DTV Cinema - Hard Target 2 (2016)

Director: Roel Reine

Cast: Scott Adkins, Rhona Mitra, Robert Knepper, Temeura Morrison

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 104 min

British martial artist Scott Adkins is direct to video (DTV) and low budget action cinema's hardest working star. I feel redundant every time I write or say that statement, but it's true. In the last 16 years, Adkins has worked his way up from show stealing supporting player to show stopping lead in several of the best direct to video films ever released (i.e. Undisputed II and III, Ninja I and II, Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, etc). He has such a huge fandom behind him, that nearly every project of his gains traction simply because of his attachment. I, as well as many others, have gone on to declare him the spiritual successor to "The Muscles From Brussells" himself, Jean-Claude Van Damme. 

It's also simple to declare Adkins the new Van Damme not only because of his martial arts skills and dedication to the action genre, but also because he has appeared in several films alongside Van Damme before (i.e. The Shepherd: Border Patrol, Assassination Games, Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, Expendables 2). Therefore, when word got out that he was going to be starring in Hard Target 2, a thematic/DTV sequel to the John Woo/Van Damme 1993 classic, Hard Target, it made perfect sense. There is no doubt about it, not only is Hard Target 2 one of Adkin's biggest starring ventures yet, but also the biggest DTV event of the year.

The sequel comes from director Roel Reine, who is considered one of the best directors in the DTV market alongside fellow vets Isaac Florentine and John Hyams. Adkins has come full circle now, as he has worked with all three of these kings of DTV now. Anyways, Reine mostly specializes in DTV sequels to previously released theatrical efforts, such as 12 Rounds 2: Reloaded and The Man With the Iron Fists 2, as well as standalone ventures. While I have personally only seen two of his films before hand, the bland but admirable The Marine 2 and the hugely underrated Danny Trejo vehicle Dead in Tombstone, Reine is commendable for his ability to shoot dynamic tracking shots and to stretch as much as possible out of his tiny budgets and shootings schedules. Therefore, both he and Adkins seemed like a best fit for Hard Target 2. 

Adkins brings the pain as always with his signature kicks.

After all, if you are going to have the guts to make a DTV sequel to one of the greatest action films of all time and force its creators to work with the littlest amount of time and money as possible, you might as well get one of the best directors and stars of DTV action cinema. Although I was excited for the sequel, my hopes weren't exactly high, as I knew to be wary about a DTV film regardless. Unfortunately, Hard Target 2 never amounts to anything more than a middling but serviceable low budget action film that remains stagnantly mediocre from start to finish. Adkins is in prime form, Reine's ever impressive camera work is on display, and the undeniable hook of its 'Most Dangerous Game Plot' is there, but the limitations of the film's budget and its tonal issues prevent it from being the very good action film that it could have been. 

Adkins plays Wes Baylor "The Jailor", a professional fighter who is up for the championship. When he accidentally kills his opponent and best friend in the ring, he moves to Thailand to live a secluded life of regret. After participating in several underground fights, Wes is approached by Aldrich, a rich businessman who offers him money to participate in the fight of a life time. Unfortunately, Wes has no clue that he is stepping into a trap and becoming the bait for a group of elite hunters who hunt man for sport. With no way out except to fight for his life in the jungles of Thailand, Wes becomes a "hard target" and goes head to head against armed hunters in a martial arts infused action fest.

For a DTV sequel, Hard Target 2 does a great job crafting a plot that is somewhat similar but not a direct retread of the original's. In fact, it does a great job justifying its protagonist's abilities and imbues great empathy within their plight. Whereas Van Damme's character was a nomad who happened to be a bad ass in the original, Adkins' character is a professional fighter who can justify his fighting abilities in the sequel. Whereas Van Damme happened to become a target for a group of hunters whilst getting involved in a murder mystery, Adkins is conned and forced into a 'Running Man' type situation where he must fight for his life. Poor Adkins didn't do anything wrong, and yet he has to sink or swim right off the bat. When he wraps a bag of ruby's around his waist and runs off into the jungle without a weapon at his side, I instantly felt for him. These are great character and story telling decisions that immediately pull the viewer into the protagonist's plight and shake up a needless sequel into an already intriguing one. I also applaud Reine for setting the film within the jungles of Thailand, as it offers up a somewhat similar visual experience to the original film's swamps and woods amidst New Orleans.

Unfortunately, the sequel offers up far less in the form of narrative, as it only provides a basic hunt to hinge its action packed proceedings upon, and than quickly settles into a relaxed groove after a promising first act. Whereas the original was more of a murder mystery that transitioned into a balls to the wall hunt, the sequel is nothing more than a hunt. The problem with this simplicity is that there isn't enough narrative nor tension to fill the entire feature. The screenwriters try to make up for this lack of narrative by squeezing in a forced sub-plot about a brother and sister who live in the jungle and work alongside Adkins' character. However, it's in no way compelling, and instead a complete time waster. If you pay careful attention to the film while watching it, you'll notice that there is a surprising amount of screen time given to every character, including the miniscule hunters. With so little going on with Adkins' character from beat to beat, the film tries to ring as much material as possible out of its slim story and cast, only to come out painfully dry very quickly. There's only so much you can do with a 'Most Dangerous Game' plot when you boil it down to basics.

Knepper brings his wonderfully villainous chops as always.

Another shame about the sequel is that Reine doesn't understand how to convey the tone of a fun and ridiculous action movie, such as the original. While the first film was an absurdist tongue in cheek action fest in the vein of Commando, the sequel is fairly serious, and more representative of the bland contemporary DTV crowd. These signs abound, as seen through the sequel's minimal comedic relief, overly serious dialog, and dry direction. There's also some cruel and unnecessarily mean spirited parts that hamper the viewing experience, such as an attempted rape and a supporting character's rather depressing outcome. The cruel and depressing turn of events surrounding the seemingly innocent but doomed son of the father/son duo reminded me of the horrid events from Ringo Lam's In Hell regarding a similar innocent but doomed prisoner. I just love when a movie introduces a wimpy supporting character, traumatizes them with a life altering event, belittles them by having another character call them a coward, and than proceeds to show them blow into smithereens a few scenes later. Now that's what you call a picker upper. Damn you Reine and your cruel action movies.

All criticisms aside, the one thing that Hard Target 2 exceeds at best is its casting, as the three leads within the picture act as perfect replacements for the most notable characters from the original. Scott Adkins, who is already the spiritual successor to Van Damme, is the best bet as far as physically inclined action stars come. He does as fine a job as always, whether it be acting intense and heated to visibly performing many of his own stunts. 

In the villain role we have Robert Knepper, who makes for an excellent replacement to Lance Henricksen from the original. Knepper, who I have always enjoyed from his multi-season turn as Teddy Bagwell from the Prison Break television series, is cold, calculated, and business like in his performance. His take on the character matches Henricksen's mega-acting beat for beat, and makes him the best candidate for the part. There's even a nice easter egg towards the end where he pulls out a single shot pistol that is meant to connect him as Henricksen's brother, although apparently Universal shot the idea down. As to why they were concerned that was a bad idea, I will never understand, as it would have been awesome to connect both pictures, meaning that both Van Damme and Adkins would exist within the same cinematic universe. And finally, Temeura Morrison plays Knepper's loyal right hand man , filling in for Arnold Vosloo's shoes from the original. Morrison, who has always been a reliable actor, from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, to Speed 2: Cruise Control, to even Reine's own The Marine 2, brings the intensity that makes his supporting player formidable and imposing. 

Don't get your hopes up for lots of Mitra.

Most notable of the miniscule supporting players is Doomsday's Rhona Mitra, who happens to billed on the film's DVD and poster even though she is barely in the film for some reason. There's a cool line where she mentions that she is the daughter of a hunter, and I'd like to believe that it connects her as well to Henricksen's hunter from the original. But alas, I guess I'll leave that for my Hard Target fan fiction. Overall, the rest of the hunters are quite forgetful, and feel more like meat from a slasher film who are somewhat defined but obviously disposable, as anyone watching the film knows that they are going to die by Adkins' hands.

Lastly, the action within the film is solid all around, although not very memorable, unique, or lengthy. For those who don't know, Hard Target 2 was shot in 20 days and for less than $5 million. That's extremely impressive when one takes into account the scope of the film and how impressive some of its shots and action sequences are. Therefore, one needs to handicap the film in order to fairly review it. It's a shame that the film wasn't allowed more time or money, because just as every shootout or fight gets going, it quickly ends and segways into the next story beat. For example, there's a great confrontation atop a train track where Adkins and Morrison aim guns at each other. When they finally come face to face, they fight one another while shooting their guns, backed by some affective score. Unfortunately, the fight lasts about twenty seconds, and Adkins immediately jumps off of the train tracks and into a river. Shortened moments like these pepper the entire film, which thereby prevents any sort of notable action sequence from ever realizing its full potential. But as I said, there's a handicap here, and Reine only had so much time to work with. 

Reine acts as his own director of photography as usual, and works in several technically impressive shots. There are a couple of his signature oners, such as a great dialog sequence where Knepper introduces all of the hunters to Adkins in one take, which goes on for several minutes. There's also a notable tracking shot toward the final action sequence where Adkins leaps off of a boat, punches a soldier, takes his gun, and than works his way up a beach as he takes out soldiers along the way. When the shot ended a few seconds later, I was saddened, as it had me on the edge of my seat. Even The Marine 2 featured longer tracking shots. But alas, 20 days only affords you so much time, and that we even got two impressive shots alone is enough to commend the film for. However, Hard Target 2 features the same bland lighting and unappealing grey colors that plagues most of Reine's DTV work. It's not nearly as drab as some of his previous efforts, as the jungles of Thailand at least appear tropical, but it's not nearly as colorful as it could/should have been. 

Boyka vs. Django Fett, need I say more?

When the sequel was originally announced, director John Woo was attached as an Executive Producer. Reine was even on the record stating that he loved Woo, the original, and wanted to pay tribute to the kind of films Woo used to make in the 90s. However, Woo's name has since mysteriously vanished from the project, as there was no official announcement as to why my favorite director of all time was suddenly detached from the sequel to one of his greatest films. While I highly doubt that Woo was ashamed to be attached, he must have become busy and simply could not work on the film. But alas, it's a shame that the Woo himself dropped out for whatever reasons. That being said, Woo fans will be able to spot several visual homages to the director and his films throughout, including slow motion shots of doves, a flying arrow smash cutting to the film's title, abundant Beretta handguns, and the single shot pistol used within both Hard Boiled and Hard Target.

For action and martial arts fans, Hard Target 2 was just about the DTV event of the year. Everyone knew it was never going to be anywhere near as great as the original, but fans of DTV cinema were going to turn out regardless, and hopefully legally. Overall, Reine's sequel to one of the greatest action films of the 90s is a fairly bland but technically proficient thematic sequel. It does a great job paying tribute to the original through both its visual homages and unique shake up to the formula. While the action is solid all around, it leaves much to be desired, as no set piece is ever very memorable or lengthy. Small bouts of action abound, but nothing really to write home about. However, even with the film's technical woes set aside, which are excusable, the true crime of the film is its meandering narrative and dreadful tone, which both fail to conjure up a fun sense of energy or worthwhile feature material. The characters and performances are all fine, but it's a shame that they don't have a better script to work with. All in all, Hard Target 2 is about exactly as I expected it to be, but I still wish that it could have been a few notches better than it turned out to be.

Rating: 5/10 - For a DTV sequel made in 20 days for only $5 million, Reine did a very good job when given the most impossible of limitations. 

The Hand of Death (1976)

Hey everybody! I recently had the privilege of contributing to City On Fire, an action movie news and reviews site that mainly focuses on Asian cinema and martil arts. For my first review, I tackled one of John Woo's earliest films, The Hand of Death, featuring two of Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung's earliest performances. Check out the review here!

Brothers, Guns, and Doves - Once a Thief (1991)

Director: John Woo

Cast: Chow Yun Fat, Leslie Cheung, Cherie Chung, Kenneth Tsang, Chu Kong

Country: Hong Kong

Rating: R

Run Time: 103 minutes

Even though John Woo films are synonymous with high body counts and lots of blood, whose to say that the guy can't also make us laugh? In 1991, Woo released Once a Thief, a little seen action/comedy that was both hilarious and action packed. If seeing Woo direct a comedy wasn't enough to peak your interest, the film also reteams A Better Tomorrow co-stars Chow Yun Fat and Leslie Cheung as friends who steal paintings from all across the globe. Once a Thief is a goofy film that will probably turn away anyone unfamiliar with comedic Hong Kong films. But anyone who loves awesome action sequences and fun heists will be in for a real treat. And if you're like me and have a huge Chow Yun Fat obsession, it's a must see.

Once a Thief is a criminally underrated John Woo film. Whatever the reason, I recommend that all action fans seek this gem out. Once a Thief consistently ranks as one of my favorite action films of all time due to its incredibly fun but awesome action scenes, Woo's always wonderful editing and directing, and Chow Yun Fat's charismatic performance. What could have been a throw away comedy released in between two very violent films, Bullet in the Head and Hard Boiled, is instead a rip roaring good time that packs lots of laughs and great stunt work. Besides, there are no other action films out there where Chow Yun Fat fires a gun while atop a skateboard and performs wheelchair martial arts.

A trio of charming cuties lead Woo's silliest action film to date.

Joe (Chow Yun Fat), Jim (Leslie Cheung), and Cherie (Cherie Chung) are three world renowned art thieves who grew up together as orphans. Their foster father Chow (Kenneth Tsang, A Better Tomorrow) taught them tough love and raised them to become the thieves that they are now. A kind hearted cop named Chu (Kong Chu, The Killer) also became their godfather at the time of their youth in order to teach them to steer clear of crime and to live a straight life. 

In present day, the three friends are rich and successful thieves who live a glamorous life buying lavish clothes, living in a massive house, and driving around in expensive cars. When a rich client asks the three to steal one of the most guarded paintings in Paris, France, Joe and Jim can't resist. After the two successfully steal the painting, their client attacks them and tries to steal it back without paying for it. Joe sacrifices himself during the ensuing battle in order to allow Jim to escape and to live a happy life with Cherie. However, Joe miraculously survives the attack and ends up paralyzed, doomed to live a life in a wheelchair. Joe than sets out to discover who set him and Jim up during their initial robbery while also coping with the fact that Cherie now loves Jim.

John Woo does a great job crafting several fun and exciting heist sequences that you normally wouldn't expect to see in any of his films. Joe and Jim rob three pieces of art throughout the film and each heist is crazier than the last. In the first, Jim, Joe, and Cherie have to make their way onto a moving 18 wheeler in order to retrieve a painting. This scene ends with Chow Yun parasailing off of the truck and floating in the air to some classical music. Great stuff. In the second, Jim and Joe have a to swing across a room with an electrical floor in order to grab a painting off of a wall. They even look through wine glasses in order to spot the security lasers within the room. And in the third, and wackiest, Jim and Joe have to blow open a vault to get at the goods inside. When a load of henchmen show up to kill them, Joe fights them off by sliding around in his wheel chair and head butting sticky grenades at them. If anyone wants to see the great John Woo at his silliest and most carefree, than look no further than these heist scenes.

The stunt work is off the charts in the most bad ass rom com of all time.

Chow Yun Fat is at his funniest and most carefree in this flick. He is beyond charming and likable. I can't express it enough but Chow Yun Fat's smile is the most lovable and infectious smile in movie history. Whenever the guy smiles I can't help but smile back and love the guy even more. It's so rare that an actor in cinema can have over 800 on screen kills and still be both handsome and hilarious.

Leslie Cheung is also great as the lovable and bad ass Jim. It's great to see Chow and Leslie reunite after tearing up the screen in Woo's A Better Tomorrow Saga. These actors are so awesome and lovable I can't get enough of them. It's a shame that Cheung committed suicide and never got to star with Chow Yun Fat ever again. Cherie Chung is also adorable as the film's main love interest and plays an important role in the engaging love triangle between Joe and Jim. 

Hong Kong veteran actors Kenneth Tsang and Kong Chu also do great work as Joe, Jim, and Cherie's mentors. Tsang plays Chow, a cruel and formidable gangster who takes advantage of his children every chance that he gets but pretends to love them at the same time. Chu on the other hand plays Chow, a police officer who teaches the trio kindness and compassion. One of Once a Thief's strongest points lies within the dichotomy between these two character foils. I love nothing more than a story about mentors who teach their students with varying methodologies. Action fans should take note that Tsang and Chu had made appearances in previous Woo films alongside Chow Yun Fat before; Tsang was the kind automobile shop owner in A Better Tomorrow and Chu was the friendly but shifty gangster in The Killer. Therefore, any viewer with an understanding and appreciation of Woo's filmography will enjoy Once a Thief that much more.

Chow is a huge dick to Tsang in a laugh riot of a scene.

Once a Thief's only downfall is that its comedic tone shifts after the half way point, a fault that even Woo himself has admitted too. The first half of the film is very romantic, charming, and humorous while the second half is extremely goofy, cartoonish, and action packed. While one could argue that both halves contain comedy, romance, and action, it's clear that the two tones established in each half differ just enough to throw off the picture's balance. The first half of the film was shot at a steady pace in France as a way for Woo to pay tribute to the films of Francois Truffaut. This is evident by the film's romantic scenes and charming tours around France. However, once Woo returned to finish the film in Hong Kong, the shooting schedule picked up speed and Once a Thief quickly devolved into a typical Hong Kong action comedy. While the first half of the film is still silly, the film exists within a world somewhat resembling reality. The second half of the film on the other hand feels like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. The comedy gets really crazy by the end once Chow Yun Fat does wheel chair martial arts, twirls a pole to the sound of classical music, and accidentally throws a baby across a room. I understand Woo's disgrace here, I really do, but I still enjoy the film all the same. 

Once a Thief is easily Woo's tamest and least violent action film from his prime in Hong Kong. The shootouts and the car chases are still fantastic, don't get me wrong, it's just that the film has more of a reliance on explosions to kill people than it does guns or bullets. When people do get shot, very little, if any blood at all, is shown. The big final gun fight contains no bloody squibs whatsoever. However, I understand Woo's decision to tame the violence. After all, a romantic comedy isn't as romantic or comedic as possible if every character death is met with gallons of blood. Still, Once a Thief contains a heavy body count that will impress any action fan despite all of the tamed down violence. If anything, Once a Thief is John Woo's first true PG-13 film, even though it is officially rated R.

I can't help but point out simply how many stunt errors are evident in the film as well. Most John Woo films never reveal their production problems thanks to excellent editing or all around great production value. Unfortunately, Once a Thief is littered with evident production errors. There are several shots where wires can be seen attached to an actor as they fly out of a window or through the air. Stuntmen can even be seen wearing helmets when they flip a car. Explosions even go off before vehicles collide with one another. My favorite stunt error occurs during the big chase in France when a stuntman drives his car through a trailer. The stunt is awesome and all, except for the fact that one can clearly see the ramp built inside of the trailer. 

Fell for the old death by flaming microwaved basketball trick.

The first half of Once a Thief truly is a charming and adorable romance that any film critic would be hard pressed not to love. However, I can understand how any cinematic viewer might be turned off by the second half, what with all of the wheel chair martial arts and exploding sticky bombs. John Woo incorporates a huge variety of everyday objects into his action scenes with this film. Chow Yun Fat and Leslie Cheung use a microwave to blow a basketball across a room into a henchman, twirl a fishing pole to knock down enemies and daze them, slide atop a skateboard while shooting a gun, spin around on wheel chairs while head butting bombs, and even spit paint thinner and vodka out of their mouths to blow back a man's fire ball attack. 

Yeah, I should probably mention that one of the henchmen during the finale has magic powers somehow, I kid you not. While every other henchman and villains in the film use guns, this one big suited henchie has the ability to conjure up flames out of his sleeves and to hurl playing cards so fast that they cut their victims. This random henchman has the powers of X-Men's Pyro and Daredevil's Bullseye rolled up into one. I think that Woo and the producers officially gave up when they decided to pit Chow against a magician for the final face off.

I can't forget to mention that Once a Thief also contains one of the most ridiculous and hilarious plot twists in any movie I have ever seen. It is so out there and unbelievable, that I can't help but laugh at it. Most people will probably scoff at it and disown the movie the moment they see it. However, I think that the twist is hilarious and I love the film even more for it. It's Hong Kong comedy for goodness sakes, give it a break. Still, your jaw will drop and your head will explode when the twist arrives, it is that unpredictable and that impossible.

Two Time Hong Kong Film Award Winning Actor: Chow Yun Fat

John Woo will always be remembered for heroic bloodshed genre films like A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, and Hard Boiled. However, I believe that Once a Thief should be mentioned in the same breath as those other films because it is equally rewarding. Once a Thief nails all of the themes of heroic bloodshed: honor, loyalty, brotherhood, double fisted gun action, self sacrifice, and cops and robbers. It just separates itself from the rest of the deadly serious heroic bloodshed films with scenes of wheel chair martial arts and Chow Yun Fat throwing a baby through the air. Woo's one and only comedy is as goofy and fun as they come. If I ever meet the guy, I would love to shake his hand and congratulate him on making one of my favorite comedies ever. Even though Once a Thief is a comedy, it still has a minor amount of blood in it and a truly immense body count. Therefore, Woo never betrays himself or the audience, giving them exactly what they want, as well as himself. It's still a Woo film, through and through, even down to Leslie Cheung shooing a dove out of his way during the final shootout. 

Rating: 9/10 - A hilarious, charming, romantic, and bad ass action film that ranks as one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen.

Mission-Impossible-a-Thon, Part 2 - Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Director: John Woo

Cast: Tom Cruise, Dougray Scott, Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, Richard Roxburg

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 123 minutes

Mission: Impossible II did so many things different than Mission: Impossible. For starters, the budget was amped up to $125 million from the original's $80 million. Than, the sequel replaced the original's clever and smart plot with a dumb action packed plot complete with lots of nonsensical romance. All of Brian De Palma's stylistic tendencies, tense heist sequences, and storytelling techniques were completely scrapped as well. With De Palma out of the director chair, the greatest action director of all time stepped in. That being, John Woo. 

Woo brings all of his action mastery and love for doves (there is literally a dove on the poster!) to the film and crafts the best action scenes of the entire franchise. However, Woo, screenwriter Robert Towne, and star and producer Tom Cruise completely forgot that a Mission: Impossible film also needs an engaging story. Cruise and Woo must have spent so much time crafting action scenes that they completely forgot that the original film was extremely tense and suspenseful. The sequel is nothing like the original film at all. Besides the presence of Ving Rhames and Tom Cruise, there are almost no similarities between the two films.

I have noted that many non-action fans hate this film (due to the departure of actual spy tactics and smart storytelling) and that many action fans love this film (due to the increased amount of gunfire, car chases, and explosions). Interestingly enough, I find my opinion somewhere in the middle of these two consensuses. I hate that the film abandons the smart plot of De Palma's original in favor of dumb and generic blockbuster storytelling. However, I absolutely love the action scenes in the film and think that the shootouts are incredibly well choreographed, shot, and edited for a PG-13 film. You have to remember that John Woo is arguably my favorite director of all time as far as action filmmakers come. But even my love for Woo can't hide my disappointment with this film. Mission: Impossible II is kind of a red headed step child for me. I hate the darn thing because it's so annoying but have to love it at the same time because my boy John Woo directed the heck out of the action scenes.

Trademark Beretta Woo Gunplay.

Mission Impossible II opens with Dr. Nekhorvich (Rade Serbedzija) stealing a virus named Chimera from a lab. While traveling on a plane, the doctor meets with his friend Dimitri (who is actually Ethan Hunt). But when Dimitri arrives, he kills the doctor and pulls off his face mask to reveal that he is actually the villain of the movie, Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott). He and his henchmen escape the plane and send it crashing into the side of a mountain. 

We than get reintroduced to the real Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) as he free climbs along the side of a cliff while listening to reggae music. When he reaches the peak of the cliff, an IMF helicopter shoots a tube toward him. He opens it and pulls out the lamest sunglasses you have seen since the year 2000 and puts them on to reveal a video inside of the lenses. IMF informs him of his newest mission: Ethan must assemble a team in order to stop Sean Ambrose from obtaining the Chimera virus. However, he must get a thief named Naya (Thandie Newton) to join the team no matter what. 

What follows is one of the most boring hour and fifteen minutes in movie history. Ethan strikes up a relationship with Naya, sends her in as a mole to infiltrate Ambrose's hideout (they had a former relationship), and than spends the rest of the film worrying about her being amongst Ambrose and his dangerous henchmen. It takes one hour and fifteen minutes to get to the first action scene in the film. An hour and fifteen minutes! Once the action arrives, Mission II finally becomes a good film. But one and hour and fifteen minutes of nonsensical romance and boring dialog is unforgivable. Shame on you Tom Cruise and John Woo.

Please shoot her!

I cannot stress enough how truly boring the first hour of this film is. There is no tension or suspense at all. I got so bored within the first 15 minutes of the film that I honestly considered fast forwarding up to the action scenes. But than I decided against that because I know I can't properly review the film without having seen the entire thing. The first problem I have with this film is that there is a lot of romantic nonsense between Thandie Newton and Tom Cruise. The two strike up an interest immediately upon meeting and kiss one another within the second time of seeing one another. I am sorry, but these characters and actors have absolutely no chemistry with one another. Their romance is completely forced.

Another big problem is that the film reveals characters' true identities far too often. As seen in the first film, agents can don a mask in order to make themselves look like a completely different person. The first Mission: Impossible film sparingly uses these masks and uses them well. We see them used once at the very beginning and than a second time during the film's finale. The uses of these masks work well because they aren't over done and they come as a surprise too. But than Mission: Impossible II throws that logic to the wind and has a dramatic mask reveal every half hour. I counted five times when characters take a mask off of their face in order to reveal their true identity. Five times! The film borders on self parody by the fourth or fifth mask reveal. And how are these characters whipping up masks so quickly? During the final action scene at the island compound, there is a mask reveal where a character literally had to have had the mask in their jacket pocket to whip it out in time.

But the problems don't stop there. Unlike the first film's cast, I could care less for any of the heroes or villains in this film. Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames do a fine job as their respective characters from the first film. But they aren't given good material at all. The worst offenders, Thandie Newton and Dougray Scott, are dreadfully boring in their roles. They don't have any chemistry with each other or with Cruise. They both come off as lazy, boring, and over the top. You'll be begging to move onto Mission: Impossible III's characters after you spend 30 minutes with these characters. Anthony Hopkins also pops up in a wasted cameo as the new director of IMF. If you ask me, Hopkins is my least favorite director of IMF in contrast to the other directors that pop up throughout the series.

"He put a hole in my Versace. Oh now I'm mad."

If lots of boring dialog and useless shots of the characters' surroundings wasn't enough to annoy you, there is a single scene in Mission: Impossible II that easily ranks as one of the most ridiculous, unnecessary, and stupid scenes in movie history. After Ethan fails to convince Naya that he needs her help on a mission, he decides to track her down in his sports car. Ethan finds Naya driving in her sports car as well along a road that runs next to a cliff. When Ethan smiles from along side her, Naya rams her car into the side of his to prove that she wants him off of her tail. The two than partake in a ridiculous chase as the two bash into each other's cars and dodge oncoming traffic.

After Naya nearly hits an oncoming car, her car spins out of control. Ethan rams his car into the side of her car to prevent it from going off of the cliff and their two cars begin to spin next to one another. As their cars spin out of control, Ethan and Naya look at each in slow motion with loving eyes and have a sexy stare down. Finally, Ethan and Naya look up to see that their cars are spinning toward the edge of a cliff. By luck, Naya's car stops right at the edge of the cliff. When Ethan goes to check on her, Naya is hanging off of the cliff from her car's side door (what the heck caused her door to open up and for her to fall out?) Ethan pulls Naya up on top of him while sitting in her front seat. The two embrace one another and kiss each other because they are both two hot sexy people who just survived a life or death incident (just like the moment between Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves in Speed, but forced instead of earned). Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the stupidest scenes in movie history. Moving on.

"I'm the villain!"

Mission: Impossible II is unfortunately more interesting to discuss than to watch. Viewers will notice that each Mission: Impossible film represents the stylistic tendencies of the director attached to it. Therefore, it is quite easy to spot the markings of director John Woo. There are slow motion explosions, Beretta hand guns, double fisted gun play, doves, and even helmet clad motorcycle riding henchmen. However, these aspects of Woo only apply to the action scenes. None of John Woo's typical themes of honor, friendship, or loyalty pop up in the film at all. While I love any action scene that John Woo directs, his action is made far better by the themes and characters found in his Hong Kong films. His American films only represent half of why he is a great filmmaker. This is probably why Woo was chosen to direct the film. The producers saw one of his shootouts from Hard Boiled and flipped out. Or the producers saw Face/Off and thought, "Hey! This guy made a pretty good action movie with characters wearing masks of one another's faces. Let's do that but in a Mission: Impossible movie!"

Mission: Impossible II is John Woo's biggest financial success in his entire career. The film grossed a whopping $540 million worldwide on a $125 million budget. It was also the highest grossing film in 2000! Man, I am so sorry for all of those people out there who had to sit through one of John Woo's most problematic films. On the other hand, I am not sorry that they got to sit through the action scenes because they are absolutely fantastic!

Mission: Impossible II is one of two PG-13 John Woo films (the other being Paycheck). Therefore, the film doesn't display Woo's graceful eye for slow motion blood letting. All of the action is tame and blood-less. However, the choreography, editing, and photography more than makes up for the lack of blood. The two big action scenes in the film are a shootout inside of a close quarters laboratory and a final chase scene involving motorcycles, guns, flipping cars, and a fist fight by the sea. It's a shame these excellent action scenes come so late into the film. You'll be brain dead by the time Tom Cruise finally fires a gun.

Richard Roxburg plays a decent right hand man.

The lab gunfight is filled with plenty of John Woo action shots. Ethan slides on his side and fires two guns in slow motion, Ethan fires two guns into a goon who rushes him, and Ethan runs down an exploding hallway filled with sparks and fire (much like Chow Yun Fat during the hospital finale in Hard Boiled, minus the baby). Unlike the first Mission: Impossible, Ethan racks up a hefty kill count that is more akin to what you would find in a body count heavy John Woo film.

But it is the motorcycle finale that ranks as one of the great cinematic action sequences. Once Ethan gets his hands on a motorcycle, he tries to out run Ambrose and his men's many vehicles. There is some great stunt work in this scene, especially a moment where Tom Cruise leaps off of his motorcycle and hangs onto the side while driving in order to avoid oncoming gun fire! He even looks at his rear view mirror to aim down his gun's sights in order to shoot it backwards! I could rave forever about the slow motion editing and stunt work in this chase scene. It's so fantastic that it makes up for all of the crap that comes before it.

Even though Mission: Impossible was released in 1996, Mission: Impossible II is easily the most dated entry of the entire franchise. The soundtrack and score are incredibly silly (hard rocking Hans Zimmer and Limp Bizkit doing the Mission theme) and the outfits are atrocious as well (Cruise's lame leather jacket and long gross hair don't help). The action sequences are top notch though and still hold up.

Cruise "kicks" it up a notch.

Mission: Impossible II, where to begin? I've said enough about this film so I'll sum it up in short. The first hour and fifteen minutes are boring as hell. Watching them could make for a good torture method. But the final hour of non-stop action and stunt work is entertaining as hell. Is it worth it to sit through the whole film just to get to some great action? In my opinion, no. But, I would recommend the film to fans of John Woo and the series. Woo's action scenes are truly some of the greatest shootouts ever made for a PG-13 feature. But the rest of the film is trash. It's sad to see such a smart franchise turn dumb so quickly.

Rating: 6/10 - Mission: Impossible II is a dull sequel that fails to replicate what made the original film so great while packing a lot more action for the action fanatics to drool over.

Franchise:
Mission: Impossible (1996, dir. Brian De Palma)
Mission: Impossible II (2000, dir. John Woo)
Mission: Impossible III (2006, dir. J.J. Abrams)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011, dir. Brad Bird)
Mission: Impossible V (2015, dir. Christopher McQuarrie)

Windtalkers: Director's Cut (2002)

Director: John Woo

Cast: Nicholas Cage, Adam Beach, Christian Slater, Mark Ruffalo, Noah Emmerich

Country: United States / Hong Kong

Rating: R

Run Time: 153 minutes

John Woo dominated the Hong Kong film market from 1986 until 1992. After directing "the greatest action film of all time", Hard Boiled, Woo left Hong Kong and came to Hollywood to continue his film career. After directing two solid American action films, Hard Target and Broken Arrow, Woo slowly worked his way up the Hollywood totem pole. He finally hit it big when he made two huge blockbuster hits with Face/Off and Mission: Impossible 2.

However, Woo's career in Hollywood seemed to end as soon as it had began. Besides working on commercials, short films, and video games, Woo would only direct two more Hollywood blockbusters. These two films, Windtalkers and Paycheck, seem to be the bane of Woo's filmography. Both films were received poorly and met with decent yet disappointing box office numbers in comparison to the whopping $500 million that Mission: Impossible 2 had raked in. As a hard core John Woo fan myself (he's my all time favorite filmmaker), these two films have been the last two of his mainstream films that I have yet to see.

"The Cage" and Adam Beach crawl through battle.

Windtalkers tells the story of a group of American soldiers fighting in Saipan, Japan in 1944 during WWII. The film's protagonist, Sergeant Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage), is given the task to defend a code talker. In order to relay code over radio and not let it be easily deciphered by the Japanese, the U.S. army chose to use Native Americans and their language to develop a new code. Enders is told he must protect Sergeant Ben Yahzee (Adam Beach) and kill him if he needs to in order to prevent the Japanese from getting a hold of him and interrogating him. Enders must also struggle with an injured ear and the post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that he has been afflicted with after witnessing all of his friends die in battle long ago.

Woo's Windtalkers follows a basic pattern from start to finish. The film bounces from an emotional scene set to beautiful music to an epic battle scene filled with bloody and mayhem back to an emotional scene set to beautiful music. Windtalkers repeats this formula throughout the entire film and makes for one hell of a boring viewing experience. Woo's WWII epic is easily his most cliched, unoriginal, and over bloated film to date. A viewing of Windtalkers will consistently remind the viewer of the superior Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's WWII epic does everything that Windtalkers does not. It has an emotional story, unique and memorable characters, awe inspiring battle scenes, and a narrative flow that one can get sucked into. It also pays tribute to the soldiers who fought and died for our country in a realistic and appropriate matter and never exploits their deaths for pure entertainment. Therefore, you get both a great film and a loving tribute to the Second Great War. I think that pro-war films need to balance both of those duties.

Windtalkers, clearly a pro-war and military backed film, is neither a great film or a respectable portrayal of WWII. The characters are extremely one noted and boring to watch, the story is non-existent, and the death scenes feel monotonous and tiresome instead of emotional and affective. And while I do give the film credit for exploring the previously unexplored topic of Native American code talkers in WWII, the subject is hardly given justice. Even though Windtalkers is well shot, beautifully scored, and immensely epic in scope, everything within the film's narrative feels hollow.

The classic John Woo "Mexican Stand-Off"

Before I get into a discussion of Woo's incredible action scenes, I must discuss Nicolas Cage's character and how frustrated I was with his character's journey. In a small prelude after the film's initial opening, Enders and a group of soldiers fight off Japanese soldiers in a small swamp. The scene is very brutal in that it showcases every single one of Enders' friends die in the heat of battle. Enders barely escapes with his life and suffers a sever ear injury that puts him out of commission. In order to go back into battle, Ender must prove that his ear pain has subsided. Therefore, Enders enlists the help of a friendly nurse to help him cheat on his hearing test. 

One might think that the consequence of cheating on a hearing test might come back later in the film to harm Enders or his fellow comrades. Besides seeing Enders suffer from some ear pain every once in a while, the ear injury plays no serious role in the plot at all. I don't understand why Woo went through all of this trouble to establish the issue of Enders' ear pain if only to show it hurt him every once in awhile with no serious consequences? One could have easily excised Enders' ear injury from the film entirely and saved the audience pain.

The other major issue I have with Enders concerns his PTSD. I think that integrating PTSD into a character humanizes them and helps the audience empathize with them. However, Cage goes on to slaughter over 100 Japanese soldiers throughout the film. Now, I am all for watching fun and awesome action films where the protagonist slaughters dozens of baddies (Commando, Rambo III, Hard Boiled, etc). However, Cage's character suffers from very severe PTSD. Therefore, I felt extremely uncomfortable watching an emotionally deranged man gun down countless Japanese soldiers. And to make matters worse, no other character in the film ever brings up Enders' PTSD as an issue and seem content with the guy spraying his Thompson machine gun into every Japanese soldier he comes across. If you have never seen the film before, check it out and tell me if you felt the same way. I personally feel that it is morally wrong to showcase a damaged man slaughter so many soldiers and sell it as entertainment without ever treating or dealing with the issue of PTSD within the film.

Slater returns to a John Woo film in Windtalkers.

If you can separate the thought of a soldier with PTSD from your head, than the action scenes in Windtalkers will come off well. At the time, Windtalkers featured the most epic action scenes that Woo had ever directed in his career (2008's Red Cliff proved to be far more epic). The editing, sound design, and photography of all of the action scenes is great. However, every action scene is nearly the same thing. U.S. soldiers run around, gun down enemies, call an airstrike, and than win the battle. It doesn't help that Nicolas Cage acts the same throughout every action scene. He runs around and sprays his Thompson machine gun at Japanese soldiers, only to watch them tumble over and die.

Saving Private Ryan showed how to make a war film exciting by showcasing various action scenes with different settings and concepts. That film consists of a beach invasion, a sniper face off in the rain, a gun fight in an open field, and an epic city battle. Each action scene was different and never felt tiring to watch. Unfortunately, every action scene in Windtalkers felt exactly the same to me. With no variety whatsoever and a conflicting character arc to clash with the violence, John Woo delivers on some of the biggest yet weakest action of his career. Yeah, sue me Woo fans. I said it.

I do understand and respect why Woo made this film though. The themes of honor, loyalty, and brotherhood that are so heavily prevalent in Woo's Chinese filmography are incredibly prevalent in this film. The concept of having to kill your codetalker in order to prevent them from falling into enemy hands is a great thematic concept that feels ripe for a Woo film. Woo previously made Bullet in the Head, a Vietnam war film that showed how war could bring out the worst in people. Therefore, it was nice to see Woo make a film that showed a more positive side of war, one in which heroes were born and friendships were made. In all honesty, I find this film more fun to discuss and study than to watch and enjoy.

Michael Bay eat your heart out at these explosions.

I also want to point out that I viewed the Director's Cut, the one and only Director's Cut of Woo's filmography. It seems that the Director's Cut adds over twenty minutes of additional scenes and a hell of a lot of action. If action is your thing, than I implore you to watch the expanded cut of this film. Woo racks up the kill count higher in this film than in any other film of his (besides maybe Red Cliff). However, the film felt far too long at two hours and thirty minutes. Somewhere in this muddled mess of a film is a dumb but exhilarating war picture. 

Veteran composer James Horner also scores some of the best music in his entire career with Windtalkers. Some critics and online reviews bash Horner's score for sounding too similar to his previous work. And while I agree that the score sounds a lot like past Horner scores, I love that about Horner. When I see a film composed by Horner, I typically expect that emotional and sappy Horner music that I love so much. Windtalkers balances violent and epic action scenes with small character driven moments that benefit greatly from Horner's gorgeous score. And while the content within these character driven moments is weak and generic, Horner's masterful score somehow drives it all home. Or at least helps drive it somewhat home. Even Horner's amazing music can't save the bland taste that Windtalkers will leave in your mouth.

"You survived a Woo film, congratulations."

As a die hard John Woo fan, I was quite disappointed with this film. It is not an affective action film or an affective emotional war picture either. If you are going to watch Windtalkers, know that you are simply going to get some incredible action that can run for up to 16 minutes at a time. Therefore, if you can get over the fact that the film takes a serious and sensitive time in period and turns it into a dumb as nails action film, you might enjoy it. 

Rating: 6/10 - Overlong and stereotypical storytelling bog down an otherwise action packed and beautifully scored war film.

Max Payne: Unrated Cut (2008)

Director: John Moore

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Ludacris, Chris O' Donnell, Donald Louge

Country: Canada / United States

Rating: Unrated

Run Time: 103 minutes

Why can't a video game be adapted to the silver screen successfully? For the last 25 years, there have been numerous video game to film adaptations and each and everyone has been either flawed, decent, or terrible. In 2008, we got a film adaptation of one of my personal favorite video game series, Max Payne. Max Payne is a video game seeped in film noir aesthetics that follows Detective Max Payne as he tries to uncover why his wife and child were murdered. The series was notable for its character narration, high body count, and bullet time effects. The game screamed for an action packed film adaptation for goodness sakes. How does Max Payne stack up in the flawed video game to film adaptation world? Read on...

Mark Wahlberg takes a snapchat during an action scene.

Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg) is a detective who seeks the one responsible for the death of his wife and new born. As Max investigates, he discovers a new drug whose dangerous side effects are causing its users to act irrationally. However, Max soon finds that the drug's creators are linked to the death of his wife and that his allies may not be who they say they are.

John Moore's adaptation of Max Payne proved to me that some video games should simply remain a video game. The Max Payne game has very little story to it in the first place. This is explains why it is a video game. Because the story isn't that expansive, we get to play a bunch of shootouts in between each dramatic revelation. And that is fine to me. Max Payne was a just a video game and it had no other duty than to simply engage me with a decent story and some fun gameplay.

However, the film decides to take this murder mystery story and stretch it out beyond belief. There is not a major action sequence for a whopping hour! Sure there are small beats of violence here and there. But this is a Max Payne movie! This is a movie based on a game where one guy slaughters hundreds of people and we have to wait one hour before we even start to see something like it. By the time the film gets to the action, you won't care about the characters or the story anymore.

Max aims left yet nails a wall dead on.

Mark Wahlberg makes for a bland Max Payne. While he looks the part, Wahlberg sucks all of the life out of the character and reduces him to a brooding widow. In the video game, Max is also a brooding widow, but you get the sense that he is also very snarky and likable. It also would have helped if the film only focused on Max and his narration instead of jumping around amongst all of the supporting characters in the film.

This brings me to another issue I have with the film: the entire supporting cast. Man, what a bore. Every supporting character purely exists for the plot and all disappear within scenes. If you took away each character's profession, I could not tell you a single thing about their personality or characteristics. As I said before, the film would have been stronger if it chose to strictly focus on Max and give smaller amounts of screen time to the supporting players. It would be too exhausting to list all of the characters and the actors that play them too. Just wiki it guys.

I do want to single out one of the film's main villains, Lupino (Amaury Nolasco). Lupino is set up from the beginning of the film as being the leader of the druggies. We even get to watch a video tape that explains that he was once a soldier and that a new street drug has made him nearly invincible. In other words, we as an audience know that this character means business and we can't wait to see him square off against the protagonist. By the time Lupino and Max finally square off, they have the world's shortest fight scene and it must clock in at twenty seconds. What a showdown.

John Moore's "Money Shot"

However, I did not entirely dislike the film. From a visual stand point, this is a very beautiful looking action film. The night time scenes are especially notable. The dark lit sky and soft snow make for some beautiful shots. If anything, Max Payne visually screams Neo-Noir even if it can't be a good Neo-Noir.

As I stated before, the film saves all of its action for the final forty minutes. The first big shootout takes place in a office space between Max and a SWAT team. This action scene alone explains why I own this film on Blu Ray. The sound design and editing during this sequence is incredible. There is a great slow motion shot of Max running along side breaking glass windows as he blind fires his gun toward the SWAT officers. One of his bullets nails an officer in the leg and sends him flying into a glass table. Max than aims his gun at the door in front of him and fires away into it. He than leaps through the air and continues to shoot flying through the door and out of the room! Phew, what a rush.

There is also the infamous high speed shot of Max leaping backwards with his shotgun. This scene was shot with high speed cameras and it definitely shows. However, there are two glaring errors in this scene that really spoil its impact on me. The first is that Max never chambers his shotgun up again. Therefore, how is his shotgun still firing? The second concerns the henchman firing at Max from up on a ledge. The henchman aims at Max yet his bullets nail vials of drugs on the other side of the room. It makes for a great slow motion visual, but why is the henchman firing so far away from Max when he is literally right down in front of him? What could've been a memorable scene is plagued by two ridiculous logical errors.

Max does his best Chow Yun impression.

It is also extremely important to mention that I watched the unrated cut of this film and not the theatrical cut. The theatrical cut was PG-13 and had not an ounce of blood. Therefore, you must own the unrated cut in order to enjoy this film. All of the digital blood is restored in all of its gorey glory. 

In conclusion, Max Payne is a mediocre action film. Even though it takes an hour to get to the action, you won't care about the characters or story by the time you get to it. I really wish this film was a hit because it could have warranted sequels and more action packed adventures with Max. I really do love the visual style of the film and the office space shootout is one of the great underrated shootouts of the last decade. Unfortunately, Max Payne the film is a real bore. Moral of the story? Stick to the video games.

Rating: 6/10 - A slow and boring hour long climb up to the top of an action packed hill makes me recommend Max Payne as merely a rental. If you can find the film for $1, than go for it.

A Better Tomorrow III: Love And Death In Saigon (1989)

Director: Tsui Hark

Cast: Chow Yun Fat, Anita Mui, Tony Leung Ka-fai, Shih Kien, Maggie Cheung Ho-yee

Country: Hong Kong

Rating: R

Run Time: 105 minutes

With John Woo no longer at the helm of one of the most action packed franchises of all time, one would expect the series to go down hill. Fortunately for us action fans, A Better Tomorrow III was not just some half-assed prequel. Instead, Tsui Hark took over and delivered a very romantic film that still managed to kick some major ass, especially in the third act. 

Another great classic image of Chow.

A Better Tomorrow III: Love and Death In Saigon (an awesome subtitle) takes place in 1974. Therefore, it is a prequel to the events of A Better Tomorrow 1 and 2. Mark Lee (Chow Yun Fat) goes to Saigon in order to bring his Uncle Ten (Enter the Dragon's Shih Kien) and cousin Cheung (Election's Tony Leung Ka-Fai) back to Hong Kong with him. Cheung reveals to Mark that he has been dealing with gangsters in order to make more money to support his father Ten. Being the kind and honorable family member that Mark is, he offers his help to Cheung. 

While in Saigon, the two meet Kit (Anita Mui), a beautiful woman who offers for them to accompany her on a deal with a Vietnamese war lord. When things go wrong at the meeting, Mark and Cheung find themselves plunged into the world of underground crime. They also find their loved ones and family members threatened by Vietnamese soldiers and Kit's former lover Ho-Cheung Ching.

Who would have thought that a prequel to the A Better Tomorrow series would have so much going on in it? The film is pretty good for being an unnecessary sequel. There are only a few things that help classify it as a prequel besides it being set in 1974, 12 years before the events of the first film. It does show Mark get his trademark Alain Delon glasses and awesome trench coat. However, it is very shoe horned into the story when you consider how much else is going on in the plot already. I guess this is technically the first time that Mark has ever killed people too. This explains why he is such an honorable brother and deadly killer in the other two films but a novice in this film. Seriously, he nabs 4 kills in the entire film but kills over 100 people combined in the first two films. 

Swag.

This leads into the most unique aspect of A Better Tomorrow III, its action sequences. Instead of Chow Yun Fat being the most bad ass of the cast, co-star Anita Mui completely steals the show. She must kill nearly 50 people in the film! Who would have guessed that she would be so awesome with two guns? She gets to show off her skills in three absolutely awesome action sequences. She jumps, slides, rolls, and shoots everything! Anita Mui should have become a female action star like Gina Carano or Michelle Yeoh because she kicks major butt in this film.

Much like the first A Better Tomorrow, the third film opts to be more dramatic than action packed. There are only three action scenes in the film, each one in each act of the film. They are all first rate though. The first shootout against the Vietnamese soldiers is just awesome. Anita Mui literally one hands an M16 while holding a pistol in her other hand. However, Chow Yun Fat has my favorite action scene of the whole film. He and Kit's former lover go head to head in a close quarters gun fight that is so bad ass. They fire so many bullets at each other and never hit each other once! I love it.

Anita Mui reminds Chow she is the killer elite.

Tsui Hark chooses to use a lot of slow motion just like John Woo. However, Tsui Hark's usage of slow motion is almost over kill. John Woo expertly blends regular speed and slow motion in order to turn his action scenes into a ballet of violence. Tsui Hark on the other hand showcases the entire action scene with just slow motion. While this technique makes much of the imagery very memorable, it really slows down the proceedings of the action. While I am normally a slow motion advocate, this film needed to learn to use it sparingly.

Unlike the previous A Better Tomorrow films, this is film is very much about heterosexual love and romance. The previous films were all about brotherhood, honor, and intense friendship amongst men. While there is a little of that here between Chow Yun and Tony Leung, the romantic love triangle is at the fore front of everything else. Cheung, Mark, and Kit all struggle with figuring out who belongs with who romantically. Kit's former lover also complicates this triangle as well. You could argue that it is a love square actually. To be honest, I absolutely loved the romance between Chow Yun Fat and Anita Mui. They made for an adorable couple and I loved the tension and chemistry between them. In short, very little bromance, but a lot of romance.

Hipster Tony Leung.

All of the performances in the film are great too. Anita Mui is awesome as the sexy but totally bad ass femme fatale. Chow is great as always as Mark Lee, the character that made him an international star. Tony Leung Ka-Fai is also good as Cheung. I loved that all three of the lead characters got in on the action too. Each A Better Tomorrow film usually showcases a group of three people going up against countless henchman in an all shootout. In the first film it was Ti Lung, Chow Yun, and Leslie Cheung in the dock shootout. In the second film, it was Ti Lung, Chow Yun, and Dean Shek waging a full war inside of a mansion. And in this film, Anita Mui, Chow Yun, and Tony Leung take on Vietnamese soldiers in an abandoned house.

I also noted that the film reminded me of two other Chow Yun Fat films, Hong Kong 1941 and Once a Thief. Both of these films depict Chow in a romantic love triangle. Hong Kong 1941 is even more similar because it also deals with the backdrop of war. If you are like me and are trying to watch every Chow Yun Fat film ever made, definitely check out those two films. They are really great and totally underrated.

The classic John Woo Mexican stand-off.

So ultimately, how do I feel about this third film in the trilogy that acts as both a finale and a prequel? In all honesty, I think it's pretty good. The acting, story, and drama are all great. The action is for the most part great, minus some excessive slow motion. However, I felt that some of the film's villains were too undefined and that the film dragged during the second act. Otherwise, this is a sweet finale to the series. However, if anything was to close out the series, it should've been the insane mansion shootout from the end of A Better Tomorrow II.

Rating: 8/10 - A solid finale to one of the best action trilogies of all time. Highly recommended and worth checking out even though John Woo had no part in it.

Best Kill / Beatdown: All I will say is, Chow Yun Fat on a Motorcycle vs. A Tank.

Best Action Scene: My favorite action scene was when Chow had a one on one gunfight with Kit's former lover, Ho. Chow dual wields two M16's while Ho leaps and flips with just a hand gun. They fire so many bullets at each other and not one ever connects! I loved it.

Best Performance: I'm going to have to go with Anita Mui as Kit. She just blew me away during the action scenes and was a great romantic co-star for Chow. Chow is a definite second place too. Getting to see him play the same character and bring his all three times is a real treat.

Franchise:
A Better Tomorrow (dir. John Woo, 1986)
A Better Tomorrow II (dir. John Woo, 1987)
A Better Tomorrow III: Love And Death In Saigon (dir. Tsui Hark, 1989)
Return to a Better Tomorrow (dir. Wong Jing, 1994)
A Better Tomorrow (dir. Hae-sung Song, 2010)