Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Legend of Zu

I remember well Tsui Hark's original Zu Warriors made 18 years earlier. Over one Christmas, on a rare week when Channel 4 in the UK showed a week of Hong Kong movies, Zu Warriors was so gripping for a very young viewer and his brother and so memorable, that it's been etched into the memory of the now grown up sprog...

In fact, I think the original Zu Warriors is one of the earliest films I saw as a kid that I can clearly recall the story line and action scenes from. And the memories of seeing Yuen Biao, Sammo Hung and others in their classic prime.

So when I saw this remake of Zu Warriors, there was a feeling of apprehension. Could it beat the dreamy childhood memories I had of the original, or will it follow the road of other remakes and die a death more horrible than the baddies and their broken necks you find in those kung fu movies?

Well the answer is I can't say. But that was because this isn't really a remake. The stories (and styles) are almost completely different.

The Legend of Zu tells of the story of King Sky, a lone warrior, whose master, Dawn, declares her love for him but her life is taken from her by a monster called Insomnia. Two hundred years later, Insomnia returns, Dawn is reincarnated as Enigma, and Insomnia has returned to destroy Zu. Meanwhile White Eyebrows and Red try, with the help of King Sky, to stop Insomnia.

The plot isn't one full of twists and turns, but had enough detail in it to keep me interested. But I can see this film as one you either love or you hate. The film is very much about the special effects, with the majority of it involving several computer generated environments, much like The Storm Riders and A Man Called Hero. But unlike the other two, this film was one which didn't overdo the graphics and the whole thing was tasteful. Nothing appears rushed - unlike Hero. The backgrounds were complementary to the acting and not at all overpowering the scenes.

The story also involves plenty of characters and the intermingling of so many individuals does make the film intriguing. It was possibly on the verge of 'too many cooks', but generally each character had its part in the story. But some of the roles appear to be 'extended cameos' in my opinion, and I somehow am left to slightly question the necessity of this.

Ekin Cheng and Louis Koo play very central roles in the film, but I couldn't say this film showed their best performances. Cecilia Cheung appears to at least have matured in her acting, but it is still quite raw. Kelly Lin was the new revelation for me. Despite her very short role, I have apologise and admit to ogling!

Overall, I have to say, did enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the 'original'. Given that both movies are made by the legendary Tsui Hark, the two films together are part of a chronicle showing how film making in Hong Kong has changed over two decades. And one beauty of that is the fact that you can't really compare the two films at all, as much as apples are apples and pears are pears.

Ultimately, both are thoroughly enjoyable films in their own right. And I'm going back to reminisce by watching the original again.

Two to watch, but not compare.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious "in your face" homages to Sam Raimi and "Evil Dead" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.

I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.

Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).

What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuaron, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).

One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.

Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.

If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.