Archive for the Art Movies Category

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS: DECEMBER 2010

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Coming Attractions, Science Fiction, Westerns with tags , , , , , , , , on December 3, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT COMING ATTRACTIONS: DECEMBER 2010
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene:  a festive living room decorated to the hilt for the holidays. Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares are sitting in front of a fireplace, both dressed in red. Michael is wearing a red suit, and L.L. is wearing white clothes almost entirely covered in blood stains, some of them fresh. They both hold stockings full of goodies.)

LS:  You got anything in there for me?

MA:  Yeah. Coal.

LS:  Alright!  My favorite!

MA:  Nah, just kidding. I got some stuff in here for you. (Fishes around in stocking trying to pull something out.)  I can tell you what we don’t have this month. Horror movies!  Horror’s just not on the menu at the theaters this month, I’m afraid. Oh well. We’re going to be unconventional this month.

LS:  Enough yakking!  What do you have in there for me already?

MA:  Oh yeah. Well, first we have— (pulls out a giant black bat that flaps its wings furiously.)

LS:  What the hell is that?

MA:  It’s supposed to be a black swan, but we only have bats under contract.

LS:  Even better. I love bats!  Give me that. (Grabs bat from MA.)

MA:  Anyway, on the weekend of December 3, we’ll be reviewing BLACK SWAN starring Natalie Portman. Since this gift is for you, perhaps you’d like to tell about the movie?

LS:  Sure. I’m excited about this one because it’s directed by one of my favorite filmmakers, Darren Aronofsky, who previously gave us such powerful films as PI (1998) REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000), and most recently THE WRESTLER (2008). While BLACK SWAN takes place in the world of ballet and stars Portman, Vincent Cassel and Mila Kunis, it’s supposed to be pretty dark. And Aronofsky hasn’t let me down yet. Despite entering some dark psychological territory, this isn’t the usual kind of movie we review for Cinema Knife Fight, so it should be interesting.

MA:  Winona Ryder is in it as well. It’ll be fun to see her again. Not that I was ever a big fan, but it’s more of a nostalgia thing. Her early appearances in movies like HEATHERS (1989) and BEETLE JUICE (1988) seem like yesterday.

LS: HEATHERS was actually a really good movie.

MA: So, do you have anything in there for me?

LS:  Here you go. (Pulls out a bust of William Shakespeare with fangs.)

MA:  It’s the bard with a bite. On December 10, we’ll be reviewing THE TEMPEST, a new film version of Shakespeare’s play starring Helen Mirren, Felicity Jones and Djimon Hounsou. I enjoyed Helen Mirren in the recent STATE OF PLAY (2009) also starring Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck, and in THE QUEEN (2006) before that.

LS: What’s the obsession with newer films? Helen Mirren has made hundreds of movies over the years. To me, she’ll always be Detective Jane Tennison from the top-notch PRIME SUSPECT series from the BBC. She starred in several of those.

Other great films she was in include the notorious “classic” CALIGULA (from 1979) and she played the wife in Peter Greenaway’s THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER (1989), one of my all-time favorite movies (and a disturbing one at that). Now those were great roles!

MA: And Djimon Hounsou delivered a powerhouse performance in BLOOD DIAMOND (2006) and so I’m looking forward to seeing him in this movie.

Shakespeare’s plays are always fun, and while I’m not as familiar with THE TEMPEST as I am with a lot of his other plays, I’m still looking forward to it. Should be fun.

LS:  THE TEMPEST is something a little different than we’re used to from Shakespeare. It’s one of his very few fantasy plays. And Mirren plays Prospera, who fans of the original play will recognize as a female version of the play’s sorcerer, Prospero. The fact that this movie is directed by Julie Taymor is also exciting. She made a very interesting post-modern version of another Shakespeare play, TITUS (based on Titus Andronicus) in 1999, with Anthony Hopkins. One of Shakespeare’s more violent plays.

MA (searching through stocking):  What else do we have in here for you?  Here you go. You’re very own TRON action figure!

LS (groans): Oh boy.. I hope that’s not as lame as I think it is!

MA:  I was not a fan of the first TRON (1982) movie, or of the video game. Back then, I wasn’t much of a fan of Jeff Bridges either. But he’s one of those actors who has grown stronger and better with age. I’d now have to list him as one of my favorite actors working today.

LS: TRON was interesting for its time. I guess it was pretty cutting edge in 1982, but it’s pretty dated now. Basically, it’s the story of a man who enters the world of a video game. Of course, with today’s technology, they should be able to do things the original film never dreamed was possible. TRON is, if anything, a cult classic now. I’m surprised Disney took such a big interest in reviving the franchise 28 years later. But maybe the effects have finally caught up with the concept. The movie will also be in 3D (of course!)

The trailer doesn’t really look all that amazing to me, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see TRON LEGACY. As for Jeff Bridges, I’ve been a fan of his for a very long time, at least since 70s classics like THE LAST PICTURE SHOW (1971), FAT CITY (1972) and THUNDERBOLD AND LIGHTFOOT (1974).

Not to mention John Carpenter’s STARMAN (1984), and films like THE FISHER KING (1991) FEARLESS (1993)

MA: Speaking of Jeff Bridges, we’ll be seeing him again a week later with the December 23 release of TRUE GRIT, a remake of the John Wayne movie TRUE GRIT from 1969, a film that earned Wayne his only Oscar. It’s actually based on a novel by Charles Portis.

LS:  Don’t forget your gift. (Hands MA a John Wayne figure.)  It talks. Press that button.

(MA presses button on toy figure’s chest.)

JOHN WAYNE FIGURE:  Howdy, Pilgrim. You’d better give this here movie a darned good review or else I’m going to kick your ass you mutha—.

MA (Shocked. Drops toy):  Whoa!  The Duke never spoke that way in the movies. Where did you get this toy?  Never mind. Anyway, I’m really looking forward to TRUE GRIT, mostly because it features a terrific cast, which includes Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. And of course it’s directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. With the talents involved here, this one sounds like a winner.

LS: It’s nice to see Jeff Bridges working with the Coen Brothers again. He did the THE BIG LEBOWSKI with them in 1998. Maybe my favorite movie by the Coens and one of Bridges’s best roles.

As for the original version of TRUE GRIT, I loved that movie. It was easily one of my favorite John Wayne films. Not as good as THE SEARCHERS (1956) maybe, but pretty damn good.

MA:  And we’ll round out the year on the last weekend of December with a DVD review of an as of yet undetermined title, which means it’s going to be a surprise, so mums the word!

So, that wraps things up here.

LS:  Couldn’t have said it better myself.  Here’s another gift for you. (Throws a wad of crumpled wrapping paper at MA, who catches it.)

MA:  What’s this?

LS:  Trash.

MA:  What am I supposed to do with this?

LS:  Put it with the rest of your opinions, cuz that’s where they belong! (laughs).

MA:  Lame. Very lame. (to audience)  Happy Holidays, folks.

LS:  Bah, humbug!

MA:  We’ll see you throughout December with lots of reviews of lots of new movies. (presses button on JOHN WAYNE toy.)

JOHN WAYNE TOY:  You reach for that gun, Pilgrim, and it’ll be the last thing you ever reach for, you no good low-life slimy sonofabitch, you muther—.

MA:  Where did you get this?!

—END—.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – PART 1

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Friday Night Knife Fights, Grindhouse, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez with tags , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

(A spotlight in a dark room suddenly illuminates MICHAEL ARRUDA)

MA: We’re kicking off a new column here at CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.

Welcome to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, the column where titans of terror square off in duels to the death (well, figuratively speaking, anyway), and it’s up to our illustrious panel of writers to determine the victor.

Tonight it’s ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, two of the most talented film directors working today. Which one of these talents is the better director?

I’m Michael Arruda, and joining me tonight to determine the answer to this question is my fellow knife fighter, L.L. Soares, and New York Time Bestselling author Craig Shaw Gardner. (As he introduces them, spotlights illuminate them as well, showing all three of them are sitting inside a boxing ring.)

Okay, here we go.

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO – who is the better director?

Craig, we’ll start with you. Of these two directors, whose style do you prefer?

CSG: It depends on the project. Rodriguez is better at straight ahead action. Del Toro is better at mood. If forced up against the wall, I’d pick Del Toro.

MA: Well, fortunately, we won’t be forcing you up against a wall on this issue.

CSG: That’s good.

LS: Although this is Cinema Knife Fight, so you never know!

MA: That’s true. LL, how about you? Whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’ve been following both Robert Rodriguez’s and Guillermo Del Toro’s careers since their first films…so….

MA: Really? So, you should have a lot to offer tonight on these two guys.

LS: …..Yeah, sure, if you let me talk. Besides, I have to make up for your shortcomings.

MA: I’ve seen a decent number of films by these guys. Don’t you be concerning yourself with me.

LS: I’m not planning to.

Anyway, in Rodriguez’s case, his first film was the much-lauded EL MARIACHI (1992), which received a lot of attention because it was made on an unbelievably small budget (rumored to be just $7,000). The movie, about a musician who is mistaken for a hit man, was a hit on the indie circuit and got Rodriguez’s career rolling. For Del Toro, his first feature film CRONOS (1993) was a unique take on the vampire yarn, concerning an old watchmaker and his granddaughter, and a strange clockwork device that turns people into vampires. This movie also received much attention during its release, mostly in  art-house theaters, marking Del Toro as an up-and-coming director to watch.

Rodriguez’s films are much more grounded in a grindhouse aesthetic (which makes sense, since he directed one of the two films that made up the “cinema experiment” called GRINDHOUSE in 2007, along with Quentin Tarantino) and this is evident in his Mariachi trilogy (EL MARIACHI, DESPERADO (1995) and 2003’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO), as well as films such as PLANET TERROR (his half of GRINDHOUSE ), FROM DUSK TIL DAWN (1996), SIN CITY (from 2005, which he co-directed with comic book legend Frank Miller), and of course, his latest film MACHETE (2010). Rodriguez also has a strong base in family fare, having made the very successful SPY KIDS films (the first one was in 2001).

Del Toro’s work has had more of an  art-house sensibility, with a bigger emphasis on imagery, atmosphere and style. Since his early days, Del Toro has been splitting his time between Hollywood (movies like MIMIC (1997), and the successful HELLBOY films – from 2004 and 2008) and Mexico (more artistic Spanish-language films like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), both of which are excellent).

Del Toro is interested in other mediums as well, and has even written a series of novels (THE STRAIN series) with crime novelist Chuck Hogan.

Del Toro’s more literary background is also evident in the choice for his next film, a adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS, which he has been trying to get green lit for several years now.

MA: So, whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’d have to go with Del Toro, too.

MA: In true Cinema Knife Fight fashion, I prefer Rodriguez’ style over De Toro’s, because I tend to enjoy his highly charged, energetic movies.

I enjoy movies with a high-octane pace, and Rodriguez’s films tend to fly at high speeds. Also, for me, a film with an edge is more compelling than say a film with great visual detail. Rodriguez’ movies tend to have more bite. I also prefer a movie with a strong story over one with a strong visual style. I think the stories Rodriguez has chosen to film—or at least the ones I’ve seen—have been stronger than the stories Del Toro has chosen. Again, from the ones I’ve seen.

LS: I disagree. Del Toro is as strong a storyteller as he is a visual artist. While I enjoy Rodriguez’s work a lot, I think his stories are more superficial than the more mythic quality found in Del Toro’s work, for the most part.

MA: If you say so, but I enjoyed the stories in movies like MACHETE and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN much more than the stories told in either of the HELLBOY movies, for example.

And while Del Toro is a master of creating strong visuals in his movies, Rodriguez is no slouch either. A film like SIN CITY is full of powerful visuals.

LS: Well, a big reason SIN CITY has such powerful visuals is because it is taken directly from Frank Miller’s graphic novels. It’s Miller’s vision, filtered through Rodriguez. But I have to admit, Rodriguez does a great job of helping Miller bring his artwork to life. Even though the movie is “co-directed” by Miller, I tend to think Rodriguez did most of the directing here –only because the movie maintains his kinetic style of movie-making throughout. So, as far as SIN CITY goes, you’re right. I think it’s easily Rodriguez’s most impressive project.

MA: Moving along, of the two, whose movies do you prefer? Craig?

CSG: Didn’t I just answer this question?

LS: He tends to repeat himself.

MA: It’s the middle school teacher in me. I actually asked whose style do you prefer before, and now I’m asking whose films do you prefer, but I’ll admit, they’re similar questions.

CSG: Whose movies do I prefer? Del Toro’s, probably, just because he’s better at bringing in the right collaborators for his individual projects.

LS: I like them both and think they are both bringing a lot to the current world of cinema, however, if I had to choose, I prefer the films of Guillermo Del Toro. I think that, of the two, Del Toro is much more of an artist, who knows how to use the medium of film to its best effect. Even his Hollywood films (especially the HELLBOY series) have vivid visuals and strong characterization, two things I look for in movies.

MA: See, I’m less interested in visuals, and I’m more into a good story.

LS: We’ve been over this already. Del Toro is more than just visuals, he’s all about story, too. Besides, how can you dismiss strong visuals, when film is a visual medium?

MA: I guess it’s just the writer in me.

LS: That’s a cop-out.

MA: No it isn’t. I write stories, and I enjoy stories, and while I enjoy the different ways directors tell their stories in their movies, if a film’s strength is its visuals and not its story, nine times out of ten I’m not going to like it as much. Obviously you feel that Del Toro is a very good storyteller. Fine. But I think Rodriguez is better at it.

As such, I prefer Robert Rodriguez’ movies over De Toro’s.

I loved MACHETE (2010), as the action was so over-the-top I couldn’t help but get drawn into its story. I also really enjoyed FROM DUSK TILL DAWN (1996), though admittedly, it does go downhill as it gets deeper into its vampire plot. It becomes almost silly. It’s a much edgier film early on when it deals with its straight action plot.

I liked SIN CITY (2005) a lot, and I even enjoyed THE FACULTY (1998).

With Del Toro, I liked the HELLBOY (2004 & 2008) movies a lot, but mostly because I enjoy the character of Hellboy. I enjoy the character much more than the actual movies. And while most people loved PAN’S LABRYNTH (2006), I wasn’t all that excited about it. I can’t deny its strong visual style, but its story I found too depressing for me to enjoy.

LS: That’s because you’re a wuss who can’t appreciate the power of darker storylines. “Oh, it’s too depressing for me.” That’s hardly a legitimate criticism! And PAN’S LABYRINTH has a stronger story to it than anything Rodriguez has made.

MA: And you’re a grump who can’t stand the fact that people disagree with your opinions. What do you mean it’s hardly a legitimate criticism? PAN’S LABYRINTH has a depressing story, and as such, it’s not for everyone’s tastes.

LS: You’re a horror writer. If anyone should be able to appreciate a dark storyline, it should be you. Weren’t you the one who said you liked movies with an edge? I guess as long as it’s a nice, safe edge that isn’t too dark, then you’re fine with it.

MA: I wouldn’t describe MACHETE or FROM DUSK TILL DAWN as nice and safe.

Hey, if you think PAN has a stronger story than Rodriguez’ movies, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But in my opinion, PAN’S LABRYNTH’s story is nothing to brag about.

And you’re calling me a wuss? You’re the one who raved over that art-house wannabe movie MONSTERS and thought it was compelling! That movie was so much about nothing I think Jerry Seinfeld co-wrote it!

LS: Yeah, well, I stand by my positive review of MONSTERS. You were wrong about that movie, and you’re wrong in this argument as well.

MA (mockingly): All bow down to the all-knowing god of film criticism! Wrong? How judgmental of you! Try a different opinion, bud!

(CSG watches them with a smirk on his face)

—TO BE CONTINUED —

To find out who we ultimately choose as the best director between ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, tune in next Friday for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

PI

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Daniel Keohane Reviews, DVD Review, Weird Movies with tags , , , , , , on October 7, 2010 by knifefighter

PI (1998) – DVD Review
by Daniel G. Keohane

“As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you’re no longer a mathematician, you’re a numerologist. “

This quote—a warning to genius mathematician Max Cohen (Sean Gullette) by his former mentor Sol Robeson (Mark Margolis), is a pivotal point in the movie PI (1998). That’s Pi, as in 3.14159265 etc. —not “private investigator,” nor that steaming circle of deliciousness which fills so many kitchens everywhere in the fall. The quote, spoken as a rebuke, but meant as a warning, sums up the overall theme of this mind-bending trip to Math-a-magic land by first-time (when PI came out, that is) feature director and writer Darren Aronofsky, who later gave us THE FOUNTAIN (2006) and THE WRESTLER (2008).

When I was in my teens, a few friends got into that whole backwards-masking shtick. If you play, for example, Stairway to Heaven backwards, you hear Robert Plant chant, “There’s no escaping it,” or mutter the infamous numbers 666. Play enough songs backwards, and aside from freaking yourself out, you’re bound to hear plenty of satanic voices, like those snippets of otherworldly mutterings captured on digital recorders in so many ghost chaser TV shows. Search for patterns long enough, and you’re bound to find them. But what if these patterns are real?

Max Cohen is an agoraphobic recluse, a mathematic genius bent on discovering a pattern in everything in the world. He tries to prove this using a home-made supercomputer in his ant-infested apartment, developing a quantitative method of predicting the stock market. The more complex his methods become (both in his programming and his mind), the better the process works, to the point where he succeeds in determining major fluctuations in stock values. Not that he invests any money himself, he’s just using it to prove his theories. Also, the point of doing all this, he stresses, is not to come up with a way of guessing stock prices, but to look at events, figures, patterns on the surface, and see below, quite a few layers deeper, where the chaotic, unstructured pattern of numbers and actions and reactions in everyday life, no matter how random any of them may seem, has a pattern. And that pattern can be discovered, understood. Then what? Well, he doesn’t really think that far.

But others have. People have been paying close attention to Max’s work. But I jump ahead.

When he was a child, Max tells us—via a recorded log in the film’s opening and throughout the movie—he ignored his mother’s warning not to stare into sun and did just that, stared so long, in fact, that he went temporarily blind. Naturally, it doesn’t take long for the Icarus comparison to come up in the story. Flying too close to the sun is the overall theme of the film, in fact. Before your wings melt, however, what would you see? What indeed?

19:57. Know Thyself: Observation #872. Have you noticed that I tend to write my reviews in the general style of the film in question? I… ahh! My daughter’s guinea pig just peed on me.. sorry. Lost the flow. Hang on.

3.14159265358…..

OK, I’m better now. PI is an interesting duck of a film. Shot entirely in black and white. Really grainy black and white, to boot. We see the world much like Max does, in scattershot sensory overloaded input crowding into a brain which constantly studies and patterns and… changes. He’s getting close, and what he’s coming close to is, well, killing him. Max suffers from terrible migraines, which he tries to suppress with a plethora of drugs, mostly to no avail. The chaos of most scenes in the film, including his “spells”, does calm at times, smoothes out, especially in one particular setting—the apartment of Sol Robeson, the “Obi Wan Kenobi” of PI, and a man who had once reached, in his own past research, the point where his protégé is now, and it nearly killed him. The scenes remain black and white, but the editing is less static, more fixed-camera. The two men sit across from a Go table (an ancient Chinese board game) and talk shop, everything calm, two people of equal intellect discussing math theory, and stuff. Sol’s apartment is Max’s oasis, his Nostromo Mother Room (look it up).

As mentioned, two distinct groups of people have taken a keen interest in our little math whiz. Bad guys and good guys, though in this film the two sometimes feel interchangeable. A nameless Wall Street firm wants Max’s talent and research for obvious reasons, and their representative Marcy Dawson, played with delightful, obnoxiously insistent devilishness by Pamela Hart (CHANGING LANES, 2002) is not one to take “No” for an answer. My favorite secondary character, however, is a Hasidic Jew named Lenny (Ben Shenkman, who played the “Agent to the Spies” for a spell in last year’s BURN NOTICE, 2009). Lenny is a fellow pattern mathematician who studies the Torah searching for messages from God. You see, the Hebrew alphabet is really a series of numbers, and the more he explains this to Max, the more interested our hapless hero becomes. Lenny and his group of Kabbalists, who have devoted their lives to unlocking the secrets of the Torah, work on pulling Max into their quest as insistently (though much less harshly) as Marcy’s troupe.  Shenkman’s performance is powerful but understated. He’s got a strong screen presence and it shows in his scenes with Gullette’s introverted Max. You want to like Lenny, but there’s a fierceness behind his expressions, which is a constant pleasure to watch and see what comes of it.

In the end, everyone is looking for a 216-digit number, which legend has it is the key to unlocking, well, everything! When Max’s supercomputer comes up with the number midway through the film, all hell breaks loose. Or maybe it’s not hell.

Anyway… I hate giving to much of a synopsis, but in some cases I find myself lost in trying to explain a movie. I think I used the term “mind-bender” earlier, and this one certainly is. Trying to follow everything going on in PI is akin to Max trying to understand every pattern in the universe. Don’t bother, you’ll hurt yourself. The ending is, well, what you’d expect in a film like this—open to interpretation. Did this happen, or did that? What was real, and what was… well, you get the point.

One thing about PI which I did not fathom (and there was more than one) – was Pi itself. Max (and his mentor) have spent their lives studying Pi: A mathematical number representing the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle (yea, I looked that up on Google, because if I misstate it here my genius son will mock me). Our mathematicians, however, seem more intent on pattern recognition, and the 216-digit number in question, than Pi. Seriously, maybe Aronofsky had to work Pi into the screenplay simply because it’s more recognizable a mathematical term, and has a bit of mythos (at least in the world of mathematicians). Not to mention PI is a far catchier title for a film than MYSTERIOUS NUMBER LOST WHEN ISRAEL WAS SACKED BY ROME.

I enjoyed PI, found it intellectually stimulating in some ways, but in other ways it’s a freaking depressing movie. PI is a very introverted film, and since we see the story unfold through the eyes of a majorly screwed-up dude, we’re not going to feel the warm fuzzies watching it. Maybe that’s another reason why Shenkman’s Lenny character was so appealing. He is one of the few characters not infinitely angst-ridden. So plan on seeing this film for its uniqueness, its merging of religion and math and greed – greed for power and for knowledge.

When you’re done watching PI, however, go watch a few episodes of the TV series BIG BANG THEORY (2007 – present). You’ll need it to remember how fun science and math can be. No, seriously, math can be fun. In study hall back in high school, when I was bored (most of the time), I’d sometimes do long division to pass the time. Yea, I know, I had no life. But neither does Max, except for his love of Pi. And pie.

Mmmm, pie.

© Copyright 2010 by Daniel G. Keohane

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008)

Posted in 2008, Art Movies, Foreign Films, LL Soares Reviews, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , on October 5, 2010 by knifefighter

Note: Since Michael and I reviewed the new movie LET ME IN yesterday for Cinema Knife Fight, I figured it might be a good time to post my review of the original film from November 2008, when LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was in limited release in theaters in the U.S. Looking back at my comments about the older film, it’s interesting just how close the two films really are, except for a few name changes. ~LLS

REVIEW: LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008)
by L. L. Soares

This past Friday, as the first big snowstorm of the winter howled outside, I was inside a small, warm art-house theater, watching a movie where the snow was just as prevalent. The movie was LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. It is in limited release, but if there’s a chance it’s playing near you, do yourself a favor and go see it.

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is the story of Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) a pale, skinny kid who doesn’t seem to have any friends and who is regularly picked on by bullies at school. Oskar feels pretty isolated in the world, especially since his parents split up. He spends his time between living in a housing project with his mom, and visits to his dad’s house (which seems to be in the middle of nowhere). Everywhere, there is snow. While playing outside (well, actually, stabbing a tree and pretending it’s one of his bullies), Oskar comes across a new neighbor, Eli (Lina Leandersson). She’s about his age and he saw her and her father Hakan (Per Ragnar) arrive in the middle of the night. These new people are strange. The father immediately taped cardboard across the windows, to keep the sun out, and they only come out at night. Oskar is willing to overlook all this, though, for the sake of finally having a friend.

In Eli, Oskar sees someone finally willing to give him a chance to be himself. She sees the same in him. Hakan has some weird hobbies, including tying people up and cutting their throats to fill up a big plastic container with their blood. At first, it appears that he might be a vampire, but he’s way too inept for that. More than once he almost gets caught, and when he finally does get discovered, he burns his face with acid (a pretty horrific effect). But it soon becomes clear that he isn’t Eli’s father at all. In fact, their relationship is a disturbing one. He goes out and gets blood for her, and clearly there is a reason why he is so loyal to her, but we’re never told what, which keeps things extra creepy (but you can guess).

When Hakan is taken from her (actually, she drinks his blood and tosses him out a window when he’s no longer of use to her), she seeks someone new to help her and protect her secret, and that person might just be Oskar. In the meantime, she has to feed herself, which means attacking adults in the dark. This is risky, and a few times she almost gets captured. It isn’t easy being a vampire in a child’s body. It’s never clear how old Eli is. She lives as a 12-year old girl, but she is clearly much older than that (it’s hinted that she may be as old as 100). In certain scenes, her face momentarily changes to that of an old woman (an old man?), before it returns to the knowing child’s face again. There is even a question about whether Eli is in fact a girl at all. She is clearly played by a female actress. But the character tells Oskar several times that she “is not a girl.” Does she simply mean that her appearance is deceiving, and she is really an old woman despite looking like a young girl? Or is something more disturbing afoot? A startling scene toward the end, when Oskar peeks at Eli changing her clothes, adds more fuel to the mystery.

There are several other interesting scenes, including one of Eli’s victims who survives and begins to turn into a vampire herself. And another scene where Eli tells Oskar he has to invite her in to his house in order for her to cross the threshold. When he laughs at her and demands she enter without his invitation (“What could possibly happen?”), she learns the hard way that it’s probably a good idea to play by the rules.

Director Tomas Alfredson and screenwriter John Ajvide Lindqvist (who adapted his own novel) give us a small, dark film that somehow seems much larger than it really is. For the most part, the movie is rather subtle, but there are some jarring violent/gory scenes as well. Almost every relationship Eli has is strange, which is understandable considering she is a vampire. However, this movie makes vampires disturbing in ways Hollywood films rarely do. Her scenes with Oskar are very human, but then we’ll be treated to startling sequences where she rapidly climbs up the side of a building, or leaps from a bridge onto a passing victim (and Eli is ravenous for blood: she doesn’t just suck it; she gorges herself on it. Her mouth is a red mess in the scenes where she feeds), and it is clear that this is not your typical art-house film at all.

Eli convinces Oskar to finally stand up to his bullies, and when he does (hitting the lead bully – a twerp named Conny – across the ear with a stick), it actually ratchets up the violence, as Conny turns to his delinquent (possibly psychotic) older brother to exact his revenge. But Oskar is no longer alone in the world.

The ending is very powerful. Just how far will Oskar go to guard their secret and protect Eli from the world? And how far will Eli go to protect Oskar in turn? These are the questions posed by what is easily one of the best films I’ve seen all year, and the best vampire film I’ve seen in ages. If it’s not playing near you, definitely seek it out when it’s released on DVD. Simply an excellent film. (in Swedish with English subtitles)

© Copyright 2008 by L.L. Soares

In the Swedish film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, lonely 12-year-old Oskar befriends a girl named Eli, who just happens to be a vampire.

 

 

 


In the Spooklight: THE WICKER MAN (1973)

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Classic Films, In the Spooklight with tags , , , , , , on September 17, 2010 by knifefighter

Since Britt Ekland was my choice for the sexiest performance in a horror film for her work in THE WICKER MAN (1973) in last month’s MONSTROUS QUESTION OF THE MONTH, here’s my column on- you got it!- THE WICKER MAN, which was first published in 2005.  This one also happened to be my 50th IN THE SPOOKLIGHT column. -Michael Arruda

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE WICKER MAN (1973)
by Michael Arruda

Welcome to the 50th “In the Spooklight” column!  Time flies when you’re having fun!

It’s been a wonderful journey for me, writing about the horror movies I know and love, starting back in August 2000 when the first column was published in the HORROR WRITERS ASSOCIATION (HWA) INTERNET MAILER by then editor Judi Rohrig!  Thanks, Judi!  And thanks to all of you readers who hopefully have had as much fun reading the column as I’ve had writing it!

In honor of the occasion, the 50th column will look at one of the more bizarre, offbeat yet effective chillers of the 20th century, a film you don’t often hear a lot about, THE WICKER MAN (1973), starring Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward.

First a couple of words about what THE WICKER MAN is NOT.  With a cast that includes Lee and Ingrid Pitt, two Hammer Film veterans, one might expect this to be a Hammer-type film.  It’s not.  Not by a long shot.

It’s also not really a horror film.  It’s an art film, actually, the type of film you’d see at that specialty cinema which shows foreign films.  You wouldn’t find it playing at the multiplex at your local mall.  This being said, THE WICKER MAN is still scary, and when it’s over, you’re left feeling uneasy, uncomfortable and even a little nauseous.

THE WICKER MAN tells the story of a policeman (Edward Woodward) called to an island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl.  He discovers a strange pagan society that practices sexual rituals that don’t sit well with his conservative Christian religious views.

Christopher Lee plays the leader of this society, Lord Summerisle.  Lee delivers a deliciously understated performance, resplendent with nuances and subtleties.  Here, he’s not Dracula, Fu Manchu or even Count Dooku.  Lord Summerisle is not your typical Christopher Lee performance.  As a result, it’s one of his best; certainly his most natural.

Likewise, Edward Woodward (who would achieve TV fame years later in the popular TV series THE EQUALIZER) is terrific as the policeman, in a role originally intended for Peter Cushing.

And Britt Ekland is as sensuous a siren as you’ll see on screen.  The “siren song” scene where she sings to Woodward through the bedroom wall is so charged with sexual energy— just keep some cold water handy!

The film hooks you into its plot from the get-go, as soon as Woodward begins his investigation.  It initiates a level of suspense which continually builds until it reaches an unforgettable climax that smacks you upside the head with an ending that would make M. Night Shyamalan wish he’d written it!

The script by Anthony Shaffer is top-notch, with enough twists and turns to really keep you guessing.  Is the little girl alive?  Dead?  Does she even exist?  Robin Hardy directed the film, and he fills it with images that are both memorable and haunting, especially the image of the wicker man at the film’s conclusion.

Now, there are two versions of THE WICKER MAN out there.  There’s the cut 88 minute print which is the version originally released in the U.S., after it was severely edited by U.S. distributors who hated the film.  There’s also the newly restored 103 minute print, which obviously is the definitive version of the film.

Now that summer is over, school is back in session, and there’s a general feel of getting back to business, it’s time to exchange the fluff for some serious adult horror viewing.  It’s time for THE WICKER MAN, a true masterpiece of the genre.

—END—

© Copyright 2005 by Michael Arruda

GEISHA OF GORE Looks at Chan-wook Park’s VENGEANCE TRILOGY

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Asian Horror, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Geisha of Gore Reviews, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , on August 4, 2010 by knifefighter

Geisha of Gore: Chan-wook Park’s VENGEANCE TRILOGY
by Colleen Wanglund

Chan-wook Park is a Korean director from Seoul, who was inspired to get into filmmaking after seeing Alfred Hitchcock’s VERTIGO (1958).  The film that put him on the map was JSA: JOINT SECURITY AREA (2000), and just last year he released THIRST, his first horror movie.  Park has developed a reputation for brutal subject matter…and he isn’t one for happy endings.  While not technically horror films, the movies of his “Vengeance Trilogy”—SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE (2002), OLDBOY (2003), and LADY VENGEANCE (2005)—are just as bloody and violent as most horror movies I’ve seen.  All three deal with people who have fallen to the lowest depths; they are broken and grieving and just trying to deal with the hand fate has dealt them.

First in the trilogy is SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE (2002), where we meet Ryu, a deaf-mute who is caring for his sister, who has become ill.  Ryu dropped out of school and got a job to take care of her.  His sister needs a kidney transplant and they are waiting for a donor.  As she gets sicker, Ryu gets desperate and goes to see an illegal organ trafficker.  In exchange for one of his kidneys and whatever money he has saved, Ryu’s sister will get a kidney that’s an exact match for her.  Well, they ripped him off.  Within a few days, Ryu loses his job and is told by the doctor that there is a donor for his sister and he just has to pay for the operation—with money he no longer has.  Even more desperate than before, Ryu and his childhood friend/girlfriend Cha Yeong-mi come up with a plan to kidnap Yu-sun, the young daughter of his former boss, Mr. Park.  They see it as no big deal.  Grab the kid, tell the father no cops, demand a ransom and give the kid back.  Unfortunately that kidnapping will set off a chain of events that results in tragedy.

SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is easily the most brutal of the three films, not so much for violence (although there is plenty) but for the emotion it conveys.  It’s simply a raw look into the lives of regular people and the desperation they can feel at the circumstances they find themselves in.  Park pulls no punches here, tugging at your heartstrings the whole way through.  This is one of the most depressing movies I’ve ever seen, but it is so worth watching.  We are never told Ryu’s sister’s name, but we see the relationship they share.  She gave up college so he could go to art school and Ryu quit art school so he could care for his sister.  She didn’t know Ryu lost his job, the money he had saved or one of his own kidneys.  When Ryu brought Yu-sun, the little girl he kidnapped, to the house, he told his sister they were caring for her as a favor to his boss.  She eventually finds out about his job loss by accident, while doing the laundry.  He was only trying to protect her, but she now felt like a burden—something she never wanted.

What I found while watching MR. VENGEANCE, is that both Ryu and Mr. Park are very much alike.  Mr. Park spent his life working hard and making money to support his family.  Even though he is divorced, he loved his daughter and would do anything for her.  All of the choices that Ryu makes are for his sister, even though it ends in tragedy for everyone involved.  Neither Park nor Ryu want the outcome they receive; they just want the best for their loved ones and, when things went horribly wrong, they want revenge.  What contrasts with all of the mayhem to come is a scene in which Ryu and Yu-sun are watching television and end up play-fighting over the remote control.   He lets her win and they watch a cartoon together.  Unfortunately this playfulness is short-lived.  This scene is the most powerful in the whole movie.  We don’t see a kidnapper and his victim; what we do see is a little girl and a young man displaying affection for each other. I actually think it’s meant to mirror the affection that Ryu and his sister have for each other. This scene makes everything that comes after it even more tragic.

Based on a Japanese manga by Nobuaki Minegishi (which I have read), the second film in the series, OLDBOY (2003), tells the story of Dae-su Oh, a man who was inexplicably grabbed off the street one night and locked in a room for fifteen years.  He spends that time watching television, working out and teaching himself to fight.  He has also been thinking about revenge and paying attention to what’s going on around him.  After those fifteen years he is just as suddenly and inexplicably released.  He awakens on the street dressed in a suit with money and a cell phone in his pockets.  One of the first things Dae-su does is get drunk.  Then he starts eating dumplings….the very same thing he was fed every day for fifteen years.  He meets a young girl who takes pity on him and brings him home with her to get some sleep.  He explains to her what happened to him and that he’s eating dumplings at all different places because he remembers the taste; when he finds the right dumplings he’ll be on his way to finding his captors.  The girl, Mi-do, continues to let Dae-su stay with her and she eventually falls in love with him—though he insists their arrangement is only temporary.  Dae-su finds his dumplings and his captors.  After one of the coolest fight sequences I’ve ever seen in a movie—Dae-su takes on twenty guys with just a hammer—he finds out that someone paid to have him “jailed”.  Woo-jin Lee, the man with an apparent grudge, knows Dae-su is looking for him, so Woo-jin goes to him.  Dae-su would like nothing more than to kill him, but Woo-jin teases him with the reason for the grudge. Woo-jin is ruthless, but he is so blinded by hatred that he can’t see his own role in the perceived wrong that Dae-su did to him.

OLDBOY is a sentimental favorite of mine because it was actually the first movie I watched from the trilogy.  What I enjoy about OLDBOY is it has the most involved plot of the three movies.  There’s a lot going on with Dae-su’s single-minded drive to get his vengeance, the mob that runs the private prison and why Woo-jin felt the need to go as far as he did.   Just as in SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, both of the main characters are a lot alike.  They each have something precious taken from them and they each think only of getting revenge.  For both men, their need for vengeance is selfishly motivated.  The difference here, though, is that Woo-jin is partly responsible for his loss, but he refuses to see that.  While working to destroy another man’s life, Woo-jin has destroyed his own.

LADY VENGEANCE (2005), the final film in the trilogy, begins with Geum-ja Lee’s release from prison after serving thirteen years for the kidnap and murder of a six-year-old boy.  She is mobbed by the media, her supporters and protesters who think she should rot in prison for the rest of her life.  What they don’t know is that she is innocent.  At sixteen, Geum-ja Lee became pregnant by her English teacher Mr. Baek (played brilliantly by Min-sik Choi who played Dae-su Oh in OLDBOY), who is also the actual murderer.  Baek talks her into taking responsibility for the crime by telling her that she’ll get to keep her baby and they’ll go easy on her because she’s young and female. However, her daughter is immediately put up for adoption and her prison experience is a difficult one.  Upon her release, Geum-ja gets a job in a bakery and begins her plans for revenge; she reestablishes contact with former inmates who have agreed to help her.  She also goes to Australia to visit her daughter Jenny, who insists that Geum-ja take her back to Korea with her for a visit.  It is while Jenny is in Korea that, with the help of a former inmate, Geum-ja is able to subdue Baek and take him to an abandoned school.  Geum-ja is all set to kill Baek to get her revenge when Jenny interrupts her and asks why?  Why does she want revenge like this and why did she give Jenny up?  Jenny forces Geum-ja to take a step back and see the bigger picture.  Maybe there’s another way for Geum-ja to get what she wants?

LADY VENGEANCE is another great film.  You can’t help but sympathize with Geum-ja.  She spent all of her adult life in prison and it was hell.  She was abused on an almost daily basis.  I think what finally makes Geum-ja realize she is a strong person is when it is believed that she killed a female prisoner who had been abusing her and several of the others.  That act also garnered her respect among the other inmates.  It wasn’t long after this incident, when she began formulating a plan for revenge.  What I like about LADY VENGEANCE is its minimal use of dialogue.  Park is able to get his actors to convey the feelings behind the words through their actions and tone of voice.

LADY VENGEANCE has a different feel compared to the other two films in the trilogy.  For one thing, unlike in the first two movies, the protagonist is a strong female character.  Secondly, there is no mirror character of Geum-ja; no Ryu to her Park or Woo-jin to her Dae-su.  This is also the only movie in which there may be any satisfaction felt by any of Park’s characters.  The object of revenge in LADY VENGEANCE is a child murderer who probably deserves what Geum-ja wants to do to him.  I don’t think Woo-jin received any satisfaction for what he did to Dae-su because there seemed to be no end to his hatred; and I definitely believe there was no satisfaction felt by either Ryu or Park.

These are all fantastic movies full of cruel, hardcore tragedy; there are no happy endings and a lot of blood is spilled.  They have plenty of twists and turns, so you can never tell where Park is going with his stories.  One thing that always makes a good movie is an unexpected ending, and I can guarantee you’ll get that with the Vengeance Trilogy.  If you ever get the chance, see these movies—all three of them.  Better yet, buy the Vengeance Trilogy on DVD, because I think you will love these movies as much as I do.

© Copyright 2010 by Colleen Wanglund

THE FALL

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Daniel Keohane Reviews, Fantasy Films with tags , , , , on June 15, 2010 by knifefighter

DVD REVIEW: THE FALL
by Daniel G. Keohane

(2006, DVD released 2009)

From the opening credit sequence, shot in black & white with a beautiful rendition of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 – Allegro playing along, you know you’re in for a visual treat in THE FALL (2006). From a montage of scenes during the credits – Old West cowboys waving their hats from a bridge; a steam engine locomotive; two men in the water thrashing about; the final image of a dead horse lifted from the water by a crane – you’d expect a Western. It’s a beautiful, haunting opening, and sets the stage for what I feel is a beautiful, haunting film.

It’s not a Western. Though I usually review science fiction movies, the closest this comes is fantasy, along the lines of BIG FISH (2003), only darker. THE FALL is a fairy tale for adults, one told by a depressive and visualized by a five year old.

The setting: early 20th century California. What we experienced in the opening credits was a stunt filmed for a silent Western movie gone horribly awry. When the stuntman leaped, on horseback, from a trestle bridge, the fall left the horse dead and the man paralyzed. These details are spoon fed to the viewer through half-gleaned snippets of conversation overheard by the true star of the film, a five year-old girl with a broken arm named Alexandria.

Alexandria is a patient in the children’s ward of a hospital. She is played by Romanian newcomer Catinca Untaru. Untaru is without a doubt the most adorable little girl you will ever see on the big screen. Though this movie was extremely good, visually stunning with some excellent acting, it would have been only a fraction as good without this girl playing the lead. Untaru shines with sincerity and heart-wrenching cuteness. All that, plus send me off a bridge on horseback if she can’t act.

When Alexandria tosses a personal note for her nurse out the window, it blows onto the lap of the stuntman one floor below. After a cute scene of this kid wandering about the hospital, arm raised in a cast, our characters come together. Roy the stuntman, played with quiet intensity by Lee Pace (from the TV series PUSHING DAISIES, 2007-2009), returns her note and, because of her name, tells the girl a legend about Alexander the Great, a story I remember learning in history class myself, but which has nothing to do with the movie, so let’s move on. She comes back the next day for a new story, for he’s promised her an “epic tale” which becomes the other, driving storyline running in parallel with the real world tale of Roy and Alexandria.

Their friendship is immediate, and feels very real on the screen. Her attraction to the fallen stuntman is more obvious than his is to her. Her father was killed by a mob (or some robbers, the reasons are never clearly explained even in a later flashback). She speaks of it matter-of-factly, but it had a strong impact on her, as is obvious when Roy’s story progresses and becomes darker and more violent. It also accounts for her sudden closeness with this stranger. He becomes a replacement father figure (smarter reviewers than I would probably have used some vague New Yorker style French term there, I suppose – I could have said “He becomes a Zweizig father” and impress some of you, but since Zweizig means “twenty” in German, I’d only be bluffing).

This is a period piece. I have to assume it’s historically accurate, but the cool thing about this movie is it doesn’t try to explain itself or life in the 1920’s, some of  which might seem alien to us ninety years later. It simply is what it is – or was – for the time. Because you have to accept it at face value without some clever narrative trick to explain to us modernites, it feels more real, immerses you in the setting – it did for me, at least – and adds a bit of surrealism to the real world setting.

Roy tells the story to her, but seen from Alexandria’s perspective, with each character played by someone significant in her life. This difference lends an odd twist to the visuals, since at times what Roy actually says and what is played out are at odds with each other. One character is an “Indian.” Roy uses terms like “wigwam” and “squaw” but she visualizes a prince from the country of India. The tale revolves around six exiled characters vowing vengeance on the evil Governor Odious for personal reasons. The Indian’s companions are an ex-slave, an explosives expert named Luigi, Naturalist Charles Darwin and his pet monkey Wallace, a “Mystic” and lastly the masked Black Bandit who must save his twin brother from Odious’ evil clutches. In Alexandria’s mind, Roy is the bandit. Their adventure begins with an escape from island exile on the back of a swimming elephant – no, seriously. I still don’t know if they found a swimming elephant for this scene or if it was some kind of special effect. I think it was real. The characters are odd, and generally stay within their two-dimensional personas throughout. The actors portraying them, mostly unknowns, don’t have a lot of room for character development, except for the brief moments they get to appear as their real-world counterparts.

Initially, the epic tale is a goofy fairy tale/adventure. Alexandria becomes lost in the story. As it continues, Roy falls deeper into depression (both over his injuries and a seriously broken heart), and so it takes darker and darker turns, such as when the brother is found horribly murdered by Odious. Alex often interrupts the story and insists Roy change it when this happens. Sometimes he does. Sometimes he doesn’t.

Each character wears a particular brightly-colored outfit, often in contrast to the starkness of a desert scene or stone buildings of the exotic cities they visit. The locations are real, shot in nearly two dozen countries if the long list of locales in the closing credits is any indication. All of this works to make this film an incredible, visual feast. (Sorry for the flowery writing. Never write a review when you’re hungry.)

When not narrating the tale, Roy’s depression drives him to convince Alexandria to sneak into the dispensary and steal morphine, under the auspices of helping him to sleep. His plan, however, is suicide. His growing determination to kill himself runs parallel to the girl’s growing love for this sad, broken man.

The interplay between Roy and Alexandria is the glue in this story, and I’m not exaggerating saying I’d be hard-pressed in all the films I’ve seen to find better chemistry between two actors. I often wondered if the filmmakers outlined a scene for Untaru and Pace to perform, then let them improvise. They must have, as brilliant a screen personality Untaru is, she was only 5 years old! How she could memorize not only the lines but also how to speak them? I’ll assume many of their one-to-one exchanges were improvised to a point, then. A wonderful example is one in which she steals a Eucharist wafer from the chapel and shares it with Roy, thinking it is a cookie. Roy asks if she is trying to save his soul. She has no idea what he’s talking about. He presses the point, but she simply doesn’t get it. They could have edited the scene down, but they didn’t and I’m glad. It’s a beautiful interchange between adult and child.

Roy’s depression deepens, and his epic tale grows more violent, to the point where you understand why this movie has an R rating. Alexandria senses the undercurrent of meaning in Roy’s story, overhearing words like suicide floating about and seeing signs of death around her. She insinuates herself into the story, in order to right the plot, becoming an actual character – the Black Bandit’s daughter.

THE FALL feels a lot like a foreign movie both for the myriad exotic locations mentioned above, and the heavy focus on character development over linear plot progression at times.  It is also a remake of the Bulgarian film YO HO HO (1981), directed by Zako Heskija, and kept close to the original’s plot.

I did have a couple of issues with the movie. The first is a bit two-handed, complaint and compliment. Ever watch one of those movies where the dialogue sounds and feels real, to the point that you’ve got no idea what they’re actually saying because the actors are mumbling too much? Much of the dialogue between Roy and his agent/lawyer is done this way, as background mutterings. What they’re saying is key to understanding why Roy is depressed, and how badly. Many conversations between him and Alexandria, hiding in their private world under the bed curtains, are whispered. The fact that Untaru is a little kid with missing front teeth didn’t help matters. I found myself rewinding a bit and replaying a scene with the subtitles, then eventually left them on so I wouldn’t miss any lines.

Another issue relates to the fact that I can be slow on the uptake. I occasionally forgot that the fantasy story was played out in Alex’s imagination, off-kilter from Roy’s words. His heart was broken by the lead actress of the Western, and puts her into his story as the love / hate interest. We see, playing the role, Alexandria’s caretaker Nurse Evelyn (Justine Wedell) and not the movie star. A couple of scenes were confusing with this wrong-character approach, because I was lost as to who was who and how they related to each other. It took me sorting out my thoughts writing this review to realize some of the subtler points.

Regardless of these minor issues, THE FALL is a brilliantly made, and well-acted film. It was directed by Tarsem Singh, known for only one other film – THE CELL (2000), a serial killer movie which I actually thought was extremely clever and well done (and I usually hate serial killer movies). Like many foreign films I’ve enjoyed (because as you know, only cool people watch foreign films), THE FALL doesn’t wrap things up with a ribbon and bow, but it comes pretty close, and it doesn’t have to. Well, OK, it does, but like the finale of LOST (2010, or 1976, no, 2004, or is it 1390?) it takes a while to sink in. Watch this movie for the stunning, award-winning cinematography and exotic locations, the brilliant writing and the best interplay between lead actors (Catinca Untaru and Lee Pace) I’ve had the pleasure to experience in a film in a long, long time.

THE FALL is not a standard fantasy film, but it is a very human, very unique drama with fantasy elements – the fantasies of a child and a man blending together as each deal with a world that hurt them. A story of love lost and found, and most of all the love of a parent and child, whether biological or not. I know, all this sentimentality is going to get me beaten up at recess. If you’re not one who likes this kind of tear-jerking drama, or if your first instinct on seeing a small child playing with a toy is to sneak up and kick her in the behind, this might not be the best film for you.

I promise not to give four out of five “things” to every movie I review, but I will this time. I give THE FALL four Adorable Child Actors out of five, with the caveats above. But if you aren’t charmed by Untaru’s performance or at least smile when Wallace the playful monkey comes on scene, then you’re probably a dangerous sociopath anyway and I’m taking you off my Christmas list. (Well, OK, Wallace the playful monkey was a little creepy….)

-END-

© Copyright 2010 by Daniel G. Keohane

Suburban Grindhouse Memories: GANJA & HESS

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Classic Films, Grindhouse, Suburban Grindhouse Memories with tags , , , , on May 13, 2010 by knifefighter

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 they 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

CHLOE

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Campy Movies, LL Soares Reviews, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , on April 20, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: CHLOE
By L. L. Soares

(THE SCENE: a diner. LL SOARES sits at a table near the back. A blonde woman sits down across from him)

BLONDE: Do you have the pictures.

LS: Sure (takes out a large envelope)

(He spreads out several photographs across the table top. They are all of a man golfing)

BLONDE: What’s this? You were supposed to get me evidence that he was cheating.

LS: Nope. No cheating. He’s just been golfing.

BLONDE: Dammit (Gets up from the table) I could have sworn he was cheating on me.

(She pays him and leaves, not even bothering to take the photos with her. LS puts them back in the envelope)

(Cell phone rings)

LS: Oh hi. Yep, I did damage control. Now what about that party you were going to invite me to? (LAUGHS)

(MICHAEL ARRUDA enters and sits down at his table)

MA: Who were you talking to?

LS: Nobody. It’s about time you got here.

MA: I wasn’t able to see the movie this week. It was only playing a week in my town, and it’s already gone. Looks like you’re going to have to do this one alone.

LS: No problem.  A lot of times I feel like I’m reviewing these things alone, anyway.

MA:  I wish I could say that!

(WAITRESS COMES OVER)

LS: Order some breakfast. I’ve got a movie to review.

CHLOE is the new movie by Atom Egoyan – an arthouse staple and the filmmaker responsible for such quirky films as THE ADJUSTOR (1991) and EXOTICA (1994), as well as one Oscar-nominated film, THE SWEET HEREAFTER (1997).

He’s also dabbled in horror themes a few times, including FELICIA’S JOURNEY (1999), featuring Bob Hoskins as a caterer who watches videos of his mom’s old cooking show when he’s not trying to lure women into a lethal trap.

MA: So is CHLOE a horror movie?

LS: Not really. If anything, I think it would fall into the “quirky” category. But you did say you wanted me to review it for some reason.

MA: I said I wanted US to review it, because it sounded like a cool movie.  It just didn’t last long enough for me to catch it.  Anyway, go on.

LS: CHLOE is a remake of a French film called NATHALIE (2003) starring Emmanuelle Beart.  And it’s kind of a variation on FATAL ATTRACTION (1987), but without the boiling bunny. The storyline is actually very simple.

MA:  No boiling bunny?  How horrible!

LS:  Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) thinks that her husband David (Liam Neeson) is having an affair. Devestated by this realization, she desperately wants to catch him in the act. That’s where Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) comes in.  Chloe is a young call girl who works in the neighborhood where Catherine, a gynecologist, has her practice. She often stares out the window between patients, watching Chloe going about her daily routine.

After David misses his surprise birthday party under suspicious circumstances, Catherine goes to the nightclub where Chloe meets customers and hires her to seduce her husband. Actually, she doesn’t want  it to go as far as sex – she just wants Chloe to temp David and prove that he’s interested in other women. Catherine pays her and waits for the results.

Chloe goes to the diner where David has his breakfast each day, and asks for the sugar. They exchange glances, and Chloe later reports to Catherine that he did indeed take the bait, but is taking it slow, because he says he’s a married man. Catherine hires Chloe to meet with her husband a second time. This time Chloe relates a story of increases intimiacy, and sex in the back room of a greenhouse.

Meanwhile, a kind of sexual chemistry begins to stir between Catherine and Chloe. As Chloe tells her stories of sexual encounters, Catherine feels a strange connection with the husband she loves, but whom she feels has drifted away from her after so many years of marriage. The connection between them is Chloe. But as things get more heated, Catherine retreats, and says that she doesn’t want to continue their arrangement.

That’s when things get complicated. Chloe doesn’t want to let go and is hurt that she is suddenly being dismissed from the case. She begins a relationship with Catherine’s teenage son Michael (Max Theiriot), to stay close to Catherine, and things just get creepier from there. And there are a few unsettling revelations as the story unfolds.

The acting is very good. Julianne Moore is always an extremely watchable actress. And Neeson, who has a rather thankless role, does what he can with it. Seyfried continues to impress. Her career has mostly been in television so far, in shows like VERONICA MARS and HBO’s BIG LOVE. But she gave a stand-out performance in JENNIFER’S BODY (mostly because she acted circles around Megan Fox), and is actually on the edge of real stardom with mainstream films like the recent love story, DEAR JOHN Her acting career continues to bloom, and CHLOE certainly doesn’t do anything to stop that momentum. But CHLOE is a small, indie film, that only got limited release, so it’s not going to do a lot to increase her exposure, either.

(MEGAN FOX is sitting at a nearby table and taps on the formica loudly)

FOX: Come on now. I am a GREAT actress. How dare you say otherwise.

LS: Well, I will admit I’m a fan. I’m just not sure it’s for your acting.

FOX (waves statue): Look, I even got an Oscar.

LS (eyes bulge): Where did you get that?

FOX: I stole it! But I’ll win one of my own soon enough. TRANSFORMERS III will be out before you know it.

MA: Enough chatting with the other customers. Back to the review.

LS: Sure thing, bossy. There is a real heat between Moore and Seyfried in this movie, though, and those sexual sparks are exactly what make this movie work. The script isn’t exactly a work of art.  As you watch CHLOE, you’ll find the plot twists predictable, and the dialogue often absurd. There are key scenes that come off as almost silly, and this is no doubt why many critics gave it negative reviews when it first came out.

However, I saw CHLOE as kind of a guilty pleasure. It certainly isn’t Egoyan at his most profound, but it’s a lot of fun. It didn’t matter that the script wasn’t always convincing, the actors take this flawed material and run with it, making it very entertaining.  Since this one is probably gone from most theaters at this point, I’ll have to suggest people check it out on DVD when it comes out. It’s not brilliant, but you might get a kick out of it. I know I did.

MA: I just ordered us some pie. You wanted blueberry, right?

LS: Sure.

(AGENT DALE COOPER looks up from his cup of coffee)

COOPER: The pie here is wonderful. I haven’t had any this good since I left Twin Peaks.

LS: Well, our time is up. I guess I’ll take that pie to go.

MA: Until next week! See you then.

LS: Maybe next week you’ll actually see the movie.

-END-

© Copyright 2010 by L.L. Soares

Two Highlights of 2009: ANTICHRIST and WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

Posted in 2009, Art Movies, Extreme Movies, Kids Movies, LL Soares Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , on December 28, 2009 by knifefighter

(Since Michael and I are currently working on a BEST OF 2009 list of movies that most impressed us, I thought I’d post some solo reviews here of movies I enjoyed this year that didn’t appear in Cinema Knife Fight columns. The following are just two highlights of a good movie year.~LS)

ANTICHRIST

Lars von Trier is an acquired taste. Not everyone likes his films. Most of them, like BREAKING THE WAVES, DOGVILLE and DANCER IN THE DARK are actually pretty challenging for the viewer. Von Trier’s approach and subject matter is definitely the work of a true auteur, but he is no stranger to controversy. ANTICHRIST is no different.

This isn’t von Trier’s first foray into horror. His early TV series, THE KINGDOM, (collected as two full-length films for American distribution), may have been his masterpiece. It’s layered, fascinating, and features some really great acting. It was also the source material for the Stephen King TV series KINGDOM HOSPITAL, which only seemed to hit its stride toward the end of its run, and never reached the level of quality found in von Trier’s original.

But where THE KINGDOM is perhaps von Trier’s most accessible work, ANTICHRIST is not an easy ride. This time around, von Trier gives us some of his most shocking and violent imagery, and it’s far from clear and straightforward. But it is, in several ways, even more successful as a horror film.

It is broken into several chapters, and begins with a strange, slow-motion sequence where a couple (Willem DaFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) make love, while their child gets up out of his crib, walks around the house, and eventually falls from an open window.

The couple suffer from great grief after the death, as any parents would, but where DaFoe’s character seems to be able to go on with his life, his wife can’t let go. She has become emotionally crippled by depression and can’t leave their apartment. Her doctor also prescribes lots of medications.

DaFoe’s character is a therapist and tells her he wants her to stop taking all the medications, and he’ll help her get through this using therapy. She agrees. Part of the therapy involves the two of them going to a cabin in the woods where they used to vacation when they were younger. The forest is called Eden.

Once they get there, things seem to be improving, and she seems on the verge of a breakthrough. But this is deceiving. Instead, she slips into violent insanity, harming both her husband and herself. There are some pretty rough scenes involving stuff like genital mutilation (it seems that, since they were having sex when the boy fell, their very sexuality needs to be punished – and it’s pretty graphic). There’s also something about ancient witches who used to live in the forest, and there are animals who talk, in particular a fox who tells DaFoe that “Chaos reigns.”

Not everything in ANTICHRIST is clear and easily figured out. There are some aspects that will have you scratching your head. But there are also images that will haunt you long afterwards. This movie is not for the squeamish, but it does venture into territory we don’t often see in movies. It’s a powerful, transgressive film, and one of von Trier’s best works.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

This is a movie I’d been waiting to see for a long time. Supposedly, when it was first finished, Spike Jonze’s adaptation of the classic Maurice Sendak children’s book, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, was deemed too dark by test audiences. There were rumors it might not get released. But the more I heard about it, the more I wanted to see it.

Now that it’s finally been released, I can understand the criticism. WILD THINGS is not your typical kids’ movie by any stretch. In fact, it could be argued, it’s not a kids’ movie at all. It just happens to have a kid as its main character, but the themes it explores are quite deep.

Sendak’s original book was fairly simple and involved the wolf-costume wearing Max feeling lonely and going to an island full of oversized monsters. It was about stuff like rebellion and loneliness.

But if the movie was completely faithful, it wouldn’t have lasted half an hour. So there’s a backstory now, and the monsters are much more developed, and have an awful lot to say.

Max (Max Records) is a lonely, hyperactive kid (some would say a brat) who doesn’t seem to have any friends. But he does have boundless energy. His single mom (Katherine Keener) supports him and his older sister, Claire. When Max surprises Claire’s friends by chucking snowballs at them, they chase him down to his snow fort and destroy it, leaving him crying in the ice. Then, when he goes home, his mother is enjoying time with her new boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo). Max feels neglected and angry and makes a scene. He then runs out of the house.

This is where reality becomes fantasy. Max runs down to the shoreline where he finds a boat. After sailing across a vast sea, he comes upon the island of the monsters.  The monsters are huge and destructive. They seem a lot like big kids. In fact, they seem a lot like Max. At first, they want to eat Max, but he tricks them into sparing his life by telling them he’s really a king.

The monsters believe him and make him their king – because they yearn for guidance, just like Max probably yearns for a father. He has them do fun things like fight wars and sleep piled up on top of each other. But eventually, the novelty wears off, and the monsters are restless again.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is about growing up. Not just for Max, but for the strange beasts he rules over as well. The monsters are complex, fascinating characters in their own right, especially Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini), who loves to destroy things – a habit that often alienates him from those he loves best. Another monster, K.W.(Lauren Ambrose) is the object of Carol’s affection, but she leaves the group several times, looking for something more. Max does what he can to bring Carol and K.W.together. But there’s only so much he can do.

He gets the creatures to join together to build the ultimate fort, where they can all live together. But the monsters’ restless nature eventually ruins things, and Max gets to watch his own behavior mirrored in the others, and he grows in the process.

WILD THINGS will make you think and feel. It’s so much more than a children’s movie. It’s a solid achievement from a director who also gave us such recent classics as BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ADAPTATION. Instead of collaborating with screenwriter extraordinaire Charles Kaufman this time around, though, Jonze co-wrote the screenplay for WILD THINGS with novelist David Eggers. It’s very satisfying and quite adult, especially in the tone of the film. These monsters explore issues of identity and mortality in their own strange way, and it’s a really interesting film.

© Copyright 2009 by L.L. Soares

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers