The Karate Kid (2010)

director: Harald Zwart

writers: Christopher Murphey, story by Robert Mark Kamen

starring: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan

genre: Family, Sports

As with every remake that comes out we wonder did we really need this film to be remade? Ive seen already this year 4 remakes including this one and thats not counting re-imaginings of films like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I cant say they were all bad or even some without reason. But what with the lack of ideas these days? But most importanly what with the lack of writers coming up with smarter updates of the films they are remaking. If comic books can run for 60 years with the same characters and still find new ways of developing them and continuing them, couldnt the same happen for films?

The Karate Kid or most correctly the Kung Fu Kid (as it should have been called) is about young Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his Mom (Taraji P. Henson) moving to Beijing China for work. There he will be a fish out of water and be confronted cultural shock. As things get better for him he finds racism in school bully's that know Kung Fu and beat him up. To regain his honor he asks for help from the secret skills of his building's maintenance man Mr. Han (Jackie Chan). With Mr. Han's help he will regain his honor with Kung Fu skills by confronting the bully's in a Kung Fu tournament.

Besides the well known story from the original the main changes made are of locale and ages of the main characters. By keeping everything so familiar this remake does nothing to be different than the original. Their is no fresh take and no deviations to the story. New viewers who haven't seen the original will be ok with it but everyone else will be sadly disappointed. The film isn't all bad despite its similarities to the original film. The acting is good, the fighting isn't terrible, the emotional level of the story and lessons are well played and written. But it's not enough to make this film good or worth seeing in the cinema.

Should I recommend this film? and to who is the question. The film is a good option for parents with a family and without a option to see anything in the cinema. For everyone else I cant recommend this film as there are better choices out there. People curious should wait for DVD or see the original film. Or people should instead just go see Inception again or the new film Predators.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Invictus (2009)

director: Clint Eastwood

writer: Anthony Peckham

starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon

genre: Biopic, Drama, Sports

I really dont know how to classify this film. Is it a biopic, a sports film, a history film? It's really a little bit of everything. And not only that, its also a odd movie choice from Clint Eastwood. Who I never though he would have done a Nelson Mandela film involving sports. But dont be fooled. This is still very much Mandela's story.

Right after S. Africa's first full democratic election. Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) does his best to put the country back on track. He sees the hopes of his people and the displeasure and uncertainty of the white population. But always tried bring the two long fought sides together. One of the ways he achieved this was with helping the national rugby team be the world champion. An weird but effective method as we come to see in the film. Mandela develops a friendship with national team rugby captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and try's to instill leadership and hope in the team through him. His goal is to make the national rugby team a symbol for the country and for everybody to unify under it. And it so happens Mandela was right with his decisions of being so interested in sports. As this can be a lesson to all that even from sports can you bring hope to people for a greater tomorrow.

What I enjoyed so much about the film was the political and historidcal aspects of the story. I was less interested when the rugby matches started. What the S. Africans were going through and how they were reacting to Mandela's government on-both sides was much more interesting to me. Eastwood never made me feel attached to the game. I cared more for the characters then the important matches. If any part of the film made it less perfect it was its sports scenes. Anybody interested to see a true football/rugby film "Any Given Sunday" is the best, not Invictus.

It had been so long that Freeman had been connected to a Mandela biopic. Now that it finally happened people might be a bit surprised that this is not your typical biographical film. Even though it details the beginning of Mandela's government and his connections to rugby. We do get a good picture of who Nelson Mandela was and an interesting tale of how he made two hated sides unite and celebrate together through their national rugby team.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Tyson (2009)

director: James Toback

writer: James Toback

genre: Documentary, Sports

Life treats people in a odd fashion sometimes. You get everything you ever wanted and then you lose it. We forget sometimes that money isn’t everything and that rich people go through bad times as well. But some these people in the end realize there shortcoming and change and stride for a better life. Tyson is one of those people hoping now for a better life.

The whole film is the rise and fall of Mike Tyson. We see his beginnings as a kid being beat up and made fun of for his speech impediment. In juvenile jail he found the love for boxing to get his anger out and got his ticket to brighter road where he met later his first manager and father figure. But after his death it seems that his life just got derailed. From a being the youngest world champ to having a terrible marriage, going to jail and then biting Evander Holyefield ear. All the most important moments of Tyson career are captured.

After seeing this film I hope people who are pretty hateful to Mike Tyson will change their mind. Not knowing the whole story you can easily mislabel people. People have to understand that sometimes life is worse for others and not everybody learns all the valuable lessons in life till later on. I mean yes he did do stupid things and he did say pretty racy and horrific things as you can see in the film. But not all of us have the benefit of having strong characters or a education. Tyson had no other way to protect himself from things he didn't know how to face except with anger example his mentors death, mangers and wife backstabbing him. Also there are a lot of interesting info in the film about Tyson. How he got the first heavyweight title while he was suffering from a STD.

In the end you see the catharsis and feel for tragedy his life is. He accomplished most of his dreams, didn’t die young like others in the ghetto as he mentions in the film. But he did the worst thing he let himself down and his fans. Mike Tyson was a god in the ring but he knew he couldn’t control himself. The lifestyle, the women, the money it’s sad to here him talk about all these things and now realize the mistakes he’s done after he’s lost everything. But it was nice enough for make it his life purpose to live for his kids.

I saw a tragic story in Tyson. One of the greatest boxers to pass and see him talk about it and go into to tears over his life is touching. Director James Toback did a swell job by letting Tyson tell the story with interviews and stock footage of his life. If your interested Tyson is a truthful and interesting documentary that shows Tyson life to its fullest and how even a knockout king can hit rock bottom.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

The Wrestler (2008)

director: Darren Aronfsky

writer: Robert D. Siegel

starring: Mickey Rourke

genre:Drama, Sports

Όταν ο Aronofsky συνάντησε τον Rourke και πέρασαν καλά!! 

Προσωπικά, είμαι μεγάλος οπαδός του Aronofsky και τον θεωρώ έναν από τους πιό ταλαντούχους σκηνοθέτες της περιόδου που διανύουμε. Ποτέ όμως δεν πίστευα ότι θα επιχειρούσε μια τέτοια "στροφή" σκηνοθετικά. Στο "The Wrestler" βλέπουμε έναν πιό ώριμο Aronofsky και έναν Rourke στον ίσως ομορφότερο ρόλο του τα τελευταία χρόνια.Ας αναλύσουμε λίγο την ταινία..

Αγώνες πάλης(wrestling).Οι περισσότεροι απο αυτούς απο όσα γνωρίζουμε είναι στημένοι με κυρίαρχο σκοπό τους το θέαμα, με αυτό να οδηγεί στην ευχαρίστηση του κοινού.Αυτός είναι και ο ρόλος του μέγιστου Rourke, ο οποίος υποδύεται έναν "παλαίμαχο" παλαιστή στη δεκαετία του '80, σε άσχημη οικονομική κατάσταση, γεμάτος στα αναβολικά,που έχει παρατήσει την κόρη του (εδώ ας ευχαριστήσουμε τον Aronofsky που άν και θα μπορούσε να δώσει τεράστια έκταση στο θέμα αυτό προτίμησε να το αποδώσει χρονικά ακριβώς όσο έπρεπε και έτσι να αποφύγει οικογενειακά και καθε άλλου είδους κινηματογραφικά "κλισέ"),ζώντας ολομόναχος σε ένα ερείπιο και δουλέυοντας παράλληλα 2 δουλειές να προσπαθεί να τα βγάλει πέρα.

Η ταινία δένει με έναν ποιητικό τρόπο την αβάσταχτη μοναξιά του ξεπεσμένου μεσήλικα παλαιστή με το Αμερικάνικο όνειρο.Ο Aronofsky αυτή την φορά ήταν πιο διαβασμένος από ποτέ, χρησιμοποιώντας τεχνικές ντοκυμαντέρ, με την κάμερα να ακολουθεί σε απόσταση αιχμής τα δρώμενα, καταγράφωντας έτσι τον σωματικό πόνο και την μιζέρια του πρωταγωνιστή κάνοντας μας και εμάς σε σημεία να συμπάσχουμε.Όσον αφορά τα πλάνα, δεν νομίζω ότι υπάρχει κάποιος που να αμφισβητεί την ικανότητα του Aronofsky στο να τα επιλέγει και να βγάζει ακριβώς αυτό που θέλει από αυτά.

Για μένα το μεγαλύτερο σύν της ταινίας είναι η επιλογή Rourke ως πρωταγωνιστή.Ειλικρινά, μόλις έμαθα ότι θα είναι αυτός ο πρωταγωνιστής απόρησα, μιας και δεν ήξερα άν θα μπορούσαν να συμβαδίσουν και οι 2 τους σε μια ταινία .Παρ' όλα αυτά όμως έχασα το στόιχημα γιατί εδώ ο Rourke δείχνει ότι εξακολουθεί να είναι ένα μεγαθήριο της μεγάλης οθόνης που δεν διστάζει να δείξει έναν χαρακτήρα εξευτελισμένο,αποκομμένο απο τα πάντα και μαλιστα να τον δείξει τέλεια!Κατά την γνώμη μου λίγοι θα μπορούσαν να παίξουν αυτόν τον ρόλο τόσο καλά.

Έτσι λοιπόν, το δίδυμο Aronofsky - Rourke καταφέρνει να δημιουργήσει μια μεγάλη ταινία που αξίζει να δει κάποιος, μιας και όλο και κάτι θα πάρει από αυτήν.Στην αρχή μίλησα για κινηματογραφική "στροφή" του Aronofsky και αυτό γιατί το "The Wrestler" δεν μπορεί να κατηγοριοποιηθεί στις κλασσικές "σινεφιλιές" που μας έχει συνηθίσει ο σκηνοθέτης του,ο οποίος σε αυτή του την εργασία για το σπίτι μελέτησε και έκανε κάτι που δείχνει την κλάση του και την εμμονή του για ποιότητα.Όσο για τον Rourke θεωρώ ότι άξιζε να πάρει το αγαλματάκι και να φύγει, μα στάθηκε άτυχος μιας και βρέθηκε αντιμέτωπος με έναν πολύ άξιο αντίπαλο..

Το "The Wrestler" αξίζει την προσοχή cinefil και μή και σίγουρα θα σας κάνει να περάσετε ευχάριστα τις 2 παρα κάτι ώρες που διαρκεί.

Προσωπική Βαθμολογία:

Review by Kapapi