Change Your Image
maeble
Reviews
Seom (2000)
What about humor in this film?
First of all. I don't care enough about all the animal violence portrait in this film to let it change my opinion. So i'll drop that. Animal cruelty is in fact used as a mirrors for showing the suffering of the several characters. It' still not OK, though.
Also the physical violence is not so shocking, considering that there are "worse" (asian and not) films around. The violence in this film is shocking though, because the carnal gore is combined with the much deeper psychic violence the characters inflict each other.
Also the massive amount of slapstick make actions even more cruel. I laughed quite a lot during the movie, and by doing so i realized that the scenes sometimes were just not acted as if they were intended to be funny. Laughing for me in that precise moment was often more a relief than a expected reaction. Maybe the director used this to mask or soften an unbearable violence, maybe even to make the viewer feel guilty by confusing the borders between comedy and drama. I think comedy is partly used to make pure dramatic moments even more intense and sometimes to make the viewer doubt if it was intended sarcastically in the first place.
Sometimes though funny moments were so plain, that i had serious doubts if i schould take the film seriously in the first place. SPOILER: 2 hooks taken out of the keepers vagina form a hearth END OF SPOILER
Anyways in my opinion a very intense, pessimistic movie. Which can shock with its exaggerated violent scenes, and which sometimes cross the border to grotesque. Surely it will make you doubt and think.
King Kong (2005)
King Kong: When Disney meets lord of the rings
Okay, i just sat trough 3 never ending hours of King Kong.
Resumee: The adventurous part were replaced by mere action, the scary parts replaced by Disney-like characters and dialogs.(oh my god! the ice skating scene!)
I can't understand if the funny parts were intended, but if so, why suffocating them instead of trying to look epic. Seems to me like this movie was made for Peter Jackson-nerds with an eye on the video game market.
At least some camera-work and the cgi-effects are decent....Else, completely overdone blockbuster-crap.
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
Reality v.s .poetry - failure
OK. First of all, i don't want to criticize the movie for the same old reasons others did. I found the whole idea of adults and children interacting and sometimes changing roles or mixing their desires, not at all pedophile. In fact those were few of the good ideas and it's strong bits. The weak parts of the movie are first of all the actors and mostly the dialogs. The problem i see is following. The movie tries somehow to show as everyday people, real people. Only,... no one talks or acts like that, i'm afraid. I mean this kind of talk might work well in a fully fictional film, for it could lead to a poetic approach, but this one was somehow a warmed up fiction with either too much or too less reality in it, your pick. I know that in the end it is just taste, and many will appreciate. But for me a typical pseudo-pretentious movie a la "garden state" who tries to mix up poetry and reality, and fails in the balance. Anyhow there were some real nice and creative ideas.
Sono otoko, kyôbô ni tsuki (1989)
a more intense movie than the title may predict
OK. Here is a warning to those who want to watch this movie expecting violence for the purpose of itself. Violent cop is the complete opposite.
(spoilers) The story circles around a (violent) misunderstood cop seeking revenge. The main subjects are incapacity, honor and refuge into death. The movie shows us these features one by one, but also as a unit.
The best part (for some viewers it could be the worst part either) of this movie it's its slowness. It's not really plot driven, which strangely is the movies true strenght. The characters don't talk a lot either, indeed no one hardly ever says more than 2 sentences in a row. Anyway it's exactly this feature, that give the viewers the chance (and time) to judge them, and give them a shape. Specially the first part of this movie constructs the characters, by showing us how they react on several situations. The second part is more action-driven, and now we can try to tell, why some of the main-figures act in a certain way. The finale is pure western scenario.
Brazil (1985)
Why Brazil is a better adaption than "1984 (the movie)"
O.K. I personally think, that there are more than one way to translate a book into a movie.
One is to take the whole books plot and squeeze it into 120 minutes of film. This will never work. What you'll get, is a movie, which fails to deliver the original message. (I found "lord of the rings" ridiculous for that reason) The result is, you have to cut scenes and obviously dialog....and there are some re-interpretations of scenes in order to get a better flow for the viewer. (Wich is not always a bad thing)
Then there is the "TV-movie way". The TV-show claims to swallow every single plot and the greatest amount of dialog. The result is mostly a boring 6 hour long, something. ( Shining for example(the King version))
There is however a third way to approach a book as a movie maker. And that is exactly what Gilliam did with Brazil. He took the novel "1984" and managed to transport the same ideas (and some of his own, for that matter), the same feelings, by developing a quite personal style (by adding humor for example). For me, this is the only true way of filming a novel. Why should i bother to see a book on the screen. Books, films and comics work on 3 different levels. Why forcing them in the boundaries of another.
Movies where this worked well are:
Brazil (Gilliam) The Shining (Kubrick) Naked Lunch (Cronenberg) Clockwork Orange (Kubrick) The Pledge (Penn) ...
Movies where it didn't work were:
Lord of the Rings Jackson) From hell (Hughes) and countless others ...
Team America: World Police (2004)
A movie for south park geeks?
O.K: Let's clear one thing first! I like "South Park". There is just one big problem about "South Park" and "Team America". Nearly each jokes is either a s**t, a p***e or a c**k joke. The shocking-concept of south park worked out quite well at the beginning of the cartoon-series. Now it it's out-dated! Is there a deeper meanings trough all this vulgarity? Well surely it is, but it should be displayed more wisely, not so obviously. All those low-jokes were absolutely not necessary. It is a way too easy sort of humor.
Still! The movie remains sometimes a very funny, intelligent and sarcastic one, but not to often.
And in the end i would say: It was definitely made for geeks, that proof themselves more stupid as they are, by swallowing a semi-true product. I prefer "Dr. Strangelove" (wich by the way is mentioned more than once)
7 out of 10
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
What a waste of time
This movie is just one of a million bad action flicks around. It has absolutely nothing worth talking about. There is no interesting idea, or plot, that could save it. And!...can anyone tell me why there has to be always this awful drunken like camera in the action scenes? To show the hectic, pace of the fights? In fact you can't understand anything that's going on!
The few good scenes and ideas are directly stolen from the alien-movies,..the rest is just standard-meaningless-brainless action movie (not considering, that it should have been a horror movie).
A real disappointment!
From Hell (2001)
"From hell" has one big problem, like most recent Hollywood movies!
The problem I mentioned in the summary refers to most of the new Hollywood production (especially horror movies). I mean, why are those movies always so "high-resolutioned" and visually clean? "From hell" for example should have been shot in paler, darker colors in order to transport the dark-creeping atmospheres which Alan Moore originally wanted to display. A horror-movie should never be visually to "clean". Take "Ringu" ( the original, Japanese version of "The Ring") it is shot in a low resolution, sometimes with a blurry filter, and that fits just perfect to the movies "groove". From hell has no groove, you are aware each second that you are indeed watching a movie. Where is the illusion? Furthermore the movies speed is way to fast. Most cuts would fit in an action movie rather than in this one.
Besides, the graphic novel is revisited very poorly. A mainstream-plot replaces the novels, highly interesting, psychological and philosophical storytelling. Just take Jonny Depp, mix it with a poor love story, use a action movie pace, and you'll have your perfect block(=blood)buster.
Just another forgettable movie, done completely in a wrong way I'm sick of Hollywood ruining genuine and interesting plots stolen from evry media imaginable, cutting and amputating them... and what's worse: without letting people know the original even exists.
4 of 10