Double Feature: Tai Chi 0 and The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Another double feature review, and I have to say that the selections here could not be more different from one another, what with Tai Chi 0 and The Perks of Being a Wallflower possessing as completely different target audiences as humanly possible.

Okay, I admit it; they had me at "steampunk kung fu throwdown." Kung fu and martial arts I'm sure everybody gets (if not, your assignment is to see The Raid: Redemption right now). For those unfamiliar with steampunk, it's a sub-genre of science fiction that focuses on steam-powered technology. Often the tech is mixed with the worlds of the Victorian era and early Western civilizations, but in the case of Tai Chi 0 the setting is China during the early era of Western influence. It's a perfect setting, blending more advanced steampunk designs with the relatively simple ones actually being built, like the locomotive. With more than a few martial arts movies coming out lately, one that allowed for a fundamentally different environment I thought deserved a look. Directed by Hong Kong veteran Stephen Fung, this had the chance to be a solid ton of offbeat fun.

That's gonna hurt tomorrow.

Unfortunately, all that potential goes to waste with a story that never feels as focused as it should be. In his acting debut, martial arts champion Yuan Xiaochao plays "The Freak", an already-talented warrior born with a genetic deformity on his head that somehow turns him into an unstoppable fighting machine when struck. With such power comes cost, however, as the combat drains his life at the same time. Not wanting to die, he journeys to legendary Chen Village to learn their secret, powerful form of Tai Chi to heal himself. Unfortunately, it's a style forbidden to outsiders, and The Freak seems out of luck. But when Imperialist China arrives on their doorstep wanting to introduces their new steam engine, he and a few rebellious souls might be all that stands between the village's sacred traditions and the influence of Western society.

My, what big shovels you have.

I really wanted to like Tai Chi 0, but I kept feeling as though the movie was trying to be too clever for its own good. Whenever a new major character would be introduced, graphics would pop up on the screen to point out what an IMPORTANT performer it was, and a little blurb about why (though this would have little effect on American audiences). Fight scenes would often get cartoony in their meticulous displays of the martial arts stances and motions. These bits often feel as if they would be more at home in a video game than in a major film, although they at least fit in somewhat with the steampunk elements. The story is also a haphazard blend of The Freak's journey to redemption with a love triangle between the characters of Hong Kong performers Eddie Feng, Angelababy and Mandy Lieu. Unfortunately, none of the characters are as interesting as those if some of the older vets, especially icon Tony Leung Ka-Fai as the village elder. Some interesting side bits and a few impressive fight scenes pick up some of the slack, but it's not nearly enough for a title that relies far too much on its premise to get by.

Scarier than anything in The House at the End of the Street.

Still, Tai Chi 0 had a ton of promise, and I can certainly see this title reimagined as a television show or Saturday morning cartoon, more formally matching its anime-inspired content. Director Fung will get another chance to prove himself when built-in sequel Tai Chi Hero is released next year (it was previewed in the closing credits), and as the end of Tai Chi 0 was something of a convoluted mess, the next chapter will definitely have to improve in the storytelling if it wants to be taken seriously by the international community. There are a few things to really like about this film, just not a whole lot.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower, on the other hand, easily carries a story worthy of praise. The novel has been a cultural mainstay for high-schoolers for about as long as I can remember, which of course is why I've never picked it up. That's the thing with me; I tend to rebel against extremely popular trends, so if everyone has read it, there's a very good chance that I ignored it. It's partly why I've read only the first four Harry Potter books and have successfully avoided the Twilight series (although am I crazy or does Breaking Dawn Part 2 look pretty bad-ass?). It's also why I ignored Pixar films for so long. But after seeing this film, I might have to revise my avoidance of the book by Stephen Chbosky (who also directed the adaptation), as his final product was nowhere near what I was expecting.

When the perpetually-nervous Charlie (Logan Lerman) enters high school, he's most concerned with having a normal experience, and meeting friends he can get along with. He soon meets seniors Sam (Emma Watson) and her gay half-brother Patrick (Ezra Miller), who take him under their wing and introduce them to a world of great music, parties and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. For the first time in a long time, he has friends with whom he can connect after the tragedies in his life. But the one thing he really wants - a relationship with Sam - seems out of reach, and with his friends graduating at the year's end, his earlier traumas threaten to re-emerge and take over his psyche for the worse.

For Lerman, playing a nervous high school student  is hardly a stretch.

Perks was a good time for a number of reasons, though I think it was partially thanks to the fact that I hadn't read the novel beforehand. While I was certainly expecting some of the emotional drama that is consistent with high school dramas, I was utterly unprepared for the levels that the film actually put forth. I've never seen a fictional film that simultaneously deals with the subjects of homophobia, bullying, suicide, bad relationships, abusive relationships, child abuse, child neglect... the list goes on. I think I now understand why this book has become such a hit with the current generation of young men and women; it's essentially the modern Catcher in the Rye, existing as a microcosm of the high school experience and, to a lesser degree, life itself. The movie does an amazing job of capturing that feeling of legitimacy without resorting to coming off like an after-school special, and every character serves a purpose in contributing to it.

He's much happier here than he was in We Need to Talk About Kevin...

A great cast was also a major reason the film is so enjoyable, as Perks not only gathers some of the year's best characters under one roof but filled them with some of the better faces dotting the Hollywood landscape. Emma Watson especially stands out, the former Harry Potter starlet showing that she can soar without a broomstick, easily dominating all of her scenes. She could have played a cliche, damaged young woman, but Watson's fire succeeds in bringing out the unique qualities that make Sam such a desirable companion. Lerman and Miller admirably make their presences felt as well, though to compare them to Watson would be a trifle unfair, and while neither of them has as much natural charm as Watson, they have more than a few chances to stretch outside their comfort zones. An excellent support cast includes Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, Johnny Simmons and a very short, extra-powerful performance by Melanie Lynskey. It says a lot that a woman with barely a half-dozen appearances leaves one of the film's most powerful impressions, but Lynskey did that last year with Win Win as well. Hey, the movie even has Paul Rudd as a caring English teacher named - wait for it - Mr. Anderson. I'm honestly touched. I didn't think Chbosky really cared.

Seriously, what school has white graduation gowns?

There were a few things I definitely noticed were pushed out of the film due to time constraints, but in the end they didn't matter all that much. I thought I knew what I was getting into with The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and I honestly though it wasn't going to be that big a deal. Chbosky and his team surprised me by putting together a startlingly honest and heartfelt look at life, far outside the realm of anything I had been expecting. I won't make that mistake again, and while Perks doesn't quite make it into my Top 10, it was still a VERY good time spent at the theater. It's not a feel-good comedy like Pitch Perfect, but if you're willing to see a darker-than-average high school drama, or if you're just a fan of the book, then this is absolutely the movie you should see.

All for One, One for the Junk Pile

Like most people, I have a day job. It’s not my first love, but it IS how I pay the bills. There are days where I love my day job, with my daily interaction with co-workers, employees and managers keeping me fresh and on my toes. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes my day job can beat me down so badly that I’m desperate for any respite, any calm in the storm. This past Friday was one such day, on which I left work frazzled, tired and just a little out of my mind. On days like this, I feel that a good dumb movie can help to raise beleaguered spirits and help one feel better by forgetting all the stresses of the day. On this particular Friday, I went to see The Three Musketeers, in 3D.

“But, Mr. Anderson,” you’re saying with polite reverence, “You said GOOD dumb movies. The Three Musketeers looks like utter crap! And you hate 3D, you complain about it all the time!”

You’re not half wrong there. From my first viewing of the film’s trailer, I was quite certain that there would be little to no redeeming value left in the finished product. The title, the third major film based on the novel by French author Alexandre Dumas in the past two decades, looked to incorporate style over substance, with little explanation as to not only why a new adaptation was ever needed, but why on Earth It would need to be shown in 3D. As many of my readers already know, I abhor most 3D films with VERY few exceptions, as often the overhyped technology is too much money spent to far little effect. But, lately I admit that for several reasons I have developed a soft spot for this obvious car wreck. The first was director Paul W. S. Anderson (no relation), whose 2010 franchise sequel Resident Evil: Afterlife was one of the few 3D movies I absolutely loved. The reason for my appreciation was that Anderson actually filmed using the same technology that pioneer James Cameron did in Avatar, the title that reinvigorated the 3D discussion. Using Cameron’s RealD 3D technology, Anderson created the perfect comeback to a franchise that had struggled creatively in its previous outings. As such, this is a man who obviously knows how 3D technology is supposed to work in this day and age of modern wonders. Another reason was the casting. Unknown Musketeers aside, the care in choosing several secondary roles was key. Between the obvious casting decisions (Christoph Waltz as the evil Cardinal Richelieu) and those strangely against type (Orlando Bloom as a heavy), Three Musketeers hosted a surprising bevy of talent on its roster. And don’t forget Anderson’s wife Milla Jovovich as turncoat Millady de Winter. Sure, Jovovich isn’t the best actress out there, but she’s a gamer who does all that is asked of her and appeals to the audiences of her films thanks to her professionalism and obvious sex appeal. For these reasons I was willing to offer the film a mulligan, hoping for something that would outshine its obvious flaws.

Well, one of you is going to have to go

When Musketeer hopeful D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) travels to Paris to join the King’s elite soldiers, the events that follow are very similar to that of the novel, as he makes early enemies of former Musketeers Athos (Matthew MacFayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), only to team up with the trio against the soldiers of Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz), the man secretly ruling France while misleading the young King Louis XIII into believing he is in full control. Athos, Porthos and Aramis were removed from the Musketeers after being betrayed by Athos’ lover Milady (Jovovich), a double agent for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Soon the four become privy to the plots of Richelieu, who has devised a plan to send France and England towards war, with the ultimate end of him in total command of the country. It is up to the four warriors to take up the challenge and fight soldiers on both sides to save France and their King.

Shouldn't have brought a cutlass to a flintlock pistol fight

Of course, that spectacle I mentioned earlier never really comes to pass. The Three Musketeers is about as far from a great movie as you can get without being downright horrible, but Anderson does manage to make it a close call as he tries to create an adaptation of the classic tale with as much spectacle and fury as he can muster while failing on just about every conceivable level. It doesn’t help that Anderson feels out of his element when taking on this classic novel, incorporating steampunk elements (such as airships) where none were really should have been needed. For the most part the implementation of 3D was wasted, surprising and disappointing considering Anderson’s previous experience with the technology. Anyone who has seen the shower scene in Resident Evil: Afterlife knows how amazing 3D could actually look (get your minds out of the gutter), and I was expecting more of that ingenuity here. Unfortunately, that doesn’t show itself except for a brief instance towards the end featuring dueling airships. Worse, it’s nowhere near as entertaining, as there is very little that could excite small children, let alone the young adults that are the film’s target audience.

Kissing the hand was scandalous ENOUGH

At least the film has solid acting, which was much more than I could have expected. The Musketeers themselves are all standouts, as MacFayden, Stevenson and Evans proudly play their roles to great effectiveness. Between the dour Athos, the proud and Strong Porthos, and the pious Aramis, the tiny shred of personality that the film possesses shines brightly. It’s a shame then that the three get relatively little face time, especially Porthos and Aramis, who get a few moments to impress but not nearly enough. Instead we see others pushed to the forefront, and those are unfortunately nowhere near as artistically stimulating. Despite his talents and seemingly a natural choice for the role, Waltz’s Richelieu is a disappointment, too campy and unthreatening even to adequately chew scenery. Despite being the film’s central antagonist, he gives far too much ground to his underlings, especially Mads Mikkelsen as the petty and cruel Captain Rochefort. Logan Lerman has no business headlining ANY film, let alone a potential blockbuster. His bland recitation of dialogue is one of the film’s main flaws, and with too much attention on him this is far too noticeable a one. Jovovich was in fact a mixed bag, with Milady’s impressive… um… “talents” often overshadowed by not even an attempt at actual acting. However, one that surprisingly stood out to me was Orlando Bloom, playing the snide and clever Duke of Buckingham. Bloom, who usually plays upstanding and generally friendly characters, is so out of place here that it gives the film a new lift whenever he is on screen. Sadly, whereas The Three Musketeers has only one Orlando Bloom, it could have used three or four more. He’s on screen far too little as a secondary villain to be a serious nuisance, though he comes off as more diabolical than Richelieu when given the chance.

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was staring at your chest

Despite some clever jabs that catch you off guard and tickle your funny bone, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend in seeing The Three Musketeers in the theater. The film’s saving grace was supposed to be Anderson’s 3D implementation, but with that being less than stellar, the title had to actually rely on the script and its performers to get by. The result is an un-clever stupid movie that might be decent for mindless fun, if your definition of “fun” is far more subjective than mine. A few good moments do not a movie make, and so I can’t bring myself to actually recommend this title to anyone. If you decide to ignore me and DO go to see The Three Musketeers, at least do yourself the favor of skipping the 3D showings. They, like another Musketeers adaptation, are thoroughly unneeded.