Search
Search results
Super-violent fighting "action"
I've never seen the original Baki the Grappler series. But on a recommendation from a friend, I decided to watch this one, which is apparently a sequel to the other. Although I feel you don't need to have watched the original, I feel there were a few parts in this one that would have had more meaning if I had seen the original.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
Anyway, the story is about 17 year old Baki Hanma. A martial artist, who won an underground tournament, who is now targeted by 5 death-row inmates. Other members of the underground tournament take Baki's side to fight against them. That's pretty much it.
Each character seems to have a unique fighting style or ability & each character has their own special look. But no matter the look, these characters are ugly. I mean real ugly. They may be the most grotesque characters I've ever seen on film. Almost every one has a ridiculously unrealistic over-muscular body. It's as if a 10 year old drew a bodybuilder. Everyone's hands look like balloons, with marbles as knuckles. Everyone's feet look like a rock with tiny grapes as toes. Hideous faces & disturbing eyes. Even Baki, who is supposed to be good looking, looks overly glam. Again, like a 10 year old's drawing. As for the animation, it's not very good. Most of the show is two characters facing each other & talking crap to each other before finally, someone punches or kicks & then it's just a still shot of them hitting the other with a white streak, faking movement. In the cases where we actually see them moving, the animation jarringly switches to the horrible hand-drawn CGI animation that I can't stand.
As I mentioned, each character has their own style of fighting. Whether it's karate or judo or hidden weapons or weapons hidden inside the body, etc... So, there's lots of variety. The show is for mature audiences due to the gore (lots of dismemberment, eye popping, etc...) & nudity. So, no kids, ok?
But here's the main problem I have. I don't care about the characters. I don't care about Baki. In fact, if you pay attention, he's not in most of the series. And when he is, most of the time he doesn't do anything. This show also has one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen & that his sex scene. He's never had sex before & we get to hear his thoughts. It's almost like the writer never had sex either. I was laughing out loud.
So, why did I watch? Well, so I had a new anime to talk about with my friend. And although I said I don't care about the characters, I still want to see what happens. I would say the show is geared towards men, as there is only one female character & she's played like a stereo-typical damsel in distress. I have 3 episodes left to watch & no sign of a female fighter. I say give it a shot if you want some mindless ass-kicking fluff.
Photo Slideshow With Music: Your Story Video Maker
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
App
This Photo Slideshow With Music is good for several reasons. First of all, it can be a special...
KORG iMS-20
Music and Entertainment
App
iMS-20 is an analog synth studio; a complete recreation of the Korg MS-20 synth, an analog...
Dragon Dictation
Business and Utilities
6.0
Rate It
App
Dragon Dictation is an easy-to-use voice recognition application powered by Dragon®...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Go Back to China (2020) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
Couldn't Hold My Interest
I’m always on the lookout for hidden gems, especially when it comes to films starring minorities. I was hoping to find that in Go Back to China but wasn’t as impressed as I thought it would be. In the movie, a woman living in the states is forced to go to China to work for her father in his toy factory after he cuts off her trust fund.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Acting: 10
Great performances all around from a stellar Asian cast. While I don’t know much about them from previous films, I was extremely impressed with the range of Anna Akana, Richard Ng, and Lynn Chen who all shared the most screen time. They breathed a life and a realism into their characters that really made them feel like family.
Beginning: 2
Characters: 10
I appreciated that the three main characters experienced a great growth over the course of the movie. Each of them played off of each others’ personalities and experiences which gave the movie a true dynamic feel. The main character Sasha Li is likable right from jump even as a pretentious snob. She gives you a reason to stay interested in the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
The camera work is just slightly above par here. Outside of the toy factory, the setpieces are pretty bland. I honestly can’t remember any scenes that stand out or a shot that made my jaw drop. The movie instead seems content with going through the motions.
Conflict: 3
Entertainment Value: 6
Go Back to China is not without its share of entertaining moments but unfortunately those moments are too few and far between for the movie to consistently be entertaining. Just when it starts to get a bit of momentum, it finds itself going in reverse. Too much talking, not enough action. In the thick of it, it felt more like a Hallmark movie than anything else.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
The story moves along gracefully, albeit with a few trip-ups here and there. I always felt like the story was going somewhere at the very least. This would have worked more in the film’s favor had the story itself been a little more solid.
Plot: 5
As I mentioned above, the story definitely has a very Hallmarky-type feel. The cheese runs super high throughout. The premise is interesting, but things become very predictable very fast the longer the story plays out.
Resolution: 10
Say what you want about Hallmark movies, who doesn’t love a good Hallmark ending? All the pieces of the puzzle ended up exactly where they needed to be. If the movie had began just as strongly as it had ended, the movie would have been way more enjoyable.
Overall: 68
As a man that loves to appreciate and understand different cultures, I did love the perspective the movie provided into the life of people in China and the different hardships they face. Unfortunately, I didn’t love Go Back to China as a whole. A few tweaks here and there and this review would look a lot different.
Easy Search for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Youtube, Email, Pinterest, Amazon, Yahoo
Social Networking and Weather
8.0
Rate It
App
What is Easy Search? …a great interface to search Google, Bing, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace,...
Oldify - Old Face App
Entertainment and Photo & Video
App
See your face when it’s old with Oldify, a fun camera booth app that lets turns your iPhone or...
SpanishDict Translator
Education and Reference
App
SpanishDict is the leading Spanish translator, dictionary, and conjugator trusted by more than 10...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.