Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
I’m just now starting to sort out the 4,500 e-mails (no exaggeration) that I got while I was gone for ten days, and I’m pleased to find several reviews from FanTasia waiting for me in the in-box. I’ll be running whatever you guys send, especially if it fills in gaps in the coverage for days I wasn’t in town.
We’ve got one reviewer today with four separate reviews. First up is a solo film from one of the Pang Brothers, the duo behind THE EYE:
Greetings Mr. Moriarty, never sent in something before and I'm not sure if your even taking reviews since I haven't seen any from anyone else. But I thought I'd try to give it a go anyway.
I was a little anxious as this was my first movie at my first real festival experience. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but of all the films I could have chosen, I'm glad it was the Pang Brother's comedy/drama "Nothing to lose". As I think back on it my fondess grows, but of course it is not without it's share of negative points which come in two aspects.
But a summary is in order. Somchai has a gambling problem, the answer? Suicide, lemming style. Fortunately for us he can't go through with it, and while crying for himself takes notice of a young girl in a tube top and short-shorts on the same ledge that he just happened to have missed seeing before. Gogo has her own reasons as we eventually find out, but from this starting point comes the humorous film dynamic of the somewhat straight guy being dragged around by the wild child. They of course embark on a mini adventure of crime (complete with gruff detective on their trail) and soul-searching (though 99% of that happens by chance) leading up to an ending of which I will only say didn't bum me out as much as it should have (in this case, a good thing).
My first real gripe with the production is that my initial impression of Danny Pang (As this is my first Pang brothers film) is that he is a director who doesn't fully comprehend the idea of pacing. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer. The movie is highly incidental in that it is made up of, well... ...incidents. There are many excellent single scenes but they all feel like they were rushed in being edited together (Though this is more true for the first half then the second). There isn't the slightest trace of buildup or slow down between moods, between the seriousness of some of the actions and the comedic elements, between the scenes of proper silence and the swift scenes painted in a strong techno beats. I don't mean incidental like Chungking Express or jumpy as if it has a constant energy, I mean it has the air of someone who's just learning to drive a stick shift. There, I typed all that and I finally found the right analogy. :)
My second grudge with the film (Though I should insist this one is a rather weak grudge) springs from the first in that this style of presenting a story tends to make it hard for a filmmaker to outline the characters clearly. We are given not so much backgrounds to our two leads so much as we are reasons. Now one might ask, isn't the basis of character development motivation? Well yes, but here, while it works for the most part, doesn't seem entirely intentional. It almost seems to be that the present story was written first and then the characters pasts second. This style of writing could work, but here it was left with a slight patchwork feeling, which again loops back to my original point of a somewhat disjointed presentation.
With that said, I'll say that Pang is the kind of director I hear a lot of people decry as heralding style over substance.
I want to bite those people on the nose.
Pang has a good eye for shapes and colors. The camera isn't moved around nearly as much as one would expect for this kind of film, but the camera isn't what defines the majority of the film's style. As I said there are many individual and creative scenes, and while they don't entirely blend they are finely timed and realized in themselves. We've got fruitless auto thefts, hotel check ins (Does that sound funny? It can be...), slow realizations of mistaken identity, VIP vomit, one way sexual tension that is too blunt to be called tension and even our hero's first go at pot (Is it possible to go wrong with a hallucinogenic scene?). And last but not least, a scene where the cop pursuing them reads Somchai's lips from a surveillance video that had the audience laughing for a good 20 seconds (Even though people seemed to laugh throughout, I have to wonder if the film's humor doesn't play better in it's home country, this large laugh was brought about by a distinctly American reference).
I will also imagine a few people deriding the characters as being forced upon us and not very likeable were they not the main subjects. This could also be true, but I've always maintained that I don't have to necessarily morally agree with what a character is doing to find it interesting or entertaining. It doesn't hurt that both leads fit their rolls, physically and mentally. No, they aren't Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins, but then who is (though from time to time the tortured sister of the hero upstages many of the others in a smaller roll in my humble opinion). While watching them I began to wonder if maybe there are some languages in the world that are better suited to foreign audiences. Do, say, French or Japanese emoting and idiosyncrasies play better to our own eyes and ears than some languages? I admittedly haven't seen many films from this country, so I'll have to defer that debate to the readers.
In the end your enjoyment of this film will most likely be proportional to your acceptance of not just the story of the film, but the mechanics of it's craft. But it worked for me, so if you wish, consider that a vote to all you people keeping score for each coming film.
Up next: Malefique. (I'd give a short summary, but at the counter I didn't even look at the descriptions, but just pointed randomly at the program and said "give me that one!")
I skipped NOTHING TO LOSE in favor of dinner with the festival organizers, but I made sure to catch MALEFIQUE, the last film I saw in Montreal. I’ll have my review up in a few days. For now, check this out:
My second excursion into the festival that is Fantasia brought me to a French horror film, "Malefique".
The movie falls into the absurdist category through and through. Not really as abstract as the David Lynch way (You know, leave a little something left for the imagination, hell, with lynch you leave everything up to the imagination), but not as rope-a-dope wrapped up as something like Vanilla Sky/Open Your Eyes (I can't help it, I need to use comparisons to get things across sometimes). It's absurdist in the sense of pure grotesque, I'm reminded of Palahniuk and how fantastical characters and scenes made seemingly just for the sake of themselves somehow end up winding into each other. Both authors take gratuity all around and somehow connect the dots so that everything has, if not a purpose, a parallel to another factor of the story. This is all encased within a twilight zone like structure that isn't just about the payoff. I'm confident when you look back at the film or watch it again you will still be able to enjoy many of the scenes as you did when you first saw them, unlike so many other "twilight zone" structures where a second viewing only brings a feeling of boredom during the needed build up scenes.
The summary is fairly simple. Carrere is a staunch business man, and a family man, in that order. He has been sent to jail for "running a business" and soon becomes the cellmate of three eccentric characters. Marcus is the imposing weightlifter (with a strong feminine side - similar to a certain Palahniuk character) who acts as a kind of guardian to "Daisy". Daisy almost seems to be a satire on what has become of Hannibal Lector since "Hannibal" was released. Raised by hogs in a barn shed daisy learned to interpret everything with a kind of oral fixation, leading to his current incarceration, and seems to have never mentally developed past the age of 6 or 7. The final wheel on this trip is Lassale, an older man (played by an actor who not only resembles Marcello Mastroianni but has some of the same quiet understanding) who has apparently studied everything there is to study, and has trouble controlling the urge to discover more.
The early scenes covey the life of the three before the latest addition, with Daisy making strenuous and irreversible physical sacrifices for a temporary stay in the infirmary (a "vacation"). But soon the story takes hold as an old book is discovered behind the cell wall, prompting this viewer to wonder if a horror movie will ever feature the actual writing process of cursed tomes that always find such good hiding places. From here comes an evolving storyline of escaping the gloomy cell (which houses a good 95% of the film), and what ends up being a kind of violent meditation on why these men are here in the first place, and not just for the literal reasons.
Of course this being a modern horror movie there is gore, one gruesome death in particular provoking cheers and loud applauding from the audience. And it is here that I think will come the measure of a viewer’s enjoyment of the film. It's easy to say whether or not you can like a movie (this movie) if you find gorish scenes difficult to sit through, but it is debatable how well "Malefique" will hold the remaining audience because of what I will only describe as it's science fiction aspect. While I certainly felt a "spine chill" at two points in the film there came a point where the fantasy aspect impeded on the realistic aspect, and in my mind it's the realistic aspect of any given movie that will dictate one's level of involvement or detachment. Ghosts are one thing yes, black magic is also something deeply rooted in our civilization, but there is a whole other level the film takes after about 1:30 that started to leave me cold. The film includes modern technology at one point, as seems to be popular now thanks to Japanese horror, and uses it correctly (there's something that's simply creepy about watching events concerning yourself that you have no control over), but this only serves as a springboard from horror, to a less focused science fiction aspect. I probably shouldn't have to tell people not to expect a definitely happy ending, but that's probably expected. Like the last film I saw, Nothing to Lose, this film finds contentment for the story in the character's inner change over the course of the film. What happens afterwards is somewhat inconsequential.
The director has a good feel for being practical, and uses many [seemingly] practical effects to make great impressions. But furthermore he has a sense of focus, having enough faith in the abundant material to simply be the keeper of the portal. He shows what we need to be shown and little else. It doesn't hurt that the script takes enough time to build a decent psychology for each of these characters (though somewhat thin, but you can't give too much to four people in a 2 hour movie).
Given the overall enthusiasm for the film I was somewhat surprised that at the end of the movie almost half the audience left the theatre considering that there was a Q&A [with the director as I understood him to be]. I guess they somehow knew that most of it would be in French, a language not mastered by myself leaving me unable to comment on the proceedings. Regardless I had a good time, and even if you don't enjoy the film, at the very least you'll be forced to think of it as "interesting", which is almost as good.
Now, this next one is something I wanted to see. I know I can get it on DVD, but I always prefer the bigscreen experience. I was sorry I had to leave before it played:
"So Close" is the kind of movie that's just asking to be seen with an audience, much of the joy of it's experience will be spent afterwards with fellow members of the audience.
"Can you believe it when..."
"Yeah, and how about.." will punctuate discussion of parts of the film both great and strangely miscalculated.
The film follows 3 main characters. Unfortunately as the requirements the film has of audience investment aren't the highest, I can only remember them as Girl 1, Girl 2, and Woman 3. As the movie opens we see the physically adept Girl 1 closing in for an assassination, guided by her sister AKA Girl 2 (whom I believe is the same Vicki Zhao from Shaolin Soccer, and doing a rather good job). Girl 2 spends much of the beginning sitting behind one of those custom set-ups with the multiple rows of monitors and video devices and while being an expert programmer also seems to be a 15 year old trapped in a 20 something body. Woman 3, for she comes off as so many years more emotionally mature than the other two, is a police officer who makes it her own prerogative to track them. My labeling these heroines should say something about the emotional impact the human side of the film had on me.
Considering how much I’d heard about this movie I was expecting a little more than there was, and of higher risk. Action movies, as a personal view, never seem to have enough action. And indeed twice during the film there are quick action pieces that have nothing to do with the story. The accidental identification of two fugitives displays the martial arts abilities of Woman 3, and the attempted mugging of girl 1 prompts a directional change in the story that seems forced. It’s not until later that things start to pick up a bit with a final siege on a corporate lobby (not as Matrix-like as it sounds) and a 3-way sword fight (of which we always need more in the movies). There is wire use, but it isn’t as bad/overly used as some movies that have been released recently, it has blood, but not buckets. Furthermore, as good as the actress’s look doing these moves, it’s somewhat obvious that martial arts are not their primary hobbies. What do elicit a good reaction from the audience is the ideas of certain fights. Two sets of two opponents all locked together at once, a flurry of shattered glass that takes minutes to fall or a quick game of kick the guns out of reach prove that sometimes concepts can be more entertaining then simply showing two people taking turns punching each other.
Helping things along is a good sense of humor and playfulness about it all, much of it thanks to the constant jabbing towards Woman 3’s male partner. But then, what are partner’s for? Another thing I had heard about the movie previous to the screening is a constant comparison to Charlie’s Angels. I will say that I found all but the first 5 minutes and the last 15 (in the castle scene) of Charlie’s Angels to be confoundingly boring. “So Close” obviously had a considerably lower budget, but yield greater results. Not only is the action better choreographed but the “skin factor” so valued in both productions seems to be better thought out. Even if you don’t consider the short bathtub fight in “So Close”, there’s still enough of the women walking around casually in their bed clothes to be miles more sensual then Cameron Diaz’ twirling multi million dollar ass. And yes, I realize there are many who’d rather argue with me about this point more than any other I’ve written.
I will not come out and say the fighting and humanity of the characters is bad, just not as strong as one would hope. If I will fault the film for anything it is not having a good archenemy to guide the conflict. Towards the end several targets are killed, and even though we’ve seen each of them at least once we are kind of left wondering when it is time to exhale. Strange since so much time is devoted to the new love interest of Girl 1 (A relationship relentlessly punctuated by a soap opera soundtrack). I guess the makers of the film guessed the scenes with the porcelain faced boyfriend would be able to be played for laughs more than the stuffy suits would, a correct guess.
As said, the movie is best enjoyed with others. The audience reactions at the screening at Fantasia only heightened the humor of small moments such as a particularly painful kick, an awkward kiss and various reaction shots. To finish, I will simply say that I am glad I was able to see the movie at a 5 dollar screening before resorting to just ordering it online. I’m not saying I’ll never buy it in the future, just not anytime soon.
And finally, a screening that just kills me to have missed. These Shaw Brothers restorations have been glorious, and my experience with COME DRINK WITH ME was one of my faves of the fest. They were going to try to screen this early before I left, but the print just didn’t arrive in time. Damn the luck...
So I've sent these 4 reviews pretty much all at once, hope you can use them and if so I have 4 tickets left to use.
“One Armed Swordsman” from 1967 is something of an oddity to review.
The film follows the exploits of Fang Gang, whose father was a servant or Martial Arts master Qi, and who died protecting Qi. Years later the two sons and daughter of Qi are jealous of his obvious preference for Gang and challenge him. When Gang meets them at their place of challenge, he tries to leave instead of fighting, but does not leave as whole as when he arrived. He is found by Xaio-Man, a local peasant girl who takes him in, nurses him back to health, falls in love and provides one of the movies largest laughs by simply resting her head on him.
Which brings me to the humor of the film. I will say that I’ve never watched any of the old martial arts movies some of the aficionados like to mention here and there. The oldest one in my immediate memory, at least the oldest good movie, is probably Once Upon A Time In China. Now I see that martial arts skills aren’t necessarily the drawing points of these films (if they resemble this one that is).
The question I’m left with is, how much of this humor is intentional? Lines like “Bow to the master” and the classic villain “ha-ha-ha”-ing seem too ingrained into the material and work too well within the context of what’s happening on screen to be thought of ahead of time. But then there are moments as when Gang approaches Qi’s daughter in a mask and still with one arm, but still utters to the line “You recognize me?”, how could this be anything but intentional? Are we laughing with the film or at it? I can’t help but feel bad for a film when a certain level of camp is unintentional, but when it brings an audience as much joy as it did at the Fantasia 2003 screening, is that a bad thing? It’s strange how it takes an actual vintage martial arts movie to put a smile on people’s faces when something specifically contrived to the genre like “Kung-Pow” fail. At one point someone seemed to look at the material in “One Armed Swordsman” in a serious manner, and now we find it humorous. Whereas no one ever looked at “Kung Pow” in a serious light, so no one will ever find it funny. An arguable statement, yes, but two completely different brands of humor none the less.
The action of the movie is plentiful, but dated. As with the dialogue it’s hard for one to be sure exactly what the intentions of the filmmakers were. With the exception of a few smooth arm-twisting movements during a festival, much of the action follows suit in that it borders on over the top. Blood is plentiful and there are more amputations than the title gives away, but then long titles are never a good idea for any movie (Unless yours happens to be a Kubrick film). But as said, there is more of a sense of fun to be had with this movie than there is any sense of awe. Here’s waiting for a DVD release of Dao to see if that can be reversed successfully.
So the story continues as Gang is slowly drawn back into his former masters clan when a band of cut throats led by the infamous Long Armed Devil threatens to kill them all with a weapon so simple that it too brings a laugh when the secret of it’s undoing is finally revealed to Qi. But by then we are in a state where logic is not our top priority of an audience, but to be on a close watch for the next laugh or moment of absurdity.
Yesterday I wrote that the modern action piece “So Close” was best enjoyed with a full audience. Relatively speaking “So Close” is now a Saturday night family flick. “One Armed Swordsman” requires a good nudge and a wink from your theatrical neighbor, whether or not you are laughing with the film, or at it.
-R.S. "Caravaggio"
Thanks, man. Glad you’re having fun so far, and definitely... send in reviews for whatever else you see up there.
"Moriarty" out.
