Book of the Dead

Well, what to say about this film? Supposedly about Tokyo’s underbelly, and described as a techno trip, it is really a film about the Tibetan Book of the Dead. It’s a film that left me with many conflicting thoughts.

Yes, it’s highly original. Yes, most of it is a feast for the eyes. Yes, the story works fine although it is rather predictable, because the complete story line is divulged within the first ten minutes or so. But it’s so long, and the middle bit just goes on and on and is very repetitive and that spoils the movie big time, for me anyway.

In fact, it was so long and drawn out that I didn’t manage to see it in one go, and although I couldn’t really be bothered to see the final half hour of it on my second day of viewing, I’m glad I still plucked up enough courage to do so, because the final ten minutes or so sort of redeemed the whole experience.

I’m not really selling it, am I?! Halfway through I was certain I was going to reward it only 2 stars, but having seen the whole thing now, I’ll be less harsh and give it a 3 out of 5. If you like originality, and you’re open to a new, wild and colourful experience, then do see this film. Just make sure you’ve got enough drinks and snacks and whatever to get you through the middle part.

Adrian

Nacho cheese

It sounds rather cheesy: white man teaches kids in black neighbourhood and his idealism doesn’t get him anywhere until he manages to help this one kid. But the great thing about this film is that it isn’t cheesy. For one, the film doesn’t ram the message home. In fact it is not really clear who is helping who in the end, or if there is any help at all. There’s no happy ending, just a glimmer of hope, maybe. On top of that, our “white hero” isn’t much of a hero really, rather a fully doped-up bum who hardly knows what he’s doing even though he does try every now and then. But that makes the film so great to watch. You’re still rooting for him but there’s never any sentimentality.

And all that brought to the screen by Ryan Gosling, the current superstar who can’t seem to put a foot wrong and is in each and every film. To be honest, he’s probably become a bit too Hollywoody, what with his Barbie shenanigans and other entertainment productions. But this film is nearly 20 years old now and so we see a much younger Gosling who’s still invested in “proper” film making.

Definitely a 4 out of 5 from me and one that I would recommend.

Adrian

Dream on.

Who is the better man?  The scoundrel who is hanged because he is a petty thief or the revered warlord who killed his father, deposed his son and led many of his men to their death, just to be able to hang on to his position of power?  That question is asked within a couple of minutes and it sort of sums up the main theme of the film beautifully.  But it gets more complicated when the petty thief has to act as the double for the dying warlord.

This interesting conflict of personalities, of integrity versus loyalty, was why I was glued to the screen for the duration of Kurosawa’s Kagemusha (The Shadow Warrior).  But it’s not just the story or the themes that are on display, Akira Kurosawa is known for creating visual splendours and Kagemusha is a marvellous example of that.  The impression of movement and near-chaos suggested by his trademark zigzagging of warriors, his use of colour culminating in a fantastical nightmare sequence, it’s all a feast for the eyes.  No wonder this film is often included when discussing the greats of cinema.

Definitely a 5 out of 5 from me, and one which I would love to have in my own library.

Adrian

Is it?

It is always an adventure to watch a Michael Haneke film. I must admit that the experience is not always a good one for me. There are quite a few films of his that I can’t stomach, that I find too violent. I know his philosophy (as I understand it) is to make us the audience think about why we watch that sort of violence when nobody’s forcing us, but sometimes it feels as if the point gets rammed home too much, as if it is actually Haneke himself who’s unhealthily obsessed with violence. That sort of leaves the ‘make the audience aware of their own motives’ philosophy with a bitter and unpleasant aftertaste.

But the thing is that Haneke has also made some truly beautiful films. Still a hard watch and very uncomfortable, but with a layering of emotions and empathy with the characters that they leave a lasting impression. For me, The Piano Teacher is one of those, as is Amour.

So yes, nobody’s forced me to watch yet another Haneke film, but curiosity made me see Happy End the other day. Sometimes referred to as Haneke’s Greatest Hits, and it is true that this film references some of his other films or repeats ways of bringing home a point. There’s a lot happening and many a character’s story to follow. There’s the now almost obligatory subject of France not dealing with its colonial past, which seems a little passé, and furthermore I would say that the apathy of the younger generation is a main theme. Rightly so, maybe, but it does not really make for an intense film.

Isabelle Huppert is in it, but she does not shine and never becomes her character, rather just remains Isabelle Huppert the actress. Jean-Louis Trintignant is in it and he is marvellous. Amazing! I could watch any film he is in, no matter for how short a period. That’s over 140 though, so maybe don’t hold me to that statement!

All in all the film plods along a bit and only at the very end does it become interesting when two stories come together to form a (happy?) end. It saves the whole film, to be honest, and makes it worthwhile to see the film again at some stage. Which I undoubtedly will. So I gave this film a 3 out of 5 initially but upon reflection and after the passage of time I think it is worth a 4 out of 5.

Adrian

That twist.

I was in a Toni Collette mood some weeks ago and added a few of her films to my yet-to-watch list, from which I sometimes buy DVDs at random. So that’s why I found myself with a copy of The Sixth Sense on my desk. And to be honest, I was wondering what on earth I had done. Why would I want to own, let alone watch, a Bruce Willis film. When I think of him, I think of action movies, alpha men, or slightly over the top comic stuff. None of which interests me much, I must say. But hey, since I had the DVD in front of me I thought I might as well give it a go.

Now, there are a lot of films I see that I like, or like very much, but there are only a few that really move me, touch me, stay with me for days. The kind of films you want to creep into, be a part of, so that you’ll never have to leave that world.

And I must say that for me The Sixth Sense is definitely one of those films. I was completely blown away by the sensitivity of the subject matter, the actors, the whole feel of it. Gripped from the very first moment. Bruce Willis was absolutely amazing, as was Toni Collette. And the young boy, Haley Joel Osment, was spellbinding.

And, yes, of course, there’s that twist in the narrative, which is why this film got/gets so much publicity, but even without it, it would have been a wonderful film.

So go and watch it, but don’t read up on it, so as not to spoil anything, and let the whole thing wash over you and take you away. I promise you it’ll be worth it!

Adrian

Shaken, shocked and scared.

I finally got round to seeing The Silence of the Lambs the other day. Having heard so much about it, mostly in terms of “couldn’t sleep for weeks after seeing it”, “scariest film ever”, and similar reviews, I was prepared to be shaken, shocked and scared. So was I?

Well, in short: no. The film did not work for me, I’m afraid. I’m not saying I think it’s a bad film. On the contrary. Jodie Foster was amazing, Anthony Hopkins was amazing. But there were too many parts of the film I didn’t care much for. The whole ‘other serial killer’ story was maybe necessary but rather graphic (was that really necessary other than to simply shock?), the whole FBI doing their work bit was nothing out of the ordinary. Even Anthony Hopkins going all cannibalistic seemed so out of character and – though clever – not awe-inspiring.

What I did enjoy tremendously was the psychological thriller part of it. The meetings between Foster and Hopkins were magical. If that had been the main thrust of the film and if they had downsized the ordinary ‘how-catch-em’ part of it, it would have been a 10 out of 10 for me. There was an amazing tension in those meetings, they both played it so well, I could easily have watched that for hours on end. As it was, it lost some of its tension because of all the other noise going on.

Last line in the film was hilarious though. I’ll give ‘em that. No, I won’t spoil it by saying what it was. Just watch the film (again?) and see what I mean.

🙂

Adrian