Change Your Image
benthelazar
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Irréversible (2002)
Nasty, brutish and utterly pointless
Say you were reading a novel. The reputation of this novel preceded it, it had been called one of the most intense ever written. The novel is 11 chapters long, and those chapters are only one or two long protracted sentences each. The second to last chapter is beautiful and brilliant. It recontextualizes the chapters that preceded it, and is so perfectly written that it feels like a privilege that you get to read it. But the remaining ten chapters ranged from pointless to artistically and morally inexcusable. Would you still read the novel?
Gaspar Noe's Irreversible consists of 11 scenes, many of them seemingly filmed in one take. It is one of the most self indulgent films I've seen. It fails to make any point or to have any meaningful aesthetic; instead it simply exists to show that Noe could make a film like this. This is the greatest sin a film can commit. It's fine to make bold visionary films, it's fine to make films as unpleasant as this. But to make them for ego, and not for characters, ideas, stories or images is reprehensible.
Irreversible is a vigilante movie at it's core. The success of this genre hinges on the audience knowing what is being avenged. We don't learn what is being avenged until scene 10, and it is beautiful, and we are forced to think "was the previous hour worth it?" I don't think it was. By structuring the film the way he has, Noe has robbed us of any characterization or motivation-we are left with ugly senseless violence that has the emotional impact of watching pigeons squabble on the street. And the movie still has the gall to think this will hurt us. Obviously a ten minute rape scene will be shocking. It does not take skill to make this.
Maybe the pointlessness is Noe's point. Maybe this is an anti reactionary, anti violence movie. The racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and violence shown here ultimately are so useless one could draw the conclusion that the movie is telling us to stay away from these modes in times where we crave revenge. But honestly, I just have no reason to care. I have no reason to think about this movie any more.
It Comes at Night (2017)
Refreshingly dark horror
David Lynch meets Cormac Mccarthy in It Comes at Night, one of the bleakest horror films to come out in recent memory. Like many great works of post apocalyptic literature, this film is at it's best when it is ignoring the flashy set pieces and instead focuses on an all encompassing feeling of dread that slowly consumes the characters. The few missteps into exploitation and zombie inspired horror can be forgiven because of the feeling of complete loss that we feel throughout the film.
Like 28 Days Later, The Road and (ugh) The Walking Dead before it, It Comes at Night is about family, and how the definition of that word would change depending on what the world allows. The film opens with the Paul (Joel Edgerton), the patriarch of a small family, killing a sick man and disposing of the body with his son Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr). The killing is a brilliant way to set the tone of the film. It is almost clinically depicted, instead we focus on Travis' fear and pain, and on Paul's unstoppable drive to protect his family. We see the more of the same ideas and images when a scavenger, Will (Christopher Abbott), breaks into the family's isolation. Will has a wife and young son as well, and eventually Paul's family grows to include them.
What's great about this movie is that the paranoia doesn't let up. Director Trey Edward Shults fills the film with disturbing dreams and darkness, never giving us enough clarity to be calm and satisfied. Many have expressed anger at this, saying that Shults opens too many doors and has no solutions for how they got that way. I personally loved it. This is a kind of film where it doesn't really matter why things are happening, what matters is what they are revealing about us.
What Shults reveals is a deep seated fear of death and hell. At times the film feels surreal; like the characters are all dead, living out a nightmare scenario, trapped forever to live a pointless and painful existence. The gray and black color scheme alone conveys a dulled, trapped existence, similar to the one in Lars Von Trier's Antichrist. That was another film about human interaction in the face of great adversity, and the ultimate failure that comes with it. Shults' camera sells this as well, it moves through the family house like a ghost or god, quietly observing and following light but never drawing attention to itself. The cinema makes us voyeurs, and that is agonizingly clear in this film.
Only as the film draws to a close do the cameras become hand-held and the spell begins to break. The ending here is so satisfyingly bleak that saying anything about it would ruin it. I'll say this: it is so so satisfying to watch a film with confidence. Often when a movie threatens us with egregious violence we feel safe in knowing that "they wouldn't show that, they couldn't". It Comes at Night is not such a film. This is a dark, disturbing, confident film, one that is deeply watchable and continues to prove that a simple story gives the audience so much more to think about.
Grave (2016)
A brilliant horror debut
Picture: David Cronenberg, Lars Von Trier and H. P. Lovecraft make a movie, but they only take the good parts of their works and cut out the silly, boring and ugly bits. Still you will not have as beautiful, evocative and disturbing of a film as Julia Ducournau's RAW, a movie that immediately takes you hostage and never lets you go. Here is a gut churning, deeply alive work that assaults you with disgusting, thought provoking and existential horror until you can't take anymore. It's a good thing that I felt more anxious than excited at the end, that is the mark of good filmmaking.
RAW takes place in a veterinary school from hell, when we first see it it is too big, isolated and Gothic to comprehend. Justine (Garance Marillier) comes to the school after her parents and sister Alexia (Ella Rumpf). She is immediately alone and in over her head; the school has a series of sadistic hazing rituals that involve excessive drinking, violent raids, Carrie reenactments and eating raw meat, even for Justine the vegetarian. The audience is immediately hit with the cruelty of this world, a school doctor tells a story about a large girl who cried when her weight was finally ignored, the women share tips on how to most effectively be bulimic. It's so gratifying when a movie does this, unlike other recent brilliant horror films like Get Out or Don't Breathe, there is no normal here. When the world of the film becomes more and more bizarre, we as an audience have nothing to stand on.
And oh, the film becomes bizarre. But like any good film, the insane images are grounded in reality, character and story. The horrific sequences in this movie are beautiful to watch , the colors and cinematography look like paintings. Justine is starting to crave raw meat, there's a short but gorgeous scene where she kneels feral in front of a refrigerator tearing into a chicken breast. Because this is a horror film, the best meat is soon revealed to be human and it is because of Marillier's brilliant performance that we are able to see just how painful but exciting this new desire is.
The meat isn't meat in RAW, it is a very clear metaphor for Justine's sexual liberation. In one of the best scenes of the movie, Justine watches her male friend play soccer shirtless; it is simultaneously deeply terrifying and erotic moment that Ducournau directs in a way that feels exactly right. At a certain point in the film, we can never guess if Justine is hungry or aroused.
Violence has been a semi sexual act in horror for years, but with this film it feels fresh, the desires and reactions are all new. They are also deeply troubling and have a beautiful intensity to them that can only be described as animal or inhuman. Ducournau is at her best here, the erotic and gory passages of the film are directed with the skill and confidence of an old master returning to the screen, not someone in their debut.
What makes RAW so good though is how massive it seems. With a few exceptions, horror is a small genre. Often horror films lack a cosmic significance; they fail to have implications beyond the characters on screen. Through her haunting images, brilliant world building and disturbing soundtrack, Ducournau communicates something larger. Female sexuality, from this film, isn't something to be taking lightly. Justine's self discovery is a ferocious and earth shattering moment, after which no one will be the same.
It Follows (2014)
Familiar, not clichéd. Methodical, not slow.
You probably have heard that It Follows is the best American horror movie in years. You probably have heard that so many times you are starting to doubt it. Well please don't. It Follows really is a great horror movie, without a doubt the scariest American one in recent memory. But actually, great horror movies are not as rare in this century as you might believe. France, the UK Australia and Japan have been cranking out tremendous horror movies for the entire 2000s. It Follows stands alone among them by being both a movie that we've seen a hundred times and one that we never would have dreamed of going to. The film is set in the suburbs of Detroit in a time that we don't know. Already the film is working on us. Cell phones show up, but so do corded ones. Typewriters, but modern cars. We have no firm place to stand on. Jay is a pretty young woman, this is about all we know. She is the protagonist. She has sex with her boyfriend. He chloroforms her and ties her up after, so he can deliver a terrifying message: she is now going to be followed. By something that can change its shape and won't stop until she is dead. He drops her off in her underwear and drives off, she can't stand up. The police have to ask if the sex was consensual. And now we come to the fascinating part of the film. The fear of sex is what drives horror. It is a laughably predictable trope: sex means you will die. But It Follows is too smart for that, or maybe too feminist. The movie knows that a woman in Western Society is either a whore or a virgin. So the monster in the film can be interpreted as female sexuality. The inescapable double standard surrounding sex, the ever-present stares of men. This is the monster. The metaphor is far from subtle, but it is incredibly effective, and the mere presence of hidden meaning and symbolism is something to be applauded. The best part about It Follows, however, is it's technical brilliance. This film features some striking cinematography. It would be fairly easy to watch the film in another language. So much is communicated visually, not just the story, but also the mood. The shots are lonely, and dark. You feel sad looking at them. They are also beautiful, ornate and well thought out. The titular IT shows up a lot in them. I especially appreciated that. It was like a Where's Waldo, only finding Waldo was essential or else the great characters would die. The soundtrack is brilliant. It hearkens back to the late '70s and '80s, in films like Halloween. Mostly synths, the music sets the mood fantastically. Director David Robert Mitchell also when to employ it. Sometimes it leads us into the scary scene, sometimes it only comes in when we are already curled up in fear. Of course, It Follows knows the two essential elements of great horror 1) Show don't tell and 2) What's off-screen is immediately scarier than what is on. It should be revered and studied for its subtly and respect for the audience. We come to our own conclusions with every scare, every character change is hidden and we must observe it our selves. It reminds me a lot of Halloween, but also The Shining. Remember the bathtub scene in that horror classic? Imagine that over and over again, and you have a sense of what It Follows is like.
Ginî piggu 2: Chiniku no hana (1985)
Why?
Why? Why why why why why does this movie exist? In what possible world did anyone think that this movie would be at all acceptable to film? I shouldn't say movie, it besmirches the name of the great art form of the twentieth century. For this is not a movie. It desperately wants to be a snuff film; the connotations of that are more disturbing than the events recorded on film. Here is the plot: a man chloroforms a woman. He dresses in a samurai outfit and proceeds to cut her into pieces. No names. No reasons. No other plot. Just disgusting, artless violence. This "thing" is highly hyped in the disturbing movies scene. That is the only reason I came to it. It appears on many lists of the most disturbing movies ever, and in fact, there is probably no other way that anyone would come to this. All those lists are wrong. a) As I said before, this isn't a movie and b) it is not at all disturbing. It is gross, oh yes. Our closing shots are of severed limbs being feasted on by maggots. A chicken is decapitated and its blood is spilled all over our victim. We see dismemberment in gory detail. Close ups of tendons snapping etc, etc. It would be hypocritical of a exploitation lover like myself to continue. Suffice to say that people searching for blood and guts will get far, far to much. And that is it. But I have a feeling that even they will be turned away. You see, this is not an exploitation splatter picture. Those have a place in a cinema.The only place where this film belongs is in the basement of a serial killer, surrounded by the probably more artistic, actual snuff films of their own creation. This is the lowest of the low. There is no excuse for it. The world would be better if no one else watched it.
Sharknado (2013)
Doesn't know what makes "so bad it's good."
So about a half hour into this movie I realized why I hated so much. The movie comes to us a campy homage to Roger Corman B-movies of the 50s and 60s. In that respect, it works for maybe five or six minutes. Then my straight up anger at this film grew and grew until I knew that it was not because of the straight up ludicrousness of everything about it. I can get behind that. What I can't get behind was how intentional it is. I mean, lets examine it. Sharknado is about a massive hurricane that some how triggers waterspouts that lift up sharks and then deposit them in L A. That's about all you need to know, because thats about all the movie seems to know. I can imagine the meeting were it was pitched, and that is about all the writer must have said. And some producer remembered Corman pictures and Jaws, and decided that it was a good idea to make this movie, but to try and make it as poorly as possible. Well, congratulations, you succeeded. If we forget the ridiculous premise, it is still a completely terrible movie. Poorly written, acted and filmed. The effects are laughable, but not in the good, guilty pleasure way of those in Plan 9 From Outer Space. They are not like the hubcaps with string and dry ice, or the hundreds of plastic and rubber beasts that were made for the worser B-movies. They are so deliberate. There is nothing endearing about them. They are a blatant reminder that you are watching a movie that prides itself on its terribleness, which of course defeats the point. The actors take their roles with deadly seriousness, so there is none of the fun that comes with Adam West/Burt Ward Batman. There is no winking to audience by anyone involved. Just the feeling that you are watching a movie made by people who forget that nobody intends to make a bad movie. Even the creators of terrible, laughable trash at least had the artistry to make the best movie that they could. No such luck here. I was struck with the phoniness of it all, and I saw a film that has no idea why bad movies are loved in cult circles. It's because they didn't want to be bad. Sharknado does, and it ends up like a child screaming for attention. It is just as annoying to be near as the child is. So, to recap: you want a bad movie you have one. You want a movie that is made by people who have no idea what makes bad movies good, you got one. You want a movie that could inspire spirited discussion about camp, poor taste and standards in film, you got one. You want to have any fun, you don't have you movie for tonight.
Bronson (2008)
Impossible to dissect
Well, I just watched Bronson. I am kind of at a loss for words. I don't really know what to think. So I'll do some kind of stream of consciousness thing.
What I do know about Bronson is it features an incredible starring performance by Tom Hardy in the title role. He walks the tightrope that every actor does when playing a madman. At times, he goes to close over the top. Close is the key word. He does a brilliant job of giving a restrained psychopath, which makes it terrifying but not entirely surprising when he beats the living daylights out everyone that he meets. There is not a moment where he seems too insane. He comes close, but never crosses, and the result is a brilliant performance.
The other thing that I know about Bronson is that is nothing like any film I have, or probably will ever see. It is visually unique, it tells a story in a non linear fashion that seems in no way clichéd, it flips back and forth between our characters mind and the real word, sometimes with shocking suddenness. Its soundtrack is dynamic and well placed. Bronson is a movie that is more experienced than watched. It engages senses of sound and sight, but there is a smell of this movie. A texture. Less literal, but still there. It is wonderfully imaginative, blends genres and styles, and feels like a dream.
And now I'm at a loss. I know Bronson is about something. I could spend the rest of the review trying to decide what it is about. Celebrity? Madness? Violence? Art? I don't know. I think no matter how many times I watch this movie I won't know. I don't even know if I liked this movie. Sometimes it was a little too weird for no reason, and it is maddeningly impossible to dissect. But I will try. I think that you should as well. It is a movie that I made an impression on me, and that is all I know. If you are considering renting it, do so. It is not a waste of time, money, or effort. I hope. I think that when I finally figure it out, this is a movie that will shape my thoughts on it's subject. Whatever that is.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
The Great Masterpiece
If I were to watch one movie as I lay dieing, it would definitely be Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away (2001). I would like to die right at the moment when Chihiro and No Face are the last ones on the train. But in all honesty, any moment in this movie would be a great final sight. It has some of the most impressive animation in the history of the art, but it also tells one of the greatest stories in movie history. It's a basic coming of age story, but with such imagination, emotion and well made characters that it is one that will be watched and enjoyed a hundred years from now, that I have no doubt.
The story follows a ten year old girl named Chihiro and her quest to save her parents from a bathhouse running witch named Yubaba. If that does not hook you, I don't know what will. Add some beautifully drawn river spirits and bizarre creatures that would shock even Lewis Carroll, and you've got the makings of a great movie.
Besides the fantastic story and characters, the thing that makes this a masterpiece is that it's a tremendous labor of love that is. Not that it was difficult to make, considering the fact that Miyazaki is animated gold, but that there are hundreds of unnecessary little details that cement the movies beauty. The way water moves and reflects, for example. It is so realistic that we became totally engrossed in the story. Or look in the windows of the bathhouse. You will find whole stories that have no connection to the central one, but they give such a feeling of busyness and movement that I couldn't imagine the movie without them. Most backgrounds in animated movies are very still, they can't distract from the story. But the ones in Spirited Away demand your attention. It's a good thing that the story is so compelling.
The story is a basic coming of age type deal. But most of us take a long time to make the progress that that Chihiro makes of the course of the movie. Sometimes we wish there was an event like this one that would inspire us to take action. But usually a single event that causes maturity is a tragic or traumatic one, where as Chihiro's is one of spectacular adventure. Scary, yes, but she faces it with great bravery so that the trauma questions that usually pop up in the back of my head in movies like this never come up in Spirited Away.
I mentioned fantastic creatures, and this movie delivers them, I think more than any other movie. They are powerful creatures of few words, who let their very existence be their power. My personal favorite is the Radish Spirit. He looks vaguely like Meat Loaf in Fight Club (1999) and does little except for ride in an elevator with Chihiro and do a happy dance. But the tantalizing possibility of the existence of such an incredible creature has elevated him to one of my favorite movie characters. The most affecting is Stink God. I remember a tremendous feeling of sadness hit me when he slimed in the rain towards the bath house. He was so alone and hated, you can't help but feel sympathy for him (plus, he inspires a great reaction from Chihiro). But the most memorable is No Face. He is one one of the great misunderstood monsters of the screen. When Chihiro shows him a little kindness, he tries to repay her in any way he can, which involves hurting some people on accident. With minimal noise, he inspires great sympathy and awe. He is also a wonder of animation, disappearing from scene to scene, rapidly changing in size and seemingly texture.
As the story draws to it's conclusion, it's an interesting to note that we want Chihiro to return to the human world. This is a snag that many children's movies hit. Why would you want human friends if you have Totoro or why would you go back to Kansas if you have Oz? But there is enough peril in the bathhouse and Chihiro is human enough that she needs to return to the human world; she has no place with the spirits.
Consider the title. Nobody ever says that in the movie, in fact Chihiro takes her entry into this fantastic world very rationally. But the title is directed to us, the audience. We are spirited away to a place beyond the imagining of mere mortals. Miyazaki lets us in on his mad dreams, and we couldn't care less.
Joheunnom nabbeunnom isanghannom (2008)
Pure Fun
Let's face it, when you read the back of a DVD, you don't really read it. You skim it. Words jump out at you. Words that jump out at me include "Japanese Army" "1930's Manchuria" "Ancient treasure map." These are all parts of Ki Ji-woon's excellent movie The Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008). The movie plays as an homage to the Spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone. Notice the similarities between this and The Good the Bad and the Ugly (1967). It also stands by itself as a ultra enjoyable adventure story.
It's plot is far from original. It features three men searching for a treasure map, stolen in the opening scene. The thief (Kang-ho Song) is the Weird. He is the comic relief. He's a very strange man who cares more about his grandma and aviator goggles than he does about angering everybody. But the fact that he is actually a cold, competent criminal adds depth to his character, making him an enigma. A very funny one, yes, but an enigma. Traveling with him is a stoic, honorable bounty hunter named the Good (Park Do-won). He's searching for a serial finger chopper. Yes, a serial finger chopper. His lead suspect is the Bad (Byung-hun Lee), a ruthless bandit who happens to also be chasing the Weird for the treasure map. Also in pursuit of the map is a gang of bandits and the Japanese army. Yes, the main characters have names that do more than describe their personalities, but I'll be damned if I remember them. Usually this angers me but with something as brilliantly goofy as this, I didn't mind.
The movie also shows how much music can enhance the quality of an action scene. Near the end of the movie there is legendary chase involving the Japanese army and all the main characters. Many Japanese soldiers are slaughtered with a machine gun, almost on accident. Much blood. Usually this is cause for disgust or pursed lips but the fast paced, energetic score makes you bound along with the characters.
The music and the humor are the two things that make you excuse the completely excessive violence. Like in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), it is so fun that we allow moral belief to be suspended for two hours. If that doesn't bode well with you, just remember Arnold Schwarzenegger's immortal line about action movie killing in True Lies (1994): "They were all bad!" There aren't a lot of good guys in this movie, but we are totally captivated by their incredible abilities while they do bad things. The stunts are incredible. There are gunfights in which the Good is literally jumping from roof to roof while shooting at bad guys. And you know what? I think it was real. Either South Korea has great CGI artists or (gasp!) the director was concerned with authenticity and grit. The stunts swept me up so I was not questioning how they did it as much as rubbing my eyes to make sure I had seen right. The script is full of humor and homage. It allows the actors to have fun with their characters, while filling it with hilarious dialogue. "The bounty on you is 300 won." "What? I'm only worth a piano?" "A used piano at that." Plus, it tips its hat to the Western tradition that you have to show that the world is shrinking around our outlaws of the west. The most obvious show of this theme is actually poignant, original and funny. Put simply, The Good, the Bad, the Weird invokes something greater than any Great movie. It, like Pulp Fiction and the Indiana Jones series, makes you remember how much fun you had watching a movie. And, at the end of the day, isn't this the only reason we watch movies? Most movies, no matter how much fun they try to invoke, always end up being a little too dark. Not this one. I could not have had more fun.