I do love IMDb. Look up a movie...any movie...and you'll find at least one moron crying about how it's the worst thing they've ever seen. Fair enough, but if you can point to just one movie and tell me it's the worst thing ever then you obviously have not watched enough crap. Just glancing at the board section below reveals two people who share this sentiment without even going past one page. This movie is strange, a little disjointed, and it certainly has it's flaws...but the worst movie ever? Please.

If I had to sum up Josh Hartnett's career in a word it would be "odd". It's kind of like he went from being fodder for women's fantasies and decided "screw this...let's get weird". That really worked with Lucky Number Slevin, but not so much here. The story follows Hartnett as an investigator hunting down some rich guy's son. That sounds like something you've seen a million times, but that's just the start. It's full of poorly timed flashbacks, mismatched edits, and stuff that just plain doesn't make any sense. I'm probably missing something since I did catch a few religious undertones, but I was too busy trying to piece together what the hell was going on to pay much more attention to it. Other than that the films comes across very well in an almost dark, mildly unsettling way. The story has a lot of substance to it, but maybe a bit too much at times when it seems like too much is going on. All in all though it's really not that bad.

"I Come With The Rain," is a film that is hard to define. In some ways it is a redemption story, in other ways it is a reinterpretation of Christian mythology, and in yet further ways it is a study of evil. If anything, the film is ambitious in the themes that it tries to explore. As with most ambition, a degree of prudence is often needed for reaching higher quality. For example, one may wish to change the world for the better. However, trying to affect a whole planet is beyond the capabilities of most. The prudence enters in defining one's world more strictly. The wish to change the world changes into a wish and drive to change one's immediate world or community. The ambition becomes tempered by practical and manageable constraints. Unfortunately, ICWTR attempts more than it is capable of handling well. The film touches on the three interconnected themes mentioned above in a less than coherent way. By the end of the movie, one is left with the sense that valuable ideas have been brought to the table but never developed into anything that can be useful or fulfilling to the audience.

The premise of a damaged detective searching for a messianic figure amidst the corruption and evils of modern life is promising. The film falters by attempting to create three interconnected and artfully ambiguous tales about the detective, messiah figure, and the personification of modern corruption and evil. One of the hallmarks of parables is that they are rather simple. The parable usually develops a story around a single moral or epistemological rule. ICWTR attempts to tell three parables in tandem. The result is not a smooth synthesis commenting on the complexities of the human condition. Rather, the film comes of as confused and lacking in relevant concrete development. To be clear, the film itself is not overly difficult to understand; the attempts of the film to convey deeper meaning are muddled and shallow. In fairness, the raising of interesting questions may have been the goal of the film. The problem is that the film does not arm the audience with any tools to continue the discussion later on. As an example, how would you respond to the following question if asked by a random stranger: "Is 'good' tainted when it is saved by 'evil?'" Hopefully this is a jarring question and one that defies immediate answer. In one sense, the question is interesting and plumbs the depths of moral/ethical thinking. In another sense, the question is too brash and off putting. Such a question almost begs for some sort of established framework to deal with it. In essence, the above question comes later in the discussion after some context and philosophical norms are established. ICWTR asks questions like this without giving the audience any real framework to deal with said questions. The film methodically, and beautifully I might add, simply presents scenarios that lead to these questions. The result is a confusing and somewhat disjointed experience. As a viewer, I know I am supposed to have been exposed to some deeply meaningful symbols and questions; yet I do not really know what to do with these symbols or where to go with these questions. In the end, one really wants to find deeper meaning in this film and unfortunately cannot.

While the above may seem a harsh review, the film does offer a great many good points. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes vary from lush tropical forests to oppressive and over developed cityscapes. The actors assembled are an international powerhouse. While Hartnett may be less than A status in America, Kimura and Lee are considered first rate stars in Asia. In this sense, the film is an international blockbuster. The acting by these stars is somewhat uneven. Of the three, Lee is the most consistent, turning in a nuanced performance that aptly captures the variegated emotions connected with his personification of modern corruption and evil. The editing and pacing are very well done and match the attempted themes. The Radiohead soundtrack adds a pleasant ethereal touch which aids in setting a more contemplative tone. In essence, the film is extremely well made, it just attempts too many messages within the story.

On a personal note, I really wanted to like this film and was somewhat saddened that I was underwhelmed. I enjoy having my knowledge and interpretations of symbolism expanded. Unfortunately, this film merely referenced a great many known symbols without expanding or deepening their meaning. For this and the above reasons, I will probably not recommend this film to many. I tend to see this as a film that attempted something artistic and philosophically profound. No doubt, many people will agree and furthermore extract something from the film. Sadly, I was not able to pull any greater meaning from this movie. 6.7 stars of 10.

Kilne is a former detective, 'contaminated' from his investigation of a serial killer with a penchant for sculpture using human flesh. He turns private eye and goes in search of Shitao, the missing son of a Howard Hughes-style millionaire recluse, his journey taking him from The Philippines to the homeless ramshackle dwellings of Hong Kong's underbelly. Reliable reports say Shitao was gunned down and left for dead, but he seems to move ghost-like in the shadows and crevices of the city. And crucifix-like graffiti and barking prophets seems to carry a message connected to Shitao…

Somebody had the idea to take a festival darling of a director, connects him with two of the biggest stars in the East Asian market, throw in a young Hollywood heartthrob to keep the dialogue in English for the all-important US market, all to a soundtrack by Radiohead – how can it lose? By a complete lack of a semi-coherent script, that's how. Rarely does a film fail so completely to display any shred of plot or coherence. There is some waffle about the beauty of human suffering, a bit of scripture misquoted here and there, but it resonates to absolutely nothing. Depressingly, it is a certainty some people will make great claims for this, condescendingly pontificating that if you didn't 'get' it you don't know your religious history, iconography, semiotics, blah blah blah… Nonsense. This film is an insult to the intelligence, pure and simple.

The only multi-dimensional character is Harnett's Kline, and his arc is all in flashback to the guy you start the film with, he never grows during the course of the film. Shitao has an American father (actually, less Howard Hughes and more Charlie of the Angels fame) but hardly speaks English. This is obvious from the few lines of dialogue given to Kimura, who gets to grunt a lot clearly because he can hardly manage basic English. Every line he has punctures the suspension of disbelief.

The saving grace for this film is the acting, with Harnett especially powerful when we see his moment of contamination, and Byung-hun Lee effective in his vulnerable moments, few and far between as his day-job is psychotic gangster. Elias Koteas, one of the most reliable character actors around, is under-used, managing to charm and repel in the manner of Lecter, despite having the most giggle-inducing junk to say as dialogue.

Kimura, unfortunately, lets the side down badly. Apparently Byung-hun Lee prepared and rehearsed his scenes meticulously, while Kimura would turn up and ask "What do I have to do?" The Japanese star looks out of his depth beside the Korean. Far and away the most charismatic member of the boy band that spawned him here in Japan, Kimura has coasted through his acting career, looking like he could put in a shift if asked to rise to the challenge. He came close in Wong Kar Wai's 2046. I Come With the Rain asks him to step up to the plate, and he is found badly wanting. The charisma is all surface pouts; when asked to come up with something more nuanced, he simply doesn't have it. I for one thought he had, and to see him crash and burn like this is extremely unpleasant. I should have been feeling pity for the character, not the actor.

Apart from that, there is little to praise. The direction never gets out of third gear, while the editing looks like a work-in-progress. Continuity seems to have been sinful. Clearly the filmmakers think this film will travel on the elements alone, and spent little to no time developing the script. They may be right; the female fans of the male triumvirate pouting on the posters may just be young and naïve enough to think this is art. If they are wrong, they have the consolation of knowing Antichrist will keep them company this year in the category of misjudged art-house projects with messianic connections.