalma
22. “Casablanca” (1942) Michael Curtiz
23. “Un Chien Andalou” (1928) Luis Bunuel & Salvador Dali
24. “Children of Paradise” / “Les Enfants du Paradis” (1945) Marcel Carne
25. “Chinatown” (1974) Roman Polanski
26. “Citizen Kane” (1941) Orson Welles
27. “A Clockwork Orange” (1971) Stanley Kubrick
28. “The Crying Game” (1992) Neil Jordan
29. “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951) Robert Wise
30. “Days of Heaven” (1978) Terence Malick
31. “Dirty Harry” (1971) Don Siegel
32. “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie” (1972) Luis Bunuel
33. “Do the Right Thing” (1989) Spike Lee
34. “La Dolce Vita” (1960) Federico Fellini
35. “Double Indemnity” (1944) Billy Wilder
36. “Dr. Strangelove” (1964) Stanley Kubrick
37. “Duck Soup” (1933) Leo McCarey
38. “E.T. — The Extra-Terrestrial” (1982) Steven Spielberg
39. “Easy Rider” (1969) Dennis Hopper
40. “The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) Irvin Kershner
41. “The Exorcist” (1973) William Friedkin
42. “Fargo” (1995) Joel & Ethan Coen
43. “Fight Club” (1999) David Fincher
44. “Frankenstein” (1931) James Whale
45. “The General” (1927) Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman
46. “The Godfather,” “The Godfather, Part II” (1972, 1974) Francis Ford Coppola
47. “Gone With the Wind” (1939) Victor Fleming
48. “GoodFellas” (1990) Martin Scorsese
49. “The Graduate” (1967) Mike Nichols
50. “Halloween” (1978) John Carpenter
51. “A Hard Day’s Night” (1964) Richard Lester
52. “Intolerance” (1916) D.W. Griffith
53. “It’s a Gift” (1934) Norman Z. McLeod
54. “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) Frank Capra
55. “Jaws” (1975) Steven Spielberg
56. “The Lady Eve” (1941) Preston Sturges
57. “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) David Lean
58. “M” (1931) Fritz Lang
59. “Mad Max 2? / “The Road Warrior” (1981) George Miller
60. “The Maltese Falcon” (1941) John Huston
61. “The Manchurian Candidate” (1962) John Frankenheimer
62. “Metropolis” (1926) Fritz Lang
63. “Modern Times” (1936) Charles Chaplin
64. “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (1975) Terry Jones & Terry Gilliam
65. “Nashville” (1975) Robert Altman
66. “The Night of the Hunter” (1955) Charles Laughton
67. “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) George Romero
68. “North by Northwest” (1959) Alfred Hitchcock
69. “Nosferatu” (1922) F.W. Murnau
70. “On the Waterfront” (1954) Elia Kazan
71. “Once Upon a Time in the West” (1968) Sergio Leone
72. “Out of the Past” (1947) Jacques Tournier
73. “Persona” (1966) Ingmar Bergman
74. “Pink Flamingos” (1972) John Waters
75. “Psycho” (1960) Alfred Hitchcock
76. “Pulp Fiction” (1994) Quentin Tarantino
77. “Rashomon” (1950) Akira Kurosawa
78. “Rear Window” (1954) Alfred Hitchcock
79. “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955) Nicholas Ray
80. “Red River” (1948) Howard Hawks
81. “Repulsion” (1965) Roman Polanski
82. “The Rules of the Game” (1939) Jean Renoir
83. “Scarface” (1932) Howard Hawks
84. “The Scarlet Empress” (1934) Josef von Sternberg
85. “Schindler’s List” (1993) Steven Spielberg
86. “The Searchers” (1956) John Ford
87. “The Seven Samurai” (1954) Akira Kurosawa
88. “Singin’ in the Rain” (1952) Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
89. “Some Like It Hot” (1959) Billy Wilder
90. “A Star Is Born” (1954) George Cukor
91. “A Streetcar Named Desire” (1951) Elia Kazan
92. “Sunset Boulevard” (1950) Billy Wilder
93. “Taxi Driver” (1976) Martin Scorsese
94. “The Third Man” (1949) Carol Reed
95. “Tokyo Story” (1953) Yasujiro Ozu
96. “Touch of Evil” (1958) Orson Welles
97. “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948) John Huston
98. “Trouble in Paradise” (1932) Ernst Lubitsch
99. “Vertigo” (1958) Alfred Hitchcock
100. “West Side Story” (1961) Jerome Robbins/Robert Wise
101. “The Wild Bunch” (1969) Sam Peckinpah
102. “The Wizard of Oz” (1939) Victor Fleming

My current movie literacy score is only 26/102. This will give me an excuse and a homework list to watch those other movies that I’m missing! However, I need to comment about the cultural bias that this list exhibits. Yes, the are works of Akira Kurosawa, but what about the early works of Ang Lee that are not represented at all? I will keep updating this list with any new developments. Would you like to share your movie literacy score base on this list?

I recently saw the Asian version of Fearless (aka Huo Yuan Jia). This movie is billed to be Jet Li’s last movie. I grew up watching Jet Li portray many legendary Chinese heros from Fong Sai Yuk to Wong Fei Hong. In his final epic, Jet Li is Huo Yuan Jia, the legendary founder and spirited guru of the Jing Wu Martial Arts School.

Wait a second? Doesn’t Jing Wu sound famililar to you martial art movie fanantics out there! Yes, Jing Wu is the name of the school in Bruce Lee’s Chinese Connection and Jet Li’s remix years later in Fist of Legend. Huo Yuan Jia is the master that Bruce and Jet were avenging in their respective movies. Does it tickle your viewing fancy yet to see the historical account of a true master’s life and death?

Jet Li’s once boyish good looks now show the wears of aging. Unfortunately, the version I watch looks to be an edited version, because I heard that Michelle Yeoh was supposed to appear. As well, an encounter with a thai-fighter described on the website was also cut from my version. Huo Yuan Jia reintroduced the Mizong (missing) Fist, a style that was more open to combining different martial arts styles in favour for a lighter, fighting technique. Sounds like an early 1900 Bruce Lee and his Jeet Kune Do to me!

I won’t go into too much of the movie, but I hope to do a Blogcritics review of Fearless in the near future. There’s nothing I like more than watching movies that I enjoy again and again!

But Who’s Next?
For action movie enthusiasts, don’t fret! New bloods are always on the rise in the martial arts movie industry. The brightest of these stars has been Tony Jaa. Many in the western world were stunned after watching Ong Bak: The Thai Warrior, to find out what Asia already knew. Tony Jaa is a phenomenal action star that remains unmatched by any talent in the western hemisphere.

I recently watched another Tony Jaa film that is probably scheduled to arrive on western shores anyday now – Tom Yum Goong. Tony is much more rounded and polished in this movie than Ong Bak and I enjoyed the fight sequences much more. In particular, I wanted to highlight a uncut, unedited scene when Tony goes from ground floor to the top floor of a 4 or 5 storey buildling, fighting every minion in his way without stopping! He looks visibly tired towards the end, but I thought it was a very innovative fight scene. The continous no-edit scene is comparable to a similar fight scene in another favourite movie of mine – Chan-Woo Park’s Oldboy!

Jet Li remains a sentimental favourite of mine. But innovative newcomers like Tony Jaa will keep it interesting for many years to come! What are some of your favourite Jet Li or Tony Jaa moments?

This is not really a review of the movie, The Wedding Banquet is an excellent movie with many reviews praising it. One more praise from myself will only be another drop in the ocean. Think of it as more of a reflection about the movie. In fact, I’m watching it on CBC’s International Movie Night as I am writing this blog. Did I mention this is why I love Canadian Media and the CBC? I guarantee you will not be exposed to this caliber of foreign film on American broadcast media!

For those unfamiliar with the work, a brief introduction is in order. Taiwanese director Ang Lee is a world renowned director famous for works such as “Eat Drink Man Woman”, and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. His earlier works have always had a cross cultural element to it; “The Wedding Banquet” is such a prime example. Before there was “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, “The Wedding Banquet” was the first movie I saw that gave an accurate depiction of such a culture event. The story is simple but a very modern social issue. A Taiwanese gay man attempts to fool his traditional parents by marrying a former tenant who is in love with him. The fake marriage was to get the girl her green card, but she ends up getting pregnant on the wedding night.

I’ll leave the rest of the movie plot out to encourage you to watch the movie. My favourite portion of this movie was when Ang Lee himself appears and comments on the fun foolish games and excessive drinking that Chinese enjoy during their wedding banquets, by saying that “it’s the result of 5000 years of sexual repression”. I’ve seen this movie many times and I find it very relatable. First of all, I’m not gay but I can relate to the plight of a Chinese man who is not traditional in nature. I have talked about not wanting a wedding ceremony for myself, but a Chinese wedding is by essence not for myself; only to be accountable to others (as described in the movie too).

I also admire the perspective of Chinese culture; a recurring theme of all Ang Lee movies. Taiwanese people are very cultured whereas I am very lack of culture. That is why I enjoy any exposure to culture for myself. I would not know where to begin to organize a cultured wedding banquet. I wondered if I am avoiding it simply to avoid the challenge. There are so many things that can be discussed about this movie. Rather than hear me babble on, if you have seen this movie, please share your view of the movie and what issues or situations you can relate to from the movie. I look forward to hearing from you!

My first foray into the brillant world of director Akira Kurosawa left me with a better understanding of his legacy. So many have said so much about his brillance that I felt incomplete as a movie buff to not have not yet seen any of his works.

Kagemusha tells the story of an era where rival Japanese samurai clans fought to unify their control of feudal Japan. The historical aspects of the film provide the eye candy while at the centre of it is an intricate study of the humans dealing with illusion and reality.

Lord Shingen, leader of the Takeda clan, was mortally wounded on a campaign to take a rival castle. Before his death, he ordered that his death be kept a secret to allow his clan to consolidate power and protect his clan’s territory. Shingen had found and groomed a common thief, who happened to look exactly like him, to be his kagemusha (meaning ‘shadow warrior’). The kagemusha has never filled in for the lord for such an extended time. The film centres around the internal and external struggles of this pretense.

The film moves at a slow pace, but is masterfully approached in many different perspectives. Shingen’s enemies struggle to find out the truth about the condition of the true lord. Shingen’s general have to find a way to use, accept and cover for the imposter’s shortcomings. The thief, who was only spared his life due to his resemblance to the lord, now has to perform the uneviable illusion. The kagemusha, having an entirely opposite personality to the lord, has to resolve within himself whether he can pretend to be another person for the next 3 years.

Kagemusha is not to be mistaken simply as a samurai movie, but a war movie where we get to study the generals on both sides of the conflicts. It was interesting to discover the emerging Western influence of the era. The war scenes are also well arranged and sure to please the more discerning war movie fans. The characters are well developed as we get to know the motivation and plights of all that are involved in the stories. Kurosawa spend a lot of time peeling away the layers of the Takeda clan enemies and gave us a deeper glimpse into their thoughts and actions.

The switch and transformation of the kagemusha into lord Shingen captivates the audience with its attention to even the smallest detail. Every scene in the movie is so merticulously organized and well thought that I was in awe in the gorgeous imagery and artful direction of Kurosawa. For example, may reviews have remakred upon the first scene of the movie, where lord Shingen and his brother discussed about the capture of the thief and would-be Kagemusha. You see 3 figures sitting in candlelight, with the 2 brothers placed at a different level than the thief, drawing attention to the differences between their personality and class. The candle light casting shadows on the wall, heralding the shadow warrior’s becoming. This is a very famous scene that is so simplistic but yet so meaningful.

I don’t want to go into too many details about the movie’s defining points. Suffice to say that essays can be written, and I’m sure have been written about the making of this movie. I’ve heard many good things about other Kurosawa films, such as Seven Samurai and the critically acclaimed Ran. Many critics have commented on Kurosawa’s use of Kagemusha as a warm up to his epic, Ran. The making of Kagemusha was particularly hard for Kurosawa as he could not secure the financial backing from Japan, and had to seek Western help in friends like Francis Ford Coppola and Geroge Lucas who served as executive producers. Kagemusha brought Kurosawa back to prominence as Japan’s greatest director, and though it is usually not considered one of his more famous works, it did allow him to follow through and execute Ran.

Next on my list, will be to see Ran followed by other prolific Kurosawa works such as Ikiru, and the Seven Samurai. I highly recommend anybody who have not seen this artist’s vision to immediatley do so! Kagemusha is a recommended build up starter for the uninitiated as I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was perfection from beginning to end.

Also at BlogCritics

I have always been a geek. Whether it’s a computer geek, a music geek, a comic book geek, they have been my secret passion. And I arguably just saw one of the best Batman movies in my life thus far, so I had thought I would like to say a lot about it. But I actually would like to leave most of the review in the hands of another review that I saw. Everything that has been already said is what I would like to said.

Of course, I do have thoughts of my own to add to the discussion. I am absolutely delighted at the treatment of this latest installment to the caped crusader’s saga. The world’s greatest detective’s humble beginnings is revealed in truest form to what its creator, Bob Kane had intended.

The casting of Christian Bale, a relative unknown, is actually the best decision of the movie. Comic characters have made stars out of actors, not the other way around. Looking at the history where Superman made Christopher Reeves (god bless his soul), and most recently, Spiderman made Tobey McGuire. Stars have never made the characters work, there was too much of that star power there. We expected those actors like Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney to be the star power they represent, rather than the characters that they’re supposed to bring to life.

Having sang the movie’s praises, I am not pleased that the length of the movie was kept short perhaps to maintain audience interest. The director/studio should have realize that to do an epic movie requires the length of time to tell its story. The edits and scene cuts in the movie made important events out to be flashing glances, and the disjunction of the story telling can really benefit from better organization.

In the comic books, Batman has not just been about the story, but also the wonderful action sequences depicted by the penciler. These scenes differ from typical comic books because there are seldom force blasts or lasers or other supernatural abilities but rather relying on Batman’s human abilities. The comics would showcase his prowess of the martial arts in exciting poses and action sequences. The movie has failed to deliver this aspect of the comic. Many of the action scenes seems to be deliberately chosen to be shot as “close-ups”; negating the beauty of the bodily actions. This may be to compensate the actors lack of ability, but I feel it’s more a statement made by the director to put a stamp on his work, in order to differentiate this adaption from the campy 70s action of “kaplow”, “bam” and “zonk”. This decision should have be rethought with the help of a good action choreagrapher. The action sequences now resemble the old 60s, 70s chop-socky kung fu films where untalented kung fu actors and directors compensated by doing actions close-ups. Where as artists like Bruce Lee, Jacky Chan choose to shoot and show the full action in all its glory.

Batman is defined by his enemies as well as his heroics and quirks. The poor choices of villians in the previous Batman movies is contrasted this time by using the Scarecrow, and the league of Shadows. Laim Neesom breathed life into a Batman adversary by showing some depth to his character – a character that is both proud of his former student, but bent on advancing his own vision. Scarecrow remains understated in the movie and actually served his purpose better in his diminished sidekick capacity. This version of Batman also seemed to flow much better between his Bruce Wayne and Batman persona whereas previous incarnations always seemed to make this duality an awkward issue.

The token love interest, Rachel Dawes played by Katie Holmes did not strike me as a believable District Attorney, but she was not hyped up as a female lead in a Batman film, and that was actually a good thing! Michael Caine did well to introduce an aura of respect into the butler role of Alfred, whereas Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Lucius Fox was a waste of this great actor’s talents. Finally, I was most intrigued by the choice of Sargent Gordon’s passivity characterization in this movie. It was refreshing to see the rough, tough, take no guff Comissioner Gordon during his humble beginning of a long lasting friendship with Batman.

On this note, I can only give 4 out of 5 stars for this great effort and a worthy beginning to a new series of Batman movie franchises. There were many refreshing things to the production, but the action direction and editing of the picture prevented an otherwise great vision from fulfilling its destiny.

Being human means that there are 1 of 2 (or both) emotions that you will feel when you hear the words “alien lifeform”. Those 2 emotions are “curiosity” and “fear”. On one hand, we would love to find out more about extra-terrestrial life, but we often also fear what this new knowledge will mean for our survival.

Many science fiction movies are not much different from horror movies. The typical horror movie victim should not have opened that door that led to their death, but more often than not, their curiosity leads to grips of fear, leading to eventual death or destruction. Both emotions culminate in the latest Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of H.G. Well’s “World Of The Worlds” (read it online here). Spielberg teams up again with Tom Cruise, since previously collabrating on Minority Report, to bring this classic science fiction tale to the silver screen. I will leave the spoilers to the end, so keep reading until my spoiler warning!

The most famous rendition of War Of The Worlds actually happened in the fall of 1938. Orson Welles, then master of broadcast theatre production for the Columbia Broadcasting System, produced and starred in an exciting on-air dramatization by Howard Koch. The radio production was so realistic that it caused wide spread mass hysteria in much of the eastern United States, around the New York, New Jersey area (The landing point was supposed to be Grover Mills). People were listening to the radio broadcast, and when they looked out their windows, they saw exactly what they wanted to see. If the streets were empty, it was because everybody had fled. If the streets were full of people and cars, it was because everybody was fleeing. People were glued to the radio because of their curiosity, or were making plans to flee for safety due to fear, until it was revealed that the broadcast was in fact a dramatization, (Listen to the actual radio broadcast of ‘War Of The Worlds’ in RealAudio here) Radio Script

Spielberg’s screen adaptation did not match Orson Welles’ artful masterpiece. There is something to be said about the simplicity of the medium used (radio vs movies), and how it absolutely captivated Welles’ audience. Welles’ skillful direction, simple and effective use of cut offs and silences to instill fear is still unmatchable by any special effects. In one scene, Spielberg does integrate silence by having Tom’s character make a remark about the silence.