Change Your Image
stage_3_dan
Top Five Favorite Flicks:
1. Leon
2. Oldboy
3. 8 1/2
4. Brazil
5. The Iron Giant
I've only ever had a hard time of choosing five other films to round out a top ten. Each time it seems I've got the list narrowed down, I find another film that is as important to me, if not moreso, than one of the ones already on there. It's with this pain in the ass in mind that I present, following my top five, a list known as...
Fifteen Other Films That Matter:
1. Clerks
2. THX-1138
3. The Big Lebowski
4. Cool Hand Luke
5. Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance
6. La Commare Secca
7. Last Life in the Universe
8. Fargo
9. In the Mood For Love
10. Ikiru
11. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
12. Kung Fu Hustle
13. Young Frankenstein
14. The Bird People in China
15. Lord of the Rings
I reserve the right to change this list at my leisure, should my feelings about films on it suddenly shift, or I find a film I feel belongs on the list more than another, or if I've just plain had too much to drink.
Reviews
V for Vendetta (2005)
V For...Oh, What A Cliché'd Opener.
*Note: There may be some mild spoilers within. Or worse. I don't know, I haven't written it at the time of this warning. If you don't like spoilers, chances are you should read one of the orgasmic reviews hailing V as a masterpiece, and carefully note that the people who wrote those reviews either a) haven't read the book, b) are staunch liberals, or c) both a) and b). Anyways.*
This is a Wachowski film.
I know that they got some other schmuck to direct it. But they wrote and produced it, and their paw prints are all over the product. I can't tell if they're geniuses for being able to so utterly manipulate a director (who probably wouldn't need much persuading, being that he was their first assistant director on at least two of the Matrix films), or just cowards.
But I digress. V For Vendetta has quite a bit going for it-- McTiegue is a competent director when he's not bending his style to suit that of the Wachowski brothers, and Hugo Weaving is Hugo Weaving. I don't know how much of V's physical work is Weaving's, and how much is James Purefoy's (who was cast in the role before leaving the project under shady circumstances), but Weaving's voice work just demonstrates the depth of his ability as an actor. Bravo for him, and if the rest of the film had been dreck, he still would have made it worth watching. It should also be noted that films boasting casts as large as V's are susceptible to an inconsistency in performance quality; after all, there's bound to be one bad apple in such a large crowd of people, but the cast of V is strong across the boards. Highlights include Portman in her role as Evey, Stephen Rea as the disenchanted and hardened Finch, and Stephen Fry as Deitrich, who manages to take a role that was essentially massively beefed up from the book, and make the character feel like he truly belongs. Fry's a charming performer, so this should come as no shock.
Also worthy of note-- the script is actually solid. The introduction with Guy Fawkes, with a breathy Portman voice-over, was unnecessary (her line about "the man I knew" made the film come off like a coming-of-age story), and the ending needed a lot of polishing, but in an age where comic fans get enraged over any detail you can imagine, the Wachowskis managed to create a faithful version of V that is still unique. They knew what aspects to strip-- for example, V cultivating a "special Rose" for the Leader, that Rose being the wife of an agent killed early in the book, and the storyline involving Helen and her bid to seize power over the government-- and what aspects to keep. Being able to discern those bits that make your source material tick is a feat worthy of praise. And for anyone afraid of the V costume looking hokey, fear not, because that get-up looks so incredible that I'm wondering if I can get my hands on a Guy Fawkes mask myself.
But it's not a perfect film. Like the Matrix films (even the first, which I like), V suffers from a lack of care for and attention to the parts of film-making that the average moviegoer has no awareness of-- the editing was sloppy, and the sound needed a lot of work. Fortunately, at least James McTiegue cares for substance, because most of the film *is* pretty quality, even for someone who loves the book upon which it is based (like me). But it's the lack of care for small details that ends up keeping V from being truly great; for example, if only heterosexual white Christians were spared from Norsefire's purging of England, why do a number of non- white actors appear in the film? I grant you that they exist in the film for a microsecond before the camera turns away, but they're there, and for the world of V to be truly believable, they shouldn't be. (No, this comment is not racist. If you expect me to buy your universe where only whites are allowed to exist by a fascist government, then don't put anyone who doesn't fit that description in.) Further, the music and the sound effects both overpower dialogue frequently; it's not always key dialogue, but it's dialogue, most of it, I assume, very well-spoken. Key or not, one should not drown out their actors for the sake of cool sounds, or music that informs the audience how they are supposed to react to what they've seen on screen.
This is basic film-making, and somehow, McTiegue and the Wachowskis manage to bungle it. Again. If the Wachowskis ever want to be remembered as being great, and if McTiegue wants a serious career beyond being their lap-dog, then they would all do well to pay more attention to these aspects of putting a movie together. For now, it appears that the brothers are content to continue doing what they do without much care for the art of their craft. If one looks over the vast amount of hyperbole and effusive praise used in the other reviews here, you will note that it appears to be working.
It works, but it is not, by any means, great film-making. To those who immensely enjoyed the movie, this may appear to be nitpicking, which I can only say is demonstrative of their love for, and knowledge of, film-making as a craft, and as art. If you've got the keys to a high-budget and high-concept flick like this, drive according to the rules of the road. Now, I'm confident that McTiegue can mature into a fine director if he should find himself out of the Wachowski's pocket, but I'm not holding out much hope for the two young men too concerned with the absurd notion of making things as "cool" as possible.
Boksuneun naui geot (2002)
A Sensible Review
I've been reading over user comments on Sympathy, and I'm pretty shocked. What gore- fest were you people watching? I remember only a couple of really "gory" moments, but there was nothing that was too extreme (save for Ryu's murderous assault towards the end, and the very very brief torture scene). If you have weak stomachs, don't watch movies with any bit of gore in them. You're the wrong kind of people to be reviewing this kind of film. As a critic you should be able to put personal biases aside and give a fair and balanced review of the movie in question, but you've let a little bit of violence offend you. And that's not a bad thing, it's just that letting biases get in the way can really ruin a review.
Violence in cinema isn't a terrible thing. When there's blood on the screen and people write off the film as tripe automatically, it bothers me to no end. It's blood. So what? When the movie turns into something that only progresses to get to another gory, violent scene, that's a problem, and if you felt that way about Sympathy I feel for you and I apologize. That said, I definitely did not see it as being something that sought to continue just to display more brutality. The scenes in question were meant to create tension and drama, and in some ways show progression of character. They were not meant to be there simply because blood = good, and again, I do feel badly for anybody who took it that way, because that really isn't any fun.
What was fun, for me at least, was the whole of this film. I tend to be wary whenever "different abled" people are cast in lead roles in films, although you'll never hear me use that term in a serious tone. I must admit, having the lead be deaf made me nervous, as I've seen some pretty bad films and television programs featuring deaf characters. In my junior year in high school, I learned ASL, and I furthered the experience for years beyond that. Whenever I see any character, be they deaf, blind, mute, crippled, etc, portrayed in any film, I pray that the filmmakers get it right and not make a stereotype and a mockery of the character.
In the case of Sympathy, Ryu was excellent. His signing, though not the American Sign Language that I'm familiar with (it's Korea, for crying out loud), was spot-on, from the way he physically articulated the signs, to his facial expressions per sign. Shin Ha-Kyun plays Ryu perfectly, in fact he's so good that I am tempted to say that he's probably deaf himself. The way that Chan-wook Park makes use of his protagonist's deafness also is excellent-- his cuts, from Ryu signing to a black screen with translations of the signs, are really great. The, "person-is-speaking-but-you-here-nothing" shots are also wonderful, as is the shot of Ryu in the factory wearing nothing to protect his ears while everyone else is. It's these little things that help create the atmosphere, and to build on Ryu. Wonderful stuff.
Chan-wook Park also tends to get very inventive with the camera in other ways as well, so much so that I think he's one of the most unique directors around today. I want to see more of his technique-- thus, I am looking forward to seeing Oldboy whenever I have the chance to. He doesn't, however, go too crazy with things, which I appreciate, since a lot of directors try to be inventive and ultimately give you annoying camera work that seems more like that of an amateur than that of an auteur.
The story follows a deaf man (Ryu), who gives all of his saved money to thugs in order to get a kidney transplant for his sister (he was going to use it to just have a legal transfer done, but nobody matches his sister's blood type). He wakes up to find himself down a kidney, down 10,000 won, and down all of his clothing, and he later finds out that the hospital has found a matching donor, much to his chagrin. With no other recourse (as they see it), Ryu and his girlfriend kidnap the daughter of Dong-jin Park and hold her for ransom. With cycles of vengeance firmly implanted in the story, Chan-wook gives us a riveting narrative as Dong-jin Park searches desperately for the people who took his child. In the end, does everyone get their revenge?
Chan-wook would have you believe so, but he's more interested in generating sympathy for each character, as everyone is a victim in their own way, even the criminals (hence the title Sympathy For Mr.Vengeance). Many people become their own Mr.Vengeance, whether it is Ryu kidnapping Dong-jin Park's daughter for money as well as for retribution (Dong-jin fires Ryu from his job early in the film, after all), or the aching father hunting down the kidnappers one by one. It's one of the the few films I've seen do this, and it's something that I appreciate greatly. Not all criminals are motivated by an uncompromising hatred lurking within them-- so what does motivate them? You'll see.
If you're looking for something creative and fresh, and you don't mind a few graphic scenes here and there, then I would recommend this. ********* (out of ten)