Movie News

SHOWEST: Moriarty covers the new MISSION IMPOSSIBLE trailer, The ShoWest Trade Show, GOAT ON FIRE AND SMILING FISH!!!

Published at: March 7, 2000, 7:20 p.m. CST by staff

Hey folks, Harry here. I want to address the first paragraph of Moriarty's. What was Harry doing in the bathroom to make all that noise? Well... To be honest I was trying to shove a video unit in my belly button and run fibre optics just under my skin and out of my index finger to try to capture the LORD OF THE RINGS footage. Unfortunately I didn't clean my fingernails, so the footage when we got back to the room was unusable. Sorry folks... Meanwhile, Moriarty was throwing back more of his infamous Mountain Dew and Jack Daniel drinks... MONGOSPLITZ.

Hey, everyone...

"Moriarty" here.

After Harry and I threw all those photos and my earlier report online for you guys, we had a little time to kill before the back-to-back films of Monday's indie showcase. I did a quick read of the screenplays for OCEAN'S ELEVEN (the draft that got Soderbergh to sign on to the film) and THE GIFT (Sam Raimi's Southern gothic suspense film) while Harry did something loud and nasty in the bathroom for a little over an hour. I'm sure he's making an animated version of it for the upper left-hand corner of the page right now. Once he finished, he suggested we leave immediately, so we made our way over to the Bally's Grand Ballroom. Last year, that was the main ShoWest site. This year, it's host to the ShoWest Trade Show.

We'll report in more depth on the sights and sounds of the Trade Show tomorrow, since this afternoon was just a preview of the full thing. The forty minutes or so we spent there was more than enough time to find the Paramount booth, where we were given another swag bag. This one had a RULES OF ENGAGEMENT pullover, these super-bitchin' SHAFT police pins, and a groovy MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 mug and coaster set.

The main highlight of the Paramount booth was the amazing new M:I2 trailer that was being shown repeatedly, the same one we'll be hosting this coming Thursday. Let me just warn you guys: if you liked the teaser, you will lose your freakin' minds when you see the new one. It starts pretty much the same, with the shots of Cruise on the mountainside slipping, almost falling, then getting the call on his sunglasses. When he throws them this time, though, and they explode, the theme kicks in with this crazy, hard new arrangement as we get our first look at the characters. There's a few glimpses of Dougray Scott, but not enough to really judge. There's plenty of Thandie Newton, though, and she is absolutely smoking in the new trailer.

Right away, there's a fun adult tone to the whole endeavor. Part of that is due to the smoldering sexuality in those early shots of Newton and Cruise together when he asks her, "Do you know me?" She gives him a wicked look and says, "No... should I?" Most of it, though, is due to the presence of Anthony Hopkins. It looks like director John Woo and screenwriter Robert Towne have given Hopkins all the good lines. He warns Cruise that "somewhere out there is the mother of all nightmares," presumably the virus that the film is centered around. Even more fun, though, are the little flurries of dialogue between Hopkins and Cruise. When Cruise protests using Newton on the mission, saying, "She's got no training for this kind of thing," Hopkins gives him a withering gaze. "What? To go to bed with a man and lie to him? She's a woman," he replies. "She's got all the training she needs." The best is saved for last, when Cruise complains, "I don't think I can do it." Hopkins practically snorts, "You mean it will be difficult? This isn't a mission: difficult, Mr. Hunt. It's a mission: impossible." That's when the whole trailer goes mad monkey kung-fu crazy with shots of wild martial arts fighting, crazy car and motorcycle stunts, and various other wild action scenes. It really looks like the time and money has paid off with something big and beautiful and exhilarating. I pray the film makes good on that promise.

By the time we'd made one quick round of the Trade Show floor, we were ready to go hop on the bus that would take us to the Orleans Hotel, where their Century Theater 12-plex was hosting the indie film showcase. We were the first bus to arrive, and we were very early, so we sat in the theater listening to the soundtracks to MAGNOLIA and MAN ON THE MOON. Just before the film began, a couple of young guys walked in and introduced themselves as Derick and Steve Martini, the stars/co-writers/co-producers of GOAT ON FIRE & SMILING FISH, the film Harry and I were there to see. They were accompanied by Kevin Jordan, the film's director and co-writer. All of them seemed incredibly young, incredibly excited about showing the film, and very open and friendly. I was actually a little reluctant to meet them, though. It's hard to be fair to a film, pro or con, if you have a real human face right there in front of you. As a result, I spoke to them only briefly before going back to my notebook.

As for the film itself, it's a wonderful, sweet little diversion that Stratosphere will be rolling out early this fall. The story of two brothers who are going through key changes in terms of life and love, this is one of those honest little character pictures that doesn't layer on the hip and the arch and the pop cultural self-referential sense of humor. Instead, it paints a real portrait of how hard it is to not only make a connection with someone, but to maintain it. Christa Miller, who appears each week as Kate on THE DREW CARREY SHOW, does a wonderful job as a single mom who meets Tony and falls for him. He's the womanizer of the two brothers, but he's really affected by this woman and her ten-year-old daughter. At the same time, Chris is torn between a relationship he's been floundering in for years and the promise of new romance with Anna, an Italian animal wrangler played by the almost criminally sexy Rosemarie Addeo. As he wrestles with his choices, he is also becoming entangled in a strange and special friendship with Clive, the elderly uncle of his boss. Bill Henderson does wonderful work in the film, serving as a sort of guide, trying to give Chris a road map through the trickier parts of love.

There's a sort of subplot in the film that I was entirely unprepared for involving the separate cinema of the first part of this century, the work of talented black performers and technicians. It turns out Clive met his wife while working with the legendary Paul Robeson. His stories about those days of filmmaking are moving both for what they say about him and about the actual industry. I loved this material for the same reason I loved the use of the Astaire material in THE GREEN MILE. There's a recognition on the part of the filmmakers that film is part of our consciousness, woven into the fabric of our memories. Kevin Jordan has an easy, natural style as a filmmaker, never obtrusive, and the quiet confidence of all those involved makes the film a real joy. When the film opens nationally in the fall, find it and see it. GOAT ON FIRE & SMILING FISH is one of the year's first sleepers to sneak up on me, and I am delighted that it did.

Now, I could spend several paragraphs telling you about why we skipped out on the second movie. I could tell you what OG means in Vegas. I could tell you about lapdances from lovely ladies with names like Ninotchka and Viagra. I could tell you why I didn't get to sleep until after 4:00 in the morning. I've already lost enough time today, though, and there's my New Line piece to write and the Miramax dinner to attend, so I'll just say that Vegas has been great fun so far and move on to the more pressing matters at hand. Until then...

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 7, 2000, 7:33 p.m. CST

    sorry 'bout that...

    by orguss

    ...had to get that whole "first" thing out of my system. all i can say is that i can't wait until thursday for the new MI2 trailer. ALL HAIL JOHN WOO - UNDISPUTED GOD OF ACTION!

  • March 7, 2000, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Your Mission, Should You Choose To Accept It:

    by SpoilerMan

    ...is too ignore MI:2, as it's a piece of shite. Oh yeah, & Tom Cruise is a big-time nancy boy

  • March 7, 2000, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one who thought that the teaser looked like a sung

    by Stephen Dedalus

    I could swear that I had predictions of some big department store chain selling MI2 sunglasses, "Just like the ones in the movie!" How many people here want to bet that soon we'll be seeing offers for $99.99 sunglasses in a TV commercial?

  • March 7, 2000, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Woo Kicks Ass! but can't you edit these posts?

    by solstiss

    A little long winded wasn't it? Anyway, John Woo gives a whole new meaning to kickass and I cannot wait to see this. HaeeyYAAA. Kch. Kch.

  • March 7, 2000, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Goat...

    by All Thumbs

    Now that I know what this movie is about, it sounds like something I would be interested in seeing. Do you guys know of when trailers for the movie may be released so the lil' ol' public can see it?***BTW, I saw a longer trailer for MI2 and it looked pretty cool. I enjoyed the first. If this one is an improvement on it, it will surely kick ass.

  • March 7, 2000, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Buy stock in Ray Ban

    by L'Auteur

    or whatever company made those glasses. The trailer was in fact a commerical for sunglasses. Look at RISKY BUSINESS, TOP GUN, RAIN MAN, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE....Crusie is to sunglasses what Jordan is to shoes. Oh yeah, Woo films are boring. Turn off the volume and notice how little happens.

  • March 7, 2000, 8:42 p.m. CST

    MI:2

    by Everett Robert

    it's written by Robert Towne, a man responsible for some awesome movies, it's directed by John Woo, nuff said, it's got some great actors in it...I'm there, opening day...thanks ya'll for the great Showest coverage, it just makes me wish I could be there all the more

  • March 7, 2000, 8:59 p.m. CST

    John Woo is all wrong for a true spy movie, BUT...

    by Fitzy Funk

    This is personally my most anticipated flick of the year. Woo has been on a steady, fast track toward improving his filmmaking in the States (from the subpar Hard Target to the mediocre Broken Arrow to the very entertaining Face/Off), and to me, this very well could be his American peak. Why? A few reasons: 1) Woo is getting on towards 60, and...to paraphrase every lame action movie, getting too old for this sh*t, 2) Tom Cruise. Say what you will about this guy, but he is coming off a phenomenal '99 with Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut, and he has learned the importance of working with masterful directors (check out his filmography over the past 4 years), 3) Anthony Hopkins. Needs a comeback. All in all, I just hope this movie turns out to be the kickass, take-no-prisoners, bang-your-head-against-a-wall action movie that the U.S. hasn't had in so long (if ever). And the theme being adapted by Metallica? Sure as hell don't hurt. Say what you will about X-Men, I think this is the blockbuster to beat this summer.

  • ...MOST of the trailers for John Woo's American films have looked great, and every damn one has disappointed me when I see 'em. Also, I'm worried that Woo might make it *too* actiony. One of the coolest things about the first "Mission Impossible" flick was the it was plot-heavy with only a few action set-pieces, but it wasn't balls-to-the-wall action; I think there were maybe two or three shots fired in the whole movie, and not one single shootout. Very refreshing, even though the movie wasn't perfect. I just hope Woo doesn't compromise the espionage stuff for guns a'blazin'.

  • March 7, 2000, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Woo's old

    by L'Auteur

    Whoever said that Woo was "to paraphrase every lame action movie, 'getting too old for this shit'" was right on. The future of action movies lies in the styles of David Fincher, the FX team behind THE MATRIX, the guy who wrote directed and scored RUN LOLA RUN, and other such innovatorers. Even David O Russell makes better action films (Three Kings kicks any Woo film's ass) than Woo. Woo was cool for like a week, because he came at a time when action movies had gotten really bad (early-mid 90s), but now, we realize he's just a bad Peckinpah rip-off (gee, slo-mo is cool...especially when theres debris...debris in slo-mo is cool...huh huh huh). Ill see it, but only because itll be entertaining as hell. I thought FACE/OFF was entertaining as hell the first time, too. The next time, on DVD at my friends house, i almost fell asleep (the high volume prevented it). Woo films are just so cheesy and over-staged, that after the novelty of the first trip, its just boring. Boring. Face/Off is boring. Bullets, explosions, sell-out actors mugging their way thru the 20 mil club, and more bullets. Gee, stylizing violence is sure original. Cmon, it doesnt take a genius to give an actor two guns and tell the cameraman to shoot at 64 fps. Boooooooring. Tom Crusie is cool, though. I hope after his big-budget fix (Spielberg and Woo), he goes back to what makes him cool...guys like PTA and Kubrick. MI:2? Great opening weekend...dairy product shelf-life.

  • March 7, 2000, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Drool.. MI2. L'Auteur - Cram it with walnuts, ugly.

    by Wesley Snipes

    Aw man, ET played the trailer and I missed it?? Damn! Oh well, Thursday will be upon us soon, and we will all be able to see it then. And to L'Auteur: What the hell is wrong with you? Every Woo-related talkback you're here bashing him with your shallow, unsupported "criticism". Since it's clear you're here just to put him down, do you care to at least reveal the true reason for the hate-on? Did he fire you for being too slow with the coffee? Or do you just want attention?

  • March 7, 2000, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Wesley Snipes is a terrible actor, but he was cool in White Men

    by L'Auteur

    Umm, both, actually. I got fired from the set of MI:2 for being too slow with the coffee AND i want attention. I dont feel the need to support my half-assed opinion of John Woo. His films are nothing more than slo-mo, double-barrelled action. Granted, that kind of shit is fun, but its bubble-gum. How long can you chew it? Movies like Broken Arrow are why DIVX seemed like a good idea to some....watch it once, throw it away. Now, since you feel so fluffy about Woo's rep, why dont YOU explain to ME whats happening in a film like Face/Off other than cartoonish antics.

  • March 7, 2000, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Woo's old? Bloody hell, you're a moron.

    by Wesley Snipes

    The FX guys of the Matrix are a 'film style'? The fuck? What did the Matrix fx team add to the visual effects canon except a clever play on a trick already seen in Wing Commander, Lost in Space and a million f'n' commercials? And Woo is too old? Hey, what's that action movie everybody was raving about last week as the second coming of action divinity? Oh yeah, it was 'Gladiator' directed by 50-year-old-plus Ridley Scott! Hey, who's that late middle-aged director cranking out all-time classic action films and continuously demonstrating impeccable action technique? Well, I do believe his name is James Cameron! Saving Private Ryan. Some of the most intense action scenes ever. Director: 50-year-old-plus Steven Spielberg. So now you're trying to tell me Woo is "too old"? Maybe you're just too stupid. Need more proof of the timeliness of Woo's technique? Did you ever notice that every second young buck director rips from Woo for gun-battle action scenes? Rodriguez, Wachowski Bros, Simon West, even Michael freaking Bay (Bad Boys), Antoine Fuqua (wow, and these 3 guys are from the new school you seem to think are so groundbreaking), etc. So what's going on here? What do all these young and successful directors see in Woo that you do not? Or perhaps you do see what they see, but you're too busy making an ass of yourself to admit it.

  • March 7, 2000, 10:50 p.m. CST

    John Woo boring? You gotta be kidding.

    by VadoX

    Personally, I think John Woo is one of the best action directors ever. Although slow-motion stunts and beautifully choreographed gunfight sequences became his trademark style, there is much more to his films than just slow-mo bullet ballet, although if not for Woo's influence, you would never have movies like Desperado, The Matrix, and even Reservoir Dogs (just look at the Mexican stand-off scene). The plotlines of his movies may be a bit shallow, but they're always entertaining, emotionally engaging, and the character chemistry is always very well done. However, 'boring' is the last word I would use to describe his films. Come on, have you even seen A Better Tomorrow (I and II), The Killer, Hard Boiled, etc? If you think these movies are boring, maybe the only way to get you excited is to throw you out of the plane without a parachute!

  • March 7, 2000, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Hey, Mr. Woo Basher

    by Millhouse

    I know everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. Buy yours are just so ridiculous that you really should just keep them to yourself. I notice you keep mentioning Broken Arrow and Face/Off as examples of Woo's work, but you seem to be completely ignoring his Hong Kong films. Did you not know he had made films before Broken Arrow and Face/Off? You should do your research. Bullet in the Head, one of Woo's Hong Kong films is a excellent. Incredible acting, a gripping story that's actually ABOUT something and ofcourse intense action. A Better Tommorow I and II. Are two of Woo's best. But I bet you haven't scene them. And ofcourse there's The Killer. Woo is one of the best, if not THE best action director alive today. A lot of the best directors of action have come from Hong Kong. And one more thing, Three Kings was a great film, but don't ever say some stupid shit like it's better then anything Woo's ever done. Because it's just not true.

  • March 7, 2000, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Hey Peoples!

    by MaxFisher

    hi everyone, this is my 1st posting and ive been visiting AICN daily for like 6 months now so i figured id let my feelings out about stuff. And, yes, Rushmore is one of my favorite movies (user ID) as well as buffalo '66, fight club, and of course, american beauty. dont really got any opinions about M:I2 yet since I havent seen the teaser yet but i know Woo will do a kick ass job.

  • Admittedly, I probably only saw about four or five of Woo's Hong Kong flicks, but only "The Killer" and "Hardboiled" stood out. Notably, they stood out in a BIG WAY. The are the ultimate in macho gunplay, and make Woo's American flicks seem watered down by comparison. Been a few years since last I watched the Hong Kong stuff, but as I recall, it wasn't *all* slow motion. In fact, I remember some insanely fast-paced shoot outs that really got the adrenaline pumping like no movie since "Aliens". They were hyper-violent, yet almost realistic in that they conveyed the real nervous energy that I suspect goes on in, say, a police shoot-out. Great double gun action too, long before it had become a cliche, and of course, his flicks had that insanely overblown, somehow poignant melodrama working for them. His American flicks, sadly, give me no adrenaline rush. It's like he's trying to do "American" style action scenes...like he's been influenced too much by Michael Bay. Maybe other action directors can maintain their cajones as they age, but I'm getting the feeling Woo isn't one of them. Still hoping that "MI2" might prove me wrong, but the odds are against it. L'Auteur, your examples the best of the new crop of action directors was right on.

  • March 7, 2000, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Way to go Wesley Snipes! I

    by The Black Adder

    L

  • March 7, 2000, 11:29 p.m. CST

    ...the Secretary will dissavow any knowledge of this movie...

    by danhelm

    This movie will bomb in five seconds...by the way, I notice that every other TalkBacker is talking about how they're first time posters, long time read<BOOM>.......

  • March 7, 2000, 11:36 p.m. CST

    re: them two jackasses who talk shit ta me

    by L'Auteur

    Wesley, just because I dig David Fincher, never again lump him with the rest of the Propoganda pack so you can say that I support Michael Bay and Simon West. They are possibly the two worst directors on the A (B+, maybe) List...but it be a good run between them and Jan De Bont. As far as the best action director...youre right, its Steven Spielberg. But were talking Spielberg here...hes an exception. Action movies by the other old guys, Lucas (main one), Frankhiemer, Woo, McTieran (sp), Harlin, Scott/Bruckhiemer....they bore me now. I need the boundless camera of Matrix and Fight Club. I need the pulse of Run Lola Run. I need the frenzy of Three Kings. 1999 has upped the ante for action. Old tired action movies are so fucking boring. Only the best from the elders will strive (Spielberg, probably Cameron, maybe Ridley S, not Tony). Speaking of SS, Saving Private Ryan was a brilliant example of an action film theory that i was dying to see someone try...the idea of shooting not for the cut, like every other action director, but shooting long takes. When the camera is allowed to back up and encompass all the action....its fucking breathtaking. SPR rocked as an action film...war film OK...best pic no way. But on the polar end is Fight Club, a film shot into you. I saw it 8 times and i tried for 9. After Fight Club, action movies just had the volume turned down. Theyre booooring. So Snipes, tell me, what DO these young directors see in Woo? You tell me, i plead ignorant on the subject. Millhouse? So then, what your saying confirms the rumors I've heard...that Woo was doing better in Hong Kong but he opted for the Hollywood bucks and started shoveling shit? Well, Ive seen Hard Boiled. I hafta say, theres only so many camera angles...only so minutes...that a gunfight can be entertaining that I have to yell at the screen CUT! Man, how long do they last? Some individual shots and moves are cool...but so many are just OK...so it gets boring. And the cotton in the baby ears ending...only at Bard can you get a packed theater to ALL laugh hard at that scene! Whew! It sure was funny. We laughed pretty hard at the Matrix too. Anyway, i just dont see why his movies are so great. Instead of calling me names, can anyone answer my original question? Why should Woo be considered anything more than a guy who discovered that Americans love gunfight scenes so much, theyll treat a guy who shoots them elegently (slo-mo, classy music) as an artist? Ohhh, poopy...im tired of writing...i hope i got all my points out cuz im beat

  • March 8, 2000, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Isn't it funny...

    by JiminyCricket

    ... how Harry is pushing this movie so strenuously at ShoWest? He could have, and probably did, see it while aboard the Floating Freebie Festival. But then his benefactor `The Dude'' needs help pushing it at ShoWest, and AICN is the best place for bloated sellouts to sell things, right? Just asking.

  • March 8, 2000, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Isn't it funny...

    by JiminyCricket

    ... how Harry is pushing Goat On Fire And Smiling Fish so strenuously at ShoWest? He could have, and probably did, see it while aboard the Floating Freebie Festival. But then his benefactor `The Dude'' needs help pushing it at ShoWest, and AICN is the best place for bloated sellouts to sell things, right? Just asking.

  • March 8, 2000, 12:30 a.m. CST

    L'Auter

    by Everett Robert

    I know that y ou're not someone with whom to get in a fight with...lord knows you'd kick my ass every which way but loose...but I find it disheartning that you have to look at the new cinema and the action paced of directors like fincher, Waschowskis, etc...while dogging guys like Frankenhimer, Lucas, Woo, etc...I'm not saying that Lucas or Woo are masters of the action genre...for my money I'd agree with many on this site and say that the best of the action directors right now are SS, Ridley Scott, Besson, and Roderiguz...but we shouldn't discount the elders of the action genre like Frankenhimer...I went and saw Reindeer games...and yes it was tripe, but it was fun tripe and that's all that really mattered to me...you see because despite all the cheezy dialoge and overacting (a pet peeve of mine me being an actor and all) I found RG to have a certain realness to it...that despite everything wrong with the movie it leaped out at me...same with Frankenhimers last one, Ronin...it felt real to me despite all that was wrong with that movie. I guess the point I'm getting at here L'Auter is that it sounds like to me that today's action flicks are like a drug...you start out with a beer, like a Frankenhimer or a Freidken...move on to whisky, i.e. Woo, Besson, Rodriguez...you have Marijuna, like T. Scott or Bay or West, then it's on to Crack, the Waschokis, the Run Lola Run dude, then it's on to ether, Fincher....and there's nothing wrong with any of these styles....ti's just that different people have different tastes...me I like a cold beer...maybe a shot of whiskey...but when ou get right down to it, nothing beats a good old ass kicking which is what Cameron or SS, or Scott(R) give you...but each of these directors, a directior like Spielberg or both Scotts, or Rodruguez or any of the others up there all owe debts to someone like Friedkin or Frankenhimer or Peckinpah...guys who proved that they will still get you wasted...it just might take a while...you see when you rule out the oldies...when you say that the old style action just doesn't do it for you...what you are saying, at least what I'm preciving, is that you can't get enough of that shutterspeed, quick camera, etc, style that has define movieds like Lola and the Matrix...but what happens when someone else comes along that introduces something new, something better, something wilder...something outragous...you'll be saying that these guys...the guys you are praising now...are nothing, washups...you will always feel the need to have something more exciting...something bigger and badder....but you should just be content with beer, whiskey and an asskicking...truthfully, do you think in 30 years we'll hold the Washockis or hell Rodriguez, or Besson, etc up like we do to greats like Frankenhimer, like Peckenpiah...I don't think so...--god is this going anywhere...I don't think so...I'm tired, it's past midnight here...I'm trying to think coherantly and it's not working...I don't even know fully what I'm trying to say...something about not trashing the old guys because they've still got kick to them, they've still got a punch and a sizzle...and to me at least, in as much as i enjoyed movies like The Matrix, Lola, and Fight Club...to me that don't have that same "something" the same class, the same greatness that something like the Manucherian Canidate or The Wild Bunch have...hey this is just my disjointed wildly written, no clue exactly what I'm talking about opinion...sorry about the grammer and spelling mistakes...I'm tired and old and cranky...flame on

  • March 8, 2000, 12:56 a.m. CST

    To answer your question, L'Auteur...

    by Mister Six

    ...which was "Why should Woo be considered anything more than a guy who discovered that Americans love gunfight scenes so much, theyll treat a guy who shoots them elegently (slo-mo, classy music) as an artist?" Okay, here goes: 1) This is a loaded question. This is like asking "Why should The Matrix be considered anything more than a live-action rip-off of AEON FLUX?" (Calm down, everyone else, until you see my point--I LIKED the movie.) This puts every one on the defensive. 2) You're making Woo off to be someone who wants to cash in on what's popular at the moment to America--when did he become this guy? Before he moved here? That doesn't make any sense, since at that time very few HK films even made it to America. After he moved here? Well, then, how does that account for his HK work, which has all the same aspects and touches? 3) As if Speilberg and Cameron have never sold out to the masses. 4) As for what makes him special, all you need do is look at his imitators and you'll see--Woo CARES about his characters, and he tries (harder than most directors) to get the audience to care about them, too. 5) Reality check, here: He came to America mainly because of the HK government switchover--not, as you suggest, expressing some deep desire to start "shoveling shit." Yeah, and Fritz Lang just came here for the food. 6) You rhapsodise about long shots that show us the entire battlefield--and never acknowledge that Woo does this as well: The village attack in Bullet In The Head, the warehouse scene in Hardboiled, etc. You insult the slo-mo, but never consider that there's a point behind it--and that there may be a different point every time it's used. You can't tell me that The Matrix or Saving Private Ryan doesn't use slo-mo just as much. 7) Since when is Fight Club an action movie? 8)"Tom Crusie is cool, though." I have no comeback for that--FAR AND AWAY-*cough-cough*. 9) Give Woo some credit for doing something right, seeing as near all of the directors you mentioned have owed a little bit to Woo. The man has paid his dues, here--let's see Steven Speilberg spend his childhood homeless and live to be a Hollywood director, for Christ's sake. Mark my words, L'Auteur, the films you like now--they'll bore you, too, eventually. You'll be on this site in less than a year ranting about how much The Matrix sucked and Spielberg's nothing more than some hack pushing 60. C'mon, man, you HAD to expect a certain amount of flak posting that in the first place. Can you honestly be suprised that it got personal (and doesn't that in itself prove Woo's validity as a filmmaker)? Did you actually think that we'd all read your post, sit back and say "Only, now, in this late hour do I realize the folly of Woo. What did I ever see in the guy?" "Why should Woo be considered anything more than a guy who discovered that Americans love gunfight scenes so much, theyll treat a guy who shoots them elegently (slo-mo, classy music) as an artist?" Because I fucking say so. Jerk-off.

  • March 8, 2000, 1 a.m. CST

    Matrix, Woo, and the influence of HK cinema

    by VadoX

    L'Auteur - let's face it, Matrix was great as a seemingly fresh and innovative sci-fi/action film, but stylistically it owes a LOT to John Woo and Hong Kong action movies in general. Okay, so the 360-degree bullet time effects were something new, but just take a look at all the main action sequencs in the Matrix - what you'll see is the same slow-motion, bullets/debris flying everywhere, dance-like martial arts/wirework and fight sequences, 2 guns in each hand/mexican stand-offs ("You're empty" "So are you"), etc. - in other words - the exact same elements John Woo utilizes in his own movies, and believe it or not, Woo basically INVENTED them long before the Americans even knew about anything like it. Hong Kong movies have had slow-mo shots of bullets flying out of the gun barrels for years now, even without any digital effects. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love the Matrix, as well Run Lola Run and films from all other directors you've mentioned, but the point I'm trying to make is that movies like the Matrix or even Fight Club would not be the same without the influence of action filmmakers like Woo.

  • March 8, 2000, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Umm...

    by Mister Six

    Sorry about the "Jerk-off" thing.

  • March 8, 2000, 1:53 a.m. CST

    It is suuuch a given to fantasize about Tom Cruise...

    by lickerish

    but with the long hair and when when he beends dowwwn....pecks like a fucking chickehn on the reporters head in Magnolia....and does his little iron man back flip...ohhhh...goddamn you...WHAT is in those jockeys!!!! (buffalo66) "its just so....big!"

  • March 8, 2000, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Lets not bicker and argue over who killed who.

    by Astro Pud

    Be sure to include tranquilizers to ease the strain and monotony of life in a fallout shelter. A bottle of 100 should be sufficient for a family of four. Tranquilizers are not a narcotic, and are not habit-forming.

  • March 8, 2000, 2:41 a.m. CST

    ahh trailer M:I-2 WANT! NEED! NOW! SOON!

    by thingie

    Drewl. I need trailer. Need trailer soon. The hunger.. the hunger..

  • March 8, 2000, 3:48 a.m. CST

    M:I - 2

    by Chiz

    I agree with buddy that said that the original M:I was what it was because of the heavy plot. I hope to god that they don't dumb down the sequel because of all the people that wined about the first one's "complexity". Woo might make the movie a shoot 'em up and I will forever hate him if he does. I will see the film nonetheless and , while I will probably enjoy it, I hope it will be for the story.

  • March 8, 2000, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Cormorant

    by Monster Rain

    If your looking to reinvigorate your love of Woo, rent "A Better Tomorrow" and "Bullet in the Head". These two films really showcase Woo's mastery, not only of action scenes but story and themes as well. As for his American work, I agree that some of it has been watered down, but Face/Off is the most reminiscent his HK work. Great double-gun action, lots of slo-mo, and a great honor/revenge plot. Anyway...hope you get to see the films I mentioned (unless you have already).

  • March 8, 2000, 9:25 a.m. CST

    L'Auteur - Woo's 'goodness' etc

    by Wesley Snipes

    What can I say about Woo that hasn't already been said? An action director that truly spends as much effort (given the chance and clout) on developing characters and dramatic tension through their interaction as he does on the pyrotechnics. And what marvellously-filmed pyrotechnics! They manage to hit all the right 'excitement notes', yet they also manage something else... They're BEAUTIFUL. A lot of action directors can claim to do exciting work, but how many of those action scenes also create a sense of awe and beauty? The final combined effect is to create something GLORIOUS. The slow-mo, the smart editing, the brilliant shots, the cool perfectly-posed protagonists - All of it combines to create a wondrous spectacle that rises above mere action technique. It's art. Now you can say Woo is boring and claim no one has been able to prove different to you. So what? I can say Ashley Judd is a nasty skank and not one of her million sensible gentleman admirers (hehe) will be able to prove different to me. Because it's called taste and in your case there's definitely no accounting for it! So stop asking me to prove why your taste is wrong and try to explain why your taste is justified. Technique-wise, you talk about pulling the camera back to see the action. Hey what do you know, Woo does that AND he manages to use editing. You go on to criticize the 'shoot for the edit' technique yet you think Fincher is the best of the new action breed? What the..? His action scenes are the epitome of shoot for the edit. Shoot for the edit combined with shaky cam and close-ups, at that. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Fight Club, but when it comes to shooting action his sensibilities are not much different from Michael Bay (whose freaking motto is shoot-for-the-edit!). Finally, what do the young buck directors see in Woo? Did you truly fail to see such an obvious point, or were you looking for shit to say? The point is that these young guys are copying Woo for their action scenes and there's a good reason for it. After all, you don't copy something and use it in your movies if it's BORING or shitty, do you? No, they think it's exciting, awesome, cool, whatever - Bottomline is that all these people, these filmmaking PEERs, like Woo's work and like it enough that they'd even try to emulate him. I don't know about you, but I think that's greatest endorsement one can receive.

  • March 8, 2000, 11:40 a.m. CST

    My $.02 of responses...

    by Fitzy Funk

    1) First and foremost, anyone here who is complaining that any action SCENE that goes on TOO long is boring is not an action fan, in my opinion. The longer an action sequence can be sustained (with at least some continuity, variety of action, and suspension of disbelief), the better, methinks. 2) Woo's best films (The Killer, Bullet in the Head) have always succeeded when it came to my emotional responses. Don't ask me how, or why, but I get caught up in The Killer every time I watch it and find myself on the verge of tears for the main characters. Melodrama? Perhaps...but he pulls it off. The plots of his best films are also more than serviceable. 3) You'd be hard pressed to make an argument for Fight Club as an action film. Same for Three Kings, only to a lesser extent..4) Since when does Ridley Scott primarily make action films? Gladiator excluded, has he made one? 5) The Matrix sucks balls. Sorry, just had to add that..

  • March 8, 2000, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Thanks to Mister Six, Wesley Snipes and Millhouse

    by jclin524

    I'll make this short and simple, and I just want to thank to those who defended John Woo on this board and for your support of HK films and directors. For someone like me who grew up watching Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Chow and Woo, it is exciting to see them doing well in Hollywood. I just wish people would quit putting down HK films, actors and directors, they are not made for you Americans, but are part of Chinese culture, for those of you who do enjoy HK films, I applaud you because you get what makes us (as in chinese) laugh and what makes us cry, you have an understanding of us and accept who we are, unlike L'Auteur who put down things that he doesn't understand or enjoy. BTW John Woo's current films are made for Americans, I'm sure many of you was in awe when the slow-mo was incorporated into films, and now you criticize it. Mr. Woo may enjoy earning bigger bucks, but he's making films for Americans, so quit whining, and quit compare it to his earlier HK films because they target at different audiences. Thanks for reading.

  • March 8, 2000, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Comparing US Woo to HK Woo

    by Monster Rain

    I think any corellation between Woo's US work to his HK work could only be a favorable one, as his work in HK was beautiful, brutal and brilliant. I agree with the previous poster to a point. I don't feel that Woo's films are now targeted strictly for a different audience. The unrated director's cut of "Hard Target" bears many Woo trademarks. And Face/Off contains many of the earmarks of his HK stuff. Look at the shootout in the church w/doves. Definitely inspired by "The Killer"! Which is great! Maybe someone who hadn't seen "The Killer" would be motivated to, based on that scene. Anything that opens the doors more. While I'm so happy that the HK greats are getting work over here, I hope that audiences still seek out their original films. As good as "Romeo Must Die" may turn out to be, it'll never match "Fist of Legend" or "Once Upon A Time in China" in my book. Lastly, I think that anyone unfamiliar with Woo should rent any HK film he did after 1986 and see where hacks like Antione Fuqua stole their stuff. Thanks for listening.

  • March 8, 2000, 12:09 p.m. CST

    One more thing...

    by Monster Rain

    I just realized that what I wrote may give the impression that I think "Romeo" is a Woo film. I know it's Jet Li.

  • March 8, 2000, 12:58 p.m. CST

    old people are funny

    by L'Auteur

    Oh boy. Here goes: I admit, Ive only seen 3 Woo films (Hard-Boiled, Broken Arrow, Face/Off). I was told by many that HB was his best HK film and Face/Off was his best US film. Well, the gunfight scenes in HB go on forever and Ive now realized that my main beef with Face/Off (not to let Woo and the screenwriter completely off the hook, though) is the two leads. I detest Cage and Travolta. No two stars have sold out more. I look at Face/Off as the ultimate in Hollywood selling out. A respected foriegn director, a man who just made the comeback of the century in a $9 mil Miramax film, and a guy who just won an Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas....all joined forces to produce this steaming pile of frogshit. The so-called drama and character that all of you rave about...I sure hope it was in The Killer (which I still need to see), because all I saw in Face/Off was fucking soap opera writing and cartoon acting. Thats Woo to me. Spielberg? He got the long-take action thang down in SPR...dont tell me that anything in a Woo film, even the ones I havent seen, feels as real as SPR. Thats what Im talking here: reality. Thats why SPR was so exciting...i felt like i was there. I highly doubt Woo has the same documentary style in The Killer, but Ill check it out anyway. Other old guys? Lucas is done (go back to signing checks you fucking producer). Frankhiemer made a cool 70s-style action flick with Ronin, but it was still fluff. DeBont, T Scott, Schumacher, Harlin? Dont make me laugh. Young guys like Fincher? I called Fight Club an action film because it had violence and was more exciting than any movie ive seen in years. It was quick fast and brutal...what else do you want in an action flick? Political messages? Sure! Now, THE MATRIX...I love the FX...thought they were what new movies would look like, but i do NOT praise the Wachoskis. Ive seen Bound and its just like The Matrix...terrible dialouge, terrible acting. In other words, the polar opposite of a PTA film (which are so exciting to me, i could call Boogie Nights an action film). So thats why I said the FX team behind Matrix, not the Wachoskis. Anyway, action movies are tired. That was my main point that i never got to. With the recent downfall of all cinematic rules (Being JM, Run Lola, Three Kings, FC), i simply look at these old 1-2-3 style Hollywood formula action flix as BOOORING. Theyre predicatble and nothing new ever happens. How many bullets, how many car explosions, how many chases can you see until you can say, "OK show me something new!" Im tired of it. I need metaphysical ideas with a techo-beat driving it into you with hyper-editing a la FC. Note: hyper-editing is cool. Its like the subliminal Tyler Durdens or the Bum's traveloge in RLR or all of NBK. Its not simply cutting every second like Bay. Thats lazy and booooring. Hyper-editing needs a purpose...to introduce an hidden idea (FC), to keep things clickin' (RLR) or to show us things weve never seen (the 360 shots in Matrix). Thats editing too. It looks like a shot, but its actually just a series of shots. I like it both ways. I like long-takes when theyre done right (SPR) and i like hyper-editing like Finch, not like Bay. And yes, it is a drug. To the guy who implied that I shouldnt get addicted to crack (or ether, wasnt it?), i will simply say that if this were 1971, The French Connection would be the most exciting celloloid you ever saw. Now its still great (huh huh that car chase), but its had "its volume turned down". Star Wars upped the ante in 77. It keeps happening. Thats the price we pay for our high-tech lives: desensitization (is that a word?). Well, boys and girls, I have been officially desensitized to tired old action flicks like the ones Bruckhiemer and Woo keep shoveling out. Verhoeven's style is kinda tired too, but his politics is what keeps me coming back for more (Hollow Man...#1 in 2000). Other than Spielberg and PV, the only action flicks that can excite me are the young ones. The guard has been changed. Ha Ha, you old farts!

  • The problem is, I agree with points made from both sides! Fincher is my all-time favorite director next to Hitchcock and Spielberg, and the director whose movies I enjoy the most upon multiple viewings. He's one of the only directors who I believe is taking cinema in a new direction. Loved Matrix, adored Three Kings, loved parts of Magnolia...but Woo. You see, I am also a big time Woo fan. I admit he tends to drag things out rather long, but it is a trait he has been minimizing with each successive picture. I admit he's derivative of Peckinpah and others, but he is beautifully derivative. I like the older directors mentioned, I thought RONIN was one of the best action movies of the decade...but I also think my tastes run toward the younger crop of directors such as Russell and Fincher and K. Smith and PT Anderson and Jonze and the Wachowskis...CONFLICTED! All right, I've got it. I like good movies. There. That's it. Some movies by good directors suck, and some movies by bad directors rule. I don't know how it happens, but when these anomolies get stuck in peoples heads, then maybe that is how intelligent people (such as I believe l'Auteur to be) are led astray from those they should respect. Or maybe I'm wrong. Wait, scratch that. I'm never wrong.

  • March 8, 2000, 2:19 p.m. CST

    How M:I2 needed to open

    by captaininvisible

    This is basically an ass-saving technique they needed to just throw in there. Because the stars of the television show were so offended (and rightly so) by the filmmakers deciding to make Mr. Phelps into the bad guy, what they should do to save face, and their asses (and pay some respect to the show, for god's sake!), is play it off somehow that every time a new boss comes in, they are named Mr. Jim Phelps, so that the guy from the last movie was NOT the same guy played by Peter Graves in the TV show, he just happened to be some bad seed. They could've easily done this by having Ethan Hunt (or Hopkins' character but it would've worked better with Hunt) take over the job (as it looked like from the end of the first movie), and them going through the process of him becoming Mr. Phelps. It might totally contradict the end of the last movie, but they could've started this one with a black screen, voice over of "Good Morning, Mr. Phelps...", then fade in to Tom Cruise (again, or Hopkins) listening to the tape. Or maybe I'm just a naked moron.

  • March 8, 2000, 3:33 p.m. CST

    I have good hopes for Goat on Fire & Smiling Fish

    by Vegas

    I posted a question regarding this movie on an earlier talk back, and they e-mailed me back themselves. What a great bunch of people! They seem to be just like us, movie geeks who have something they think would make a good movie, except they made it! I say good luck to them.

  • March 8, 2000, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Once more into the fray...

    by Wesley Snipes

    L'Auteur, levelling the "not realistic" charge at Woo is like dismissing Saving Private Ryan because it's not funny enough. You're missing the point! Woo is trying to create something beautiful. A visually-stunning, gorgeous spectacle meant to awe you. In that case, the slow-mo, perfectly composed shots and what not work perfectly. In SPR, the action is meant to batter and shake you. The shakey cam, noise, etc also work perfectly for the task. Both leave you moved, but in different ways. The latter is like riding the scariest rollercoaster ever made. You're left shaken at the intensity. The former is like watching the largest, most extravagant fireworks show you've ever seen. You're left in open-mouthed amazement at the wondrous spectacle. So not every action movie has to get its rocks off in the same way. Neither approach (and they're the not only ones mind you) is easy to get right. Some ppl hate rollercoasters, some ppl hate firworks though IMHO, most people like both kinds - It's all eye-candy. I just hope you're dismissing Woo and other 'traditional' directors because you truly find them boring and not because you feel forced to blast them to remain true to your "realism makes an action movie good" philosophy. All these differring techniques - slow-mo, shakey cam, long takes, short takes, bullet time, etc - they're just tools. It's dumb to dismiss a filmmaker simply because he doesn't make heavy use of one tool or the other. It's how it's all put together that matters. And I'd wager that Woo's razor-sharp editing and pacing, gorgeous images, and heavy emphasis on character and story put him near the top of the action heap in many people's minds. I can't help but feel that your messages are more to incite than to reveal what you really feel, but that's AICN for ya. I guess we should follow the Popeye example: We likes what we likes. (BTW, I'd bet dollars to donuts that Spielberg will employ his "old" filmming approach for his next film - Because it works!).

  • March 8, 2000, 4:34 p.m. CST

    MI:2 script

    by asher

    Hi everyone. I have two questions for all of you. First, does anyone know where I could get a copy of the new MI:2 script? And second, when is this movie coming out anyway? I haven't seen anything about a release date.

  • March 8, 2000, 5:19 p.m. CST

    HARRY JUST LICKED HIS SNOT! OH MY FUCKING GOD!

    by L'Auteur

  • March 8, 2000, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Release date

    by CKent

    MI2 comes out on May 24.

  • March 8, 2000, 5:24 p.m. CST

    I can answer the second question

    by jclin524

    may 24, 2000...at least if without delay it would come out around memorial weekend.

  • March 8, 2000, 5:33 p.m. CST

    HARRY JUST LICKED HIS SNOT! OH MY FUCKING GOD!

    by L'Auteur

    oops, didnt mean to post so soon. sorry, but i was laughing pretty hard. thanks harry. anyway, wesley snipes? please stop talking about SPR. i brought it up on a tangent because its another kind of action style i like, not because i wanted to start a compare-and-contrast Spielberg vs Woo discussion. im sorry if you got that impression. BUT for the sake of momentum, i will say that your wrong about Spielberg going back to his old style. He still using the same one. From JAWS to SPR, he's always shot action scenes from a distance. Granted, SPR was the extreme, but he's always thrived by being, as one critc said, efficient and elegent. He doesnt add shots just to make a cut, just to see another angle...at least not much. His camera movements and framing defy the need to cut as often as other directors. Thats why his action films are so freakin perfect. But it has nothing to do with hyper-editing. And it has nothing to do with Woo. Woo strikes me as a guy with a gun fetish who fancys himself as a cross between Shakespeare, Peckinpah, and Chow-Yun Fat (his alter ego). He's far better than DeBont, T Scott, or the West Bay evil twins, Ill give you that. Ill see MI2 and might even like it, but it wont be great. Thats all Im saying...guns and tough guy action only thrill me so long...then i need more. And I dont accept any of these broad vague reasonings: great character, real drama, razor-sharp cutting...blah blah blah. If you like it, fine, but dont bullshit to justify it. Just admit its trash. I like trash. James Bond. I worship the series. I am such a Bond freak. But thats as trashy as i usually get. I love the movie Tremors. But they aint art. You guys talk about Woo like he IS Shakespeare meets Peckipah...he aint. Thats why i like to play instigator. I need to. Because still no one has given me a detailed reasoning for calling Woo an artist...and we need not define art in the process...just explain why Woo is great without sounding like your plagerizing someone else's post.

  • March 8, 2000, 5:51 p.m. CST

    ET preview of trailer

    by CKent

    The ET preview of the trailer can be viewed at: http://cinemenium.com/missionimpossible2/

  • March 8, 2000, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Care factor?

    by lame

    Zero, but the sunnies TC is wearing are Oakleys. Satellite linked, brainwave harmonising, 82 channel, picture in picture, self-destructing sunglasses, ok, but still oakleys.

  • March 8, 2000, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one who found the first MI somewhat lacking?

    by Niiiice

    The first movie didn't really excite me much, and it bugged me that they took someone else's creation, killed them off completely, and made one of the central heroes a villain. But I guess tearing down a building is a hell of a lot eaiser than building one up, right?

  • March 8, 2000, 9:01 p.m. CST

    L'Auteur

    by Unnatural

    Dude! Calm down with the acronyms! I can't even read your novels when you have (XYZ) in them (PDQ). OK? Jeez.

  • March 8, 2000, 9:32 p.m. CST

    ehh.. what?

    by Wesley Snipes

    L'Auteur, I said his visuals come together like art.. they're beautiful. I suppose that is art in a sense, but not once did I allude that these films are great literary works to be studied and compared to those of Shakespeare. Hell, I think you're the only one here who ever even talked about Woo's flicks in such a manner! And you ask me to define art?! I'm convinced you're either a complete moron or just playing devil's advocate now. What a simple question, why don't I figure out the meaning of life while I'm at? Geez. You're right, the films Woo has made in the US so far are basically escapist entertainment. Yet no one was arguing that! (Though if you want art, watch the Killer and especially Bullet in the Head and just try to tell me the point of that one is to be escapist trash. You really shouldn't make generalizations about a filmmaker when you've seen such a tiny number of his films). But for you to dismiss him as only interested in guns & macho attitude is BS. You say that we're being vague when we say he's interested in character. Uh, how else are we going to say it? Look how much time he spends on character interaction/development in Face/Off. The stories of him working with the writers to buff up these elements are well-documented. It's plain for everyone to see, and many critics have remarked upon it. What else can one say? I don't think we're being vague, you just refuse to listen. And if anything, you're being extremely vague when you say the future film style is "the Matrix FX team, David Fincher and David O. Russell". What is that all about? Especially when you go on to trash Michael Bay who employs many of the exact same tricks as Fincher. You say what truly separates Bay & Fincher are the intelligence of the story and thought put into cutting - but aren't these just classic filmmaking principles? If that's the case and the rest is irrelevant, how is Fincher new? Or when you trash the Wachowskis - So, then you mean that one single Bullet Time gimmick (and after all the commercials and other films, even that was a bit old by the time Matrix hit) used in The Matrix constitutes a whole new film style? Oh, please. Further bizarre shit you bring up: I'm obsessed with Woo vs. Spielberg and SPR. Uhh, I never made any value judgements regarding one being better than the other. EVER. If anything, you did when you expressed disappointment at Woo not making realistic action ala SPR. I only mention SPR & Spielberg as another approach to action and a great one at that. That's it. All the rivalry shit is in your head. Since your reply, if one is coming at all, will be filled with tangential crap, completely ignore the meat of any points I've made, and use the same vague responses you criticize me of, I will save you the time and formulate a response for you: "Hey guy, Fincher shoots with a hand held and has good editing. Woo is trash, sometimes good trash, but still trash. His guns bore me. Enough with your art obsession. What do you mean by rivalry?" Blah blah blah...

  • March 8, 2000, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Woo

    by Veidt

    No films as well crafted as Woo's can be rightfully called trash. The man's proven ability to tell a story cinematically is in no real doubt. A person could hate Woo's films and refer to them as sub-par but by the same token, anyone can shoot their mouth off about any filmmaker and it would mean about as much. Are Woo's films "art"? In the sense that they evince an ongoing style that is original and distinctive (no matter how many imitators have come since) and in the sense that dramatic themes and motifs have deliberately developed and recurred throughout Woo's body of work, then yes, Woo is an artist. As much as Howard Hawks, Sam Peckinpah, John Ford, or Steven Spielberg are all considered artists. Filmmaking styles do change year in and year out but rather than chase after trends or try to second guess what people want at each particular moment in time, a great filmmaker won't try and alter their approach out of a knee-jerk fear that they aren't the latest, hippest flavor of the month.

  • March 9, 2000, 1:09 a.m. CST

    Hey guy, Fincher shoots with a hand held...

    by L'Auteur

    i just watched yellow submarine on dvd. it was coool.

  • March 9, 2000, 5:19 p.m. CST

    TO HELL WITH PATRIOT, X-MEN, VERTICAL LIMIT, PERFECT STORM, THE

    by say no more

  • March 11, 2000, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Damn, give woo a chance....

    by NineMillie

    Damn, people are really dissing Woo. I tell you though, Hollywood has labeled the poor bastard as just an "action flick" director. The guy has the potential to direct movies in different genres. Although the upcoming "Windtalkers" is not far from an action flick, hopefully Woo would back off from the unbelievable stunts and the fuckin' two gun thing and "keep it real." yeah......something like that...MI2 will be good as an action film but i think it's sacrilege since MI is originally a spy flick. But still from the trailers the movie looks cool......

  • March 11, 2000, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Uh, another thing...

    by NineMillie

    Ok this is how I see it. Movies are basically stories told on film, right. Do you know how there are people out there who tell their little anecdotes and they tend to exaggerate big time in certain parts. Well this is how I view action movies. Basically a stupid story with the all the good parts stretched out to the point of disbelief. This is what John Woo is. He tells a good story but exaggerates all the action scenes. In Hard Boiled, have you ever noticed that Tequila doesn't reload at all. Damn, that's real bullshit but it looks really cool right. I really wanna let something out. Although I am a huge John Woo fan, I am getting tired of the testosterone soaked movies he's been making lately. When will he return to those comedies he once filmed back in Hong Kong. I've heard he used to direct movies in a genre besides action. Like I mentioned above, hopefully Windtalkers would be approached with a more dramatic style of filmmaking than the whole two gun, bang bang style....