It has been a while since I saw this film in the cinema, now it was already on TV. A real Tim Burton film with a strange atmosphere, weird stages retelling the often-told myth of the headless horseman. Johnny Dep had a very nice part which he plays quite well. Ah well, I suppose most of you have seen the film by now. A ‘horror’ for the entire family with a great soundtrack.
I remember that when this film was anounced for the cinemas, I already wanted to see it. Still it took until it was on TV before I finally did. A shame! Not only Gwyneth Paltrow (in a nice 1950’ies journalists outfit) and Angelina Joly (as a pirate) have a part (and Jude Law for the ladies), but “Sky Captain” is a visual spectacle and a very entertaining film. It looks like a comic and also the story is rather ‘comical’, but it seems not to be a comic-adaptation. “Sky Captain” is a science-fiction playing in the past. Somewhere after WWI gigantic machines ravage cities all over the world. This seems to be a plot of a dark professor. Journalist Polly and hero Sky Captain (Jude Law) try to find out what it all is. Story-wise not always too logical, but visually impressive (‘flat colours’, great atmosphere, alright special-effects) and very entertaining. If you like “Sin City”, “V For Vendetta” and the like, you may also want to see this one. <11/9/06><4>
When I heard about this film I immediately wanted to see it. It was out of the cinemas before I knew it and we are still waiting for the DVD release. Good that a friend has an import!
I suppose you heard all about the film, if you haven’t seen it yet. One thing is certain, I had high expectations of the film, but it is even better than I hoped! The film is an adaptation of Frank Miller’s own comic. I didn’t know about this, but this man made more films out of comics. Also I don’t know the comic, but that isn’t needed to enjoy this film. Quentin Tarantino is guest director by the way.
I thought that “Sin City” was a film with comic-elements, such as in “The Hulk” (which I haven’t seen), but this isn’t really the case. The film is actually shot the way one would make a comic and this really shows. This makes it obvious that a film and a comic are made from completely different viewpoints (both literally and as a manner of speaking). A comic has a ‘hero’ with his face right in the camera talking, a very simple shot of a driving car, shots in which a lot of perspective is put, surreal stages and characters with very distictive features such as a grim man with a square face or a woman with a superb body and a very outspoken haircut. It is really nice to see this made into a film.
Sin City is a dark city where corruption is the rule. The film consists of three storylines that here and there cross eachother. They go over in eachother abruptly which made me rather confused about whether or not the characters are the same or if the stories have something to do with eachother. In the first story “Hartigan” (Bruce Willis) is the only clean cop left in town. He wants to save an 11-year old girl from the hands of a cannibalistic maniac, but runs right into a massive corruption scandal and lands in jail. Then almost unnoticed we go to the story of the grim and hard-to-kill walking tank “Marv” (Mickey Rourke) who falls in love with a woman who gets killed while he was laying in bed with her, so he has to hunt supernatural enemies and eventually the most powerfull man of Sin City in order to get revenge; this is definately the most ‘comical’ part of the film with flying persons and weird characters. Then we have the story of ‘the old town’ where the police left the maintaining of the order to the beautiful prostitutes-warriors of the old town; a man named Dwight ends up in old town and a cop gets killed, which is a serious problem so he has to get rid off the bodies; this results very surreal scenes and stories. All the sudden we are back with Hartigan, is he the other characters? Did he dream the other two stories while in the hospital? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn’t really matter.
Shot is moody black and with with great ‘comical’ high contrasts here and there. Only four colours are filled in: red, green, blue and yellow adding to the atmosphere. “Sin City” truely is a great visual experience with uncommon stories, viewpoints, special effects, etc. Nicely dark, sometimes pretty grim and bloody/extreme with a descent sense of humour. The total atmosphere and (as far as I know) sheer originality of the film really makes it by far the best film that I have seen in recent times!
I actually didn’t want to see this film. I didn’t like “Sixth Sense” (of the same director) and “Others” and didn’t even watch the rest of the ‘supernatural thrilllers’ In the end I got “Signs” in a cheap rental-pack of 5 others. Anyway, I will be short about this one: it is terrible!!. This film comes way after the X-Files-hype was over, the story stinks and is incorrect and unbelievable on several points, the acting isn’t too great, but especially the aliens are a catastrophe! They look like men with suits on…
Gal (Ray Winstone) is an ex criminal from the UK who lives out his retirement of his stolen fortune in Spain with his wife and a befriended couple. Then they get a phonecall from Don Logan (played by Ben Kingsley best known for playing Gandhi) about a cracking for which he wanted to ask Gal. The friends already know that the terrible Don is not going to take “no” for an answer and when Logan even comes over to ask Gal personally, stress and nervousnous get grip of the friends. When he arrived, Gal tries to tell Logan a couple of times that he isn’t interested, but indeed Logan doesn’t take “no” for an answer which results in some serious collisions. Eventually Gal does go to London, but since Logan is dead, he has another problem.
“Sexy Beast” is the first film of Jonathan Glazer and I read about it quite some time ago. The original plans were to release it only on video in Europe, but when the film was a big success in the States and European critics wrote ravingly about it, it was anounced for European cinemas. Eventually this turned out (for me) only 5 cinemas in the Netherlands (closest at 100 km) and one in Belgium (140 km). DAMN! Then (big surprise) there was one play in my hometown! Bad news, one time, saturdaynight 00:00 (12 am)…
But so I went. The film is often compared to “Snatch”, but I don’t entirely agree with that. Okay, both are crime-films, “Snatch” is more funny, but also “Sexy Beast” has some grim humour. A big difference lays in the essembly (?) of the films. “Snatch” is more like one film without much flash-backs, etc., “Sexy Beast” does have flash-backs, but more in a dark way, even reminding of David Lynch’s “Lost Highway” sometimes. Further: strange camery-positions, great special effects and wonderfull acting. Sometimes “Sexy Beast” is completely brilliant, but at other times not so. Overall I liked the film, but I don’t think it is as brilliant as some people say.
I had never heard of this film, nor of the director, but the very short story on the back of the box was interesting enough to get it and see it. What a nice surprise! Good to see that there are still films with an original story, minimal setting but still a good atmosphere.
Five men get the major job to clean a massive building that used to be a mental instution from asbestos. The institute is remote, enormous, in a progressed state of decay and at places shows what used to go on there. ‘Advanced’ methods of treatment which you see nothing off, but the suggestion gives the film a nice grim atmosphere. Also the title is brilliantly come up with. When the film starts you don’t know what it refers to, in the beginning of the film you do, but you know you will have to wait for what it really it. As the film continues doubts raise whether what you see if real or illusion and this question isn’t answered.
A very nice surprise, finally a good thriller/horror from hollywood with a good claustrophobic atmosphere.
the isle
I bought two films by Kim Ki-Duk, this one and “Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom” which I will review as soon as I saw it. Kim Ki-Duk is a Korean director and his films are at least different from the usual Asian films that are so popular at the moment. I understood that the films are more in the vein of “Dolls” by Takeshi Kitano (reviewed elsewhere), a beautiful symphony of colours, images and symbols. “Seom” turns out to be indeed a film with marvelous images, but with an occasional “Odishon” (“Audition”)-like scene. People who know this film by Takashi Miike will know what I mean. “Seom” may not be that extreme, but I advise people with a sensitive stomach not to watch either film. This is only in a few scenes though. The film is about Hee-Jin who lets tiny boat-houses (or raft-houses) that are used by people for fishing, relaxation, receiving prostitues and commiting suicide. The non-speaking Hee-Jin has her eye on everything and sometimes violently interferes with what happens. The morning images of rafts tossing on the misty lake are beautiful (and so is Hee-Jin btw) and the overall atmosphere is strange and mysterious. You don’t want to try and find a real story or a descent ending though, because (like in other Asian films) you will not find it. A nice film and I am looking forward to see the other film of Kim Ki-Duk that I bought.
the second name
When I saw this DVD in the videoshop I thougt that it was of the director of “Los Sin Nombre”, but I was mistaken. It is a Spanish film, but spoken in (bad) English. “El Segundo Nombre” is supposed to be a dark, ‘religious’ thriller in the vein of “Se7en”, but is it doesn’t come close to it. The story is about a woman whose father commits suicide. Later his body is stolen from his grave and it was later found back ritually mutilated. Daniella wants to find out why. Then the story starts to twitch, bringing up a centuries old Jewish sect in which ritual sacrifice is still obliged. A pretty dull film.
“Saw” is the horror-hit of the moment. Even though it is made by a Japanese director, the film is pretty American. As a matter of fact, “Saw” joyously builds further on the trend of dark and extreme horror/thrillers about serial killers. Not too original. What may have caused the popularity of this film, is that it goes quite a bit further than “Silence of the Lambs, “Se7en” or “Ressurection”. But again there is a serial killer loose with ‘moral’, showing his victims what fails in society. The film is about two men who find themselves chained to pipes in an old toilet-room. One of them knows about a serial killer who plays games with his victims. Either they do something terrible or they will die. “Technically he isn’t a killer, since he didn’t kill anyone”, a police-officer says about the “Jigsaw” killer, which is true. “Saw” is a deeply psychological and very extreme film with as underlaying question: “how much blood would you shed to stay alive?” Killing a person, mutilating yourself, the victims get their choices and the Jigsaw enjoys the show.
I don’t think I heard anyone who didn’t think this film is brilliant. Personally I don’t think it is particularly good. The story is not very original, like I said, yet another ‘moralistic serial killer’. The ways the victims die are extreme in their geniosity, but also extremely far-fetched and not credible. Also there are actually two ‘cases’ that we follow in the film, but with flashbacks your get to see about other victims for the sole purpose of Wan being able to show what can come out of his sick mind. Don’t get me wrong, if you want a dark and extreme horror, this is your film, but script is in a way ingenious, but I get a bit tired of all these ‘intelligent horror films’ about serial killers. And then of course a sequal is already anounced, not even by the same director. The lack of inspiration of the filmbusiness…
songs from the second floor
I had read quite a few things about this film, but it took some effort to see it in our local ‘filmhouse’. Some people compare this film with Monty Python’s Flying Circus, others just find it hilarious. As for myself, well, it is definately a strange film with a strange kind of humour, but Monty Python? nah. By far not as hilarious and dumb and also Andersson doesn’t have the quality level (or not as much my sense of humour).
“Sånger” consists of different strange scenes which either or not have something to do with eachother. Often the only link between two scenes is that the same persons are in it. Overall there is some kind of a story in the film which is actually rather depressing. Indeed there is a lot of humour in a really vague and absurd style which sometimes does bring memories of Monty Python, but all through the film there is not that much to laugh I think. Several scenes are massive with a lot of people and enormously strange and I wonder what some scenes have to do with the rest.
So, if you like absurd humour and you can stand the extremely slow Scandinavian way of filming, try and see “Sånger Från Andra Våningen”. <3>