Reviews

I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.

Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.

There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.

Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.

There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.

In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.

The concept is good, the performances are good, but this film is too uneven to be great. Writer/director Jonathan Kesselman should've watched the much better blaxploitation parody "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka!" a few times and thought harder about *why* it's a good parody. Even then, that film, too, could have been improved.

When you do satire, you get the best results when you stick pretty closely to your target. The funniest moments in "The Hebrew Hammer" are those in which it really mirrors blaxploitation films. When it degenerates into really broad parody, lame social commentary, and random jokes about Jewish stereotypes, it goes downhill quickly.

That's too bad, because the principle cast really does do an excellent job. The villains are weaker than the heroes -- conceptually and by performance -- but I can't really blame the actors (much as I might be tempted to blame Andy Dick) because the villains are *too* over-the-top just as they're written.

Satire works as comedy because it keeps moving back and forth over the line of plausibility -- or, at least, the line of genre convention. "The Hebrew Hammer" has many good moments but, in the end, it strays too far, too often. There's about thirty minutes of really good material in there.

A lot of people really like this film, and, no offense to them, but I can only conclude they haven't seen much in the way of vampire films, or TV shows, or anime, or books . . . . And they probably haven't seen the marginal but better 1985 original "Vampire Hunter D".

"Bloodlust" has some very nice art, especially the backgrounds, and a few cute ideas. Unfortunately, it's drowning in exhausted cliches, poor character design, cutesy and unsatisfying action scenes, and unbearably awful dialogue. What's worse is that it's the unoriginal elements that get the most emphasis and most airtime.

The English-language version actually came first . . . which makes the extreme poorness of that version's dialogue peculiar. Characters repeat themselves, over-explain, belabor the obvious, and generally wax stupid. Normally, you could blame this on a lazy or rushed dubber trying to make the English track match the Japanese original. Here, it's just inexcusable. I've seen both the English and Japanese versions, and the dialogue is bad in both.

But the thing that really hurts my teeth is the way they keep saying "dunpeal". No such thing -- the word is "dhampyre", pronounced like "vampire" is supposed to be pronounced (rhymes with "romp here"). It's a real word, not made up for the anime -- a Romany word meaning the son of a woman impregnated by a vampire (usually her former husband). Dhampyres are, indeed, usually vampire hunters in Gypsy legends.

The word was obviously transliterated into Japanese ("daampiru", or something like that) . . . and then an English translator who didn't know much about vampires and didn't do any research re-transliterated it as "dunpeal". Ugh. The word comes up a lot in the script, and they might as well have said "vunpeal" for "vampire".

Still, this is a film that appeals to an audience that isn't familiar with the material the film draws on . . . so not many fans will notice. But the film is dull, dumb, overlong, and rarely makes much sense. The lack of continuity alone is a big handicap, but there's so much else wrong with the movie that I can't give it a passing grade.

This movie ought to be a pleasant, if inconsequential, little contrivance. It *is* contrived, and it feels contrived, but as entertainment it often works fine. The cast is generally very good, and the music is astonishingly decent for a film about a rock band. Formulaic and utterly predictable, sure, but well-meant.

Unfortunately, the movie disappoints in many ways, and it's hard to believe it was directed by someone with experience (although it allegedly was). The tone and pacing are incredibly uneven. One moment the film wants to be a halfway serious character study about differences in culture and age, and the next it sinks to the level of your poorer pothead comedies, only without the lame jokes. Similarly, it generally flows along smoothly but has a distinct tendency to drag out important moments.

In addition, the camerawork sometimes changes from unobtrusive and competent to modern and annoying, with an unsteady hand, pointless changes of zoom, sloppy pans and cuts . . . it's distracting and serves no good purpose. This occasionally became so obnoxious that I was strongly tempted to stop watching the movie.

Also, the dialogue ranges from natural to forced, and occasionally becomes so bizarre that I wasn't sure how the actors could deliver it with a straight face. (In fact, during outtakes shown over the end credits, you can see that sometimes they *couldn't*.) And the direction falls down, too, because the characters -- different characters, so it's not just one actor -- will sometimes pause in the middle of a sentence where no human being would intentionally pause.

Last but not least, the movie has several scenes which revolve around drug use. These scenes are so clumsy and unrealistic that they seem like they must have been written by a studio panel of people who were utterly unfamiliar with drugs but felt that their target audience (whoever it might be) would want to see some drug use. These scenes aren't funny, aren't true to life, and are given far more emphasis than their relevance to the plot deserves. Very stupidly done, and a huge mistake.

Many of these problems with the film are so strange that they almost make the film worth viewing simply to watch the crashes.

The story here is, at heart, a fairly standard 'taut' suspense thriller with a few modest twists. The cast ranges from workhorse to strong, including should've-been-stars Tamlyn Tomita and Wes Studi, plus support from Brion James, M. Emmet Walsh, Xander Berkeley, etc. Brett Cullen comes off a bit wooden in the lead role, but I can't be sure it's his fault.

The real problems here are the slow, uneven pacing, the even more uneven atmosphere, and the often amateurish direction that makes the actors stand around and deliver dialogue in extended chunks of stagey-looking shot-reverse shot and too much camera motion. The editing doesn't seem to have helped, but it's hard to tell what's an editing error and what was a failed attempt to fix the direction. The script and story could have been punched up a bit, too.

Tamlyn Tomita is luminous, and a lot of the cast is working hard here, but it doesn't come together.

Painful to watch.

This film wants to be a tongue-in-cheek campfest, like a cross between "Trancers", "Army of Darkness", and, yes, some or other comic book story -- Captain America as likely as any other. Which is not such a bad idea -- it's not terribly original, but it could have been very watchable.

Unfortunately, the campiness just comes across as narrative incompetence, and pretty much everything else goes horribly wrong as well. The dialogue ranges from unbelievably awkward to wincingly bad, with tired cliches and bizarre garblings standing in for witty one-liners. The actors often seem to have been filmed at different times, even during short scenes -- there's no natural back-and-forth. And there's a ridiculous overuse of close-ups, making it impossible more than half the time to get any sense of location.

So you start off with a comedy that isn't funny. Since the film's horror elements (such as they are) are played for laughs, there's no horror, either, and that pretty much leaves us with action as a possible source of entertainment. Sadly, the action is god-awful. The stunts and fighting are extremely amateurish and unconvincing, including sword 'fights' where opponents stand too far apart to possibly hit each other and only aim for each other's swords. With slow, awkward swings.

What's more, the camera work and editing conspire to make the action look even worse, with lots of fake undercranking (the action is sped up in a cartoonish fashion) and a complete lack of even simulated master shots. This makes the fighting look staged, which is exactly what the camera work is supposed to *avoid*.

The special effects are low-budget, which can be forgiven, but they really *look* low-budget. The most impressive effects I noticed were white contact lenses used on some of the zombies. Most of the effects, and a lot of the costumes, look like they were cooked up in someone's garage and rushed into production before they were ready.

Other reviewers are right on the mark when they describe Rob Bogue's performance, here, as looking like an attempted Bruce Campbell impersonation. It sure seems that way . . . especially when you consider the cleverest bit of writing in the film, a casually dropped "S-Mart" reference . . . but it's a misfire. I haven't seen any of Bogue's other work, but he's probably better when not trapped inside this character, because it just doesn't work for him.

Of course, that awful dialogue doesn't help, and the title character has far, *far* more dialogue than a film this long could possibly require, even if it had a better plot. Despite a story that takes about ten seconds to describe (WWII superhero awakens from hibernation to continue battling arch-nemesis and his smallish army of half-assed monsters), the movie is heavily belabored with unnecessary exposition, flashbacks, and voice-overs, ad nauseam. None of this seems even vaguely necessary; it just litters the film like the script was dipped in a vat of I Can't Shut Up.

In all fairness, there was some passable work by the supporting cast, including Karen Elkin, as a waitress, and Jay Baruchel, in a thankless and fairly annoying sidekick role he seems to have been born to play. (If you want to break out of that typecasting, Jay, you'd better start soon.)

But, in the end, this is a movie that misfires on all cylinders.

A good historical example, though, of how films were generally more puritanical during the middle of the 20th century than beforehand. In this movie, which veers from camp to slightly surreal melodrama, viewers are treated to a wide range of prominent details that they might not expect from such an old film.

For example, we see Clara Bow playing a promiscuous young woman (though this is eventually explained away with an excuse unlikely to be used today). Her nipples are clearly displayed (through a sheer blouse, no bra) for quite a long time, and there's an undeniable S&M scene in which she whips a forbidden love interest.

There's a frank, even casual approach taken to extramarital sex, adultery, interracial liaisons, and prostitution, and we even see a working-class gay bar complete with transvestite cabaret.

Most of these topics are treated so unjudgmentally that I was really curious if the director had any opinion at all, and I wondered how a contemporaneous audience, with both the Roaring Twenties and the stock market crash recently behind them, would have viewed the film.

An interesting film, very watchable (and frequently unintentionally amusing, to the modern eye), and, of course, historically important for being a Clara Bow talkie.

I expected to like this movie because I knew it would be a strange horror-comedy starring Bruce Campbell, and that would've been enough to carry it for me.

I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that it was extremely intelligent, very funny, highly original, well-directed, well-written, well-filmed, and very, very well-acted. I was expecting the kind of cult film that's hated by critics but loved by fans, but any critic who doesn't see at least a little of how brilliant this film is probably isn't a critic whose credibility I can respect.

If you only see one Elvis-redeeming mummy movie this year . . . well, not too surprising, but go see "Bubba Ho-Tep" any way you can. It's not for everyone -- probably no really original movie is -- but what a great film.

The fact that this movie couldn't get proper distribution is just another sign of Hollywood's internal collapse. With the right marketing, this could've made easily $100 million at the box office, and it was not an expensive movie to make.

This movie probably looked a lot better in 1985, when it came out. By modern standards, it's a little too light and too slow for a horror movie, a little too mild and obvious for suspense, and not quite quirky enough as pure film.

That said, it's not badly made. Nicely filmed, with decent performances, and both a truly beautiful vintage Jaguar and truly beautiful New Zealand scenery. The story cleverly combines and twists a few urban legends and ghost stories which -- through no fault of the filmmakers -- have become cliches by now. Again, they would have seemed much fresher in 1985.

The twist ending is pretty clever, although it's foreshadowed a little too broadly. For a small-budget suspense/horror film, it all adds up to 'not bad', but not fantastic either. I'd say that it has the feeling of a made-for-TV film.

What's strange about this movie -- released in the US on video as "Dark of the Night", for some reason -- is that the box boasted half a dozen strong reviews, from "Playboy" and the Village Voice among other sources. It's worth a rental if you like gentler suspense films (no gore in this one) or are a particular fan of 80's and/or New Zealand horror films.

The first time I heard about this show was when it was canceled (which was after two episodes). I happened to look it up.

Network idiocy, all the way. This show had one of the best casts a sitcom could ever hope for.

Alfred Molina is probably Hollywood's most underrated actor. He's been in wide range of projects, good and bad, and he's always been much better than the role demanded, whether playing the effeminate Harvard professor in "Species" or the Mexican villain in "Maverick" or the nasty Greek lawyer in "Before and After". He finally, now, has been given a major role (as Diego Rivera, in "Frida") after about 25 years in Hollywood.

Traylor Howard should be ranked with Renee Zellweger and Julia Roberts for likeable talent, but she keeps getting stuck in failing projects that don't do her any justice. At least she's free, again, to go pursue something else. She should've been given a break-out role five years ago, already.

The rest of the "Bram and Alice" cast was strong, too, although because I never heard of the show, I never saw it, so I can only guess at the chemistry.

I've asked around. I don't know *anyone* -- in person or online -- who saw this show or even saw an ad for it. The network simply decided to waste its money and kill the show even before they canceled it. Sheer incompetence, and someone ought to be fired.

I'm a fan of Brendan Fraser, and a fan of Rachel Weisz. I'm a big fan of good action films, and even a lot of semi-good ones, and a big fan of pulp. I'm a big fan of special effects, if they're justified by the movie they're in.

But this is flat-out one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The writing and direction are simply atrocious, beyond bad. Scenes are shot as if without any forethought or planning or concept of what they'll look like on the screen. The story is so stupid that it's outright insulting -- not because it's about dead people coming to life, and so forth, but because it makes almost no sense at all and yet still manages to be completely predictable.

Dull story, bad action scenes, boring characters, tedious visuals, lame special effects -- just a colossal waste of money and talent. They spent about $100 million making this, and it looks like maybe $25 million. Not that it would be worth that.

Not half as good as "Deep Rising", by the same writer-director, and *that* wasn't exactly a great movie. I'll never watch another Stephen Sommers movie again, plain and simple. Not if it starred Jackie Chan, Renee Zellweger, and Jesus.

This could easily have been a good show if the network hadn't killed it after two episodes. But that's how networks are: stupid, reactionary, and unable to plan more than a few months ahead.

"Girls Club" wasn't great, and it wasn't awful. The cast was very, very good, although often made to look bad. The "girls" of the title had to suffer through a lot of bad makeup and bad hair, although they still managed to look good. The supporting cast was very strong, and there were good efforts all around.

The writing, unfortunately, was not great. This was one of the most unrealistic lawyer shows I've seen. I know, I know -- compared to "Ally McBeal", from the same creator? The problem is one of tone. "Girls Club" pretends to be serious, but the writing doesn't back that up. The law cases and courtroom behavior are ridiculous, and the characters (especially the main three) are incredibly unprofessional.

The show was supposedly about three young women who have trouble fitting in and getting respect in the "boys club" (I'm following their punctuation) of a big law firm. Unfortunately, their behavior is often so juvenile that I can't believe they could keep their jobs without sleeping with their superiors, which is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to avoid doing.

Not that I blame them. The point is that, given the way they act on the job, they don't *deserve* respect or advancement. The script is all wrong.

This show could easily have developed into something better if the writing had improved (which often happens by the end of a show's first season), but the network killed the show after two episodes, a gesture of zero faith and confidence, which is unwarranted considering David Kelley's record of hit shows.

Personally, I think this show, bad as it often was, was much better than "Boston Public" or "Birds of Prey", two shows that present no indications of improvement or demise. "Girls Club" had at its core the simplest of populist strategies (hot young women being sassy and sexy in an adolescent-fantasy sort of way), so it probably would have been a hit if it'd lived a little longer.

The good news is that the cast has been released to go on to do better things, which they're more than capable of. Here's hoping they get the chance.

Good - Cast isn't bad.

Bad - Pretty much everything else.

Wasted - Mia Sara and my time.

Rarely have I seen anything so cheesy. Even at Pizza Hut. The directing is bad, bad, bad, as is the production design, as is the direction they took the concept. And, really, the concept (as seen here) is pretty weak even for a modern comic book aimed at juveniles.

So maybe this is a kids' show? A not very bright one, but even so.

The action scenes are oh-so-bad, the special effects sequences are unusually lame, and a lot of the story choices are laughably bad. (All this tired "metahuman" crap is clearly a sad attempt to cash in on Marvel territory, and, anyway, it isn't very interesting.)

Little leopard noises every time Huntress completes another tame stunt? Please! What is this, "Manimal"? No, it's worse than that.

This is another crapfest that wants to be gritty but doesn't understand how verisimilitude works.

But it's the writing that really sucks. Emphasis on *really*. Cliche upon torpid cliche, unbearable dialogue (with flashes of decency, I admit, but not enough of them), and one groaningly bad moment after another. The science in their science fiction would embarrass Creationists. Is it predictable? Guess what my answer is.

How could they make the pilot an extra ten minutes long? That's cruel and unusual punishment. Like fellow New Fantasy Lite time-wasters "Charmed" and "Dark Angel", this show wants to copy the formula of "Buffy" and "Angel" but hasn't the wit to understand it.

Dumb, dull, and poorly done. Cheesier than the worst of the "Batman" movies. If it's still around next season, I might give it another try to see if it's improved, but, otherwise, forget it. I can't help but think that the cast members will be luckier if the show dies quickly.

Personally, I don't care if they crap on the DC "mythos", and I don't care if they waste an hour of minor-network time. I don't even care that they added the incredibly hackneyed Black Police Detective stock character in a sad attempt to round out an all-white cast. (Heck, everyone's doing that these days.)

But this is just bad. Somewhere, someone should be slapped and sent home without a paycheck. A few TV critics gave this show warm reviews. I've marked their names down so I'll remember to never believe them again.

If you've seen a fair number of Hong Kong movies before, especially modern horror-comedies, then you probably know what to expect from "Doctor Vampire". If you *aren't* familiar with Hong Kong movies, then this movie will surprise and probably confuse you, although you'll likely think it's pretty funny.

Hong Kong movies are often a bit disorganized, by Hollywood standards, and "Doctor Vampire" is no exception. A few plot elements go nowhere; a few loose ends won't get tied up. Some scenes -- although worth seeing -- don't really seem to go with the rest of the film. It all adds up to a happy mess that's entertaining but may be a little disconcerting for newcomers.

The cast is pretty good, including HK hottie Ellen Chan as the female vampire, and with Crystal Kwok in a hilarious role as a sassy nurse. The two Caucasian actors don't come off as well, partly because of how poorly they're dubbed, but it just adds to the campy fun.

This is basically a romantic comedy, light on the romance and heavy on the comedy, with a little kung fu and horror thrown in for good measure. There are a number of surprisingly funny moments, many of which have little to do with the plot but are definitely worth having.

People looking for a more serious HK vampire film should check out "Mr. Vampire" or Sammo Hung's "Close Encounters of the Spooky Kind". Those who see and like "Doctor Vampire" will probably also like another HK vampire romantic comedy, "A Bite of Love".

"Starman" meets "Mork and Mindy" with a side of "The Hidden" and a hint of "Femalien".

I saw this film on a whim, simply because I saw a short list of who was in it and was puzzled at the combination of actors. Not the greatest movie in the world, but certainly not the worst. This film has a very fine cast, mostly in its supporting ranks, but an oddly amateurish feel, as if it were made on a whim over the course of about ten days. The camerawork and editing are sometimes quite poor, but at other times perfectly competent, and the same goes for the dialogue, script, and direction.

However, the film is redeemed by its sense of humor. About a third of the attempts at humor fall down badly, but about another third come across very well. I didn't laugh much while watching it but I did keep smiling and nodding my head. Given the story and situations presented, there are jokes that beg to be made, and the characters often make them. I had to wonder how many of them were improvised, but it really doesn't matter.

Nicole Eggert isn't at her best here, but she does fine and looks cute. It's a damned shame what Hollywood has done to her over the years, though. She's still very attractive, but if they'd just let her eyebrows grow back and stop putting so much makeup on her, she'd be deeply adorable again. The plucked-and-painted look just makes her tend to look generic. Nicole, you're a lovely girl; stop letting them second-guess your face.

Michael Dorn is priceless as a quirky federal agent, and Stacy Keach, David Millbern, and the often-overlooked John Diehl are good in supporting roles. The actors who take principle turns playing the wooden alien are, well, a little wooden, but it's not clear how much of this is poor acting and how much is just an attempt to stay in character.

The most startlingly good thing about this movie, though, is its standout soundtrack. The soundtrack -- sadly not detailed at IMDB as of this writing -- is excellent all around, but, even more impressively, it features three impressive songs by Over the Rhine, a distinctive and sadly underknown group. Whenever the background music gave way to a song, I was impressed by the choice someone had made.

I doubt the soundtrack is available anywhere, which is a real shame. Interestingly, "Amanda and the Alien" is based on a Robert Silverberg short story. You wouldn't guess it from the film itself, but there it is.

Overall, this is a very watchable movie. You might not think so at first, but if you make it through the somewhat slow first fifteen minutes or so, there's a good chance you'll be hooked and amused.

Jingle Ma, long one of Hong Kong's best cinematographers, shows here that he can create and direct an amazing film when given greater control.

"Tokyo Raiders" is a quintessential HK fusion film, containing plenty of traditional HK elements but making superb use of Japanese and Western elements as well. The soundtrack alone makes it stand out from other HK films of the post-New Wave era, but "Tokyo Raiders" adds great humor, irony, editing, photography, and a broad spectrum of choreography and action (a nod to Jackie Chan-film regular bit actor Allen Chiu-wai Sit as action choreographer here).

The main cast comes off very well, playing characters that veer from serious (or, in some cases, at least near-serious) to absurd -- as the story does the same. "Tokyo Raiders" is really an action-comedy, and strong in both categories, and the cast is a delight.

I usually really hate fancy editing and camera-work for action scenes. If the action is any good, it should be presented cleanly and clearly, so the audience can see it. Anyone can fake action (albeit poorly, in most cases) by messing with the film. That's not impressive. If you have a cast capable of real action and go to the trouble of choreographing real action, then you're only hurting the film by chopping it up with close-ups, slow motion, rapid cuts, and the like.

But in "Tokyo Raiders", Jingle Ma shows that he has the very rare talent of actually enhancing action sequences through careful use of effects. Personally, even if the film weren't so all-around enjoyable, I think this would make it worth seeing all by itself. Most other action directors should take notes.

It's true that many viewers may find the thread of the plot a little hard to follow at times, but this isn't the kind of movie where you have to follow everything to enjoy it. (Few HK action films are, and it's a good thing, too.) And it's true that many viewers will wish that Tony Leung's character's assistants had more screen time. Well, no film is truly perfect, but "Tokyo Raiders" is definitely worth a shot if you like Asian action films and comedies at all.

Just be sure, if you don't speak Mandarin and Japanese, to get a subtitled, not dubbed copy, and not panned-and-scanned (edited to fit a TV screen) if you can help it. As with most foreign films, it makes a world of difference.

Personally, I think Kubrick is wildly overrated. He can do amazing things, but rarely does he actually make an integrated film. Watching most of his films is like being beaten with a variety of exquisite musical instruments -- sure, there's real artistry involved, but the final product leaves a lot to be desired.

"Dr. Strangelove", though, is well worth watching. It's still a bit hit-or-miss, but its brilliant moments -- which are better than most of the high points of other Kubrick movies -- aren't dragged down by pointless self-indulgence and posturing.

Funny, pointed, and genuinely entertaining.

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think of this film, my biggest complaint with it is Marilyn Monroe. The studio shoehorned her into this film in their attempt to make the biggest musical extravaganza ever, and she just doesn't fit. She's so out of sync with the other characters that she might as well be from a different planet.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a huge Marilyn fan, but she was good (and well-cast) in "Some Like It Hot". She's just all wrong for "No Business Like Show Business", and she looks and sounds ridiculous.

To be fair, Johnnie Ray often doesn't hold up well before modern audiences, either, when he sings. It's not that he's bad; it's that his style has come and gone and hardly been seen since. Everything in this movie tends to be at least a little overdone, and asking Johnnie Ray to exaggerate his singing does not produce flattering results.

Still, Donald O'Connor and Mitzi Gaynor are as brilliant and exuberant as you could hope. Ethel Merman is, well, Ethel Merman, and exactly right for her part. Dan Dailey is like a reliable locomotive that never disappoints.

The story is a bit plodding at times, but it only exists to set up one gala musical number after another. It only really bogs down when it gets caught up with Marilyn's character. If the studio had just left Marilyn out of it, perhaps giving Mitzi Gaynor the love interest role, and toned down the general effort level just a hair, this would've been one of the all-time greats.

It's still absolutely worth seeing -- in widescreen format, if you possibly can.

The studio produced "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" and "Brigadoon" at the same time, or so the story goes, and decided to give "Brigadoon" the big budget, figuring it was destined to be a much bigger hit, with stars Gene Kelly, Cyd Charisse, and Van Johnson.

When you see "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", you can tell that most of it was shot on sound stages and backlots, rather than on location. It doesn't matter at all: the film was a huge surprise hit in its day, and it remains enormously entertaining today. Every time I see it, I'm surprised by how much fun it is.

"Brigadoon" is good, too, but do yourself a favor, if you like musicals at all, and see "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".

But not as good as any of the more than a dozen other Jet Li movies I've seen.

This movie has a great cast and crew, all proven, except for first-time director Chris Nahon, who, it seems, must take most of the blame for the shortcomings of this film -- simply because the cast, choreographer, cinematographer, producer, etc, have all done much better action films. Much, much better. All of them.

"Kiss of the Dragon" is a relatively serious and dramatic Hong Kong-style action film. It's gritty and depressing by US standards. That doesn't bother me; I like Yuen Biao's "Righting Wrongs", which is even more downbeat.

"Kiss of the Dragon" is an action film, and so the action is what matters most. It's better than the action in "Romeo Must Die", but not nearly up to Jet Li standards. And the main problem is the way it's filmed and edited. The competent choreography -- done by Corey Yuen Kwai -- winds up looking bad on the screen because it's almost all done in close-ups, shallow field, rapid cuts, blurs and inappropriate slow-motion, and jerky non-transitions.

It's often hard to tell exactly what's going on, and a lot of the kung fu winds up looking fake, which is especially annoying because Jet Li doesn't need wires or camera or editing tricks to be amazing. He just needs the camera to document him being amazing, and that doesn't happen here.

Not a bad movie, all in all, but not a great Jet Li movie. Maybe Chris Nahon will go on to do great things, but this film isn't what it could have been.

This movie has only one real problem, but it's a big one: It doesn't understand action.

Jet Li can act, but so can a heck of a lot of people. But when he moves from acting to action, he does what not a heck of a lot of people can do. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know it, based on this film.

This is supposed to be an action movie, and they hired an action star, and then they give us a few minutes of amateurish wire work, some mostly ridiculously fake fighting, and ill-advised special effects. The fight scenes will probably impress pre-teen boys who haven't played any kung fu games or seen many action films, but as Jet Li movies go this one might as well be The Sound of Music.