nakkas Reviews

Red Dragon (2002)

Brian Cox was better

[23 November 2002]

Red Dragon isn't a bad movie, not at all. It's technically well made, by the book...thus making it not anything special, either. Especially since it's crystal-clear that Red Dragon was made in order to cash in on the Hopkins/Lecter hype. The subtler acting of Brian Cox (as Lecter) and Noonan (as Dolarhyde) made Manhunter far more compelling than the remake. Just remember the scene in Manhunter, where Lecter (spelt Lecktor in those days) at the end of a casual conversation asks Graham for his home number. And now compare it to the same scene in Red Dragon. Need I say more? Cox would have made me forget that he can't be trusted, whereas Hopkins delivers the same lines in his meanwhile tedious and formulaic "I'm oh-so evil"-style. Hopkin's Lector has become a caricature of himself.

Insomnia (2002)

comparisons between the remake and the original

[19 October 2002]

As many by now know, "Insomnia" is a remake of the identically-named Norwegian thriller from 1997. I saw the original before seeing Nolan's remake, and I'm quite glad I had. Watching the remake was far more gratifying this way; I felt it was a kind of a reinterpretation of the original story. !!May contain Spoilers!! Stellan Skarsgard's cop has his reputation already smeared by an incident of indecent behaviour and what's left of his career is in shambles when he begins his investigation into the murder of the girl. He has an air of creepy sleaziness. And he's aware of his ethical shortcomings. That's why he covers up the shooting of his partner, he simply wouldn't believe himself either if he'd claim it was an accident. Pacino's cop, however, is a veteran and burnt-out LA cop fearing an internal affairs investigation into his department. The years on the job have taken their toll and made him resentful, immoral and self-righteous. He fears the IA investigation (with help from his partner) could ruin his career and everything he worked for. Skarsgard's persona is afraid that the constant daylight will expose his flawed character for all to see, while in Pacino's case the lack of sleep force his character to face his inner demons. No rest for the wicked, indeed! I think the new version shouldn't be knocked just because it's a remake, but critics should rather overlook the usual Hollywood elements (exposition, gratuitous action etc.) and accept this version as a variant of the original story, viewed under a different aspect and with a change of the emphasis. The acting is fabulous, Pacino gives one of his best performances in years and Williams shows us that he actually can act and very compelling, at that (which is surprising, considering those criminally sappy flicks he had been making lately). The score by David Julyan is subtle and adds a certain haunting-melancholical touch as in "Memento". And Nolan, well, "Memento" proved he's a genius and he has a way of inserting frames into the picture that makes the viewer get unnoticingly drawn into the story. Can't wait to see Nolan's next film!

Diary of a Shinjuku Thief (1969)

Now I can die happy

[15 September 2002]

Amazing! This Nouvelle Vague-influenced Japanese flick contains everything a regular cinephile could possibly want: avantguard kabuki theatre, sloshed japanese men discussing the sexual revolution and a guy chasing his girlfriend with a strap-on dildo through the streets of Tokio. Duh!

Sexy Beast (2000)

My two pence

[4 August 2002]

At first I was a bit disappointed after watching the film, due to the misleading trailer and the expectations I had. Sexy Beast is at it's core a romance, not a comedy and definitely not an action flick. It's all about Gal trying to protect his life and his marriage. After finishing a nine years stretch courtesy of Her Majesty's prison, Gal has had enough of a life of "Crime and Punishment" and settles down at the Spanish Riviera with his beloved ex-pornstar wife and another couple. Together with a local Spanish boy who helps Gal around the house they seems like a family, living a peaceful and happy life far from dreary England and their equally dreary past. Enter psychotic Don Logan, who tries to "persuade" Gal to do one last job. I think the plot can be interpreted symbolically: the boulder crashing into Gal's pool, missing him just by a few inches yet shattering the two hearts pattern on the pool's basin, symbolizes the arrival of Logan. Logan is just as menacing, deadly and uncontrollable as nature, endangering the love between Gal and his wife DeeDee. He's a part of Gal's criminal past coming to haunt him, the violent and antisocial part of himself he's been suppressing so long (notice how meek Gal is?), Gal's "Id". Logan taunts Gal what a wuss he has become, how fat and lazy he's become, how low he has sunk by marrying an ex-pornstar, that he deserted Logan (some of Gal's own thoughts deep down?). He's trying to snatch Gal away from DeeDee, he doesn't want him to be happy (Gal: "I'm happy now". Logan, shouting: "I won't let you be happy, why should I!"). Interestingly enough, as soon as Logan arrives at Gal's villa, the Spanish boy leaves; so the boy could be interpreted as Gal's innocent and peaceful side. SPOILER AHEAD! So when Logan beats down the kid (i.e. Gal's evil side is gaining upperhand over his good side) it's DeeDee that makes the final decision and saves their marriage by killing her rival for Gal's soul (in between Logan's vitriolic rants he tells Gal he loves him). Everyone partakes in Logan's murder except for Gal and the boy; meaning that all of Gal's friends want to get rid of that part of him? In essence it's all about Gal's psychomachia, i.e. having to take sides: either going back to a life of crime and violence, or saving his marriage and his happiness. On that level, it was quite enjoyable. Ben Kingsley portrays Logan disturbingly menacing (the mirror scene!), Ian McShane as kingpin Teddy Bass is just as believable (no Love nor Joy...) and Ray Winstone reminded me of an English-version of James Gandolfini.

The Hitcher (1986)

Where should I start?

[8/10 · 12 March 2002]

The Hitcher fascinates on more than one level. First of all, there's very little dialogue. Most of it's force is achieved through its pictures and underlying sense of sadism and senseless violence. Several scenes indicate there's a special relationship or bond between the Hitcher and his victim Jim Halsey. Some say it's a homoerotic-sadomasochistic thing , others think the Hitcher symbolizes the dark counterpart of Howell's character (the shadow, so to speak, in Jungian psychology). I guess it has something of both. Maybe the Hitcher killed off Nash out of jealosy, trying to gain Halsey's unshared attention? The movie's surrealistic and kafkaesque (God, I sound like an "art fag"...) mood indicates there's a deeper layer to be explored. Is the Hitcher just a projection of Halsey's own dark side? And by finally defeating the Hitcher he overcomes his own shadow? Or did Halsey succumb and lose the battle against evil by killing the Hitcher and becoming like him? All in all a true masterpiece from the 80s: disturbing, quiet, yet powerful. Roger Ebert gave this film ZERO stars: I couldn't agree less with this usually sensible critic, his analysis of The Hitcher however is surprisingly good nonetheless.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Wake up and smell the coffee!

[23 February 2002]

Let me break the news to all you people who just didn't "get it" (sorry for this over-used expression). Starship Troopers IS a satire! Yep, honestly! I mean, Verhoeven himself stated so on the filmmaker's commentary audio track of the DVD. One might argue against the artistic value of this satire, but not that is actually is one. So all of you who are disappointed that Verhoeven didn't make a movie faithful to the novel, let me tell you one thing: you're either a Heinlein fan or a closet fascist (which is all the same to me). Come on, how could any director with his senses intact have directed the film without making it a parody of it's blatantly totalitarian and fascistic literary version? The "actors" can't act (with exception of Michael Ironside)? Duh, well Verhoeven wanted it to look like Buenos Aires 90210, that's why. Plot holes concerning the bugs' ability to wage war? That's exactly the point, because who - apart from the cheesy, jingoistic news-reels - tells us that the bugs actually ever attacked Earth? "In order for Earth to survive, Klendathu must be destroyed", and then the graphic shows us that Klendathu is at the other side of the galaxy, millions of light-years away...yeah, right. And the entire rest: Nazi uniforms, televised executions, needing a license to get a baby, having to serve in order to vote, the stylized Nazi eagle as symbol of the Federal Service, the glorification of violence in classroom, kids playing with assault guns, the machismo and militarism, Doogie Howser as an SS officer...anyone who actually took this movie seriously must be severely mentally and/or morally impaired!

Storm of the Century (1999)

A tale of morals and principles

[27 December 2001]

ACHTUNG: SPOILERS!

All in all the community of Little Tall Island was a bunch of hypocritical cowards who hid behind a pretext, i.e. in a crisis the community has to stick together and the commonwealth is more important than the fate of one person. A fine excuse, because essentially they all just feared for their own lives and didn't believe their community would be morally strong enough to withstand Linoge. How could they, they were - as Linoge stated - thieves, murderers, pedophiles, gay-bashers, adulterers and kept their dirty little secrets from each other. They were NOT a community. And that's why the demon was able to defeat them, he knew they didn't have the morals or faith it would have taken to resist him. Personally I doubt that Linoge could have made them commit collective suicide or kill the children. Right before he heads off with Ralph, the mother shouts out at him and accuses him of having tricked them. Linoge then answers wryly that maybe they (the community) have tricked themselves. So I think he had only so much power over them as they were willing to give him. But even if he had killed them all: in the last scene, where Anderson catches a glimpse of his now teenage son and realizes he has become a demon, too...well, I'd rather have my kid dead than have him lose his soul and become a monster. In one of the previous posts someone asks, "Why didn't Linoge just gather them up and confront them right in the beginning?". Well if he had asked them for one of their children right after killing the old lady, nobody would have even considered doing so. It was necessary to instill fear and panic into their hearts and keep them in ignorance as long as possible in order to wear them down. Only then would they be willing to sacrifice one of their children for their own sake.

Scènes de crimes (2000)

better than "les rivières pourpres"

[5 November 2001]

In contrast to the other reviews I found "Scènes de crimes" neither to be a French Silence of the Lambs (not pretentious enough, which can't be said of "Les rivières pourpres"), nor does it portray the policiers as fools or less sophisticated. Instead, it showed a far more realistic depiction of police work and the police officers: most threads eventually lead to a cul-de-sac, and the cops are mere mortals. They're not driven by an existentialist need to fight evil etc. to define themselves. They are simply doing their job as good as they can. As to the ending: part of me thinks it's a cop-out, too. But on the other hand, maybe the finale simply tried to state that despite the depravity and indifference around us sometimes fate gives us a second chance. Even though it was only a short scene, the angry priest at the funeral stuck out. His sermon/rant about charity and respect strongly contrasted with the pervading moral numbness and sense of isolation. All in all a subtle, yet troubling thriller; and far better than "Les rivières pourpres" exactly because it DIDN'T try to be something it wasn't.

Lost Souls (2000)

at first a bit disappointed, but made me want to see it again

[5 October 2001]

I was a bit disappointed after having watched Lost Souls for the first time. Although, disappointment is the wrong word: it left me with a feeling of indifference. But a few days later the rather haunting images of the film kept creeping up and made me want to see it again. The film has an almost dreamlike feeling to it, lacking any twists and turns; yet it still manages to leave a lasting impression on it's unsuspecting viewers. Reading the last comment by "bros" made me appreciate Lost Souls even more. I myself had similar thoughts concerning the plot, although reading that comment opened my eyes indeed. Especially the final scene is quite ambiguous. SPOILER: Remember Ben Chaplin's amazed and at the same time shocked expression as he realizes Wynona Rider has seen the 666 on the clock's display? Did this really mean that Chaplin had become the Antichrist? Maybe the display didn't change at all, and her sudden astonished look on her face made him understand that she's insane and willing to see whatever her fanatic mind makes her see?! But then again, what about the pentacle and the satanic congregation in church? The movie would make most sense if it shows us the world as Wynona Rider's character sees it: full of potential clues of demonic intervention, yet without true proof of the Antichrist's coming. What if the Devil was out to make Wynona's character do his bidding by making her believe she's doing this in God's name? That would give the notion "The Devil made me do it" a completely new twist...

Ravenous (1999)

Grimm's fairy-tales meet satire and gore

[10/10 · 14 July 2001]

Ravenous is quite a special movie, indeed! While most other films that mix humour and gore (e.g. Very Bad Things) deliver the funny parts in a equally gross way as the bloody bits, Ravenous avoids such clichés. Underneath the plot is a black-humoured and mordant satire, mostly subtle, although in the end Colonel Ives makes it a bit too clear that it's manifest destiny and the violent expansion of mankind that's being criticized. Carlyle gives a fabulous cannibal. The scene at the cave where he's frantically shivering, lustfully anticipating his meal, made me bite my nails. Some of the other reviews thought Guy Pearce did a bad job as the weary Captain Boyd. Quite on the contrary his performance is as convincing as Carlyle's. Even though he's not very talkative Boyd gains depth merely by the haunted facial expression and those tortured looks Pearce produces. Boyd may not be your "average" hero, but when you think about the end it becomes clear he's no coward either. Even David Arquette managed not to irritate me as he usual does, his depiction of a 19th century pothead was actually quite funny.

The film was shot in Slovakia and shows us some beautiful (because authentic) landscapes. As a previous comment said: the scenery isn't some sugar-coated version of reality; it makes you feel the harsh, cold and snowy weather. This backdrop makes it a easy to understand why someone would actually retreat to cannibalism when they've run out of food. The score is great (Damon Albarn proving that there's more to him than Britpop) and gives the film a kind of soul and softens it a bit up. The end title, an altered version of "Boyd's Journey" is simply beautiful.

Ravenous is a parable, not just of social-darwinistic expansionism, but in general terms of courage and morals, too. But beware: While watching some of the scenes it occured to me that Antonia Bird (the director) must be a vegetarian. The way meat and flesh (even outside of violent scenes) were shown made me think twice about having a hamburger in the near future. All in all and undeservedly overlooked and underrated movie. Maybe the general audience thought it was a splatter film/western/thriller/comedy whatever. While Ravenous consists of all these elements it would be wrong (and futile) to try and label it as any of the above. If anything it is a satirical horror drama/tragicomedy ;-) Well, maybe it shouldn't be labelled at all. Just go and watch it for yourself. You'll be surprised.

Millennium (I) (1996–1999)

quality, not quantity

[9 June 2001]

Millennium is one of the few programmes television was invented for. I doubt that ever before has a tv series dealt in such a intelligent, emotional and most of all religious/spiritual way with evil and the human nature. It is a bitter irony that Carter's first-born child X-Files survives into the n'th season (deteriorating step by step), while the superior Millennium was cancelled in it's third season. I'm a religious person, but I always thought that religion and entertainment shouldn't mingle. Series like "Touched by an Angel" are ample evidence for the validity of my stance. But with Millennium things were different. The screenwriters managed to introduce faith into a tv series without ridiculing either the show or faith. Some of the dialogues are so profound and full of insight that it reminded me of works by authors such as George Bernanos and Dostoyevsky. Often an episode told me more about faith, the nature of man and that of evil than what I get to hear in church. In a way Millennium changed (or rather sharpened) the way I see the world; that behind the thin patina we call reality lies an abyss of incomprehensible horror and fear. Maybe it's good the series ended in it's third year, I wouldn't have wanted to see it going down the drain like the X-Files (and if you've seen the X-Files cross-over episode "Millennium", you know what I'm talking of). After all, Jesus stopped preaching after his third year, too ;-).

The Mummy Returns (2001)

This place is cursed!

[7 June 2001]

First of all, let's get one thing straight: the entire movie is not much more than the prequel retold, the plot is preposterous and has such enormous holes that the entire army of Anubis might wander through them, there are so many computer generated special effects you should call the film "CGI - The Motion Picture" instead and most of the acting is over the top...AND it is one of the most entertaining, hilarious and worthwhile movies I've seen for a long time!! This is popcorn cinema at it's best, suspense and humour abound, so what does one want more? No, there are no social issues discussed, there are no oh-so deep thoughts nor philosophical questions, but if that's what you were looking for you shouldn't have gone to watch a film with the word "Mummy" in it's title in the first place! On the contrary to that dismal and jingoistic hogwash "Pearl Harbor", this film doesn't have any pretentions as to it's importance or significance. Consider it as the illegitimate child of Indiana Jones and Star Wars Episode I. Adventurous eye candy with loads of one-liners. Don't knock it if you haven't seen it!