tmmurphy-2 Reviews

The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (1968)

Anti-Cinema

[2/10 · 10 March 2007]

"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.

If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.

Pulse (2001)

Laughable

[1/10 · 21 December 2005]

Kairo/Pulse's reputation - as a "scary", "frightening", "depressing" movie - is undeserved. Although the beginning has a couple of good scares, the film loses narrative impetus after about twenty minutes, settling into a shapeless, baggy, scare-less middle act that bored and alienated me. The actors run the gamut of emotions from depressed to catatonic. The presentation of the ghosts is obviously cribbed from other, better J-Horror movies. Portentous scene follows portentous scene, but there's no substance, no care taken to give us a sense of the rules of the game, or the cause- and-effect of the story. That means precious little sense of human motivation. If you're like me and my friends, after half an hour you'll start laughing at the sheer randomness of the action and dialog, as well as the invariably stupid choices made by the characters. At the showing I attended, the theater was almost deserted; I should have taken that as a hint to leave and ask for my money back. Maybe Kairo's supposed to be an allegory or a parable; whatever it is, it's not drama that'll excite or engage you on any level. Go rent Ju-On 2 instead.

The Eye (2002)

A promising first half ruined by a sentimental climax

[6/10 · 2 December 2005]

Nothing ruins a good ghost story like bad exposition. I can think of a dozen movies where a chilling, mysterious first act is vitiated by a ludicrous sequence explaining the origin and purpose of the supernatural visitor/s. Perhaps it's best to keep the malign spirits motiveless and the audience confused, as in The Exorcist, the Ju-On series or the Naomi Watts version of The Ring.

That's the case here: the lead actress is appealing and first 50 minutes are wonderful, with four good scares -- especially effective because we see them from the point-of-view of the disoriented Mun, who sees things out-of-focus and can't trust her new power of sight. The scenes in the hospital hallway, the restaurant, the calligrapher's, and in the elevator absolutely bowled me over.

Things begin to go downhill with some lazy tear-jerking, as children's ghosts start to appear in droves -- if one's not enough, the Pang Bros. give us three.

Then there's an underdeveloped love story between Mun and her psychotherapist -- who honestly looks 16 years old at most. Doogie Howser territory here. Don't they have laws about statutory rape in Hong Kong?

Most disastrous is a trip to Thailand, where the mystery of Mun's corneas is unravelled. I won't describe the back-story here, except by saying it's melodramatic and sentimental in the extreme. The emotions demanded from the audience were way out of proportion with what I was prepared to invest in the characters.

My disappointment may stem from cultural differences. Maybe I'm a flinty-hearted Anglo-Saxon who can't appreciate a good Asian weep-fest. At any rate, I was left wishing I had just turned off the film at the 50 minute mark.