illeatyourdog

Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact.

It is difficult to determine whether or not this is indeed a better moive then the first one. In that sense, and a slew of others, it is similar to Superman 2. Like Superman 2, one of the major plot elements is the loss of superpowers. Although it is an interesting idea to play around with, it is also one, once finally seen, that you don't really want to see done. However, the key difference in the way it is handled in SPiderman 2 is that there is not a how or a why to the superpower loss whereas in Superman 2 both were covered (he gave them up for lois Lane and he used a contraption in his Fortress of solitude). Being that it is perfectly understandable as to why no explanation would be given (there is no logical reason why he all of sudden lose them and then gain them back and it would have only created another subplot that would have merely been a distraction from everything else) it just makes it all the more obvious that they really used it as plot contrivance then any real story element.

Luckily, his loss of powers leads to some of the film's most humorous moments which could make it forgivable. Now what separates Spiderman 2 from pretty much 95% of all the cmoic book movies, it actually tells a story instead of merely trying to. This is also both good and bad. Its good because it is showing that the life of a superhero is not as enticing as people would assume it is. He does not live in a huge mansion or larger than large apartment with the latest in entertainment technology. He lives in a single room apartment maybe with a TV in a really run down hotel. His good deeds make it difficult for him to hold a job and keep up in school. Those are the good points of the story since it does deal treat the idea of a superhuman concealing his identity realistically. However, it does get incredibly serious and really brings the emotional level down since it does get pretty depressing. It also appears that Sam Raime tried a little bit too much to enforce the idea that Peter Parker's life turned to sh!t. One such contrivance used to emphasize it is him never paying his rent. In the beginning of the movie, it does provide an explanation as to how he makes money but he also fired in the beginning of the film too. He also not getting sufficient income from his photjournalist job either (his paycheck does not even cover an advance he was previously given). SO it is kinda a huge mystery as to why he is able to keep his living quarters since he is clearly not paying it. This accompanied with the incredibly intense scene between Petger Parker and Harry Osborne, it really is a bit too much. Another character that is a bit much is Peter's Aunt May.

There is no way in hell this person could exist in the real world and, even with Spidey's CG aided rubbery special effects, she is the most cartoonish and gives a a full fledged speech to answer a simple question (I am referring to her "theres a hero in all of us" speech which is given as an answer as to why a little kid wants to be SPiderman). With all the screentime devoted to showing wjhy a person like Spiderman is needed, the speech is tacked on and kinda pointless. Speaking of tacked on, the character of Doc Ock is also kinda tacked on. This character suffers from the same disease as pretty much every other scientist with good intentions who turns evil suffers from. Hes not cool or interesting until he is consumed by evil and then hes likable (it reall is ironic. This is not really a good thing since we are supposed to care for the good side of Docter Octavious but you don't really and just want him to turn evil so he could use his mechanical arms to start throwing cars and people at SPiderman. Which is in direct contrast to Harry Osbrne's Green Goblin. You actually sympathies with him and side with him.

The Green Goblins original approach is also altogether different since he was trying to show Spiderman an incredibly big picture as well as presenting the reality of people ("the only thing want more than a hero is to see the hero fail"). Doc Ock, on the other hand, has a very miniscule and trivial endeavor to create this thing that does nothing but absorbe all sorts of energy (mostly metal). What makes it even more interesting (as well as confusing) is that the meechanical arms are what want this thing to be made. It really boggles the mind as to why machines would want want to make this thing since it would do nothing but destroy their creator and source of power (in essence the machines would be destroying themselves). Luckily, all the other characters act like real people and the relationship between Peter Parker and Mary Jane is done rather well (except for the end which is overly romantic and gay). All in all, it is an entertaining movie (and possibly a great date movie) but it does get way too serious at times and it is filled with contrivances that tend to drag on a bit long.

Now, i was up late one night flipping thourhg the HBOs, Cinemaxs, what have you when I came upon Public enemy No.1. It starred Theresa Russel and other actors I've never heard (except for Frank Stallone and that name does not really spell greatness) so I was expecting something along the lines of a low rent Impulse only with more nudity, sex and all the good stuff and less of everything else. However as I read the little synopsis given, listed as a biography, it said tels the the story of Ma barker and her boys robbing banks in the 1930s. So now I did not know what to expect and what I got was rather enjoyable. The production did a rather nice job of recreating early 1900s America which is interesting in and of itself. Not knowing of Ma Barker before seeing this, I cannot really comment on the accuracy of Theresa Randle's portrayal of her but it appeared that all the actors and director were going for a more pure fun approach rather an authentic one. Also, as is the case with all movies about gangsters from the 1930s, it is, at time's over romanticized and it is trying too hard to make you like these people even though, in reality, you would really want nothing to do with them. What really surprised me was the amount of action that was in it. It has a slow beginning, as it kinda should since its developing the Ma Barker character and her kids but once they decide to rob banks, its like almost every ten minutes guns are being fired. These shoot-outs are well-done too and seem to adhere to the thinking of the 1930 gangsters (who had no real professional training in firearms) with some of the strategies taken by the Barker family. These scenes are also rather violent (another nice surprise).

I wouldn't go as far to say it was gratuitous or gory but the gunshot impacts are realistically graphic and the carmae rarely, if at all, shys away from them. What also made this film fun to watch was the portrayal of the early FBI. Again, I don't know if its accurate or not but it was very entertaining to watch the FBI guys do their thing because they were treating there job like a game (albiet a very serious one): the FBI vs. The various gangsters (The main FBi guy got a cigar for every one he either brought in or killed). All in all it is a very entertaining movie that does deal with a real family of robbers and killers that has god quality (and a good amount) of action. Speaking of action, you also get to see Alyssa Milano as a whore for a nice chunk of the film and she is always easy on the eyes and she does the part well.