Boris-57 Reviews

Inland Empire (2006)

Lynch cheats

[1/10 · 13 January 2008]

Fact # 1: Lynch is a genius and one of the very few filmmakers who have reached the point of image-perfection (others include Terence Malick, Kim Ki-Duk, Herzog, but also Wong Kar- Wai and maybe Nic Roeg)

Fact # 2: I found Mulholland Drive completely comprehensible; in fact it is my all time favourite film (together with Kim's Bin-Jip), with Blue Velvet close on its heels and Lost Highway a bit further down the top 30. I saw MD 5 times the week it came out.

Fact # 3: I *never* walk out on a film *ever*, but watch the thing till the very last closing caption.

Fact # 4: After a considerable time of viewing Inland Empire, I glanced at my watch (bad sign in itself), saw we were 2 hours in and so had 1 more hour to go. I didn't hesitate, but got up and out of the theatre.

Tons have been written about this film, so I'll keep it short: Rabbits dates from 2002.

What do I mean by that:

1 - The fact that it's utterly incomprehensible (well, maybe not totally, but hey) does not bother me, nor the fact that it's artsy - even though I think Lynch should stop meditating.

2 - What *does* bother me is that he does not seem to be able to choose. He discovered the hand-held camera. Cool. He's created the most cut-up story ever. Cool. But (a) somehow he doesn't seem to be able to combine the two; (b) he seems to have little confidence in it himself. Some of the shots work, like the dancing scene. Some shots work with the hand- held. But sometimes he uses his old filmic language with the hand-held, and it DOES NOT WORK. It gives the impression that what you're seeing is actually the evolution that Lynch's style has undergone in the past 5 years, without him being able to take position. Emblematic to that problem is the fact that Rabbits-parts are included, which include Mulholland Dr actors, and which dates from 4 (four!) years earlier, filmed in his "moving painting" style.

In short: I had the impression that Lynch has evolved, and that this would have been a great film if he'd been honest to himself and keep only the radically new bits, instead of keeping everything in, leading to an inconsistent hodgepodge.

Maybe it's telling that in last year's DVD-issues of Lost Highway (or was it MDr?) he actually *explains* part of his storytelling technique. For a master of the non-explaining, this is an omen. Lynch should burn his old pellicule and start from scratch. Try to amaze himself with something he doesn't already understand.

My Blueberry Nights (2007)

Disappointing, not just because of the script, but because it fails to convey what it wants to convey

[4/10 · 12 January 2008]

It was a pleasant evening at the cinema, but I cannot call this a good film. Several reviews have come up with many valid remarks, such as: - Norah Jones doesn't act very well (but more on that later), especially compared to her co- stars - The script is not only clichéd, but very uneven (also more on that) - The dialogue is god-awful and the accents aren't very well done

***SPOILERS***

THE IDEA. So, about Norah Jones' character. It's bland, completely flat, yes. But I think in a way that's the point. The whole point of the film is that, though she claims in the end to be someone different, she's about the *only* thing constant in the film. There's also a snippet of dialogue referring to that, as Jude Law says somewhere "I think you've changed, but maybe it's just me". And indeed, *he* has thrown away his keys, but *she* still wants her blueberry pie. WKW wrote the film around Norah Jones after hearing her songs, and I think we should take this literally: she *is* the eye of the storm. In the beginning she perceives herself as the storm, then she sees she's the eye... In the end, she doesn't change, it's the world around her. Note also how very often she's just *not* the main target of the scene.

This lack of actual change is a *very* good idea, as we've come to get used to films where characters go through all these hefty changes and developments - as if people change, ha! The first problem is: it was WKW's *only* good idea. The second problem: he doesn't pull it off.

THE ACTING. Another problem is, this is a tough one: you actually want an actress who is able to portray someone who feels they are changing, but who actually *aren't*! Someone who is the eye of the storm, but without being completely absent. Unfortunately, this is too much for Norah Jones, who depicts an eye of the storm that is so non-existent, that one wouldn't know what there is that can or cannot change. I mean, from zero to zero over zero, that's not much.

THE SCRIPT. But even so, I've seen much worse than Jones. The one to take the blame is the lame and clichéd script. Dialogue can be cliché, Tarantino makes it work. But this script! (a) It's next to non-existent (b) It's unbalanced, as you only get a road trip feeling once she's going to Vegas. This might be deliberate though, as seeing her take the bus would actually give viewers the impression she's taking initiative, but as WKW wants her to be the eye of the storm, she cannot be shown to take deliberate action. Interesting, and a real challenge for a script writer. Unfortunately, no good solution is found for this. In any case, the two stories (Memphis & Vegas) have too little movement to give a road movie feel, but still seem to pass too quickly to really stick. Though Archie's a fantastic character. (c) It's... well, I didn't think I was going to have to say this... a look at the west by an outsider.

WKW and GREAT WEST. What I mean by (c) is that, and I could be biased, but there it is: I have the impression that WKW took some classic American Movies images, and tried to piece his Great West film together. But he doesn't get beyond clichés, he doesn't seem to get what really drives the idea of road movies, meeting people & their stories... it's all part of the Big Romantic Illusion, of which he is no part, seemingly. Now, the turning inside-out of the person-is-changed-by-the-stuff-she-sees romantic idea is brilliant... but apparently they did not have what it takes to drive that point home. Maybe WKW had too much respect for the clichés of the West. Don't know, but I can't shake the feeling that he rubs his film style against these ideas he doesn't fully grasp and tries to make his point, which gets lost in the rubbing, as at no point you get the impression that one injects the other with something fresh.

Pity, WKW has three films in my top 20. Where's the time of Fallen Angels, when story and story telling were in complete osmosis.

----------

Per edit, I'll add a general remark. I fear that WKW "rubbing" his film style against the story is a bit the consequence of him being too evolved as a filmmaker, and he sticks to his screen language, where in fact he should've let go. When WKW got stuck in his crisis whilst filming Ashes Of Time, he chose to completely set the project aside and open himself up so anything that came. The result was Chunking Express and its brilliant side project Fallen Angels. Those were so brilliant because his perspective was *open* - you get the feeling that he lets the story dictate how to use the camera, and at the same time lets the way he uses his camera determine how the story is told. But over the course of his career, culminating in the Mood For Love/2046 diptych, he has sharpened that diamond to perfection where a certain way of filming fits a curtains story. Unfortunately, this means that you're up a cul-de-sac. He needs a new paradigm. And he didn't do/dare that here. PS: I had the same feeling with Lynch's Empire, where I felt like Lynch was onto something new in terms of filmic language, but just couldn't bring himself to completely abandon his old style.

Byron (2003 TV Movie)

Is this the man whose life we're supposed to envy?

[3/10 · 25 May 2007]

OK OK, it might be hard to put the entirety of a man's life in one film. Traditionally therefore, biopics focus on one or two significant parts in the subject's life. Now, Byron was a "my week beats your year" fellow, which makes selecting parts that are representative even harder. Furthermore, just as Byron's poetry is inseparable from his life, the man's life itself must be seen as a whole. Lifting parts out is not only not showing the whole picture, it's showing a different picture altogether.

Now, in short my review comes down to this: supposedly, Byron was indeed the "my week beats your year" prototype, a guy who lived so intensely that he indeed did more in his 15 or so active years than most do in an entire lifetime. True, he had setbacks and was a victim of the time and social setting he lived in - but in the end, this dude is supposed to be the prototype whose life we'd all want to lead, no? Well, I did NOT, at ANY moment, want to live the life depicted in this film. So it gets 3. Not for being so badly done (which, direction-wise, it more or less was), but more importantly for missing the point entirely in a flat plot.

Some more detail. Well, to over simplify things, a Byron bio should have two distinct episodes: 1. Post-first Europe trip: England and his rise to fame + marriage / 2. His life abroad. Now, the important thing is that the SECOND part should be at least as important as the first. Not only was it a lot longer, but the most significant change in Byron took place then. Furthermore, it's where he created his best works (Don Juan, the Vision of Judgement etc. - all the stuff that makes him *really* unique in English literature).

Instead, in this film (a) Byron's life never comes across as even remotely entertaining, (b) it only gets *worse* after he leaves England. They did two good jobs: first, they started at his return of his Europe trip (though a bit more of the actual trip would have been welcome as a prologue), second, they chose an angle, and they chose his incestuous love for Augusta (who is rather perfectly cast). The problem with this last thing is that they never let it go. True, Byron remained strongly attached to Augusta for the rest of his life, but, especially as he was such a mood swing person, the fact that his letters reflect that does not mean that at other times he might not have completely enjoyed life.

Anyway, the first part of the TV film should have ended with him leaving England. There's no doubt about that. The thing is: once abroad, a life of debauchery began (with the infamous Geneva period), but in Italy Byron also discovered a new life, both for his poetry (inspired by Italian comedy), already in Venice, and for himself when he found the Contessa Teresa Guiccioli and moved to Ravenna (afterwards, at the request of Shelly, with Teresa, to Pisa). In other words, he was also *liberated*. His mind and life opened up (and not only in the decadent sense), while England's closed further as it fell into the gravitational pull of the Victorian age. True, freedom was Augusta-less, but this bitter-sweet freedom tastes sour in this film. We see a lonely, bored snob getting older.

I mean, hell, Byron never thought much about his poetry, except when he finally found his own voice in Don Juan! Apart from poetic and romantic developments, his relationship with Shelly (and the down-break) should have been more documented. Also, it is in Italy in Ravenna that he gets involved with politics and revolutionary ideas. This is important, as it shows that the decadent romantic and ultimately escapist language and person of Childe Harold is changing into the more planted-in-life realistic and lighter passion of the language and person of Don Juan. Life and work are one. True, still a bit naive, but it's what got him to Greece! And the whole thing came full circle in Pisa, where Shelley's revolutionary spirit further ignited the spark. Missolonghi wasn't the bored snob suddenly looking for some action. It was the insights in Italy (the Gambas) stirring him into action. It can be a symbol for the man looking for some ancient-style battle excitement while the rest of Europe becomes fixed in the clay of modern reason and conservatism. But it wasn't just that, there was a true inspiration behind it. Meanwhile, Byron wrote massive amounts of Don Juan. True, his end is a bit sad, but it's not like he's worn out. THAT is the essence of Byron's life: he may have had some strong emotional attachments (2: Augusta and Teresa), but EVERY time he managed to reinvent himself truly. Meaning that he wasn't 'less' at the end of his life - no, he'd made a physical and mental JOURNEY that, at the time, few people were prepared to make.

I wonder. Why is it that so often the second period in Byron's life is overlooked? Because it had less obvious conflicts, as the man was finally coming to his own? In focusing our attention on the frustrated England years fraught with scandals, we show ourselves to be not much better than the English aristocracy at the time, which Byron so despised, and which, despite the fact that he had no choice, he *willingly* fled in 1816, to find a world that was modern and liberal enough to let him find the voice that would make him the first romantic plainspoken language poet and evolve from a self-obsessed snob to a passionate man moving onward with a cause.

Broken (III) (2006)

All comments are true, make up your mind. It's not misogynist though.

[8/10 · 20 May 2007]

Watch out for the spoilers beneath!

OK, so first part: all comments are true... or at least some. An overview, evaluation, and some additions which I saw nobody mentioning. Does it have scenes that are so graphic you need to be moronicly drunk or firmly dead to be able to support them? Yes. Is it amazing what they did with a budget that was next to peanuts? Yes. Is the acting good? Yes, the two leads carry this one. Even though the directors can shoot a scene, it's the acting that lifts it above the rest from image to image. Do they manage to get the atmosphere across? Yes. In fact, that's all there is, since the actual script couldn't have been beyond 1 A4. Still, I think its brilliant they start off with one of their strongest cards, the razor blade in the belly thing. It's so shocking you, frighted out of your wits, wonder what the directors will be serving you next. In this way, to go along with the 'folding' theory about movies, (originally by tedg on this site, stating that movie quality depends on the degree to which what happens (to the characters) in the movie, story- or emotion-wise, is identical to what you experience as the movie-viewer), you're left in the same position as the women. They don't know what atrocities are planned for them, and we don't know what more we'll be made to watch. But we *know* what is possible. Simple trick, but it is well done and holds the movie together as a whole. On the whole, a pretty impressive feat, by all parties involved.

But, on the other hand, there is stuff that could've been done to make it more realistic, and make it stick more (its realism is the key): (A) I'm not a doctor (well, I am, but not a medical one *grin*), so I wouldn't know, but it seems to me that the razor blade in the belly is utterly impossible, as (a) it would cut the intestines, which would be difficult to mend, (b) cutting the abdominal muscles like that would make it nearly impossible to stand up and it would take a big gap to make the guts spill, (c) the only solution would be to put it under the skin, or at least to have a vertical slit, cutting the softer tissue between the two main abdominal muscles. Call it nitpicking, but centuries after Vesalius, this stuff seriously tests my suspension of disbelief, and makes me flip towards laughter rather than fear. (B) Same goes for the cutting of the tongue, but that's necessary I think (see below). (C) Indeed, the make up of the actresses is pretty ridiculously solid. OK, it's symbolical as she looks better when she's psychologically stronger, but this is not a symbolic film as it goes for realism. So be consistent. (D) Yes, ample opportunities to escape present themselves, but even fear of killing someone doesn't account for their hesitations; especially the tongue-cut girl would *not* have stopped at a couple of blows. (E) Now, slightly problematic for me is the ending, as I think it's probably brilliant but cannot be too sure. Part of the horrifying aspect is the sudden knowledge that the guy has kept the daughter for 40 days, too. But I wondered why, apart from shock, the daughter doesn't call out to mommy. Now there was blood on her face and, since the tongue-cutting suggests the maniac only knows one way to shut somebody up, this suggests that he cut the 6 year old's tongue out (yeah, it takes all kinds). This way, the ultimate cruelty makes sense: she's blind and her daughter is mute, so *never again* will she be able to either hear (daughter can't) or see (mother can't) communication from her daughter. She has her daughter but then again she has not. Problem is I don't know for sure whether the girl's tongue is cut out, which means it's not well-filmed there.

Apart from this, it's not your usual misogynist flic as the pain is real and felt and there's no excuse. You can think what you want about the rather cheap (and dumb) analogy to your typical macho pig keeping his women under his thumb - I think it isn't so much a message, as a vehicle to make it more realistic and the maniac more scary (just a guy who spent too much time over the SAS survival guide). I see it, if anything, as a perverted and reverse take on all those movies showing an hour of domestic bliss before violently ripping it apart in the last 30 minutes.

So, make up your mind. Watching it doesn'st make you a pervert loving to see a woman scream, as this film doesn't revel in that. It does make you a sicko wanting to see people getting viciously maimed and hurt until they're really - broken. Come to think of it, it's actually reality TV! Anyway; very well done but some obvious things would need to be better to get this from an 8 to a 9. A 10 is too far away as much more could've been done with a more in-depth script trying to avoid the usual victim-maniac psychology pitfalls.

Castle in the Sky (1986)

Probably Miyazaki's best, as it displays all his strengths

[10/10 · 21 September 2005]

Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.

I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.

In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.

It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.

Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same.

Chobits (2002–2003)

Superb anime series, gets a bit uneven at times but delivers 100%

[19 September 2005]

So, your classic story - man vs machine. More particularly - man falls in love with found machine and, behold, it's vice versa.

I stumbled upon these series by accident on the french MCM channel; the french dubs are perfect (Chii is exquisitely dubbed), but after a few episodes I got me the subbed originals - and found out that MCM messed up the episode sequencing. Content-wise this isn't problematic since the first two thirds of the episodes are quite stand-alone. Still it's exactly this that makes the series dip after a while, and you get the idea that they were just making it up as they went along. The underlying storyline (who/what is Chii, what will happen between Hideki & Chii) gets hinted at once in a while, but all in all the first half of the series focuses on the problems that arise when Hideki tries to educate his persocon Chii and the embarrassing situations Chii gets her prude master in, all in your typical "harem" anime setting.

The main thing is: it's so well-done! The first say 8 episodes are often hilarious observations of masculine fears and obsessions as we get to know Hideki's thoughts every step of the way. Through the parts of the comic-in-comic (Chii reads a favorite comic that seems to be especially designed for her and is a key element the overarching story) you occasionally get the idea that more is about to come.

Of course, you can't keep Hideki as constipated throughout and as the often sexual jokes wear out, the series drifts towards fan-servicing with unfortunately pretty sexist undertones (not that I care). At that point, despite the fact the the manga script lay there waiting to be developed, the series seems a bit lost, and the build-up of tension between Chii and Hideki comes to a halt, as do the other plot lines (Hideki and Yumi...), culminating in the low (plotwise) or high (imagewise *grin*) of #14, where all characters spend a day at the beach. Apart from seeing all babes in bathing suits (yeah I know they're drawn figures, but cut the imagination some slack), you're left wondering when they'll get on with it. This wondering is only augmented by the following two episodes where Chii is hardly seen and the plot focuses on Shimbo and the Sensei...

***Spoiler-laden paragraphs below***

But in fact (though you only find out later) this is where they (finally) start developing the actual story about relationships between man and machine, and what machine is/can be, what it means to be human. These eps. 15-16 are the first part of this topic, where it's seen from the (negative) human side only. The story-telling is raised to a significantly higher level. It's a bit of a mystery why the next 2 episodes again seem to fall to the earlier level, and nothing much is added, except for a hint at what the plot will turn out to be.

But, in episodes 20-26 suddenly the stakes are raised and we get an entirely different anime, with all the depth and beauty that we've come to expect from this Japanese art form. What makes a machine a machine, a human human, what is love, what is the function of memory... you get it all. The density of each episode is a zillion times higher than that of the first ones, and suspense is gradually built up. And then of course there's the final two episodes where a lot of questions are answered and the series DELIVERS. Home run! Considering the end credit song had changed midway to the very melancholic Ningyo Hime, I expected the worst, and indeed initially it does end up the way 99% of man-machine-love films end up: it cannot be (I think this has its roots in the ancient beliefs that relationships are merely there for procreation). But, lo and behold people! it does not end this way. Love DOES conquer all and after a series of emotional lefts and rights in the final episode, you get positively uppercutted by the rare 1% solution: the relationship between man and machine is a fact. Relationships without procreation are allowed. Bingo this is heaven.

***SPOILER ENDS - but don't look an inch upward from this line***

So, despite the fact that the series seems a bit lost in the middle, the absolutely charming and hilarious first third plus the final third with its deep issues, superb plot and magnificent denouement make this series a solid 9 for me. I would have given it a 10, but it is a fact that the whole could have been better 1) had they from the start opted for a continuous story (like the final eps) with the story lines more mixed like in the manga, rather than more or less separate episodes focusing on one topic or even gimmick, 2) had made a better mix of humor & drama and developed the Chii character a bit better (like in the manga). Though this might be easier to achieve in a full-length feature, in which the story would benefit from being chopped from 8 to 2 hours. Obviously, this would leave Chii-o-files gasping for more, but still:

People from TBS: make this into a full-length feature!! Presto!!!

O, and don't forget to have a box of Kleenex within reach once you start on the final episode...

PS: if you buy the DVD's (6+1 bonus), disc 1 and 2 are really worthwhile (though 2 has quite a bit of sexual/sexist fan-servicing), while disc 3 may be the least interesting. Disc 4 is where you get a first glimpse of how good the series will get, and discs 5 & 6 are simply must-haves. Beware that the 7th disc contains just 3 summaries (eps 9, 18 and 27), plus a 5-minute extra called Chibits.

Girl Boss Revenge: Sukeban (1973)

Woohoo Miki rulez!

[6/10 · 28 July 2005]

OK, you have to like Pinky Violence films, or at least be able to see the humor of it, or just want to get your hands on anything by the master of Japanese sexploitation, Norifumi Suzuki. As it goes for me, I just want anything with Miki Sugimoto in it. If I may be just a wee bit sexist about this: she has every protruding body part stuck in exactly the right corpo-topographic position.

But anyway, it has been argued that this film (the 4th in the Sukeban-series, aka Girl Boss or Onna Bancho, and the final one to be directed by Suzuki) takes itself a bit too seriously compared to its predecessor (Sukeban Guerilla). And this is true (now that I've seen Guerilla). Still, it takes less time to get to top speed (whatever that is in these exploitation films) than that one, and some scenes are really well-shot. Although I abhor the woman-betraying-guy-who-means-it-well type. F*#% it, the guy should just get a serious beating woman! Where's the sukeban spirit here?!

So quite OK, but for exploitation-fans only. But Miki Sugimoto is great, though there are a couple of other flicks that do her more justice.

ps: the torture-while-in-chains is almost a carbon-copy of the one in Guerilla; and, for that, Zero Woman: Red Handcuffs is still the better one.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Boy, this stank

[2/10 · 28 May 2005]

Basically, yesterday after I'd seen it, I was still moderately mild to this film, but in hindsight that was probably due to the welcome air conditioning in the theater, when outside it was a blisteringly hot late spring day (so I actually enjoyed every minute inside). In fact, apart from some visuals and the set design, this movie was not only bad, but completely superfluous, for these reasons: The plot is next to non-existent, something which does not necessarily lead to a bad film, but here, what *is* contained in the plot is (a) mind-numbingly bad dialogue, (b) a historically completely inaccurate storyline, (c) uninteresting characters, (d) uninteresting, inconsistent and sometimes completely obscure plot 'developments'. An still...

Still, those four points would not necessarily make it the disaster it is. The disaster is here: is completely fails to even *hint* at what the atmosphere at the time of the crusades must have been like. I mean, the whole of it is steeped in western romanticism and something which tries to sell itself as idealism, but which is, in fact, just squeamish political correctness. This PC is necessary, because the romanticizing makes it look more contemporary than it is. And, true, some current political problems do have its roots in the same idea of 'posessing the ultimate truth' that inhabits monotheistic religions. But why not stick to history. For, in fact, there are lots of deeper analogies as well as differences between the machinations at the time of the crusades and what goes on nowadays. In fact, religion as religion, ironically, plays only a minor part in it. It's religion as a means of mobilising the masses as an army ready to kill and die for a power-hungry elite.

In all, there's too much individualism going on in the film, and you never get even a glimpse of the whole picture. Yes, it is true that in the dark middle ages the Muslim culture, though cruel as practically all ancient cultures, was more refined than the European one (due to circumstances). And yes, what went to fight in the Holy Land were often a bunch of outlaws and adventurers, sinners, and religious fanatics (a bit like the earlier gulfs of emigration to the Americas and Australia, come to think of it :-). But in all fairness, it was a pretty brutal time then. And all these high ideals and stuff, that just drowned in the murk of complex political en demographical plots that this movie not only fails to explore, but which it pretends even never existed.

O yes - and they DO spell e-ve-ry-thing out for you. Good grief Hollywood, we can think! PS If you want a cool epic battle movie with some completely absurd individualism and pretty idiotic behavior, but which actually manages to entertain, see Musa (The Warrior) by Sung-su Kim (Korea, 2001). At least is goes, without holding back, for full-fledged romanticism and does not try to rewrite history as a politically correct story of noble white and black men.

P (2005)

Surprisingly beautiful film, not just your typical horror flick. The lead is great!

[9/10 · 27 March 2005]

*** first & last paragraphs are without spoilers ***

At first sight the story's your pretty basic demon possession thing (P is the transliteration of the Thai word for Ghost). What made the film stand out however was the setting. The whole thing is seen from the perspective of an innocent girl forced to leave the countryside to look for money in Bangkok, where she loses touch with her past as she gets caught up in the Thai sex industry - and goes downhill (some have suggested a metaphor for drugs, but I think there are various paths leading downhill in the Thai sex industry). She refuses to accept her fate however, but her energy flows to her dark side, which soon darkens just a deeper shade of red...

More specific (***massive spoilers down here*** - for a summary go to the final paragraph) :

The opening scenes in rural Thailand where Aaw grows up in all innocence learning witchcraft from her grandmother are really full of supernatural promise in the nature of the place itself. It also sets the main character well - she's considered a freak by her peers, but fails to really rise above it, which makes her vulnerable to herself - shown by the fact that she's angry when pushed in the mud, after which a demon tries to grab her in the water; or that, when older, she scares three small kids spying on her (nicely mirroring what's about to follow). In order to pay for her sick grandmother, she has to move to Bangkok before she manages to complete her witchcraft skills. In other words, the classic - all power, but no strong enough will yet.

The action moves to the P Bar in Bangkok, where some of the most painful scenes take place, as Aaw gradually loses her old self - she is given a new name, Dau; she loses her virginity. Awkward to see, where Paul Spurrier plays the virgin loving sex industry white (very convincingly). The scene is brought so tenderly and subdued that it is all the more hurting. Very well done too (helped by the soundtrack) is the first floor show in the bar, which Spurrier manages to film in an entirely non-erotic way, but instead making the dancing poles look like a jail in which the women are meat. In fact, the whole film at this point could well be a social commentary thing with some very good cinematography.

Things for Dau then take a turn for the worse as she starts to use her magic on whoever hurts her, starting with Spurrier who gets punishment in a very fitting way. Next however is her rival at the club. Her "accident" is really great. Some good gore though very little is shown. But Dau fails to respect three sacred rules to obey when one uses black magic, thus opening her heart to... evil! - thereby gradually losing her final bit of self. The fact that her first error occurs when she acknowledges her feelings for her roommate Pookie (also a very good actress), is rather dubious I think.

Then the film loses a bit of the atmosphere that set it out from your usual ghost flick, as Dau turns into a straight vampire (actually a phii borb - a classic organ-eating Thai ghost) and goes butchering white sex tourists and whoever stands in her way - some nice gore at times, and organ-diving might become a national sport. The beginning of it, where it's still unclear whether it's real or not, is well done, but towards the end, while the film never loses momentum, the story seems a bit lost. Especially the final solution reminded me of the original Exorcist, i.e. the exorcist dies himself, and the real salvation is brought by someone letting the demon go inside and then killing herself.

The end is rather depressing - she's alive, but without demon all her rebellion against her situation is gone and the final scene shows her doing a genuinely erotic but soulless floor show - Aaw gone forever and Dau to live the miserable life of meat for sale. What I found a bit disturbing is (though this certainly couldn't have been Spurrier's intention) that the whole film can be seen as "try to resist the fate the Thai sex industry has installed for you just causes a real mess, so you'd better keep that demon calm and accept your karma and swing around that pole". It depends on whether you look at the Barb possession as being Aaw's rebellion or rather her path downhill.

*** End of spoilers ***

But don't be mistaken, this is a very good film (despite being maybe a bit less imaginative towards the end) with some exquisite acting by unknown actors. Especially the lead, Suangporn Jaturaphut (in her first role!) is simply a revelation. It's definitely worth your theater visit, with its well-told straightforward story and beautiful images - and if that's not enough, just go to check out Suangporn.

Samaritan Girl (2004)

Ki-Duk is getting very close to becoming my favorite director

[26 March 2005]

This is my fourth film by Ki-Duk Kim (after Spring, Summer... / The Isle / 3-Iron), and he scores one minus (The Isle, despite stunning cinematography), one very good (Spring), and two absolutely magnificent. Despite the fact that I liked 3-Iron just a bit better because of the more straightforward story and consistent way of story telling, Samaria comes very close.

I'm not going to spoil things for you, but I'd just point out that this is yet another highly symbolic film, so much in fact, that this second (symbolic) level is probably more easily understood than the basic story. Not that it's complicated, it's just that story and meaning are not as closely interwoven as in 3-Iron, where the overlap between the two made possible an ambiguous reality that led to sublimation. Here, it takes a while for the two levels to touch.

The feeling following 3-Iron was that of reaching an asymptote - only the infinite was beyond. In Samaria, you feel like some serious stuff happened but what's done is done and the road lies open. We're at a starting point, which is not quite zero but feels like it. Well now, you can hardly call that a spoiler 'cause I hardly understand it myself. But you'll see what I mean after seeing it.

The story, which seems to start out as something different that what it turns out to be, must be one of the most poignant symbolic depictions of the point at which a parent has to let his/her kid go and realise he/she's not needed anymore - or not like before. Also, silence, without being as overwhelming as in 3-Iron, plays an important role. In 3-Iron, good stuff happened because of silence; here, a lot of not so good things happen because of it, but some good things can happen in spite of silence. The ending can be very sad or neutral or have the potential for hope, if you choose my story interpretation. But who am I?

What? Still reading this? - off you go to the video store. Chop chop!

Note: does anyone realise just how brilliant Kim Ki-Duk is when shooting indoor scenes?! Framing, camera movement, light - you name it - sheer perfection.

3-Iron (2004)

Try a little tenderness...

[10/10 · 26 January 2005]

Watched it two times the past week. In a nutshell - I dare anyone to find a film that is more sober and so light and that at the same time fills you with a deep warmth an and all encompassing feeling of great tenderness. Really.

Its story is of such unbelievable simplicity that at the first sight of such a script you'd wonder how on earth it would be possible to make it into a film - or tell anything with it that goes beyond the script. Add to this the fact that any dialogue almost entirely fails to manifest itself...

But then you forget about Kim Ki-duk! If anyone was born with the eye of the cinematographic magician, it must be him. Despite the fact that I did not like The Isle at all, the photography was utterly unbelievable. Same for Spring, Summer... But then I still thought "well, anyone with reasonable skill can get a good image out of such landscapes/spaces". But none of that here - mainly indoors or in the city - just a guy spending his nights at other unknown people's places while they're away, and in turn repairs stuff and cleans/does the laundry. And STILL the images are nothing less than breathtaking. The light is superb, the framing, everything... Also the storytelling... pacing is perfect - he tells the story with images more than with events. The film actually becomes light as feather, and then lighter. Sublimation. And besides that, he manages to squeeze in some real drama and the occasional laugh. Go figure.

I'm gonna quit here, there's really nothing much more I can add. Do yourself a favour and see this inconspicuous little film that is so profoundly simple and beautiful that you'll be wanting to send me a thank you note afterwards for telling you this.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Entirely lovable film on entirely fascinating subjects, that still isn't perfect.

[9/10 · 6 January 2005]

Just got back from the theater and I liked it a lot. But then again, I just like moving images. It reminded me not so much of John Malkovich or Memento (to both of which it bears some resemblance), but rather of Lost In Translation.(note: for a short resume of it all, see bottom)

Why? Only a very small part of the message was the same (when and how do we burn down our bridges), although tackled here in a different way. In Translation the whole point was that you don't always have to burn down your bridges (life follows the course it has to follow), while this one says the same in a less subtle way, by, instead of looking at the "standing at the precipice"-moment of decision (like LiT did), going beyond the decision point and saying "see whY you shouldn't? there's the good stuff!" and ultimately also ending up saying the river flows the way it should flow. Still, plus.

But the general atmosphere was fairly similar, and that's what did it for me - yep, sometimes just the atmosphere, sound dumb I know. This lukewarm melancholy that comes over you for example when you remember when you were little the first time a girl did something to you that made you understand - for the very first time - that you were something special in someone else's life. It's the whole melancholy that gets built up by focusing on the Good Stuff while sh*t is happening. LiT however does a very neat trick in looking for solid ground in finding a different way of being Here and Now and Self; Spotless Mind's message is on the Good in Memories. The whole memory stuff is my thing. I love it. I see it in every film (mainly because I try to see many films about it). So that's another plus.

So the minus? Well, I had the impression the script got messed around with, and now that I've read some of the trivia here I'm sure it was. A) The tone isn't balanced at all. People DON'T go see this thinking it is a comedy - because it isn't (Lost In Translation made the same error selling itself as one). It has some fun moments that successfully counter the melancholy, but the moments are scattershot. The start is good, because confusing and suddenly gripping. But the whole sequence where they begin to erase his memory and the erasers get stoned is boring and pointless (except for seeing Kirsten Dunst in underwear) and serves to hide the fact that the main story doesn't have a lot to go on (i.e., the memory erasing itself is kinda nifty the first time, but...) B) The point they're trying to make is diffuse. When Patrick uses Joel's lines to get to Clementine (another useless side plot) you get this naive "it's not about the right words, but about the right person" idea. They try to tell us we should learn to live with painful memories; at the same time, there's the idea of making a relationship work if you keep focusing on the good stuff; there's the idea that the same stuff always happens (though they toned that down in the final script version... which may just not have been the thing to do); etc.

The bottom line here: they should've decided on which point to make, what tone to go for, so or make it more of a comedy, or, my option, cut the annoying bits, and focus on the role of memory in social life and the actual NAture of the relationship between a very good Carrey, and an, as always ab-so-lu-te-ly FAbulous Kate Winslet (people, she is GRAND). As it is now, while nice (yes, that word) with some wonderful moments, and nibbling at some great topics, you still get the nagging feeling you've been watching the exposition of a gimmick, rather that the wonderful film it could have been.

The Beck cover song rules!

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Brilliant. Too tough. Superb. Heartwrenching. (ad lib)

[10/10 · 24 December 2004]

Before setting out praising this movie, just a little message to those who (agAIn) ask themselves what the point is of making anime so realistic, since anime is supposed to be used for stuff that can't be done in real film. Well, two replies : a) then anime should be abandoned altogether, because they can pretty much do anything in film by now - ironically, often with special effects that are little more than computer generated anime! b) that remark testifies to, besides an extremely narrow view of what a particular art form can be, a profound lack of respect for anime as a medium equal to plain film. Since, what it's saying is basically "in specific cases anime is better, but when both art forms can do it, film is always superior". But there's more. Apparently, none of the folk who put forth that limited view on anime have ever heard of the idea that the more abstract a figure becomes, the easier it becomes to identify with it. So, to spell it out: where a normal film might keep a certain distance between you and the characters, anime characters are more easily generalised and thus identified with.

But what about Grave of the Fireflies? Well, to put it plain and simple: if you haven't seen it, you're an utter idiot. I won't tell you what to feel (except in the summary line), but the film's perfect. Pacing, direction, photography, plot, you name it. And it avoids the easiest "ho let's go for the big emotion" style. It does go for it, but in a very no-bul**hit way, drawing a straight line and following it.

I do like Miyazaki films, but since I bought the Ghibli Box (which did not include Fireflies, as it isn't distributed by Disney outside of Japan, and the box's DVD's come from HK) I must admit that, especially in his later films, Miyazaki tends to go for Big Messages. Instead, the three films by Takahata I've seen thusfar (especially Fireflies and Only Yesterday) are marvels of understatedness. By which I mean, it's more a thing of showing the facts and letting you make up your own mind, rather than chewing your emotional food for you. Not that Miyazaki isn't good, but Takahata has made three of the best Ghibli films. And he's not afraid of showing a darker note in his films, whereas Miyazaki tends to keep his films (except Mononoke) on constant feelgood mode.

Anyhow. Required viewing. Just take my word for it. If not that, just do it out of fear for being considered an idiot...

2046 (2004)

Memory is a thing best forgotten...

[10/10 · 15 December 2004]

Well, I am a Wong Kar-Wai fan, so I might be a wee bit biased. If I were a cynic on the other hand, I would say, take the lonely city souls in quest for love of Fallen Angels, mix with the basic story and tone (and speed) of In The Mood For Love (to which this story is more or less a formal sequel - same characters), add some dialogue sauce for a change, and whoopsee, you have another film!

***possible spoilers following, not of story, but of general content***

But no, this is more (just beware of any critic overplaying the sf-part in either a good or a bad way). It's yet another Far East film about memory (those people are really obsessed), and a very good one at that. More specifically, about the role of memory in human relationships - and hence, in life. So there's definitely more than in Fallen Angels (still my favourite WKW though). Stuff actually happens, so there's more than in In The Mood For Love... though perhaps more is not always better...

I for one wasn't too convinced by the sf-parts, as it is largely a translation, a subtitle as it were, to the rest of the movie. An excuse to look inside Chow's head - to have his inner world, rather than his relationships, play the main role. In the beginning, it's more confusing than anything else. Still, in itself it is quite effective in making you feel the mix of alienation and longing for pure warmth with minimal aids. Still, as the film goes on, there's more than enough bareboned emotion going on between the (terrific) actors to make the whole thing stick, without the sf. And this one-tear business is getting a bit on my nerves (just saw House of Flying Daggers two days ago, which is a One Tear in Sales Market film). What I'm saying is that it takes a (unnecessary) while to drive its point home.

The wonderful thing however is that it does drive its point home. Home run. Memories are best forgotten sometimes. If not, the future is one of an unfulfilled wish, is a search for an answer in past - an answer never given. An unavoidable slipping off into melancholy (a feeling that is made very tangible here). Seeing others not as a whole, but perceiving pieces of them as being pieces in a puzzle you try to recreate, but of which you never had all the bits in the first place - something that you blank out. You blank out the piece you never had, and it's that one you're looking for. Never to find, obviously...

That, and the simple error of trying to rebuild the memory of someone you loved by using the things you remember as building blocks. But they are themselves end products of the memory of that person. What built the memory were the things that happened, which are not the things you remember. And the things that happened are lost, stuck like a secret in a hole in a tree. What remains is the hole stuffed with mud, not the secret.

Beautiful story, beautiful women (Faye Wong! Zhang Ziyi! Gong Li!), every shot a painting, superb acting. Don't let the length or the few spots on the face of this film keep you from dragging your butt to the theater and experience some emotion.

Per 6/05 I'd like to ad some additional interpretation About the hole you stuff memories in. Well, what is the secret knowledge you whisper into the hole? Is it the memories? No, it's the secret emotion. And that's what the film is about, how the emotion that accompanies a memory makes it painful to remember and a trap for your future (remember the chapter 'all memories originate in tears'). ThAt's why you need to stuff these in a tree, to defuse the memory. Unfortunately, our writer wants to backtrack, and as he's looking for the memory, he finds himself more and more looking for the emotion that accompanied it, for the emotions are like lightning to the frankenstein's monster of his memory. It is only through them that he will be able to recreate the original memory. Alas, like I said, without the emotion, stuffed in a hole, there's just the memory deformed by myriads of recollections, that no present can live up to. Thus, as his past slips through his fingers, so does his present. And that's why he can never get back, unless he is able to invent a future (his book) for his past, and hence liberate his present from it.

After the second viewing I a sure this film is a masterpiece, even though I still believe that the whole Zhang Ziyi half hour is a bit too long and it's not entirely in tune with the way the other parts are tackled (more... impressionistic).

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

The reverse of the Hero philosophy? Very entertaining, but flawed

[13 December 2004]

The film has the problem of following on the heels of Hero, of course. Still, whereas Hero took Zhang a good 6 years to write and cast it into its final form, this was not the case here. So it's obvious that this was in no way meant (as deliberately as Hero) to be as huge an artistic statement. And why should it. A film's merit is seldom measured uniquely by its artistic merit, fortunately. But more is lacking. I'll keep it "short" and sum it up (does contain ***SPOILERS*** about the ending!). Sorry about the length.

1) The story is the reverse of Hero in a way. In Hero, the whole point was that the individual's want pales in the light of the Big Plan, an entirely eastern premise. In this one, it's the western romantic tradition of the individual's desires being more important than the Cause (they both betray their Cause). In other words, it's your classical Romeo & Juliet / Tristan & Iseult kinda thing. This is mirrored in the way the story is told - in this one, the historic backdrop, though suggested to be important by the opening text, is of no importance whatsoever. The problem is, he doesn't pull it off without problems - why? Well:

2) The (love)story's thin. Despite the classical, but rather well-placed twists in the overall intrigue, the lovers do little more than going back and forth. First he wants her, she does not let him; then she wants him, but he does not let her and leaves; then he returns, to find out he cannot have her. Than it becomes clear that in fact he can, because she does want him... all well-fit in the overarching story, but still too much. So finally IT happens, and they part, then she goes back, he goes back, all only to end in tragedy (see 4). You get it, there's a whole lot going on, just to make the one point: the love each other. Why? because there wasn't much other script material? because the actors couldn't pull off more depth? I don't know.

3) The cinematography is great, but a) not as stunning as in Hero (plus, most of it is filmed in Ukraine, not China!), and b) he's showing off! Something I cannot stand. I mean, the first half hour serves to show us what an absolutely stunning filmmaker we got here. He begins at the top, instead of slowly building magnificent scene on magnificent scene as in Hero. So, whereas in Hero I slowly became aware that I was watching stuff that would get stuck in my mind forever, here during the first 30' I was thinking, come on mate, I know you're good, get started on the story. Although, if I were him, I would be tempted as well to point my camera at Ziyi Zhang and hold it there...

4) The inconsequences! It's cool to have twists, and lead the public on, but don't take them for fools! I don't care about impossible stuff, but keep the internal logic. Why, if they knew each other, do Andy Lau and Ziyi Zhang have such a terrible fight at the arrest. I can understand the drum thing - they wanted to have some fun and he had to 'prove' her 'guilty' - but why the dim-mak (pressure-point) stuff and subsequent drowning, when there's just the two of them? Other example (might be the subs): why do the supposed Flying Daggers leader and Andy Lau keep up the game when they're out of the hut's reach? If he's one of them, why does she ask him "do you have anything to say?" and why does he answer "you're not the real leader" - If he's a FD guy, this is obvious! There's others...

5) Now, the end. It's like a Tchaikovsky symphony - the bleedin' thing just doesn't end! I thought the film was still very strong when Ziyi gets struck by Lau's dagger. But then it comes - she 'dies' no less than four (4!) times. I mean, come on! I know the idea of only being dead when you pull the weapon OUT is commonplace in the east (so I can live with the idea that a dagger in the heart doesn't kill her), but the characters themselves shouldn't be surprised! Furthermore, the reasons why she 'revives' are three times IDENTICAL, i.e. to prove her love for him, something she already proved abundantly, and to which one last illustration would have sufficed. But no - the first time she regains life, it's to warn her lover. The second time it's to defend him a the cost of her life, and the last time she re-opens her eyes (the audience was already laughing at that point) it's again to say something she's said several times before. The movie would have benefited from just the fight and then as an apotheosis the one resurrection where she pulls out the dagger (a powerful moment in itself). Same comment for the numerous times the One Tear is shed... The number of One Tear-shots, To-and-Fro's (see 1), and Dying Moments made it seem like I was watching one (beautiful) point being made over and over again, like I was a romantic illiterate.

Plus, I might me really picking here, but I thought the fight sequences were nowhere near as impressive as the ones in Hero. Especially Takeshi Kaneshiro's fighting in the final confrontation lacked a lot.

This being said, though the film won't stick like Hero, basically because the cinematography and story are not as impressive or well done, it's a feast for the eye. And if you numb your mind you might get something out of it. If not the necessary romantic being-ripped-apart feeling, than at least bewildered astonishment in front of the costumes and the nothing less than otherworldly, almost impossible to endure, beauty of Ziyi Zhang.

Favourite moment: Zhang Ziyi's split between two bamboo trees.

Oldboy (2003)

Entertaining and visually gripping, but something's missing

[18 November 2004]

Just saw it, and it didn't bore me a single second. Still a bit of counterpoint to the raves here might be in order (though a couple of others have done so already). The visuals were great, the acting top of the top-shelf, and the premise very promising. But maybe just a bit too promising.

The basic idea is great in its claustrophobic simplicity : locked away, but why and by whom? The plot does not follow the usual developments, i.e. you soon know by whom. This in itself is not a problem, but the thing is that the plot from then on becomes a warm-up for the twist. Now I don't care much about twists anymore. Building up the suspense... like listening to a romantic symphony ending (often lasts 5 full minutes). As a consequence, the final "kabam!" (finding out that you f***ed your daughter) comes a bit as "so what?" because at that point the style has taken over from the story. At a point you stop caring about the characters. Why? because you don't get a clear view of how he is still caring about his daughter before the revelation; because the flashbacks are too superficial to feel what the characters then must have felt - the final one is over-pathetic.

Still I thought the last twist was the better one, and hardly anyone talks about that one! Because it refocuses on the film's main theme, which is not so much revenge as the nature and use(ful)(les)ness of memory. The whole idea was for the brother and sister to commit suicide together! As she says "if you're afraid, just let me go" - and he does chicken out and lets her go (although very unwillingly). So at this point he realises that he too has played a role, not so much of letting her go, but of chickening out on his sister in the final hour. The fact that the main character cuts his tongue off for his daughter kind of confronts him with what he himself couldn't... I guess...

I guess, because the final monologue in the penthouse is rather confusing and doesn't seem to do justice to the build-up of the movie. A little bit of moderation would have done miracles. The emotions of the characters jump around so much that the twist drowns in it, and the grand finale, despite being somewhat unpredictable comes off as something you knew all along, nothing special.

But all this aside, it is among the better revenge movies with a memory-thing (what do these asians have with memory?!)... still could have been much better had style & form not gotten the better of the story development in the end.

If you need an additional push to go see, know that Hye-jeong Kang is one of those exceptionally beautiful women that only Leonard Cohen can say something reasonable about. Miss her at your peril!

Perfect Blue (1997)

Exquisite viewing pleasure, but not perfect

[9/10 · 18 November 2004]

First of all, let me comment on those saying that they have enough of hyper realistic anime, because then why didn't they just make a regular film? Well that's just bogus from people still stuck in "movies is real people" time. I for one sometimes think whilst seeing a regular movie "why not making an anime out of this?" Furthermore, there IS a reason why an anime might work better, simply because the characters are more abstract and easier to identify with.

This said, the script & realistic drawing, though groundbreaking for anime perhaps, is a fairly common thriller script, including the serial killer. But it's the characters (the 'acting'?) that lift it above the ordinary. I absolutely fancy Mima (in a cartoonish way I might add in order not to be considered a nerd with a disturbed affection allocation), and the film really made me care for her. The nudity helps, of course, but it's more. While you think her just a stupid little singer wanting to be an actress, she really grows during all the mess.

The twist didn't really surprise me or 'do' it for me, as I've become numb to twists, but it doesn't matter. Though the story's mainstream, the movie-making is top-shelf. The angles, development and jumpy cuts keep you glued. The 7.4 it gets at the moment might only be a slight underestimation, it still is imperative watching. Ai no tenshi!

Only Yesterday (1991)

What an understated masterpiece!

[10/10 · 18 November 2004]

Imagine a commonplace story in commonplace settings with a not so immensely interesting main character (a bit like you and me) and a pastoral kinda hippie-message... and it works!

This is another memory-thingie from Japan (they are obsessed with memory there, is that because of the Meiji period? who knows), from the genius who brought us Grave of the Fireflies.

The story's so simple: a young woman in her late 20s doesn't have any real problems, is kind of ready for the rest of her life to happen, but it's just not happening. Something seems to be in the way of her accepting the possibility of happiness in the simple things that she finds on her way, and that that might just be what she's looking for and therefore enough.

A trip to the countryside brings back memories of her childhood as the youngest of three in a middle-of the road household in late 60's Japan. The thing is, it is SO well-done. Often, films focus on the misery of this life and the sweet innocent splendor of youth. This one turns it upside down, and not by depicting a horrible childhood which has to be "taken care of". Just by looking at things the way a child does.

It's often the little things, that seem of no importance to adults, that mould a child, shape it's personality. The "small killings" so to speak. Events no one notices and no one readily remembers, but no one really forgets either. And when you remember them, they hurt in a way that you find unreasonable.

So with this film. The flashbacks of not really a "missed opportunity" childhood, but rather of small events that stuck, chills you and sometimes fills you with warmth. It suggests at the same time that though there might be events that made her what she is, she also always was who she is, and it's the interplay between who you are and what you encounter that shape your life. You might say "it might have gone a different way", but then again it didn't exactly because you are you. Very Tao if you ask me. How it ends... just go and find out.

The fact that the film, entirely inconspicuously, manages to pull it off to tell that in images, makes it great art. The subtitles are hazardous (sometimes too fast, too much on the screen...), but let that not spoil the splendor. Get out and rent it now. I bought it.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Grossly underrated. Provides the angle for digging Kill Bill.

[11 October 2004]

I don't quite recall the story. At the time (not that long ago - saw it fairly recently, around the time KB1 came out) I thought it was fairly run-of-the-mill. Still the movie stuck. I'd seen and liked Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Used to like the memory of the first one more, but after several re-viewings, and considering the point I'm going to try to make, I doubt whether Pulp isn't the better one. Anyway.

I may be slow, but it took Jackie Brown for me to realize what it is that QT does so well. He actually takes caricatures, puts them in a fancy comic book story/place and tells the story around them. But here appears the skill (some call it genius) : in doing so, he manages to get the emotions across. Real emotions with caricaturised characters - how? Where he was still a bit to much obsessed with the formal experiment in Pulp and especially Dogs, this eagerness to toy with the story falls by the wayside in Jackie. Maybe that's why it's so underrated - because many think "this time he didn't pull it off". But in all my vanity I'm pretty sure that he didn't want to, at least not like in Pulp or Dogs.

In Jackie the camera sticks like glue to the main characters, to a degree that they were all the images I had in my head afterwards. Of course, the devine goddess Pam Grier IS camera glue. Put the point is : he takes this basic cliché character (though Grier's has some 'depth'), and focuses on it, and lets the full drama and being of the actor playing that character define the drama of the character. It's the return of the classic Hollywood Star Quality*. Forget creating a deep character and having it played by an actor whose face/name you can't recall because he becomes te character (like for example the invariably brilliant Timothy Spall - so good you hardly notice it's the same actor in all those roles); instead, make the character a vehicle to exploit the star quality. And there we are : one of the meanings of "exploitation cinema" (though that exploitation covers more than that <snicker>). "What would Sasori be if she wasn't played by Meiko Kaji?" becomes "What would Sasori be if she wasn't Meiko Kaji?"

And that's why it's a key to Kill Bill, or at least a bridge between the kaleidescopic formal frenzy of Pulp and the more stylized spareness of Bill. Kill Bill 1 got you on the wrong leg (probably deliberately), superficially recalling the frenzy of Pulp, and then it seems to fall short, too. But KB has much more to do with Jackie Brown, meaning that the essence is the characters that become emblematic through the presence of the actors portraying them, a hint you could also get from KB 2 (it pays to re-watch Vol.1 AFTER Vol.2!). But all this is not the end in itself. The end is to, by the 'trick' just described, bring an emotion across, so that a story obviously implausible to the rational mind becomes plausible to the emotional sense, becomes plausible BECAUSE we recognise the unnuanced basic emotions brought to nuanced life by the beaming presence of the actors. And Q has the visual and directorial (is that English?) flair to capture that beam on pellicule. And that's what makes it great film. This, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Vols. 1 AND 2.

Numerous exploitation directors (Jackie Brown) or the likes of Sergio Leone (Kill Bill) might have done the exact same thing before him, but he brings it all to such implausible, often utterly 'incongruent' heights, that the awe before the fact that he still can pull the emotional arc thing on you makes your jaw fall into your lap. Dang.

*note: This is, though superficially alike, a completely different ballgame than what e.g. David Lynch does (whom I like even more). He also has caricatures play in often grotesque implausible stories. The difference is that with DL the characters are puppets in a play or figures in a painting, and it is the painting as a whole, and not just the actors, that has to get the emotion across and make you forget the actual content of the story, in order to dissolve into the er... message of Love. Only in A Straight Story can one see a resemblance with what QT does - still only that, because the thing as a whole remains important in order to make the superb acting in the end bring the message across.

Fallen Angels (1995)

Just to repeat myself

[10/10 · 11 October 2004]

I already wrote a comment on this one some years ago. A couple of months ago I ordered the Brand New digitally cleaned up Australian DVD (the French are also re-releasing, as part of a Kar-Wai box), and people, would you believe it! Despite having seen my VHS until it decomposed, reincarnated and went to live in a buddhist monastery for videotapes broken out of the circle of continuous play, it was a revelation. But I'm drifting off here. The thing is simple:

This film is superb; the final 5 minutes are among the most gripping things ever translated into some perceptible entity. It would already suffice to make it a masterpiece. The rest of the film is bonuses bonuses. Don't miss, please.

Princess Mononoke (1997)

Perfect, but...

[10/10 · 18 September 2004]

... despite much has been made of Neil Gaiman's dubbed lines, you should absolutely watch it in Japanese with subtitles. The dubbing actors seem not to completely understand the intonations their characters' lines require, which, to me, made the first 20 minutes rather confusing. It was only when I switched to Japanese that it all seemed to make sense. Don't ask me why, like I said I guess it's intonation. Furthermore, it's always daft not to see a movie in its original language. And that goes for anime too, unless you still believe it's not real film.

But this is! OK, we've seen the story about nature vs humans before (after all, is that not what the Arthur / Merlin / Morgana / Mob legends are all about?), but what makes this one stand apart is 2 things: 1. no one is all good or all evil; 2. the visuals are stunning and testify of an imagination unbound by logic. These 2 points are crucial, for it is there that most Disney films or plain Hollywood films go wrong - one could say that they're made by 5 year olds. But no, it's just the reverse! Most Disney animation and Hollywood stuff is made by 'soundly reasoning' adults with an emotional life not reaching beyond love and hate, motivational insight not going beyond revenge (or getting laid) and an imagination enslaved to logic. This film isn't, and as a consequence some call it 'difficult'. And not suitable for children. Let me tell you, 5 year olds have, with their boundless imagination, no difficulty getting into this.

This film is just so good it's hard to believe someone just sat down at a table, wrote the thing and then drew it on a piece of paper.

** Addition ** I've recently read the Nausicaa anime, and it becomes even clearer now that Mononoke is Miyazaki's re-take on his Nausicaa film (which was premature even in its full-length format), with Nausicaa split in two over Ashitaka & San. However, though this is obviously Miyazaki's second best (after Laputa), it remains difficult to pour all the complex musings about man's relationship to nature in 2 hours (the Nausicaa manga is over a 1000 pages long and took him 13 years; when it was finished he made Mononoke). Hence, some things (like Ashitaka helping out Eboshi even after she's done such evil deeds) have left some viewers bewildered. In all, I found the persona of Nausicaa (in the manga) more fit, in her responsible role as a princess, to convey The Message than the split version here. Still, the very idea about man & technology vs. nature and the question of "is anything ever over" (ewige wiederkehr, the cycle of life) is at its most nuanced here. In any case, image-wise, I doubt you'll ever see anything as beautiful as this.

Notting Hill (1999)

Art can break your heart; or, I'm a softie

[9/10 · 21 March 2004]

What can I say? Despite the fact that my brother, an outgoing fitness-instructor drooling at Mel Gibson films, thinks I belong, seemingly voluntarily, to the group of slightly socially inhibited self-proclaimed intellectuals requiring a cerebrally sound reason for loving a film (or anything else for that matter), and cannot appreciate anything not directed by an Uzbekistani with one leg off, I actually like this film to bits.

Technically this film isn't 'great' when it comes to images, so it falls short there. But, despite me always telling that films should be about images and only books should involve stories, I have no problem completely ignoring any of my own gibberish and cry out that this is, and you bl***y well believe it, one of the greatest films ever made.

Never have the seemingly superficial emotions that well up from the Deep Good been so efficiently shoved down our throats. I saw it only fairly recently for the first time and was immediately hooked, by the lines, the story, the flow, and the absolutely nuclear power that flows from the faces of the Grant and Roberts. I wasn't really pro-Roberts and still think she invariably stars in the wrong pictures, but here she's nothing less than grand. I won't comment on Hugh Grant since, probably to balance out my love for Werner Herzog films, my brain has decided to like him to bits as an actor. My girlfriend keeps suggesting I might have a queer spark there, but she shouldn't complain, since I've been with her for 11 years.

The fact that they can shine though, is, apart from their dialogue, entirely due to the exquisite cast surrounding them. I like Tim McInnerny a lot, but Gina McKee is a real treat here. Not only does she beam the love that Grant lacks, but she's a stunningly gorgeous woman as well.

Romance, love, sunny London, it all smells of the profoundly bizarre or utterly impossible, but it all works. This is the film that Joyce would have ended Ulysses with: Yes!

The Best of Youth (2003)

Almost the perfect saga. Go and see!

[10/10 · 23 February 2004]

This film's brilliant. At least, I like it to bits, because it's long, slow, and makes a point of melancholy - and I was born with melancholy on my heels. All is well done in this film. Plus, as a bonus, it has some really beautiful women in it, which is tops in combination with melancholy.

Still, it falls just short of perfection, for a couple of reasons, which may be understandable, considering this was originally conceived as a series [***spoilers ahead***]

The supposedly realistic and balanced tone of the first part breaks down in the second, because:

a) Realism: They make more concessions to filmic storyline tricks to keep the drama 'interesting': It is impossible that the Brigado Rosso didn't check Giulia's background and found out about Carlo being her brother-in-law. Similarly, if Giulia is wanted nationally, the family must have had police enquiries, and everyone would know about the fact that she's Matteo's sister-in-law, so the secrecy on both sides is impossible. I do not believe that Nicola wouldn't immediately want to go a visit the photographer who took Matteo's picture, instead of waiting for Giorgia's hint. La Mamma's quitting the school was made dramatic while there was no need to do so.

b) Balance: As a consequence of the above, the story of 2 revolves more around big life events, and hence makes big time jumps, the basic story period being beginning of the 80's, beginning of the 90's, and beginning of the new millennium. Furthermore, the emphasis is put too much on melancholy, starting with Queen's 'who wants to live forever', further emphasizing this feeling by switching with a clock's regularity between a Laugh and a Tear. Lastly, as is the case with many multi-generation stories/films, we don't get to care too much for the children, in stead, the story doesn't really seem to be able to break loose from its original main characters, dipping the whole into more... melancholy.

c) The more dramatic storyline seems necessary because most of the characters don't evolve much following 1980. In fact, Carlo looks and behaves identical over a course of 20 years. It is only Nicola, who really becomes the center of the second part, who actually changes. Changes are made more apparent in change of environment rather than interior change.

d) We all got the point of the film; there was no real need to 'complete the circle' by having Matteo's son reach the Nordkapp, thereby combining the two brothers in one. It already seemed that the film was ending, like a romantic symphony, for the past half hour (not that that bothers me), so... This was due to the fact that they really wanted to wrap up every loose end, to give some happiness to counterpoint the all-permeating melancholy, which brings us to the first point of the breaking down of realism.

Still, although it's spelled out for us in the end, the film does drive it's point home - all is beautiful in life, be it the good or the bad. That's life. I always forget which philosopher said 'esse est percipi' - being is perceiving. I like to combine this with Keats' well-known 'beauty is truth, truth beauty', centering around the idea that only what you perceive is true (maybe not in an objective sense, but that's impossible and pointless anyway). So, all that you see is beauty. And the moment you get there, you've stopped projecting your interpretations of good or bad into the world around you, you simply are.

So, despite the few flaws, the acting is brilliant throughout, and the storyline mostly avoids hollywood solutions. And actually does make you cry.

A gem.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A New Low Has Arrived!

[1/10 · 15 February 2004]

Tss... for years, Cobra with Stallone was my all-time low. Then it became Highlander II. But, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner here. This movie is so ridiculous.

Ever seen a movie suddenly develop into a Bacardi commercial? (The dance scene... I expected a bartendress to say "table six" any minute)

Absolute crap, from misplaced and far from perfect visual effects, a scenario developed by morons gone intellectual, and acting which is beyond downward comparison, straight to more boring or even ennerving sequences than anything I've ever come across.

Waste of pellicule.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)

Unbelievable...

[15 February 2004]

For years, my bottom line for movie comparison was Cobra with Sylvester Stallone. But this one manages to lower the stakes so much it actually comes down to burying them. Worth seeing only if you want to have a zero-point for your standard.

Utter drivel.