(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Shot out of order chronicling the time that Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is in love with a girl named Summer (Zooey Deschanel), (500) Days of Summer is a romantic comedy about love, but not between the two main characters. It’s much more general than that, analyzing through its characters what it means to be in love and everything, including heartache, that goes along with it. The plot follows Tom, who went to school to be an architect, working at a company that makes cards for any occasion, and when the bosses new assistant Summer walks in, he pretty much falls head over heels. The rest of the film jumps all over the place between the time when they are a budding romance to when they are breaking up to when he is alone and trying to get past her.

As the audience, we get all the pieces of the story and gradually put them together as it unfolds. Also throughout the film are interesting little sequences that make it comparable to other offbeat romances like Amélie or Annie Hall. There is an omniscient narrator, animated sequences, and even a dance scene among some of the unique directorial choices. There is one scene in particular that feels very Woody Allen-esque, and that is the scene where Tom is invited to a party that Summer is having (late into the 500 days) and the film goes into a split screen displaying on one side his expectations of how the party will be and on the other, the reality of the situation; needless to say, the two are far from similar. Director Marc Webb, a relative newcomer, shows a lot of promise and skill not only through his quirky scenes (there is one instance where Tom at the height of his happiness imagines himself as the lead in a musical number in the park), but through his ability to weave a coherent story that never feels overbearing or disingenuous. Part of this is due to the two lead performances. Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are not only good in their respective roles, but believable; they seem like real people and the banter between the two of them doesn’t come across as forced or staged. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is perfect as the love sick protagonist who despite everything can’t seem to help but be in love with Summer. We mostly are shown all the happy moments which dominate his mind instead of seeing everything, which makes the reality of their relationship less glamorous and his state more sympathetic. Despite the film being from his point of view, Zooey Deschanel never feels like the bad guy; she is a complex character that is both captivating and interesting to learn more about. By keeping the story out of order, it is hard to take sides because it is difficult to predict how it will end. There are also a variety of interesting side characters that make for some humorous scenes such as Tom’s two friends and his little sister, who is always willing to give him sage wisdom. (500) Days of Summer is a refreshingly different romantic comedy featuring some great performances and a unique direction that is sure to please anyone who sees it.

Dragonslayer (1981)

Dragonslayer is a simplistic fantasy story about a young sorcerer’s apprentice who decides to slay a dragon. A king made a pact with the dragon in which they periodically sacrifice female virgins by means of a lottery to the dragon in order to keep it from killing their people and burning their crops. A small group of villagers set out to find the last sorcerer named Ulric (Ralph Richardson), who appears incredibly old and unable to make the journey. So, when a cynical knight demands a test, Ulric lets him stab him in the chest and he dies instantly and anticlimactically. After finding his magical amulet, his apprentice Galen (Peter MacNicol) takes his new found powers and sets out to do what his master could not. This is basically the entire plot. There are a few little subplots here and there, like a tacked on romance between Galen and Valerian (Caitlin Clarke), the young girl who disguised herself as a boy in order to avoid being picked at the lottery. What does work in this film are the special effects. The dragon (considering this is 1981) looks surprisingly good. It’s large and detailed, looking both intimidating as well as actually part of the scenery. I would argue that the dragon in this film has aged better than the one in Dragonheart. As a mix of puppet and stop motion, the scenes showing the dragon up close, such as in the scene where Galen challenges it in its own layer, are particularly good, while the scenes depicting the dragon flying through the air are less impressive.

There are a few things about this film that don’t really work that well, and one of the main ones is Peter MacNicol. As the central protagonist, he’s not only bland, but he’s kind of a wimp. Maybe it's just his blonde fro, but there is something about him that never seems right in this scenario. There are several scenes where he’s supposed to be naïve and immature, but he’s not really that funny. It’s also hard to buy him as feasible threat to pretty much anyone he encounters in the film, let alone a dragon. He just sort of says his lines without adding anything meaningful to the performance. The other thing that hurts this film is that the main (and only) conflict is the dragon. This interrupts the story’s pacing, as there are two encounters with this dragon towards the end. The first encounter is intense and action packed while the second and final one doesn’t come close to matching it, which really hurts the flow of the story by the end. Also, there is a major twist/revelation towards the end that is not particularly satisfying. The journey to the kingdom that’s being plagued by the dragon is almost nonexistent (which is surprising because the villagers complain how long it is), and it could have helped the story to have a least a little bit of a journey involved for the sake of variety. When the locations are shown they are vast and green, as if to show that there is a large world in this fantasy, but you can't see it. Most of the sets are dull and dark like the castle and the village. The dragon’s cave is an exception to this, but it’s only one set. Some of the other characters are interesting like Ulric in his small role, and the knight who inexplicably wants to kill anyone associated with magic. Ian McDiarmid (also known as the emperor from Star Wars) makes a cameo as brother Jacopus, a priest who is killed after he declares the dragon the devil. While this scene is almost entirely irrelevant to the plot, for some reason I get a kick out of watching him get killed again. Dragonslayer is overall a light, generally forgettable fantasy film which doesn’t have any strong lasting power, especially when compared with other fantasy films from the 80s like Willow or Legend.

Iron Man (2008)

Iron Man is a comic book adaptation about a character named Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a billionaire playboy weapons manufacturer, who becomes an unlikely super hero. Tony Stark is attacked and kidnapped after demonstrating his newest weapon in an unnamed Middle Eastern country. The attack caused irreparable damage to his heart, leaving him with a device attached to it in order to keep the shrapnel lodged within his chest from killing him. In captivity, he is told to build a weapon for his captors in exchange for his freedom, so he and fellow captive Yinsen (Shaun Toub) build a suit of armor and escape. After he gets free, Tony decides to use his new invention to destroy all his weapons that he witnessed the terrorists using and attempt to redeem himself for years of war profiteering.

The first thing that stands out about this film is Robert Downey Jr. He captures the charisma and eccentricities of the character and makes them his own; he’s funny and witty without being too over the top or dwarfing his fellow cast. All the performances are a big part of what makes the film so engaging; the scenes featuring the banter between Tony and his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) are fun to watch in particular, such as the scene where she has to help Tony replace his heart device. All the actors seem very comfortable around one another making the conversations feel very natural and believable. Jeff Bridges is another performance worth mentioning as the villainous Obadiah Stane, another Stark Enterprises board member who has been with the company since the days of Tony’s father Howard Stark, who worked on the Manhattan Project. The way his eyes light up when he sees the power source that Tony built and how he seems to actually care about the company’s stock drop make his performance an interesting one. Terrence Howard as James Rhodes, the military liaison to Stark Enterprises, is also good and adds to the great cast that assembled for this film.

One of the story’s major themes is that of accountability and responsibility and it is played out through the evolution of Tony Stark. At the beginning he truly believes that he is helping the country by building weapons, leaving him free to live a more care free lifestyle and not lose sleep considering the damage his inventions are causing other people. When he witnesses first hand (the weapon that caused his own injury was one of his own) the destruction that he himself is responsible for, he takes responsibility for it by becoming the Iron Man. This is one of the most interesting concepts in the film. How exactly would a weapons designer choose to go about accomplishing this anti-weapons task? By building the greatest weapon the world has ever seen. This the great the irony of the character. Even when he chooses to stop making weapons and become a hero, he does so by building a better weapon; fight fire with fire (or in this case, Repulsor Rays). Director Jon Favreau manages to keep the tone relatively light while dealing with these issues and even distances the terrorists from their real life counterparts (in the film they’re known as the Ten Rings and consist of killers from all over the world whose goal seems to be merely conquering the middle east).

There is a unique directorial choice that he manages to pull off that not only utilizes the close-up in a new way, but distinguishes this film from every other super hero movie. While inside the Iron Man armor, the camera frequently cuts to a close-up of Tony’s face with the display inside the helmet covering the screen. With Robert Downey Jr. having such an expressive face, it eliminates the separation of the super hero from the secret identity. In films like Spider-Man and especially the Batman films, there is a clear separation between the secret identity persona and the super hero persona. In Iron Man, we are constantly reminded of who is inside the suit and instead of Tony Stark becoming Iron Man, it's Tony Stark is Iron Man; there is no difference. This is further emphasized by having three different versions of the costume in just this film. It is the man in the suit that’s important, not so much the suit itself. That being said, the suits are spectacular. Interchanging practical effects with CG, all three suits are impressive visuals that make it hard to distinguish when it’s an actual costume and when it’s entirely animated. There is one action scene where the red and gold Mark III armor first appears in a combat scenario. Iron Man lands in front of a terrorist and punches him, sending him spiraling thirty feet into the air, and then he turns and fires repulsor rays (not bullets or missiles or more realistic weapons) at the remaining enemies. Watching this scene the first time in theaters gave me a vivid flashback of being a ten year old boy in the public library, rereading the same Iron Man comics over and over. The suit itself was partly designed by Adi Granov, one of the more recent Iron Man artists in the comic book series. The faithfulness to the source material is so evident throughout the film that any hardcore fan is likely to be pleased with the result; Jon Favreau really captured the magic of those comics. By far one of the best in the super hero genre, Iron Man is a great film that will likely produce a fun new franchise.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

An early film from the Coen brothers, Miller’s Crossing is set in a 1920s prohibition-era town run by gangsters. Leo (Albert Finney) is the Irish mob boss currently running things with both the chief of police and the mayor in his pocket. Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne) is his long time advisor who is building up a large debt. Johnny Casper (Jon Polito), the Italian mob boss rising in power, comes to Leo asking him to kill off Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro) due to suspicion of him revealing the fixed fights that Casper sets up. Leo refuses due to the fact that Bernie is the brother of his current girlfriend Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), who is also secretly having an affair with Tom. This results in a war between Casper and Leo. Tom advises Leo to give up Bernie for a peaceful solution to the conflict, but Leo strongly refuses. When in an attempt to convince him further, Tom reveals the affair and then things get complicated.

The story is incredibly well conceived and executed and despite all the hidden agendas and double crossings, it never feels buried under the weight of all the characters and subplots. This is due to Joel Coen’s smart pacing. The film moves along at a steady pace, keeping the plot going in one direction and never stopping. Gabriel Byrne is incredibly good as Tom, a character who is considered, pretty universally, to be a bastard. He is not a killer or a thug, so his best weapon is his mind and his mouth. He talks down to pretty much every character he meets, including those who are more than willing to kill him. The only thing that keeps him alive is his intelligence and ability to see “every angle.” One of the reasons Tom is so interesting as a character is because he brings out the worst in people. He insults them and lies to them and they can’t really do anything to him because he is always right and he knows it. Needless to say, he gets punched in the face a good twenty times or so in this film. The film is dark and reminiscent of old film noir, not only on its cinematic style, but with the protagonist. Tom is a character who barely has a conscience but lives by his own rules and beliefs; very reminiscent of Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) from Pickup on South Street (1953). The acting throughout the entire film is pretty memorable; each actor contributing something to add to film. Albert Finney and Jon Polito in particular are excellent as the rival mob bosses. Jon Polito is just barely under being over the top, and his performance is often humorous and interesting to watch, especially his interactions with Tom.

The film features the Coen brothers’ brand of offbeat humorous situations and some incredible cinematography. There is one scene that really highlights this film and it is one of the scenes that take place at Miller’s Crossing. The scene is when Tom is told to personally execute Bernie for Capser. The long walk out into the woods while Bernie is screaming and crying for him to spare his life is haunting and the conflict in Tom’s face as he debates in his own mind whether or not to go through with it is painful to watch, even though he is trying to hide it. Another stand out feature of the film is its score; the main theme is a beautiful accompaniment that contrasts strongly with the situations and shady characters. Miller’s Crossing is a classic Coen brothers film, and a must see for any fan.

17 Again (2009)

Oh, the in-flight movie. Having no more reading material, a dead mp3 player, and no alternative source of entertainment for the 6 hour flight, I sighed and prepared myself for the film that was not of my choosing. It turned out to be 17 Again. 17 Again is the story of Mike O’Donnell (Zac Efron) who in 1989 decided to not pursue his future in basketball and instead marry the love of his life, Scarlett (Leslie Mann). Cut to the present, and Mike is a miserable businessman played by Matthew Perry. The filmmakers go to great lengths convincing the audience this is the same character by including a subtitle naming the character and year so that the audience doesn’t get confused. I’ll admit that the next fifteen minutes or so of the film leading up to the actual plot are a bit fuzzy in my mind due to the distracting casting of the main character. How does someone who looks like Zac Efron grow into Matthew Perry in 20 years? I began imagining some kind of car accident in which his entire head became crushed to the point that the very shape of his skull had altered permanently. This must be the real reason that Mike is so miserable with his life as an adult. He suffered some kind of traumatic accident which resulted in Matthew Perry. To makes things worse, the end credits show the actors at high school age and a 17 year old Matthew Perry still looks nothing like Zac Efron.

The rest of the story is that Mike is on the verge of a divorce and his kids hate him and somehow a random old man creates a spiraling vortex in the water which Mike falls into and emerges as a 17 year old version of himself. This was another issue I had with the plot. Obviously this is a mix of other films like Big, 13 Going On 30, The Family Man, and even a little Freaky Friday. I guess in order to distinguish it from the others, they chose to have the events that cause “the change” be a bit more visual: Mike falls off a bridge into a spiraling vortex of magic water. The very next scene is Mike going back to his home where he lives with his nerdy rich friend Ned (Thomas Lennon). How did he survive the fall? The whole reason that he even got out of his car was to prevent a man from committing suicide, so clearly the fall was meant to be fatal. Also, why didn’t he realize that something was different about his body on the drive home? He must have swam out of the water, gotten back to where he left his car on the bridge and drove home, still not realizing that he was in a different body. That is a lot to buy. I suppose he also never once checked his rear view mirrors, so on top of everything else, he's a bad driver. Anyway, he and his friend get into a stupid fight using all of his friends’ Star Wars memorabilia and he ends up deciding to help his family by enrolling in his kids’ school and living life as a 17 year old. Amazingly only Scarlett seems to notice that he looks a lot like her husband, but the best reaction she can give is “weird.” That’s quite an understatement. I could only imagine how much time could have been saved in this film if she just looked at her old year book or any other photo of her husband (pre-accident). When she finally does, at the end, it becomes so obvious to her. Even Ned couldn’t recognize his friend (of 20 years!) until he looked at a picture of him in high school.

To be fair, this film isn’t the worst movie ever by any means. But what it is, is alarmingly unoriginal with a painfully obvious plot. Nearly everything in the film is lifted from another movie. Even the subplot of his daughter (Michelle Trachtenberg) becoming attracted to him is tired, as it’s basically stealing the one of the conflicts from Back to the Future. But in Back to the Future, his mother liked her not-yet-born son. There was no way she could know that they were related or that he would eventually become her child. In this, we’re supposed to buy that the daughter has never once even seen an image of her father before the accident. How could she not know what he looked like when he was younger? There must be no pictures of him anywhere in their house. I was hoping for more of a development with his daughter's obvious (and serious) daddy issues, but the story seems to just drop this little subplot before it got anymore disturbing than it already was. There’s also this whole other subplot with Ned falling in love with the school principle, but it’s mostly forgettable.

What 17 Again really is, is a vehicle to show off Zac Efron’s beauty. The plot is recycled from many other (better) films, and its cute little love story is packed with clichés (there's even a court room declaration of love). But it does have Zac Efron. There is nothing particularly remarkable about his acting ability, but the film doesn’t seem to need that. All that’s necessary is for him to stand around and look pretty. Just look at the poster for the film or watch the first five minutes which includes a shirtless and sweaty Zac Efron playing basketball. So there it is. As far as being a Zac Efron display, this film accomplishes its goal above and beyond. I think the director (Bur Steers) was so caught up with him that he didn’t realize that the script makes him grow into Matthew Perry. Given the choice between this and any of the other films that it takes plot points from, go with the latter.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight is the sequel to Batman Begins and like any good sequel, it improves upon the original in every way. The story starts around a year after the events from the first film. The mansion hasn’t been rebuilt yet, so the new bat cave is in an underground base of some kind which is much more sophisticated looking in terms of its technology. Batman (Christian Bale) is busy fighting criminals while helping Gordon (Gary Oldman) take down the Mob. The film takes a lot of time establishing the continuation of the events from the first film by having Batman re-capture the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) at the start of the film, since he was one of the loose ends of at the end of Batman Begins. The only loose end that isn’t mentioned is the section of Gotham known as The Narrows. In the first film, The Narrows (the section of Gotham containing the dreaded Arkham Asylum) is completely overrun with psychotic criminals and cops who have gone completely insane due to the spread of the Scarecrow’s poison. At the end of the film it is sealed off from the rest of the city and Gordon describes it as “lost.” This is never brought up in The Dark Knight and I guess we’re just supposed to assume that it is still a hell on earth, but doesn’t have anything to do with this film’s plot. Before I get too caught up in nitpicking a detail that is irrelevant, the film’s story is as follows. The Joker (Heath Ledger) is stealing money from the mob and as a result of this and the recent force being exacted on them as a result of the holy trinity of justice (Batman, Gordon, and the new D.A. Harvey Dent), the mob organizations are forced to take desperate measures. These desperate measures include allowing the mysterious Joker to call the shots for them and as a result, the whole city becomes under threat from complete anarchy and chaos while the heroes struggle to maintain their own codes while being driven to their limits.

The Joker is an iconic character that has been depicted before in films by actors like Cesar Romero from the 1966 Batman: The Movie and more famously Jack Nicholson from Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman. I’ll admit that I was a big fan of the Jack Nicholson version growing up and I couldn’t imagine anyone doing it better than Jack. I changed my mind after the first scene of The Dark Knight. The Joker depicted in this film isn’t tied to Bruce Wayne’s past in anyway; in fact he doesn’t even have a back-story (aside from his different versions). This character is simply a force of nature that can’t be reasoned with or stopped by any normal means. His motive is to cause chaos and panic. Why? Because it’s funny. Because it’s what he does. Because he can. Because he doesn’t have a reason. There is no logic to the character or how he works. It is because of this that we as the audience can accept all the things he manages to pull off during the film that are impossible or implausible (how can one man working with crazy people move so many oil drums around the city without being noticed?). During the course of the film, anything he does is accepted. This is due to director Christopher Nolan’s use of the character and of course, Heath Ledger’s performance. Heath Ledger gives him a fluctuating voice sounding both mocking and cartoonish, while within the same sentence he can change tone, sounding like a snarling beast. The Joker in The Dark Knight doesn’t laugh as much as his predecessors, but when he does, the high pitch cackle leaves an impression on any scene. Every aspect of Heath’s interpretation of this character from his mannerisms (constantly licking his lips and the inside of his mouth due to the scars of a Glasgow smile) to the way he walks contribute to making this character feel unique (despite being a character whose been around since the 30s) and yet familiar; a true redefinition of the character. Christopher Nolan uses him just the right amount, making the audience crave his next scene without being overwhelmed by the character. The more evil he does, the more you hope Batman can stop him. All these things make this version of the Joker not only one of the best superhero film villains, but one of the greatest (if not the greatest) villains in cinema history, placing him amongst others like Alexander DeLarge and Darth Vader.

Needless to say, this film features some great acting. Christian Bale is once again great as Bruce Wayne/Batman. One of the aspects I enjoy most about his performance is the distinct identities he fulfills as the character: Bruce Wayne the playboy, Bruce Wayne the man, and Batman. As Batman he adds this voice that separates his performance of the character from any other. The voice is that of a growling creature, because that is what he becomes when he puts on the costume. He literally becomes the creature that is Batman. It is not the same as merely wearing a suit and using gadgets; when he is batman, he changes utterly. This is why, no matter the circumstance, if he is in that costume he maintains that voice. Gary Oldman is flawless as always and brings a lot to the character of Gordon while Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain are once again great as Lucius Fox and Alfred. Aaron Eckhart is worth mentioning and does something pretty incredible with his role as Harvey Dent aka Two Face. He manages to not only make the character likable as a hero turned villain, but manages to stand on his own as a villain against the Joker. Amazingly, even though he is not the lead antagonist, he manages to avoid being dwarfed by the Joker and adds to an incredible finale to the film. Maggie Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes from the first film) gives Rachel a bit more spark, making her a more memorable character (the character of Rachel in the first film was one of the weaker aspects). Aside from the acting the film has a great story (with characters that are analyzed to every detail) and some amazing special effects. The scenes shot using the IMAX camera are particularly memorable, the most memorable of these being the spectacular chase scene featuring the Batmobile and the Bat-pod. Christopher Nolan deserves high praise as he manages to pace to the film in such a way that the run time (being 152 minutes) is almost unnoticeable. Something interesting is always happening on screen and you don’t really relax until the credits roll. Easily the greatest of the genre, The Dark Knight is statement about what a superhero film can be, and as far as themes and subject matter go, this is a great crime drama as well. Truly a must see.

Metropolis (1927)

Metropolis is a classic silent film from director Fritz Lang set in a futuristic urban dystopia. There was nothing to compare to this epic masterpiece when it was originally released in 1927. Unfortunately, the complete version of this film no longer exists, so the version that I viewed featured intertitles filling in the gaps that would be missing scenes. There is one character known as The Thin Man (Fritz Rasp), and almost all of his scenes are now lost. This film, despite being a landmark in silent cinema, is a major testament to the importance of film preservation.

The city of Metropolis is a layered and divided into two main sections. The upper levels are where the thinkers and rich live comfortable and lavish lifestyles, while the underground level is where the working class live and work on the machines that power the city. A big theme of the story is the unification between the two classes, and the need of a mediator to unite them. The story follows Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), the son of Joh Frederson (Alfred Abel), who is the ruler of the city. He falls for a young woman (Brigitte Helm) named Maria who wanders up to the surface with a large group of children trying to get the attention of the elites. While looking for her below ground, he sees first hand how poor the conditions are for the working class and tries to help by switching places with one of them and finding their meeting place in the catacombs where he sees Maria telling the workers to wait for “a mediator” to come to them bringing peace before resorting to causing a revolt. While all this is happening, Joh Frederson meets with a scientist named Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) who is building a machine-man in the image of Frederson’s deceased wife. When hearing about the potential revolt, Frederson tells him to change the machine-man to look like Maria in order to stop it before it gets out of hand. Rotwang has his own plans however, and things only get worse from there. Even with all the missing scenes, the film has pretty remarkable lasting power; there are some truly incredible scenes. Brigitte Helm as both Maria and the machine-man made to look like Maria is particularly good, as the two characters only share the appearance of the actress. The machine-man character is so evil and visually so, that it is a captivating performance. The way she moves so fast and erratically, she almost seems not only like she’s not human, but like she may be malfunctioning as well. The constant close-ups help attract attention to the odd way she moves and looks around. The visuals in the film are still impressive today. The sets are large and imposing, fitting the colossal structures that make up the different layers of the city and the miniatures are well crafted and detailed, featuring a distinct Art Deco style that seems original and futuristic, as well as reminiscent of German Expressionism. Some of the most memorable scenes are the ones featuring the iconic machine-man before it has the appearance of Maria. The scene in which Maria’s skin is transported onto the machine-man stands out the most, as the equipment brings to mind Frankenstein’s laboratory, complete with inexplicable boiling liquids and electricity flowing all over the place, displaying tools science that the viewer is not meant to fathom, let alone understand. There are also some interesting shots in this film, displaying Fritz Lang’s talents as a director. In one instance there is a zoom in on a rag that Freder finds in the basement of Rotwang’s home, but his right arm moves with the camera, maintaining its position within the shot. This then makes the shot a point of view shot and the viewer literally becomes the man, reaching for the rag. This may not be that impressive now, but at the time and compared with many of the shots throughout the film, this is a memorable scene. Metropolis is a great and important film (despite all that is missing) and definitely one worth checking out.

Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (1994)

Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie is something of a rarity. Contrary to its title, it is not a sequel to any existing film. It is an adaptation of a popular fighting game series called Street Fighter II, which is the follow up to a lesser known arcade game called Street Fighter. I call this film a rarity because it may very well be the best videogame adaptation in existence. Unfortunately that is not high praise as its competition includes such gems as Super Mario Bros., Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, Doom, Like a Dragon, Silent Hill, and the Resident Evil series. It is in no way related to the other 1994 film Street Fighter (Jean-Claude Van Damme’s contribution to the excrement that is the genre of film known as the videogame adaptation) or the more recent but equally forgettable Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. It's a shame that videogames end up as terrible films. Film adaptations of games often include ridiculous storylines, campy dialogue, too much action, and bland characters. They often start out mocking themselves for being based on a game. Oddly enough, the games they are based on take themselves seriously. Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie is an exception to these trends however, if only because it takes itself seriously. There are no winks at the camera or jokes at the origins of this story. This alone is an amazing accomplishment for a videogame adaptation.

This film takes on an incredible challenge as it manages to include every member of the cast in that franchise (which includes 16 characters) in the film. Some of these appearances are little more than unrelated background fights that are happening in some location as more important characters are discussing more plot related topics, but it is a commendable feat nonetheless. The version I watched was the original Japanese version, so a few characters have different names from their English counterparts and the films’ score is more Japanese and fitting for the characters. In the Americanized version, it has an oddly grunge filled soundtrack featuring songs from groups like Alice in Chains. Between the two versions, it is impossible to recommend the English language version as the original version has both superior voice acting and music. The films’ story follows roughly three subplots as they move towards one inevitable fight. An organization known as Shadowlaw (something of an ultimate terrorist organization) led by their Nazi-esque leader Vega (Takeshi Kusaka) who has “Psycho Powers” is abducting street fighters from around the world in order to brainwash them into becoming super assassins. Chun-Li (Miki Fujitani), an agent from Interpol, conducts a joint investigation with the US Air Force (for some reason) and Major Guile (Masane Tsukayama) in order to shut down this terrorist plot. As all this is happening, the film follows two rival martial artists Ryu and Ken. Ryu (Kōjirō Shimizu) is a wanderer and Ken Masters (Kenji Haga) is a martial artist who fights in more commercial tournaments and makes a pretty good living in the US. They both think about their training days and yearn to fight each other once more. Vega develops in interest in Ryu for his incredible fighting ability and basically the plot turns into a race to see which side can get to him first. There are many characters and the main few are deep enough to have motivation and a real reason for doing what they do, but it is the complex relationship between Ryu and Ken that really sells the film. As students of the same Dojo they are closer than brothers, and yet all that drives them is a competitive spirit that can only be calmed by a fated dual. It is so strong that they hardly ever think of anything else.

The overall plot is relatively simplistic and much of it seems to serve only as a device to stage fights; Ryu literally just wanders around Asia getting into fights. Luckily these fights are incredible. The film features high quality animation and the fight scenes are so carefully choreographed that it combines real martial arts styles with the more exaggerated fictitious ones used in the videogame. The result is fight scenes that are brutal and really stunning to watch. Throughout the film there are three fights that stand out in particular: Ryu fighting Fei-Long (a Bruce Lee-like martial artist who makes movies), Chun-Li getting attacked by the sadistic Balrog (right after a gratuitous shower scene), and the final battle of Ryu and Ken fighting Vega. The final battle is so carefully styled and thought out that it makes for one of the best fight scenes in any movie. Some of the other fights are short and feel a bit forced, like the unnecessary battle between a Russian giant named Zangief and a beast man called Blanka, but this was clearly only included to satisfy fans of the characters. As far as fan service goes, this film is really commendable. No matter what character was your favorite in the game, you will see them in action in this film. It’s as if the director, Gisaburo Sugii, placed more value in making a perfect adaptation that he did a film that could stand on its own apart from the franchise. Another aspect of this film that is worth mentioning is that it is a great example of a martial arts film. It includes all the major components of martial arts fiction: The importance of training ones body and mind, the mystical master-student relationship, the bond that comes with training together, and martial arts skills overcoming something that requires no discipline to use (usually guns, but in this case it's Vega's Psycho Power). While this film is by no means a masterpiece, it is a very entertaining martial arts film with some of the most memorable fight scenes out there.