RUNNING ON KARMA (2003), dir. Johnnie To, Wai Ka-Fai

“Running on Karma” throws cops, kung fu, even a little slapstick comedy into a blender before giving them all a good spin. What results is a surprisingly-deep movie that’s as much about the teachings of Buddhism as the adventures of a super-powered monk, whose muscles would give the Hulk a run for his money.

The film opens with two storylines converging on the streets of Hong Kong: a male strip show gets busted by police, and a young cop named Yee (Cecilia Cheung) ends up chasing after one of the dancers, the very Schwarzenegger-looking Big (Andy Lau, wearing a muscle suit). Meanwhile, detectives from the Criminal Investigation Department are attacked by the prime suspect in an Indian immigrant’s death. During the ensuing chaos, the suspect escapes, Yee accidentally shoots a police dog, and Big has visions (which resemble static-filled television) of a boy chasing after another dog with a stick.

“I can see karma,” Big tells Yee after she rescues him from a brutal police beating, explaining that he is able to see a person or animal’s previous life, which can often predict what will happen in their current one. With the police dog, it was a case of karma coming back around, as it had once been a child who savagely beat a canine to death. Looking at Yee, who is ordered to help CID with their case, Big sees a military general in her own prior life, and offers to help using his mystical insights and knowledge of martial arts. After staring at the victim in the mortuary, he concludes the crime is the result of hatred so deep that it can only mean “many lifetimes of betrayal and trust,” which turns out to be an important clue.

With her guts and his big muscles, supernatural senses, and as it turns out, ability to float on air like a feather, it isn’t long before they track down CID’s suspect, who in the tradition of kung fu movies has skills that perfectly contrast with Big’s. Following the collar, he and Yee start running into each other more regularly: him helping to protect her during dangerous cases; her going to see him compete on the amateur boxing circuit. At this point, audiences would be forgiven for including the superhero film in “Running on Karma’s” genre mash-up, despite the noticeable lack of secret identities and costumes. Even Yee, who starts investigating Big’s past as a monk, only to discover that the loss of a close friend caused him to give up his life as an ascetic, cannot overlook the similarity; she muses on how amazing life must be that someone as average as her has an extraordinary person like him watching over her.

Alas, just when it seems both protagonists are on their way to a mutually-beneficial friendship, maybe even romance, the filmmakers throw in a twist that sends “Running on Karma” off the beaten path, and toward an ending that is heartbreaking, and also genuinely thoughtful. It’s here that Johnnie To and Wai Ka-Fai both show they have more in mind than just wire-fighting fun; indeed, this may be a movie ostensibly about Eastern religion, but it has a message that can be applied to faith in general: that the challenge of spiritual enlightenment isn’t keeping up the practice of religious ideals, it’s not letting go of them, despite a world that challenges those beliefs constantly.

The seriousness of the third act may surprise some viewers, given how the first hour does have some comedic moments, namely the sight of Big, oversize muscles and all, attempting to ride a moped with disastrous results. I assume Big had to be a larger-than-life character in order to seem analogous to Buddha himself, but the prosthetic suit is the worst thing in the movie. Although his appearance gradually stops being a distraction as he appears more frequently with clothing on, there are moments when bad lighting, or having Big shirtless and supposedly performing acrobatic moves in mid-air, are such that even Lau’s considerable charisma cannot overcome the fakery. But even if these problems result in “Running on Karma” not being a great movie, it’s still a good one.

Overall rating: *** (out of ****)

J.S.A.: JOINT SECURITY AREA (2001), dir. Chan-wook Park

SITE ARCHIVE! (REGULARLY UPDATED)

This 2001 Chan-wook Park thriller exploits the ongoing tension between North and South Korea, one nation divided since the 1940's. For those (like me) without prior knowledge of the Korean peninsula's current political climate, North equals “Commie,” while South equals “Yankee,” and “Yankees” and “Commies” don’t like each other, as anyone living during the 1970’s and 80’s can tell you. In an attempt to simplify the politics in the peninsula for viewers outside of Asia, the screenwriters have characters yell things like “Commie bastard!” and “Yankee puppet!” repeatedly at each other, as if either phrase could embody their complex feelings. I’m ashamed to say the ploy works.

Actually, it’s a blessing not having to dwell on the politics that have shaped the geographical powder keg that is Korea, especially since “J.S.A.” tells a mystery in complex, “Rashomon”-style format. The title refers to the “Joint Security Area,” the American-occupied territory between the two countries, which belongs neither to the north, nor the south. One night, gunfire is heard on the northern side of the J.S.A., and a South Korean sergeant named Lee staggers across a foot bridge, back to the southern side, just as troops from both armies gather and an incident results. When an investigator from the Neutral Nations Security Council (N.N.S.C.) arrives to get facts, and calm what threatens to become a provocation for war, she gets conflicting stories from both sides. Along with being different, both "official reports" sound highly unlikely.

According to the report from Lee, North Korean soldiers slipped across the J.S.A. and kidnapped him. They took him back across the border, and held him hostage until he broke loose, then killed two of his abductors. Meanwhile, the report by Sergeant Oh of the North Korean army states that Lee crossed into enemy territory of his own volition, then acted out of cold blood, wounding Sergeant Oh and killing two of his comrades. Like “Rashomon,” or movies heavily-influenced by the Kurosawa film, such as “Courage Under Fire" and “Hero,” the mystery of what happened north of the “J.S.A.” is gradually unraveled. As each new tidbit of information is introduced, pivotal scenes are shown again, in light of what N.N.S.C. Inspector Sophie Jean, and the audience, are now aware of. Ultimately, the truth is more complicated than either “official story” we had been given. Nevertheless, it all fits together in a logical and believable way.

Like the more successful "Rashomon" clones over the years, the flashback technique helps tell the story in a manner that builds and sustains suspense. Meanwhile, "J.S.A." also allows an important window into how South Koreans view their brothers to the north, showing the strong reunification urge that pervades the region. Indeed, despite their duties to their respective nations, the soldiers on both sides eventually start crossing the J.S.A. to exchange pleasantries and learn more about one another, and their burgeoning friendship is portrayed downright idyllically, almost like children playing. Sure, Chanwook Park’s film seems to ignore the possible negative consequences of the two countries becoming one again (specifically, if it occurs under the flag of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, whose regime has been condemned by the American president), but its overriding message, about the tragedy of one people turned against itself due to borders and nationalism, is highly potent.

Also potent: Park’s directing style, a mixture of sleek cinematography and MTV-ish editing that propels the story along. While Park has had greater international success with his 2003 revenge flick “Oldboy,” this older film has less of an S&M edge, even if it retains some of his recognizable black humor (at one point, the image of a character moving in slow-motion flips upside-down to reveal he's falling, which has the same effect of surprise on the viewer as it would on the protagonists). Finally, whereas “Oldboy” was intense, psychological, and occasionally weird, “J.S.A.” is more of a standard drama, requiring Park to do what he can to make conventional scenes visually-interesting. He manages to nimbly direct a sequence where Lee’s rescue team attempts to suppress the North Koreans while retrieving him from a footbridge. The battle culminates in one of those shots you can’t help remembering afterward: the camera looking down on Lee from overhead, then slowly panning back as bullets whiz back-and-forth.

Park uses the overhead crane shot several times at the border—above the actual line that is supposed to separate the north from the south. Framed this way, it looks like a very thin divider, very unimpressive. Could this be Park’s way of pointing out the ridiculousness of the line itself, that a strip of paint on the ground cannot determine the fate of an entire people? And wouldn’t he have a point? Not that reunification should happen the way the world is now, but let’s face it, when a flimsy line is all that stands between two peoples itching to cross it, isn’t reconciliation inevitable?

Overall rating: *** (out of ****)

ON GUARD (2002), dir. Philippe de Broca

“On Guard” doesn’t exactly re-invent the swashbuckling adventurer, but it’s entertaining in a big-budget movie-ish kind of way. The film stars a very Depardieu-looking Daniel Auteuil as Lagardere, a roguish swordsman who goes from outlaw to hero, discovering friendship, honor, and love along the way.

Written and directed by Philippe de Broca, “On Guard” practically threatens to sweep us away with its magnificent scenery and sense of grown-up intrigue. Lagardere is initially hired to assassinate his rival, the Duke of Nevers (Vincent Perez), who is master of an invincible fencing technique that involves running through an opponent’s forehead (apparently, there is a weak point). After sparing his life, Nevers reveals he has an heir whom he did not know about until recently, and hires Lagardere to accompany him into the countryside to visit both the child and its mother.

The pair bond during the course of their journey, the lord growing to admire his social inferior’s rise from poverty: Born a bastard, Lagardere was raised as a circus acrobat, where he honed his considerable fencing skills. The Duke eventually knights him, and when it looks like some masked men on horseback are going to ambush them, teaches him the devastating Nevers Attack. Unfortunately, even that is not enough to ward off tragedy, and Lagardere is left responsible for Nevers’ infant daughter, whom he names Aurore and raises as his own until the day justice can be served.

It takes about 14 years for the day of retribution to arrive; however, that’s about par for the course with any sword-fighting movie where vengeance is the driving motivator. The refreshingly simple plot is buoyed by near-operatic performances by Auteuil and his cast-mates: indeed, Auteuil not only has some of the same shaggy dog qualities as Depardieu, but like that famous French actor, attacks his role with fire and passion. On the other hand, the main villain, a scheming cousin of Nevers’ who wants the family fortune all to himself, is rotten inside and out and near-irredeemable by film’s end. The Count Gonzague (Fabrice Luchini) not only plots to cheat and/or kill his relatives, but bilks the public through a non-existent colony abroad, surrounds himself with scarred killers and hunchbacks, and when ultimately cornered, won’t even face Lagardere like a man.

Meanwhile, Aurore has grown into a beautiful, strong young woman (played by Marie Gillain), raising the question: if the man whom you thought all your life was your father turned out not to be that, what would you do? Some may find the answer creepy; some may view it as merely an example of impossible romance, which befits a movie where characters seemingly wear their hearts on their sleeves. Personally, I think de Broca is trying to provide a counterpoint to Gonzague, a rat born to a noble house. By contrast, Lagardere, who arrived in the world with little in the way of advantages, gets the opportunity to sit pretty because he does the right thing.

“On Guard’s” old-fashioned moral code goes hand-in-hand with an old-fashioned shooting style. In an age where swordfights can be chopped up to near-indecipherable results in the editing room, here they are shot in long, continuous takes from a distance, so the viewer really gets to see the fluid movements of participants. Unfortunately, filming them this way also means there’s less of the frenetic energy swashbucklers like “Pirates of the Caribbean” have in abundance; even when de Broca punctuates with a foil through the noggin, the blood spurt is more like a period than an explanation point.

Overall rating: *** (out of ****)

THE JACKET (2005), dir. John Maybury

Like many supernatural-themed movies, “The Jacket” makes certain demands of its audience. In this case, it’s: one, that they’re willing to accept the idea ghosts have nothing better to do than help sullen-eyed teenagers they barely knew before expiring; and two, that the course of an entire life can be predicated by a single event 14 years in the past.

The third expectation is no one will care this movie ultimately makes no sense, so long as it makes good on the tragic romance at its center between Jack Starks (Adrien Brody), who may be crazy or may actually be traveling through time, and a young woman named Jackie (Keira Knightley). The pair first meets in 1993, when she is a little girl stranded beside a Vermont road with her mom. Jack fixes their truck for them, but Jean’s mother proves ungrateful, so he ends up hitching a ride with a mysterious stranger who kills a cop, then frames him for it.

The authorities refuse to believe Jack’s story that someone else committed the murder, since he has mental problems stemming from being shot in the head while serving in the Persian Gulf. He ends up being committed to a hospital for the criminally-insane, where the gruff head shrink (Kris Kristofferson) subjects him to an outdated form of therapy, which involves being fit into a strait jacket, then slid into a locker.

Trapped, Jack has a vision of the year 2007, where he meets a grown-up Jackie whom he doesn’t immediately recognize. She, in turn, doesn’t know who he is either, both because he has barely aged since she last saw him 14 years prior, and because it turns out Jack Starks died on January 1, 1993. From then on, the movie see-saws back-and-forth between 1993 and 2007, between Jack and Jean falling in love in the future and trying to unravel the mysterious circumstances of his death, and his using knowledge from 2007 to help people in the past, including the one kindly doctor in the whole asylum (Jennifer Jason-Leigh).

Clues and events fall into place like puzzle pieces, and the cinematography has a certain bleak consistency. Writer Massy Tadjedin and director John Maybury, however, seem less assured about the film’s overall tone, alternating between creepiness whenever Jack is in solitude and a more straightforward, dramatic mood for scenes outside the locker.

“The Jacket” also strains credibility in ways other movies about mentally-unstable individuals who think they’re time travelers – “12 Monkeys” comes to mind – manage to avoid. Granted, Adrien Brody is a good enough actor to sell every scene he’s in, but considering how crazy his story sounds, his character has a relatively easy time getting others to believe him, and the most incredulous instance may be his convincing Leigh’s medical professional to perform electro-shock therapy on a small boy who appears to have autism.

In addition, the opening footage of the Persian Gulf War left a bad taste in my mouth, mainly because the protagonist’s status as a veteran is completely incidental. He could be a truck driver and the film would more or less turn out the same; but that he was a soldier, along with some brief dialogue about how patients like Jack are treated as criminals, allow the illusion this movie has some kind of relevance today. But really, “The Jacket” is little more than New Age treacle dressed up like something considerably more important, and ends up ignoring some basic time travel-related paradoxes for the sake of a lazy, feel-good ending, where nothing is impossible except actually buying this hokum.

Overall rating: ** (out of ****)