Review: Ichi the Killer

Before Saw, there was Ichi the Killer; a Japanese film based on the manga and anime, stretched the boundaries of what cinema could get away with.
Taking place in Japan's gangland society, the story follows two unique but equally sadistic individuals. One is a pain-relishing torturer who has a distinct pre-Leath Ledger's Joker vibe going on, especially the scars extending from his lips (only this guy takes his torture far beyond pencil tricks). The other character is a young man plagued by memories of being bullied, whose rage and fear magnify him into a deranged murderer.
The film begins with a quite interesting credit sequence, and then continues to become a jarring and extravagant exposure of hyper-violence, gore and sex.
Yet the Japanese are always masters at taking such sadistic material and adding black comedic moments throughout. One such moment sees our torturer character cut his own tongue out to apologise to his superior, only to immediately have a phone conversation (the boss's terrified reaction is priceless).
As with quite a lot of manga adaptations, this film is a little too weird for me, especially with its ending. I suspected a twist and I got one, but it was more than I had bargained for and left me feeling a little disappointed. There is also a truly surreal moment with a heavy dose of cg composition... which does not work.
If you like your Japanese horror, torture and black comedy, I'd say check it out, even if its just to see the bizarre Japanese answer to the Joker.

Additional Marshmallows: Ichi is directed by Audition's Takashi Miike.

Review: Switchblade Romance (aka High Tension)

I cannot think how long its been since I watched a solid slasher movie that kept me guessing almost throughout. Bless these Europeans and their grasp of good film making.
Switchblade Romance, otherwise known as High Tension, follows Alexia, a young girl visiting her parents' rural house with her friend Marie. But upon their first night there a sadistic serial murderer breaks into their house, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia. It is up to Marie to give chase and rescue her friend from the mysterious killer.
The film begins with very loose characterisation; the two girls are reasonably standard protagonists, while the family are virtually expendable (I would have liked a little more from them) but the movie rather teasingly jests with generic slasher movie false-scares initially. Not in the way a spoof does, but in a genuine "friends goofing around" sense, and trust me after seeing so many horror movies recently, this was a fantastic change of pace!
There is gore by the bucket load, and some extremely unpleasant murder scenes. There's good pacing throughout, frequently tensing into cat-and-mouse scenes. Marie is an intense character; someone with intelligence and integrity who might actually be the single wisest female in any slasher movie! She's only outdone by the killer's own unsettling intelligence.
Better than I expected. If you like a good slasher movie that stands out from the crowd, I'd give it a watch.

  

Banter: There is Nothing to Fear, but Fear itself

I have just completed playing one of the creepiest video games ever made: Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Yes, yes, I will maintain banter about film, but the game's incredible ability to invoke fear has me thinking about movies and fear. Tis the season after all!
Growing up I loved intense movies, as a kid I wanted to see Aliens and Terminator, in early teens I watched The Fugitive and Burton's Batman movies. But there were some things that scared me.

Yeah, you know what that is don't you. I must've watched Terminator 2 when I was about ten or eleven years old. It took me a while before I watched this terrifying sequence. Brain numbingly good physical effects...

And the face on the right should look familiar to a lot of people; it's the "face" that can be seen on the surface of Mars. However, it was the template of the X-Files episode Space, and despite how outdated the effects look now... I still remember that episode freaking me out so badly. Actually... I still have trouble looking at that face... why did I put that in the blog...?
...
(Focus! It is only a mountain with a shadow! Only a mountain.... only a mountain....)


Fear is quite subjective; some people find things scary which others might call laughable or entertaining. Some people fear ghost stories, possession, aliens, spiders, or even simply darkness.

Movies have intense ways of burning images and sounds into our minds with fear, and I believe (in my opinion) that the best scary films are those that give you very little. The films that makes your mind fill the gaps; to make you terrify yourself.

I believe this image from Paranormal Activity is burned into my mind (and hopefully not my retina too). Unlike its sequel that moves the viewer's eye about and somewhat gives them breathing space in doing so, the original movie keeps this single shot permanently. The effect? You are hypnotised by watching it. Seconds move agonisingly slowly as you find yourself too scared and anxious to look away, compelled to watch it. Every time this image appeared for the last twenty minutes of that film, my heart sank in dread; what was going to happen next?

What did happen? A fantastic use of shadows, subtle gestures to downright savage, sudden explosions of movement, yet more often than not the film used eerie sights and quiet sounds... Footfalls on distant stairs... footfalls that approach and stop... floorboards creaking, your mind works overtime against your will to imagine what's happening. Yet nothing's there!

The video game I mentioned, Amnesia, works in a similar way. It deprives you of options and puts you directly in harm's way (like Paranormal Activity's frozen perspective) and mercilessly torments you with sounds, sounds and little more. Your mind incubates and develops its own fear.

A great definition of this is comparing the film The Haunting (1963) and its 1999 remake. The remake is a garbage pile of bad acting, shameful CGI nonsense and even a literal Hell. The original shows you nothing; it plays with sound, shadows and unsettling camera work to unnerve you psychologically.

Now... I express my own opinions here about what scares me. The unsettling, disembodied sounds, the grey-black shadows of unfamiliar (yet real) places, the abnormal and terrifying manifesting in recognisable or subtle ways.
What can I say about the "horror" movies that do not scare me? How about Saw for an example.
Saw is not a film gauged for invoking fear... Saw is sickly and gross, and the terms torture porn and "goreno" have been wisely applied to it. Similar to exploitation movies of the 70s, you have to wonder who decided to conceive these scenarios (I'm looking at you too, Human Centipede) or those who buy them to watch repeatedly.
They aren't scary, they are grotesque examples of physical special effects (impressive nonetheless it should be said) and little more, at best forcing you to turn your head in disgust. If I want that... give me the nail-pulling scene from District 9 any day, or Old Boy's tooth-pulling extremes.

But tell me... isn't fear that feeling of helplessness, of being at the mercy of some unseen force, the unknown, the mysterious?
I think so.
And a film that can do that, has mastered something indeed, and while the fright might never be as strong a second time, the sensation lingers...

Sleep well.

Review: Rosemary's Baby

I knew next to nothing about Rosemary's Baby going into it, but I knew it was acclaimed for its haunting atmosphere. While it does still have that, the film feels a little dated.
A young couple move into a new apartment (and they aren't afraid of its unpleasant history of deaths) to bring up a family. At first they are a regular man and wife settling in, but when Rosemary becomes pregnant their eccentric and nosy old neighbours seem to take a great deal of interest.
The film has a strong, unsettling atmosphere running throughout - and religious messages that surely shook audiences back in the 60s - a lot of this is due to the film's exceptional ambiguity. Everything is from Rosemary's perspective, making for anxieties to either be real or part of her own delusions. Mia Farrow certainly puts her heart and soul into the part.
As for the rest of the cast... I am not so certain. While they perhaps have the hardest role to sell, its pretty obvious what is going on, and while the lack of actual scares empowers the ambiguity (and is welcome!) the other characters behave so oddly that something has to be wrong. I certainly couldn't bear the old neighbours for more than a few minutes, let alone most of the film!
The ending felt a little unsatisfying. I imagine it was done for controversy sake, but for me I felt it should have ended differently.
It is a very slow, very atmospheric film about an anxious mother-to-be, who finds everyone around her to be against her and her baby. Guaranteed to scare the wits out of any other mother-to-be! For me... it was a little too surreal, a little too slow starting.

Review: Frankenstein (1931)

Nope, I had yet to see the original 1931 Frankenstein, but having watched the 1931 Dracula last year, I should watch another one of Universal's monster movies.
These films have such a delightful charm about them; their exaggerated use of shadows and their quirky but unique set pieces, but most captivating is the fact that they are the original templates for such classic monster imagery.
The genius scientist Henry Frankenstein has found the secrets of life and death, and vows to prove it to his disbelieving mentor, fiancée and best friend by bringing life to a creature he created, regardless of dangerous consequences.
The film opens with a now humorous warning that the film "may horrify" you, and throughout the film this charm remains. While indeed it was barely the 1930s, the exterior scenes are showing their age; the sound design does little to disguise that they are on a stage with reverberating sound. There are also glaring continuity errors and editing issues (such as a character falling onto their back, only for the following shot to show them lying face down).
But the positives remain with the acting. Colin Clive as the intense, mad Doctor Frankenstein is a joy to watch even to this day, and the immortal lines he speaks upon giving the monster life still give genuine shivers, regardless how many times we have heard them spoken since. Truly the original and best Frankenstein.
The film ends a little bluntly, I could have used more to tie up the characters than was given, and I think I preferred 1931's Dracula, but it was still an enjoyable piece of classic cinema.

Review: Slither

From the director who would later go on to make Super, comes a quirky little gore movie that surprised me with its likeability!
Some of that likeability may come from Nathan Fillion (from the cult TV show Firefly) in the lead role.
In a small, quiet and quirky American town a meteorite crashes and releases a fierce parasitic lifeform, it infects and possesses a husband whose wife then teams up with the local police chief and others to stop an alien takeover!
The film's labelled as a horror-comedy, and while it got a chuckle out of me a few times I have to say it could have done with some wittier dialogue, especially with Fillion on board. I was most impressed with the physical and special effects involved! Great comedic splashes and gushes of blood and bile, along with leech-like slugs and tentacles.
It is very predictable, with classic bodysnatching scenarios and zombie clichés, but it is a very fun gore movie that I imagine is quite underrated.
Decent acting all around too; there is a nice chemistry between our leading stars, and certainly a good looking cast too with Elizabeth Banks and Tania Saulnier (nope, can't say I've heard of them before now!)
It has some good funny moments, I'd recommend it for any fans of Shaun of the Dead and gore movies in general. Short, simple, quick and entertaining.

Review: Saw VII (aka Saw 3D)

Saw finally (supposedly) bows out with the least amount of dignity and superficial conclusions I have ever seen in a long time.
Now I am not a fan of the Saw movies generally, but I stuck with them for two reasons. One, they have built a plotline from nothing and two, Jigsaw is an interesting character. So I was hoping for a conclusion that was somewhat clever or genuine, but I suppose I was too optimistic; the writers have become so blinded by their hack writing so far they forgot how to conclude it.
So in this "final chapter" we follow an author who supposedly survived one of the Jigsaw traps, and his bid to restore confidence in other survivors. Meanwhile, our two villains from the previous films seek to end their own battle.
The film is two parts for me. The story of the survivors, and their new lease of life, is fascinating; this is what Jigsaw's intention was, to show people the errors of their ways and renew themselves. However because this is a Saw film we can't just have that, we need another endless onslaught of traps and characters we don't know or care about.
I've talked about lack of characterisation killing Saw's torture scenes before, and here its only part of the problem. The real problem is how this final act completely cleanses itself of every development in the last six films with a tacked on "twist". There were ways to end this story with more dignity, even the twist could have worked had its inclusion not debunked everything that had happened previously!
Ultimately, this film proves the writers had no idea what they were shooting for; six films, that's nearly a day of footage (good god) to set that decent twist up... But no, they just admit that everything was completely pointless.

Additional Marshmallows: They couldn't even maintain their titles. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, 3D. Really, you really are that shallow huh. At least Lovefilm listed it at VII.