brshill
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
13 years
Reviews
Bushwick (2017)
Fun one-shot mayhem
Like others, I heard about the film because Aesop Rock posted on Facebook saying he was doing the score. So I wasn't expecting much beyond a cool soundtrack...
From the first scene, it's apparent that winning an Oscar isn't the top priority. The dialogue isn't fluent and the acting is stunted, and we're thrown in with the action almost right away: streets are burning, we don't know why, let's get the hell out of here. The top priority, it seems, is creating a video game-like war-torn corner of NYC through which the protagonists must try and survive. And it does this well.
It only took a few minutes for me to start honestly enjoying it. The main driving force is the perspective: a single hand-held camera doing long continuous takes, so the whole movie, having been edited to cut different takes seamlessly together, runs like an entire 90 minute one-shot. It makes you feel as if you're there with them, experiencing the action unfold, no tea break, and the ridiculous plot and forced acting combine to make it feel like you've stepped directly into a '90s B-movie or a shoot'em up arcade game set in Brooklyn. It's really pretty cool, and almost makes me think that the silly plot and acting were intentional. Maybe, maybe not.
If you're looking for a political thriller, a thinking man's action movie, cool martial arts/fight scenes, or any amount of emotional realism, look elsewhere. But if you're happy with a mindless yet oddly engrossing bang bang movie, this might be fun.
From the first scene, it's apparent that winning an Oscar isn't the top priority. The dialogue isn't fluent and the acting is stunted, and we're thrown in with the action almost right away: streets are burning, we don't know why, let's get the hell out of here. The top priority, it seems, is creating a video game-like war-torn corner of NYC through which the protagonists must try and survive. And it does this well.
It only took a few minutes for me to start honestly enjoying it. The main driving force is the perspective: a single hand-held camera doing long continuous takes, so the whole movie, having been edited to cut different takes seamlessly together, runs like an entire 90 minute one-shot. It makes you feel as if you're there with them, experiencing the action unfold, no tea break, and the ridiculous plot and forced acting combine to make it feel like you've stepped directly into a '90s B-movie or a shoot'em up arcade game set in Brooklyn. It's really pretty cool, and almost makes me think that the silly plot and acting were intentional. Maybe, maybe not.
If you're looking for a political thriller, a thinking man's action movie, cool martial arts/fight scenes, or any amount of emotional realism, look elsewhere. But if you're happy with a mindless yet oddly engrossing bang bang movie, this might be fun.
Ong Bak 2 (2008)
Action for the action lover
Seeing reviews online, I was slightly dissuaded by comments that this movie lacked any sort of plot, and that this detracted from the movie, even though the action was pretty good. Stupidly, I waited, wondering if my high hopes might be dashed after the excellence of Ong Bak and Tom Yum Goong. I should NOT have waited. This movie is different to the previous two, yes, but only in good ways.
Let me suggest what elements the kung fu movie must generally have to be successful. First, a hero, with awesome fighting skills. Second, a bad guy, with either (a) awesome fighting skills or (b) lots of henchmen with awesome fighting skills. Third, something for them to fight over (be it a girl, a murder, theft, oppression...). An optional, but usually fun, fourth element is a training sequence where the protagonist learns all about kung fu (sometimes, in fact, this may be the basis for the movie, as in "36 Chambers of Shaolin", but we'll ignore that).
The last element, which comes from incorporating all of the above elements, is excellent action. This is, I think, the most important aspect of an action movie. Sometimes, when the choreography is flawless and innovative, and the main fighters are very skilled, a good story is not even necessary.
So, how does Ong Bak 2 stand up to these requirements? First, it has a hero, and he has AWESOME fighting skills - Tony Jaa joined the elite ranks of Jackie Chan and Jet Li with his first two movies, and he hasn't lost a step here. Second, it has a bad guy - in fact, a few bad guys - and lots of henchmen. Third, it has a plot based on oppression, kidnap, and murder, forming the basis for a seething revenge movie. Fourth, it has a training sequence, and this one in particular is something fans of martial arts cinema in general will all be able to appreciate.
Lastly, it has great action. It seems that putting Tony Jaa and Panna Rittikrai together is like putting Jackie Chan and Yuen Woo Ping together (see Drunken Master) - the action is expertly choreographed, directed, and executed, always fast and acrobatic, and always innovative. The bonus in this movie is that, unlike the first Jaa movies, it features a lot of weapon-play and incorporates other martial arts, as well as the usual Muay Thai elbows and knees.
Occasionally slightly hard to follow, but never entirely confusing, I would argue that, contrary to popular opinion, this movie actually has a decent plot. Most importantly, however, it has some of the best action ever committed to film.
Let me suggest what elements the kung fu movie must generally have to be successful. First, a hero, with awesome fighting skills. Second, a bad guy, with either (a) awesome fighting skills or (b) lots of henchmen with awesome fighting skills. Third, something for them to fight over (be it a girl, a murder, theft, oppression...). An optional, but usually fun, fourth element is a training sequence where the protagonist learns all about kung fu (sometimes, in fact, this may be the basis for the movie, as in "36 Chambers of Shaolin", but we'll ignore that).
The last element, which comes from incorporating all of the above elements, is excellent action. This is, I think, the most important aspect of an action movie. Sometimes, when the choreography is flawless and innovative, and the main fighters are very skilled, a good story is not even necessary.
So, how does Ong Bak 2 stand up to these requirements? First, it has a hero, and he has AWESOME fighting skills - Tony Jaa joined the elite ranks of Jackie Chan and Jet Li with his first two movies, and he hasn't lost a step here. Second, it has a bad guy - in fact, a few bad guys - and lots of henchmen. Third, it has a plot based on oppression, kidnap, and murder, forming the basis for a seething revenge movie. Fourth, it has a training sequence, and this one in particular is something fans of martial arts cinema in general will all be able to appreciate.
Lastly, it has great action. It seems that putting Tony Jaa and Panna Rittikrai together is like putting Jackie Chan and Yuen Woo Ping together (see Drunken Master) - the action is expertly choreographed, directed, and executed, always fast and acrobatic, and always innovative. The bonus in this movie is that, unlike the first Jaa movies, it features a lot of weapon-play and incorporates other martial arts, as well as the usual Muay Thai elbows and knees.
Occasionally slightly hard to follow, but never entirely confusing, I would argue that, contrary to popular opinion, this movie actually has a decent plot. Most importantly, however, it has some of the best action ever committed to film.