RossLikesMovies Reviews

Tokyo Story (1953)

More of a film to analyse than enjoy

[8/10 · 21 February 2006]

Of course that is just my opinion. Tokyo Monogatari is a marvel of the dailiness of life and the disappointment parents face. It raises relevant issues on children growing apart from their parents and a departure of values to modern times. The film is featured in many a top 10 list, its the number one film on the latest Halliwells top 1000 list. Its hard to fault.

The story is about two parents who go to visit their children in Tokyo. Though things aren't as sweet as they had imagined and the trip basically ends up being a big disappointment. The story is told in an interesting manner, often eclipsing certain events and moving on. To keep the story moving I suppose. An example of this being that the old couple are meeting their son, Keizo, before they go to see their daughter. The film goes straight to arriving at the daughters house. We do not see their visiting of their son Keizo, only hear the characters talking about it and know that it has happened.

One of the daughters, Shige is quite cold towards her parents. She doesn't pay much attention to them and is frequently cruel. Small things like her not giving them nice cake and saying the crackers are good enough for them. The parents slowly realise that their children aren't as successful as they had thought. Just another subtle way of indicating that they have not seen their children for some time. Also their daughters children not being familiar with their grandparents, another indicator.

Eventually the old folks are shipped out to a health spa. At first they feel guilty that they are inconveniencing their children further, they don't realise that they aren't very wanted. The person most kind to the couple is Noriko, the wife of one of their sons who died in the war. It is ironic how she is the kindest, yet is no blood relation.

The characters in Tokyo story are very well developed. Different assumptions can be made towards the children's indifference. Maybe times have simply changed. This is displayed well in the film through shots of modernity, trains and boats. Mod cons if you will. The camera movement in this film is also intriguing. Ozu often explores the space within a room. Maybe by following somebody around. The compositions are interesting. A lot of the camera decisions have meaning. Such as a couple sitting side by side so as not to appear confrontational. Pattern is also kept up well, people are fanning themselves in linked shots, constantly reminding the viewer that it is a hot day (common for an Ozu film) Another interesting point about the camera movement is that Ozu breaks the continuity by changing the side from which scenes are shot. A unique thing.

Overall I definitely recommend you see Tokyo story, it is a very impressive, at times heartrending piece of cinema. It shows the coldness that comes with modern times and how life may not have place for elderly people. Technically, it is at a high level. The story is told in a neat way and the whole experience is generally engaging. My only complaint is that the film at time becomes a little slow and may not always be enjoyable. But overall, its an important one. Do see it if you have a big interest in film.

Cries & Whispers (1972)

Truly a beautiful agonizing film

[9/10 · 6 February 2006]

Cries and whispers is about three sisters and a servant Anna caring for their long time sick sister. The film is very emotional in its depiction of certain death. It is a thoroughly bleak film, with a course line of wickedness, revealed as the film progresses. The characters are superbly drawn and can be interpreted in different ways. How they are portrayed on the screen and how the other characters perceive them. Making the viewer wonder who these characters really are. Very subtle, not much dialogue, though the feelings are conveyed superbly.

With little script, the film keeps up its sombre mood with an impressive performance from Harriet Andersson as the bed sick Agnes. Her performance is perfect. The pain that she is feeling and the longing for some emotion and love is sincere and saddening.

The end of the film is something of a surprise. Our beliefs of characters are built up and the first impressions seem shattered as we discover more truth.

The film is very nicely shot with some attractive general viewpoints and spectacular, extensive lighting. Shards of light with fog rolling by and example. Their are a lot of closeups and closeup two shots which work particularly well also.

To conclude I say that this is a very humane film with a special grasp of human grace and the pain of a slow death. Watch it and be amazed, though don't be surprised to feel your eyes prickling by the end.

Open Water (2003)

It ain't pretty!

[1/10 · 7 January 2006]

Let me just start by saying I am fully aware that this is a low budget independent film. So, some of my complaints are probably cruel, though justified nonetheless.

The acting is terrible. I have seen better acting in those movies which they dub with Australian voices and release on flipper disks. The acting is painful to watch, the writing is so bad and clichéd that you will want to just switch off.

The camera is cheap. Stock footage seems to have been used, even image masking in places. Their are a few continuity problems to.

The storyline is rubbish. The only original idea is to extend a boring scene into a 50 or so minute one and call it a movie, with some corny dialogue intro and ending at either end.

Just a bad, bad film really. Compare it to another American Indie like The Daytrippers and their is a huge difference in creativity, acting and just about everything else you can think of. Please, avoid this at all costs.

The Phantom of Liberty (1974)

Bonkers brilliance

[9/10 · 19 December 2005]

This is one of the first 'surreal' films that I have seen. Phantom of Liberty for the most part is quite a normal film with a structured narrative and some quite well defined characters What makes it brilliant is the fact that one minute, its just a normal film and then a scene where a family sit at a table on toilet seats is thrown at us. Followed by each family member coming to another room to eat on their own. Distorting reality. Weird! Some parts of the film are so absurd they are funny. Such as an early scene where some parents look at pictures and deem them 'disgusting' when they are just pictures of buildings. Its very strange and humorous in general.

The are minimal cuts in the camera work, shots flow together nicely. For example a two shot may not cut to an over the shoulder shot, but just adjust to it. A technique which I liked.

I found this film to be quite oddly lit. Is often dark and light is used kind of sparingly. Odd, as the film sometimes almost looks like shades of grey through its darkness.

I'm guessing that the criterion version is the way to go, I saw a version taped from TV about 6 years ago, which was at times fuzzy and grainy. Anyway, to sum up. A mad film that defies logic, is funny, shocking and engaging to the last perfect frame. Highly recommended!

Scarlet Street (1945)

Pleasant but dull

[5/10 · 13 December 2005]

My first thought about this film. It was simply average. The story was OK, probably original for the time it was made. I didn't think that Edward G. Robinson was well cast here and some of the characters actions weren't made clear enough. For example I didn't find it that obvious that the woman was abused by her boyfriend, though this is just ue to the lack of actual violence, the time it was made an all. Robinson plays a good guy. Some skanky woman latches onto him and he ends up telling her how he paints. She kind of gets the wrong impression and begins to believe that he is quite wealthy. But he is actually not. He lets her assume for a while, I guess he likes her. She stays in their to try and steal his money, which he doesn't actually have. Good concept, lacking execution. One of Fritz Langs worst film I'm afraid.

Magnificent 7 (2005 TV Movie)

Lovely and rather unique

[13 December 2005]

Helena Bonham Carter is well cast as Maggi, a Mother of three children who are each in some way autistic.

We follow their life as Maggi struggles to cope with her children. One of them has attention deficit disorder, so is constantly loud and troublesome, but harmless really. Her eldest son Christopher has aspergers so is very trusting and cannot understand things like idioms or sarcasm. I forget the name of her other childs affliction, though it causes him to stay under the table wearing goggles and earmuffs for most of the programme. Some of the situations in this are quite funny. The script does its best to be thought provoking, at times walking the narrow line between being overly sentimental or just thought provoking. The mix here is about right though.

The inquisitive Christopher meets the school caretaker Dmitri, whom he sort of becomes friends with. Eventually Dmitri meets struggling Maggi and helps her to change the rules she has imposed on her children.

When this comes around on TV in the US or wherever, I suggest you watch it. Its funny, touching and just generally nice family viewing.

The Protector (2005)

Tony Jaa's second film, on a par with Ong Bak

[9/10 · 29 November 2005]

At this time of writing, the Taiwanese vcd is the only available version of this movie. It doesn't have English subtitles, though this shouldn't mar your experience of the film, as its pretty easy to follow whats going on. Also some of the film is spoken in English. This is because the film is set in Australia. Though the story isn't the most important thing here, its mostly about the superb muay thai skills of Tony Jaa.

Tony Jaa loves elephants. From when he was young, we see that he loves the creatures. When his pet elephant is kidnapped by this strange gang. I couldn't quite follow this bit, but it seems as if these guys kill elephants and cook them up and take their ivory. Anyway, he is hell bent on getting his elephant back. So, in a way, the thin story is that of revenge.

Pretty soon, Jaa is finding the bad guys and kicking some serious ass! His side kick from Ong Bak is also in this film, this time playing a cop. So, down to what you really want to know! The fights. At times they are even better than those seen in Ong Bak. Their are some excellent scenes such as Jaa taking on a group of guys who have bikes and roller blades. Their is often a lot of impressive aeriel moves and loads more bone breaking in this, than its predecessor.

Tom Yung Goong appears to have a slightly higher budget than Ong Bak. Some of the visuals are quite impressive and some of the choreography is jaw dropping. One example of neat visuals is this fight set in water. Their is a lot of splashing, used to great visual effect.

The films finale is probably the best part of the film. A highly impressive fight with loads of baddies.

To conclude, this film is excellent! Tony Jaa is fully wearing the martial arts crown right now, he seems to get better and better. This is unmissable, don't hesitate to buy it without subtitles, as a US and UK version probably won't be available until late next year. So grab a slice of the action now!

Run Lola Run (1998)

A film you'll watch once and enjoy, but never bother with again.

[2/10 · 26 November 2005]

The first time I saw saw Lola Rennt I really enjoyed it. Its fast, with some creative cinematography but the story is so so. I suppose it was enjoyable for how unique it is. Theirs a lot of cool stuff going on here. As I didn't know how the film would go first time, its was exciting for that very reason.

Though I recently watched it for a second time and was simply bored. Lola is really a half hour film stretched to last about 80 minutes. Ie the same story is shown normally, then from a what if this happened perspective. Which sounds OK, but it is just the same film, with rather minor differences. So its just being pointlessly stretched. Just imagine if Citizen Kane played 3 times with a what if his last word wasn't roesbud alteration. Without giving anything away about this film, that is the basic result.

Overall Lola is good once, but just dull on repeat viewings. I lost interest after the first 'segment' ended. Ironically at the place the film should probably have finished if it were a short film which it really should have been.

The Third Man (1949)

Perfection.

[10/10 · 23 October 2005]

Their really isn't much more I can say about the Third Man. It is an amazing film and was a landmark in the history of cinema. Its an inimitable piece of film making in every way. Robert Kraskers photography was groundbreaking, amazing and in my eyes still the most beautiful, perfectly photographed work in history. The unique blend of creeping shadows and spectacular filming angles are one of the main standouts in the film.

Rarely has a film had a better cast. Joseph Cotten is perfect in his role as Holly Martins. Orson Welles almost steals the whole show with his almost cameo like performance as the elusive Harry Lime.

The story in the Third Man is intriguing and ultimately satisfying. It isn't the strongest point of the film, but is still admirable. The story is really just a basis for the excellent character interaction and dialogue on display.

To conclude, the Third Man is an essential film, one that should be seen by everybody. It is cinema at its most sub-lime!

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Preachy, Pretentious Filth.

[2/10 · 24 September 2005]

If this had been made as an educational video to raise awareness of drugs, it may have succeeded. Although as it stands requiem for a dream is a simple, dull story which glorifies and tries to make us sympathise with some junkies and a woman obsessed with television.

Strong themes of addiction run through Requiem for a dream. Namely the drugs. Though this, which is evidently the films main attraction, becomes boring very soon. We are repeatedly treated to scenes of Marlon Wayans smoking some kind of drug and saying "righteous man, this sh*t is good." This is basically THE film. Showing addicts taking drugs.

What makes it worse is how innovative, although ultimately pretentious and drab the camera work throughout the film is. Some of the drug scenes are just close ups of pupils dilating and the sound of a lighter sparking. This looks kind of cool the first time you see it. Though by the 100th time it gets boring and a little embarrassing. Aronofskys attempt at bringing some sort of art-house chic to this boring story, totally backfires and comes across as pretentious and silly.

Aside from the in your face drug addiction, comes the main characters Mother's addiction to a television game show. This for me is the only interesting plot line in the film. Slowly her world is taken over by her preparations to appear on this show that she idolises. The film even manages to strum up some emotion, detailing the Mother's pain, disappointment and desire to be noticed. Though we don't get this story half as much as the boredom of the drug addiction, which fills most of the films running time.

I had heard a lot of people saying how shocking and disturbing this movie was. I regret to say that it was not. Its nothing but a dull, repetitive mess with very brief glimpses of quality, added in to try and interest us in a crappy story which runs out of mileage within the first half hour. Don't bother with this. It isn't clever, entertaining or good. Its true bottom of the barrel Hollywood film making, with a shiny gloss of what could be mistaken for a good movie, and a centre of preachy dumb junk. It doesn't inspire sympathy or shock, it just kills you with boredom. Utter drivel.

Little Caesar (1931)

THE gangster film.

[9/10 · 19 September 2005]

Forget scarface, forget Goodfellas, this is the first and still the best gangster film ever made.

Edward G Robinson floods the screen with his excellent presence. The little tough guy, the daring one, the one brave enough to step forward and move up in the gangster ranks.

To me, this film is what the term gangster is all about. Drinking milk and being firm and tough. Since the dawn of scarface gangster films have been doing it all wrong. Little caesar is really the archetypal gangster movie. The 30's was the gangster era. The cars, the attire.

The film follows little caesar as he gradually climbs the gangster ladder, all the way to the top. Duping his friends and taking control, being daring and rough.

A grand film which barely seems dated. Don't say you've seen a GOOD gangster film until you've seen this.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Some nice Hitchcock style, but not one of his best.

[6/10 · 19 September 2005]

This film marks the third time that Jimmy Stewart appeared in a Hitchcock film. This time he stars alongside Doris Day.

Stewart and Day are a couple on holiday in Morocco with their son Hank. Its worth noting that this kid does quite well, as some kids in old movies are really annoying. The first hour of the film is full of excellent Hitch suspense. Mysterious characters and intrigue galore. The scenery isn't bad either.

After a dying man whispers something in Jimmy Stewarts ear, their son is kidnapped for their silence. You'll understand when you see the film. The twists throughout this part of the film are wonderful, superbly executed. Thumping suspense. The next segment of the movie follows the couples search for their son. The second half encompasses some light comedy elements with a rather cruel femme fatal. Although the main enemy isn't one of the best from a Hitch film.

My main quibble is that the film kind of fizzles out towards the end. In my opinion the film is a little to long. Although the end is quite nice and its wrapped up in a humorous way. Worth seeing I'd say but the stars save this one. By the way I think that even Doris Day out acts Jimmy in this one. She sparkles in her role I think.

Rope (1948)

Pretty fine hitchcock film.

[8/10 · 9 September 2005]

I'm going to keep this short. Rope was filmed in about 9 different takes, though tries to be one continuous shot. Though this was impossible in 1948, as film rolls were only 10 minute max.

This film stars Farley Granger (strangers on a train) and Jimmy Stewart in his first collaboration with hitchcock. 2 college friends kill a friend for the fun of it. From here on the film revolves around a party which the twisted killers hold for their friends parents.

Jimmy Stewart plays their teacher, who becomes increasingly suspicious of the boys behaviour.

Filmed in one room, this film seems more like a play. Though is very entertaining. Its funny in places and surprisingly macabre for a film made in 1948.

Definitely ones of hitchcocks best films. Recommended.

Torn Curtain (1966)

Dull and Wooden

[5/10 · 7 August 2005]

I had heard that Torn Curtain was mostly considered an inferior Hitchcock film, and I find it hard to disagree. It is leagues below the simply genius of Psycho or the complexity of Vertigo.

Here we have Paul Newman and Julie Andrews as man and wife. It turns out that Newmans character is working for the German defence or something to that effect. My plot line is blunt as to be honest the plot is pretty hazy and not very well conceived. The script simply doesn't give ample explanations as to what is going on so viewers, like myself, may be left scratching their heads from time to time.

Paul Newman is shockingly wooden and certainly wasn't fit to play this type of role. It isn't hard to see why even Hitch didn't really want Newman or Andrews in this film. Though saying that Julie Andrews performance is better but still pretty weak.

I have to say that the main reason I bought this film was because of the murder sequence I had heard so much about. This scene is excellent. Surprisingly brutal and sustained. Certainly the highlight of the film. Its just a shame that the other hour and fifty minutes are dull and lifeless in comparison.

To conclude I'm going to advise you to miss this one. Go grab a copy of a Hitchcock masterpiece like Vertigo or Rear Window and enjoy the master of suspense at his supreme best. Nothing like this tepid bore.

1-Ichi (2003 Video)

Ichi in school? Cool!

[7/10 · 26 July 2005]

Being a prequel to one of Asian cinemas master works, this film, 1-ichi has a lot to live up to. Directed this time by Takashi Miikes right hand man, Masato Tanno, the assistant director of Ichi the Killer brings a fresh take to the world of Ichi. Apparently closer to the manga than Ichi the Killer was, though I wouldn't know as I haven't seen the manga comic.

The primary setting for 1-ichi is a school, so this is presumably supposed to have taken place before Ichi the Killer. Nao Omori returns as the emotionally imbalanced Ichi, though the main character is really Teah from a Miike film the City of Lost Souls. To many people, Teah probably fills the shoes of Kakihara (Tadanobu Asano), and does an admirable job at it. He retains the coolness and equal sadism that Kakihara possessed. By the way the original music for this film was apparently composed by Tadanobu Asano, showing just one of the mans many talents.

Teah plays Dai, the toughest guy in school. After a short intro of Ichi watching a boxing match we see Dai involved in a fight. He easily wins and spots Ichi watching the fight and smiles at Dai's initial misfortune. (One of his opponents hits him on the head with a flower pot.) Dai notices Ichi watching his fights. This seems to get under his skin.

Dai remains the tough guy until Koji Chihara turns up, playing Onizame. A guy who just transferred and is a real bad ass. Its an interesting fact that Chihara forms one part of a comedy duo, who are famous in Japan. Rivalry flares up and it isn't long before their is a showdown between Ichi and Onizame. Who no one else can seem to beat up....

For much of the film Ichi's rage is suppressed and it takes a lot of bullying for him to snap. There is a lot of fighting in this film and much of it is, in my opinion more disturbing than in Ichi the Killer as it is more realistic.

The movie is also lighthearted as Dai's friends provide some comic relief. One of them has a fixation with part 3's of movies and the other one keeps changing his hair.

Masato Tanno does an excellent directing job, with some great camera work and interesting filming. Slight tinting and fading shots etc. The film evidently has a smaller budget than Ichi the Killer and some of it seems to have been shot on digi cam, though this just adds to the great look of the film.

To conclude I recommend that you see this. Its entertaining and a neat addition to the story of Ichi, who is a superb character. You don't need to have seen Ichi the Killer to enjoy this either.

Charade (1963)

It came free in the newspaper....

[9/10 · 20 July 2005]

I had never heard of this film before and was only lucky enough to come by it when it fell out of the Sunday newspaper. I wasn't prepared for a spy movie, so refreshingly and flat out brilliant, to come my way.

The film stars Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn as 2 people who meet in Paris. The 2 leads do superbly well in their respective roles. The script is top notch, funny and suspenseful at the right times.

You hear people quoting films like the godfather and Casablanca but this is chock full of witty, memorable lines. A favourite of mine being when Hepburn says to Grant, 'you know whats wrong with you?' He replies 'No', she says, 'Nothing.' This is probably more down to the 2 leads chemistry and their acting abilities, but its great stuff to watch.

Audrey Hepburns husband has been murdered. Pretty soon it arises that her husband stole some money and 3 bad guys want it back. Cary Grants character also secretly wants it, though his intentions are for the most part unclear. He befriends Hepburn. Cue romance.

The film has lots of twists and turns and people aren't who they say they are. Or are they? The movie is enjoyable to watch and superbly made. Great camera work, excellent acting and story surely make this THE underrated gem of the sixties.

North by Northwest (1959)

Nothing special

[4/10 · 15 June 2005]

In the good old days of movie making,the fifties and sixties, thrillers and horror were reliant on suspense and incinuations rather than the gore and hide from the killer type formula of today. This is, what the 'master of suspense', Alfred Hitchcock did so well. Not so with this film I'm afraid.

Cary Grant is the leading man who is mistaken for somebody else. Causing some crooks to pursue him for, err a while. Grants love interest comes in the form of Eva Marie Saint. A rather implausible and predictable twist rears its head. If you think about it, you can probably guess it without even having seen the movie.

Talking of suspense this just lack suspense. Compared to hitchcock movies such as vertigo. The bad guys just aren't threatening. They're just like cartoon monsters, they chase but they don't kill. This being pg entertainment and for the films time its understandable. Though bad guys shouldn't have been drawn in this way anyway. Surely Hitch realised that? I think that the films main downfall is that the bad guys are shown to much. Early on we know they're not threatening pursuers. Theirs no suspense damn it! The thing Hitchcock does so well in other films is disguising the miscreants, rather than showing them so much, which leaves little room for incinuations and the classic who done it question. Also the fear of what we the viewer do not know.

The fact also remains that Cary Grant isn't that good an actor. He may have been good for romantic roles but here he feels out of place. Sure, he has some good lines, Which inject humour into his character, but unlike hitchcock regular James Stewart he can't do serious that well. He just comes across as bumbling, stupid and unable to solve the films final resolution. Making things more implausible.

To conclude I'm surprised that the film is so highly acclaimed, as it really isn't a patch on the likes of psycho, vertigo or rear window.

Run and Kill (1993)

Not Billy Tang's best.

[5/10 · 30 April 2005]

You go into cat 3 films with certain expectations. You shouldn't really expect a decent storyline or any great characterisation. Basically, if you've taken the time to find one of these films, you want gore and cheesy fun! In short bursts, run and kill delivers this. Though it try's to hard to be a real film and really just ends up embarrassing itself. The story is just about Fatty (Kent Cheng) Getting drunk and accidentally recruiting somebody to have his wife killed. (she gets caught having sex with another man). As you can imagine, things go to plan. Cue lots of running around and pointless, boring scenes of woodenly acted mush of Fatty trying to hide from the mean gangsters that killed his family. The film really isn't gory enough like the untold story. I don't know about you, but I go into a cat 3 movies hoping to be grossed out and shocked. This failed miserably. Their isn't any humour either. Such as any Anthony Wong flick. It can't even be passed off as a straight up exercise in nihilism. As the actor who plays Fatty just isn't a good enough actor and isn't really able to convey strong emotions. To conclude I have to say that cat 3 films simply shouldn't try and do story and character as this just isn't what they are know for. If you want fun, gore and a generally entertaining movie just go and see Ebola Syndrome or even Dr Lamb.

The Return (2003)

A very beautiful, hauntingly realistic film.

[10/10 · 29 April 2005]

Since seeing the return scoop the golden lion and bbc4, foreign film of the year awards I just had to see it. The director certainly got the most out of his small budget. He even used non professional actors for most of the roles. Though it hardly shows as each performance is practically flawless. The three leads, the two sons and their estranged father bring a wonderful, delicate superior realism to the events going on on screen. The story is of two boys father returning after being away for 12 years. The youngest boy, Ivan seems angry at his father, that he has turned up like this. Whilst his older brother doesn't seem so wary. They three embark on a fishing trip which reveals shades of the boy's father's true persona. Every scene is simply bursting with brilliance. The acting is some of the best I've ever seen in a foreign film. (my first Russian film) Scenes are filled with subtle beauty. Photography is tremendous. Whether this is the rain falling or the mist rising on the vast lake in the morning it is splendid. A unique variety of camera techniques are used also. Wide shots meld seamlessly with low down shots. You won't see a more beautiful ending to a film. Very sad, tragic.

High Tension (2003)

The most original, scary horror movie for ages

[8/10 · 28 April 2005]

OK, so this french horror movie is a big throwback to the horror movies of the 80's. A creepy, nameless serial killer guy in the same vein as Jason Voorhees for example. Though theirs a modern twist, which I'm sure you will of heard about if you've read any number of reviews on this movie.

The story is basic. Not that this matter. Horror movies aren't that well known for their complex plots. Alex and her friend want some piece and quiet to study. So they go into the country, staying with Maries (Alex's friend) family. I think thats the right way round. Anyway, The horror begins when a mysterious man arrives in the middle of the night, at the farmhouses door.

I'm sure you can gather what happens from their. I won't spoil it. I'll just say that their are some truly horrific death scenes. Great makeup work by Gianni Rossi I have to say. The film certainly earns its NC 17 rating. Not for you squeamish people.

By about the films 70th minute a huge spanner is thrown into the works. I'm sure some of you smart Alec's will figure it out from the start. (I didn't by the way) A twist you'll either love or hate. I liked it. Upon a second viewing you realise that this is original and not just a twist tacked on for intrigue.

Finally I'll mention that theirs some quite stunning photography throughout the film. The beautiful wide shots of fields of corn shrouded by mist more than compensate for the minimal dialogue. Which makes things more tense I think.

Anyway that's all I have to say. If you want a scary movie, a clever well shot movie and something unique look no further than this. Probably the best french horror movie around.

Men Suddenly in Black (2003)

Great fun, a brilliantly inventive and stylish comedy.

[5/10 · 22 April 2005]

A comedy about adultery? Quite innovative no? This is surely what you'll be thinking all through this decent hk comedy. The story is about a group of friends who go to Thailand to cheat on their wives. They have been doing this for a while and now have a new member to their 'club'. The 'leader' Tins nephew. They all embark on this trip but things take a turn for the worse when the wives discover whats going on. For a comedy, this has a nice amount of depth to it. The character Tin, reminisces throughout the film about another member of the group who got caught by his wifey. His recollections are funny as its all taken so seriously. These men will do anything to avoid being discovered by their wives, who always seem to cotton on to their plans. They run their little trips like a business and cover their tracks as best they can. Eg they use cash at all times and come equipped with condoms! Their are some funny scenes involving condoms and the accidental use of a credit card though I won't ruin your enjoyment here. Just believe me, this is intelligent, fresh comedy. Barely a cliché in sight. The film also maintains its coolness and originality by having some great scenes. One is when the group are escaping from one brothel, they are being snapped by reporters. A tip off from the wives! Though the twist here is that the cameras make gunshot noises and the scene plays out like a gun battle. I found this funny and highly entertaining. This comedy even manages to throw in a few semi serious dramatic scenes. Their are surges of emotion which gives the viewer a nice attachment to the characters, all of whom are unique in their own ways. To conclude, this is a highly enjoyable farce. Its original and different from the get go and its simply entertaining. If you like a comedy with a little more depth than say a steven chow flick look no further than this. Oh that reminds me, nearing this films end their are some nice little cameos, which is kind of the icing on the cake to the film. ENJOY!

Ebola Syndrome (1996)

Gross but not that disturbing.

[8/10 · 22 April 2005]

I've always loved movies with Anthony Wong in them. Especially his cat 3 epics. Such as this obviously and the excellent untold story. In this Wong plays a lowly restaurant worker named Kai. Who's practically a slave. He gets all the lousy jobs. Wong like to have sex with his bosses wives though. This obviously doesn't go down very well when they find out so he moves job. In one instance when Kai is discovered practically raping the bosses wife, boss man is angry. He threatens to castrate Kai, things get out of hand and Kai ends up slaughtering his boss and his wife. Though not his daughter. Next we meet Kai 10 yeras later. Cutting up REAL frogs in grotesque detail. He is still the same low life restaurant worker, but he's moved. Anyway long story short Kai catches the ebola syndrome and becomes a carrier. I'm sure you can imagine what follows so I won't ruin it for you here. I'll just say that their are some scenes of extreme gore, although it never really feels disturbing as the scenes leading up to these events are always comedic. This is a fun film and definitely more of a gross out comedy than straight up horror. Whatever it is its great

Tokyo Psycho (2004)

A confusing crap-fest.

[1/10 · 15 April 2005]

###possible spoilers###

Tokyo psycho is about a woman who goes to a high school reunion. Before this she has received a blood stained letter saying 'you have to marry me'. From the outset this sounds quite interesting. Though unfortunately the film never developed or fulfilled my intrigue. The plot of the movie could be compared to the American horror valentine. In fact you may even call it a rip off.

The first thing that struck me was the look of the film. The director has chosen to use, in the scenes of the 'tokyo psycho' moving around, a grainy camera. Similar to video camera style. A sort of crawling, slow moving angle. Which really doesn't work that well. The film in general looks very cheap. This is obviously a very low budget production. The settings are very bland and white. I'm also guessing that the film stock was cheap as this simply doesn't look like a film. It looks unprofessional in a way I can't quite explain.

The main character, Yumi something or other, has virtually no personality. She just looks scared every now and then but has no depth whatsoever. The others characters don't fare much better. Her friend who's name I forget is also fairly wooden in her role. The only character worthy of a mention is the 'psycho'. He gives quite a demented, although random and unrelated to anything actually going on, type performance. Its almost like he stepped into the wrong film, as he seems a little out of place in this oak forest school of 'actors.'

Eventually the story of Tokyo psycho becomes dull. Its not a long film but watching it became a chore. The script is fairly lousy and takes way to many liberties in getting to the point. For example the psycho is conveniantly posing as Yumi's friends fiancé. Oh the coincidence! The 'psychos' motives are never really explained in depth either. We are simply given a shallow, cliché, this is the loner kid kind of explanation. Theirs also no specific reason why the guy chooses to pick on Yumi. Even valentine came up with a better, although still crap reason.

To conclude I have to say that I'm rather disappointed with this film. If you like films with wooden characters, a confusing, ridiculous plot and a dull storyline apply here. If not I recommend that you steer well clear. That everyone then?

By the way it never really becomes clear why the film is 'Tokyo psycho'. I don't believe that tokyo was mentioned at all. By the way the subtitles are bad. The translations are often sloppy at best. Final thought: Nice boxart, shame about the film. Its destined for the bargain bins or more accurately, the rubbish bins as thats where my copies headed. Oh and From where I'm standing it seems they translated the Japanese title incorrectly. It wasn't Tokyo Psycho, it was Tokyo Bore.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

A fast moving psycho frenetic experimental movie.

[11 December 2004]

###COULD INCLUDE SPOILERS###

Natural born killers is a strange little movie. I'd call it experimental, as their is such an array of techniques that the movie at times becomes quite dizzying. This is a great showcase for camera types and other general cinematography. In fact, some of the effects are reminiscent of kill bill. Their is a bit of everything here. Tinted green and red lense, black and white, fuzzy black and white, animation and even a satire. Which is very entertaining.

The story is almost like a modern day retelling of Bonnie and Clyde. Following the exploits of the 2 protagonists Mickey and Malory. Whom are sensationalised by the media and become somewhat cult heroes. Their killing sprees across America delight and shock the public at the same time. Turning into a crime investigation type show detailing recent killings the 'heroes' have committed. They are glamourised for murder.

At times I found the film to be quite sickening. Such scenes include Malory beating her father to death or setting her and Mickey setting mothers bed alight.

The movie also manages to incapsulate the general attitudes of the media. Showing that they will stop at nothing to gain the highest TV show ratings for example.

Despite all of natural born killers 'experimental techniques, at times it feels as if Oliver Stone was trying to hard. Certain random scenes disjoint the movie. Although others work well in its favour. Such as the satirical scene. Injecting humour and a decent back story of Malorie's character. Also her motives for killing.

Despite all the on screen chaos their is realistic, even touching depictions of Mickey and Malories love for each other. Mickey helps Malory to kill her father, as he is abusing her. From then on the majority of destruction is needless but carries the plot along nicely.

In conclusion I enjoyed natural born killers very much. Its not a classic in my opinion but still remains highly watchable. With both the leads giving excellent acting performances. It also highlights some of the medias 'issues' very effectively.

Elephant (2003)

The hardest question is why

[8/10 · 6 November 2004]

Elephant is quite an arty film, realistically capturing the essence of the tragic Columbine massacre. Gus Vant Sant films this movie, with a 'chase' style camera. Following students throughout their 'normal day' until the terrible climax.

This is a film you probably will not enjoy. The whole film just isn't very interesting. Some of the characters throughout are believable and well depicted. Although for 1 original character comes a thousand stereotypes. The bullied kid, the body conscious cheerleaders types etc.

The film never becomes personal. You cannot relate with any of the characters. But, this may well be the films strong point. Somehow, I'm not sure how, but this manages to make you feel for the characters at the films end. Especially the unpopular kind of girl that hangs about in the library. I forget her name.

The questions raised about the killers motives just aren't their either. It just seems as if Van Sant has set out to say, 'video games are evil and strange reclusives types shouldn't get educated about Hitler.' This is quite disappointing. If the movie had focused a little more upon plausible explanations and less 2d characterisation.

Even though this film can be weak at times the ending is very sad. The filming is haunting and stayed with me after I'd watched the movie. Its not the best 'based upon a true story' film ever made, but is still interesting enough to be in my top 10 movies at the moment. Recommended, but not really for entertainment. Mainly for insight. 7/10