Anardil

Well, where to start? South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was one of the funniest movies of 1999. It has the same weird 2-dimensional animation, the same foul-mouthed characters and the same bizarre plotlines that have made the TV show so popular, but Parker and Stone have taken it to a whole new level with this movie. And surprisingly, the humour isn't just Howard Stern-esque, lowest-common denominator type stuff, despite what you may have heard. South Park is absolutely the most blistering, insightful and explosive social satire to appear on the big screen in years. And its funny too.

Does this movie shock the viewer with almost unbelievable levels of profanity and vulgarity? Yes, that's the point. But is it funny? Absolutely. If you can get past the surface stuff, what's underneath is a very intelligent, and very needed, skewering of American people and politics today, especially those who represent the so-called "right wing."

Good satire has to be shocking to be effective and understood. Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in the 18th century shocked contemporary audiences by proposing that the poor be used as food for the rich. It was an effective way of pointing out the inequalities of life in Britain at the time. In the same tradition, Parker and Stone point out the absurdities of American politics through shock tactics with this film. And they also make a hilarious movie.

As a Canadian, one of the "victims" of Stone and Parker's film, I find it extremely amusing to read all the comments posted by outraged Americans warning all of the dangers of this "filthy" movie. To me (and many others, it would seem, judging from the movie's popularity) it is obvious that by putting down Canadians (and everyone else) Stone and Parker are actually making fun of Americans. Most especially (though by no means exclusively, everyone gets ripped here), they are poking merciless fun at the mainstream, white, middle-class conservatives in the United States today. You know, the kind that complain about violence and swearing in movies and then go bomb Serbian civilians.

One of the messages of South Park is that kids get their values from their parents, not from movies. In the wake of Littleton and the resulting knee-jerk reaction from American politicians of every variety to blame the tragedy on the media, guns, Marilyn Manson or whatever, this message is even more effective. Too many Americans blame everyone but themselves for their problems. The South Park parents' overreaction to the "crisis" of Terrence and Philip and their declaration of war on Canada satirizes the similar attitudes of those the movie is making fun of. And yet everyone but these people get the joke! They just see the violence and swearing in these scenes and declare that South Park should be banned! Its influencing our children! And they fail to see that they are behaving exactly like their cartoon counterparts! Here the movie is absolutely brilliant, and so accurate its almost sad.

So there you have it: South Park is a cutting, iconoclastic social commentary that's also extremely funny. I haven't laughed as hard watching a movie in years as I did when watching South Park. Its hilarious, and there is an important political message to it. So ignore the naysayers, go see this movie, and give it an honest chance. You won't be disappointed.

Rating: 9.5/10

Okay, a lot has been written about this movie, emphasizing both its negative and positive points. First of all let me that say while the negative points far outweigh the positive, the movie is not entirely without merit.

I am a huge fan of the books, and I suppose I am a "self-titled" expert on everything Tolkien. I admit, I would love to see every single minute detail from the literary work make its way to the big screen. I could argue that the story is so great there is really no need to change very much at all when it comes to plot and characters in a movie adaptation of the books. I would prefer that the film makers make no changes whatsoever to the storyline, and ultimately I would love it if my own personal interpretation of the books "came to life" as it were, on the movie screen. But I know that's not going to happen. I also know however, that the great weaknesses of this particular version have very little to do with "artistic interpretation" on the part of the director. Despite what some have said, the film really fails on its own merits (or lack thereof).

First of all, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the story that Bakshi almost certainly never even bothered reading the books. How could he possibly then make any kind of adaptation of them, faithful or not? The plot and character changes are made at random and to no apparent end, and have nothing to do with the requirements of the medium of film or directorial interpretation. How else do you explain intermittent use of "Aruman" for Saruman, Boromir the Viking, the pantless Aragorn or any other of the hundreds of examples I could bring up?

But as bad as these mistakes are, the film simply fails to interest the viewer, whether you or familiar with the books or not. The incredibly dense and rich background narrative of the books is glossed over in a couple of minutes at the beginning, apparently using shadow puppets, leaving the uninitiated wondering what is going on and those familiar with the story just shaking their heads. It is not artistic expression. Its a cost-cutting device. The truly bizarre and featureless backgrounds are even worse, almost totally depriving Middle-Earth of its wonderful and extraordinary scenery. The renditions of most of the characters are almost as bad.

Despite this, I do think the movie succeeds in at least presenting a great story that deserves to be told, albeit with many narrative problems, the worst of which is an inexplicable cutting of the story off right in the middle. The animation, though strange, is quite captivating in places if you can get past all the glaring mistakes in the plot. Thus I do own a copy of the movie on VHS, which I actually watch now and then, possibly just because I'm such a die-hard Tolkien fan. But the greatest thing about it is that it increases my anticipation for Peter Jackson's upcoming live-action version in that it would be hard for it to be much worse than Bakshi's.

Us Tolkien fans are a strange and demanding lot, and it is certain that no film maker, no matter how talented, can ever satisfy us all. But they should at least try to make a good movie. Bakshi apparently did not do this. In fact, I have no idea what he was trying to do. If he was trying to butcher a wonderful story with uninspired plot editing and weird animation effects, then he succeeded.

Advice to Jackson? Stay as close to the original story as possible while living by the rules of film. It won't be an easy task, but if successful I'm sure his efforts will be appreciated by all. The Lord of the Rings is one of the greatest stories ever told, and it deserves to have an honest and worthy portrayal on film.

Rating: 5.2/10

Okay, so its not "The Killer." Its a fast-paced movie with little story but great action and plenty of style. Its not up to the standards of the Chow/Woo collaborations that came out of Hong Kong in the late 80s and early 90s, but its still great fun.

"The Replacement Killers," a story of an assassin with a conscience (yes, we've seen this before) was my introduction to Chow Yun-Fat and Heroic Bloodshed-style cinema in general. I must say that when I first saw it I was blown away. The action sequences, though paltry compared to those in, say, "Hard-Boiled," appear hyper-kinetic and downright innovative as presented in American cinema. And Mr.Chow is cool personified. Furthermore, even with limited dialogue (he's still learning the language people!) its clear that the man can act. He conveys much more emotion and presence with his eyes alone than many actors do with all the dialogue in the world. We see his tortured soul when he peers through the scope of his sniper rifle, wrestling with his decision to do the right thing, and we know he means business by his dark brooding glances in the night club. We see his guilt when he sees his reflection in the mirror. Then there's Mira Sorvino, an amazingly beautiful and talented actress, who's obviously having fun here, and looks as good as ever as she guns down the villains. A very good supporting cast also plays its roles expertly.

Antoine Fuqua is not the greatest director ever. But he knows style, and the film is one of the most visually and stylisticly impressive action movies I have ever seen outside of Hong Kong. Furthermore, while the story is weak, the dilemma that John Lee faces is a real one, and the decision he makes is heroic. We all hopes he saves his family, and kills as many bad guys in as cool a way possible along the way. In this way the movie engages the audience and works in doing what it set out to do: be a very cool action piece, with bullets and sunglasses standing in for plot and dialogue. It works far better than, say, "The Corruptor" which repeatedly seemed to forget it was an action movie. "The Replacement Killers" never does, and it delivers on its own premise. If you don't like that premise, fine, don't watch it. But it does succeed at what it tries to do.

Conclusion: TRK is a good and under-appreciated movie, 7.5/10. It is a fine introduction to Chow and the genre; after this move on to "The Killer," "A Better Tomorrow" and "Hard-Boiled," all of which combine action with story and characterization in a way you have never seen or imagined in American cinema.