The Sundance Film Festival - The Shorts

Published for www.filmclick.com

The fest is wrapping up, and the award winners have been announced, but for the hundreds of filmmakers that make Sundance one of the world's premier stages for emerging cinematic talent, this is only the beginning. The two-week event that yearly takes place in the idyllic ski town of Park City, Utah comprises programs in a variety of categories, including US and international, dramatic and documentary, with films screened in and out of competition.


Short Term 12

As Sundance has grown in recent years, high budget feature premiers have overshadowed many smaller productions, but for true cinephiles, often it's the under-the-radar releases that make a festival great, and what could be more under-the-radar than the short films? Short Term 12 earned this year's Jury Prize in US Short Filmmaking. Directed by Destin Daniel Cretton and featuring a remarkable dramatic performance by fringe Hollywood funnyman Brad William Henke, this story set in a halfway community for troubled youth poses difficult questions about choosing to bring a child into the world. Lies by Jonas Odell earned the International Jury Prize.


Jerrycan

An Honorable Mention when to Chema García Ibarra's unsettling Spanish short, The Attack of the Robots from Nebula-5, which depicts a young man's attempts to warn his community of an impending alien attack, shedding more light on the relationships with his family and friends than on the aliens. Another mention went to a subtly complex film, Jerrycan, about an improvised boyhood masculinity trial, where a bully forces his playmates to light a fuel can on fire, causing a massive explosion. The film says much about the experience of childhood, proving that sometimes seemingly trivial events can be the most formative. It was directed by Julius Avery


Next Floor

But it's not just the award winners that enrich these programs. Ten for Grandpa, written and directed by Doug Karr, is one continuous, compounded conspiracy theory. Knife Point is a visually satisfying exploration into the darker mindset of fundamentalist Christians, directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis. Countertransference takes emotional therapy to hilarious new heights, and Next Floor is an incredibly elaborate allegory, with stunning production design, that warns of the dangers of an over-consumptive society.

For more information, please visit: http://www.sundance.org/festival

Of Time and the City

Published for www.film-forward.com




Written and Directed by Terence Davies
UK; 2009

"An excavation of Liverpool unearths more than just old memories."

According to Terence Davies, the influence of memory plays a central role in the human experience, but after an eight-year hiatus, his new feature may just prove him wrong. With narration written and performed by Davies himself, Of Time and the City pays painstaking attention to—and offers endless critique of—what are ostensibly the more-bitter-than-sweet details of his working-class Liverpool upbringing. But the jig is up. In his prior work, nostalgia’s formative effect on the human experience is essential. In the acid sarcasm that makes Of Time so memorable, however, nostalgia is more like a punch line. Mr. Davies does make every attempt to blame his characteristic (but ultimately harmless and, dare I say, appealingloveable) contemptuousness on his life’s trials, but a complaining voice persists throughout this autobiographical saga, subtly exposing him as the canny little snob he loves to be.

Not to deny that throughout this unique documentary, he is at times hilarious, or at others extremely intelligent perceptive. For so long, though, with such profound films as Distant Voices, Still Lives and The Long Day Closes, he has taught us that specific experiences in specific places make up our defining elements. This time around, he seems to delight in his the assumed snobbish persona, belying his claimscontradicting his own claims to impoverished roots and social persecution. Financial struggle and closet homosexuality don’t produce the kind of elitist that Davies personifies. This craftsman is playing a part, and his witticisms are applied addenda to his history, rather than an organic product of it.

Of Time’s historical commentary is composed in part by an impressive collection of Bernard Fallon’s black- and- white expressionist photography from the 1960s and ’70s, as well as beautifully restored newsreel and home movie footage. The powerful images could probably stand as a piece on their own, but there is something more important that comes from the combination of narration and the host of brilliant musical selections (everything from Mahler to Peggy Lee to The Spinners’ Dirty Old Town) set to footage of demolished tenements, the British royal family in all its tacky splendor, and a small cache of contemporary locations shot by Davies and his crew. Davies’ narration is insightful, but it somehow doesn’t match the material.

What a character is this man, who’s been called “England’s greatest living director” (The Guardian). He’s admittedly seen hardly a new film in the last 10 years (for those of us who have, perhaps Guy Maddin’s My Winnipeg, a similar yet superior film to this one, can may be a point of reference). But Of Time is a great film, and of course how interesting it is also to share in the director’s identity crisis, imagining him identifying more with his namesakes Ray and Dave of the decidedly working-class Kinks than with fellow Liverpudlians John and Paul (Beatles, but apostles, too, I’m sure). Davies unabashedly hates Elvis, popular music, the Bourgeoisie, the British royalty, and the Catholic Church. I suppose when one diversifies one’s scorn, then poor people are the only ones left to champion.

Elite Squad

book by André Batista, Rodrigo Pimentel, Luiz Eduardo Soares
screenplay by Bráulio Mantovani, José Padilha, Rodrigo Pimentel
directed by José Padilha
USA, Brazil; 2007

Elite Squad, the winner of Berlin's Golden Bear award this year, is told from the perspective of a special forces police captain in Rio de Janeiro's inner city. The BOPE carry assault rifles, have skulls tattooed on their arms, and are called in to raid Rio's favelas—shanty towns—when violent crime overwhelms the regular police. The setting is similar to 2002's' City of God, though far less glossy and cinematic, offering (if you can imagine) an even sharper depiction of what violence is like in that sprawling megalopolis. But if City of God had anything to do with awareness, this one has something to do with offering a solution, however difficult. COG's most important point was that an endemic community is of the highest value, despite its socio-economic difficulties. Much of the literature and intellectual architecture that surrounds Latin and South America in the last half-century centralizes around this concept. Thus, the left-leaning response to such meddling manifestations as CIA-backed dictatorships and oligarchical Banana Republics is described in Padilha's film as bureaucratic and corrupt, because social problems remain. In Padilha's Rio, revolutionary thought comes from the right of the political spectrum. It's a funny concept to Americans, whose power systems since the '80's have been shifting ever rightward, and current revolutionaries fit the traditional leftist model.

The film is an example of where the art house meets the frat house. It takes a visceral, instinctual audience to appreciate this worldview. In order to elicit the response, though, Padilha is forced to use the traditional tools of narrative cinema, and in this he pulls no punches. The torture and death scenes are unrelenting, and the hand-held proximity of the action is nauseating. The plot is long, winding, and hinges on some over-used contrivances to keep it in gear. The story, on the other hand, is simplistic and dull. It's good guys versus bad guys. Why is it that every time major studio money is involved (because the Weinsteins are majors now, right?), quality is lost? Also, why are elite American power brokers (the Weinsteins, Hollywood, et al.) funding right-wing projects in resource-rich countries? Sound familiar?

The major failure isn't even in the filmmaking, it is that Padilha's intellectual platform is entirely faulty. His brand of societal order is based on bloodlust rather than belief, as the BOPE training camp creates mindless death machines, not ideologues. Later sequences featuring BOPE's infiltration of the favela are reminiscent of the media that filters in from Iraq. Soldiers bash down doors during starving families' dinners, and torture practices involving pain and humiliation destroy hearts and minds instead of capturing them. This death squad's eventual success is the revenge-driven assassination of a two-bit drug hood, nothing more and nothing less. There is no belief involved. A police state is an artificial institution that attacks everything that is different from itself. There is only one system in a police state, and it is an imposed one. Also, because it is a system based on suppression, it requires dystopia to survive. How could such an institution identify and ameliorate problems like rich-poor gaps and violence-based capitalism? You gotta have crooks to have cops.

Burn After Reading

written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
USA; 2008

Just to be clear, this film is gut-busting funny, but there's something missing.

It's an antithesis to No Country, perhaps? Instead of intelligent characters perpetually out-smarting each other in a death dance of existential meaninglessness, a bunch of ninnies play a retarded intramural spy game that hardly sticks to any kind of arc whatsoever, nor does it hold any allegorical resonance. It's definitely closer to O Brother, where the stupidity of the characters is so unbelievably far-reaching that the only real option is to keep laughing. Lebowski was a masterpiece for many reasons, but chief among them was that every character's choices made perfect sense in that weirdly skewed and morally corrosive L.A., while somehow Burn After Reading's playfully domesticated Washington D.C. tropes pale in comparison to the real-life malignancy that overshadows that completely disgusting and evil city. Don't the Coens ever read the news?

There is complete freedom extended to this Hollywood A-Team, yet there is hardly a grain of respect extended to the characters themselves. McDormand's and Pitt's Linda and Chad are basically thrown to the sharks. It's funny as hell, but I think it's near impossible for any sentient humans to make such poor decisions. Malkovich drowns in a shallow pool of scripty hard luck, pulling some laughs through a parody of himself and a ubiquitous and glorious "What the fuck!?" For Swinton's Katie, there is written only one degree of cold, to which she responds with an apparent spill-over from Narnia's Ice Queen performance. This time her weapons are less mythic. Money and property are a far scarier arsenal than swords and steel, and an army of lawyers is pretty much the same thing as an army of ghouls and goblins, isn't it? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the smartest moments come as subtle critiques of corporate suburbia more than anything else.

Also, what's with the sex chair? To me, Linda, Harry, Harry's wife, Katie, and everyone else seem to be exhibiting healthy, and quite normal, adult sexual behavior until this strange coital eccentricity appears and has an actual significance in the story beyond its non-sequitur humor. It's probably due to the ambiguity that surrounds Harry. What is this guy all about? The Coens lobbed this complete freedom role to Clooney and he seems to have merely reprised his O Brother character, but instead of covering his selfish motivations with distracting language, he doesn't seem to have any discernible motivations whatsoever besides a serious commitment to upper-middle-class living. It's not until he shows a truly vulnerable side that any of his character information is at all interesting.

In prior Coen films, it's the character actors that really provide the magic, and not the stars. It's a Shakespeare trick, where a single line spoken by a castle guard or a peasant will often have as much resonance as all of the protagonist's subsequent stanzas. This star vehicle (because that's what it is, let's not entertain any illusions about it) allows its multiple stars nearly complete freedom to fuck around, but however funny it is, freedom ain't free. There is far too little discipline here, and once again, the most interesting performances come from the likes of J.R. Horne's divorce lawyer, Richard Jenkins' gym owner, and J.K. Simmons' CIA director. Hollywood's star system is systematized for a reason, Joel and Ethan. You can break the 180-degree line all you want but you can't F with the personality cult.

Frozen River

written and directed by Courtney Hunt
USA; 2008

Why this film won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance is an indication of the way most audiences watch independent and art-house cinema. To the movie-goer that doesn't live and breath film the way some of us do, an art-house movie is a piece of culture that causes the viewer to be placed on a higher plane of awareness. It's a talking point at a social gathering, or an impressive venue for a date. So it goes hand in hand that films based on "issues" from "real life" become such hits. The problem is that these films often set themselves up to fall, as the tightrope between social cause and narrative art piece is a very thin one to walk. Paradoxically, though, most viewers of art-house cinema will forgive a film for its narrative, dramatic, visual, or other artistic shortcomings in the name of its worthy social cause. Often the issue is hardly explored, as in the case of Frozen River, and it's as if this simplification makes it more powerful, perhaps because it's easier for audiences to digest. In the end, the filmmaking is distracted and ultimately suffers, but it's the coverage of the issue itself that suffers the most. Print articles, news media, and even documentary films are more appropriate outlets for journalism than narratives.

Frozen River's director Courtney Hunt employs some silly plot contrivances to drive a dull story. The climax requires a significant stretch of the imagination in order to make any sense at all, but what's really sad is that actress Melissa Leo's skillful performance as hero single mother Ray Eddy is sabotaged by a horribly contrived character flaw. She has no problem trafficking Chinese people across the Canada-US border, but when a "Paki" family hops in her trunk, she objects with: "As long as they're not the kind that blow up themselves and everyone else." Why Ms. Hunt would imbue an otherwise intelligent character with such a rock-headed red-state racism eludes me, other than perhaps to imply that "simple folks" have "simple ideas," or some other such nonsense. It's pathetic, and it merely serves to motivate Ray Eddy's decision to leave an important "package" on the ice and add some narrative spike to an otherwise flattening story.

The scenes at home in the trailer are far more interesting than this manufactured story, or the vague glimpse Hunt provides into a seedy underworld that barely scratches the surface of what is involved with human trafficking. The trailer scenes at least resemble a well-made film. By the end, though, there is too much clunky plot in the way. The entire climax plays out with two scared and omnipresent Chinese women in the background. I refuse to be tricked by narrative convention into caring more about Ray Eddy's comparably luxurious existence when Hunt quite clearly is allowing me to see a much larger problem looming in the background. Want to raise awareness? Skip the narrative and make a documentary.

American Teen

written and directed by Nanette Burstein
USA; 2008

Halfway through the film, Megan Krizmanich commits an irresponsible act of vandalism, bordering on hate crime material. She is suspended from her student council position, and nothing more is mentioned about it. It's a confusing sequence, incongruous and, in this unresolved state, doesn't serve the story. Director Nanette Burstein quite obviously alternates between reality and drama, and often confuses the two, as if she is unsure whether to prove that art imitates life, or the other way around. It's an old conundrum, and it's no surprise that she stumbles. Colin Clemens' father, Gordy, offers a half smile every time he mentions Colin's college prospects. He is a man who is afraid of committing, and uses his sense of humor to overcompensate. This is confusing and frustrating to a son that clearly loves him and harbors many interior insecurities himself. I'm a lay psychoanalyst (having almost no training in the area, admittedly), but this is what I gleaned. This is what I gleaned despite Ms. Burstein's mishandling of this same material. Again, it's as if she is unsure whether this will make good drama (a father who tells his son that a basketball scholarship is the only hope for a college education) or a glimpse into a deeper cultural issue (the complex relationship between a father and his son). She's in directorial limbo, despite a Sundance win in the Directorial category no less (the animation by the way? wtf?). To be fair, with this kind of comprehensive coverage it's hard for a critical audience not to indulge in some deep psychological prying, and likewise it's hard for the subjects not to find themselves in a constant performance, making simulacra of themselves in an effort not only to define their own personal identities, but also to remain interesting subjects for the doc. But as a straight story most of this is old hat, while conversely there is far too much of the editorial hand to take it seriously as a verité thought-piece.

The hero is Hannah Bailey, whose emotional crisis prevents her from performing ad nauseum. Poor girl, Burstein attempts to make a story out of her rebound romance, even creating an odd-man-out fifth character of the guy, putting him on the poster, etc. This guy serves as nothing if not a cookie-cutter foil to Hannah's explosiveness. She's the star of the show, and it's for all the same reasons that her story is a difficult one to tell. Hannah's best moments are when she is utterly confused, because confusion is the prevailing state of most high school seniors. Certain elements are very confusing in Hannah's story, like the staged conference with her conflicted parents, an ambiguous relationship with her best friend, a lack of real insight into what her home life is like. In retrospect, Burstein should have embraced a more confused take on the footage, rather than fit poor Hannah into the Ally Sheedy arty misfit role and move on. To be fair, there is an attempt by the filmmakers to allow their subjects to transcend these social roles, but the weight of the stereotypes drag down this film in the end.

Doc films and reality television have created an environment where performance is second nature to many subjects. A film that resonates is Operation Filmmaker, which premiered earlier this summer and tracked the European sojourn of an Iraqi film student whose school had been destroyed in the bombs. Filmmaker Liev Schreiber, in a moment of humanitarian action, offered this student, Muthana, a position as a PA on the production of his film Everything Is Illuminated in Prague. Muthana at once sees himself as the star of the show (considering filmmaker Nina Davenport's camera follows him everywhere), and, like many young men with stars in their eyes, objects to the menial role of assistant and the labor involved with it. In his case, there is a war surrounding his life, and the hollow performance is coupled with real feelings of sympathy. American Teen similarly invokes real sympathy for high school seniors and the perils of that position. The characters perform in some culturally mandated response to the original sin of adolescence, even going so far as to provide epigraphic apologies during the closing credits. But Muthana and the "A-Teens," no matter how you look at it, are still performers.

Encounters at the End of the World

directed by Werner Herzog
USA; 2007

Herzog's on screen persona has changed slightly as of late, probably due to a newfound popularity after the success of Grizzly Man. Not that he's never been funny, far from it. Humor has been a major element in Herzog films since his auspicious beginnings, often providing viewers some stability through several of the more challenging sequences. His doc work especially is peppered with in-jokes and absurdities: the rooster man in White Diamond, a sardonic self-awareness in My Best Fiend, the entire concept behind How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck. This newest one, though, part of a string of American releases, has a different kind of humor. Werner this time is conscious of himself as a joke-teller, and yuks it up quite unabashedly. Where in the past the filmmaker would have made a much more subtle comment and allowed the humor to happen naturally, Encounters is lined with witticism after forced witticism, and Herzog's usual "play dumb" persona loses its charm. Whether this is a product of his "arthouse buzz" status or yet another element of filmmaking with which Herzog is experimenting remains to be seen.

The marvelous underwater photography, Herzog's reason for visiting the continent, is interesting enough, but quite rightly the filmmaker devotes more time to examining the strange underwater sounds of the seals and other arctic creatures. A weird natural phenomenon like some kind of alien implantation on earth, this is classic stuff of Herzogian mystique. The humans, though, are far more run-of-the-mill. There's the scarfed British volcano expert, soft-spoken in a hard environment, the career travelers, one of whom can fit herself into her own suitcase, the dry humor of an introverted penguin expert. Everywhere Werner goes, he digs up the fringe fascination that exists there, yet at the titular "end of the world," he appears comparatively bored. It took Herzog a trip to the most distant refuge of humanity to out-weird him, and all he can do is crack jokes about it.

The "bucket-head" sequence is a perfect statement about the film. Most documentary makers, on Discovery money, would have shot the penguins, the icebergs melting, the sunsets. For better results, Herzog finds the most interesting thing happening is a white-out training session where people tie themselves together and fix buckets over their heads to simulate zero visibility. A far cry from penguin shots, we instead have images of a string of humans with white 5-gallon buckets and painted-on faces, inching their way across the white arctic frost. Later a liberated penguin breaks from the flock and waddles away toward the mountains, alone. Later during a conference between two researchers excitedly discussing a new species discovery, Herzog obtusely asks, "Is this a great moment?" Images like these will stay with audiences for a long time, and Herzog continues to prove why he's one of the greatest but in the end, this installment should be considered a minor effort, whatever that means.

Man On Wire

directed by James Marsh
USA, UK; 2008

Though the directorial strategy is derivative of Errol Morris and his signature expressionist re-enactment sequences, the interview material is significantly less anxious, more matter-of-fact. This is where Marsh's film succeeds most. Where Morris, in his recent fashion, would have charged his interview footage with an intensity and an urgency (through unnerving frames, perpetual jumpcuts, positioning the focus of his subjects' eyes toward the depths of his camera lens, etc.), Marsh allows his interviewees some breathing room. It's a fine complement to the urgency of his re-enactments, and the humanistic story that unfolds only adds to the fascination contained in the documents. There are photos, diagrams, notes scrawled on graph paper, even color 16mm footage of the lads planning the coup, as they refer to it. By the time Monsieur Petit tightropes across the top of the industrialized world, any notion of "stupidity," and words like "maniac" or "foolhardy," have been washed clean from the tips of the tongues of the audience. Even the dreaded words "September 11th" seem to be relegated to a parallel history while Marsh's story is told. What remains is bliss, and an appreciation for all that is fascinating in the world.

For the duration of the film, and while image after towering image showcases what used to be the World Trade Center, and even as the Petit cell's plans and actions vaguely resemble a terrorist strike, a nostalgia for the Manhattan of the 1970's seems to replace the usual 9/11 anxiety. There is no mention of the attacks, a deliberate directorial move, and it quite suits the film. The interviewees reminisce, the re-enactments illustrate, and the documentation depicts a world (and two buildings) that existed at a different time. I found myself thinking not about what happened in 2001, but about what might have been happening in the Middle East while Petit schemed. Ah, the innocence of nostalgia. Errol Morris' films may take on subjects as dire as war and its collateral, but despite the urgency, his inability to draw out a story (at least in his two latest films) renders them impotent. Man On Wire is a piece centered around joy, and its potency is unstoppable.

I found myself coupling feelings of sadness with feelings of joy. I am not necessarily sad about the 9/11 event itself, more at the idea that a piece like Man On Wire can stir more powerful emotions than all the politics Errol Morris can muster. Joy is a more powerful force than sadness, yes, but it's a also a far easier force for most of us to handle. The images of a man walking between the twin towers represent the idea that the towers actually existed at a place in history. This is unchangeable, and as long as story and documentation exists, permanent. History is sad and history is joyful.

The Dark Knight

written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan
directed by Christopher Nolan
USA; 2008

"At least it was better than Batman Begins," in the words of my brother. I couldn't agree more. Yea, it was solid, it was fine. Nolan's first Batman offering had its share of cool bits but man, did it stumble often. A mystical Tibetan (?) madman that comes back to rid the world of the plague that is Gotham? That's admitting that there's actually a world outside Gotham, something Nolan keeps hinting at. Also, the frozen lake kendo fight.. Laughable. When does Batman ever use a sword? Tim Burton's pair take themselves far less seriously and are more fun than these newest installments and thus come off as far more satisfying, more complete. For the record, though, I'd give anything to see David Lynch direct the next sequel. You wanna see dark?

About this film.. I see Harvey Dent working thematic overtime here. First, his story is a passing of the torch. Something like what Tolkien put forth in the LOTR trilogy, mythology takes its ideals along with its heroes and rolls them over onto society. As the myth of the Batman subsides, it is left to humanity to take up the torch in the fight against evil. But as the heroes phase out, so do the villains. Thus, humanity is left with the legacy of both good and evil, and the choice to commit to either. Harvey Dent/Harvey Two-Face also embodies this idea. Not only does this character speak to the archetypes, but there are real-world ideas here too. He is responsible for choosing between public service and private safety. He is even responsible for the tactical choices as well! It's a ton of bricks to lay onto a character, and it's why Harvey's end transformation is not suitably built in, and never quite sells. If it sounds like this film is about Harvey Dent, that's because it is. Batman's screen time is negligible. Which is fine, because frankly he's running out of gimmicks, and you can only carry a hard-headed internal conflict until the movie count moves to a second hand. Unless you're Michael Myers or Tackleberry from Police Academy.

There's a glimmer of promise when The Joker starts talking about "The Plan" and some bit of anarchist theory shines through. Follow through, Nolan. What are you scared of? Also, there's a mention of mass surveillance, and a moral question! Follow through, Nolan! Now this one I can't forgive him for. If this director was at all responsible as a thinking person, there would have been a comment about the government, or wiretapping, or anarchists, or just people that are tired of the system in the same way that it seems all these characters are exhausted living in modern-day Gotham. Doesn't living in this brutal, exploitive system just exhaust you? Follow through, Nolan. Also, this is the only review of this film that doesn't use the words H____ L______. He was a good actor, he died, his character was interesting, but it still doesn't top Nicholson's version, how's that?

Redbelt

written and directed by David Mamet
USA; 2008

David Mamet wrote that the only questions a film audience should be asking themselves are Who wants what from whom?, What happens when they don't get it?, and Why now? Why now? I know the answer, particularly because Mamet telegraphs it in the final scene, as if we needed a justification (and we do) for why we we've been watching a story about Mixed Martial Arts. Did you say "mixed martial arts"? Yes, I did. The sport has been around for years in Brazil and Japan, but has only become popular in the United States in the last few years. I know this because that's a line from the film. So there, I know why it's about mixed martial arts. Does anyone else laugh when they hear that term? And why Chiwetel Ejiofor? Isn't he that romantic comedy guy? Yes, but apparently he can fight, and apparently he's pretty awesome at it. Then explain Tim Allen, you say. Seriously, he plays himself and he's pretty awesome at that, too. And Joe Mantegna is in it.

The story begins innocently enough. Mamet follows all the rules: we see the gun, (spoiler alert!) the gun is fired. That tenet will come back to bite main character Mike Terry in the ass, by the way. We see the sleight of hand, we see the videotape, we see the setup. It all comes back, but not before this film really starts cooking with a cool double cross, totally blindside, "there's always an escape," etc. Not this time, Mike. Who wants what from whom? It's exciting trying to figure this stuff out. I was on board for the setup, and I was really on Mike's side with the ethos stuff. I was even starting to see a Hollywood sell-out parallel. All honor when it comes to banal competition, but starstruck and all over the fax machine when Hollywood comes calling. I bought the suicide thing. Loved Mantegna (How could one not?). I wasn't jiving on the weird quiet training sequences with the female lawyer, though. What was she, a love interest? Why was her approval so important in the end? And why does she care whether he fights or not? Improve your position, Mamet. What happens when they don't get it? Interesting. In this case the bad guys get everything they wanted, until...

The final scene. Oh, the final scene. What a piece of garbage. Honestly, the theater broke into a peal of laughter when the Japanese fighter handed him the belt. That's what happens, I'm going to ruin it for you, by the way. Mike fights his way through the crowd at the end, making his way to the title fighter, fights him for some reason (the guy had nothing to do with anything), and then the Japanese fighter hands him the championship belt. That's it, that's the end. Oh wait, then the ref hands him the symbolic red belt. That's what happens.