TheMovieCritic_83 Reviews

Audition (1999)

An intelligent, deeply disturbing film

[9/10 · 2 September 2009]

Takashi Miike's 'Audition', is a film that begins like a drama, with tinges of romance, and gradually turns to absolute terror. If you aren't familiar with the directors work, this should give you an idea of what to expect...and should warn you that his films are not for everyone! Shigeharu Aoyama is a widower approaching middle age, whose son one day comments that he should re-marry (as it's been 7 years after the death of his first wife). He talks to a fellow friend in the movie business who comes up with an idea of holding an audition. The intention is for him to observe selected women, and choose one to eventually marry. Before the audition even occurs, he browses through the applicants and decides on Asami Yamazaki, a pretty, petite young woman who appears to have wisdom and understanding beyond her years.

As things move along though, something doesn't seem quite right about Asami. Her references and contacts don't seem to check out, and Shigeharu's friend who organized the audition, makes it clear that he doesn't like something about her. Through shots of her sitting alone with her head down in her apartment, and a mysterious sack tied up in the room with her, it's clear to the audience that things will take a turn for the worst...and they most certainly do!

Takashi Miike is unquestionably a talented and very skilled director. The film is characterized by dimly lit scenes, a minimal soundtrack, and an eerie atmosphere. One of the highlights is a scene down the staircase leading to a bar that Asami supposedly works out. It's creepy and unsettling. Even early scenes in the film, well before the horror starts, seem foreboding.

This is definitely not a mindless slasher film. 'Audition' is strong in all areas. It has intellect, character definition, atmosphere, and a well written script. The earlier scenes are quite slow moving, and will probably test the patience of some viewers. However, this only increases the tension, and that was exactly the director's intent.

The final scenes of 'Audition' are brutal and sadistic to say the least, yet somehow do not come across as excessive or exploitative. Either way, it's something that viewers probably should be aware of beforehand.

If the film deserves any criticism, it would be towards the end during the dream / nightmare sequences. I love ambiguity in films, however, I thought in this case, it let the film down somewhat. But aside from that minor quibble, this is an intelligent, horrific, yet stylish film. You may not want to see it twice, but it's hard to deny it's power.

It Happened One Night (1934)

A wonderful, timeless film

[10/10 · 16 March 2008]

Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert are the stars of Frank Capra's legendary romantic comedy, 'It Happened One Night'. Decades later, the film still feels fresh, has lost none of its charm and is a pleasure to watch.

After the opening credits (accompanied by some appealing theme music), we are introduced to Claudette Colbert's character of Ellie Andrews. She has locked herself in her room on a boat which belongs to her over-bearing father. He is threatening to annul her very recent marriage to 'King' Westley because he disapproves of him. After an argument develops, she jumps ship and swims for the shore, with the intent of going straight to New York to meet up with her new husband. While taking a bus trip to reach her destination, she encounters Peter Warne (played by Clark Gable), a newspaper reporter who eventually recognises her after seeing a front page story of her as a runaway. After he threatens to turn her in unless she stays with him in order to give him headline news, she reluctantly makes the cross country trip with him. Things don't always go to plan, which allow some humorous scenes, and there is an attraction that develops between the two. The question then, is who will she end up with by the time the film ends?

This is a film which deserves its status. Not only is it a wonderful, feel-good movie, it is great in all aspects of cinema, and has hardly dated a bit. The films energy and performances from all the cast keep the film from feeling stale, even after more than 70 years. The script is cleverly written with some truly laugh-out-loud moments. What makes this film even more remarkable, is the fact that few people involved in it, with the exception of Frank Capra, had much faith in it. Even the stars of the film, particularly Claudette Colbert, were unenthusiastic to say the least. Thankfully though, the film turned out incredibly well.

'It Happened One Night' also has a place in cinematic history for being the first film to win all 5 Oscars in the main categories, an achievement that was not equalled until 1975's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest'. Some viewers today remark at how unlikely it would be for a romantic comedy these days to receive such an honour. That being said, it's not a film that is going to be forgotten any time soon, and it certainly should be seen.

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)

An unconventional observation of life

[8/10 · 14 December 2007]

Jim Jarmusch's star-studded, black & white 'Coffee and Cigarettes', is a series of short films that study human interaction. The film literally involves nothing more than a string of celebrities, sitting down (generally at cafés), drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes and making conversation.

Anyone who has seen anything from Jim Jarmusch will be well aware of the unconventional and quirky style that he uses. It may put some viewers off, but there are always audiences that relish when a director steps outside of the mainstream and does something completely different. The films may not make it big at the box-office, but they are a testament to the directors love for art.

From the above description, it's pretty clear that this will not be a film that everybody will embrace. As with most indie and art house films, it will mostly appeal to a specialised audience. Some viewers will certainly be put off by the lengthy sequences of dialogue, and the occasional aimless feel that the film has. This does, however, seem to be the point. The film is purely an observation of life.

Even though not all of the films sequences are on the same level, it doesn't affect the film too much overall. All scenes are punctuated with amusing moments and humour, and the black & white cinematography looks and feels great. Jim Jarmusch has captured the quiet, aimless and sometimes awkward moments that occur in peoples daily lives wonderfully. The cast (including Cate Blanchett, Iggy Pop, Steve Buscemi, Bill Murray and Alfred Molina) are all great, and the acting (needless to say) is of a high standard. The film is certainly worth viewing, but will unfortunately never have mass appeal.

Rear Window (1998 TV Movie)

Another needless remake.

[4/10 · 26 June 2007]

So many films have been remade in recent years, and I'm always fascinated as to why. The only justifiable reason that I can see for remaking a film, is if the original had potential, but was in the hands of the wrong director. In the case of 'Rear Window', Alfred Hitchcock's original version was close to perfection. That being the case, why did anyone feel a need to remake it? While sticking to the basic storyline of a man confined to his apartment and becoming suspicious that a neighbour has murdered his wife, there are a few changes. Christopher Reeve plays the lead character, who is not a photographer but an architect, and has been pompously renamed Jason Kemp. Also the lead female role, played by Daryl Hannah, is not his girlfriend (to begin with) but his colleague. And there are some other differences here and there, such as the lack of exploration into the complexities of relationships, and the fact that Jason Kemp has two medical assistants on call 24 hours instead of an insurance nurse that visits daily. I suppose the makers deviated in these areas so that the film would not look like an exact copy of the original, but these differences do very little, and in some cases let the film down.

For a thriller, this film hardly manages to mildly scare. Jeff Bleckner's direction does not labour on key points in the film long enough to generate much tension, nor is there much atmosphere. The film's soundtrack also does not help matters. The best part of the film is Christopher Reeve, who does stand out from a cast with little substance. Thelma Ritter's character of an insurance nurse in Alfred Hitchcock's version, has more spark than the two medical assistants in this film put together. Then again, that may be largely due to the relatively shallow script that the actors have to work with.

That being said, this was a very needless remake. Not all of Alfred Hitchcock's films were classics, but when it comes to his best films, I don't believe it's possible to improve on them. Apart from this attempt, 'Psycho' has been remade, as well as multiple remakes of 'The 39 Steps'. Let's hope it stops there.

Metropolis (1927)

Bursting at the seams.

[10/10 · 26 June 2007]

'Metropolis' is absolutely one of the greatest films ever made. Fritz Lang's vision of an apocalyptic future, is one of the best examples of cinematic art in existence. Time has done nothing to reduce the film's impact. It is probably the most electrifying film to date.

The story is set in 2026, in a time where society has split into two classes. The workers, who simply exist below ground level, keeping the city functioning, and the rulers of the city and the upper-class citizens who live in luxury above. The ruler's son, Freder, while indulging at the 'Club of the Sons', is curious when a woman from down below visits, surrounded by a group of young boys. It is at this moment that Freder is moved to visit the worker's environment. He tells his father of the distress that he finds and eventually becomes part of a rebellion that will finally unite both classes.

What Fritz Lang created in 1926 is truly incredible. It is mind-boggling at how modern it still is. And as far as art is concerned, this is a film that is bursting at the seams. It is however, ridiculous that the film was labelled as a flop on its release. It is even more outrageous that a good chunk of footage from the original print of the film is now irretrievably lost because the film was re-edited. Although it has been restored as much as possible, it is such a shame that it is incomplete.

'Metropolis' is a film that has made more sense and has become more understood as time has passed. It is now greatly praised and has rightly been given the honour as the greatest German film from the silent era.

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982 TV Movie)

Not much out of the ordinary.

[5/10 · 26 June 2007]

Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews star in this remake of "The Scarlet Pimpernel". I haven't seen the original with Leslie Howard, but it's probably a good guess that it's notch above this made-for-TV version.

The film centres on a secret organisation of do-gooders, led by a man named Percy Blakeney (Anthony Andrews), who risk their own necks in order to help prisoners escape execution during the French Revolution. Apart from the name they go by, "The Scarlet Pimpernel", no one has any idea who they are. And to ensure that no one will ever suspect their true identity, they make themselves out to be idiots, weaklings, cowards, any trait that least resembles the heroic trademarks of "The Scarlet Pimpernel". Also to avoid recognition, they work under a range of disguises and are continually having to dodge a group led by the villain (who doesn't come across as all that bad), Chauvelin (Ian McKellen). Chauvelin and his men are determined to find out who they are and stop them. To complicate matters though, Percy meets Marguerite (Jane Seymour), falls in love with her and ends up marrying, which leads to all sorts of problems.

The script is incredibly ordinary at times and the acting in places is a bit stiff. It's also difficult to accept that Jane Seymour's classy character of Marguerite would fall for such a pompous idiot as Percy. Anthony Andrew's acting is a bit off in parts, especially during some of his disguises and the film never has a high point. It stays on an even keel and never really takes off.

Yet, oddly enough, there are shreds of likability to the film and a sense that there was organisation during production. But overall, the film is nothing special.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Amazingly deep.

[9/10 · 26 June 2007]

There aren't a lot of films that can generate as many feelings as 'A Clockwork Orange'. It has been stated that the amount of controversy this film has caused, amounts to more than all of the controversy of Stanley Kubrick's other films combined. I have to agree with that. The film has been accused of inspiring real life crimes, (of which some claims are undeniably true), and Stanley Kubrick and his family were hit with death threats upon it's release. The film was soon withdrawn from viewing in England, and that stayed in effect for about thirty years. This amazingly deep film has been praised, despised and in some cases been thoroughly misunderstood.

The film takes place sometime in the near future, in which society has become completely morally corrupt. The central character is a sadistic teenage gang leader called Alex who, along with his 'droogs', commits violent crimes on other citizens, purely for the fun of it. When Alex accidentally murders a woman, he is imprisoned and used as a test subject for the latest method of criminal reform therapy, which guarantees to render criminals as harmless to society. After the therapy backfires, the political party responsible attempts to cover their tracks.

'A Clockwork Orange' has excellent performances, a complex script, and many important themes that it explores. Alex is one of the most nihilistic characters ever to appear on the screen. We know how repulsive his actions are, and yet disturbingly, there is an element of likability about him. A tricky combination to perform, but Malcolm McDowell manages to do it. After an insight into Alex's evil mind, Stanley Kubrick brilliantly flips the film around and throws a strong anti-violence message at the audience. This is an important moment as it explains why the horrific scenes of vulgarity have taken place in the film so far. This scene is one of the ultimate director's traps as it confronts viewers who have enjoyed the scenes of violence by making it clear that Alex, (and by extension, anyone else who can see a reflection of themselves in him) is in a corrupted and unhealthy state.

Ultimately, 'A Clockwork Orange' is an extremely dark study of the worst traits and instincts of human nature. It is clear that Stanley Kubrick's outlook on people is very bleak as there is hardly a character with any redeeming features. Obviously, he was concerned about what the state of society would be like in years to come, and in some ways, it's turned out to be the way the film presents it.

This is a brilliant, but risky film to have made. Brilliant in the way it deals with so many themes (the film could be analysed exhaustibly) and the very important statements that it makes. The film is risky in the sense that it features heavy subject matter that too many people misinterpret. As mentioned before, on the film's release some even went to the extreme of committing crimes that were inspired by scenes in the film. The messages in the film were obviously lost on those viewers, and I would imagine that some fans today also miss the point and watch 'A Clockwork Orange' purely for its violence and other off-putting content. The amoral nature of the film serves to make some strong points, and should disturb it's viewers.

One of the most remarkable things about Stanley Kubrick's films is the way they never date and are more relevant as time goes on, and 'A Clockwork Orange' is a prime example. It's just a pity about the negative consequences that have resulted from this amazing, but sometimes misunderstood film.

Intolerance (1916)

The most ambitious of all films.

[10/10 · 26 June 2007]

D W Griffith's silent film from 1916 about how intolerance has worked against love and charity throughout history, is an awe-inspiring classic. Considering the budget, the cast, and the ambitious attempt to alternate between four stories with different characters within different periods of history, it's no wonder it's labelled as a 'colossal spectacle'. It is this film, plus 'The Birth of a Nation', that shows the extent of what D W Griffith was capable of.

The film contains a modern story of meddling social reformers who claim to be working for the 'uplift of humanity', a French story of the St Bartholomew massacre, the persecution against Jesus Christ and a story of the downfall of ancient Babylon. While this may be a complex and demanding film, D W Griffith is able to masterfully swing in and out of each story while maintaining a sense of coherence and interest for the entire film. The acting is great, the sets are incredible and the musical score is dramatic and appropriate. The film never loses momentum, and its message has never dated.

The amount of footage that was shot for this amazing film amounted to a running time of about eight hours, but was heavily cut down to around three. There are however, a few different editions of the film, and some go for slightly longer. Lillian Gish, who features as the woman rocking the cradle, famously claimed that the film should have been kept at it's original running time. An impossibility for a feature film, but it certainly would have been interesting to see footage that is now lost forever.

It boggles the mind at how D W Griffith was able to create films like this in the early days of cinema. He was one of the most gifted filmmakers who has ever lived. He made some films good films, but this was one of his ultimate achievements.

Amazingly though, 'Intolerance' was mostly ignored on its release. And even more outrageously, was not even given a place (at least to begin with) in the entire list of the AFI's top 100 greatest films. Thankfully, this list has been reissued and 'Intolerance' has been placed at number 49. Realistically though, you would have a solid case if you were to argue that Intolerance should be placed in the top 20, or even the top 10.

Not many view silent films these days, but 'Intolerance' deserves to be seen.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

The Birth of Cinema.

[10/10 · 26 June 2007]

Few films have been able to spawn the amount of controversy that D W Griffith's silent epic has. 'The Birth of a Nation' continues to enrage its viewers and has the dubious honour of being one of the most despised films ever made.

Every serious film buff eventually comes across 'The Birth of a Nation', and the feelings that it creates are often mixed. It is the sort of film that is generally watched only by critics, film historians and those who are interested in the artistic and technical sides of cinema. These days, some people may have heard of the film, but very few have seen it. The thought of a silent film from 1915 that runs for a touch over three hours would put the majority off in an instant.

The film covers the Civil war, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the reconstruction of the South and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. D W Griffith astounded audiences with the introduction of many new film-making techniques that laid the groundwork for the future of cinema. Without exaggerating, practically every film made afterward must give some credit to 'The Birth of a Nation'. The film is constructed and put together seamlessly and still looks amazingly fresh. It was once regarded as one of the 10 greatest films ever made, but the repercussions of the film have marred it's status. So much so that when the American Film Institute put together a list of the 100 greatest films, 'The Birth of a Nation' was placed at number 44, and when the list was reissued, was not given a place at all.

After its release, there were many that wanted the film banned because of the subject matter it featured. The film was accused of rewriting American history as part of the story shows the African Americans threatening to create a black empire and dominate the South, all with the support of Northern carpetbaggers. The threat is countered by the rise of the Ku Klux Klan who are credited as being the saviours of the South and bringing about political control and peace. So a major complaint was that the film was grossly inaccurate from a historical viewpoint, though there were claims by historians that argued for its authenticity.

But the main factor that caused outrage was the way that the African Americans were presented. It was a different world in 1915 though, and the film is a reflection of its time, seeing as how those views and attitudes were what many white people would have had and grew up with. Griffith no doubt would have had prejudice embedded in him from his childhood, or at least a superior attitude towards Negroes. But Griffith insisted he was not hateful toward African Americans and Lillian Gish herself backed up that claim.

The film has also been put in the same category as Nazi propaganda. That of course was not Griffith's intent, though the Ku Klux Klan have used this film to support their cause. These days, audiences are disturbed at seeing the Ku Klux Klan in a glorified manner. But the Klan that Griffith depicts was inspired by the original Klan that began in the 1860's and which had gone out of existence by 1915. They were not as hateful and evil as they were in more recent times. Although you can't condone the things they did when first formed, from a white supremacist's point of view, they would have been considered heroic.

For all the outrage and consequences the film brought on, Griffith never meant to offend anyone. And it's reasonable to conclude that if there were historical inaccuracies, Griffith either thought that what he was showing was accurate or he may have been creating parts of the story for dramatic effect. Maybe it was both. No director would knowingly make a film that would cause the amount of trouble that this did. Griffith always stated that his intentions were good and was forever apologetic about the film.

Opinions of the film will always be divided. It is very difficult for some to praise the film, but to look at it as objectively as possible, its hard not to be impressed. 'The Birth of a Nation' is still so modern, so incredibly fluent and coherent. Griffith truly understood cinema and how movies really worked. He was a director who was light-years ahead of his time and has no doubt inspired countless others. How many other films can claim to have contributed so much to cinema?

Way Down East (1920)

Not a classic, but pleasant viewing.

[7/10 · 26 June 2007]

Lillian Gish is regarded as probably the best actress of the silent era, and there's a good reason for that. As Elsie Stoneman in 'The Birth of a Nation', she appears as a reasonably serious and strong woman. As Anna Moore in 'Way Down East', she is a much more fragile and vulnerable character. This versatility is the mark of a good performer, and Lillian Gish has got it. It is mostly her presence that makes this a memorable film.

Anna Moore is a young naive girl who lives with her mother. When they begin to experience financial difficulties, Anna goes to visit some rich relatives, hoping to get assistance. During the visit, she meets the womanising Lennox Sanderson. To her, it's love. To him, it's just another adventure. Lennox deviously organises a mock marriage ceremony, and after Anna becomes pregnant, the truth comes out and he abandons her. Anna then leaves home and finds work on a farm. She doesn't know it, but Lennox lives close by and, inevitably, the two cross paths again.

'Way Down East' is not a classic, but is worth a look. The emotional elements in the film aren't given quite enough attention to leave any real impact, and the film does drag in certain spots and is about half an hour too long. The characters are well defined though, and D W Griffith punctuates the film with some amusing comical moments.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

Once seen, absolutely never forgotten.

[9/10 · 26 June 2007]

"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the ultimate films that divides people. Some think that the film is manipulative and implausible, while others are awestruck and incredibly moved. When I first saw it, I had practically no knowledge of what the film was about and had virtually no preconceived ideas. When the film was over, I was not only fascinated, but stunned for days afterward. "Dancer in the Dark" is a film that has affected me more than anything else I have ever seen. What Lars Von Trier has created is the greatest example of on-screen emotion ever.

The central character is Selma, played by Bjork in the role she was born for. Selma is a single mother from Czechoslovakia who has migrated to America with her young son, Gene. They both have a genetic disorder that will eventually cause blindness, and Selma is working herself into the ground to save money to organise an operation to save Gene's eyesight. When things get too much for Selma, she incorporates herself and her surroundings into daydreams of Hollywood musicals, which is her way of coping with her circumstances. Selma's landlord Bill is going broke and is afraid his marriage will be threatened if his wife Linda was to find out. He confides in Selma and, when they have both exchanged their secrets, Bill starts to get ideas of borrowing the money from Selma, which brings about serious repercussions.

"Dancer in the Dark" is absorbing, ambitious, beautiful and emotionally assaulting. It is a very artistic and pure film. It is so unconventional from other films, and is therefore not very popular. It is filmed using the Dogma 95 guidelines, which were established in Europe. These guidelines focus on making films in a relatively basic way. Hand-held cameras, natural lighting and shooting on location instead of using sets, are a few examples of the criteria. This technique is not something every audience will accept. A good deal of viewers will be put off by the sometimes chaotic camera-work and jumpy editing. But for those who can see it as an art form, it is a very welcomed style.

This is certainly a film that deserves more recognition. Fans have heaped praise on it, but it seems in some ways, the film has almost been forgotten about. Even taking into consideration that the film may not be a hit with mass audiences, it's difficult to believe that this film is not available everywhere. But whether you love or hate it, it's boldness and originality cannot be denied. Lars von Trier is a director that is to be applauded. He is not afraid to be different, and "Dancer in the Dark" is impossible to forget.

Bjork is a woman of incredible talent, and she is absolutely amazing as Selma and deserves all the praise she has been given. Lars von Trier and Bjork did however, clash during production, and the disagreements did take their toll, as some of the musical scenes let the film down slightly. But overall, the film is an overwhelming knockout. It is the kind of film that could make almost anyone cry like a baby. Oddly enough, my first response to the film was not tears. Though I felt almost traumatised and wondered how I managed to sit through it, I just didn't cry. The tears did come however, on repeated viewings.

If you love art house films or are looking for something that is out of the ordinary, "Dancer in the Dark" is worth watching. As upsetting and unpleasant as it is at times, it is a film that should be seen, if you can handle it.

Sawdust and Tinsel (1953)

An under-appreciated film

[10/10 · 25 June 2007]

It's amazing when a film is disliked and misunderstood when released, and is then praised and labelled as a masterpiece decades later. Ingmar Bergman's 'Sawdust and Tinsel' is one of those films. I'm not exactly sure why the film was regarded so lowly, but thankfully, it is now recognised for what it is.

The film isn't quite Bergman's best, but it is certainly close. 'Sawdust and Tinsel' is a pessimistic, yet truthful study of human nature in relationships. The film's central character, Albert, is a ringmaster of a travelling circus, and is passing through the town where his wife and children are living. The pair have been separated for some time and are clearly dealing with the situation in different ways. His wife Agda has moved on. Albert is still affected and has been unfaithful to his wife, as he is travelling along with his mistress. What unfolds is an interesting character study that looks at human insecurity, disloyalty, selfishness, unhappiness and emotional strain.

It's no wonder that Ingmar Bergman is titled 'The Swedish Master'. 'Sawdust and Tinsel' is full of insight and certainly shows Bergman's talent. He does some excellent things with mirrors in certain shots and creates a lot of mood throughout the film. The highlight is, without question, one of the first scenes in which Frost, the circus clown, comes to collect his wife Alma from the ocean, where she is swimming with an army regiment. Every element works and Alma's selfishness and Frost's pain are clear in the scene, adding to the effect. Practically everything that Bergman has done in this film is excellent. The only point of criticism though, is that the cinematography is a bit hit and miss, as some scenes are too bright, giving them an overexposed look. Then again, it could be that the film has just deteriorated with age.

This is an under-appreciated film that is certainly worth viewing. It is quite hard to come by, but maybe one day, someone will do a proper release on DVD.