Aging Movie Reviews

This movie is like the kid you knew in school who tried to be hilarious and always failed horribly. In almost everything the series does it fails, from badly timed jokes that often times make no sense, to action that goes literally nowhere. Jing solves all his problems by sticking his parrot on his arm and shooting stuff out the parrot's mouth. Rarely does he use his sword which might create some cool scenes, but no the bird is the solution for everything.

Poor action, poor comedy, a plot that never gives Jing any personality, (where he came from, why he's the king of bandits, etc.) all these combine to really make something that could have been good fall flat on it's face. I can understand how people could like the show, but the plot just doesn't add up for me. Even Cowboy Bebop which was random episodes like this had 6 episodes dedicated to a story, Jing doesn't seem to have any. All in all, it's produced well, but just not my cup of tea.

This movie is like the kid you knew in school who tried to be hilarious and always failed horribly. In almost everything the series does it fails, from badly timed jokes that often times make no sense, to action that goes literally nowhere. Jing solves all his problems by sticking his parrot on his arm and shooting stuff out the parrot's mouth. Rarely does he use his sword which might create some cool scenes, but no the bird is the solution for everything.

Poor action, poor comedy, a plot that never gives Jing any personality, (where he came from, why he's the king of bandits, etc.) all these combine to really make something that could have been good fall flat on it's face. I can understand how people could like the show, but the plot just doesn't add up for me. Even Cowboy Bebop which was random episodes like this had 6 episodes dedicated to a story, Jing doesn't seem to have any. All in all, it's produced well, but just not my cup of tea.

The books seem to be on a better level for her. She prefers milder videos like, "Maisy, "Kipper", "The Wiggles" and "The Hungry Caterpillar".

The topic is unquestionably prurient, a la Dolcett, et al. If you can't handle that, do yourself a favor and run, don't walk, away. Some of the story is traditional Chinese theatre: simplistic dialogue which falls easily into the "silly" column. That being said, the overall "arc" of the movie isn't silly. In a very limited way, I could see some Shakespearean influence to the plot: he dies loving her, she dies avenging him, everybody dies. The scenery is almost perfect for the genre. The torture/blood-FX are (in Hollywood standards) outright horrible, pathetic, deplorable, break-out-the-thesaurus bad - which is really too bad since I got the impression the movie was trying to be a well-made torture/soft-porn flick. The sex is the typical, late-night cable, TV-MA fodder plus some S&M. The digital video is *very* good: wide-screen, stable, crystal clear. In fact, I saw a few analog boo-boos but the conversion to digital is top-notch. Utilization of the traditional DVD capabilities (menus, etc) is par. The box says "CC" but I couldn't find it - however there are English subtitles (picky, I know, but! If it says CC, I want captions. If it says subtitled, I want subtitles. If it says both, darn it! I want both!) Speaking of subtitles: eww... get an interpreteur! There are many grammatical errors, a nonsensical sentence or two, etc. Additionally, don't put the remote away as you'll be freezing the image to read some of the subtitles... they are *that* fast.

Anyway, thumbs up. Why? For the genre, the movie is well made. Splasher flicks don't have to be pathetic. Porno movies (which this ain't) don't have to be artistically and intellectually void. Just because you choose to make a film which caters to the basest of our species aspects, doesn't mean you have to do it in a moronic, low-class sort of way. If you don't understand that last sentence, this movie isn't for you.

The topic is unquestionably prurient, a la Dolcett, et al. If you can't handle that, do yourself a favor and run, don't walk, away. Some of the story is traditional Chinese theatre: simplistic dialogue which falls easily into the "silly" column. That being said, the overall "arc" of the movie isn't silly. In a very limited way, I could see some Shakespearean influence to the plot: he dies loving her, she dies avenging him, everybody dies. The scenery is almost perfect for the genre. The torture/blood-FX are (in Hollywood standards) outright horrible, pathetic, deplorable, break-out-the-thesaurus bad - which is really too bad since I got the impression the movie was trying to be a well-made torture/soft-porn flick. The sex is the typical, late-night cable, TV-MA fodder plus some S&M. The digital video is *very* good: wide-screen, stable, crystal clear. In fact, I saw a few analog boo-boos but the conversion to digital is top-notch. Utilization of the traditional DVD capabilities (menus, etc) is par. The box says "CC" but I couldn't find it - however there are English subtitles (picky, I know, but! If it says CC, I want captions. If it says subtitled, I want subtitles. If it says both, darn it! I want both!) Speaking of subtitles: eww... get an interpreteur! There are many grammatical errors, a nonsensical sentence or two, etc. Additionally, don't put the remote away as you'll be freezing the image to read some of the subtitles... they are *that* fast.

Anyway, thumbs up. Why? For the genre, the movie is well made. Splasher flicks don't have to be pathetic. Porno movies (which this ain't) don't have to be artistically and intellectually void. Just because you choose to make a film which caters to the basest of our species aspects, doesn't mean you have to do it in a moronic, low-class sort of way. If you don't understand that last sentence, this movie isn't for you.

''The Defiant Ones'' teams up the legendary Tony Curtis and the equally legendary and talented Sidney Poitier as convicted felons John ''Joker'' Jackson and Noah Cullen who, as a result of a racially sparked physical scuffle between the two of them, partly contribute to the road accident their transport vehicle becomes involved in. The resulting crash gives these two chained together prisoners an opportunity to escape on foot.

But this is pre-1960s southern USA, so when the arriving law officers responsible for tracking the prisoners down learn that the two chained together escaped cons are of different racial backgrounds they become somewhat lax in their pursuit, erroneously assuming that the two escapees would likely kill each other out of racial hatred before they'd even get five miles.

Forced to cooperate despite the racial tensions between them, Joker and Noah do not take their predicament lightly and are constantly on the move to stay as far ahead of their pursuers as possible. In the days that follow both men form something of an uneasy camaraderie, and the conversations they strike up between themselves actually seem to help smooth over some of those racial tensions they exhibit toward each other, to where each man gains a certain amount of respect for the other. Joker is also made to confront some unpleasant realities, such as being forced to admit in his heart that Noah is the more rational of the two and, especially, having to come to terms with the fact that his white skin is no safety net when he is an escaped criminal on the run.

There is also a 'human interest' story in the subplot of the film, some of it just somewhat ahead of its time: The County Sheriff becomes the catalyst which keeps the chase from becoming a reckless and disorderly ''Good Ol' Boy'' guns, dawgs & testosterone party, and one of the townspeople, portrayed by the legendary Lon Chaney Jr., keeps a town's citizenry from becoming an emotionally irrational lynch mob.

The cinematography is excellent for a movie of its time, although some of the sets could have been better constructed and arranged (for example, there's one set where the city lights of Los Angeles shine in the background beyond the studio lot). It is also nice to hear actors talking with southern accents that don't sound like ''Foghorn Leghorn'' rejects.

To even consider ''remaking'' this classic film would not only be a terrible mistake, but it would also be a virtual impossibility ... so hopefully no one in Hollyweird, or anywhere else for that matter, would ever think of doing such a thing, and thus let this great piece of movie making history stand on its own and to continue to stand the test of time.

* * *

Greenspan said that when he was in West Germany premeiring his 1964 film "Jesse Owens Returns to Berlin", Owens called Reifenstahl the woman who made him famous, thanked her, and called her up on stage. The audience was dumbfounded and did not know how to respond until Owens' wife began a standing ovation. Such was the attitude towards Reifenstahl: the Germans knew she was a national treasure, yet they were very uncomfortable with some of the things she put on film.