sora-2

This is a thoroughly disposable movie, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker basically run through a re-tread of gags and plot elements from "Rush Hour" with a nominally higher budget, more villains (John Lone, Zhang Ziyi, AND Alan King), and more plentiful action scenes. There isn't a single part of this movie that isn't derivative or cliched, and the talented cast is largely wasted (especially "Crouching Tiger's" Zhang), but for lightweight popcorn entertainment, it makes for a fun evening. Some viewers might quibble about Tucker's insult-driven humor, which does perhaps have one Asian put-down too many, and Jackie's stunts are not nearly as memorable as his 80s Hong Kong work (to be expected considering his advancing age, plus the fact that Ratner uses too many close ups), but the running time is short and the pacing fast.

For me, this is a marvelous construction of imagery and sound, and fascinates me even 15 years after I first saw it on video. The odd characters, non-sequiter dialogue, and bizarre tableux all combine to create a sensation akin to a dream or nightmare, and prefigure what director David Lynch would later bring to life in his TV series "Twin Peaks".

I find this entertaining, though not in the usual sense. "Blue Velvet" is more a play of ideas than a straightforward, plot-driven film. It's difficult to say what it all adds up to. There's a bit of traditional film noir mystery, satire of small-town life, plus a strong thread of perverse eroticism. A lot of critics say it's a commentary on the dark underbelly of normal society, but I think that's oversimplification.

I would not recommend this to everyone, though. "Blue Velvet" definitely might bore, confuse or offend a lot of people, like most of Lynch's work. However, if you are interested in movies that forego standard storytelling and instead toy around with ideas or are an expression of individual artistic (or self-indulgent and pretentious, take your pick) impulses, I think it's worth a look.

This movie aired recently on the USA network and I saw it for the first time since I was ten years old. Although I did not find myself experiencing nightmares when I went to bed that night, as I did seventeen years ago, I still found the movie's message delivered clearly and with solid dramatic impact.

Upon close analysis, there are flaws, both technical and on the creative end. The post-bomb world seems far too well-lit at times in light of the "nuclear winter" theory. And (as the film's disclaimer says) the actual results are much, much grimmer. Seven years ago I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the photos, accounts and newsreel footage taken of those who survived are absolutely horrifying.

Some of the plot point devices and characters seem far too constructed (or perhaps outright contrived): Steve Guttenberg and his girlfriend and their tearful reunion, the dying doctor played by Jason Robards returning to the ruins of Kansas City for a final farewell to his home (and wife who died in the explosion). But the acting is strong, and Nicholas Meyer's largely low-key direction (often with no music) hammer home what is the film's message - loss. Not just the typical message that everyone loses in (nuclear) war, but illustrating what would be lost: loved ones, your home, your way of life, simple human dignity. And that it would be lost forever. For me, one of the most chilling lines is when Steve Guttenberg says to his girlfriend, "There's not going to be any phones."

Haunting.