Audition

Title: Ôdishon - aka - Audition (1999)
Dir: Takashi Miike
Tagline: She always gets a part.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



I don't know why I attempt to review these asian thrillers without a second viewing. It's damn near impossible! For one thing, I can't understand all of what happened. And two, I just can't decide how I feel about them because I spend the whole first viewing trying to understand what the fuck is going on rather than focusing on cinematic quality.

Needless to say, Audition is one of those movies. Here's a rundown of the plot: a lonely widower name Aoyama is looking to re-marry when his movie producer friend suggests they hold an audition, so that Aoyama may quickly check out different women. He immediately falls for a mysterious wallflower named Asami, and begins to date her. Then some mighty strange things begin to happen, culminating in a twisted climax.

I'd hardly call this one a horror film (but the moments of horror are outstanding). Perhaps I had my expectations in the wrong place. Most of the movie shows the lonely widower Aoyama falling for Asami. I truly believe me having previous knowledge of the film ruined it for me. If you go in not knowing anything about this movie, you are better off. Going in, you may think it is just about a lonely man looking for love, and finds it in a troubled young girl. But this is a Japanese film. Namely, it is a Takashi Miike film. So obviously things get weird.

Given what I just said, I won't go into too much detail. I hope you didn't see that Bravo Top 100 Horror Moments special, so you can really enjoy the film's horror elements. That program pretty much showed the film's big disturbing moments (the sack; the ending), but they really do need to be seen. The problem is how long it takes to get there.

The film is paced very slowly. Like I said, most of it revolves around Aoyama's loneliness and his newfound love in Asami. After a while, it gets very confusing. In fact, I still don't understand much of it. Then comes the ending, which is where the film's gold lies. Immediately the tone changes and if you don't know what is coming, it'll blow you away. I did know what was coming, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the ending. Miike's skills as a director really shine here.

The style of Hostel was based on asian cinema like Audition, and I could see the influence. Hostel seems very Americanized compared to the latter, but it was a big step in the right direction. Both could've used a little more horror, if you ask me, but I'm sure there is much going on in Audition's slow pace that I just couldn't appreciate the first time. As I said, a second viewing is necessary (for me, anyway).

If nothing else, you will never forget what "kiri kiri kiri" means after this movie.

Read More

High Tension

Title: Haute Tension (High Tension) aka Switchblade Romance (2005)
Dir: Alexandre Aja
Tagline: Hearts will bleed.
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



This one is pretty controversial. I guess it falls under the category of love-it-or-hate-it, but I don't understand why. Barring the infamous cop-out twist, this film is fucking fantastic! So much so that I cannot help but forgive it for the aforementioned cop-out twist.

The film begins with two young girls visiting family in the countryside for some studying. One night a creepy dude with a switchblade shows up, hacks up the family, and kidnaps one of the girls. The other girl, our protagonist, tries to save her friend before the killer finally does whatever sick thing he's planning to do to her.

Like 99% of people who saw this movie, I disliked the twist (I am deliberately avoiding the word "ending" because the ending is quite good, except for the twist). The more I think about it, the more it bugs me because I can trace the fallacies in logic. Although, some fans claim there are no fallacies at all, just people too dense to understand what is actually going on. Hmmm. For that reason, I can't help but wonder if the twist isn't as bad as it looked. I'll have to mull it over for a while, and perhaps watch it again someday.

Nevertheless, the "twist" was absolutely unnecessary - that I can say with certainty. High Tension is so relentlessly brutal, and I love that! There was no need whatsoever for some flashy Shyamalan ending because as a horror movie, it completely stands on its own. The tension, the gore, the basic survivalist story - it is all top notch. The directing and acting are fantastic. The makeup effects are great. The underlying "romance" story may seem off-putting to some, but I thought it was really interesting. If only they left out that ridiculous twist....

Horror fans should delight in the violence. There are plenty of those classic "JESUS!" moments, where you are laughing and cheering while simultaneously disturbed. Some of the elements are predictable, but not really in a bad way. It's like those classic fun horror movies where you just know some girl is about to be gutted but you are on the edge of your seat in terror.

Really this film's only flaw is that goddamn twist. I blame the Americanization of horror films. Suddenly you can't make a horror movie without some lame twist ending. What's wrong with making a movie about a crazed killer and a girl fighting to survive? Both that plotline and twist endings have been beaten to death, but twist endings get old and stupid, while slasher stories do not - if well done. And it is well-done here. Very well-done. It did not need some mainstream twist bullshit to top it off. The movie seemed to be geared towarded American audiences (evidenced by the US release, the film's music, the title is even in English in the opening credits), so I blame that for the stupid twist. Tis a shame.

But like I said, twist aside, the film is such a good horror movie that I cannot simply throw it out. I forgive it for its flaw, and it'll just go down in my film memory as one of those movies that could've been so perfect, but tragically fell short.

Read More

Eight Below

Title: Eight Below (2006)
Dir: Frank Marshall
Tagline: The Most Amazing Story Of Survival, Friendship, And Adventure Ever Told.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback....

If there is one thing Disney still excels at, it is melting the audience’s heart with cute furry animals. Frank Marshall’s Eight Below proves just that, with eight beautiful, charismatic dogs, who don’t need the voices of Robin Williams or Whoopi Goldberg to make child and adult alike fall in love with them.

Inspired by true 1957 events, Eight Below tells the story of a dogsled team who are left to fend for themselves in the tundra for almost six months after a freak storm leaves them abandoned. A remake of the 1983 Japanese blockbuster Antarctica, the film has a well-trained canine cast and a few two-legged actors that are not quite as appealing.

On a National Science Foundation Research Base in Antarctica, snow guide Gerry Shepherd (Paul Walker, The Fast and the Furious) is asked to accompany Dr. Davis McClaren (Bruce Greenwood, I Robot) on an expedition to find meteorites. Gerry, uncertain of terrain conditions, fears for his sled dogs to whom he has greatly bonded. The expedition is successful, but when a nasty storm hits, Gerry and Davis are injured and brought home to safety by the team of loyal dogs.

As the storm worsens, the research base must be evacuated, but the dogs will have to be picked up on a second plane trip. Much to Gerry’s dismay, the storm gets so bad that the dogs cannot be rescued at all. Left all alone, the animals break free of their leashes and roam the Arctic to survive. Back home, Gerry tries desperately for months to raise enough money to go find his dogs, dead or alive.

Hereafter, the film alternates between Gerry’s struggle with guilt for having left the dogs and the animals’ perilous struggle to survive on their own. Periodically, a subtitle reminds the audience how many days the dogs have been alone, and each time you cannot help but wince, especially when the count tops 100 days.

Dogs aside, the film is pretty average. Walker and Greenwood are believable and two of the better human actors in the movie. Jason Biggs (American Pie), who plays the base’s cartographer, is supposed to be the film’s comic relief but is quite obnoxious. Another drawback is the special FX, including some bad CG leopard seals and a well-meaning but altogether fake aurora borealis.

The human scenes can be a burden to watch. Their best purpose in the film is to serve as emotional relief from the heart-wrenching animal scenes. Dog lovers especially will be moved by the eight animal stars, who feel like real characters, not just living props. The movie thankfully refrains from talking animals, instead allowing the dogs to convey their charm and intelligence as they naturally do.

If you see this movie with kids, expect Niagara Falls of tears. Even for grownups it can get pretty tense and emotional. Frank Marshall, who also directed Alive, has experience making snow look terrifying, which he again accomplishes here.

The movie is really geared toward children and families, but for adults who like Disney movies, there should be enough to entertain. Do not expect anything above-average, though. It is a run-of-the-mill family film, but at least it’s not Snow Dogs. Banality aside, Eight Below tugs at the heartstrings, and makes you feel an overwhelming need to go home and hug your dogs.

Read More

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

Title: Boksuneun naui geot -aka- Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)
Dir: Park Chan-wook
Tagline: Revenge Was Never This Sweet.
Rating: ***1/2 out of 5 stars



It's not chronologically accurate, but like most people, I saw Oldboy first. Although not as stylistically cool as its successor, Vengeance is worth seeing. It is more straight-forward than Oldboy, a movie that likes to smack the viewer in the mouth (metaphorically, of course). But just like Oldboy, there is a cool story and plenty of wicked violence.

I do like how different the two films are. They are nothing alike, linked only by the director and a theme of revenge. Specifically both movies portray how vengeance spawns more vengeance. This film's characters are not quite as appealing as Oldboy's, though. Dae-Su Oh was so fascinating, whether as some drunk guy in a police station or as a revenge-bent prisoner. He had a twisted sense of humor that Vengeance's characters lack.

The fact that Vengeance's protagonist, Ryu, is deaf and dumb doesn't help. I didn't really care about him, but perhaps that was intentional? His anarchist girlfriend is more interesting - she acts as a sort of Lady MacBeth to him, encouraging his nefarious deeds. But Ryu has good reason to be desperate - his beloved sister is dying and cannot afford a necessary kidney transplant. He goes to great lengths out of love for his sister, and his actions provoke the vengeance of another man, who also does unspeakable things for someone he loves. You'll see what I mean.

Somehow Vengenance felt more slowly paced than Oldboy. I believe Park really honed his directing style in the follow-up, which felt more fresh and fast-paced (not to be confused with hyperkinetic). Consequently, I couldn't get into Vengeance as much. It moved along slowly at times. I can't really put my finger on it, but something drags it down just a bit. I believe a second viewing would do it more justice. I do think it is worth a watch, if only to see Park's growth as a director (or just enjoy some good ol' fashion Korean violence).

2009 Update: Finally saw this film for the second time, and just as I suspected, I loved it more. The movie is beautifully shot and has some moments I still can't get out of my head. It may not be as crisp as Oldboy, but it is now a close-second for my favorite Park film.

Read More

In America

Title: In America (2002)
Dir: Jim Sheridan
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



Two words for why I rented this movie: Paddy Considine. I can just tell this guy is great (he is so Gary Oldman, it's eerie) and I wish to GOD I could find Dead Man's Shoes. But yeah, it's a good film, although not really my type. I was not bored at all (I expected to be) and everyone's acting is top-notch, including the real-life sisters in the movie who are less like stock child actors and more like real children.

For the uninformed, the movie is about an Irish family who moves to New York City to start life anew. The parents (Considine and Samantha Morton) struggle with the loss of their son Frankie years prior, and the family is practically held together by the main character, 11-year old Christy. The family lives in the city slums with junkies and homeless people, but they make the best of their situation. They become friends with a strange man named Mateo (portrayed by Djimon Hounsou) who is slowly dying, but breathes new life into a family once shattered by tragedy.

Visually, the movie is beautiful. It portrays New York City with a lot of love, even the gritty slums of NYC. It sees the good in everyone, but not in an annoying touchy-feely way. The movie is overwhelmingly about family and love, and thus I find myself not really relating. Nevertheless, I recognize good filmmaking when I see it. For anyone with strong family ties and/or dealing with the loss of a loved one, you should find a real emotional connection with this movie. Some moments are very light and optimistic, while others are tragically real.

In America felt very much like a novel to me. That's a weird thing to say, and I cannot really explain it. I guess it is a compliment because so few films have the feel of a good novel. It is a movie about loss, moving on, and family, as told through the eyes of an 11-year old girl. And you can absolutely feel it from her point of view without Sheridan beating you over the head with narration.

It is not the kind of movie I would watch over and over again, but it is good for at least one viewing. It portrays raw human drama without being too brutal or too sentimental.

Read More

Firewall

Title: Firewall (2006)
Dir: Richard Loncraine
Tagline: They're Already Inside.
Rating: **1/2 out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback.....

Imagine this movie pitch: Harrison Ford portrays an average working man who is thrust into danger when his family is taken hostage. Sound familiar? It should, since Mr. Ford has played that role so many times he deserves the copyright. In Richard Loncraine’s Firewall, the 63-year-old actor is up to old tricks, with mediocre results.

Ford portrays Jack Ryan…oops, I mean, Jack Stanfield, the head of cyber security for a major bank. At home, he has a devoted wife Beth (Virginia Madsen, Sideways) and two children. Life is good for Jack until he meets a businessman named Bill Cox (Paul Bettany, A Beautiful Mind) who turns out to be a criminal mastermind.

Cox and a team of armed thugs hold the Stanfield family hostage until Jack helps them electronically rob the bank he works for. Unbeknownst to the kidnappers, the bank is undergoing a merger and even Jack cannot access the money without bypassing sophisticated anti-theft software. Under constant surveillance by the criminals, Jack must devise a way to hack into the bank accounts, save his family, and clear his name from the crime.

If you enjoy this kind of tired plotline, you will not be disappointed. The movie packs enough guns, computer gadgetry, and explosions to satisfy most action film fans. Realism, however, is another issue entirely, like when Jack uses his daughter’s iPod to electronically steal millions of dollars. Even some of the movie’s scenery looks fake, leading me to wonder if Loncraine blew the entire film budget on Ford’s salary.

Those flaws aside, Firewall satisfies as a popcorn movie. The film abandons its potential to be a riveting high-tech caper about the dangers of relying on technology, and instead sticks to what it knows: action. It maintains a fairly strong hold on the audience right up until the final moments, which are just plain silly. There is a deus ex machina involving the family dog that will have you chuckling.

One-trick pony Harrison Ford is sufficient as Jack Stanfield but his weariness with age really shows. He has lost the wit and charm that made him famous in the days of Han Solo, and all that remains is a grumpy old man. As Jack’s wife, Madsen is good but underused. The movie also completely wastes actors Robert Patrick (eternally remembered as T-1000 from Terminator 2), Alan Arkin (Grosse Pointe Blank), and Robert Forster (Jackie Brown).

The best performance of the movie comes from Paul Bettany, who nails the charming-but-deadly persona of Cox, an otherwise stock movie villain. This bad guy is not only suave but is smarter than the hero, for once. Bettany’s ruthless performance has me hoping there is truth to the rumors that he will play the Joker in the next Batman film.

Firewall offers nothing new. If you saw Air Force One, you have practically seen Firewall. It is neither boring nor heart-pumping. One moment you will gasp, and the next you will roll your eyes. In fact, it is a film critic’s worst nightmare because it is neither good nor bad. Loncraine sticks to a recycled formula that works, if only for a brainless good time at the movie theater.

There is enough tension and occasional humor to entertain most filmgoers. If you are willing to suspend disbelief for a bit, you can find the fun in Firewall. If not, go rent Raiders of the Lost Ark and reminisce about a time when Harrison Ford had no problem taking on Nazis, let alone a few hackers with guns.

Read More

Chopper

Title: Chopper (2000)
Dir: Andrew Dominik
Tagline: Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars



If you read my review of Munich, you may recall me raving about Eric Bana. Well as far as acting goes, that performance has got NOTHING on Chopper. The hype is accurate - Bana is freakin amazing in this movie. Scratch that, BRILLIANT.

Clearly his skills at impressions (from his comedy career) paid off in the dramatic world, too. I watched videos of the real Mark "Chopper" Read and it is uncanny how perfectly Bana portrayed him. But even if you never see the real guy, you'll love watching Bana's performance. He slides so easily between a sympathetic everyman and a cold-hearted monster.

The movie shows Chopper's early days in prison, how he adjusts to life afterwards, and all his media whoredom along the way. The scenes of young Chopper in prison are my favorite scenes of the film, although Bana's later transformation into the older, fatter Chopper is astounding.



The film had more violence and black humor than I expected, which is very, very good. The directing is also pretty original and interesting. Overall, it is a good film, but Bana is what really sets it apart. He's such a delight to watch in this. Just when you feel bad for the character, he does something that completely repulses you. He is an enigma, and endlessly entertaining.

Read More

Meet the Feebles

Title: Meet the Feebles (1989)
Dir: Peter Jackson
Tagline: From the creator of Bad Taste comes a movie with no taste at all!
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



There were moments during this film where I would pause the DVD, run my hands over my face and say, "Wow this is fucked up." But when my jaw wasn't hanging open, I was laughing. Peter Jackson is a sick, hilarious individual and I wish he still made movies like this.

If you have not heard of Meet the Feebles, imagine The Muppets on acid. Or "Greg the Bunny", but without humans and the puppets are 100 times more crude. It is entirely about a gang of puppet animals who are putting together a variety show for television. There are a few nice characters (the hedgehog and the worm, that's about it) and a plethora of sick, morally-depraved animals. There is even a frog with a Vietnam past and an addiction to smack (note: the Vietnam flashback scene was the moment I officially loved this movie).

I don't find this movie to be crude just for the sake of being crude. There is very little vomiting or disgusting jokes like that. It is shocking but not in a way that makes me roll my eyes. It is just thoroughly violent and tackles subjects not usually addressed by puppets (STDs, drugs, guns).

And the puppetry work is fantastic! I don't even mean "Oh it's good for an old low-budget film", I mean it is really good. Some of them are actual people, and some are full puppets but they move and dance pretty convincingly. And the worm puppet...oh my god, the faces it makes. I want one!

The weird thing is, after I finished watching it, I kept getting flashbacks to it in my mind and it felt like it wasn't even puppets. The characters never feel like "just puppets", but like actual characters. That's pretty impressive.

I advise you to not read too much about the film before watching it. It's better that way - you'll be more shocked and laughing your ass off at how far it goes. Have fun!

Read More

Irreversible

Title: Irreversible (2002)
Dir: Gaspar Noé
Tagline: Time destroys everything.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



Have I become completely desensitized to "shocking" movies? Maybe it is just because I already knew the two controversial scenes in Irreversible that I was not especially shocked or disturbed. Despite all the hype surrounding this movie, I still find the ending of Requiem for a Dream to be ten times more disturbing.

That business aside, Irreversible is interesting. Like Memento, the story unfolds backwards. And like Memento, it does so with good reason (not just as a gimick). If it were told in standard chronological order, it would not have the same effect. Still, Noé is a tad pretentious. Like his love for spinning the camera to the point of nausea. At times I did not mind the effect, since the goal was to establish an uneasy feeling. But sometimes it was just overkill.

In short, the film is about a girl (Monica Bellucci) getting raped, then her boyfriend and ex-boyfriend seek out the attacker for revenge.

The film opens with Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) looking for the rapist (called "Le Tenia") in a gay club. Infamous scene #1 occurs here (but I won't spoil it). I thought it showed a little too much and thus looked fake. But I guess that's just me.

As stated, the film then moves backwards to the men looking for the club, then back to the rape aka infamous scene #2 (also kinda overkill, but I get the point), then back further, etc etc to the beginning of the story.

The backwards order works so well because it changes your preconceptions about the characters. You first see a man commit murder but then gradually learn that he is not the type to ever do such a thing. You see another man who'd do anything for the one he loves, but come to find out he's a prick to the one he loves. You see a woman who may almost seem like she was "asking for" a rape, but then learn she's actually a good person who never deserved what happens to her.

Instead of introducing the audience to Bellucci's character and then showing her rape, the film first shows the rape and then explores her character by moving backwards. It is an interesting twist. As fucked up as it sounds to make an audience like a character and then show her get raped and beaten, it is actually more fucked up to first show the attack and then explore who she is.

I guess it instills a feeling of guilt and also helplessness, because you can't change it (hence, irreversible). One critic's review of the film described it like "peeling away the layers of an onion when you already know the core is rotten." That describes it perfectly. It's just disturbing to watch characters go about their normals lives when you know what bad things are going to happen to them next. It's like the audience is given a glimpse into a very dark future, but they can't do anything to change it.

The film can be hard to swallow and that's why I don't really love it. Between the annoying camera and the emphasize on brutality (to the point that it feels like cheap exploitation), it can be quite off-putting. Much of it feels confusing and pretentious, but if you sit down and think about it afterwards, you'll probably discover it does have some deep shit going on.

Read More