Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   Movie Reviews (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   OG- 'Reviews' You Up (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=10071)

OG- 03-27-05 02:24 PM

OG- Reviews You Up, Nice and Slow!
 
Dead End (Written and Directed by Jean-Baptiste Andrea & Fabrice Canepa; 2003)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Further proof that Hollywood just doesn't get it right anymore.

When it comes to the horror genre, simplicity is beyond best. It's the one genre where frequently the more feeble the material, the better it can be.

Dead End is an avatar of this principle. The plot is essentially just a concept film; family driving in a car, lost on a road that seems to not end, encountering things beyond explanation along the way. There isn't anything complicated about that and there shouldn't be anything complicated about that. It's a script that builds in on itself, instead of expanding outwards into new terrortory - yah, I said terrortory. It doesn't continue to introduce new elements to the fold, in the first 7 minutes it throws it's hands up and says, "this is what you're gonna get, so take it."

And I applaud the filmmakers for this. It's something seldom done in the genre these days. All too often do horror scripts follow a formulaic plot that spirals outwards instead of simply just constructing a boxed in realm of the film's reality and then letting the character's react realistically within it. Dare I say it is actually rather Shakespearean in this way? Oh, I dare. Shakespeare was known for creating a story, believable characters and then letting the play unfold as if the characters were realistically responding to the world created around them. This is exactly the scenario with Dead End. It avoids the most common pitfall of the genre; characters that act without logic, without interest and without motivation. It's something scriptwriters should pay considerably more attention to. Characters like these possess some kind of magical power that gives a +20 to any cinematic enjoyment. I cast magic characters!

And speaking of those characters, their actions may be realistically responsive, but if it weren't for the remarkably energetic performances of all the cast then all would be for naught. Ray Wise is the man in this movie. He is just badass without being over the top. He has created out of the father a man who is just trapped in an obviously humdrum life and transformed him into someone you just can't help but smile at every time he curses at his family. He is just great. Great, great, great. If I had to recommend the movie for any one single reason, it would be to just enjoy Ray Wise.

The rest of the cast is fantastic as well, Wise doesn't eclipse the few other actors there are, but they all compliment each other like they really were a family. It is the definition of on screen chemistry.

Now, the question you're asking, is it scary? Yes and No. No, it isn't balls-to-the-wall horror. It does fall prey to the optimism of the genre, but it’s excusable and I’ll get to that in a minute. The script is kinetic, always driving ahead and only pausing as long as necessary to make a point or get in a scare. It’s because of this that the film will never scare the **** out of you, but when it wants to it’ll keep your heart rate elevated to the point that you’re aware of it enough to say to yourself, “hey, this movie is kinda freaking me out.” I respect that. It knows it isn’t hardcore, so it does exactly what it should and keeps your blood pumping a little faster than normal throughout. I love that feeling. But I also have a wild imagination and so was consistently prepped for an entry into the negative space of the car windows or emerging ever so slightly from the edge of the woods. And that’ll freak my junk out more effectively than what you do see.

As for the film falling victim to the optimism of the genre. This is true, but it is appropriately so. It doesn’t establish throughout the rest of the movie that it should be taken as the hardest of horror, so no pretending means no disappointment in the end. Oh, and worth an important note for most viewers, there isn't a whole lot of gore, it really does leave a sizeable portion up to the imagination (as it should), but what blood there is isn't over the top and there are no CGI scares. Take that for what it's worth, but it's worth a lot to me.

That said, I would have preferred a different ending. Not solely because I would have preferred a darker ending, but simply because the ending has an air of unreliability to it. It attempts to mollify the question that the movie never asks, but obviously the viewer will (“what exactly is happening here?”) and I felt that wasn’t really necessary. I liked that the movie wasn’t raising question after question. I liked that it turned its back to the whole issue, so when the events of the last two or three minutes of the film hit the viewer, or me at least, they feel out of place.

All in all, this is a movie that strips away the gloss and glamour prevalent to the genre as of late, establishes the concept and then happily throws what it’s got left at the wall. Yes, it doesn’t all stick, but the little things that don’t are more than shadowed by the much larger portions that do. Dead End is worth your time and money. Rent it and watch it by yourself or with a date, but not in a group. A group would kill the pleasant intimacy that makes the film work beyond its bounds.

I'm hesitant to say instant classic, because obviously it won't be universally so, but it deserves that accolade in my book. Check it out.

4.5 out of 5, which on my scale equates to a pretty damn rocking time.

The one sentence review: Dead End is a fun ass genre flick that never pretends to climb Mt. Everest and thus leaves the viewer with more than just a feeling of simple satisfaction, but one of raw enjoyment.

Sedai 03-27-05 07:26 PM

Great review OG. I probably would never pick this up on my own, and now I have to give it a shot.....

I dig the new sig too....

OG- 03-27-05 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sedai
Great review OG. I probably would never pick this up on my own, and now I have to give it a shot.....
Thanks, you should deffinetely check it out one night when you're looking for a fun 88 minutes. It's available at your local Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

I didn't even touch on the tremendeous sense of humor the movie has. Initially alot of the jokes come between the chemistry of the younger brother and the sister's fiance, but as immature as they can be they fall perfectly in line and make for some solid chuckles.

MysticalMoose 03-28-05 01:40 AM

or you if you want, netflix probably offers it too :D

jrs 03-28-05 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by MysticalMoose
or you if you want, netflix probably offers it too :D
It does.

Alien05 03-28-05 09:42 AM

Excellent review, I'm tempted to see this movie now.

OG- 03-30-05 02:38 AM

Phone
 
You should. :)

Phone (Byeong-ki Ahn, 2002)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I'll make this brief because I wasn't very impressed with it. I'm a huge fan of the Asian ghost film. These days they're the only thing being produced that does actually scare me. It's a mixture of the over use of negative space, harsh contrasts and that simple -transcedental across every entry- ghost that is just a blue skinned girl, snow white eye balls, and black hair. That ghost can be thrown anywhere and it's pretty damn effective, especially if it isn't actually moving, which is the first (and what I found to be the second most effective freak out in the film) tension tester in the movie.

But even with the barebones, but proven to work, ghost, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. The plot revolves around an investigative reporter who has just finished a successful piece on sex offenders and is being stalked so she changes her phone number and moves out to a house by herself. The new number is, let's just say special, and she starts recieving calls consisting only of what I can describe as nails on a chalkboard performed by someone who doesn't actually know how to make the sound. The woman starts to "unravel" the mystery around the whole thing as people around her die and/or become slightly possesed. I use quotation marks because the plot really doesn't 'unravel', it kind of just falls apart. The narrative is broken into flashbacks as to what really happened to cause the whole haunting, but often times they're completely out of place and are actually more annoying than helpful simply because they come out of nowhere. And by the time the plot does fully reveal itself to the viewer (though it certainly isn't impossible to discern it prior to), which is of course right up to the end, there isn't too much concern for any of the characters. I found myself not caring at all what was going to happen and simply was waiting out the rest of the running time.

Though the film isn't entirely without benefit. The sound mix on the Tartan USA disc is perfectly balanced, which I found rather enjoyable. And the little girl in it is actually a pretty damn good actress for her age. She shows more range in 60 seconds than any of the actors do throughout the movie. And she has one damn cool fit of screaming in a museum that is enjoyably laughable.

Final say? Don't bother. There are much better entries to the Asian ghost arena.

1 out of 5 stars.

The one sentence review: Screw Phone and rent The Eye instead.

OG- 03-30-05 03:07 AM

Dead Birds (Alex Turner, 2004)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I always check out the quotes they decide to put on the cover/back of a DVD. I had been looking forward to Dead Birds anyway, just because of what I read of it in Fangoria, but I was even more eager when I read on the back, "The savviest American horror flick since Cabin Fever." Cabin Fever is a personal favorite of mine. I think it was a milestone in modern American horror and couldn't agree more as per how "savvy" it was, so imagine my delight to read this on the back. Granted, I've never heard of "Eye Weekly", but hey, anything comprable to Cabin Fever gets a nod in my book.

Not so much with actually watching the movie.

I dug the atmosphere in the begining. I like horror set out of the present and it kicked off to a decent start, though admittedly the believablity of the shootout in the begining of the film was rather low. However, as you can tell from the above picture, the creature design was actually pretty damn good and we actually get our first look at one relatively early in the film. But then it goes away for a while, as do the scares. The film becomes overly reliant on the imagination of the viewer without actually providing a reason for the imagination to take over. This leads to a rather uneventful film, even if things are going on it, everything seems anti-climactic.

But again, the creature design was pretty freaky, HOWEVER, they're actually not that freaky when they're in motion. Get a glance of one in a still frame and it's rather haunting, but once it starts moving it looses it's coolness. And as scary as those creatures are, they never create any sense of dread. There is no fear as to what these creatures are going to do to anyone. I'm actually not even sure the writers had anything in mind when it comes to what the creatures will actually do to people. Hell, at one point a creature causes a person to turn and jump into the air and they actually just dissolve into a green cloud. What the ****? They've got teeth, use 'em.

The cast are all more than capable of their parts. Patrick Fugit is actually rather hard to adjust to initially, due to the charm he brings to the films he has previously been in, but once he has his climax he's pretty solid. That being said, they aren't given a whole lot to do in this movie. It's reflective of the atmosphere the filmmakers are trying to create, but I longed for some dialogue that wasn't an exchange of 10 words between two people.

I did like the ending, probably much more so than I should have. But overall, the movie didn't do much for me. Maybe it is because I had higher than average hopes, but I really think it's just because the film relied too much on "scares" that were unoriginal in concept and lacking in execution.

I'm reminded of a mini-review I read in Maxim years ago of Tool's fantastic CD Lateralus. They (wrongfully, IMO) said that Lateralus "moved strongly sideways, but rarely soared." The same can be said of Dead Birds. It can deffinetely ride what it has going on, but what it has going on isn't anything to write home about.

3 out of 5, it'd probably be more enjoyable if you caught it half way through at 1am on HBO. I'm probably being more harsh than I should, but I was let down by all the potential. It is only 91 minutes, give it a look if you like your horror paced like the beat of an old man's dying heart.

The One Sentence Review: Dead Birds is a film one should only actively seek out if they either live in a farm during the Civil War or scare way too easily.

Sedai 03-30-05 09:59 AM

Cool reviews man. I haven't seen these, but I own The Eye. If it is that much better than these, I will just watch it again, as I love that flick. So...would you recommend some other Asian horror that is on the level with The Eye? You know, I am looking for an OG rating of 3 or above here.... ;)

OG- 03-30-05 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sedai
Cool reviews man. I haven't seen these, but I own The Eye. If it is that much better than these, I will just watch it again, as I love that flick. So...would you recommend some other Asian horror that is on the level with The Eye? You know, I am looking for an OG rating of 3 or above here.... ;)
Sadly I haven't come across one that I found on the same level as The Eye. Ju-On was fairly close and had some pretty concrete tension going on, but The Eye has the scares and the pure enjoyment going for it. I still have yet to see Koma, which is supposed to be pretty good, and when I go return these today I'll probably grab Doppleganger and something else.

OG- 03-30-05 05:59 PM

IZO (Takashi Miike, 2004)

http://www.animecastle.com/tbimages/21808.md.jpg

This movie is amazing. This movie is stunning. This movie is poetry.

First, let me precursor with, I am not a huge fan of Takashi Miike. I've got a ton of respect for him simply because he can churn out 5 films a year, but I'm not a huge fan of the self indulgent violence. But IZO, IZO is a collosal work of existentialism in its purest form.

To explain the narrative of the film would be redundant. Miike has crafted a film whose viewing experience is like that of a snowflake, no two viewers will ever have the same take on it. This film is intended to be incredibly personal to each and every viewer. Each vignette has it's own meaning, entirely dependent on how the viewer percieves it. Miike establishes a realm in which your emotions and reactions are supposed to exist, but how exactly and the degree of each reaction is entirely left up to the viewer. But man, I really loved what Miike created here. The whole debate of the film as to IZO, what IZO is and how IZO came to be is utterly fantastic. It belongs in a psychology or a sociology class.

That said, the film is not catered entirely to the individual and is suspect, voluntairly, to a universal commentary on humanity. However, the viewers concurrence or opposition to the messages of the film is left entirely up to how they interpret them.

I could literally write pages about each and every vignette in this film. I could write without end about how each and every subtlety snowballs into one grandoise sermon about the corrosive and blissfully arrogant - to the point of innocence - nature of the human psyche. But I won't, because I don't want to influence anyone else's take on the film.

This was a film where I was incredibly tempted to actually take notes while watching it. Take note as to what was on screen in contrast as to how I interpreted it. I simply cannot think of a film in recent memory that has evoked such a response in me. As much as everyone else loved it, I thought Waking Life was an incredibly average philosphical piece and I think IZO beats it to a pulp.

I found the violence to be subservient to every other aspect of the film, which is not characteristic of Miike's work. It's still there, but it isn't the showcase of the film. The violence is not the dressing of each scene, but an actual characteristic of the personality of man kind. I was actually surprised as to how the movie evolved. Initially I thought that two hours of such a broken and seemingly naive narrative would be an endurance test, but it was far from it and I found myself enjoying the movie a helluva lot more than I thought I would during the first 15 minutes.

It certainly isn't for everyone. My bet is that most people will actually hate the hell out of this film, but I dug right into it and devoured it. To see it is to see what the movie says about you.

4.5 out of 5 says I about the IZO.

The One Sentence Review: Though not for everyone, IZO is a remarkable and absolute work of art which will illicit emotions reflective of the temerity of the viewer and if given the proper attention will not fade quickly into memory.

OG- 04-01-05 02:21 AM

Io non ho paura (Gabriele Salvatores, 2003)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I'm Not Scared is not a thriller - not in the traditional sense of the term. It is a tale of adolescent bravery. It is not a tale of innocence lost, but innocence lived. And it is one damn fine tale at that!

Giuseppe Cristiano, who plays the ten year old Michele, is the star of the film - literally. He shines through in every single frame of the movie. For a thirteen your old this actor is just absolutely wonderful. He is an ocean of adorability and the viewer will latch onto him right away. From the moment he finds Filippo at the bottom of the hole to the last shot of the film he is the embodiment of youthful curiousity, of innocence, of times gone by, of the child we all secretly long to be, wandering around the isolated hills of Italy in search of discoveries to fill the vast imagination of a child. And as he digs deeper into the mystery of the frail Filippo we as the viewer become attached to the boys to a degree that is incredibly hard to achieve in a film dealing with such ages. The actors and characters have to bring to the film a level of maturity beyond what we as the viewer are accustomed to and the actors in this film, not just the children, bring it by the truck load.

The charisma and respect for the peace of life this film has is astounding. The family dynamic is fantastic. We are treated to such displays off affection offset by glimmers of frustration, but at the end of the day this is a family we don't just wish to care about, but really do care about. The father is so charming and so paternal to Michele that will plant a smile on your face anytime he mentions arm wrestling.

The "thriller" aspect of the film doesn't come from the kidnapping plot, but from the potential for implosion of the loveable family. We don't want to see anything bad happen to Michele and yet we want him to return to the hole day after day, we want him to risk it, we want him to prove that he isn't scared because if he isn't scared, why should we be? At least I wasn't. I wasn't 'scared' by anything in the movie, but I was distraught by the idea that such innocence shared across the small village would be shattered by this haphazard attempt at making money that we are presented with.

And by God the cinematography is just phenomenal. One must question if it is possible to film an ugly scene in the countryside of Italy. Is that even possible? Judging from <i>I'm Not Scared</i>, I submit that it is not.

This film is just rich with visuals. The attention to detail shows in every frame of the movie. The film never confuses their way of life with poverty, it simply embraces it for what it is. It doesn't beg for sympathy, but causes the viewer to offer their respect for such life without being solicited. This is an accomplishment in and of itself. But above all, Gabriele Salvatores never lets the viewer mistake the films portrayl of unbridled innocence with ignorant bliss, which for me is one of the defining characteristics that makes such tales of youth so loveable. It nails it.

4 out of 5

The One Sentence Review: I'm Not Scared is a showcase of great talent, an exhibition of unshamed innocence and a film that'll massage your heart strings and tickle your desire for the preservation of youth.

OG- 04-01-05 07:26 PM

Three... Extremes

http://i3.yesasia.com/assets/imgs/vi...1003825737.jpg

I'll review each entry individually, but beforehand I'd just like to say I want to see more compliations like this. It felt like one of those old collections of Scary Stories I read as a kid. These three films weren't scary, but I loved the vibe.

Box directed by Takashi Miike, 2004

http://66.240.136.85/catalog/images/three2_6.jpg

Takashi Miike is certainly one of the most cohesive aueters of the past decade of filmmaking. Enjoy his movies or not, each contains a blend of perversion that is surprisingly unique. I'm not an all accepting fan of Miike, the perverse nature of every film exceeds what I'd accept as entertainment (though if you scroll up you can read my rather cryptic, but ultimately fond review of IZO), so I don't have any bias when it comes to his films. Box sucked. The story is of a woman who dreams of an event in her youth that resulted in the death of her sister, whom she performed with. We as the viewer are treated to this woman trying to cope with this dream, which may or may not be a dream, but by the time of the revelation of it all the story has lost all cohesion. It is an understandable story, it's just a pointless and fruitless story.

The visuals though are worth note. The etheral movements of the camera are perfectly reminescent of a dream. The use (or lack their of) of sound was dead on, creating dread or confusion when it needed to. The look of the short keeps you watching, but the story is incredibly amateur.

1.5 out of 5

Dumplings directed by Fruit Chan, 2004

Easily the best out of the three shorts. Fruit Chan, the only of the three directors whose work I haven't seen before, created a haunting and stomach churning film. I felt it lacked the proper social commentary it kept hinting at, but hey, I don't think the intention was to enlighten people as to the desperation caused by aging and the fixation on anti-aging, I'm pretty sure it was just to gross you out.

The story is about a has-been actress who goes to a woman known for her amazing dumplings. We quickly catch on that these dumplings are intended to keep the eater youthful looking and that there is something not quite right about the ingredients, but I like how the story took it's time revealing it's origins. It didn't draw attention to the fact that a woman was eating aborted fetuses, but it did emphasize that a woman was eating aborted fetuses and didn't care about it. I won't get into the rest of the short because I don't want to ruin the bite it has, but it did not pull it's punches and I respect that. Though just before the end there was a quick scene that had me slightly confused as to why it was in there, but oh well.

I've gotta check out more of Fruit Chan's work, because if it's as unflinching as Dumplings was, I will be a huge fan.

4 out of 5

Cut directed by Chan-Wook Park, 2004

http://66.240.136.85/catalog/images/three2_4.jpg

I think Chan-Wook Park is an amazing director. Oldboy is a helluva stylistic entry to the revenge genre (I'll be watching Symapthy For Mr. Vengeance later tonight, so I'll reserve comment on that for now) and the trailer for Three... Extremes that got me interested in it in the first place was for Cut, but it wasn't anything special.

For American audiences, they'll probably just see it as some kind of rip-off on Saw, but it isn't. A famous director is kidnapped, put on his movie set, where his wife is suspended in front of a piano by dozens of wires. He wakes up and is tethered to the wall by a gigantic band of elastic. The kidnapper goes into his monologue about how he is doing this because he is a poor man, and a bad man, and he hates that the director is a rich man and a good man. I liked this because it wasn't the typical "killer punishes victims for their sins", but was actually "killer punishes victims for their lack of sins". The killer will chop off a finger of the wife every five minutes until the director kills a child strapped to a couch on the other side of the room.

The style is rich and I loved the cinematography, but the story just fell apart at the end. On top of that, before the story even did fall apart, the characters lost my interest and I didn't sympathize for either the child, the wife, or the director. I expected more from Park and was severely let down. But hey, it looked great.

3 out of 5

Overall, it's worth a watch just because it does carry that fun vibe of an anthology of extreme tales, but save for Dumplings, the film isn't anything special.

On a whole, 2.5 out of 5

The One Sentence Review - Not a grand slam as should have been expected, but if you check it out, check it out simply for the well above average entry that Dumplings is.

OG- 04-02-05 05:02 AM

It should be clear by now my "reviews" aren't actual critiques, just my gutteral responses to the films I watch.

Sin City, directed by Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez, 2005.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...53/1000868.jpg

Sin City marks the first movie I have ever exited a theater, walked through the lobby and directly back into line to buy a second ticket and watch it again.

Frank Miller has created characters, stories and a style that are deserving of far beyond the feeble praise I can muster up. And Robert Rodriguez has brought to the screen characters, stories and a style that are deserving of far beyond the feeble praise I can muster up. I never read the graphic novels, which is no outstanding claim because I never read graphic novels at all. I thought about picking them up months ago, but wanted to go into the movie fresh. Now I regret picking them back up and feel like a tool because I'm going to be one of those 10,000 kids who goes asking for copies of each at their local comic book store just because of the movie. But **** ego. Either way, this review is independent of the original material, so forgive me if I refer to things as if they existed because of the movie and not because of the novels.

While I thought the Big, Fat Kill segment of the film was the best, Marv is one of the most romantic characters to ever grace the silver screen - in any capacity. And Mickey Rourke is one helluva voice actor. The camera treats him like he is of divine origin and the audience responds accordingly. I haven't been in a theater in which people have responded more positively to a character than they did to Marv. He is the sweetest ogre. Hell, I wish I was half the romantic as Marv. I wish I was half the romantic as any of the characters in Sin City are.

The writing is so absorbent to the slightest of nuance and results in characters, that are in my opinion, deeper than that of any characters written in the scripts for any of the films nominated for best screenplay this year, last year or the past five years! Each and every one, save for the background villains who exist only to unexist, is crafter with such passion that any given five lines of dialogue paint an entire life's story. The economy of words here is frankly unparalled in similar material these days.

The technology used was a vast improvement over the recent attempt and obviously achieved the exact style imagined by Miller, we all knew that from the first trailer. There really isn't much that I can add here which will illuminate anything. If you can't appreciate the style here, you don't belong in the business of appreciating things.

Which brings me to another point. Sin City is one of those movies where I walk out of the theater and listen to the audience's reactions and think to myself, "wow, 80% of these people are morons." I don't care if you didn't enjoy the movie as much as I did. I don't care if you wouldn't watch it twice in a row. But when I hear bull**** such as "you could so tell Quentin Tarantino had alot to do with that movie" and "I don't get it, what was it about?", I wish for the ability to erase people from the fabric of time and space.

"I don't get it, what was it about?"?!?! It was about life you twit. It was about love. It was about loss. It was about passion. It was about dedication. It was about respect. Apparently It was about everything unrecognizeable from your own life. I always come off as some hateful, egotistical prick in my rants about the idiocy of some people, but I really am a nice, accepting guy; some people are just stupid.

I haven't even talked about the cast as a whole, but if the sheer volume of chemistry exploding at the scenes in this wonderous test-tube of a movie needs to be pointed out, then read a couple sentences back.

5 out of 5

The One Sentence Review - Clearly the culminated birth child of minds actually concerned with cinematic appreciation, Sin City is and was the birth and death of a singularity of perfection that will remain peerless in the world of cinema until the end of time.

"Hey! There is no settling down! This is blood for blood and by the gallons. This is the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days. They're back!"

blibblobblib 04-02-05 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by OG-
The One Sentence Review - Clearly the culminated birth child of minds actually concerned with cinematic appreciation, Sin City is and was the birth and death of a singularity of perfection that will remain peerless in the world of cinema until the end of time.
Not a fan then?

Strummer521 04-02-05 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by OG-
It should be clear by now my "reviews" aren't actual critiques, just my gutteral responses to the films I watch.
Maybe so, but they are great reviews :). I can't say I agree with you on Sin City, but great reviews. Actually I have been bothered by the fact that after greatly anticipating that movie I ended up not really liking the film and I am left wondering what I missed that everyone who loves the movie saw in it. please don't erase me! :(

OG- 04-02-05 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by blibblobblib
Not a fan then?
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Maybe so, but they are great reviews . I can't say I agree with you on Sin City, but great reviews. Actually I have been bothered by the fact that after greatly anticipating that movie I ended up not really liking the film and I am left wondering what I missed that everyone who loves the movie saw in it. please don't erase me!
Hehe blib, that sentence was rather cryptic. I loved the hell out of Sin City. I'm actually going to do another write up on it soon, which hopefully will be more enlightening for you, Strummer. :)

Strummer521 04-02-05 10:47 PM

As an afterthought, I am now finding that as I think back on the movie I can appreciate it more. It was like a punch in the gut in the and it was one of the best looking movies I have ever seen, and I did like how Bruce Wilis' story tied together at the end, I just wasn't enamored with the characters the way you were but the film does fulfill its purpose well. Don't you think that Michael Madsen should have had a bigger role? IMO he showed in Reservoir Dogs that he is great as the type of character that this movie was overflowing with.

PS: damnit! I can't get IZO off of blockbuster.com, but I can and will get The EYE. Perhaps you could recommend some other movies you would consider similar to Sin City in some way, because I like its concept and would like to see if i could get into movies like it, or if they are just not my cup of tea in general. Also you said you do not really like the indulgent violence of Takashi Miike's films but to me the violence in Sin City was quite indulgent. Did you not see it that way?

Garrett 04-02-05 11:33 PM

GREAT review of Izo. I've got a copy, it's sitting here waiting for me to watch it.

OG- 04-03-05 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Strummer521
Don't you think that Michael Madsen should have had a bigger role? IMO he showed in Reservoir Dogs that he is great as the type of character that this movie was overflowing with.
I do agree that he was great in Reservoir Dogs and would fit right in in the universe of Sin City, but I don't think his character should have had a bigger role; although I'm pretty sure you ment that he should have had a character with a bigger role because he can play 'em like they should be played. I really didn't like Madsen in Sin City. The film wore it's cheesyness (or as Holden put it best, it's B-movieness) on its sleeve, but Madsen felt like he was just punching in the clock here. To me it felt like he was a stage actor in a high school play, spouting out his lines with rehersed, but poor delivery. It didn't ruin the movie or anything and I'm sure it was intentional, but it rubbed me the wrong initially.

As for movie recommendations like Sin City, I'll have to put some more thought into it and get back to you. Holden or other members would be better at recommending the classic noir film or films with such self-contained passion and vibrancy. Though it doesn't fit the bill perfectly, if you've got a good sense of humor I recommend checking out Palmetto, which is a hilarious para-noir that should provide some solid entertainment (though not anywhere near the level of Sin City).

And as for the violence in Sin City... It was chock full of violence and dismemberment, but it was so stylized that it wasn't vulgar or perverse. The violence in it functioned as either a source of humor, shock or to show the viewer the roots of a character. Whereas in a Takashi Miike film the violence harps very directly on the intensity of it. If someone gets stabbed in a Takashi Miike film, we don't just see a quick cut of a knife going into someone, we see the knife slowly penetrate the skin and hear the sound of every blood vessel spilling open and every skin cell ripping apart. It really is far, far more graphic. Miike does this because one, it's characteristic of him and his films, and two, to not pull it's punches when trying to make the point that mankind is a violent, raping species. But frankly, it's just gross.

Originally Posted by Garrett
GREAT review of Izo. I've got a copy, it's sitting here waiting for me to watch it.
Thanks and awesome man, you'll have to let me know what you think of it. You and I share remarkably similar taste in films... :D


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:06 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums