Sane's Reviews & Lists

That's something I need to watch. Watched a couple of Teshigahara movies this week - Kobayashi will probably be next.

Time to resurrect this thread and change the format a bit. I tend to watch movies in threes - focussing on a director, actor or even country. Why three? As good a number as any ...

So rather than talking about random movies I'll post shortish reviews based on a set of three movies I've just finished.

Director: Yam Laranas (Philippines)

Laranas is a horror director from the Philippines who I accidently stumbled across. I did a search on IMDB for "The Road" and saw there was a 2012 horror movie with that name, read a bit about it and decided to give it a go. His movies are by no means great but at this stage he is getting one thing right - they are extremely creepy.


The Road (2012)

Often with horror movies the level of scariness depends on your own fears. For example, I didn't find Jaws scary at all because I'm not scared of sharks. Maybe it's an Australian thing - when there is a shark alert at the beach most people won't even get out of the water. Dark, deserted roads at night? Yeah, that scares me. So, the first half of this was very creepy. Unfortunately Laranas didn't seem to really know what he wanted the film to be about so it seemed to deviate a number of times before the end but overall it was pretty effective. If films about people going missing on roads in the middle of nowhere sounds like your thing, give it a go.

73/100


Sigaw (2004)

This is the first of Laranas' films that seems to be reasonably widely available in the west. It's a relatively standard ghost story which doesn't reach any great heights but is worth seeing. A guy moves into an apartment block and gets caught up in his neighbour and her daughter being abused by her cop husband. Pretty creepy but quite flawed.

58/100


The Echo (2008)

Laranas directed this American re-make of his own film - although whilst he wrote the original he did not write this. This is a slight upgrade on the earlier version thanks in part to it having better defined characters. The story is essentially the same except for some of the main character's backstory. Still, a pretty standard story and if you've watched many ghost movies you will be able to guess the ending but again quite creepy at times. Overall it's pretty slow to get going but I enjoyed it.

62/100

Been watching lots of horror movies lately so time to update that list:

1. The Thing (1982) - John Carpenter 89/100
1. Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) - Werner Herzog 89/100
3. Cloverfield (2008) - Matt Reeves 88/100
4. Aliens (1986) - James Cameron 87/100
4. The Shining (1980) - Stanley Kubrick 87/100
6. Psycho (1960) - Alfred Hitchcock 86/100
7. Shutter (2004) - Banjong Pisanthanakun/Parkpoom Wongpoom 83/100
8. An American Werewolf in London (1981) - John Landis 82/100
8. The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Drew Goddard 82/100
10. I Saw the Devil (2010) - Kim Ji Woon 81/100
10. Kill List (2011) - Ben Wheatley 81/100

Director: Lars Von Trier

When I did my Top 100 recently I mentioned that whilst Von Trier had two films in my top 20, I couldn't really call him one of my favourite directors because I hadn't seen enough of his work. Well, I've been trying to remedy that. Have watched another three of his films lately - two of them from the early part of his career which worked out nicely because I'm trying to watch more 80s movies to put together my top 25.


Medea (1988)

Von Trier adapted a screenplay by Carl Theodor Dreyer that was never made into a movie. The screenplay was based on the ancient Greek play by Euripides. This movie is about revenge and whilst Von Trier has not exactly been known for his romantic comedies, this is seriously dark even by his standards. Medea is the wife of Jason - of the golden fleece fame. Upon finding out that Jason is to marry someone else she descends into insanity and plots to kill pretty much everyone involved. Apparently this was made as a TV movie in Denmark so I assume it was pretty low budget but visually it's fantastic - like most of Von Trier's films. I liked this a lot more than I thought I was going to.

87/100


The Element of a Crime (1984)

Von Trier's first full length movie. I felt like I deserved some sort of prize for finishing this movie. Not that it was bad - it was just incredibly difficult to watch. It is essentially a detective recalling a case under hypnosis which means that everything is dreamlike - both visually and how the story is told. The visuals are quite amazing - as the poster shows, everything is pretty much yellow and red. At times it is beautiful whilst at others it is almost painful. The story is very hard to follow and at times I had no idea what was going on. Having said that, as I've watched more "weird" movies I've just learnt to accept that sometimes parts of movies aren't meant to make sense. Because this is dreamlike it doesn't follow any real structure ... and that's just the way it is so I dealt with it. Overall it's kind of hard to give this a rating because whilst I didn't "enjoy" it as such, I definitely appreciated it.

70/100


Manderlay (2005)

A more modern and perhaps "mainstream" Von Trier. The follow up to Dogville with most of the same actors - although Nicole Kidman didn't return. Of those that did return, most (all?) were playing different characters. Like Dogville this is all done on a large set with areas defined by lines drawn on the ground. Dogville is a fantastic movie but this didn't work quite as well. It tells the story of a small town in Alabama in the 1930s that didn't get the memo about slavery being ended. Grace (the same character from Dogville but played by Bryce Dallas Howard this time) decides to stay in the town to ensure the slaves get their freedom. This is pretty well acted with a good script and a great idea for a story. Overall I enjoyed it but it was prevented from being great due to Von Trier making it feel a bit like a lecture. I've got no problem with directors being "anti-American" (or anti-anywhere for that matter) but it needs to be done with craft and subtlety. Not have it's message delivered with a sledgehammer. Anyway, I liked it but it could have been better.

71/100

Updated Directors list - based on average rating with a minimum of six movies:

1. Kim Ki Duk - 6 movies @ 84.17
2. Quentin Tarantino - 8 @ 81.88
3. Ingmar Bergman - 8 @ 81.75
4. Martin Scorsese - 7 @ 81.00
4. Lars Von Trier - 6 @ 81.00
6. Zhang Yimou - 6 @ 79.50
7. Wong Kar Wai - 11 @ 76.91
8. Francis Ford Coppola - 7 @ 76.29
9. Billy Wilder - 6 @ 75.17
10. Akira Kurosawa - 7 @ 73.71

How do you differentiate between a 71/100 movie and a 70/100 movie?

Is it a snap decision that you stick with or do you give it a lot of thought?

I usually just know when a movie finishes. I watch a lot of movies so I guess I automatically compare then in my head.

On occasion I will think about it and go back to my ratings to try to place a movie - this is when I watch something really unusual or hard to rate. Funnily enough this happens a lot with Von Trier movies I did actually do this with The Element of a Crime & Manderlay and had to do it with Antichrist in the past.

I consider 70/100 to be the base rating for a "good" movie and couldn't think of any reason to rate Element higher or lower. I then thought Manderlay was only slightly better.

I rated Antichrist 70/100 also - mainly because I just thought "WTF?" at the end and didn't know what to rate it ... and I will never watch it again

Actress: Julie Delpy

I first saw Delpy in about 1994 - in Killing Zoe. Haven't seen that movie since and from memory it wasn't great but she has been a bit of a favourite since then. The reason that I'm singling her out here is because I watched the three Before ... movies this week. It's a great series and she was the acting highlight.


Before Sunrise (1995) - Richard Linklater

As I said, I've been a fan of Delpy for a number of years and around the time that this movie came out I quite liked Ethan Hawke as well but for some reason I never saw this - or any of its sequels. For me this film had a real low budget feel - the type of film that lives or dies purely by the quality of the script and the acting. Delpy was great, as she always is. Hawke was ... OK. I've watched a number of his early films lately and it turns out he was not a particularly good actor. Still, he does a decent job and his character was likeable enough. But the highlight here is the script. It creates two interesting characters and I really enjoyed their "story". For me it perfectly captured the moment where you meet someone new, get to know them, and wonder what might happen. Overall it's a very simple but very good film. A really enjoyable way to spend and hour and a half.

83/100


Before Sunset (2004) - Richard Linklater

Nine years on we catch up with the characters again. I won't actually discuss the story because the circumstances the characters find themselves in is really the whole story and it's too much of a spoiler to discuss it. In regards to the quality of the movie, I actually think this is a better movie than the first in many ways - but I didn't like it quite as much. The direction is better - you can see that Linklater has developed over the previous nine years. Hawke's acting has improved - he's now a pretty good actor. The script is the equal of the original and the last 15 minutes of the movie are fantastic. The only issue I had with this is I just didn't connect with the story quite as well. It felt a bit forced at times and perhaps less realistic. Whilst the first movie felt real - a situation that many of us may have found ourselves in - this one didn't as much and the path it took was not something that most of us have probably experienced. So overall, I've rated this very slightly lower than the first one but still a very good way to spend an hour and a half.

82/100


After Midnight (2013) - Richard Linklater

Nine years later ... It's fascinating watching a series like this with such a large gap between when they were made. Even though I watched them all at once it still feels like you are catching up with old friends and finding out what they have been up to - and you are catching up with a director and actors to see how they have changed. Well, Delpy might have put on a few kilos but she is still just as beautiful as she was 20 years ago. Hawke is now a very competent actor. I don't think he'll ever be considered "great" but at times he is very good. Then we have Linklater - perhaps the major reason why this is a great movie. His direction and writing now brilliantly combine with his cast to make a movie with great depth and emotion. I know it's a cliché but this is a "rollercoaster ride" ... I found myself understanding Hawke, not understanding Delpy, not liking Hawke, loving Delpy, disliking them both ... but always "caring". Whilst the last two were very good, this was great.

96/100

Love Sunrise and Midnight. I don't find Hawke as capable as Deply as an actor, he is good enough though.

__________________
Letterboxd

I really like your reviews man. The reviews are descriptive and to the point, and the rating scale from 0-100 works really well. Props.

There were a few moments that made me cringe in the first two movies but overall he was, as you said, good enough. By the third he had really developed and the cringe moments were gone ... but yeah, still not as good as Delpy

Thanks, appreciate it. Hopefully people find something interesting ... and if not I'm going to keep writing anyway because otherwise I just bother my wife with my "thoughts" ...

I, unlike you, was more sympathizing with Hawke's character, although I completely understood Delpy's arguments. It shows what a great film it is when two people can have two totally different characters they're sympathizing with and still can have the same positive opinion about the movie quality-wise.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Nice to see some love for PAPILLION and A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

My wife viewed it in a similar way to you. You are right - it's a sign of the quality that people can view it differently but still positively. Completely different type of movie but Life of Pi was like that - everyone I spoke to understood it differently but still liked it.

AWUTI in particular is brilliant. Watched another Cassavetes film the other day - The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Not on the same level but still very good.

I completely agree with your Before... reviews, although I thought Hawke and Delpy gave equally flawless performances. I couldn't decide who I preferred, and that's part of what makes it great. Both characters are equal, so you grow to love them equally, and it's as if you're in the relationship with them, and want them to succeed as if they're your close friends. Amazing movies.

I do agree that Hawke wasn't usually that great when he was younger. I didn't really like him in Dead Poets Society, even though he was the main reason I watched it.

And I agree that Gena Rowlands gave one of the greatest performances ever in A Woman Under the Influence, if not the greatest. Coincidentally, her and Julie Delpy are probably my two favorite actresses of all time.

Loved 30 days of night!

Been on a holiday in Malaysia for the past few weeks. Anyone who likes a wide range of movies should seriously consider moving there. Seriously. Costs less than $4 to go to the cinema - only $6 for "VIP" movies - and due to their multi-cultural society you get to see movies from all around the world on the big screen as they are released. Apart from all the main movies from the west there were also movies from Hong Kong, China, India and more being shown.

This is unrelated to what I want to write about this week but thought I would mention it

Director: Martin Scorsese

Watched another three Scorsese movies over the last week or so. Whilst they included the movie that I consider his worst, they still show what a great director he is and even though he is perhaps best known for gangster movies, one of his best attributes is his ability to bring a very different style to movies on other topics. He has an off-beat style when he makes films in different genres and they seem almost independent at times. After Hours was a good example of this - as was ...


The King of Comedy (1983)

This is a fascinating look at celebrity obsession with great performances by the two leads. Jerry Lewis in particular was fantastic. He plays a talk show host who is effectively stalked by De Niro's character - a wannabe comedian trying to get his big break. Sandra Bernhard plays another celebrity stalker and she is also fantastic - both she and De Niro provide real tension to the film because they both play their characters with a realistic level of insanity - and I was always wondering when they were going to snap. Scorsese actually took this in an unexpected direction, IMO, at the end and this is one of the reasons why I said some of his films seem like they are indie movies - he is quite happy to occasionally avoid the big Hollywood movie clichés. This is probably one of his least well known movies, and I'd never watched it before, but it's one of his best.

87/100


Gangs of New York (2002)

This is the weakest Scorsese film that I've seen. Overall it was OK but I was left disappointed because I expect more from his films. It's actually a bit hard to put my finger on what was wrong with this film - overall I think that just everything was a bit off. The casting was weird - having an Irish guy playing an American and an American playing an Irish guy was off putting because it meant both leads were faking their accents. The characters felt quite shallow and overall the story didn't feel like it was put together very well - seemed more like a collection of individual scenes rather than it all being tied together as a coherent story. The positive was that it looked fantastic. It's by no means a bad film - just wasn't particularly good.

55/100


The Color of Money (1986)

Of all of the big "movie stars" of the past 30 years, Cruise is the one who regularly puts in the weakest performances and is in the worst movies. It's a shame in some ways because he can actually be quite a good actor when he plays a character - but his problem is he almost always wants to play himself. In the last 15 years or so that has manifested itself as him only really being in movies where he is the "hero". On the odd occasion where he plays something different - Tropic Thunder, Rock of Ages, etc, - he usually steals the show. Color of Money is largely him playing himself but back in the 80s he didn't need to be a "hero" so his performance was decent enough. Newman and Mastrantonio are the real highlights and whilst the movie itself never really reaches any great heights, they make it worthwhile. I actually really started to enjoy it when it became more focussed on Newman's character and his redemption. A long way from Scorsese's best but a good film.

71/100

So while we were staying in hotels I got to watch some movies that I wouldn't normally choose. For example, I watched my first Miley Cyrus movie It sucked, but not enough to make my bottom 10 list - the 10 movies that earned my lowest ratings. On the other hand I watched my first Twilight movie - yeah, that sucked enough ...

9. Friday the 13th Part III (1982) - Steve Milner 20/100
9. The Happening (2008) - M Night Shyamalan 20/100
8. Spies Like Us (1985) - John Landis 15/100
5. Hide and Creep (2004) - Chuck Hartsell/Chance Shirley 12/100
5. Return of the Living Dead 5: Rave to the Grave (2005) - Ellory Elkayem 12/100
5. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part II (2012) - Bill Condon 12/100
4. Alex is Lovesick (1986) - Boaz Davidson 9/100
3. Jaws: The Revenge (1987) - Joseph Sargent 5/100
1. 200 MPH (2011) - Cole S McKay 2/100
1. The Postman (1997) - Kevin Costner 2/100

Notice I'm saving 1/100 for that moment when I watch the most unwatchable piece of crap ever made. What a great day that will be