Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK

→ in
Tools    





Age of Gold (1930) n

Was looking for controversial films from 1930s for the porential HoF and maybe even for the countdown and found this one by Buñuel.



It's quite hard to write anything specific about the film because I don't really understand what I saw. I assume it's against religion and the aristocratic (mis)use of power blessed by the church in similar vein as de Sade's works (yeah, I got clear de Sade vibes way before the end and its direct reference). Youtube copy missed subtitles from couple of scenes but I don't think that even with them I could say there's a clear plot here, it just flows onward like a twisted dream.

Cinematography is mostly quite nice for a 1930 film and there are lots of good looking outdoors scenes (especially in the beginning). Soundtrack is also surprisingly inventive for the age. Acting is probably good (without real characters it's always a little hard to tell).

Age of Gold was entertaining experience even without finding much sense in it. It was brutal and dark film with somewhat surprising twists. It was little like following a dream while being awake. From today's standards the outrage it created seems silly but I'm sure there are lots of people even today who would get butthurt by its mockery of religion.




Three Monkeys (2008) n

Another film for HoF16. A Turkish family drama about guilt, greed, jealousy and, as their effect, stupidity.



Eyüp takes blame for his employer's accidental run over of a random pedestrian in exchange for some money. During the sentence his wife starts an affair with the employer. From there lots of things start to go wrong.

Again the characters aren't particularly likable but they're somewhat interesting. Story is written well and what seemed like a decent trade for the family turns believably into disaster because both the family and employer make terrible decisions.

Visually the film is OK. At times it feels a little too drained of color but I suppose it's on purpose. The "haunting" of the family's younger, apparently drowned, son is a nice touch. Acting is very good by practically everyone. Script is solid.

The film dragged slightly at times but not much. Maybe it's a culture thing but I felt that people were bit too ready to take the blame for other people's crimes. I'm not sure if I liked the ending either; it felt a little too easy solution to all the problems especially considering that it replicates the initial cause of the issues. I would have preferred more tragic ending.

Solid drama about breaking family and consequences of bad choices.




I Am a Ghost (2012) n

A very low-budget combination of Groundhog Day and The Others.



The film is about a ghost of a young woman, Emily, and a medium, Sylvia, who's hired to rid the house of spirits. Early parts of the film are about constant repetitions of Emily's memories that she keeps reliving without knowing she's a ghost. Repeated scenes are rather short so we get to see (way too) many repetitions.

Latter half is much better as Emily (with some guidance from Sylvia's voice) tries to piece her memories together and find a way to move on. We still see the same memories but this time Emily is watching them from the outside and there's a feeling that the story is getting somewhere. In the end there's little horror as well and the open ending works pretty well.

I Am a Ghost is amateurish in many ways but it does have some charms too. Cinematography is mostly fine but little too claustrophobic. Dialogue is bit unclear at times so subs definitely came in handy. Acting isn't bad by any means but Ishida doesn't have enough talent or charisma to fully carry the film through (she's basically alone for the most of the film so it's not an easy task). Anyways, the production surely used well its $10k budget.

Interesting idea, somewhat flawed execution but enough hooks and personality to end up as an okay ghost story.




Ended up watching another film today.

Who Saw Her Die? (1972) n

A giallo where murderer stalks redheaded little girls. This means that Nicoletta Elmi has to die again



Franco, a sculptor living in Venice, has his young daughter visiting (I suppose, his marital situation is rather confusing) him. After very endearing father-daughter relationship building period the girl is murdered. Because Franco is James Bond, or at least George Lazenby, he starts to investigate the crime when local police seems to be quite incompetent.

The film works pretty well up to Elmi's death but the actual investigation part is really messy. It's poorly written and (in sadly typical giallo style) drops both the reason behind the murders and the actual murderer out of nowhere. Also the killings happening during the investigation are shot poorly (like no one cares to even try to defend themselves).

Acting felt little wooden (my copy was dubbed in English which probably didn't help either) but not enough to actually annoy. Visually the film was above average but not comparable to Fulci's or Argento's giallos. Venice as a setting was beatiful. Morricone's soundtrack was brilliant.

Elmi and Morricone keep this giallo barely floating but can't fix the messy script.




Rampage (2018) n

Very boring monster circus that has nothing to offer. Who even thought that Rampage could turn into decent movie? Plot is bad, action is dull and the most clever joke is a gorilla giving the finger. Please, avoid.

-



The Psychic (1977) N

Another giallo (or something) by Lucio Fulci.



A clairvoyant named Virginia sees visions of a woman being killed and walled up. She ends up finding a corpse from the wall inside a house owned by her husband. With her parapsychologist friend she tries to solve the murder but everything isn't how she initially believed.

Unlike other Fulcis I've seen this one has very solid script and is mostly story driven film. The story is accompanied by beautiful visuals and very nice score - with its deep reds it reminds me a lot of Argento. My copy was dubbed again but acting felt pretty decent too.

The biggest complaint is that the story isn't (in my opinion) very interesting. I'm not usually too fond of psychics and premonitions and prophecies which usually feel like cheap plot devices. The Psychic handles this far better than usual and is rather nice example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Also Fulci apparently liked the fall at the end of his Don't Torture a Duckling far more than I did and decided to replicate it at the start of this one.

Not too interesting story is elevated by good script and great cinematography.




The Reflecting Skin (1990) r



The Reflecting Skin is a dark story about a young boy, Seth, in rural USA during the 50's. It's bleak and cruel journey through childhood that has very little joy to offer. Even the long awaited return of his brother from the army turns sour as he fall in love with an English widow, who Seth believes to be a vampire, living nearby.

Cinematography is absolutely beautiful with rich and colorful shots often with high contrast mix of light and dark colors. Fields, dusty roads and crumbling farms offer fitting setting for the tragic story. Also, unlike many films focusing on the visuals, The Reflecting Skin does not prolong its shots for no reason but retains fluent pacing with its story.

Script is mostly fine. There are things that don't seem logical but most likely they weren't meant to be. Seth's view of the world is distorted and that same warped world is offered to viewer as well. Acting is the weakest part of the film. Viggo Mortensen was really wooden as Seth's brother. Lindsay Duncan as the English Widow was probably the best actor. Jeremy Cooper as Seth was OK but the scenes with other children seemed really forced at times.

I loved the visuals and ruthlessness of the story. Ending is great and definitely different from the norm. Mediocre acting and some small issues with the script lower the rating but good movie none the less. It reminded me somewhat of Poison for the Fairies which isn't visually as stunning but has better acting and slightly better script.



Recommended movies: Poison for the Fairies (1984), Pan's Labyrinth (2006), I Kill Giants (2017)

Edit: Raised rating from 4 to 4.5 popcorn.
First of all, tell me how do you write such long reviews. I guess you are a writer? Anyway, This movie seems interesting, even the movie cover of the film is attractive and I liked the storyline.



First of all, tell me how do you write such long reviews. I guess you are a writer? Anyway, This movie seems interesting, even the movie cover of the film is attractive and I liked the storyline.
They're not all that good/long, to be honest And I'm not a writer (an aspiring one maybe but apparently too lazy to put enough effort to actually finish anything).



Then you are A figure among cyphers. because I cannot even write reviews on any movie or maybe I am also too lazy to think and write reviews hehe



Naked (1993) N

HoF16 candidate again. Ever wanted to spend two hours watching an obnoxious smartass yapping his mouth? Me neither but now I had to.



So Johnny is a homeless bum and a wannabe intellectual who can't keep his mouth shut for a minute. His deep discussions with few unlucky encounters are like modern internet discussions - he drops walls of text from his mouth and doesn't give damn about what the other person is saying. He's a stupid movie cliche of an intellectual where being smart equals an ability to cite past philosophers instead of being able to think.

For some reason every woman he meets will instantly want to have sex with him despite of the fact that he's a smelly bum who mostly just insults these women and hurts them while having sex. Then there's this richer guy with his rape fantasies who has almost nothing to do with the rest of the story (I guess Mike Leigh was worried people wouldn't take him seriously if his film wouldn't break two hour mark so he decided to have two pricks instead of just one).

On the positive side acting is good, especially David Thewlis as Johnny is brilliant (I hated the guy but he was absolutely believable). Cinematography is pretty nice as well. Technical quality just doesn't save it from being horribly boring.

If it weren't for the HoF I wouldn't have finished this.




Ginger Snaps (2000) r

A much needed rewatch for my potential top horror list. Another attempt to link puberty and its changes on (female) body with more profound transformation into a monster.



Ginger and Brigitte are high school juniors (Brigitte is one year younger but she's skipped a class at some point). They're also (so-called) freaks and misanthropists of sort who mostly just hang together and have an obsession for morbid (they take pictures of their faked deaths and have a pact of dying together).

While out one night Ginger gets bitten by a werewolf that's been killing local dogs like no tomorrow. So in addition to having her first period (at 16) she also starts to grow some extra body hair, pointed teeth and a tail to boot. While Ginger succumbs deeper into bestiality Brigitte tries to find her a cure with some assistance by a young local drug dealer. Story ends with quite a bit of blood and sadness.

The basic story is nothing special but it works mostly because of very well written characters and kinda clever ways to transfer the old werewolf tropes into modern time. Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins are perfect in their portrayal of the sisters. It reminds me a little of Let the Right One In as both of them are primarily concerned of the characters while all the horror elements are secondary and only there to support the character based story.

Cinematography is fine but nothing really special. The monster effects haven't aged too well and I personally don't like how the werewolf looks (though I suppose Ginger's transformation is not finished). I'm also not exactly sure if I like the comedic elements (especially sisters' parents are really goofy).

A good character driven horror film and a good candidate for the best puberty mystification horror ever made.




Mr. Freedom (1968) N

HoF16 candidate again. A satire about USA, its (foreign) politics, capitalism and all other evil things of the West.



Mr. Freedom is like a simple sketch that goes on and on overstaying its welcome by a large margin. It has a handful of witty or funny ideas but not nearly enough to carry its 95 minutes. I suppose the message and ideological preaching was more important to William Klein than making a good film.

In the film we have Mr. Freedom, an American superhero and an agent of Freedom Inc. whose job is to spread freedom across the globe and defend the American interests. In France there's been a rise of Anti-Freedom activity and Mr. Freedom is sent to deal with it. Along with the French opposition Soviets and Chinese cause problems to Mr. Freedom.

In theory the concept could have resulted in a good movie but in practice it didn't. Everything from writing to acting to directing is just so terribly sloppy. On the ideological level the film is also pretty confusing. Sure, Vietnam War was a fiasco but Klein's portrayal of USA as a fascist nation that'll bomb everyone who disagrees with them doesn't really grow on me, especially as he's simultaneously bowing far to the left. At least I got the impression that he only doesn't hate Freedom but also freedom.

A failed satire that's more interested in preaching than being funny and entertaining.




Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) R

Last HoF16 film besides my own nomination which I'll rewatch later. A filming of a book where the main character is almost completely defined by his olfactory experiencing of the world. Definitely not an easy subject for a film.



Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is a man with the most acute nose in the whole world. His world is defined by scents instead of images or sounds. After encountering (and killing) a young woman who's scent entices him he wants to learn to preserve such precious scents and ends up as an apprentice perfumer in Paris.

After realizing that the master Baldini is unable to teach what he needs to know he goes to city of Grasse, a perfumers' Mecca of sorts. There he learns to preserve the human scent and ends up killing multiple girls in the process. Finally he captures the most exquisite scent from a wealthy merchant's daughter but is also captured himself. What follows is a weird demonstration of the power of the scents he's collected and mixed into a magical perfume.

I find the subject little silly but it certainly is quite unique. The film manages to portray JBG's olfactory world surprisingly well; it's not as deeply explored as it was in the book but at the same it doesn't get as much in the way of the story either. Ben Whishaw does excellent job as the main villain even though I could have lived with little few closed eyes by him. Visually the film about smell works nicely.

After reading the book just prior to this rewatch there are few things that did bother me in this otherwise excellent filming. By far the greatest issue is the humanization of JBG who in the book is totally alienated from the rest of humanity. With this comes the simplification of his motives as well as him being at least a little sympathetic in the film.

I don't know why the whole Grasse part of the story is completely re-written. There's much that doesn't make sense in the movie's interpretation. Also lots of satire about the church, nobility and people in general has been omitted but that's mostly a time issue, I believe (though I really missed the fluidum letale).

Technically the movie is solid. Script is mostly fine with some exceptions mentioned above and the fact that it feels little rushed at times. Supporting cast is good. Even the narrator works while I usually dislike them. The ending doesn't work as well as it works in the book because of the changes made to JBG.

A bold attempt to film an "unfilmable" book. It has its flaws but so has the book. In the end I give this exactly the same rating as I gave the book.

+



Ready Player One (2018) N

2 hours and 20 minutes to be informed that spending all your time playing online isn't healthy? That has to be the longest and most expensive public service announcement ever made.



A geek combined social media and World of Warcraft (sorry, that's an insult to WoW) and world was never the same again. The geek dies and an Easter egg is announced with the promise of riches (and full control of this virtual world) for anyone who finds it. I wonder whether this mega corporation finds it, or this young, naive and poor kid?

There's been a lot of complaints how the film is an insult to the book. I personally didn't like the book either and never finished it but based on what I read it's easy to understand these people. I'm not doing any deep comparisons though as I didn't finish the book but they're certainly very different.

As a film Ready Player One is terrible. It looks awful both in virtual (why would a virtual world in 2045 have graphics as poor as 2001 Final Fantasy movie) and real world. Amazing how bad action can be considering the budget. There are no real characters, plot is paper thin and the educational ending is cringe worthy. The world is completely senseless.

Ready player one? No, but I'm ready to give this one popcorn (there's an extra half for using Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It).




Rampage and Ready Player One the same rating? I suppose haha I think Ready Player One might have been one of my favorites this year. Appreciate the list so far though!



Maniac (1934) N

An exploitation/horror film from 30s that has its moments but in general the story and its presentation just aren't good enough. I also wonder if Stuart Gordon or Brian Yuzna have seen this because there are so many resemblances to Re-Animator.



A former vaudeville impersonator is assisting a mad scientist. After killing his employer he begins to impersonate the doctor and is driven into deep paranoia where everyone is out to get him.

There are few nice scenes (like the, according to wiki, famous cat scene) and the contemporary psychological info bits are pretty nice idea. Acting for the most part is rather horrendous and Bill Woods overdoes the craziness in almost every scene. There is very little to say about cinematography or anything technical, it just isn't a quality production.

It's not terrible but still quite bad. I'm happy it was so short though and I suppose the rating would have been lower it the film would have crossed the one hour mark.




Network (1976) N

A mentally unstable news anchor is turned into a raging prophet by television network and at first draws massive ratings but ends up preaching far less popular truths.



When Howard Beale, once popular but soon unemployed news anchor, threatens to commit suicide during a live broadcast he sets in motion a set of events that raises the small failing network's ratings to unprecedented heights. Along with the mad prophet the shape of television is renewed by young head of the programming department, Diana Christensen, whose world is completely defined by ratings and the corporation, CCA, that has recently taken over the network.

In addition to Beale's ravings the network also turns domestic terrorism into entertainment when Diana makes deal with left wing radicals to produce weekly authentic material from their strikes. Things start to go wrong when Beale's sermons turn against the money. CCA boss intervenes and reveals him the new truth or economic gospel. This new message doesn't resonate well with the viewers and in order to save the ratings Diana and other network bosses end up ordering an assassination for him, obviously during a live broadcast.

Network is a well made satire about the media, money, ideologies and general desire for premade truths and unwillingness to actually form own opinions. Script is solid even though at times it tends to explain just a little too much and partially because of that loses steam on few occasions. Acting is superb and at least both leads deserved their Oscars.

The film's message has endured really well and is still very topical (probably even more than it was back in 1976). I also like how the film doesn't exactly take sides (all ideologies are for sale) and just preaches against general human gullibility and lack of individualism.

Good satire driven by great actors that has few too many dull moments to be great.




Torso (1973) N

What to do when you don't really have a plot or content and the film is still 20 minutes short? You make your leading ladies get naked, of course, and shoot them dancing, sunbathing and getting involved in various sexual activities with random men or each other. Problem solved.



Some university students are murdered in Perugia. One girl is pestered by an unwanted lover and escapes to her uncle's villa with her friends. The killer follows and there are quite a few murders more and lots of bare breasts. There's really no plot besides random murders and nudity.

I was expecting a giallo but Torso is (at least in my opinion) pure slasher which I don't like that much. There is no solving the mystery at all, just murders that get closer and closer to our protagonist. Killer is revealed when she meets him face to face. Storywise the film is really empty.

Visually it's above average when it comes to slashers and Italy is beautiful as usual. I wonder if Italy still looks like that today, in 1970s films it looks like living in a museum (totally meant as a praise). Acting was decent. Ladies were pretty. By far the biggest flaw was a lack of real plot.

After watching okay to good giallos lately I was disappointed when Torso was revealed to be just a poor slasher.




Witchfinder General (1968) r

Hunting witches can be arduous job but it helps if you're getting well paid, enjoy the power it gives you and have an assistant who enjoys torturing other people (especially women).



Matthew Hopkins, a 17th century lawyer turned witch hunter, prowls the Civil War era eastern England with his sadistic assistant. Together they torture confessions from accused witches and oversee the executions. Among their victims is a priest suspected of being a papist who's also a guardian of Sara, a young woman and a promised wife of a parliamentarian soldier Richard Marshall. Richard swears vengeance and final confrontation follows.

Vincent Price is great as witchfinder Hopkins. I just love the way he speaks on this. Obviously he's way too old to be Hopkins but with the film's low level of historical accuracy it doesn't matter. Otherwise acting is mediocre. Cinematography is mostly good and some shots looks excellent (like the opening scene of the gallows). Violence is a bit more graphical than usually in British films of the time.

For me the biggest issue was the script. There's no real flow in the story but only a fragmented collection of scenes with little cohesion. Too much time is wasted on traveling scenes. Characters don't have time to grow and the whole situation in England is omitted except for a short introductory narration and few small glimpses of Cromwell's army (why even put Cromwell on screen without any mention of the politics).

Apparently Nicolas Winding Refn has bought the remake rights for the movie. That would definitely be a remake I'd approve as the story has much potential. But now the actual 1968 film is only okayish movie with really nice performance by Price and pretty effective ending.




How to Talk to Girls at Parties (2017) N

I wonder if Elle Fanning likes the Liquid Sky because this is a second film she's been in that kinda reminds me of it.



There's this trio of punks in late 1970s London who just happen to get involved with the visiting aliens who are gathering experiences across the universe. One of them, Enn, falls in love with an alien Zan who's inhabiting a fabulous body of Elle Fanning. What follows is a very 80s like film about the rebellious youth culture that ends up making the world (or universe in this case) a better place.

Movie certainly has its moments (most are related to Zan's lack of knowledge about the human ways and also the not-so-hygienic kissing scene is hilarious) but being a film about 70s punk scene it's far too timid. It's also very predictable but I guess that comes with the genre (still hated the very end and its "mandatory" LGBT angle that was foreseeable from light years away).

Acting is very solid and practically every character seems to have been cast perfectly. Visually the film is nice but the more cosmic scenes were lacking something (like nudity which was kinda implied). Script was good but, like mentioned earlier, I would have preferred it to be a lot more daring. Music had a pretty big role in the film and it worked (seems like both Fannings can sing).

An easy to watch film with a nostalgic feel, great acting and adorable Elle Fanning. If it had been more daring and hadn't always chosen the easy solutions it could have been much better. Still OK.

+