CMT - Martial Arts of Shaolin

I'm going to come out and say this on the record. There isn't a man on earth, that can take on twenty people. I don't care if you're the next Bruce Lee or Batman himself. You could spend as much time training as you like, but some things just aren't possible.

Don't get me wrong though; you can fight off a couple of guys and live to tell me tale. If you put a serious beat down on a few, the rest of them will think twice. But that isn't to say you can keep it up forever. If they know you're good and they're not afraid to get hit, you've got nowhere to go but down.

If there's a blade involved that's a different story. A swordsman can take out dozens, if he's alert and lucky. Don't give the aggressors any weapons though; for each one that's armed, your chances for survival drops significantly. We should know all this, but for some strange reason we can't get enough of these movies.


Classic Movie Trailers - Shaolin Temple 3: Martial Arts of Shaolin (1986)


When doing creative work, there is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. Nevertheless, each decision has an outcome, and one of those results could be the end of a career. In principle however, there is a lot of freedom. The only thing that matters is the audience reception. 

The "one man against many" choice has been filmed so many times, I can't say that people don't like those scenes. I also can't deny that kind of entertainment, has positives and negatives just like everything else. "Martial Arts of Shaolin" is at its best, when it shows off the advantages. The disadvantages that are inherent in its style, may be more apparent today.

In other words, this probably played better in 1986. After decades of Bond films and Van Damme action movies, the question for us now, is have they run their course. Every one of us has to respond to that, and our answers should determine how we spend our time. If you're like me, you've seen dozens of "invincible heroes", taking out cannon fodder over the years. The bad guys always seem to be horrible shots, and the protagonist is always a step ahead.

If you still want to see heroes win against impossible odds, there's plenty of that here. Jet Li is accompanied by two other fighters, and both of them are as good as ten men. They also show the beauty of their respective styles and why the word 'art' is associated with fighting. If there is a reason to have a one man army, that's a pretty darn good one, and it's hard to argue otherwise.

Action movies can be a rollercoaster ride. They get your adrenaline pumping, and a counterattack can feel like an explosion. Sometimes, realism is way too restrictive. If it takes away from the fun, why put it in at all?

If you're curious, the answer is that without believability, you will find yourself to be disengaged or disinterested. The novelty of an unstoppable force is a troublesome bore after a while. You recognize it immediately and eventually you'll want something else. Unfortunately, it's become an overused cliché.

I wouldn't do the subject justice, without noting a few more benefits. If the hero isn't hurt, the pace and the mood are maintained. It's hard to keep the show going with the lead actor in a hospital. That kind of turn is sobering, and the fall down to earth is hard to forget.

I wish I could go back in time to see this movie on opening day. It would have caught me before similar films dominated my screen. For what it's worth, Jet Li's acting is excellent; even the language barrier doesn't mask his skill. This film presented an environment that benefited his comedy. I don't know if the rest of the magic worked, but the fights were cool regardless.


Trailer here.

---------------------------

@ChannelSeals

See "Martial Arts of Shaolin" on Netflix!

Next week: The start of a new month and back-to-back double features.

CMT - Love & War begins, with "The Great Gatsby", followed by "People Will Talk".

Add them to your watch list!

-B.A.S.

CMT - Return to the 36th Chamber

When I sat down to watch this film I thought I was prepared, and then I saw Ah Chao's false teeth. For a long while, I had to catch up and process what I was seeing. It looked like live-action Manga and maybe that's close to the truth. I was definitely missing some cultural significance, but I also suspect there was a break from convention.

Imagine living in Hong Kong and watching Martial Arts films most of your life. At some point you're going to get bored, even if they're excellent. We need variance, but the old genres don't lose their worth. Sometimes all they require, is a different kind of seasoning.


Classic Movie Trailers - Return to the 36th Chamber (1980)


I was expecting "Enter the Dragon", or "Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon"; anything with a dragon would have worked. Instead I got something like "Drunken Master", and I'm glad that's what it was. For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, I was basically looking for a more serious film. 

I wasn't hoping for tragedy, but I didn't see the levity coming; in hindsight though, I probably should have. They must have filmed a hundred Hong Kong action movies, before this one debuted in 1980. Bruce Lee and Sonny Chiba had a bulk of well known work, but Jackie Chan had just presented his trademarked style. I think they followed his footsteps.

The marriage of comedy and action is a match made in brilliance. If you add the skillful use of props, you get something very special. The beauty of the fighting styles is still preserved, but you are also given a license to improvise. Each new scene provides a different opportunity, and mundane objects become part of the fun.

This picture does have a little more focus, than a lot of the movies that Jackie released afterward. Chao-Jen Cheh discovered "rooftop Kung-Fu", and Boss Wang specialized in fighting with a bench. There was some advantageous use of the environment, but they didn't try to come up with a new gimmick each time. Instead, they decided to show us the same techniques, but to go about it differently.

It's a pretty good strategy, if you stop to consider it. You can try to reinvent the wheel, but that's a dubious path. We will seldom realize something truly original. The best space for innovation is within the existing framework.

There are multiple genres to choose from. Until some genius finds another one, we have what we have. It's much harder to break the mold than it is to sculpt it differently. If all else fails you can follow a popular trend. There's nothing wrong with that.

We can all get burned out, with things that we enjoy. We might even step back and take a long break. However, that doesn't mean the fondness has died. Sometimes we want the same old thing, presented in a new way.



Trailer here.

-------------------------------

@ChannelSeals 

See "Return of the 36th Chamber" on Netflix!


Next Week: "Martial Arts of Shaolin".
Enjoy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!

CMT - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ('91)

I can't say this is my first time seeing "Prince of Thieves". In fact, I think I might have seen it in the theater. Unfortunately, I can't recall if I enjoyed it, but that fact might be a clear indication. To be honest, there was one scene I remembered vividly; it was Kevin Costner, shooting an arrow wrapped in flames. 

It's a wonderful shot and they were very smart to promote it. Actually, they might have filmed it with that purpose. There are a lot of movies vying for our attention and they all can't be spectacular, so they have to stand out. It's nice if there is good word-of-mouth and critical acclaim, but failing that, all a movie needs is the right marketing campaign.


Classic Movie Trailers - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)


People are split on this one. The Rotten Tomato meter sits at exactly fifty percent. If you ask me, I think it's unremarkable. That might seem harsh at first glance, but it isn't a condemnation. In order for films to be good or bad, there has to be a baseline.

Let's consider film as a whole, and view the entire art form. If there is a "middle-of-the-road", I'm sure it's very wide. The sidelines have all the ones that we remember, and they'll stay with us for a much longer time. Love and hate are polar opposites, but both of guys tend to stick around.

Indifference is intangible and when we do recognize it, there's only so much time before we're engaged with something else. When the experience is fresh, we won't come to the same conclusions. I can shrug off something I find forgettable, but that might not be the case if I'm in a sour mood. Then again, if I paid to sit and watch the film, I might feel the need to defend the purchase.

Whatever your opinion of the picture in question, the studio behind it is wholly unconcerned. If you spent your money the mission was accomplished, and the bottom line's the same either way. So movie trailers are of the utmost importance. A single and simple addition to one can make or break a business.

The link below, leads to an ad that didn't break anything; boxofficemojo.com reports a nine-digit profit. Hundreds of millions of dollars is really nothing to sneeze at. That's celebration money with a truckload of champagne. Whatever you think of this film, it isn't "Gone with the Wind", so the reasons for its success are really easy to understand. 

There were no interesting twists, to tease a potential audience. Christian Slater's big revelation changed very little. Everyone acted predictably and Robin Hood isn't multifaceted. The Sheriff of Nottingham was also pretty plain, with no redeeming qualities

Still, all you really need is a good announcer, with a good voice that says vague comments over dramatic music. Show off plenty of fight scenes and note a budding romance. Add a bit of minority appeal, and then display your best visuals. As long as the movie is decent, you have a recipe for success. 

The middle of the road is a good place to be. There isn't as much hype, but there isn't an outcry either. The reactions will vary but at the end of the day, there won't be a stink to keep people away. One true arrow from a fan-favorite archer, can light a flame of fortune denied to better films.


Trailer Here.


-------------------

@ChannelSeals

See "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" on Amazon Instant Video / YouTube

Next Week: The start of a Shaolin-Style Double Feature, with "Return to the 36th Chamber", followed by "Martial Arts of Shaolin".

CMT - Robin Hood ('73)

I'm about to share one of the longest words I use on a regular basis. Anthropomorphism, is "the interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of what is human or personal", according to Merriam-Webster. Simply put, it is the humanization of something that is clearly not human. If you're a fan of animation, you see this all the time.

"Cars" and "Planes" are obvious examples, but there are too many to mention here. It may suffice to say, that almost every cartoon animal fits the description. Even if they're mute like Wile E. Coyote, these characters emote and show expressions that are human in nature. As with any practice that is often used, we fail to acknowledge it and note its advantages.


Classic Movie Trailers - Robin Hood (1973)


Dramatic tension largely depends on identifying with the characters. They might actually resemble family, friends or ourselves. At the very least, our favorite films have familiar faces. We're comfortable with them, and they allow us to connect on an emotional level.

Have you ever considered that you might not want that connection? Sometimes, you're better off holding characters at arm's length. Disassociation doesn't always lead to disregard. If dramatic tension is removed, you might have a lot of fun.

I never felt that anything dire was going to happen in "Robin Hood". It is a movie by Disney, and it's from the early seventies, but Disney can still challenge and evoke tears from the audience. Here though, the tone of the movie was a ward against tragedy. 

There were too many smiles and too many songs. There was too much humor and good nature for somber moments to be natural. The animated animals gave us license to set our concerns aside. Subconsciously, we can be more at ease than we would be during a play.

Anthropomorphic tales also take advantage of symbolism. Robin was cast as a fox here, to show his cleverness. Prince John was a lion with no mane and a crown too big for his head. His advisor was a snake and that definitely wasn't by chance. These are not subtle choices, but they're amusing and  they work.

You may not see the irony at first, but it adds another layer to the comedy. There are reasons why there are many icons like Porky Pig, while characters like Popeye are harder to come by. There are heroes like He-Man and Birdman, but if you want to be funny in cartoons, you'd best bow to the animal kingdom. 

Tom & Jerry torture each other, but in context they're hilarious. Since we're talking about a cat and a mouse, their rivalry needs no explanation. So the duo is a perfect example, of why the technique works. When Sylvester is on the receiving end, it's funnier than it would be with Bluto.

I'd encourage all of you, to go and watch "Looney Tunes". You can get a much needed break, when your favorite TV show leaves you tense and worried. It's nice to be on the edge of your seat, but don't forget the comfort of an easy chair. If "Robin Hood" is any indication, there's some sly imagery that you might have missed.




Trailer Here.
--------------------------
@ChannelSeals

See "Robin Hood" on Netflix!

Next week: "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves".

CMT - James and the Giant Peach

Films often portray worlds like our own. Those worlds have similar settings, and they may have similar rules. As a result they're easy to understand, but they're subject to boundaries which limit their narrative options.

Generally, stories try to suspend our disbelief. If they're successful, we feel the drama and find ourselves engrossed. It's a tried and true way to entertain, but there's always more than one method. Fairy tales evoke a childlike amazement, to the stories that we disbelieve.


Classic Movie Trailers - James and the Giant Peach (1996)


Magic is tough for me to wrap my brain around. As a viewer I can take it as it comes, but I'm an author as well and I've had some trouble with it. If there was a way to firmly define it, I would find it more interesting. If there were concrete limits and weaknesses to know, my scientific brain would be content.

I realize that line of thinking may be missing the point. What good is the device if we cripple and restrain it? Why turn fantasy into hard science fiction? It's there to break the rules, not to be subject to them.

Alice swallowed a potion and shrunk to the size of a mouse. Then she ate a cake and grew into a giant. Did you ever wonder about the logic of Wonderland? Maybe you've tried to find some sort of reason in that madness. I doubt it exists but if it does, knowing it might ruin the fun.

I caught myself watching this film and being confused, by things I shouldn't be thinking about. I wanted to know how a flock of birds could carry a peach the size of a house. It didn't make any sense, but in the moment I failed to realize that none of it did. It took a long while, for me to finally stop expecting some logic.

I think I need to sit down with Dr. Seuss, and unlearn some ingrained habits. I'm far removed from my childhood, and I've gained wisdom with the loss of something else. My imagination is strong as ever, but it's inside a brain that wants to peak behind the curtain and expose the trick, in the magician's chest. I wonder if the Doctor will prescribe green eggs and ham.

When it comes down to it, sometimes you have to check your reasoning at the door. If we are even to enjoy musicals, critical thinking is an archenemy. People don't stop often and burst into song. When that actually does happen, they won't be singing such situational lyrics.

So if I've learned anything from "James and the Giant Peach", I've learned that you can lose your sense of wonder. I'd like to think that you can retrieve it, with constant practice and determination. What comes naturally to kids can be a trial for adults. We know knowledge will set us free, but ignorance is still bliss; it's nonsensical, but somehow it's true.



Trailer Here.


--------------------------------------

@ChannelSeals


See "James and the Giant Peach" on Netflix!

Next Week: The start of a New Year and a New Double Feature! We start with Disney's "Robin Hood", followed by Kevin Costner in "Robin Hood".  

CMT - The Nightmare Before Christmas

Films are a feast for the eyes, and as silly as it sounds, they need a balanced diet. People like variance in entertainment. If everything looks the same, everything gets boring. That isn't to say that there's anything wrong with following the herd, but when a style is dominant for a decade, it might be time to take risks.

I wonder if animation is at that point. If it's not, I wonder how much longer it will be. Technology produces wonderful artwork, but it hides the hand, which is just as talented. There is something to be said about craft, and when it's mastered, you see what you've been missing.


Classic Movie Trailers - The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)


Recently, I saw an ad for the new "Peanuts" movie. I'm sure it's great and I've heard good things, but I can't bring myself to go and see it. I'm not one of those possessive fans, and I don't believe that they're ruining the property. It's just the context of the situation, and the loss of a style that may never return.

"Hercules" and "Tarzan" are historical pieces. It's "Frozen" now, in an "Ice Age" led by Disney/Pixar. Hand painted cells are dying off. If television follows film, they'll be nearly extinct.

It's happening subtly, and very slowly. Reruns are not being aired anymore and quality productions are shutting down fast. Shows like "Batman: The Brave and the Bold", would have had longevity ten years ago. Today, with Hollywood setting the precedent, viewers have adapted and changed their expectations.

I'm not pining for the return of VHS, and I don't want 8-track tapes back in stores. The dwindling 2D art style is not obsolete, and the prominent art style is not superior. What we're experiencing is a result, of an uncontested reign of traditional animation. There was too much of it for way too long, so the pendulum swung too far the other way.

"The Nightmare Before Christmas" shouldn't have been the exception, to a rule that started with "Steamboat Willie" in 1928. They should have produced a lot more of the same, and created more of a balance, that wouldn't have been so daunting. "Muppets" and "Sesame Street" should have blazed the way, for puppetry to play a much bigger role. We never cried for more because we didn't know the costs. The sun is setting fast and night is bringing tragedy.

It's painfully ironic to note that this film is still fresh. It provides the same relief today, that it gave to us over twenty years ago. Personally, I'll wait as long as it takes, for another stop motion marvel, to bring me back to theatres. It's beautiful and distinct and something tech can't match. The hand of CGI leaves prints, and I'm ready for a different pattern.

They're all valuable techniques, and at the end of the day, I wouldn't want a single one to go away. Even silent films have a charm that's their own, and we're poorer for their loss; we're certainly not richer. If black and white films endured past Technicolor, we would have been left with a more colorful history. Please know that we speak with wallets and views; if we don't change our tune it's going to be too late.

Do yourself a favor and go watch "Ninja Scroll". Put the kids to bed first, and then follow it with "Akira". If Japan could make those masterpieces years ago, imagine what Hollywood could do with that style today. If you find that you're still tired of drawing and painting, try sculpture, instead of going back to the same feed. "Toy Story" might provide nostalgia, but that doesn't mean you should pass on "Wallace and Gromit".



Trailer Here.


-----------------

@ChannelSeals


See "The Nightmare Before Christmas" on Netflix (Please)!

Next week Monday: "James and the Giant Peach" 

Merry Christmas  / Happy Hanukkah/ Enjoy Kwanza/ Happy Holidays!

-B.A.S.

CMT - Hercules ('97)

For many people, Disney's “Hercules” is the definitive version of the character. They may be wholly unaware, that the film's narrative strays far from established mythology. It is commonplace, for changes to be made in an adaptation to theaters. By now it should be expected, but rarely is it explained.

Movies are subject to strict time constraints, and a loose interpretation of the source material, alleviates some of the burden. However, a great number of liberties are taken by productions and they all can't be so easily categorized. Ultimately, the story is subject to the whims of the storyteller, and that person has their own motivations. The reasons may not be immediately clear, but it's helpful to remember that a tale is for its audience.

Classic Movie Trailers – Hercules (1997)

Hercules was born to Zeus and Alcmene, a mortal woman of great beauty. She was deceived by the god, who laid with her in the guise of her husband. The child was, by nature, a half-breed. He was also a living reminder of Zeus's infidelity.

Hera sent the snakes, to the infant's crib. She hated Hercules, from the moment he was conceived. It was Hera, the wife of Zeus who schemed and plotted against him. Her rage afflicted him with madness, and he killed Megara, along with their children.

So there's nothing family-friendly about those myths. Changes were going to be made, but the decisions are interesting. One of the most telling choices, is the depiction of Hades. The god of the Greek underworld is not Satan's analogue, but here they are synonymous.

In both manner and deed, the Hades of this film is unmistakably evil. Gone is his firm, fair and just hand, in favor of a fiery persona. The Devil is instantly recognizable, and his presence is easy to understand. For a modern, moviegoing audience, that isn't well versed in history, a predominant figure is a considerable comfort.

This entire take on Hercules, was possibly meant to make him more relatable. Instead of a man, that is born simply better than the masses, we're given a god that is humbled to walk as a man. He earns his name as a hero, and he strives to achieve greatness. In the end however, he abandons that goal to settle down and love.

I haven't met a person that would turn down immortality for marriage and death. It is pretty silly, when you sit and think about it, but our heroes are supposed to be those that we aspire to. That sort of resolution also casts mortality, in a more favorable light. If Hercules can choose the fate so easily, it must not be that bad.

It's a feel good movie, with a predictable ending. There are no horrible, tragic events to deal with, and the hero doesn't spend time laboring for his sins. We're allowed to eat our popcorn and cheer him on. When all is said and done, you don't have to think too much.

Personally, I was inclined to consider the work for a long while. I've come to the conclusion, that this is a different Hercules. He's akin to Frankenstein, in the Universal classic; there is a separate base for the character, but he stands on his own. Who am I to determine the definitive version? It's hard to make a qualitative statement, in the court of public opinion.

There are at least three epics, called “Lord Of The Rings”. One is in print and two are on screen. As I understand it, they are very different things, but people are going to choose the version they please. What came before doesn't matter ultimately; some will swear by the books and others will disregard them.

Mythology can be thought of, as an extension of oral tradition. How many times has the story of Hercules changed through the ages? The original tale is lost in time and it has little importance. Back then it was as it is today, with the story at the whim of the storyteller.

Trailer Here.

--------------------------

@ChannelSeals

See “Hercules” on Netflix!

Christmas Eve: A bonus look at “A Nightmare Before Christmas”

Next Monday: James and The Giant Peach