Reviews

I usually do not watch martial-arts movies and I would not have gone to see this one if id had not been for all the tremendous critical acclaim it has been getting since its release. I was not disappointed. Crouching Tiger is a drama, a romance and an action movie rolled up into one very fascinating package.

Of course the fight sequences are the heart of the movie. They are what gains the most attention and they deserve all the praise they are getting. I must admit though, that I found it a little irritating at first, that the fighters are obviously dangling from wires during large parts of those fights. But after a short while I came to simply accept, that for those fighters gravity is not a factor. And even when they are on the ground those people perform a few of the most amazing moves I have seen so far.

However this movie would not be so special if it was all about action and nothing else. There is more. The physical action is complemented by two very different love-stories. One is mature and sensible - and essentially unhappy. The other one is young and wild, passionate, socially inappropriate - and just as unhappy. Director Ang Lee found four excellent actors to impersonate the four people involved in those love-stories.

The only complaint (if you want to call it that) I have about Crouching Tiger... really is, that it is too short. I would have loved to know more about these people. Unfortunately Ang Lee is not known to be a big maker of sequels. So since there probably will not be another - go see this one!

Do you know these movies that you know aren't good movies and you shouldn't like them but you still do? For me Charlie's Angels was that kind of a movie. The story is all too forseeable, the characters - especially the bad guys - are pretty lame and all the action sequences look like something you have seen before (and better). And still, watching it I had a ball. It was the film's attitude that won me over: "Let's grab every action movie cliché we can get hold of and try to have a little fun with it." In other words: the whole film isn't taking itself too serious. And that worked for me. All the computer aided high-kicking would have been rather boring, but when Cameron Diaz tries to maintain a romantic conversation over the cell phone in the middle of a fight - that's funny. Charlie's Angels has a lot of ideas like that, and that is why it is one of the most enjoyable bad movies I've seen since "Big Trouble in Little China".

One of the great things about storytelling is, that you are absolutely free. There are no limits to the imagination. Whatever you can think of - in your story it can happen. Unfortunately filmmakers do not very often make use of this unlimited freedom. Most of the movies made these days are just variations of stories that have been told in other movies before.

Every now and then, however, someone has the courage to be original. All it takes is one good idea. That idea does not necessarily have to make great sense - on the contrary! A really weird idea can be the foundation for a really interesting film. Like: "What would happen, if all the birds suddenly started to attack people?" (as in "The Birds"), or: "How would it be, if you had to live through the same day over and over again?" (as in "Groundhog Day").

In "Being John Malkovich" that basic idea is: "Imagine, you would find a gate which leads directly into the brain of John Malkovich." Very original, very weird, very promising!

Unfortunately this time the result falls short of what might have been. The opportunity sure was there. With a setup like this the outcome might have been a hillarious comedy, an exciting thriller, perhaps even a spooky horror-movie. It became neither. Somehow the author could not come up with enough good ideas to give the film the tempo it needed. All the twists and turns that could and should have been in the story are amiss.

One more reason, why this film fails are its characters. I am not talking about the actors here - they are good. But the people they play are not. To really get into a movie like this, audiences need a focal point. A character, they can identify with - the "hero" if you like. Who is that supposed to be here? In the beginning it might have been Craig Schwartz . Professionally unsuccessful, a little bit naive and with some kind of stubborn pride. All in all quite likable - even in spite of his clumsy attempts to cheat on his wife with Maxine , who is a bitch if there ever was one. As the movie goes on, however Craig becomes increasingly mean. He does things, that we feel, we would not do, and thus loses us on the way. And lost we are now, for there is no other potential "hero" to turn to. Maxine is still the bitch, and Lotte is simply to whacky for anybody to identify with her. What happened was: before the supposedly dramatic climax of the story I had ceased to care, for whom there would be a happy ending and for whom there would not. And that is a perfect foundation for being bored. (5/10)

The plot-outline to this movie sounds like it might be a lot of fun. A treasure-hunt in a post-Gulf-War scenario. Probably not a real brain-tickler but lots of cool jokes and over-the-top action to make up for it. Of course such a movie could never be politically correct since it would have to completely ignore the fact that a war is a deadly serious thing and not funny at all - but Hollywood has a long history of movies that go to war just for the thrills of it and get away with it splendidly. So why not this one?

Because, unfortunately, it does not want to - that's why.

Half way through the movie the authors for some reason decided, that they wanted it to be politically correct. Even worse: they wanted to offer serious insights into issues such as the questionable politics of the US and its consequences for the civilian population of Iraq. Normally this would be a perfectly honest thing to do and you might even get a rather good movie out of it. But then you should go there from the first minute on and not start out like "Three GI's find the map to a huge gold treasure in the rear of an Iraqi soldier and decide to go into enemy territory in order to single-handedly steal the gold." At this point you have definitely missed the train to all serious considerations of politics or ethics. If the plot outline of your movie is that silly, you have to bear with it. Make an action movie. Write something like "True Lies" in the desert. Otherwise you get what "Three Kings" has become: a movie that is too shallow to be taken serious and too inhibited to be fun. (3/10)

The only good reason to see this movie are its characters. (In fact this is a VERY good reason.) Mangold portrays a group of truly interesting women and his cast does an excellent job in bringing them to life. Jolie's Oscar was well deserved. Unfortunately the film lacks a consistent storyline which would have given its characters some room for development. What you see throughout the two hours feels more like the episodes of a - really good - TV show. But even with that flaw this is still a very recommendable movie.