Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Enough is enough! Not ANOTHER J-horror movie...
14 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, the story goes something like this: once upon a time, a few years back, there arrived a new wave of Japanese cinema - a horror cinema, dubbed J-horror. Being familiar with both the first and the second wave of Japanese film-making, with names like Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Suzuki, Imamura, Kobayashi, Teshigahara, and others, naturally one had justifiably great expectations for this reappearance of Japan on the silver screen. And the new wave DID pay off, at first. My eyes, and mind, were first blown open by Takashi Miike's sublime Audition, with its blend of cinematic reverie and gutwrenching, body-mutilating literality. Also, of course, Hideo Nakata's two Ringu films, with their postmodern remix of myth and technology, managed to turn a few heads, including mine. His Dark Water also delivered, big time. But then, what do you know, it solidified into a genre cinema, with all the attendant marketing and export values, and of course, banality and standardization followed. We have been treated to a series of films quoting chapter and verse from Ringu, including Takashi Miike's shockingly conventional and uninspired One Missed Call; Byeong-ki Ahn's utterly unoriginal Phone also looms large on this list. The Pang Brother's ridiculous The Eye could also be mentioned (I mean, HOW can you take a film seriously that takes it's denouement from the awful Richard Gere vehicle The Mothman Prophecies, the most pathetically un-scary horror film of all time? And I AM talking chapter and verse here). But, old darlings apparently die slow, and so, enter A Tale of Two Sisters. Hopes high after glowing reviews, me and a friend went to see it.

Let's just put it like this: we have vowed NEVER to see another J-horror movie, unless we have it from a very reliable source that it's actually worth the effort. This film isn't, in the extreme. Thematically, it reads as a Korean version of Amenabar's The Others, but where that film managed to stay composed and terse all the way through, and actually both frightened and surprised you in equal measure, this film is just unfocused and vague, filled with schlocky artful suspense that is supposed to keep you on the edge of your chair, but doesn't, really. It doesn't even manage to deliver as a horror film, doesn't have the energy to whip up a decent level of scare: the "terrifying" scenes are few and far apart (once again, Ringu chapter and verse: think Sadako coming out of the TV...). Unlike, say, the magnificent and mindbending Old Boy, where each turn in the complex narrative was accompanied by horrifying depictions of bodily mutilation and transformation, actually managing to create a sort of shadow world of corporeal insecurity, a bodily mirroring of the compositional pace of the film. That film was utterly spellbinding, as good cinema should be; this IS NOT. DON'T see it.
14 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I hated this boring waste of celluloid
26 May 2003
This film is really awful, in my opinion. It tries to be profound, moving, humanist and everything, but the only image actually communicated through it is one of a boring old (Oliveira obviously being in his nineties) classicist, snobbishly holding his nose at all the puerile excesses of mainstream, popular entertainment cinema; or, for that part, the more bewitched strains of art cinema. It makes me real mad: this passes itself of as Art, but is really nothing more than REACTION, imposing the sanctity of Time and the (male) Body, the Home and the Family. Why we even go to the movies, the sheer fun and fascination of cinema, the possession of the screen, the delirium of the moving image, is passed of as something for all those mindless, illiterate adolescents, out of touch (thankfully) with the eternal laws of the Masterpiece, the bourgeois privations around art that we´d better do without. Shame really, with the waste of talent going on here: Michel Piccoli is, arguably, one of the greatest french actors of all time, and it´s not that he´s bad here, he just doesn´t have anything to work with. On this point, check out Marco Ferreri´s La Grande Bouffe, one of the most deliriously unpleasant films ever, and with the equally great Philippe Noiret; or Claude Faraldo´s Themroc, where Piccoli coughs, grunts and laughs his way through the role of a modern day cave man and barbarian, a film without a hint of legible/audible dialogue. Rate: 0.5 out of 10000.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dog Days (2001)
10/10
Deeply disturbing and great film
28 March 2002
This film has got to be ranked as one of the most disturbing and arresting films in years. It is one of the few films, perhaps the only one, that actually gave me shivers: not even Pasolini´s Sálo, to which this film bears comparison, affected me like that. I saw echoes in the film from filmmakers like Pasolini, Fassbinder and others. I had to ask myself, what was it about the film that made me feel like I did? I think the answer would be that I was watching a horror film, but one that defies or even reverses the conventions of said genre. Typically, in a horror film, horrible and frightening things will happen, but on the margins of civilized society: abandoned houses, deserted hotels, castles, churchyards, morgues etc. This handling of the subject in horror is, I think, a sort of defence mechanism, a principle of darkness and opacity functioning as a sort of projective space for the desires and fears of the viewer. So, from this perspective, Hundstage is not a horror film; it takes place in a perfectly normal society, and so doesn´t dabble in the histrionics of the horror film. But what you see is the displacement of certain key thematics from the horror genre, especially concerning the body and its violation, the stages of fright and torture it can be put through. What Seidl does is to use the settings of an everyday, middle class society as a stage on which is relayed a repetitious play of sexual aggression, loneliness, lack and violation of intimacy and integrity: precisely the themes you would find in horror, but subjected to a principle of light and transparency from which there is no escape. It is precisely within this displacement that the power of Seidl´s film resides. Hundstage deals with these matters as a function of the everyday, displays them in quotidian repetition, rather than as sites of extremity and catharsis - a move you would encounter in said horror genre. One important point of reference here is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder also had a way of blending the political with the personal in his films, a tactics of the melodrama that allowed him to deal in a serious and even moral way with political issues like racism, domination, desire, questions concerning ownership, sexual property and control, fascism and capitalism etc. Seidl´s tactic of making the mechanisms of everyday society the subject of his film puts him in close proximity with Fassbinder; like this German ally, he has a sort of political vision of society that he feels it is his responsibility to put forward in his films. During a seminar at the Gothenburg Film Festival this year, at which Seidl was a guest, he was asked why he would have so many instances of violated, subjugated women in Hundstage, but no instances of a woman fighting back, liberating herself. Seidl replied that some may view it as immoral to show violence against women, but that he himself felt it would be immoral not to show it. An artistic statement as good as any, I think. Thank you.
38 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed