I still dont know why for what the redbelt was awarded in the end?

For an unscheduled defeat of a baddie? He shoulda fought George Bush and Dick Cheney wielding only his eyelashes. That’s redbelt stuff – knocking those Tomahawks from the sky with mere blinks.

I guess this just might have been David Mamet awarding himself a redbelt for moviemaking for his total screen career in arguably his worst movie of all. But I might of missed the crucial indecipherable clue which explained all. I might of blinked.

Ejiofor, the wielder of the “buddhist monk concsience”, is the most convincing act of the flick, apart from the cop who left his weapon unattended – safety off – a contrived situation if any, considering he’d mastered the focus and commitment demanded of the Black Belt…

Everything else about the movie, except the smokin’ hot Alice Braga who lights secret fires everytime she speaks and flashes those lightning Latino eyes, is ho-hum, hum-drum.

Even Shayamalan’s happening is more interesting.

My, my Mamet, this takes sentimental self-indulgence over the top.

http://yourfreemoviedownloads.com

“nothings black and white”

“nothings black and white? nothings black and white? what about a panda you fucking idiot”

or something like that. Its from one of his plays but I can’t remember the name.

It is said that you should write about what you know. This movie is proof as to why that is. Mamet should stick to gnarly white dudes talking fast and leave R-rated Karate Kid movies to people who don’t take themselves so damn seriously.

Although the movie was quite bad enough on its own merits anyway.

you said:

“Your article describes a film with good performances and good stuntwork with a terrible ending.”

Ummm, if that’s what you read, then you must have been reading something else. I also said it had a horrible plot and wafer thin characters. The dialog was cheesy and not up to Mammet’s standards at all. The actor’s performances are just one small part of the over all film.

This was a terrible movie and fully deserving of the 3.5 that it got here.

—I think that, as usual, David Mammet’s dialogue is the star of his film. I would give this a rating of 7.5 out of 10. The first three quarters of the film were very good. For some reason they just lost their interest and abruptly ended the film. It was as if one of the producers suddenly decided that they needed to finish filming rather than allowing the story to mature and reach a proper conclusion.

Those aren’t good lines of dialog in my book. Those are just Mamet’s usual exercise in verbal masturbation.

His dialog is so lame it makes Sesame Street characters reach for crack vials to help keep the clouds away. (See how easy this lame dialog is to create?)