Archive for the Art Movies Category

CRITERION AFTER DARK: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961)

Posted in 2013, 60s Movies, Art Movies, Classic Films, Criterion After Dark, Enigmatic Films, Family Secrets, Foreign Films, Garrett Cook Articles, Lovecraftian Horror, Madness with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 24, 2013 by knifefighter

CRITERION AFTER DARK
THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY: ELDER GODS WHERE YOU LEAST EXPECT THEM
By Garrett Cook

throughaglassdarkly

It’s been forever since I’ve written one of these columns. People and cities and ideas and lives change and mine did in several big ways in the last year. I missed writing for Cinema Knife Fight, and now I’m gonna do it again. I thought maybe I would start by finding a weird, shocking, filthy, perverse Criterion film. Something that would blow your mind and take you to the very edge of perception. And I did. Did I ever.

Cronenberg? Bunuel? Malle? Nope. Asian horror? Nope. Some kind of Swedish erotic art film? A little warmer. Imagine if Tennessee Williams and H.P. Lovecraft collaborated on a family drama set on an isolated island, a place tinged with madness, with the stench of malevolent cosmology hanging in the air. And there’s sin and sexual dysfunction and a sinister play with a dark truth at its core. So let’s add a little Robert “The King in Yellow” Chambers to the mix. Moody black and white cosmic horror. Yeah, that’s the stuff. So, who pray tell is the twisted mind behind this?

The man whose work inspired Wes Craven’s THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and who had a knight in plague-stricken medieval Europe confront the grim reaper himself. A true master of the horror genre. Who knows terror like…Ingmar Bergman? That can’t be right. But it is. Bergman is the genius behind THE VIRGIN SPRING (1960), which was later remade (reimagined?) as THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and pitted a knight in a chess game against death in THE SEVENTH SEAL (1957). His film THE MAGICIAN (1958) had all of the elements of one of Val Lewton’s classics of psychological horror: from a man terrorized by doubts in his psyche to a murder that may or may not have been in the province of the supernatural. THE MAGICIAN is, as well as being a period piece and an excellent story about the power of art, a masterpiece of quiet horror.

And so is THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961).

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY is one of those movies that defines in people’s mind what an art film is, or what a drama is. It looks on the surface to just be a story about a disintegrating family. The setup is not particularly horrific: a novelist takes his son, his daughter and her husband on vacation. His daughter is schizophrenic. She finds out his novel is about her and gets upset. Why is this of interest to a column on horror culture and filth in the Criterion Collection?

Because as I said, there are traces of cosmic horror and weird fiction here that are hard to ignore, but enjoyable to savor, as they seem to be in the wrong place. Near the beginning of the film, the son puts on a play starring the daughter, involving a knight’s strange relationship with a ghost. It’s cool that it calls back to the questing knight facing death in THE SEVENTH SEAL, but fans of vintage weird fiction might see another connection, another great “Death and the Maiden” play, embedded in a narrative: Robert W. Chambers’ The King in Yellow centers around an ominous play where the heroine’s sad song freezes the heart of the viewer. This play hints at love and death interweaving on a cosmic level, and at there being something deeply wrong in this family and on this island. The King in Yellow terrorizes you with evil in the walls of a metanarrative, and THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY does the same. Something is wrong with this play. Something is wrong with reality. Something is loose in the theater.

Karin comes to a realization in Bergman's THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

Karin (Harriet Andersson) comes to a realization in Ingmar Bergman’s THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

Although her father feels Karin is incurable, Karin’s husband is trying to remain optimistic. He does not believe her condition will have to eat away her life. And it doesn’t seem to, until Karin finds her father’s manuscript. In her father’s manuscript, the heroine is an incurable schizophrenic, in her father’s manuscript, Karin his hopeless. When Karin reads this, she is naturally upset, but it seems to go beyond that and once again into the realm of weird fiction and magic. The fictional Karin is sick, so the real Karin becomes sick. The fictional Karin is too crazy to heal, so the real one must be as well. It works like a voodoo doll and warps the world like the sinister play in Chambers’ story. It has even, in some ways, turned into a grimoire like the Necronomicon from Lovecraft’s books.

Karin begins describing her hallucinations about people behind the walls watching her, judging her. She seems to have a strange sixth sense that she’s not just the protagonist of a novel, but that of a movie as well. She seems to see the framework and that there’s no difference between life and art and reality and fantasy. She faces the realization of the protagonist of Lovecraft’s story Pickman’s Model, who discovers that the hideous paintings of his friend Pickman were modeled after a photograph from life. So the movie returns to the Pickman’s Model/King in Yellow delusion, the stuff that Lucio Fulci’s A CAT IN THE BRAIN (1990) and John Carpenter’s IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994) deal with, along with Stephen King’s THE DARK HALF (made into a film by George Romero in 1993). The reality-warping power of madness shines in Karin’s dialogue, because Bergman has isolated the movie from the rest of reality. On this little island, all we have are people’s opinions on Karin’s madness, and Karin’s madness itself. Like Shakespeare’s power to conjure images, Karin’s makes things happen in your head, turning words into imagery, and therefore turning her words into reality.

Karin succumbs not just to insanity, but to her worst urges, performing an act of incest. Her behavior has gone from simply crazy to truly aberrant, committing on of the worst sins imaginable. This is a pretty sordid world Bergman has created, one without hope or moral high ground or a chance to gain rectitude, a world ruled over by a force that is less than benevolent. Without a single tentacle, we have the feelings Lovecraft sought to convey of smallness, depravity, insanity and isolation. And the feeling that Karin’s visions are right. There are people outside the screen watching and judging her and waiting for her to fall apart on both sides of these realities. And she is under the power of a man behind a camera who is frankly not going to be very nice to her.

As Karin finally cracks, she does so in fine Lovecraftian form, terrified by confronting the image of God. Creatures like Nyarlathotep and Cthulhu appear before the eyes of Lovecraft’s heroes to shatter their minds or prove that the minds of the hero have been shattered.

“God is a spider,” Karin says.

And while Bergman does not show the spider, we have now gotten the idea in our imagination that Karin has seen some dark god. Does it matter that she is crazy? Has this god driven her crazy? We can’t say definitively that Lovecraft’s protagonists have seen the Elder Gods, and we can’t say with any certainty that Karin doesn’t know something in this Swedish art-house gothic that shows no monster at all, THROUGH THE GLASS DARKLY has as much in common with Val Lewton’s deep psychological thrillers for RKO in the 40s, in fact sharing a lot of themes with CAT PEOPLE (1942), THE SEVENTH VICTIM (1943),. and other films of their ilk. And all leave you with the same horrendous impression that something is out there and that mad and malformed as the human mind can get, there is a grain of truth to all of the hallucinations and all of the cosmic horror.

The discriminating viewer is not just one who finds meaning in the depraved and the weird and the horrific, but also one who finds the depraved, the weird and the horrific in the things that academics and squares and stuffed shirts say are meaningful and THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY has that stuff in spades. So, if you like Lovecraft, Hitchcock or Lewton—or just an uncomfortable chill and a lump in your throat—Ingmar Bergman might be the scare you need.

© Copyright 2013 by Garrett Cook

UPSTREAM COLOR (2013)

Posted in 2013, Art Movies, Bizarro Movies, Enigmatic Films, Experimental Films, Independent Cinema, Just Plain Weird, LL Soares Reviews, Low Budget Movies, Mind Experiments!, Something Different, Weird Movies with tags , , , , on April 16, 2013 by knifefighter

UPSTREAM COLOR
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

upstream_color_xlgBack in 2004, director Shane Carruth made his debut feature, PRIMER. It was a little indie film about four guys trying to start their own computer company in a garage, and mysterious storage lockers, and time travel. The movie is told in such a way that you only figure it out a little at a time, but it was a terrific first film, and it made Carruth a director to look for. Unfortunately, it took him until 2013 to release his second film, UPSTREAM COLOR, and it is in very limited release in just a few cities. I hope it’s not as long a wait for his next one.

For some reason, I just like the title itself. UPSTREAM COLOR. Just a really cool name for a movie. So what is it actually about? Well, that’s a little tougher to explain. But I’ll try.

Carruth has a talent for enigmatic films that you need to really think about. In this vein, he’s a lot like David Lynch or David Cronenberg, although Carruth’s films are nothing like theirs. How much you’ll enjoy UPSTREAM COLOR depends on how strongly you feel you have to have all the answers, and how open you are to new experiences.

UPSTREAM COLOR begins with some kids drinking some weird concoction made from little grubs harvested from plants by a mysterious guy. Is he some kind of mad scientist, or something else entirely? When the kids drink the liquid, they are able to read each other’s minds – or it looks that way. When one kid tries to hit another, the other one is able to know exactly how to deflect the blow. Two other kids close their eyes and do the exact same hand movements in synch. What exactly are these grubs?

tumblr_mii1iuUhjR1qzdglao1_500

The guy then kidnaps a woman at a bar named Kris (Amy Seimetz, who is actually quite striking in some scenes), using a Taser. He makes her ingest one of the grub/worms and then brings her back to a house where he proceeds to brainwash her. He convinces her that ice water is most wonderful reward she can get, simply by telling her it is so. He tells her she cannot look into his face, because it is made of the same material that makes up the sun, and it is too bright to look at. He makes her copy out long passages from Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden”  and fold the papers into links to a giant paper chain. He also gets her to take out a loan on her house and withdraw all of her money from the bank and give it to him.

At one point, when she’s in bed, she sees worms running under her skin, and tries to remove them with a kitchen knife.

We are then introduced to another odd gentleman, called simply The Sampler (Andrew Sensenig) in the credits. He performs an odd operation on Kris involving her and a small pig, the grafting of some of the pig’s flesh onto Kris’s body, and what looks like a blood transfusion between them. The Sampler also runs a pig farm, presumably stocked with pigs that have been used in similar operations. The Sampler gets his name because when he isn’t tending to his pig farm, he is wandering around the woods with a microphone and a synthesizer, recording all kinds of strange noises and sampling them to play back later.

After her bank account is drained, Kris gets away and tries to adjust to normal life again, but it’s hard to go back. She loses her job, and her personality becomes almost robotic. It is then that she meets Jeff (director Carruth) on a commuter train and they begin having conversations that eventually lead to a romantic relationship. And then she begins to realize that maybe Jeff has experienced a similar abduction in his past, because he has the same kind of knife marks on his leg that she does…

So what do Thoreau, pigs and the ingesting of strange worms have to do with each other? You’ll have to see UPSTREAM COLOR for yourself, and it may take some work to figure it out. UPSTREAM COLOR is the kind of movie that does not provide ready answers, but that’s okay. There are so many movies that try to explain every little detail of what’s going on, that it’s a relief sometimes to find a movie like this, that refuses to make it easy. I’m still not one hundred percent sure about every aspect of the movie, but I do know that I found the film to be very compelling, and I’m sure I’ll see it again at some point.

Kris (Amy Seimetz) undergoes a strange abduction in Shane Carruth's UPSTREAM COLOR.

Kris (Amy Seimetz) experiences a strange abduction in Shane Carruth’s UPSTREAM COLOR.

The direction by Carruth (who also wrote the script) is quite good, as is the cinematography (which, it turns out, is also by Carruth). It’s a visually interesting film, with minimal dialogue in its first half, and yet it might just captivate you from the moment it begins. Just go in expecting something completely different, and you won’t be disappointed. This is not like the typical Hollywood film. It’s another animal entirely.

And for that reason, because it plays by its own rules, I give UPSTREAM COLOR three and a half knives.

© Copyright 2013 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives UPSTREAM COLOR ~three and a half knives.

The Geisha of Gore’s TOP MOVIES OF 2012

Posted in 2012, 2013, Apocalyptic Films, Art Movies, Asian Horror, Best Of Lists, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Gangsters!, Geisha of Gore Reviews, Martial Arts, Yakuza Films with tags , , , , , on January 12, 2013 by knifefighter

The Geisha of Gore’s Top Movies of 2012
By Colleen Wanglund

I don’t go to see new movies very often…in fact it’s rare.  Most of my theater-going experiences involve midnight screenings of older and classic films.  This past year, however, I did go to quite a few new movie screenings, mostly because of the New York Asian Film Festival this past summer.  Anyway, here are the movies I loved from 2012, in no particular order.

Vulgaria-Poster

VULGARIA (Hong Kong 2012) A truly laugh-out-loud comedy starring Chapman To about what one producer went through to get his porn film made, VULGARIA was an opening-night screening at Lincoln Center during the New York Asian Film Festival.  It included a Q&A with the film’s writer and director, Pang Ho-Cheung, who informed the sold-out crowd that the movie is based on true events.  I was very impressed with the fact that nothing was lost in the subtitled translation.

The_Raid_Redemption

THE RAID (Indonesia 2011) This film didn’t screen in the US until 2012 so it counts.  Written and directed by Welshman Gareth Evans, THE RAID stars Iko Uwais as Rama, an idealistic young cop who is along for a raid against a major drug lord’s stronghold—a whole apartment building full of (mostly) criminals.  The film is full of non-stop action, mostly of the martial arts variety.  It’s beautifully choreographed and there are a few nice surprises thrown into the story.

rabbithorror

TORMENTED (Japan 2011) Written and directed by Takashi Shimizu of JU-ON fame, TORMENTED (also known as RABBIT HORROR 3D) is a follow-up to his film THE SHOCK LABYRINTH (2009), but is not a true sequel.  The film tells the story of Kiriko (Hikari Mitsushima) whose younger brother has been mysteriously transported to another world by a giant bunny, and how she tries to save him.  I know it sounds weird, but I found it quite entertaining.  I also understand now how a giant stuffed rabbit can actually be scary.  To me it’s worth the viewing just for Christopher Doyle’s cinematography. TORMENTED is another film that did not make its debut in the US until 2012.

Nameless Gangster 4

NAMELESS GANGSTER (Korea 2012) This film stars the legendary (and one of my favorites) actor, Choi Min-sik, as a corrupt customs official who enters into the world of drug gangs almost by accident.  Written and directed by Yun Jong-bin, NAMELESS GANGSTER is an amazing gangster film that takes an unflinching look at corruption and nepotism in various levels of government and how they deal with the gangs that sell illegal drugs.  Choi is superb as a man who, regardless of the loyalty shown him, is only interested in personal gain and saving his own sorry ass.

444

4:44 LAST DAY ON EARTH (USA 2011) I’ve included this movie because I saw its theatrical debut in 2012—which included a Q&A with famed cult film writer and director Abel Ferrara and star Shanyn Leigh.  4:44 follows artist couple Skye (Leigh) and Cisco (Willem Dafoe) during the last day of life on Earth.  It is a quiet yet powerful apocalyptic film that did, in fact, terrify me.  I really loved the subtly that Ferrara uses to tell this story and the fact that it elicited such an emotional response from me.

© Copyright 2013 by Colleen Wanglund

THE LIFE OF PI (2012)

Posted in 2013, 3-D, Adult Fairy Tales, Animals Attack, Art Movies, Based on a bestselling book, Bill's Bizarre Bijou, CGI, Fantasy, International Cast, Man vs. Nature, Visually Stunning Films, William Carl Articles with tags , , , , , on January 11, 2013 by knifefighter

LIFE OF PI (2012)
Movie Review by William D. Carl

lifeofpi_poster

Ang Lee’s film version of Yann Martel’s best-selling novel, Life of Pi, is nothing short of miraculous.  The director who introduced most Americans to the beauty and grace of martial arts films in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (2000) and took on gay cowboys in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005) has achieved a nearly impossible task in filming Martel’s masterpiece.  The novel is a gorgeous rumination on storytelling, truth, God, and our place within God’s universe,  hidden within the guise of an adventure novel.  Lee has managed to film this adventure story without losing any of the beauty or depth of Martel’s musings.  It’s a tricky move, and it could be Ang Lee’s best film.

A young writer visits a middle-aged Indian man, Pi (Irrfan Khan of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, 2005 and  THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN, 2012), after hearing he has a story that will make him ‘believe in God.’  Pi fixes him dinner, walks with him, and relates his tale…the story of how he came to Canada and how he became the man he is today.

Piscine (pronounced pissing) Patel (played by newcomer Suraj Sharma) changed his name at an early age to Pi, for obvious reasons.  Growing up in India within his father’s zoo, he communes with the animals while learning about God.  Throughout his youth, he becomes a Hindu, a Christian, and a Muslim, never understanding how the various religions contradict each other; he only sees the ways they work in conjunction.  Through this process, his idea of God becomes very real and very different from most people’s concept of a higher being.  He falls in love with a young dancer at the same time his father decides to move the family to Canada.  They will transport the animals from the zoo on a steamer ship and sell them to start a new life.

Pi and "Richard Parker" circle one another in LIFE OF PI.

Pi and “Richard Parker” circle one another in LIFE OF PI.

During the crossing, a horrific storm destroys the ship, killing everyone and leaving Pi alone on a 26 foot lifeboat with a crippled zebra, an orangutan, and a 400 pound Bengal Tiger named Richard Parker (the same name as a cannibalized character in Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Case of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, “who survived a shipwreck only to be eaten by the men on a raft).  Richard Parker makes short work of the other animals and turns his hungry eyes upon our hero, Pi.  Most of the film involves the grudging respect each of these characters form for each other, with a brief detour on a deadly carnivorous island in the shape of the Lying Vishnu, the Destroyer.  Pi  raves against God, accepts the world as it is, becomes disappointed, marvels at the world’s wonders (including a stunning scene where a whale breaches above his boat after chasing bioluminescent plankton), and eventually survives the ordeal (obviously, since he is relating it to the writer.)

The ship sinks.

The ship sinks.

But here’s where everything gets truly interesting.  How much of Pi’s story is true and how much is created in his brain?  Does the truth make it a better story, or is the story good on its own terms?  These are questions not easily answered, and the ending is challenging, especially to modern viewers who like everything spelled out for them in twenty foot letters.  But it retains the amorphous truth of the novel beautifully, and we are left to form our own opinions about truth and the beauty of a story.

Speaking of beauty, LIFE OF PI is the most beautiful film I have seen since THE LAST EMPEROR (1987).   Every single frame sparkles as if encrusted with jewels.  The colors are so vibrant, they create a 3D effect, and the depth of vision in the 3D version is astonishing.  This isn’t used for shock effect, but for a clear depth of vision that really puts you into a life boat on that sea that seems to stretch out forever.  The cinematography by Claudio Miranda (CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, 2008 and TRON: LEGACY, 2010) is never short of dazzling.  In India, the world appears as though a memory, an impossibly beautiful world.  The carnivorous island is a relief after so much ocean, but the danger is always there beneath the surface.  In the scenes where Pi  speaks with the writer, the photography is flat, normal, dull, reinforcing the theme of storytelling as an art, as an act of beauty and creation.

A whale dives overhead.

A whale dives overhead.

As for the much-discussed special effects, they are certainly special in every way.  At no point does the viewer wonder if Richard Parker or the other animals are CGI.  They are as real as Pi himself.  Every hair, every nostril flare, every drop of water is so real as to be hyper-realistic.  It’s an amazing feat, and I believe it will win the Oscar for special effects.  Rarely do special effects blend so realistically into the rest of the film as to become unnoticeable.

Another beautiful image from LIFE OF PI.

Another beautiful image from LIFE OF PI.

LIFE OF PI can be a heady brew for some with all of its references to various religions, deities, works of literature etc.  It is also a grand adventure in the old fashioned Robert Louis Stevenson vein, suspenseful and often terrifying.  How Ang Lee intertwines these two facets of the story make for one of the most brilliant and astonishing films of the year.  It’s a nearly perfect jewel of a movie.

© Copyright 2013 by William D. Carl

Meals for Monsters: TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES (1973)

Posted in 2012, 70s Horror, Art Movies, Based on a True Story, Cannibalism, Crime Films, Foreign Films, German Horror, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Serial Killer flicks with tags , , , , on June 6, 2012 by knifefighter

Meals for Monsters: TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES (1973)
Review and Recipes by Jenny Orosel

It’s not often a horror movie can truly state that it’s “based on a true story.” But when you have a movie based on the most notorious homosexual-pedophile-cannibal-serial killer out of Germany, it’s easy to claim that moniker. TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES (1973) could give any of the slashers from that era a run for their money. But this one is extra creepy, knowing the events shown actually happened.

Fritz Haarmann, a small-time criminal, is made an undercover inspector by the German police, hoping his contacts will give them an in with the criminal underworld. Instead, Fritz uses his position of power to seduce young men and boys, more often than not killing, dismembering, and eating his victims. What he cannot eat himself, Fritz sells as black-market pork. Some of the most disturbing moments of the movie comes when Fritz hosts a dinner party and his guests gush and compliment him on the quality of his pork dishes, savoring every bite. With scenes like that, it was screaming for a “Meals for Monsters” treatment.

Fritz would often visit the local bar for to sell some pork and maybe indulge in a schnapps. Straight schnapps, though, can be a little harsh, and you’ll get enough harshness with the movie. Hence:

SCHNAPPS PUNCH

DIRECTIONS

Mix equal parts club soda, cherry juice and grape juice. Mix in a shot of apple schnapps (or two, if you think you’ll need it to get through the movie). Enjoy!

To not have a pork recipe in here would be like Willy Wonka without the chocolate.

GERMAN BEER-BRAISED PORK RIBS

INGREDIENTS

2 slabs spare ribs
1 large bottle of German beer
6 cloves garlic, whole
3 tablespoons dried rosemary
3 tablespoons sage
Salt and pepper to taste

DIRECTIONS

Cut the ribs into batches with four or five ribs apiece. Put them into a roasting pan with the beer, garlic and herbs. Cover tightly, and put in a 300 degree oven for two hours. Note—after the braising, I would recommend putting the ribs under the broiler for a couple minutes on each side. It’s not necessary, but it gives the outside a nice bit of crust. Also, they’re great served with roasted potatoes. Fingerling potatoes are great, if just for the look on the plate.

For dessert, I’ve adapted a traditional German butter cake and added some apples. This is a bit time-intensive, so, if you don’t feel like waiting, you can always have a second Schnapps Punch for dessert (or a third, if you really need it to stomach eating ribs during a cannibal movie).

BUTTERKUCHEN WITH APPLES

INGREDIENTS

4 cups flour
1 pkg instant yeast
1cups warm milk
1 ¾ cup sugar, with 1/4cup set aside
10 tablespoons butter, softened
1 egg
2 tablespoons cinnamon
1 small apple, diced

DIRECTIONS

Put the flour in a mixing bowl, with a small well scooped in the middle. Inside, place yeast, milk, and a pinch of sugar. Mix together and let activate for fifteen minutes. Then add the egg, 7 tablespoons butter and 1 ½ cup sugar. Mix well (I would suggest using a stand mixer for this, if one is available). Place in a greased bowl, cover, and let rise for 30 minutes.

Start the oven preheating to 375 degrees. Flatten the dough into a greased jelly roll pan (or small, rimmed cookie sheet). Make little indentations with the tips of your fingers. Mix ¼ cup sugar and the cinnamon. Top cake with the diced apple and pinches of the remaining butter. Sprinkle with the cinnamon mixture. Allow to rest as the oven preheats.

Cook for 25-30 minutes, or until browned.

Rainer Werner Fassbinder was originally approached to direct this movie. Fassbinder, who rose to fame in Germany by making shocking films, deemed the subject matter too controversial, even for him. Instead, he produced it, hiring on one of his actors, Ulli Lommel, to direct. Rumor has it that Fassbinder is the real auteur behind TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES. Whoever was the director isn’t important. What is important is that, as a shocking, frightening bit of cinema, it works. And while this meal might not be as masterfully prepared as Fritz’s famous dinners, at least this one won’t send you to prison.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

444: LAST DAY ON EARTH!

Posted in 2012, Apocalyptic Films, Art Movies, Nick Cato Reviews with tags , , , , , , on March 27, 2012 by knifefighter

444: LAST DAYS ON EARTH (2011)
The End comes Quietly in Abel Ferrara’s Latest
Movie Review by Nick Cato

From 1979′s notorious DRILLER KILLER to 1990s KING OF NEW YORK, right up to 2007′s GO GO TALES, director Abel Ferrara has never been afraid to give his own spin on things.  That fine tradition continues in 4:44: LAST DAY ON EARTH (2011), a laid-back yet deep look at the apocalypse through the eyes of a Manhattan couple.

Skye (played by Ferrara’s real life girlfriend, Shanyn Leigh) is a young artist who shares her lower east side loft with boyfriend Cisco (Willem DaFoe).  Their loft features laptop computers and a flat screen TV broadcasting news reports and religious programs regarding earth’s fate: according to a local news station, the ozone layer has been damaged far worse than anyone had thought, and at precisely 4:44 a.m. the next morning, the entire world will end.

Skye deals with the news through her latest painting, which at first seems like a Jackson Pollock-inspired piece, but eventually turns into her own view of the circle-of-life.  Cisco manages to contact his teenage daughter via Skype, only to have a final argument with his ex-wife which leads to a fight with Skye.  A former junkie, Cisco then risks his two years of sobriety by visiting his former dealer and an old drug buddy (Paul Hipp).  It’s a heart-felt moment and features a cameo by Natasha Leonne.

Cisco and Skye are Buddhists, and we see clips of the Dali Lama and other Buddhist teachers on their TV, providing comfort in the face of death.  Ferrara’s use of TV clips (especially a Charlie Rose interview with Al Gore) have the feel of propaganda, but they eventually work fine in telling us what’s going on.

The film’s best sequence comes when Cicso and Skye have Chinese food delivered.  The young Chinese delivery boy is apparently scared and depressed, and when asked if he needs anything, he asks for Skype.  Cisco lends him his laptop, and the delivery boy contacts his mother and family for the last time, and although they speak in Chinese, it’s easy to figure out their feelings. As he leaves the loft, Skye—herself without family in New York—hugs him and thanks him for being part of her life.  It’s a desperate, touching, and quirky moment that’s rarely seen in modern cinema.

4:44: LAST DAY ON EARTH, like Lars Von Trier’s MELONCHOLIA (2011), is another offering in a recent trend of independent, quiet-minded end-of-the-world films.  In place of big budget special effects and noisy explosions, Ferrara slowly exposes his character’s lives, letting the audience experience what they do in subtle layers.  The most disturbing thing in Ferrara’s apocalypse is the seemingly routine way most people take things: cabs still run, street people go about their old ways, and it seems as if only a handful of New Yorkers are aware of just how close to the end they are.

With it’s positive messages of acceptance and forgiveness, 4:44 is a colorful take on the end times, featuring fine performances and much food for thought.

3 out of 4 knives.

(Currently in limited theatrical release and available on select Pay Per View channels)

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato

Cisco (Willem DaFoe) is comforted by the Dali Lama via TV just hours before the world ends in 4:44: LAST DAY ON EARTH


The David Lynch Chronicles Volume One: MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001)

Posted in 2012, Art Movies, Classic Films, David Lynch, Experimental Films, Film Noir, Just Plain Weird, Plot Twists, Surrealism, The David Lynch Chronicles with tags , , , , , , , on March 21, 2012 by knifefighter

The David Lynch Chronicles Volume One:
Two Lynchians Take on MULHOLLAND DRIVE
By Nick Cato and Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel

Nick Cato: There are two kinds of people in the world: those who “get” and enjoy the films of David Lynch and those who think he’s simply filming whatever comes to mind in an attempt to con the artsy-fartsy crowd out of their money and validity.  When I was about 20 minutes into my first viewing of Lynch’s iconic ERASERHEAD (1977), on VHS back in the early 80s, I became fascinated with the surreal director, both by his demented images, and later with the craft of unraveling his stories: yes, I said the CRAFT, because a single viewing of most of Lynch’s films won’t reveal too much.  His films demand multiple viewings, and more often than not, major contemplation.  And while some of his films, such as ERASERHEAD and WILD AT HEART (1990), are easier to decipher than later titles such as THE LOST HIGHWAY (1997) and the super-brain twisting INLAND EMPIRE (2006), this first look for CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT at a David Lynch classic goes to 2001’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE, that, while head-scratching enough and open to various interpretations, does have several ideas running through it that a vast majority of the director’s fans agree on.

Sort of.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: “Sort of” is right. When it comes to interpretations, we could spend days going over the elaborate details and symbols. I’ve seen Lynch films with people who insist he’s just messing with the audience. On the surface, perhaps that’s true. It might even be just another trick up the genius’s sleeve. My first Lynch experience was also ERASERHEAD. It was an English major’s dream come true. As someone who had been taught to look for symbols under every bed and in every corner, the film clicked with me. MULHOLLAND DRIVE brings me back to that experience, as do many of Lynch’s films, sitting in a darkened room, unraveling these intricate knots he’s woven for us.

Nick Cato: Like most of Lynch’s films, I didn’t even bother trying to interpret what was going on during my initial viewing of MULHOLLAND DRIVE.  I was taken aback by just how addictive this gorgeously-shot film was, plus, as usual, simply enjoyed Lynch’s surreal images and several scenes that are creepier than anything you’ll see in a solid, seriously made horror film.  But things began to take shape in my mind, even before the second screening.  A brunette woman (played by the beautiful Laura Harring) survives a nasty car collision, seconds before two men were apparently about to shoot her.  She stumbles out of the wreck and makes her way down the Hollywood hills, taking refuge in an apartment where she notices the owner (and older woman) is on her way out.  Another woman named Betty (played by Naomi Watts) arrives in Hollywood to take her first screen test, and stays at an apartment owned by her aunt.  She soon discovers the brunette woman in her aunt’s bathroom, and discovers she’s suffering from amnesia.

So far, MULHOLLAND DRIVE gives an interesting and some might say “normal” set up, despite the unusual opening credits sequence, where Betty is superimposed over what looks like some kind of 50s dance program, and the sequences of the amnesiac surviving the wreck and eventually meeting Betty are divided by one of the most head-scratching things Lynch has ever done: Two men are in a restaurant, one claiming he wanted to be there as he’s been having nightmares about the place, as well as a spooky figure who lives outside behind it.  The men discover that the figure behind the diner IS real, causing the one who dreamt of him to pass out.

During the early meetings of Betty and Rita (a name the brunette takes off a film poster when Betty asks her name), we see mysterious men talking on the phone, saying things like “she got away” and “we missed her.”  Evidently, someone is trying to kill Rita.  Lynch’s mystery is off.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: There’s something dream-like about the opening sequences that really made me take note. To say the setup is “normal” would probably be misleading. Betty seems so saccharine that she can’t be real. Chipper to a fault, optimistic beyond belief, she charges into Hollywood, ready to take on her first audition with the kind of aplomb reserved for the mentally ill or children. She’s Dorothy headed down the Yellow Brick Road. Even the elderly people she meets on her flight out to Hollywood seem odd beyond imagination, excessively cheerful, nearly insane with joy, wishing their fellow passenger all the best on her journey to become a star. They also have the creepiest smiles this side of Mr. X’s in ERASERHEAD.

I found that even the scene in which Rita is about to be eliminated is so cliché as to be unreal. Lynch seems to be setting us up for something that is so far from reality that it has to be questioned immediately. Hit men only take beautiful women out in limousines to murder them in movies. It’s almost as if Lynch has established a film within a film. It’s even suggested early on that the real hit man in the story is a bumbling low-life who can’t even carry out a simple task without causing utter chaos. He’s no suave mobster in a limo, that’s for certain.

The man in the diner scene near the beginning gnawed at me for a long time. I have an idea that meshes with a sort of WIZARD OF OZ retelling, but to keep it simple, I feel he’s a cowardly lion of sorts.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND does a fine job of balancing suspense and straight drama, especially when Betty goes to her first audition, a sequence that not only displays the acting skills of Naomi Watts, but one that leaves me breathless every time I see it.  Between this scene, and the scenes of movie director Adam (Lynch favorite Justin Theroux) being threatened to alter his film by a group of gangsters and an extremely strange cowboy (played by real-life cult film producer Monty Montgomery), the film develops a deeper story on a few levels.  One classic Lynch staple put into play here are mysterious, underground people seemingly causing things to happen behind the scenes.  We’re never sure if they’re the mafia, or corrupt studio executives, or everyday goons hired out by a rival of the aforementioned director.  Either way, their presence here gives MULHOLLAND much of its mystery, and in the case of the cowboy enforcer, some latent humor that doesn’t take away from the film’s serious tone.

Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Harring) dealing with Rita’s amnesia

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: There’s certainly no shortage of suspense here. As a Lynch addict, I try not to take any plot point for granted. You never know when there’s a trick. I really do feel that Lynch is a magician of sorts. If you blink, you’re likely to miss something.

The cowboy is one of the more mystifying characters. He seems to be the enforcer for this whole underworld operation, at least on the surface. He tells Adam to pick a girl in a photograph, a blonde woman named Camilla Rhodes, to play the lead role in his film – the one that has been grabbed away from him by the Castiglione brothers (one of whom is portrayed by famed composer Angelo Badalamenti, who provides the chilling music to many of Lynch’s works). The brothers may be the leaders of this mob-like organization. Adam’s choices, the cowboy tells him, are to either pick that girl or have his career ruined. It’s the only option he has left after being kicked out of his house by his wife, who is having an affair with the pool boy (portrayed hilariously by Billy Ray Cyrus).

Nick Cato: When Betty and Rita visit an apartment that happened to pop into Rita’s memory, what they discover provides a turning point in the film, one that throws a curveball that put MULHOLLAND on a path I’m assuming most viewers never saw coming.  Now fully convinced someone is out to get Rita, they disguise her in a blonde wig, making the two look like sisters.

Shortly after they discover Rita’s pocket book contains $50,000 in cash, as well as a mysterious blue key, the women have their first sexual encounter, cleverly placed by Lynch where it is in the film’s progress; we’re so taken with the sight of these two beautiful ladies in bed together (and apparently falling truly in love) that the little hints Lynch has left for eagle-eyed viewers to notice are all but forgotten.  But it’s at this point where Betty and Rita really try to find out just WHO Rita is and where she came from.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: I’m not so sure this steamy scene is intended as a way to distract viewers from the clues. I think it’s a very big clue in and of itself. Rita is a vulnerable woman, someone who has forgotten who she is. Betty plays a traditionally masculine role here. She’s sweeping in to save the damsel in distress. She is compelled to save Rita, to help her remember who she is. I think you’ll find this extremely important later in the film.

Nick Cato: Perhaps some of us guys became more easily distracted than most female viewers?

In one of my favorite sequences, Rita has a dream where she takes Betty to a vaudeville-style show at an old theater.  It’s here where we’re told “This is all a tape recording.  It’s an illusion,” as performers lip-sync to music and verse.  Perhaps Lynch is telling us that the events going on in Betty and Rita’s lives have been pre-recorded, maybe even by the same people who are attempting to control Adam’s new film.  As the women sit watching one opera singer pass out as her song still plays on, we’re left to wonder if Betty and Rita have been brought here as a way to accept their coming fates.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: At the club, called Silencio, they encounter a dream-world emcee who firmly states, “No hay banda!” There is no band. It’s all an illusion. This seems to be the pivot point in the plot. We start to move into reality. Lynch is telling us, quite literally, everything leading up to this point has been an illusion. But whose illusion is this? Is it Betty’s illusion? Is there someone else pulling the strings?

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE really kicks into weird gear when Betty and Rita return home from the show.  Rita goes to get her hidden pocketbook from the closet, and when she turns around she discovers Betty is nowhere to be found.  Not knowing what else to do, she takes that blue key and sticks it into an odd, small blue box, and from her POV we’re sucked into the box, and then taken back to the apartment where they had just visited.  It turns out Betty is really named Diane and is in a relationship with Rita, whose real name we learn is Camilla, the same actress the corrupt studio execs were trying to force onto Adam’s film.

Don’t worry folks…it get’s even trippier from here.

Apparently Camilla is the real movie star, and has fallen for Adam, leaving Diane behind.  Diane acts out her rage in a furious masturbation scene, then the phone rings, and brings us back to an alternate (or is it the real?) opening sequence of the film.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Mr. Lynch really loves doubles. He’s used them in myriad films, and even in his seminal series TWIN PEAKS. When Betty and Rita visit the club Silencio, they look nearly identical, both sporting short, blonde tresses. I see this as a huge symbol of Diane’s own disgust with herself, and her desire to pull Camilla down with her. She wants Camilla to be just like her, a loser who can’t get a starring role. Instead, Camilla is a rising star, living out Diane’s dream, and now about to marry a man. I feel the box has a very obvious sexual connotation. There’s a key in Camilla’s box now, folks. And Diane is not happy about that. The box is reality.

Rita is Diane’s way of handling her lover’s decision to leave her for a man. Rita has forgotten who she is. As far as Diane is concerned, Camilla has also forgotten who she is. She belongs to Diane, not to Adam. This anger and frustration drives her to plot a very nasty demise for her former lover.

Nick Cato: In the circular final section of MULHOLLAND, we learn Diane/Betty had paid hit men to take out her girlfriend Rita/Camilla, and we see the creepy homeless man behind the diner now holding the mysterious blue box in his hands, perhaps a symbol of a supernatural string puller.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Everything up to this point is merely Diane’s way of justifying her decision to take a hit out on Camilla. She’s not the villain here. She’s really Betty, a confident, happy woman who will make her way in Hollywood. If only Camilla would remember who she really is, Diane wouldn’t be forced to hire that hit man. This is the story of a woman who has lost touch with reality.

Nick Cato: As Sheri mentioned, when Betty first arrived in Hollywood, she had befriended an elderly couple on the plane.  Now, they reappear during the final sequence, taunting Betty/Diane around her apartment to the point she blows her own brains out, falling onto the bed in the same manner they found the corpse upon their earlier visit in search of Rita’s memory.  While there’s plenty of discussion on who this elderly couple is, Betty had mentioned her parents during one conversation, making me believe this was her way of dealing with failing to do them proud.  And perhaps the entire film is a picture of Betty/Diane battling her demons as she tries to make a life for herself in Tinsel Town, the success of her lover making things that much harder.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: Much like the WIZARD OF OZ, the story all starts and ends in a bed. In the very beginning, we see sheets and a pillow, and we hear someone gasping for air. This comes full circle at the end. We now know that Diane shot herself in the head and collapsed onto her bed after being accosted by these menacing elderly people. Could these older people be symbolic of her mental breakdown? The film up to this point, it seems to me, all comes from within Diane’s mind. Betty is her breakdown version of herself. Camilla has been successful, and she can’t handle that success coupled with her own failure. Like Dorothy, Diane discovers the truth about herself in the end. And it’s too terrible to bear. Reality is a tough pill to swallow.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE is David Lynch’s love/hate letter to Hollywood.  It’s pretty easy to figure out Betty and Diane are the same person: Diane the real-life failure, with Betty being Diane’s fantasized version of herself, as well as her desired relationship with Rita/Camilla.  Lynch—an independent filmmaker using Hollywood actors and sets here—basically portrays his own apprehensions and pleasures as a director and as one trying to deal with the Hollywood system.  And though at first the film may seem like the tired “it’s all a dream” thing, it’s a bit more complex than that, especially in the light of Diane/Betty’s dreams possibly being manipulated by other entities.

 Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: It might be the clichéd “it was all just a dream” story, but the person dreaming it is significantly disturbed, if not destroyed. Hollywood is very much like the Emerald City. Betty took a jaunt to find her calling, her home in a sense. But Hollywood, not unlike the Emerald City, is not all that it seems. There are mysterious forces that determine who makes it big and who doesn’t. It’s a tough world, baby, and the guaranteed success that Betty hopes to find rarely happens in reality.

Nick Cato: MULHOLLAND DRIVE is basically a surreal, modern film noir, with an incredible performance by Naomi Watts, complimented by co-star Laura Hanning’s often speechless speech and deathly-sexy mannerisms.  While we could easily take up another 15 pages breaking down what the cowboy symbolized, who the homeless man behind the diner was, and just WHY on earth Billy Ray Cyrus was cast as Adam’s wife’s lover (!), MULHOLLAND DRIVE is one of those films that reveals itself more and more upon each viewing.  It’s like staring at a surreal painting for hours on end, when suddenly things start to appear you hadn’t noticed before.

And with each viewing the film seems to unravel itself a little bit more, almost like Lynch somehow caused the film to work over periods of time.  Am I giving him too much credit as a director here?  Maybe.  Some would say definitely.  Either way, this is how MULHOLLAND DRIVE happens to work.

There are few films like it.

Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel: MULHOLLAND DRIVE demands several viewings. Even taken at the surface level, it’s a thrill ride through a twisted world. The most cynical viewer will likely take something away from the film. Things crop up after a few viewings that never occurred to me before. Part film noir, part horror flick, part crime drama, it all comes together in a collage that sometimes leaves the viewer with just as many questions as they resolve.

The legendary Ann Miller makes her final screen appearance as Betty’s landlord.

© Copyright 2012 by Nick Cato and Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel

A “Suburban Grindhouse Memories” Classic: GANJA AND HESS (1973)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2012, 70s Horror, Art Movies, Blaxploitation, Classic Columns, Cult Movies, DVD Review, Experimental Films, Indie Horror, Nick Cato Reviews, Suburban Grindhouse Memories with tags , , , , , , on February 23, 2012 by knifefighter

(Editor’s Note: Because of circumstances beyond his control, Nick Cato wasn’t able to get me his latest SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES column this week. So I figured, instead of having a hole in our calendar, I’d just reprint one of his best old columns from 2010. Keep in mind, with the next installment, Nick will have written 47 columns of SGM for us here at Cinemaknifefight.com. This one was Number 4. A true classic that deserves a bigger audience. Mr. Cato will be back with a brand new column next time.)

******

SUBURBAN GRINDHOUSE MEMORIES No. 4:  Bill Gunn: a True Filmmaking Genius.
By Nick Cato

In the early 1970s, “blaxploitation” cinema was all the rage on the grindhouse circuit (be it urban OR suburban).  When director Bill Gunn was approached to make a film in the vein of BLACULA, he took the money and did something far more serious.  Instead of trying to make an exploitative quickie, Gunn went for the gusto and delivered an artistic deep-thinker that (to this day) has many who see it believing it’s a vampire film.  It isn’t.  In fact, Gunn went all-out as he wrote, directed, and stars in this surreal, nightmare of a film that requires at least three to four viewings before even half of what it has to say will hit you.

Since I was only five years old when GANJA & HESS was originally released, it was a treat to (finally) see this for the first time at a revival theater last month (April, 2010).  This was the first time that I knew–halfway through a screening–that I’d have to see what I was watching again (and as soon as possible) just to keep my train of thought (this turned out to be one of the most challenging films I’ve reviewed yet).  So I purchased a DVD the next day and watched it three more times.

The film follows Dr. Hess Green (played by legendary NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD star, Duane Jones), his new assistant George (Bill Gunn), and his assistant’s wife, Ganja (the lovely Marlene Clark).  Despite what some reviewers have said (I’m assuming they saw one of the several, heavily-edited/re-titled versions), Hess DOES NOT become addicted to blood AFTER being stabbed by his assistant; the very beginning of the film scrolls these titles (over some magnificently eerie music): “Doctor Hess Green … Doctor of Anthropology, Doctor of Geology … While studying the ancient Black civilization of Myrthia … was stabbed by a stranger three times … one for God the Father, one for the Son … and one for the Holy Ghost … stabbed with a dagger, diseased from that ancient culture whereupon he became addicted and could not die … nor could he be killed.”  So, for the record, Hess is already addicted to blood when his suicidal assistant George moves in; Hess is a wealthy anthropologist living in a tremendous mansion (African American stereotypes don’t exist in this film, instantly banishing a “blaxploitation’ label from it).  He even manages to stop George’s first attempt at suicide; George (apparently aggravated at this) eventually attacks Hess with the ceremonial dagger Hess had brought back from Africa.  Hess survives, but George ends up shooting himself in Hess’ bathroom.  When Hess discovers George’s body, we see him fall to his knees and lap his blood (the main scene I’m assuming has caused many to label this a vampire film).

George’s wife Ganja shows up at the Hess mansion to wait for her husband (Hess has him stored in a freezer in the basement).  And this is where GANJA & HESS truly becomes strange.  After discovering her husband in the freezer and assuming Hess killed him, she ends up believing Hess’ testimony of George’s suicide and she helps Hess to bury him.

Ganja & Hess fall in love, get married, and Hess eventually makes her a part of the “Myrthia” tribe, bringing its ‘blood curse’ upon her (one edited version, released in the 80s on VHS as BLOOD COUPLE, gave the film a standard (and false) vampire-film packaging).  Things get even stranger when Hess brings a man home for Ganja to feed on (she ends up having an affair with him first) and Hess begins to doubt his Christian roots when he finally begins to feel guilt after feeding from a young mother–guilt that nearly leads him to a nervous breakdown.

One of several misleading re-titles for Ganja & Hess: BLOOD COUPLE

It should be pointed out here that while everything I’ve just described is happening, the incredibly spooky score by Sam Waymon, along with some dazzling cinematography (I swear Dario Argento was inspired by much of this) helps to give GANJA & HESS a constant aura of surreal darkness that won’t leave your mind anytime soon.  One commentary track I listened to on the “GANJA & HESS: THE COMPLETE EDITION” DVD (Image Entertainment) mentioned that the opening sequence is told from 12 points of view (after re-watching it, I’m betting this is why so many are turned off to the film early on—it’s truly unlike anything you’ve seen before).  And this is just one thing that makes GANJA & HESS such a unique–and challenging–film.

GANJA & HESS is a film about religious identification and one man’s realization that he has strayed from the faith of his upbringing.  After making peace with God at a church service, he attempts to bring Ganja with him.  The film’s final moments feature Hess’ death and Ganja contemplating her own life: to me it’s apparent she likes what Hess has turned her into by smiling when she visualizes the dead man Hess had brought home for her running naked out of their pool.  And being a sequel-less film, we’re left to consider and debate if this is so.

Again, this is NOT a vampire film.  It’s an intense, unusual study of a millionaire who, despite having all there is to have in this world, is haunted by what lies beyond this life.  And yet despite this underlying theme (as well as a church service scene that goes on for WAY too long), I don’t think it was Gunn’s intention to make an evangelical film (and if it was, I’d like to know what church–in 1973– approved of extended shots of full-frontal male and female nudity, pagan blood drinking, and an artistic-look at suicide).

Watch GANJA & HESS.  Then watch it again, even if you don’t like it the first time.  Despite a few slow stretches, the film has plenty to offer to those who take the time to contemplate and dig out its treasures.

I can’t remember the last time a film has caused so much conversation between my friends and me.  GANJA & HESS, despite its all-black cast, is NOT a blaxploitation film.  It is a genuine hybrid of horror and art house filmmaking that stands alone.  It can not (and will not) ever be duplicated.

This is a true gem from Bill Gunn, and a gem I’ll surely be revisiting again and again.

© Copyright 2010 by Nick Cato

(Editor’s Note # 2 – This movie had a LOT of alternate titles during its (several) runs on the grindhouse circuit. They include: BLACK EVIL, BLACK VAMPIRE, BLOOD COUPLE, DOUBLE POSSESSION, VAMPIRES OF HARLEM and BLACKOUT: THE MOMENT OF TERROR. Confusing enough for you?)

Geisha of Gore Review: DEMON WARRIORS (2007)

Posted in 2012, Art Movies, Asian Horror, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Demons, Foreign Films, Geisha of Gore Reviews with tags , , , , on January 24, 2012 by knifefighter

GEISHA OF GORE REVIEW: DEMON WARRIORS (2007)
By Colleen Wanglund

When I say “religious-based horror” what do you think of?  In Western horror, it’s usually movies like THE EXORCIST (1973), THE OMEN (1976) and ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968).   In Thailand, one of the predominant religions is Buddhism, and that is the basis for the 2007 movie DEMON WARRIORS.

Written and directed by Thanakorn Pongsuwan (and co-written by Yutnathorn Kaewthong) DEMON WARRIORS (or OPAPATIKA in Thai), tells the story of a battle that breaks out between humans and the opapatika.  A narrator explains that in the Buddhist tradition there are three types of natural birth.  One is sangsethaca, in which life comes out of rot and decay, like worms and maggots.  The second is anthaca which is birth from an egg.  The third is chalaphucha where life comes from the womb, like humans and animals.  There is a fourth, but unnatural, birth called the opapatika which can only occur through suicide.  These opapatika, or demons, are supernatural beings with un-human-like powers.  It is also explained that there is a price to pay for these powers, because suicide is a sin.

Techit (Leo Putt) is a private detective investigating the demons.  He is turned into an opapatika by Sadok (Nirut Sirichanya), who employs Techit to find four particular demons.  Techit is assisted by Thuwachit (Pongpat Wachirabanjong), Sadok’s human henchman (and the narrator).  The two are sent out with armed mercenaries to find the four particular demons and bring them to Sadok.  Techit is also told to follow a woman named Pran (Khemupsorn Sirisukha), whom the opapakitas seem to be drawn to.

The four opapakitas that Sadok wants brought to him are very powerful.  Paison (Shahkrit Yamnarm) is an assassin who is scarred with the lethal wounds he inflicts on others.  Ramil (Athip Nana) is an adrenaline junkie who can project a powerful and deadly spirit to do his bidding.  Arut (Ray MacDonald) is an invincible and ruthless fighter at night, but is weak during the day and has no memory of what he did the night before.  Finally there is Jirat (Somchai Kemglad) who is immortal, but he considers this a curse.

Techit and Thuwachit, along with many paramilitary types, spend a good deal of the movie tracking down the opapatikas and trying to subdue them.  That isn’t so easy.  We also eventually discover that Sadok is rotting away and will die very soon.  He needs to feed on the hearts of the opapatikas to prevent his death and give him their individual powers.  The woman Pran—who may be a demon—seems to be attempting to talk Jirat and Paison into giving themselves up, with the promise of relief from their suffering.  There are flashbacks to Paison’s life before his suicide and they include his wife’s rape and murder.  Consumed with a need for revenge, Paison killed himself to gain the power to exact that revenge.  This also has allowed him to fall in love with Pran and protect her.  Pran is seen with Jirat many times but he doesn’t trust her.  Jirat thinks something is not right about Pran and tries to warn the others.

Each of the opapatikas gains a super power when they die, but, as I mentioned earlier, there is a price to pay for that power.  The opapatikas, with the exception of Jirat, can be killed by other opapatika.  They also discover that they still suffer the grief that led them to commit suicide and seek out their present plane of existence.  In addition to this suffering, there are consequences to using their power.  Techit’s power is intuition, or reading minds.  Every time he reads someone’s mind, however, he loses one of his five human senses.  Arut, as stated earlier, is an unstoppable fighter when the sun sets but is weak during the day.  And whenever Ramil sends out his monstrous spirit, he becomes physically uglier.

While DEMON WARRIORS has an interesting story, I have major issues with its execution.  As far as the characters go, the only one who has any depth is Paison.  We see bits of his past and what spurred his choice of suicide in the first place.  We know nothing of the other opapatika, except the prices they pay for their strengths.  We don’t even know why Techit became an opapatika.  There is a brief exchange between Techit and Sadok where the detective tells Sadok that he’ll hunt down the other opapatikas as long as Techit gets what he wants….but what does he want?  We don’t know.  Later in the film, Sadok tells Jirat that he envied his gift of immortality.  We are also told that Jirat has no memory of a life prior to becoming a demon.  Was he more than just a man who committed suicide?  No idea but that could have made for an even more interesting story.  Why did the others commit suicide to become demons?  We are never informed.  The characters, for the most part are flat.  Jirat gets a bit intriguing for the pain that his immortality causes him, but even that fails epically.

During the same early conversation between Techit and Sadok we are informed that no human can kill an opapatika.  So why send all of those mercenaries to their deaths?  There are a massive amount of bloody deaths in this film, but it crosses the line into overkill.  I love a good fight scene, but after a while they just become tedious exercises in wasting time.  The fight scenes and wild shoot-outs are effectively pointless, since the human mercenaries cannot do any real harm to the demons.  And what a huge waste of money for Sadok, who must pay to arm them!  It’s just silly.

I also had an issue with the portrayal of the opapatikas.  They were dead but could still interact with the corporeal world around them.  They could be seen by others as regular humans and even have sex, and yet there never seemed to be anyone around when the fighting was going on.  And what about other opapatika?  Surely there are others….aren’t there?  If it is in fact a parallel existence then how could Paison be an assassin-for-hire and Ramil be involved in drag races?   The demons can kill humans and yet there is no real physical distinction being made.   There was some confusion, as well, when it came to Techit.  If he used his mind reading power he would lose his five senses, one at a time.  Techit lost his hearing first, but I didn’t see where this was detrimental to him.  Even when he supposedly lost his sight, he didn’t remotely seem blind.  What was up with that?  Karma may be a bitch but in this flick she’s a pussycat.

Then there is the character Pran.  We do ultimately find out who this woman really is, but for most of the movie we, as well as the opapatika are clueless.  She spouts a lot of philosophy in her quest to get the demons to work together for….what?  She promises relief from their painful existence, but what does this relief entail?  Paison has projected his feelings for his dead wife onto Pran and wants to protect her.  Jirat finally tells them not to trust her, but it’s too late.  Pran, like most of the characters in DEMON WARRIORS is two-dimentional.  There is no substance what-so-ever.

I had anticipated a decent movie when I started watching, but I ended up bored and unimpressed.  DEMON WARRIORS was a mess, in my opinion.  It ran too long, used fight sequences too often, left far too many loose ends and didn’t use special effects very effectively.  I also found it far too preachy on the subject of suicide.  Of course it’s a bad thing, but the movie tries too hard to hit you over the head with its message.  DEMON WARRIORS is rambling and muddy.   I wasted an hour and forty-five minutes of my time so you won’t have to waste yours.

© Copyright 2011 by Colleen Wanglund

Special Movie Review for Christmas Day: THE ROOM (2003)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2011, Art Movies, Bad Acting, Campy Movies, Cult Movies, LL Soares Reviews with tags , , , , , , on December 25, 2011 by knifefighter

SPECIAL MOVIE REVIEW!
THE ROOM (2003)
By L.L. Soares

There’s a long history of movies that are considered “so bad, they’re good.” And one of the best in recent memory is THE ROOM by Tommy Wiseau. Since it was released in 2003, it has gone on to become a cult favorite, with midnight showings across the country and even audience interaction (supposedly, at key scenes, the audience throws plastic spoons at the screen, among other things). The “cult” began on the west coast and is slowly creeping east (there were midnight screenings in Boston and New York this year), and there’s good reason for this. The movie is pretty hilarious. But it may be hard to explain why in the course of a review.

The story, for what it is, centers on Johnny (Tommy Wiseau, who also directed, wrote and produced the film) and Lisa (Juliette Danielle), a young couple who live in San Francisco (there are lots of shots of the Golden Gate Bridge) and are in love. Or are they? When we first see them, they are telling each other how much in love they are, Johnny has bought Lisa a sexy red dress, and they go upstairs for an awkward soft-core sex scene that goes on for awhile and has awful soft rock playing over it. But things are not so rosy in the world of THE ROOM.

We next see Lisa talking to her mother, Claudette (Carolyn Minnot), and telling her how much she hates Johnny, and that she doesn’t want to marry him (even though they are supposed to get married within a month’s time!). She says Johnny is boring and while he can offer her financial stability, she doesn’t love him any more. Claudette, for her part, tells Lisa to stay in the relationship, and get married, because money is better than happiness, but Lisa doesn’t agree.

Lisa then goes on to seduce Johnny’s best friend, Mark (Greg Sestero), who seems completely baffled when he comes over for a visit and finds Lisa coming on to him, but who quickly succumbs to her wiles. Lisa tells him it’s him that she loves and she doesn’t want to be with Johnny anymore. Mark gives lip service to the fact that “Johnny is my best friend,” but five minutes later he’s up in her bed, and they have a long, awkward sex scene with bad soft rock playing over it.

When Johnny doesn’t get a promotion at the bank where he works, as he was promised, this appears to be the last straw for Lisa, who gets him drunk (he normally does not drink, but she convinces him it will make him feel better) and then later tells people he hit her (but he didn’t). She does nothing but talk trash about Johnny behind his back, yet when she’s around him, she only tells him how much she loves him.

Among the other strange characters who come for regular visits are Denny (Phillip Haldiman), a rather simple young man who Johnny wanted to adopt at one point, and whose college tuition is paid for by Johnny. Denny sees Johnny as a father figure, and loves him dearly. He also has the hots for Lisa. Denny is an odd boy who in one scene follows Lisa and Johnny up to their bedroom because he likes watching them (!) – they kick him out so they can be intimate – and in another scene is almost killed by a drug dealer he owes money to named Chris-R (Dan Janjigian), who holds a gun on Denny but it taken away when Johnny and Mark intervene.

There are also Michelle (Robyn Paris) and Mike (Scott Holmes) who sneak into Johnny and Lisa’s apartment to do some “homework” while the place is empty and have sex on the coach.

As more and more people find out Lisa’s secret (she doesn’t feel compelled to hide it from too many people), her friends plead with her to be honest with Johnny and break it off. That he doesn’t deserve to be treated like this. But Lisa seems to truly enjoy screwing around behind Johnny’s back. There’s a real hatred there, that is never explained or explored except when she says things like Johnny is “boring” or she doesn’t love him anymore. She also implies that he treats her badly, even though we see no evidence of this. In fact, he seems to worship the ground she walks on.

Things culminate at Johnny’s birthday party, where everyone is invited and Lisa and Mark have an angry argument, which should finally tip Johnny off, but he’s still rather slow at coming around to the realization. When he does, Mark and Johnny have a couple of scuffles, and when Lisa finally leaves Johnny for good, there are tragic consequences.

Interspersed between all this are several scenes where Johnny and his buddies toss around a football in various locations (this seems to have real significance, but really doesn’t), Johnny calls a couple of his friends “chickens” (“Cheep cheep cheep”), people constantly walk in and out of Johnny and Lisa’s apartment, often without knocking (as Claudette says in one scene, “It’s like Grand Central Station around here”), and at one point, Claudette tells her daughter that the tests have come back and she definitely has breast cancer (Lisa tells her she’ll be okay, then switches the topic so she can complain more about the fact that she doesn’t love Johnny).

The acting is pretty awful throughout, although Wiseau has a certain charisma, even when he is spouting lines badly, laughing at inappropriate times, and being emotionally confused (at one point he can be shouting with anger, and suddenly calm down to say “Oh, hi Mark.”).  No matter how bad his acting abilities are, Wiseau is definitely watchable, and hilarious. The rest of the cast isn’t much better, although the very strange and awful script (by Wiseau) probably makes them seem worse than they are. Their motiviations are often muddled and often things are said or done that make no sense.

Aside from Wiseau, who looks like a muscular Frankenstein Monster with long black hair and has an oddly Eastern European accent, the next most entertaining performance here is definitely Juliette Danielle as Lisa. Lisa is the villain of this piece, even if she refuses to acknowledge it. The way she’s able to declare her love for Johnny in one scene, and then run him down to her friends and mother in others, is pretty funny (although everything is played completely straight – which is the charm of this film).

And what exactly does the title mean? What is THE ROOM? I am sure it must refer to the bedroom upstairs in Johnny and Lisa’s apartment, since this is the only room we go to several times, but what, exactly, is the significance of THE ROOM? Why is it the title of this movie? What makes it so special and different from any other room?

Sure it’s badly acted, badly written, and nobody acts or says things like real people act and speak, but that’s what makes THE ROOM such a classic of its kind. This movie really needs to be seen to be believed, and if you’re a fan of “so bad they’re good” flicks, you owe it to yourself to check this one out, if you haven’t seen it yet.

My only real complaint is that Wiseau hasn’t made more films like this since. In 2004, he made a serious documentary about homelessness called Homeless in America (which he directed with Kaya Redford) and has appeared in a few other short films (one called The House That Dripped Blood on Alex is especially hilarious) and the occasional odd TV show (Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! on the Cartoon Channel’s “Adult Swim”), but he hasn’t made any other feature films since 2003. No THE ROOM PART 2 or anything equally enjoyable. Why not? I’m sure I speak for everyone who has gone to a midnight showing of THE ROOM, and most people who have watched the DVD in the privacy of their homes, when I say “Please Tommy, make more movies!” One is definitely not enough!!

We want more of the magic you gave us with THE ROOM!

In a strange bizarro world where tossing around footballs is an important, manly ritual and calling someone a chicken is the greatest insult, where sudden, inappropriate laughing and crying are the norm, I would give this movie four knives.

© Copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares

(A special thank you to Robert, Kathleen and David for introducing me to this one!)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers