IN: Review: Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."

The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"

Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."

The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"

Please.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: A mess of genres but it's mainly based on Stephen Chow's genre mash-ups for it's inspiration. There's magic kung-fu, college romance, sports, gangster action and some weepy melodrama for a topping. The production is excellent and the pacing is fast so it's easy to get past the many flaws in this film.

A baby is abandoned next to a basketball court. A homeless man brings him to a Shaolin monastery that's in the middle of a city along with a special kung fu manual that the homeless man somehow has but can't read. The old monk teaches the boy but expires when he tries to master the special technique in the manual. The school is taken over by a phony kung fu master who is assisted by four wacky monks. The new master gets mad at the now 20+ year old boy for not pretending to be hurt by the master's weak punches and throws him out for the night. The boy is found throwing garbage into a basket from an incredible distance by a man who bring him to a gangster's club to play darts. This leads to a big fight, the boy's expulsion from the monastery and the man's decision to turn the boy into a college basketball sensation.

Al this happens in the first 20 minutes with most of it happening in the first 10 minutes. Aside from the extreme shorthand storytelling the first problem is how little we get to know the main character until way into the movie. The man who uses the boy is more sharply defined by the time the first third is over. The plot follows no new ground except for the insane action climax of the film. I'm sure you can easily imagine how the wacky monks will show up towards the end. The effects, photography and stunt work are all top- notch and make up for the uninspired plot.

Stephen Chow has a much better command of plot and comedy writing and this film will live in his shadow but that's not a good reason to ignore it. It's quite entertaining even with a scatter-shot ending. Recommended.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like

before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...

lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever

and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before

the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong

and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there

editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard

overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.

my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risque content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality

this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative