Icarus_prime Reviews

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

Revenge is never a straight line.

[8/10 · 30 January 2019]

It's interesting upon rewatch where I realised in retrospect how narrative and stylistic wise, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance handles the concept of "revenge" completely opposite to Park Chan-wook's following movie of his Vengeance Trilogy, Oldboy. Oldboy was calculated, methodical, purposeful, consistent, relentlessly unwavering but Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance in comparison is more messy, oscillating, scattered and normalised. Oldboy right from the start makes your heart ache and keeps it like that throughout the movie unrelentingly. Sympathy for Mr Vengeance gets your hopes up and plucks your heart strings only to only to crash them back down like Icarus hitting the ocean after he flew too close to the sun.

The reason is that the opening scene of the movie isn't something you quite expect for a revenge movie or even your standard bloody affair Korean movie. It's actually very touching in a melancholic way that effectively develops the supposed main character, Ryu and his motivations. In fact, the movie isn't even entirely about him overall. He's just one part of this whole crazy situation he's about to get involved in. Numerous characters in the movie are all stakeholders and connected to the overall situation and that's what makes the story interesting and not one-note. Hence, acts of revenge throughout the movie isn't purely focused on a single opposing connecting party like in Oldboy. There's several plot threads that link and overlap one another at certain points in the movie which leaves plenty of food for thought and intriguing implications to consider when a major event has happened. Consider how important it is for Ryu to keep in mind of the health and wellbeing of his older sister that needs to be taken care off within a strict amount of time. But as that's going on, in the meantime he has to juggle the process with his girlfriend behind the kidnapping plan. These individual issues are serious and big enough as it is (and story-wise) but the more stressful thing to consider is what will happen when these two circumstances clash and possibly affect one another? That is when the "engine" of the movie really gets going on when it happens. This is not even a movie where the actions and kidnapping are professional and meticulously layed out. You could say it's just "regular" people doing it out of a desperate scenario with little experience and mainly in haste and improvised. That human element and the margin of human error that follows invites plenty of intriguing possibilities in what can go wrong.

When I said earlier that the movie felt more scattered and normalised, I meant that "revenge" in this movie is both handled almost of a back and forth domino effect between these different characters and also having multiple seemingly unrelated instances of revenge that actually overlap and interconnect to one another as we get to the heart of the complexity to these plot threads that loosely tie up together. What I mean about the latter is that interestingly, these revenge acts happen simultaneously from the main characters (Ryu and Park Dong-jin) but at different locations and periods and not to one another. The idea of "revenge" becomes a common occurrence; a natural, spontaneous act for these characters that's not built up with focused sophistication like Oldboy.

Shockingly, we can almost "sympathise", for a lack of better term, with these characters and see their justification for revenge because of how well they are characterised and developed. However, let this be a reminder that these characters resemble more like antiheroes whom are morally grey and flawed. This is not a black and white movie where there's a "good" and "bad" guy. Again, the tale of revenge in this movie isn't seen purely from only Ryu or even Park Dong-jin. The movie's narrative plays out like an anthology or short stories of revenge which reinforces the revenge thematic within the movie and hence the Vengeance trilogy. I think when you look at each movie within the Vengeance trilogy in retrospect, you can really see how Park Chan-wook has a differing take and execution on the notion of revenge conceptually to one another.

My only major criticism of the movie is its editing that's connected to the pacing. A lot of individual scenes in the movie get quickly transitioned to the next scene during the middle of a specific situation and/or just before it finishes which suggests the event and a period of time has already passed. It would've been more ideal for the movie to actually show that gap between individual scenes because of the lack of continuity. While this editing style works in other movies such as Lady Bird where each individual scene seems frivolous and ordinary, the sudden passing of the time to another scene signifies the mundane, slice of life nature of the movie as well as giving the feel of a montage or recollection of those memories and moments in everyday life. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance's execution of it by comparison feels a lot more awkward and jumpy where it's difficult to process what's actually happening in these scenes that's connected to one another. I had forgiven the movie for doing it so for the first few times at the start earlier on so we can get accustomed to the characters and their lives, but it quickly becomes repetitive. Even more problematic, to the opposite effect, individual scenes later in the movie hold on longer and stretched out in regards to Park Dong-jin's character handling of his daughter's death and his grief; almost unnecessarily at times, as it made the overall pacing of the movie felt even more jarring because of the sudden editing contrast.

In comparison, the actual cinematography and shot composition in Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is quite striking and a sight to behold. Aside from the different variety of camera angles used and such, a lot of scenes are framed specifically with the background in mind so it captures only the entire physical location amidst of the foreground (the characters) and is accompanied with a sense that it's shot from distance. Sometimes it makes us aware of how important the sweeping landscapes are to the story. Other times, it evokes a sense of stillness and quietness with a feeling of unknowingly inevitable dread in atmosphere and brings the attention to the audience of what it feels like for the characters to live and occupy in their worlds. An example being the main character, Ryu and his older sister at their home. We get numerous scenes like this throughout the movie where the camera is usually shot so we see both them and only everything within where they live in. It makes their glum lives feel cramped, unorganised and meagre. And so it is. Remember when I said the movie was "oscillating" ? That is only one of the many sensations Park Chan-wook creates for us in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.

Gozu (2003)

The Japanese equivalent of a David Lynch's Twin Peaks with a touch of "Eyes Wide Shut"

[7/10 · 23 December 2017]

Basically a Japanese Yakuza Twin Peaks Lynch-like movie. Starts off slow because you have no idea where the movie is going but you slowly realise that you can appreciate it for the weird, surreal atmosphere.

Not sure what the movie is trying to say, but if someone told me it's a more fucked up, twisted version of Eyes Wide Shut in terms of undergoing some sexual odyssey, then I'll gladly believe them.

Also...that...ending...

Zodiac (2007)

A slow burner serial killer movie that focuses more on "police procedural work"

[8/10 · 2 December 2017]

This is a slightly overlooked Fincher film that was very tense and totally engrossed me all the way through. For a serial killer mystery movie, what's so thrilling about it is that it defies all the typical Hollywood clichés for its genre, such as chases and blood & gore and sticks to the grounded reality tone with all the police investigative procedural work. It's a type of movie that feels like that it could actually happen in real life, which the movie indeed is based on for the subject manner and that's what makes it so scary for me.

In Bruges (2008)

The path to redemption can be both wickedly humorous and depressing

[8/10 · 13 November 2017]

In Bruges has one of the best cathartic endings I've seen for a movie.

It was executed in a way that it changes the entire outlook of the movie's first half where the narrative seemed simple at a surface- level. Yet the emotions will certainly run deep upon viewing it on retrospective.

It's deeply admirable that a comedy like this that is often bitingly unapologetic and dark can be fused with the movie's humorous yet tragic examination of a man's inner turmoil, guilt, one's sin and his path to redemption through means of finding his own sanctuary (through ironic terms).

Wind River (2017)

A terrifically cool Jeremy Renner performance makes this a riveting humane crime drama

[7/10 · 13 November 2017]

Jeremy Renner in this movie plays a role similar of Morgan Freeman in Se7en; both have a apathetic sense of understanding of what and where they inhabit that is unpleasant and undesirable.

There are a few human interaction scenes throughout the movie with his character that illustrate this with some excellent dialogue alongside a isolated snowy backdrop. The latter makes this feeling more apparent thanks to its striking cinematography and the movie rewards viewers to look at the movie through this lense. The world-building and atmosphere are almost the main characters itself.

I personally felt the actual crime and mystery was less than compelling and hits all the similar plot beats for its genre that you see in most other movies.

Whiplash (2014)

Push It To The Limit

[9/10 · 17 October 2017]

Whiplash is unrelenting and single-minded in its focus, and all the better for it. This could've easily backfire with other films if there are certain elements of the movie that feel undeveloped. Yet, this movie purposely sidesteps this by using it in service of the movie's narrowing conflict and its intensity. Consider how the movie's romance between the main character and his love interest seems tacked on and ends in a giant halt. From the main character's perspective, it's the ambition, the obsession, the sacrifices to make in achieving the all-conquering "success". But at what cost? Yes, the movie at the surface centers around Jazz and drumming. These are depicted through sublime film editing with rhythmic-like cuts and transitions in synchronizing with the music being played and the musician's performance themselves.

But it's not the subject. It's a supplier for these themes which is executed with ferocious passion through scenes with J.K Simmons role as Fletcher. He has a screen presence that commands attention; always ready with his coiled up brutality inside of him that's waiting to be unleashed at any moment to his.

Fletcher is entertaining just as he's frightening. We are not supposed to laugh at these caustic verbal abuse by Fletcher to everyone. But the brilliance of J.K Simmons performance can be summed up where he throws and hurls his insults with such biting creativity that even Gordon Ramsay might send some flowers. I guess this is the film's way in making him redeemable alongside his harsh, cold yet BELIEVABLE (key word) intentions that keep him from making the character completely insufferable.

We already know Andrew is ambitious himself such as his response to lack of social interest as an obstacle, his subtle smirks in his expression whenever his drumming rivals fails and his condescending remarks in the dinner scene. And yet, the main relationship of the movie is between the main character, Andrew and Fletcher which is clearly abusive and toxic. It's curious to see how over the course of the movie, the main character, Andrew, slowly becomes a reflection (or product) of Fletcher in matching his menacingly perfectionist ideal.

It's bewildering that with Whiplash's premise, it can generate such intensity and ferocity where every musicians are performing as if their life is on the line; camera close-up shots continually focus on their hands trembling, sweats all over them. Even most action movies that's more advantageous in generating these emotions, don't match Whiplash's emotional impact.

Casablanca (1942)

La La Land before La La Land even existed...74 years ago.

[8/10 · 16 August 2017]

The enduring universal appeal of Casablanca lies within its classic Hollywood narrative style, with archetypal characters and plot beats that's as straightforward as what they represent for a romance movie.

I have a certain fondness for romantic movies with bittersweet resolutions because that's when the movie can showcase a wide range of complex emotions for the characters and from the audience; neither simply riding off the sunset or all doom and gloom.

Yes, everyone knows that the movie is about sacrificing love for the greater good, as heartbreaking as it may be. We observe that with sympathy within Rick and later Llsa. I think that's the main aspect the audience cheers for, not simply the romance between Rick and Llsa because the movie is too important for that. I wonder if some might interpret the love between them back in Paris is just all fleeting; a way to overcome (or rather forget) another heartbreak. A cruel cycle no doubt.

The actions by the characters in Casablanca seem flawed because they themselves are flawed. But we must also remember that it also makes sense from a narrative perspective given how Rick used to be a freedom fighter. And yet, what stirred my heart and I'm sure for a lot of people is that despite the logic, our emotions can't help but disagree, just like Llsa later on. So it's essential a role reversal in how the characters feel by the end of the movie.

From what I said in the first paragraph, La La Land owes a great deal to Casablanca.

Memories of Murder (2003)

An amalgamation of Zodiac, Se7en and The Chaser.

[8/10 · 21 June 2017]

Memories of Murder is an ingeniously devilish mix of Zodiac, The Chaser and Se7en. It takes the heavy police procedural route of Zodiac where it avoids the typical police Hollywood thriller chase conventions, the rainy atmosphere of Se7en to signify the movie's tone and the examination of the fallible nature of the Korean police from The Chaser.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Tarantino dishes out the coldest revenge flick of them all

[10/10 · 9 September 2016]

I was reminded once again throughout watching this movie of Tarantino's apparent "foot fetish", like all his other pictures with those close-up perversions. I'll be like, "Say what!?" No matter. It only seems like his idiosyncrasies only serve proof to his leaps of genius towards his "all-style" approach.

But he is more than that.

At the same time when those scenes happen (very few luckily), I was reminded yet another thing that Tarantino confidently strikes away the convention that most movies seem to have to choose between action or ideas, style or substance. It is rare for a great movie to do both but it's even rarer that a great movie can balance it with clarity and equilibrium. That elevates a "great" movie to a "masterpiece". Take for example of those brief scenes where the "Bride" sees in viewing distance of her target for vengeance after a quick cut into an overshadow flashback with urgent sounds of the importance and the actions of that target in the past. This is an action flick after all and the general audience doesn't want to waste time with stagnant, regurgitated exposition dialogue to sacrifice the pacing and momentum of the film's kinetic rhythm. Tarantino respects the audience and hence respects their intelligence for films. This intelligence is matched by the man himself. There's without question that he loves and knows the movies, and he exuberantly indulgences those classical homages and tropes as a celebration of the medium; but it always comes second to his classic Tarantino 'flavour' style. We always get a sense of his auteur; his personal creative vision that he's willing to transcend those references into something new and true. And that's the heart of where Kill Bill lies in. Just like so many of his other films, every scene sequence is so meticulously crafted with a sense of purpose and relevance the story and plot while at the same time, being polished to look as vintage as the Bride's "Pussy Wagon" vehicle, to give a childlike curiosity and enthusiasm for the movies-lovers to say "Hey! I know this reference and where it comes from!" Here's another example of how Tarantino loves to toy with the audience through creating and alternating subversive film expectations: the climax scene of the movie where the Bride fights off the Yakuza bodyguards at the restaurant. Notice how in the first sequence, Bride is only fighting one opponent at the time in a gauntlet-like fashion. There's absolutely no sense of logic in that (why not have all of them fight her at the same time?) which unsurprisingly is found in most action flicks but Tarantino makes us wait…only to spectacularly unleash us the remaining army soon afterwards with a proper sense of logic and purpose.

Tarantino isn't afraid to indulge in experimenting a multitude of styles in respects to the Japanese setting of the movie such as an- anime inspired sequence of O-Ren's backstory; an origin so violent and hyper-stylised that it's almost a disservice if it was live- action as it would dampen its aesthetic appeal. While the previously mentioned fighting climax scene at the restaurant incorporates a black-and- white photography and blue silhouette in order to maximise the "rule of cool" formula. But it's simply because it had to get pass the censors (unfortunately).

Above all, a Tarantino movie wouldn't be a Tarantino movie without the use of non-linear narrative. He uses it to great effect in the beginning with the circular narrative going forwards and backwards to add a human element to "The Bride", her motivations and a reason why we want to see the "revenge" part from the revenge flick in the first place. I'm sure actual "revenge" in real life is wrong itself. If we disregard the argument of "genre" preferences, sometimes it is how the movie is about and not what it's about. As said before, he doesn't forget the story because he believes an action sequences work better in the service of and around the plot; not the other way. Otherwise, having it backwards gives the illusion of fight- scenes as "stiff" and scripted. It's not a coincidence there's chapter titles within the film in the first place.In worst case scenario, Tarantino's over- indulgence might've been too apparent and the story (and structure) would've been nothing more than a technical exercise. Remember, even with most action movies, there's more minutes spent on the non-action scenes than the actual action scenes. Hence, the pacing and effect of the action scenes would be more effective if it had a coherent context in the first place.

Ironically, Tarantino's greatest achievement from this movie is making us forget about this in the first place. That is the sensation he creates. Isn't that why we go to a movie in a first place?

Sinister (I) (2012)

Some interesting horror ideas tossed around without any purpose

[6/10 · 25 May 2016]

Throughout the entire movie, I was waiting for something interesting to happen and it never did. Watching this reminded me why I decided to watch more Asian horror films these days. They're way better in terms of building an atmosphere. I particularly have a disdain for horror movies that uses situations where the characters are predictably gonna get involved in bad situations. Although this movie wasn't a huge offender for this since the crux of the film is actually quite interesting, I wish they executed the inner conflict of Ethan Hawke's character better. He makes a lot of dumb decisions throughout (aka Plot Induced Stupidity) but I will praise once again on the neat idea of a guy dedicating his life to expressing horrific stories actually getting involved in one himself. The movie follows all your typical horror clichés such as the classic "home invasion at night" style of environment and some cheap jump-scares (the ending one was pretty lame) and fake jump-scares. At least the supernatural aspects of this picture weren't that distracting for me. I have no idea who on earth was the costume/makeup designer for this movie because they did a really abysmal job and made the movie a lot less creepy when the actual horror scenes came. I didn't even care THAT much about the ending either even when it was quite refreshing since it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows. Also I felt like all this bizarre religious occult reference symbolisms near the end felt incredibly tacked on to the movie. Kind of sad since it ultimately ended up relying on it as the foundation of the whole movie.

Overall, I found the movie to be a bit disappointing and everything that featured within Sinister was done without a sense of purpose; just a bunch of ideas being thrown in just for the sake of it (my biggest problem with this "horror" movie). Even worse that the all the ingredients to make a good horror: Atmosphere (obviously), a coherent story and scares (duh) were nearly non-existent when being meshed together.

Oh did I forget to mention the film isn't even that scary? A few attempted jump scares ain't going to cut it for me. Actually, I'm more impressed with horror movies if they don't use it in the first place which the movie did in some parts. But it wasn't enough.

Se7en (1995)

A grisly, visceral hard-boiled thriller with a superb ending

[8/10 · 20 May 2016]

This is a perfect example where a movie is good and/or got better due to its ending. Three-quarters of the whole film is pretty much stock standard crime, mystery thriller and the "senior-rookie" relationship between the characters that Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt portray is straightforward but not generic and narrow-minded since their chemistry is so natural. The reason for the latter is that the character, Mills while impulsive, his short-tempered and foul-mouth personality doesn't detract his presence and overall viewing experience of the movie. He's kept in check by William; the archetypal "calm and collected veteran" but during moments like these, they actually have interesting, contrasting discussions in how they see the world, the people and the crimes within a detective's perspective. The film sets up so they avoid Mills' emotional outcries as the focus of the scene which I appreciate. It makes Mills a more multi-dimensional character because we can clearly see him and William are presented as different people on the surface. But the film takes an effort to establish how they're different.

The actual methods and scenes of the murders are indeed quite graphic but the most effective and disturbing one takes place at the end. It's the classic case of not showing that makes it more frightening because it's when our endless imagination takes stage. Speaking of the ending, the reason I view it with high praise is because it's not phoned in and artificial. The film put in some key clues in earlier scenes to justify the killer's methods validly. Its impact is strengthen by the fact that the serial killer is shown quite early and the film uses the remaining sequences well to establish the character. Of course, the actor that plays the killer at the end puts on a a remarkable, chilling performance that only makes the last quarter of the movie better. Normally, the 'mystery' aspect to a film like this would be gone and thus detract our enjoyment (Julia's Eyes is an example that it did) but it didn't for me because we're clearly more interested by the end of WHY the killer kills. It's a natural, organic progression when we're all sucked in to the elaborate ways that the victims are killed at the start. While the actual killer's motivations is a little simple- minded and its all explained in one convenient scene, I just love how the VERY last sequence of the movie refused to venture on a black-and-white "good guys beat bad guys" type of ending and sticked to its guns on what the film is about by using the killer as the subtext.

Overall, I enjoyed this modern hard-boiled flick and the only problems I had with the movie is that its a little too reliant on the ending to be a deciding factor on whether or not you would enjoy this picture. Lastly, when I referred to the killer's intentions as slightly one-sided, I felt like it was a bit self-indulgent at times and wasn't all-encompassing enough when the film needed to foreshadow more on its underlying message during sections of the film before the killer was revealed. We only see a few glimpses from the interactions between Freeman and Pitt as well as the dark, grim setting (neo-noir) portrayed in the movie but I need more still. I thought if the film executed on the "why" part of the killings a bit better and not just "how" (which I already explained it's done admirably) then it would've easily pushed my rating from a 8.5/10 to a 9 or higher.

Zootopia (2016)

The best Disney movie since The Lion King.

[9/10 · 4 May 2016]

As expected from an animated picture of Disney's caliber, I like it a lot. The animation and the different settings they showed throughout the movie were amazing; the chemistry between Judy and Nick was interesting enough. The anthropomorphic characters are entertaining because they're relatable and the film balances the human elements with the whole "animal world" very well. I think that's where the film shines the most and hence the high reviews it's getting. Usually for Disney films (and even Pixar) they only focus on one aspect; human condition or a fantasy premise. So you can say Zootopia is sort of breaking new ground by trying to do both. The only comparison I can think of that tries to match what Zootopia is doing is Pixar's Monsters Inc.

Of course, like most good Disney pictures where it can be appreciated by both kids and adults alike; but through other reasons, Zootopia's brilliance lies in the important message that the film offers. It's straight-forward since aspects of it such as the "under-dog" story is something you see in a lot of animated movies. However, I liked how the plot manages to develop beyond that into a/the bigger picture.

My only criticisms about the movie is the humor might not cut through enough to people as it's mostly witty banter and subversive. Besides that, I think a film like Zootopia, it would work MUCH BETTER as a Pixar film rather than a Disney film.

Pixar films like Inside Out and Wall-E manages to deal with important themes more intelligently than Disney films like Zootopia while at the same time making the film entertaining to watch as an animation. I'm not saying those 2 films are necessarily better than Zootopia; but I'm saying they (Pixar) handle the aspect of trying to get a real-life applicable point across better. Personally for me, I prefer it when the film doesn't info-dump you with stale exposition especially if it's within one scene and keep the subtext conveying subtle across the whole picture. It might sound contradictory to what my main point is compared to the end of my opening paragraph since relating to that, I know the film-makers were trying to mesh out both a dazzling and subversive animated flick but the 2nd half of the film greatly focuses on the latter aspect. So my first impression when I was watching the ending was it tried to "hammer in" too much on the human subtext and should've mix it up with the fun animated stuff like in the middle parts of the film. To sum up what I'm saying, the tone of the climax (of the film) could've been handled a bit better so that way Zootopia's themes can be addressed as a wider scope for an enhancing experience.

Overall, this film is on my top 10 list of my favourite animated movies and I enjoyed the technical merits more than my own personal enjoyment of the film since the humour didn't strike me that well at times. And to be honest, the funniest scene in Zootopia was already shown in the preview trailers (which I saw prior). I still found it hilarious the second time when watching the actual movie. So maybe that's actually a compliment to the execution of the film's humour despite what I said otherwise earlier?

Zootopia is quite possibly the best Disney movie of the last decade since The Lion King.