Change Your Image
fitchalex
Reviews
Hwajangshil eodieyo? (2002)
A quirky and amusing travelogue that's daft yet quietly breathtaking
Written, directed and produced by the improbably named Fruit Chan, Public Toilet is a freewheeling & vastly entertaining travelogue shot all over the world on digital video. Coming across as a cheaper, funnier and more scatological version of Wim Wenders' Until the end of the world, we follow various young people around the planet in amusing vignettes that cross over via telephone calls and chance meetings. Dong dong is nick-named god of the toilet as he was delivered in a public convenience in Beijing and abandoned there, where twenty years later he still hangs out with his friends and muses about bodily functions. As he points out, his foreign friends are shocked by toilets like this, where there aren't any cubicles, just holes in the ground and people sit / squat next to each other. But while you initially suspect the film will just be about this, when we follow him to his summer house and an encounter with a boneless mermaid we begin to suspect the film will be stranger and more enchanting than its original limited starting point. From here we visit a hapless assassin in New York who wants the tape of his last kill to be sent to his girlfriend in Hong Kong and join a quest to find a miracle cure that takes us from the great wall of China to the river Ganges in India. A film that manages to be low budget and somewhat improvised but yet a minor epic, with more far flung locations than an average Bond film, must be considered quite an achievement and certainly a cult film in the making. Some of the stories get resolved while others don't, but always the cinematography is somewhat magical and part of the delight of the film is that we never know where we're going to go next. The film focuses on bizarre little events - a boy with leukemia hides his water pistol in a toilet cistern and a pet octopus has a fight with crabs in a fish tank, and epic sweeps of the landscape - goat herders in the Himalayas and cranes on New York's liberty island. Even if you have seen the aforementioned Wenders film, it is safe to say you still haven't seen anything like this before. Humorous dialogue, wacky yet charming characters and a real eye for elegant camera framing combine to make another great film from modern Korea. Although a little flabby at just under two hours, this is quirky and innovative film-making that may inspire a new generation to pick up their cameras and start shooting movies..
Dead or Alive: Final (2002)
Lackluster finale to the controversial trilogy
Dead or Alive - Finale
.and it starts so well: a dirigible with neon signs beneath floats over a desolate city street, the sky is yellow (from pollution?) and the underclass run from the reproduction police in Yokohama 2364. However, the image of Blade Runner meets 1984, set for a change during the day, is quickly dispelled by the obvious lack of budget and thin plot that would be hard pressed to fill half an hour, let alone three times that length. I haven't seen either of the preceding Dead or Alive films, but the flashbacks in this (the same good guy & bad guy fighting epic Street Fighter style battles throughout history) make you feel that this is probably the least of the trilogy. Having not seen the previous two, but encouraged that the finale could stand on its own, I went purely as a fan of the director. Miike Takeshi is best known for his sublime thriller Audition, a Japanese (and far better) counterpoint to Basic Instinct that would put any straight man off blind dates for life. Also, his stylistically experimental but totally gripping Triad trilogy makes for diverting viewing. However this film only comes alive (no pun intended) when there are special effects on screen or blistering kung fu. These aren't even terribly imaginative, but at least the bullet time shoot outs are often played tongue in cheek, and are done with considerable gusto and flair. Also, the bizarre technique of varying film speeds throughout the movie (perhaps because old films were shot at 16fps?) is irritating rather than an innovative device. Having beautifully depicted the relationship between an old gangster and a young boy in Rainy Dog, Miike covers much the same ground again in this film. However, anyone who's seen Robocop 3 or Soldier (we're thinking of starting a bad sci-fi support group) knows cyborg / kid relationships normally come across like a lead balloon. Here, this boy and his robot make an amusing double act, but not one that can sustain audience attention for any great period of time. Even the nice liet-motif of old celluloid doesn't really go anywhere; it just seems like the director had recently seen Cinema Paradiso and so poached an idea from it. Also the undercurrent of homophobia throughout the film is somewhat disturbing - why can't we have a heroic male lead with an attractive boyfriend, rather than the slimy mayor who deserves to die. A charity comic published in the eighties featured a ludicrous parody of Robocop by Frank Miller (ironically) as a homophobic robotic penis who fought crime. Astonishingly, this movie ends exactly the same way (honestly!) but not in a manner that is played entirely for laughs or satire, but rather in a way that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth (I can't believe I just wrote that). Occasionally entertaining then, it does make me intrigued to see the prequels, but this film is one to file under 'must try harder' rather than 'must see'. (For a far more entertaining and coincidentally, gay-positive, over the top Japanese sci-fi kung-fu film check out the amazing Wild Zero, if it ever gets released on video / in the cinema in this country)
Love Liza (2002)
A deeply moving yet often amusing film about loss and our ability to cope with it
A deeply moving yet often amusing film about loss and our ability to cope with it, Love Liza finally gives Philip Seymour Hoffman top billing as a man coping with the suicide of his wife. Directed with great subtlety by Todd Louiso and with an excellent screenplay by Hoffman's brother, the film follows Hoffman's character Wilson as he wonders through his life trying to find purpose for his existence and a reason for her death. The film is moving and on occasion threatened to bring this reviewer to tears, but it is directed with a lightness of touch that prevents the mood from being too heavy or depressing. Wilson's choice of petrol fumes as his choice of narcotic seems odd and is never explained except as a tangential connection to a shot that suggests his wife used the car exhaust to kill her self (although the local kids believe she used a gun) but is the catalyst (no pun intended) for his journey and the odd people he meets. This starts as bewilderment as Wilson stares inside a petrol nozzle at a gas station looking for answers, in one of many amusing encounters at that location, but quickly turns to addiction. A lie he tells to cover the smell of the fumes leads to an encounter with a model plane enthusiast, and letting life take him in any unexpected direction that presents itself, he ends up on a road trip to Louisiana to meet other like-minded individuals.
Another aspect of this film that obviously deserves kudos is the great casting of Kathy Bates as his mother in law who starts off respecting his space and then commits a bizarre act of larceny to provoke him into action. Bates, sporting a butch grey hair cut, is as watch able as ever, and one of only two complaints I'd have of the film is that she doesn't have enough screen time. A telling moment is the brilliant superimposition of her face over his as she finds him asleep in his car, which is one of many provided by the sublime cinematography of Lisa Rinzler (Pollock, Buena Vista Social Club). In fact, the only other complaint I'd have of the film is the ambiguous ending which seems to suggest his situation hadn't been resolved.
As much as I enjoyed his performance as the endearingly geeky Dick in High Fidelity, based on his confident and able direction in this film, here's hoping we find Todd Louiso behind the camera as much as in front, in the future
Keisatsukan (1933)
Silent, languid but gripping film noir from Japan
There is a certain pace to Japanese cinema that doesn't seem to have changed much over the last 70 years. From Ozu's reflections on social interaction to Takeshi Kitano's ultra violent Yazuza movies, there is a deliberate development of plot that is designed to show the thoughtfulness of the characters and their quiet reflection on the world around them. This informs the plot of this movie also. At an hour and three quarters the film could easily be shaved of twenty minutes of its running time in order to compete with its contemporaries. As a film noir, the casting, plot and cinematography are nearly flawless. The film begins with a policeman stopping and searching a car on the way into the city during a large search for an escaped gangster. He recognises an old school friend and they arrange to meet up. From this innocuous beginning, the investigation leads to wounding, murder and betrayal as the cop wrestles with his conscience and duty to his profession. Treading some of the same ground as Carol Reed's masterpiece The Third Man, this is an intriguing example of late Asian silent film-making (a part of the world that adopted sound much later) and is worth watching for the great photography and evocative locations - a world where neon lights and automobiles contrast with the fragile homes and traditional dress of older Japanese culture. Perhaps with a carefully chosen Jazz accompaniment the film would unfold better, but when seen with an unimaginative soundtrack, the pace is soporific rather than engaging. However as an historical document for anyone interested in the development of Japanese cinema, it is unmissible.
AKA (2002)
Excellent split-screen film about crossing the class divide
In Britain, while the class divide is no longer relevant to most people's lives in terms of access to education or employment, there is still a great fascination with the lives of the rich. This takes the form of magazines such as 'Hello!' and 'OK!', various TV shows (particularly 'Faking it' in which a person of a certain profession/background/up-bringing is taught to behave in an opposite manner) and the enduring popularity of 'My Fair Lady' on the London stage. AKA deals with this fascination with the upper class and the way a person might assimilate into the group by deceit. Plot-wise the film is therefore quite similar to 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' and indeed also includes the homo-eroticism of that film (a symptom of privileged all male education perhaps?) as well as a certain similarity between the two leads (Matthew Leitch particularly reminds the viewer of Matt Damon when he smiles).
This is another excellent film by the recently deceased Film Four in its Film Four Lab guise (following 'Jump Tomorrow', 'My Brother Tom' & 'This Filthy Earth') which allowed for some experimentation in the cinema - which in this case means the entire film is shown in triple split screen. Creating an image even wider than 2.35:1 this does mean the viewer has to look from one third of the picture to another to entirely follow the action, but unlike Mike Figgis' 'Time Code' this is never distracting as each of the images is chosen to complement the others - for example a shot of two people talking is split between two images with the third providing a close up - and the audience does get used to this after a couple of minutes when it becomes second nature experiencing a film in this way. There doesn't seem to be a particular reason why the film is set up in this fashion at first, but it does compliment the duplicity of the lead character and the layered facades the other characters in the film hide behind (especially Benjamin). It also obviously provides a way for a 4:3 DV image to fill the cinema screen. Coming from TV backgrounds, all the actors put in reasonable performances, especially the 'adults' but Matthew Leitch in particular (who, like Peter Youngblood-Hills, comes from 'Band of Brothers') gives a commanding performance and it is no surprise that he followed this film with a Hollywood movie (David Twohy's 'Below'). While there are a few problems with the plot - the film implies that homosexuality stems from childhood abuse - an occasional problems with the quality of the sound (due to the budget) this is nevertheless a brilliant feature debut for writer director Roy, and together with his lead actor, I will be surprised if an impressive career does not follow...
The Fall of the Louse of Usher: A Gothic Tale for the 21st Century (2002)
The Fall of the House of Russell
I haven't seen the film Dogboys' - the last movie Ken Russell made for television - however as it has both a reasonably encouraging review and cast, I am astonished that only four years later the director of a number of classic movies could produce a film' whose technical ineptitude is only superseded by the range of third rate pantomime performances by the cast and pocket money production values. Let me make this clear as quickly as possible; this isn't a bad movie that deserves to become a cult classic because of any amusing camp attributes, this a home movie shot by some friends over a weekend that shouldn't have been shown to the general public. Anyone who watches this film will have their memories of Russell's good films forever tarnished.
Watching the film at the first London Sci-fi film festival I got increasingly depressed as the film progressed. I would be lying if I said the film didn't have any redeeming qualities as the lead actor was relatively competent (although perhaps in a half decent film he wouldn't shine as brightly) and the music and songs were reasonably catchy. However a film is the sum of its parts and as every other aspect of this production is best described as scraping the floor below the bottom of the barrel it seems supercilious of me to compliment any of the elements that went into its creation. I imagine a great many people who own a camcorder make stupid films with zero production values designed solely to amuse their family and friends. I also imagine that if any of these films were shown theatrically everyone involved in their production would be incredibly embarrassed if not actually humiliated by having an aspect of their private lives shown to the general public. I respect the Ken Russell who made films between 1956 and 1998. Based on a viewing of this film a member of the audience would assume it was one of those home videos I previously mentioned. On learning that it was made by a director who was once lauded for his style and imagination, one could only imagine he was inebriated throughout the entire production process. I cannot stress how much a disservice the release of this film does to Mr. Russell himself. If this was made purely for the entertainment of his family and friends I can only assume that this cinematic presentation was due to the efforts of a circle of sycophantic hangers-on who are only interested in furthering their own careers or have a malevolent desire to cause the director harm. This is why I feel wary of even praising the lead actor because by staying with the production after having seen the first day's rushes he cannot have any respect for his director if he even had an inkling that the film would be shown to anyone outside Mr. Russell's circle of friends. On leaving the festival myself and a couple of friends were asked to comment on the film. After a long diatribe from each of us, my friend inadvertently called the event a convention' and was dressed down by the woman interviewing us. Ironically a Science Fiction convention is the only venue this kind of lamentable self-indulgent zero-budget film making is shown. It is usually made by self confessed fans and amateurs who know it is only being made as a joke and will only be seen by like-minded individuals. At the risk of being repetitive: please don't take this review as any sort of criteria for seeing the film, doing so will only damage your memory of Ken Russell's career and will be a waste of your time. There is a great pantheon of trashy low budget film making which will entertain you and even a large selection of bad Edgar Allan Poe adaptations made in recent years. If you do have so much time on your hands that you can spend it watching irredeemably bad movies watch one of those instead.
Ivansxtc (2000)
Harrowing tale of Hollywood excess shot on DV
I went to see this film without knowing anything about it except that I was a fan of the director and while it doesn't rank amongst his best work it is certainly engaging. After the longest opening credits I've ever seen (i.e. all of the film's credits are at the beginning except for the music credits), the film introduces us to the backbiting world of Hollywood agents. Ivan is a self confessed 'weekend alcoholic' who 'lives in the fast lane' as he tells his psychiatrist. In nearly any other film we would dislike this character as he takes drugs, has sex with other women behind his girlfriend's back and only seems to care about his status. If I added that he just wants to be loved you might avoid the film altogether, however it is Danny Huston's subtle and involving performance as the lead character that hooks the viewer and keeps you interested. Coming across as a combination of John C. Reilly and Jack Nicholson, Huston is a great character actor and deserves a career as notable as his sister. I'm not a fan of digital video and certainly the lower constrast and flatter cinematograpy here hasn't convinced me of the merits of the medium, but the director has said he wanted the film to look like a documentary and so this approach suits the film. The shots are at least typically well framed and always contain something interesting. This is Rose's second adaptation of Tolstoy following Anna Karenina, and shows the writer holds up well when relocated to the present day. The lead character is apparently also based on Rose's (late) agent which may be why the film is still waiting for a release date. Stylistically the film is most similar to Mike Figgis' Timecode (which also starred Huston) as the performances here were also somewhat improvised but doesn't suffer from the amateur dramatics of that film as the actors in ivansxtc didn't have to keep going for an hour and a half. At the London Film Festival where I saw this film, Rose commented that he wants to work with the same cast and format again and this isn't a bad idea if he goes for stronger and snappier material next time. I enjoyed the film, but it took a while to get going and the undercurrent of homophobia (no doubtedly present in that world) was slightly off-putting. The dovetailing of the images and soundbites in the opening credits with the last scenes of the film worked well and the use of classical music throughout, particularily Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, creates the kind of atmosphere and gravitas (perhaps occasionally heavy-handedly) that you would get from one of Bernard Herrman's Hitchcock scores. Overall I enjoyed it but it is more for the fans of Mike Figgis' films than Rose's. Having made two of the greatest horror films ever made I just wish he would return to that genre.