RSS

Author Archives: JPFmovies

Unknown's avatar

About JPFmovies

We here at JPFmovies pride ourselves at talking a hard, gritty look at entertainment from all over the world.

The fisherman versus the fighters: Ganryujima (2003).

Anyone who knows anything about this site is familiar with our passion for Asian films.  One of the central figures in these films is the famed 17th century Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi.  Typically Musashi is portrayed as a dignified and violent, yet philosophical Ronin.  Not in Ganryujima this time he is and psychotic, vulgar, violent and cruel bully, carrying with him the aura of an insane homeless man who is the center of his own megalomaniacal universe.

The movie focuses on the duel with Sasaki Kojiro on Ganryu Island.  From the opening scene Musashi is clearly the villain and Sasaki Kojiro is the honorable samurai and Musashi apologist.  Kojiro goes so far as to defend each of Musashi’s cruel actions as a necessary byproduct of the duels he was in.  Ganryujima points out that this duel which made him the undisputed fencing champion of Japan is never mentioned in Musashi’s famous Book of The Five Rings.  The film has a theory why Musashi left this out of his book; that is, he does not remember it because the fisherman taking him out to the island duel knocked him out cold with an oar and that he is mistaken for Musashi.  Since the fisherman has no fencing skills, he ends up killing a befuddled Kojiro in self-defense who is unprepared for such an outlandish bout.  When Musashi comes to, he has temporary amnesia that quickly vanishes—along with his disgraceful characteristics.  Musashi is “re-born” as the Ronin we all know and love.  It is not a great movie; however anyone with any interest in the swordsman really should take a look at this novel view of Musashi.

The film starts after Musashi has defeated Baiken, destroyed the entire Yoshioka School and he has beheaded the ten year old Yoshioka figurehead.  In Ganryujima he is not traveling to the famous island to fight a duel with Kojiro. He is taking a boat ride to die.  The movie makes a game of having him “forget” his swords and having the runs, but by the end of the movie, when his real personality emerges it is obvious this was not a matter of forgetting anything.

While Kojiro waits for Muashi, he explains the real reason for the duel to one of the naïve witnesses; that Kojiro is to die even if he wins the duel and that the unknowing naïve witness is to kill Kojiro should Muashi fail too.  We are then walked through Kojiro’s situation of the clan using the duel as an assassination play because many of the non-mainstream retainers look to Kojiro and the Sasaki family as their leaders in a revolt.  Knowing that if the central government finds out about a revolt their clan will be dissolved, they decide to sacrifice Kojiro.  I’d  just like to say that these Asian people are really into the clan system and I wish someone would tell me why anything can be done as long as it is in the name of the clan it is ok?

After the fisherman kills Kojiro and returns to his hamlet with a barely conscious Musashi, a mass of samurai who have come for their revenge.  Now Musashi does not want to fight but is left with no alternative.  First he beats them without cutting them, but after a few moments it is clear that he will have to kill them all by releasing the beast within himself.  The transition from the dignified Ronin to the animal killer reminds me of Bruce Banner’s transformation into the Incredible Hulk.  Like the Incredible Hulk, Musashi butchers his opponents almost gracefully.  This scene alone makes the movie worth watching.

I give this film full credit for its originality; I was totally taken by surprise—which almost never happens.  And while the cinematography was excellent, for some reason it had a made-for-tv-movie feel about it.  For Dangerous its final fight scene (shown in full here) is spectacularly choreographed rivaling any I have seen.  But again, I just can’t shake the made-for-tv-movie feel.  It does not matter.  As I mentioned above anyone with any interest in the legendary swordsman should take the time to view this film.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 27, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Mel Brooks said it best in History of the World “It’s good to be the king,” or is it? The Masquerade King (2012) South Korea.

Gwanghae: The Man Who Became King is an extremely popular 2012 South Korean historical film starring Lee Byung-hun as both the king and the clown so to speak.  The film’s international title is Masquerade and is currently the fourth highest grossing Korean film of all time with 12.3 million tickets sold.  The film is also crushing the competition at Korea’s Grand Bell Awards (the equivalent of the Academy Awards), winning in 15 categories, including Best Film, Director, Screenplay and Actor.

Historically, Gwanghae, the 15th Joseon king from 1574-1641, attempted diplomacy through neutrality as China’s Ming and Qing Dynasties set their sights on the country.  He also tried his hand at other reforms and reconstruction to try and make the nation prosperous, including an emphasis on the restoration of documents, but met with opposition and was later deposed and exiled to Jeju Island.  Like Nixon’s famous missing 18 minutes, the film is an interpretation of the missing 15 days in the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty during Gwanghae’s reign—designated by his 1616 journal entry, “One must not record that which he wishes to hide.”  It seems that leaders from all over the world understand this point.

The confusing and conspiratorial King Gwang-hae orders his crony, Heo Gyun, to find him a double to protect him from the constant threat of assassination.  Heo Gyun finds Ha-sun, a lowly acrobat and joker who looks just like the king.  As they feared, the real king gets poisoned.  Heo Gyun uses Ha-sun to fill the role as the king until Gwang-hae can make a recovery.  Thus Heo Gyun begins the task of turning this clown into the king.  He fully grooms Ha-sun to look and act every bit the king.  While assuming the role of the king at his first official appearance, Ha-sun begins to ponder the problems and politics debated in his court.  The fake king is much more compassionate than Gwang-hae as he puts his people before politics.  Ha-sun’s affection and appreciation (simply saying please and thank you) of even the most minor servants slowly changes morale in the palace for the better.  Over time he finds his own voice and actually takes control of the kingdom and with the help of a eunuch governs with real insight and fair rulings.  Even Heo Gyun is moved by Ha-sun’s genuine concern for the people, and realizes he is an infinitely better ruler than Gwang-hae.  However, the Kings enemies, led by Park Chung-seo, start to notice the sudden change in the king’s behavior and begin to ask questions.  Even the queen becomes conflicted over the real king and the fake king’s secret.

After pronouncing some sweeping reforms and making significant changes in the government, the entrenched ministers begin to plot against him.  Luckily enough people are on the fake king’s side to convince everyone that there is no phony on the throne.  But as the real king makes his recovery he orders that his double be killed.  This upsets Heo Gyun so much that he offers to have the real king killed if the clown would stay on the throne.  The clown becomes a true king in my opinion when he says he will not take the throne if it costs the life of another as he has already seen too much death and torture.

The clown king still has a problem; that is, the real king has sent his elite guard to kill him.  An escape for him has been arranged and the real king’s personal bodyguard is escorting him to the ship.   However the soldiers that are following catch up to the two.  There the bodyguard is told to follow the King’s orders to which he responds “He is the rightful King” and fights the soldiers to the death so his companion can make his escape.

Sound familiar?  That is because “The Masquerade King” is a variation of Mark Twain’s “The Prince & The Pauper” except set in Joseon era South Korea and with lots of swords.

The film became the second biggest hit film at the 2012 South Korean box office, attracting 8.2 million admissions in 25 days of release, then 9,091,633 after 31 days. On its 38th day, it became the 7th film in Korean cinema history to surpass the 10 million-milestone attendance.  As of March 2013, it is listed as Korea’s all-time fourth highest grossing film with 12,319,542 tickets sold nationwide.  The films writer, HWANG Jo-yeon, wrote Old Boy (previously reviewed here at JPFmovies) which is a much darker and frankly almost cruel film.

Man did I enjoy this film.  It is interlaced with just enough quality humor to keep it from becoming a dark Shakespearean tragedy.  Some of the scenes are priceless, the costumes and sets are dead on and the acting is really top notch.  I can see why it is so popular in Korea.  If you need a film to make you laugh while still maintaining a good story watch The Masquerade King.

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on April 17, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Hi I’m Phil Hartman, and you may remember me from such characters as Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law and Frank Sinatra and the Sinatra Group. Possibly the best straight man in history: A tribute to Phil Hartman (1948-1998).

It has been a long time since we lost Phil Hartman, who I would argue was the best straight man in film history.  Yes, I know, everyone will come back saying that Budd Abbot of the Abbot and Costello duo was the best straight man in history.  I will tell you why I disagree.  Simple, an atypical straight man requires a duo like the chaps mentioned before; Phil Hartman made the audience his comic foil.  Hartman didn’t need a Costello; all he needed was an audience.  A talent I have not seen since his lunatic drug ridden wife shot and killed him and then herself (with two children in the house).  I doubt we will see the likes of him for a long time—if ever.

Hartman was from Canada and began his career in the entertainment industry in the 1970s following around comedy troupes and paying his way by doing their graphic design work.  Eventually he met comedian Paul Reubens and the two became friends, often collaborating on writing and comedic material. Together they created the character Pee-wee Herman and developed The Pee-wee Herman Show, a stage performance which also aired on HBO in 1981.  Hartman played Captain Carl on The Pee-wee Herman Show and returned in the role for the children’s show Pee-wee’s Playhouse. Reubens and Hartman made cameos in the 1980 film Cheech & Chong’s Next Movie.  Hartman co-wrote the script of the 1985 feature film Pee-wee’s Big Adventure and had a cameo as a reporter.  Although he had considered quitting acting at the age of 36 due to limited opportunities, the success of Pee-wee’s Big Adventure brought new possibilities and changed his mind.

In 1986, Hartman joined the cast of NBC’s ailing Saturday Night Live which was on the verge of cancelation and stayed for eight seasons, which was a record at the time and in my opinion the main force that saved the series.  Hartman’s talent is seen in a wide array of impressions including Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Frank Sinatra, Telly Savalas, Ed McMahon, Michael Caine, Jack Nicholson, Barbara Bush, Burt Reynolds, Phil Donahue, and perhaps his best-known impression, former president Bill Clinton.  One of the more famous fictional characters played by Hartman on Saturday Night Live was the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.  He returned twice to host the show following his 1994 departure and was honored at the show’s 25th anniversary special in 1999 by the members of the cast who worked with him, including Nora Dunn, Dennis Miller, Kevin Nealon, Jon Lovitz, Mike Myers and Victoria Jackson.

Hartman was also doing voices for the Simpson’s (back in my opinion when it was a decent show) as Actor Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law.  He also had a brief cameo in what may become a cult classic, So I married an Axe Murderer, playing the part of John “Viki” Johnson, the part ranger tour guide on Alcatraz Island. I think because he was the straight man for us viewers, he was always given supporting roles in films.  Sure, some roles were larger than others, but what movie was he really the “star” of?

One of his most renowned impressions was of Frank Sinatra—particularly the parody of John McLaughlin, and the McLaughlin Group, with Hartman as Sinatra leading the discussion.  This skit was so powerful that Hartman later admitted to Bob Costas that his portrayal of Frank Sinatra in the “Sinatra Group” sketch was very upsetting to members of Sinatra’s family.  In fact, he told Costas that, a few years later, he was up for a meaty film role and was not given it due to influence from some of the Sinatras.  Well, as I have always said, “Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke” and I am talking to you Sinatras.

Phil, some of us love your jokes, appreciated your style and some of us still miss you.

 
14 Comments

Posted by on April 15, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

As children we are taught to be careful when crossing the street. That old adage is especially applicable when you are at Miller’s Crossing (1990), the Coen brothers third film.

It is hard to argue that the Coen brothers are not some of the best film writers of our time.  Great movies like Raising Arizona (1987), Barton Fink (1991), The Hudsucker Proxy (1994), Fargo (1996) and The Big Lebowski (1998) are all products of these prodigious writers.  Each film they make is anything but rigidly formulaic.  The originality of each of these films impresses me to no end.  Miller’s Crossing is no exception.

The plot is tightly woven, so much so that the two brothers needed a break from writing the script and during a three-week vacation to New York City, they ended up writing Barton Fink—the entire film.  Now if that’s not talent, I don’t know what is.  I am also not sure it qualifies as a vacation but that is neither here nor there.

The film is flawlessly shot and the scenes are accompanied by appropriate music.  The attention to detail is immaculate giving the viewer the look and feel of the dirty, debauched city that conjures up nostalgia without controlling the story.  The script is well paced, consistently tense and always capturing the audience’s attention, but it is never exhausting—it is almost Casablanca like.  When compared to movies depicting the same historical genre, Miller’s Crossing’s excellence is that much more obvious, films like The Untouchables are unrealistic and are forced to rely on big name stars to carry you to the end.  Miller’s Crossing actually requires you to listen and is much more satisfying.

This consistent level of excellence extends to nearly all of the performances of the cast. Each of the characters has multiple layers and motivations that are not so simplistic as to be predictable but not overly complex so as to be enigmatic.  Each character brings something positive to the show unlike supporting roles in something like The Untouchables.

Miller’s Crossing details the burdens and obligations of law and the mob in a prohibition era town.  The film’s main character, Gabriel Byrne, in what I think is his best performance, plays the protagonist Tom Reagan, the chief advisor to the local mob boss, Leo O’Bannon (Albert Finney).  The two have a successful working relationship, with Leo being the town’s most powerful gangster.  Things turn sour though, when rival mobster Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito)—(the only mobster I know of that was ever concerned about “etics”) wants to kill an unreliable bookie (John Turturro) and Leo refuses.  Tom knows this is the wrong decision and protests, Leo and Tom part ways and then matters become a little more complicated.  The unreliable bookie also happens to be the brother to Leo’s girlfriend and Tom’s lover Verna (Marcia Gay Harden) injecting love into an already volatile situation.  Leo and Caspar go to war as a consequence.

Tom uses every trick he can to convince Leo to give Bernie up to Caspar to put an end to this unnecessary war; he tries to convince Leo that Verna is playing him to protect her brother (which is true), but Leo will not budge.  After an assassination attempt on Leo goes bad, Tom reveals his affair with Verna to prove that she is dishonest.  Naturally Leo beats Tom up and turn his back on both of them.  Without a job, Tom then appears to change sides and goes to work for the new capo Caspar.  He is immediately commanded to kill Bernie at Miller’s Crossing to prove his loyalty.

The chicken shit Bernie pleads with Tom to spare him, and Tom allows him to escape.  Meanwhile the war starts to go well for Caspar and he assumes Leo’s position as boss of the city.  However, Tom slowly begins sowing seeds of discontent between Caspar and his most trusted enforcer, Eddie Dane (Freeman).  Unfortunately, at the same time, Bernie returns and tries to blackmail Tom into killing Caspar—what a show of gratitude.

Tom’s manages convince Caspar to kill Eddie Dane because Caspar is tricked into believing that the Dane has the double cross on and Casper hates the double cross.  Tom then arranges a meeting with Bernie, but sends Caspar instead.  Bernie gets the jump on Caspar and kills him. Tom arrives and tricks Bernie into giving up his gun, saying they could blame Eddie Dane, then reveals his intention to kill Bernie. Bernie once again begs for mercy, saying “Look into your heart”, but Tom blows the ungrateful bastard away.

With Caspar and Eddie Dane dead, Leo resumes his post as top boss.  Verna has also won her way back into Leo’s good graces, but she reacts coldly to Tom.  On the day Bernie is being buried, Leo announces that Verna has proposed to him, and offers Tom his old job back.  Tom rightfully refuses, and he remains behind and watches Leo leave.

Given that Miller’s Crossing is a great movie without million dollar special effects, it was a box-office failure at the time, making slightly more than $5 million, out of its $10–$14 million budget.  Luckily, it has made a great deal of revenue in video and DVD sales.  The film is now critically acclaimed, and has a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

I remember seeing this film while at University nostalgically remembering how powerful it was back then.  After viewing it years later with a friend who had never seen it, I was all the more impressed with Miller’s Crossing and you will be too.

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on March 14, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Talk about getting the screw job–you’ve got to see this The Betrayal (1966).

As you all know, Ichikawa Raizo is one of my favorite actors of all time.  His stock only increased after seeing this hard to find film.

The Betrayal is a black and white cinematography classic that should be more often acknowledged as the great piece that it is. The story is about a naively honorable samurai (played by Ichikawa Raizo) who comes to the bitter realization that his devotion to the moral samurai principles makes him a very vulnerable person. He ends up taking the blame for other’s evil deeds, with an understanding that he will be exiled for one year and restored to the clan’s good graces after the political situation dies down. But as betrayal begins to heap upon betrayal, he realizes he’ll have to live out his life as a ronin at best, at worst hunted down and killed.

The movie opens when a samurai enters the Minazuki clan’s school of Issaka Yaichiro to challenge the master to a fight who is currently away. Kobuse Takuma (Ichikawa Raizo) receives him, and the samurai, from the Iwashiro Clan, calls him into a duel. Kobuse refuses, and the samurai leaves. On his way home, however, the samurai is shooting his mouth off and he is followed by two members of the Minazuki clan and in an act of cowardice, the gum flapping samurai is killed from behind. His clan discovers the murder, and calls for the murderer(s) to be discovered, arrested and punished, whoever they may be. A Minazuki clan official, Kobuse’s soon to be father-in-law, devises a scheme to cover up the scandal: Kobuse will take the blame and disappear for a year while the soon-to-be father in law tries to iron things out even going so far as to say that he will commit seppuku to prove Kobuse’s innocence. Only a fool would buy into this scheme, but as a soon-to-be son in law, Kobuse probably felt obligated to agree.

As we follow his year in exile we see Kobuse degenerate from the upstanding disciple that he was into a soused ronin. But the year in exile is not the heart of this film.

The climax of the film is one of the most detailed, well planned and well executed ones I have ever seen. The integration of a variety of devices (a water well and bucket, ladders, wooden boards, carts, ropes, and several different kinds of weapons), makes Raizo’s sword-fighting worthy of Musashi’s legendary status by enduring one of the most epic battles since Musashi’s clash against the entire Yoshioka school. Typically extended movie fights tend to become superfluous after a while, particularly when the hero never tires or otherwise loses his edge due to battle fatigue, but here, after wave upon wave of assaults, Raizo physically deteriorates, starting on his feet and eventually rolling around in the dirt. He becomes parched, thirsting for water, his hair disheveled, his hand so tense that he can’t let go of his sword even after it is broken and his face is in pure agony. For Kobuse, this is more than a fight; it regresses into an almost reptilian rage to survive.

Even after he is acknowledged as innocent, samurai pride will not permit the carnage to stop. Whether or not he can survive, with our hero’s hard breathing, staggering exhaustion, at times barely able to stand, it is tortuous and agonizing to watch him. The final images of Raizo’s worn-down figure barely still standing above the carnage, with his girlfriend (Kaoru Yachigusa) knelt before him, has less a sense of victory about it than a sense of appalling disgust with a warrior culture that could lead to such a monstrous moment.

A majority of chambara fans (especially those who love samurai for their “exoticism”) probably just watch for the Cuisinart effect, and really don’t care about the nuances of culture and history that may be gleaned from such movies. This is a film that can be appreciated by that lot, and also by those who have a more serious, more academic interest in samurai life on film. Why The Betrayal this isn’t as famous as some other chambara film from the 1960’s is a question I can’t answer. The bottom line is that The Betrayal is arguably the legendary Ichikawa Raizo’s best performance.

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 26, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Sanford & Son (1972-1977) a ground breaking comedy created by Norman Lear and starring Redd Foxx, Demond Wilson and the theme song written by Quincy Jones.

For those of you who don’t know who Norman Lear is, he is the legendary actor, writer, producer, director, and creator of such renowned sitcoms as All in the Family, Good Times, Sanford & Son and The Jefferson’s, which Gene Siskel, known best for his critical reviews of both television and movies, said: “What All in the Family did for the Caucasian race in our nation with television, Sanford and Son did for African Americans.  It is one of the two most noted and significant African American sitcoms since the invention of television.” Sanford & Son defined and revolutionized American television and many believe paved the way for such series like the Cosby Show.

The 1972 NBC television program Sanford and Son chronicled the adventures of Fred G. Sanford, a cantankerous widower living with his grown son, Lamont, in the notorious Watts section of Los Angeles, California.  The show was based on and licensed from the format of a British program, Steptoe & Son, which featured the exploits of a cockney junk dealer making Sanford and Son as the American version.

The starring role of Sanford and Son was portrayed by actor-comedian Redd Foxx.  Foxx (born John Elroy Sanford) was no newcomer to the entertainment industry.  His racy comedy routines had influenced generations of black comics since the 1950’s.  It was Foxx’s enormously funny portrayal of sixty-five year old Fred G. Sanford that quickly earned Sanford and Son a place among the top-ten watched television programs to air on NBC television.  He was supported by Demond Wilson playing his 30-year-old son, Lamont Sanford, who really supported the junk and salvage business and served as the butt of Sanford’s often bigoted jokes and insults.

Foxx portrayed Sanford as a sarcastic, irascible schemer whose frequent get-rich-quick ideas routinely backfired.  His son Lamont yearns for independence, but he loves his father too much to move out on his own and leave the trouble-prone Fred unsupervised.  Though each owns an equal share in the business and though, technically, Fred is the boss, Lamont often finds himself doing all the work and having to order his father to complete tasks and duties.  Fred often insults his son, usually calling him a “big dummy.”  Lamont also insults his father, referring to him as an “old fool.”  However, the two have a close bond and regularly come to each other’s aid.

Though enormously successful, Foxx became dissatisfied with the show, its direction, and his treatment as star of the program.  In a Los Angeles Times article, he stated, “Certain things should be yours to have when you work your way to the top.”  At one point he walked off the show complaining that the white producers and writers had little regard for or appreciation of African-American life and culture.  In newspaper interviews he attacked the total lack of black writers or directors.

Sanford and Son survived some five years on prime-time television.  It earned its place in television history as the first successful, mostly black cast television sitcom to appear on American network, primetime television in twenty years since the cancellation of Amos ‘n’ Andy.  It was an enormously funny program, sans obvious ethnic stereotyping.  “I’m convinced that Sanford and Son shows middle class America a lot of what they need to know…”  Foxx said in a 1973 interview.  “The show …doesn’t drive home a lesson, but it can open up people’s minds enough for them to see how stupid every kind of prejudice can be.”

Unlike my previous post where I complained that American Studios milk a series for all it’s worth leaving it to die a miserable death, Sanford and Son went out on top.  When the show came to an end it was still at the top of the Nielsen ratings—even driving the Brady Bunch off the air.

Some material from Sanford and Son is now considered too controversial to air on network television and is routinely edited in syndication, specifically, derogatory racial references.

The episode “Fred Sanford, Legal Eagle” (see clip below) was edited before being aired on the cable TV network TV Land.  In the unedited version, Fred represents Lamont in traffic court as his legal counsel.  At the climax of the episode, Fred confronts the white traffic policeman who wrote Lamont the ticket.  “Hey, look here,” Fred asks the policeman, “why don’t you arrest some white drivers?”  When the policeman answers, “I do,” Fred gestures to the court observers, who are all black, and asks, “Well where are they?  Look at all these *****s in here!”  Upon uttering this statement, the live studio audience went crazy with laughter and applause.  Redd Foxx had to pause for the crowd to settle down before delivering the coup de grâce: “There’s enough *****s in here to make a Tarzan movie!”  In the TV Land version of this episode, Fred’s questioning of the policeman abruptly ends after “What do you have against black people?”

In thinking about this episode, I find myself reflecting on Foxx’s contemporary, Carroll O’Connor, playing Archie Bunker in All in the Family, which was also produced by Norman Lear at around the same time.  I can well imagine O’Connor as Archie, who was famous for his politically incorrect comments, making the exact same statement Foxx did, and I would imagine that had this interaction occurred on All in the Family, it would have been redacted out of the episode by now as well.  Still: is a comment that would be racist if uttered by a white O’Connor as Archie Bunker truly equally racist when uttered by Redd Foxx as Sanford? Is it really true, that in the United States of the 1970s, that the “n-word” would carry the exact same connotations no matter what the race is of the person saying it?  Is that even true today?

I think editing the show is disgraceful.  I am not implying or otherwise endorsing the use of such language, but let’s face it; it was part of TV history.  We sanitize enough already in this world why do we have to move to classic TV sitcoms?

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 11, 2013 in Movie Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,