Watch Bunraku For Free

good back-story, and good acting

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This movie had a promising pedigree, a great cast and interesting if a bit obvious art direction yet I couldn't connect with anything happening on the screen. The point was obviously to mix cliches of eastern and western and present the whole melange in a unique look that could have worked in the hands of a better filmmaker or as an animated movie. I was on board for the first 5 minutes of the film. The prologue was very charming and made me curious for what was to come. Some may find the premise too ridiculous to believe but I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy setting writing its own rules. The main problem is that set design, however pleasing to the eye, does not make a movie and the movie doesn't deliver anything beyond that. There is no tension to the action scenes that lack weight and impact and I don't find any of the cast relatable or interesting. Dialogue is very artificial which is probably intentional, but it seems like the creators of bunraku were too focused on making the movie look stylish to notice that none of it means anything. What is oddly lacking in style for the most part is ironically the cinematography itself. The movie moves in very predictable and uninspired ways. Occasionally there are some shots that work as a comic book panel and/or look cool but do not necessarily work as a scene or connect to the rest of the movie. Film has a very specific language to it that is different from comics, videogames and the theatre. It is rather deceitful in many ways. You have to take your audience by the eye and guide it through your film. A picture says more than a thousand words and the pictures in Bunraku only tell me some very talented people didn't get their hard work presented in the most flattering way. Copying the aspects of other art forms and applying them to cinema as an experiment can be intriguing but you have to go all the way. If you get caught right in the middle of the road you fail. The fact that I even noticed the lacking cinematography should tell you something about how unengaged I was throughout the entire movie. If all you want to do is style over substance, fine. Not everything has to be deep, wordy and literal. Some of the most intriguing films, especially in animation, would work solely as visual experiences without dialogue of any kind. If you find language clumsy, be visceral. Hong Kong action has that down without any pretense of being art. If you do go for style only though, you really have to deliver.

I had no idea what this film would be like before I watched it - I saw it was sci-fi and watched it anyway. During the (most impressive) intro, I saw just about every Hollywood name I ever knew mentioned. It has quite an impressive cast.Set in an indeterminate timeless point in the future where all firearms have been outlawed and the gangs rule the streets, a couple of strangers decide to take them on. Nothing hugely original in the story; I think the cast signed on because of the way it was filmed. It looks amazing. Maximum points to the lighting guys and the set designers - at first I thought it reminded me of a living computer game, however, about half way through it, I changed my opinion to more like a graphic novel.All the cast seem to be enjoying being in an 'arty' flick, but just sort of mumble their lines. These (slightly over the top) dialogue sequences are intercut with a few fight scenes which are okay as they go, but nothing you haven't seen before.Yes, it all looks great - every scene is a visual treat on the eyes. There just isn't much more to it than that. I don't know what it was aiming for. Some scenes are downright comical (intendedly so I'm guessing?), others are way too up themselves and serious.It's probably a great film. I enjoyed it at first, but it got a little old a little too soon. Serious art-house sci-fi fans only. Perhaps the failings are on my part?http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

I read a quick synopsis of the movie and was interested enough to watch this. Besides, it had Woody Harrelson, and I love his acting styles and the characters he's played before.The narration sets you up for what's to come: "there are more ways of killing a man than there is of making bread". I thought the opening sequence was inspired - a cartoonish origami-cum-puppet style that was moderately amusing as well.There are no guns, so there is a lot of close-quarter fighting. The choreography is decent but there was much room for improvement. For a movie that tries to rely on its story and humor but doesn't do a good job, it needs to make sure its fight action is good. The wooden acting is not easily overlooked as well. Harrelson and Hartnett are good actors with excellent resumes - I felt cheated at how the film and cheesy script did not exploit their natural potential. Woody Harrelson has the best lines (relatively speaking), which aren't many, but they are funny. And it is fun seeing how the different assassins are dispatched.I did like the artistic style of the movie though. I found it a cross between Sin City and a live-motion version of Speed Racer. Animation using cutouts are used, some background objects look like stage props, etc.Overall, it is a good story not very well told yet still manages to be sufficient. Those who enjoyed Sin City will enjoy this, just on a lower level.

I'll keep my review of this wonderful movie brief. For sheer entertainment value, you need go no further. It delvers on all levels. From the astonishing fight choreography to the comic-book sets, Bunraku is the perfect escape from the doldrums of everyday life. It's eerily accurate in the I-just-don't-know-what-I-want-to-watch category. Josh Hartnett, Gackt, and Woody Harrelson are all three perfectly cast, and really, the only person that was miscast was Ron Perlman. And even miscast, he still did a wonderful job. This is a movie I'd heard very little about, and just happened across it while perusing IMDb. I'm very glad I did. It's a double-caffeinated kick in the pants.