[Film] Blood Simple (1984)

Cool, a gun

If I made a movie about people staring at each other, occasionally hinting to the other character they did something wrong (But they will never explain it because communication is so fucking lame and obvious, thus making your film stupid) and kill some of the characters, would it also be considered a great story of suspense? This is all that Blood Simple is. A bunch of people stare into each other, some kill each other, nobody bothers to actually communicate with their fellow characters and so I am never given a reason to care about this mess. I am giving this film the benefit of doubt, since apperantly in this “noir” genre they don’t talk a lot (If that’s true, it makes noir film sound like pretentious crap), but what I saw was not even an okay thriller. What I saw was a film that begs me to hate it.

There’s not much of a plot but Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya), a Texas bar owner suspects his wife, Abby (Frances McDormand) is cheating on him with Ray, a bartender (John Getz). He hires Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), a private detective to check and eventually hires him to kill them both. A series of murders ensues, but lack of character development and dialogue turns it into a series of people getting killed and, that’s it. The connection between the killings in a slasher film is more solid. Basically, Blood Simple is just about people getting killed. If you want to see people getting killed, watch The Collector, a film that also has little plot and acting but at least it’s entertaining.

I completely understand what Blood Simple is trying to be. It’s a minimalistic thriller about small people in a small town where there’s not much of a law. I love minimalism, but Blood Simple doesn’t do anything with its minimalism but just throws it there. A husband wanting to kill his cheating wife is nothing original and anyone who uses it in a story will use it to decieve the audience because there’s something bigger. In here there isn’t, but that’s okay since a simple story like that can work with good acting or direction or script, but this shit has no script. Why does McDormand’s character cheat? What makes Getz’s character better than Hedaya’s? Even her character points out that Getz’s character doesn’t say much. That makes him not mysterious or ‘weird’, but more like that annoying kid who sits at the back and listens to Heavy Metal all day and won’t talk to you even if you gave him a Deicide T-Shirt.

The point where the movie truly becomes stupid is a double-cross that I won’t spoil, but it exists for only one reason and that is to start the series of killings. Why did he double crosss? Because he’s greedy? He could have gained pretty much the same thing without betraying. Worse, the character eventually tries to what’s asked of him in the first place. Why? So there will be more killings. God, this movie is so pointless.

Since there is no dialogue there’s not much acting either. Dan Hedaya is wasted here. The few times he actually talks he sounds like a bitter and wronged husband whose life has no meaning and revenge is the only thing he can hold on to, just to have something to hold on to. You could have had a great story centered around Marty, but the film doesn’t let him talk and they even get rid of him about halfway through. M. Emmet Walsh is the most energetic actor and he’s the only one who seems in touch with reality. Both him and Hedaya deserved a better script and movie than this. Oh, and lump the black actor, I think his name is Samm Art Williams with them. He also delivers his line like he’s a real person. As for McDormand and Getz, they’re so unappealing and emotionless they fit the movie like a glove, and that’s not a compliment. Getz both has a shitty character to play, and he’s so annoying at it that I had to mention him again. McDormand looks stupid all the way and also has a terrible character. I actually sided with the wronged husband, since at least he seemed like a real person.

Apperantly, what makes this movie good is either because it’s “noir” (Which is why I give it the benefit of doubt) or because it has all kinds of “creative camera angles”. That’s great, but Aronofsky and Neveldine/Taylor did much better camera tricks later and thus the camera work here is nothing impressive. I’m actually reminded of No Country for Old Men, which is very similar to this in a lot ways and also contains these long periods of silence. The difference is, No Country occurs somewhere resembling reality and is genuinely suspenseful, plus a much better premise (Guy finds abandoned trucks!). No Country even allows its actors to actually act. Blood Simple looks like what No Country would have been if it failed.

There’s only one good thing in Blood Simple and that’s the soundtrack. The soundtrack is almost non-existant as the dialogue, but when it’s there I payed more attention than to other soundtracks. It consists of mostly a tiny piano melody, or some thumping or a kinda-industrial sound in a loop, but it’s effective. In some scenes, it’s the only thing that provides some intensity.

This is a ‘weird film’ for people who can’t watch an actual weird film and get ‘confused’ by Lost Highway. This film doesn’t have a plot, there is no acting nor script, the characters barely exist and it’s just as shallow as a typical blockbuster actioner. The result is just unpleasant. I always imagined that somewhere, there is a film that “film school snobs” like that won’t appeal to mainstream audience (Because they are all supposed to be stupid) and not appeal to people who have long conversations about Begotten and Eraserhead (Because these films are just gimmicks). Blood Simple is exactly that film. Someday, I will return to it, after I will learn what this “noir” thing is, and I expect hate it even more.

My suggestion is to watch No Country for Old Men instead.

Oh, I think this film is supposed to be about people misinterparting others’ actions. Well, they do that because nobody talks, but if they talked it would be way too obvious and not subtle enough for the snobs?

Highs: Soundtrack, a few actors
Lows: No plot, no acting, no script, no characters

Rating: 2.5/5

Title: Blood Simple
Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Screenplay: Joe Coen, Ethan Coen
Starring: John Getz, Frances McDormand, Dan Hedaya
Genre: Thriller
Subgenre: Crime
Running Time: 99 minutes
Release Date: October 12, 1984

[Film] The Collector (2009)

Tight

I probably had a good opening for this review but I forgot about it completely once I heard the soundtrack. The opening titles use Combichrist’s “Shut Up and Bleed”. While Combichrist sometimes sound as if they create tracks in three minutes, that was one track that understands how powerful Industrial music can be, and it makes for a perfect opening song. There’s also Depeche Mode’s “I Feel You”, the intro to Korn’s “Dead Bodies Everywhere” and Bauhaus’ “Bela Lugosi’s Dead”. However, the biggest surprise is the usage of Einsturzende Naubauten’s “Armenia”. The best part is, it’s not one of their songs where they bang scrap metal. It consists of nothing but creepy shouting, and the filmmakers decided to that in the soundtrack. As much as we’d like to call The Collector a piece of “mainstream trash”, the people behind have a greater understanding of soundtracks than almost anyone else.

Arkin (Josh Stewart) is part of a crew that works on home renovations for the Chase family. His wife is in debt and he has to get enough money by midnight. In order to pay the debt, he breaks into the Chase’s house while they’re on a vacation to steal a rare stone they have in a safe. When he arrives at the house, however, he discovers another guy already broke in and and filled it with deadly but of course creative traps. Now Arkin tries to both save the trapped family and get the precious stone, all while Korn, Einsturzende Naubauten and an Industrial film score plays in the background.

Most people will point how similar this film is to Saw, and all the comparisons are valid. It was originally supposed to be a Saw prequel, after all. It’s not just that both films involve gruesome traps and similar soundtracks, even in the camera angled and color schemes the film is reminiscent of Saw. There is a place where the collector puts his victims and ties them up, and it looks like a rejected set piece from that series. It has that green, rusty, immidiately recognizable atmosphere. If you took a screenshot from there and put it among other screenshots from Saw I doubt anyone would have pointed out it’s from a different series. These similarities are obviously a bad thing if you hate Saw but if you hate that series, this movie shouldn’t even cross your mind. The similarities are actually a good thing because there really isn’t another film like that mention-too-much-in-this-review series. What made it so popular is its unique style, so seeing another spin on it is not a bad thing, especially when it feels less like an imitation and more like it just comes from the same mindset.

There is also one clear difference between The Collector and Jigsaw’s films, and that is in the traps. Both are ludicrous, but, no matter how cruel they are, Jigsaw’s trap are designed to have a way out of (The few that were certain death were explained). Sure, most didn’t get out but that’s because the series had to supply buckets of blood for the fans. In the end, there was at least one survivor. The situation is different in The Collector. The traps are there for one sole reason, and that is to kill. The setting (they’re scattered in a small place) and the purpose makes them less creative and imaginative, but it makes them a whole lot crueler. If you were looking for pure sadism, The Collector delivers. This makes me sound sadistic but there are so many good death scenes here, the sort of death scenes that comes from a mind that seeks not to throw more blood but how it can just make the film more intense. There are even two animal deaths here (or three, I couldn’t tell if there were two cats or one), something that I think horror films avoid because some people are more sensitive towards animals. These stupid politics aside, I’m not that sort that gets easily excited by gore, but the scenes in The Collector were exciting.

As fun as this whole trashy horror thing is, it struggles to find a purpose. I couldn’t sit back, watch it like I watched Eraser and say “Man this is stupid pointless shit but I’m having a ball”. The film sets itself up to have a resolution, a suckerpunching twist (Which I saw coming but it didn’t bother me, and it wasn’t much of a suckerpunch either) and never delivers. Now, I look back at the first Saw and remember it didn’t have a true conclusion too, but that film had enough development to make me understand why this odd incident with these two guys in the bathroom happens. The Collector doesn’t deliver that, and at the same it acts as if it should. If our trapper wasn’t referred to as a collector, as some weirdo then it would have been fine. If he was just some sadistic asshole who came for some generic purpose, or maybe if he was just like the douchebags from Funny Games then it wouldn’t bother me. He would be a one-dimensional villain in a one-dimensional movie.

Yet, there is never the feeling the Collector is just a sadistic asshole. It gets worse once some dude appears and lets Arkin know that this guy collects people. From that point onward, the Collector stops being a sadistic psycho and becomes an eccentric villain that we want to know more about, but we never do. We never get to be sure he really does collect people, and if he does, why? For what purpose does he collect people? Jigsaw barely appeared in the first Saw but you at least got the basic ideas of who he is and why he acts like that. If they gave the Collector this source of purpose, it would most likely turn him into a fantastic villain and much more memorable than almost any seriel killer. Hell, if they got it right enough he might even become one of my favorite villains. A ‘collector’ character is a very intriguing one. Sadly, the film never makes him more than an “vague menace”. Too bad he’s not as effective as Michael Myers (The killer, not the actor) in that role.

If you told me you’re really angry and you need some gore scenes to let off some steam, this film is the first film that will come to my mind. I did like it, and I am amazed how a film that is supposed to shallow and stupid can have such a brilliant soundtrack (Most scores that get nominated? Generic, generic, generic), but The Collector begged for a sense of purpose and never got one. A sense of purpose is not always necessary. Breathing Room didn’t have that but it still worked, but it also never had a collector for a villain. There many things you need to either go all the way or not all. Sometimes there is no room for balance. Either The Collector turns its villain into a developed character or it should rewrite the concept as The Trapper. Since it’s right in between, it never has an effect. It’s enjoyable for what it is but it’s one film that has the “Could have been” sticker on it.

Highs: Soundtrack, gore scenes
Lows: Lacks a sense of purpose and really needs it

Rating: 2.5/5

Title: The Collector
Director: Marcus Dunstan
Screenplay: Marcus Dunstan, Patrick Melton
Starring: Josh Stewart, Michael Reilly Burke, Andrea Roth
Genre: Horror
Subgenre: Sadistic Horror, Claustrophobic Thriller
Running Time: 90 Minutes
Release Date: July 31, 2009

[Film] Eraser (1996)

Is Arnie getting serious?

I first encountered Eraser by a mistake. I was probably looking for Eraserhead in either Wikipedia or Allmovie, but forgot the last part and found this. The low rating in Allmovie made me think it’s a rudimentary action film and as a discriminating action film junkie, I can let it pass. Later, while looking for other films Arnie was involved I stumbled upon it again. Simply put, the only reason I watched Eraser is because of Arnold. I didn’t even know what it’s about, and the gray poster made me feel it might be more serious than his films. Still, I felt like watching explosions and explosions look better when Arnold is around.

John Kruger (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who works in witness protection, mainly erasing people’s past, relocating them and thus making them almost impossible to find. He is assigned to protect Lee Cullen (Venessa L. Williams) from Cyrez Corporation. The company plans to sell a weapon called “rail gun”, which can see through walls and find the outlines of a person, to Russian terrorists. Lee finds the plans for this transaction and since the company doesn’t like that and it has power, she needs someone to protect her until she can publish the evidence. In truth, the ‘protection’ part contains Arnold shooting and killing and blowing things up. If it didn’t have that, we wouldn’t be even knowing this film exists.

The first is a great start and sets the right mood. Arnold enters a house, kills some people, saves some people and blows it up. This is actually a microscopic version of your typical action film. There is barely any dialogue in that scene, either. You only get explainations after about five minutes, after the house goes kaboom. After that, we get the actual plot details and we get some background on the whole thing. These scenes give the impression that Eraser is going to be more serious and subtler than other films with Arnold. The problem with the film going action-thriller instead of straight-up action is that your star is not suited for Thrillers. There is actually a difference between a straight-forward Action movie and an Action Thriller. Arnold doesn’t suit the latter because then his character would have to respond to the twists and turns. In a straight-forward action movie, the hero only needs to chase the bad guys, and no one does it better than Schwarz. In these scenes I felt that maybe Eraser is as pointless as I thought it would be when I found it for the very first time.

Then, somewhere around the middle, there is a scene in airplane that changes everything. From that scene onward, the film stops pretending it’s a Thriller and goes balls out. First of all, there is a twist that is surprising not because it’s clever, but because it’s no unnecessary and serves almost no purpose. The only reason for this twist is to set off more action sequences and make them bigger. If it were relevant to the plot, I forgot how. The action in that scene is also more over-the-top than I thought this film would go. If someone somehow spliced it with Commando, you wouldn’t really notice the difference. The film abandons the notion of telling a story almost completely and only seeks to deliver the violence. To its credit, it does a better job than I thought it would. There’s another action scene at the zoo which contains one of these odd moments that only comes from writers who know this stuff is supposed to be fun. Then there is a shootout at the dock, and Arnold holding two of these nasty rail guns. Eraser definitely has a place in the action library.

Where Eraser falls is that there is almost nothing to spice up the movie with. There are no notable performances here, and I am using that term in the Action Film context. No one here bores me and Venessa is okay as a damsel in distress, but no one exhibits the energy these films need. Schwarz is good, obviously, but James Caan as his buddy is only mildly enjoyable and there is no memorable villain, which is very important even in a shallow film. There aren’t many memorable one-liners, either. There is one in the end which is nice, and it’s nice to hear Arnold telling people they have just been erased, but in the end once you try to compare it to Commando, it falls. Eraser is a film that only contains the very basics. What made Commando so good is that it also had hilarious dialogue and hilarious performances, which this film doesn’t have. At least the action scenes are almost as good as the scenes in Commando - and any actioner that has that is doing something right.

Eraser is not the movie you will show people to explain why you love dumb action films so much, but it is one of the names you’ll drop in a list when someone asks for simple action films to chill to. People who are not interested in action will hate this movie, since action is all it has and it doesn’t even give it a unique spin of its own, it just does it good. If you’re an action junkie though, this is one satisfying meal. It’s one big chunk of meat that doesn’t have the great spices Commando has, but leaves you feeling good and reminds you why you come back to that restuarant.

Highs: Great action, Arnold
Lows: It’s nothing but great action and Arnold

Rating: 3/5

Title: Eraser
Director: Chuck Russell
Screenplay: Tony Puryear, Walon Green (Story by Tony Puryear, Walon Green, Michael S. Chernuchin)
Starring: Arnold Schwarznegger, Venessa L. Williams, James Caan
Genre: Action
Subgenre: Thriller
Running Time: 115 minutes
Release Date: June 21, 1996

[Film] Breathing Room (2008)

I thought that’s an oven behind here

From what’s supposed to be an objective point of view, Breathing Room is a bad film. It’s a low-budget film that doesn’t have any high ambitions and prefers to rely on a gimmick rather than an obvious idea (That said, that’s an amazing gimmick I love). Then again, that point of view is stupid for two reasons. When it comes to art, “objectivity” is a can of worms that opening it can mean various things that I doubt anyone wants to be. Second, that point of view seems to consist mainly of, “Well, it’s not The Godfather or Apocalypse Now and not scenes of people just sitting and thinking so it’s bad”. In the end, it misses the point of why anyone would watch a film. Breathing Room is not a very well made movie, but if I still enjoyed, it does say something about it (or me?).

Tonya (Alisa Marshall) wakes up naked in a room full of corpses. She gets out into a room full of live people and none of them know where they are. It’s revealed they were chosen to participate in a ‘game’, but the nature of the game is never clearly explained. Player 8 (Michael McLafferty) tries to take responsibility and become the leader, but that doesn’t work completely. There are hints scattered around, and occasionally the lights will go off and someone will get killed with another hint left. Still, nothing is clearly explained, even by the end.

What makes Breathing Room unique in this genre of “trapped people” movies is that it plunges headfirst into the concept without caring about anything else. Unlike Unknown or Buried, it doesn’t try to connect the trapped people to reality. Unlike Cube or Exam, it doesn’t try to create its own world where this situation will make sense. It acts like Saw, in the way it just doesn’t care about small details and only about the concept. The movie has actually been compared to Saw a lot, and for good reason. Both films don’t try to make sense, both rely on the gimmick and both feel campy. In fact, I actually think Breathing Room was directly inspired by Saw. There’s a moment that echoes Jigsaw’s philosophy almost word-for-word. Still, where Saw wins is that it has a clear idea of how it should look like. Saw is all about style, and since it knows that well it brings everything else into focus. Breathing Room isn’t as stylish as Saw, or any of the aforemention thrillers, so the result is clumsy and a bit uncertain of itself.

The problems with Breathing Room are all obvious. There’s one pretty emberassing problem that made me wonder how they even got that released. The lightning in this movie is straight up crap. You’ve never seen a movie brighter than this, not even the most child-friendly one. Every point of light in this movie is just so bright. After you stay in a dark room a long time and then step into a bright room, the light always looks bigger than its source. The film looks like that all the way. It looks both silly and slightly ruins the ‘trapped’ atmosphere, since these places should be dark. The film is more about what the characters don’t know, what’s left in the dark, rather than what’s in our faces. I might be wrong but I think with a normal camera I can make a film with better lightning.

There are also issues with the plot, which is never made obvious. Each film I’ve seen in the style has a clear spin on the style. Even the most vague film of all (Cube, obviously. You can’t talk about films like these without mentioning it) is pretty clear on what it’s about. There is a sucker-punching twist in the end but, again, it’s never been made fully clear what’s purpose of the room. This vagueness comes less from a desire to give the film a mysterious atmosphere, and more from incompetence. The acting is better, though. I was actually surprised how good it was. It wasn’t mind blowing but every actor knew what his character was. The best performances come from David Higlen, who plays Player Five as both a socially awkward nice fellow, but also a bit of a creep. Michael McLafferty gives Player Eight the air of determination the leading character should have, and whoever plays the asshole character (He didn’t wear his number) actually made the character appealing. His casual sexism, racism and just him being a douche bag added some comic relief that made sense. He acted more like a man who try to uses humor as a means of coping with pressure rather than being a joker.

Even if Breathing Room fails in the very basics of filmmaking, somehow the final product is far from bad. Of all the ‘trapped people’ movies I’ve watched, Breathing Room is probably the worst, but I still wouldn’t call it a bad film. A bad film is not necessarily a badly made film. A bad film is a film that I reacted negatively toward to, and other than the lightning nothing about Breathing Room pissed me off. The low-budget look, along with the incompetence make the film look less stupid and more like a campy ‘trapped people’ movie. There is a certain charm in the way that Breathing Room only cares about the initial concept, and never really bothers with the flaws. If it had high ambition, it would result in a pretentious movie that acts important while in fact all it has is a good idea. Breathing Room feels like a result of people working on a concept without really developing it, but trying to have fun all the way. It could be that because I watched so many of these films I enjoyed a ridiculous version of them. Either way, Breathing Room charmed me and I just didn’t hate enough.

This is a movie only for those who either love the films I mentioned in this review or low-budget films in general. Anyone else will probably be so pissed by the lightning they won’t even have time to get bothered by the other problems. Breathing Room is a good B-Movie that’s well-made enough to be watchable but not good enough to not need this context. Of course, it could be I love ‘trapped people’ movies so much I would just like them no matter what. I still need to watch Captivity, The Collector, Panic Room and a whole lot others. Oh boy!

Highs: Entertaining despite the flaws, good acting, it’s a ‘trapped people’ movie
Lows: The lightning, the story is never made clear enough

Rating: 3/5

Title: Breathing Room
Director: John Suits, Gabriel Cowan
Screenplay: John Suits, Gabriel Cowan
Starring: Alisa Marshall, Michael McLafferty, David Higlen
Genre: Thriller
Subgenre: Claustrophobic Thriller, Horror
Running Time: 89 Minutes
Release Date: March 18, 2008

[Film] Funny Games (1997)

Hello there

I love the beginning of this movie. The family is driving in the countryside, it’s all green and trees. The family is talking about Classical music, and then suddenly the movie title appears in Impact font without stylization, while a John Zorn track plays in the background. The Zorn track is full of spastic drumming, howling and guitar riffs that exist solely for making noise. Imagine a more frantic Iowa era Slipknot, or the soundtrack to Crank: High Voltage. That’s how it sounds. Since I already knew the basic premise for this movie, I felt this was a great soundtrack choice and great soundtrack choices make for great movies. At that point, I already decided I liked Funny Games. I still liked it by the end, but a little less.

A wealthy German family comprised of Georg (Ulrich Muhe), the wife and mother Anna (Susanne Lothar),a son called Georgie (Stegan Clapczynski), and a dog called Rolfi go on a vacation at their lakehouse. Their neighbour, Fred (Christoph Bantzer), introduces them to a guy called Paul (Arno Frisch) and say he’s a son of a friend. Another guy, Peter (Frank Giering), starts asking for eggs for Fred’s family but keeps dropping them and then ruins their cellphone. These two dudes eventually keep the family hostage and always threaten to kill them, forcing them to do stuff and play ‘games’. They do it all very politely though.

I’ve been reading that Funny Games is supposed to be some sort of commentary about violence in media, and especially in movies. I got the vibe that Funny Games is supposed to be about something important and serious, but it just wants to be. Violence is never actually a theme in this movie. In fact, there is barely any violence. Funny Games is less about violence and more about cruelty. We get to know the family a bit in the beginning, and they are portrayed as likeable and pleasant human beings. The film focuses more on their reaction to the cruelty of the two psychos instead of the violence. In fact, only one violent act is portrayed on screen (and another win which is too weak to count). If the film tries to make me feel bad for watching a film about a family getting tortured, it misses the point completely. I watched Funny Games not because I wanted to see a family suffer, but because I wanted to see a bunch of people trapped and trying to get out. That’s one of my favorite types of films.

Funny Games does try a bit to play with the audience’s reaction towards the suffering, but it only does it half-heartedly. There are some experimental elements, including breaking the fourth wall occasionally and one moment that truly belongs in the world of weird experimental cinema you can only find in festivals or on the Internet. We only get a small bite though, never the full meal. In fact, if Funny Games went all the way, broke the fourth wall completely and turned into a film that talks straight to the audience, it would have been great. Sadly, its themes are summed as a few winks towards the camera and one philosophical discussion at the end that could have appeared in any other film.

Once you stop looking at Funny Games as a statement about something (If I did, I would’ve been deeply disappointed), what you’re left with is something that works in the same grounds as Saw. It’s all about intensity, and whether the family will survive or not. It’s not much of a premise, and there will be better ones, but it’s still good. Funny Games‘ greatest asset is the two psychopaths. Both are great villains and have great actors that make them creepy with their politeness, but they also never get into the Omnipotent Psychpath box. They do have the upper hand in the movie, but they come off as more realistic and as two assholes who simply made enough right moves and had some luck, rather than some superpower the creators give them. The problem with Nolan’s Joker and Chigurh from No Country for Old Men is that everything goes right for them because they’re both psychos and they’re both assholes. This character type is terrible and annoying. It’s as if the creator is on the villain’s side so he will do everything just so the psycho will be happy. Funny Games never feels like that. Perhaps because the family are the starts of the show and get most of the screen time. Either way, Peter and Paul are great villains who seem more realistic even though they shouldn’t be.

The biggest problem with Funny Games is that it’s just not as intense as it promises. It doesn’t immidiately kicks into high gear, and that’s fine. I liked the fact it decided to take its time before moving to the main event. There was already some intensity there. The build up, however, doesn’t pay off. I seem to play right into the film’s trap (If it is, then it’s a clever one that has little effect on the final product itself) in that I wanted more violence. Maybe what I wanted was not necessarily violence but rather more intensity, a greater sense of danger and a stronger feeling this film is on the edge. Peter and Paul are supposed to be psychpaths but they’re just pretty cruel. What I wanted was the film to kick into a higher which it never does. It stays the same in terms of tone and vibe throughout the running time.

There’s also the part in the film, before the last act, which goes on for way too long with too little dialogue and too much staring. Yes, they are in a trauma, I get that completely – we could still trim that part and cut off 10 minutes of not much happening. The final act redeems this a bit, but if they made it shorter maybe then the film would have felt like it’s kicking into higher gear. That part seriously upsets the flow of the film.

Don’t approach Funny Games with any expectations. I’m so glad I didn’t read all the reviews who talk about how this film is in fact a philosophical work disguised as a film. We have here the same case as Battle Royale. It’s a pretty entertaining film with a curious idea that is supposed to mean something but it really doesn’t. Unlike Battle Royale, which really had nowhere to go and did what it could, Funny Games could have been experimental and thus being truly unique. It’s not, but for what it is, a slightly twisted psychological thriller, it’s satisfying. I don’t like it as much as I wanted to, but I like it enough and not for the same reasons others do.

Highs: The premise, the usage of John Zorn’s music, pretty thrilling
Lows: Doesn’t experiment like it wants to, it has an ovelrong middle

Rating: 3/5
Title: Funny Games
Director: Michael Haneke
Screenplay: Michael Haneke
Starring: Sussanne Lothar, Ulrich Muhe, Arno Frisch
Genre: Thriller
Subgenre: Satire, Psychological Thriller, Psychological Drama
Running Time: 108 minutes
Release Date: 14 May 1997

[Film] Take Me Home Tonight (2011)

There are only 3 main characters in this poster

Since I’m opening up to new genres, and since my foray into romance has been successful, I decided to take my shot at teen films (Okay, this isn’t exactly a teen film, but it’s close enough). I can only recall American Pie, which is boring and EuroTrip which was okay and I’m actually reconsidering. I checked Take Me Home Tonight because it had a catchy title, its story occurs in the 80′s (Which means the soundtrack could be great) and that Michelle Trachtenberg in it, and she’s always good to look at. I could see how this could turn out wrong, but at least I’d get to listen to New Wave and look at Michelle.

Matt Franklin (Topher Grace, the Venom guy) is a recent MIT graduate who is not sure what to do in his life so he works in a video store for now (that allows the film to reference Back to the Future). One day his high school crush, Tori Fredreking (Teresa Palmer) walks in and since first impressions are everything, he immidiately gets out, dresses like a normal dude and starts talking with her without her knowing he works in the store. Of course he lies a bit to her to get her interested and hears she goes to a party at Kyle Masterson (Chris Pratt), his sister’s boyfriend (Wendy Franklin, played by Anna Faris). His friend, Barry Nathan (Nathan) gets fired from a car dealership and wants something big to happen in the party too. They steal a car from the dealership to impress, listen to N.W.A.’s “Straight Outta Compton” and a bunch of other stuff happens.

Take Me Home Tonight doesn’t one to be a teen film of only one kind. It wants to be a bit outrageous, it wants good characters, it wants some drama, some actually clever comedy and everything else. This is the source of the film’s strength since it does try to be more than the stereotypical teen film people like me have in mind (Films that contain boobs and stupidity and that’s it), but it also makes the film a bit haphazard and messy. It has a consisten tone all the way, a warm, friendly and youthful tone, but some scenes don’t particularly fit it. Take Me Home Tonight is never mean-spirited, but some scenes and joke would have fitted a film with a more cynical attitude. It actually makes these scenes more bearable, since the biggest problem with them is their smugness, but an awkward sex scene with Dan Fogler is half-hearted and pointless. The elements that the film is most interested in are the characters, and it gets that right

Any good character-driven film needs a good cast to bring these characters to life, and Take Me Home Tonight has more than just the three stars. Topher Grace is great as Matt Franklin. He acts less like a creepy nerd and more like a shy, socially awkward smart boy who is a real good conversation partner once you break the ice. Teresa’s Tori could have been the slutty and snobbish popular girl, but instead she acts like one of those who are popular for a reason. Tori is the person who just seems to get along very well. Dan Fogler could have been another Jonah Hill imitation but instead of being a fat creep he is just a fat eccentric whose behavior is unique but is not incompetent. The jokes involving him are less about his social skills and more about how he gets along despite being different. Even small roles, such as Demetri Martin as Carlos who lets Franklin who reminds Franklin he lies, and a stoner with a beanie who gets the best line in the film are memorable. The only peformance that misses the spot is Anna Faris, who is not terrible but never has a clear picture of what her character is about. She acts with energy but not direction.

Where Take Me Home Tonight is the story. It actually has a lot in common with Love and Other Drugs. Both are stories that focus on their characters but have a messy plot going around in the background. While Other Drugs simply focused less on the plot, turning it into just backdrop, Take Me Home Tonight tries a bit too hard to push a story in. A lot of stuff happens, but some of it is pointless, contrived and is just there to make the film eventful. Maybe this is how teen films work, but I would have preferred less plot details and more character focus. At least it avoids solving a conflict whose resolution is really not interesting. The story of the stolen car doesn’t really end, but that’s a great thing since if they made it central, it would just deviates from the subject of the film. We’re not here to watch what happens to two dudes who steal a car but to watch them solve their inner conflicts about love and other things young people are troubled by. The focus always remains on the characters so it’s never a big problem, but it does make the film a feel unfocused in a way that Love & Other Drugs didn’t.

While not exactly bringing the film down, Take Me Home Tonight doesn’t contain much comedy if you were looking for it. It’s not that it has a serious tone. Since the film wants to be many things, it’s stuck between the comedies that let the laughs come out of the characters (Like the stoner with his line) and the comedies who try to pile awkward and humiliating situations and call it jokes. You get some nice lines and antics, and there are some awkward moments. Actually, those awkward moments are the most unnecessary since they get the plot stuck. In terms of comedy, Take Me Home Tonight is not great but not terrible. It at least never tries too hard to tell jokes. Any comedy that tries too hard to tells jokes is missing something even if they’re funny.

Oh, and I’d like to point out that Michelle looks gothic in this film, as if her character listens to a lot of The Cure and Siouxsie. Even her screen time is a bit too minimal, that’s at least something.

Take Me Home Tonight‘s flaws are bigger and more obvious than that of Love and Other Drugs, but it still gives me a pretty good idea what I would like in a teen film. It has likeable characters, popular songs, the story revolves mainly around their issues (Yes, the kind of issues you look back on and can’t believe it depressed the hell out of you), and a cute gothic girl (Oh come on!). The plot is a mess and there aren’t any notable jokes, but in the end it left me feeling good. If you’re like me and your experience with teen films is minimal but you wonder if they can actually be good, Take Me Home Tonight offers a pretty good idea how to make them even if it doesn’t get everything right.

Highs: Characters, cast, Michelle Trachtenberg looking gothic
Lows: The plot is a mess, some unnecessary awkward moments, will disappoint if you’re looking for a strict comedy

Rating: 3/5

Title: Take Me Home Tonight
Director: Michael Dowse
Screenplay: Jackie Filgo, Jeff Filgo
Starring: Topher Grace, Anna Faris, Dan Fogler
Genre: Teen Film
Subgenre: Comedy, Romantic Comed, Coming-of-Age
Running Time: 97 Minutes
Release Date: March 4, 2011

[Film] Pathology (2008)

There are a lot of scenes here

I am a completist. If I discover anything good, I will not only try to get anything related directly to it but also anything that’s even slightly related. It’s just a habit of personality. Even if I’m not a fan I will still want to get everything. It also makes me check things at random, and many great discoveries are found in random. I found Pathology via Neveldine/Taylor, the directions behind the fantastic Crank films and the pretty good Gamer. They only wrote the screenplay, but it didn’t matter to me. I had another movie to watch!

Teddy Grey (Milo Ventimiglia) graduates Harvard University at the top of his class and moves to a very respectful pathology program. His skills get him noticed by the “elite” pathologists of the program, and he joins and hangs around with them, although one guy who at first seems like a leader (because he’s sarcastic) says they don’t like him. Teddy discovers this group has a game where each tries to commit the undetectable murder. Grey doesn’t like it, but he eventually gets sucked in it. The ringmaster, Dr. Jake Gallo is a bit unstable and his girlfriend, Dr. Julliette Bath (Lauren Lee Smith) likes to be sexy a bit too much, so things get complicated and there is some blood, although less than expected.

Just to get this out of the way, the only thing in common with this film and other Neveldine/Taylor films is that the subject matter is pretty sick, but that’s where it ends. It doesn’t have their humor, it’s not as wacky, not as stylish and not even that fast. In fact, Pathology is a fairly mellow, quiet thriller. Its obvious comparable is Saw, and the place where they play with their victims, underneath the hospital, looks a lot like a rejected piece from Saw but it is never that stylish and over-the-top. If you were looking to get shocked, it might be the wrong place since Pathology doesn’t shy away from blood but is not really interested in it.

What Pathology is about is telling a fairly simple, twisted story. It’s a very straight-forward film that doesn’t go for the stylish, weird thriller but doesn’t try to discover the meaning of life. It puts all its resources to the story and it works for the most part. The hospital as a world with a darker, hidden side is always intriguining. The idea of sadistic pathologists is pretty obvious but is also interesting, and while it takes a lot of predictible turns it also takes the right ones. As a slightly twisted story that could have fitted Chuck Palahniuk’s Haunted, it’s good, but it’s so straight-forward that it’s all there is.

There seems to be some ideas and themes that were probably thought originally, but then abandoned. As soon as Julliette Bath’s role is revealed it’s obvious sexuality is a big thing. Grey is intrigued by her, sleeps with her yet has a fiance waiting for him. He hides from his fiance both his violent side and his more sexual, wild side (Bath is one of those characters who adds sexual tension just for existing, while the fiance played Alyssa Milano is just a really nice girl). Throughout the story the sexual matters and the sadistic game connects in a way less sadistic then it sounds, and it could’ve been a great moment to compare sadism to sexual desire since they are, in a way, a desire for ‘flesh’. The film never does that, though. It turns this subject into just a detail in the story that helps move it along. Maybe it was scared to be preachy, but this is one theme worth exploring.

Pathology also suffers from a cast that is just too bland. They are each trying to portray their respective character’s personality, but almost none of them makes them memorable. They only get the basics right. Milo does look and talk like a straight, honest man, but that’s all he is. Johnny Whiteworth does a pretty good job as Dr. Griffin Cavanaugh, who is always sarcastic and tells jokes. However, he lacks the energy this character is supposed to emit. It’s probably the fault of the movie, but he doesn’t have enough screen time to tel enough jokes, and when he does they’re only good, not great. There are two exceptions. Michael Weston turns Dr. Jake Gallo into a very good antagonist. He always acts as if everything’s all right, everything is fine, even during the harder moments. It adds an air of sinisterness to him. Lauren Smith manages to turn Julliette Bath into a sexy yet dangerous character, and so she fits into her role instead of merely playing it. Neither of these are great, but they’re better than the other bland performances. It’s not that they’re bad, it’s just that almost every movie at least one actor who does something unique, and Pathology lacks it.

I liked Pathology. It had a pretty cool story and it didn’t drag, but it also felt a bit too empty. I’m not sure if the word “undeveloped” is right because it would make the film sound like it was half-heartedly done when it’s not. There was a serious attempt to make a straight-forward and slightly twisted thriller. It wins at that department since the story is good. It just doesn’t have enough spark. Pathology is like a meal you eat that tastes pretty good, but you eat mainly because you need to eat and less because you like it. I do recommend it to anyone who likes Saw or anything like it, since if it’s not a failure there’s probably something in it. I just couldn’t be grabbed as much as I wanted to be.

Highs: The story, Michael Weston
Lows: Doesn’t develop its themes, performances are too bland

Rating: 2.5/5

Title: Pathology
Director: Mark Scholermann
Screenplay: Neveldine/Taylor
Starring: Milo Ventimiglia, Michale Weston, Alyssa Milano
Genre: Thriller
Subgenre: Horror, Psychological Thriller
Running Time: 93 minutes
Release Date: April 11, 2008

[Film] Cypher (Brainstorm) (2002)

Plug in, baby

The main attraction of action films are the explosions and gunfights, but few action films build their whole story around these. There generally another element, such as comedy, or a story, or a romance. There are few films in the class of Shoot ‘Em Up who base their whole existance on gunfights and violence. The situation is the same in thrillers. The plot twists are the thriller’s main attraction, but most thrillers contain one or two major twists. Cypher is an attempt to make the Shoot ‘Em Up of thrillers. There is Science Fiction and confused identities, but in the end Cypher is all about one twist after another. If you ever wanted a film whose purpose is to tell you what you saw in the previous scene is in fact not what you saw, this film is for you.

Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is an unemployed accountant with a nagging wife who wants him to work with her father. Sullivan decides to join Digicorp and take a role in corporate espionage. He gets a new identity and is sent to conventions to record presentations. He then starts to experience nightmares in the form of images switching every microsecond (Think of the montages from Requiem for a Dream sped up) and pains. He meets Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), and then his life becomes a series of plot twists. Obviously what you just read is not what really happened, but that’s the whole point of the movie.

In Vincenzo Natali’s other films, Cube and Nothing, there is a self-contained atmosphere. The events of these films seem oblivious to the outside world, paying almost no attention to it. There is no outside world in Cube and in Nothing, it is portrayed as hostile and vanishes after thirty minutes. Natali adopts the same atmosphere for Cypher, but this time it’s a double-edged sword. The slightly claustrophobic atmosphere guarantees intensity, and since the whole enviroment is a blur we feel as lost as Morgan Sullivan. However, this atmosphere also makes the film a lot more shallow. In Cube the outside world was irrelevant and at least in Nothing we got a basic idea of why the characters are so hostile to that world, but in Cypher, it’s just a blur that makes everything interchangable. Digicorp and their rival, Sunways, are the same thing. We never get any idea of what they’re trying to achieve with their espionage. They’re just evil bad guys who take away people’s identities. Cypher needed to give at least simple picture of what its world is like since, unlike the aforementioned films, the events happen in that world. Imagine if Harry Potter didn’t have all kinds of details that didn’t much but just helped you get an image of what its world is like. Cypher is like that.

That also leads to zero character development. I can understand why Morgan wasn’t developed, but it still wouldn’t've done any harm to give details about him. Warning: A spoiler is hinted at. Giving us details about what Sullivan is like would have made the twists much stronger, since they all revolve around his identity. Lucy Liu’s Rita Foster is not much but a sidekick, either. She’s in a relationship with Sebastian Rooks, but their relationship exists solely for the plot to move on. It all stands in complete opposite to Natali’s other films, where the plots were driven by their characters. Since the script can’t supply details, it’s up to the actors to hint at what these characters are, outside this series of plot twists. Everybody slips into their roles nicely, but everyone is clinical and just follow their scripts, not injecting anything to their characters. Only Jeremy Northam and Nigel Bennett spark things up. Northam turns Sullivan into one of the most awkward characters ever that he should have panic attacks just by talking to people, and this is perfect for a character whose identity is a mess. Nigel Bennett plays the man from Digicorp who hires Sullivan, and he turns his character into that sort of authoriative figure that would have made everyone on the Milgram Experiment reach the highest voltage. Evem David Hwlett, Natali’s buddy doesn’t do anything very interesting.

Yet, just like the dumb action film that is only memorable because of a few “Whoa cool” moments, Cypher is still good because it delivers the intensity. With Natali’s claustrophobic direction, the multiple twists and Notham’s acting, Cypher is, in terms of pure thrills alone, as good as any claustrophobic or odd thriller. In fact, it’s almost as good as Memento, only with a lot less substance. For all its flaws, it never spends much time trying to fix them. It always cuts to the chase, and contains only the necessary parts that either make the story clearer or make the story messier. Sometimes, I am in the mood of just watching plot twists and being told what I saw is not what I really saw. Cypher not only gets the basics right but focuses only on them, which makes it enjoyable enough during the time it’s on.

Now when I think about it, Cypher is very similar to Primer. The titles even rhyme. Both contain very little acting, both are very clinical and both barely develop anything. The difference is that Cypher is well-directed, and at least focuses on something and makes it work. It’s far from being as brilliant as Natali’s two other films, and it’s just another addition to the Sci-Fi Thriller genre. It’s a worthy addition, though. Any film that understands why its style works is a good one. The great ones are those who take it to another level.

Highs: Good direction, good and many twists
Lows: Shallow, no development of ideas, characters, or its world

Rating: 3/5

Title: Cypher (Brainstorm)
Director: Vincenzo Natali
Screenplay: Brian King
Starring: Jeremy Northam, Lucy Liu, Nigel Bennett
Genre: Science Fiction
Subgenre: Thriller, Mystery
Running Time: 95 minutes
Release Date:

[Film] Love and Other Drugs (2010)

I’m trying to reference Requiem for a Dream

I am entering uncharted territory

Since I’ve been gorging myself on Sci-Fi Thrillers and other films just ponder to my tastes, I decided to step out of my comfort and watch a film from a genre I know very little about – romance. Most of the ‘romance’ films I’ve watched are basically films made in my style that happens to have a romantic lead (Wild at Heart, Eternal Sunshine, The Fountain). The only ‘proper’ romantic films I watched were 50 First Dates, which is silly but I still think is charming enough and I’ve always liked it, and Up in the Air. Up in the Air was actually the reason I’m interested in romance in the first place, since it gets everything that should make a romantic film good: It has good leads, a good conflict, good drama, laughs, and the characters feel real. Up in the Air will be guide into this strange and unforgiving territory of romantic films.

Jame (Jack Gyllenhaal) is this sort of guy whose only form of communication is flirting. That means he has a lot of sex, but that also means he doesn’t have any real connections with anyone and that gets him into trouble. He works selling stereo systems in a shop where he gets fired for having sex with his manager’s girlfriend (His manager looks like he likes Iron Maiden). His brother, Josh (Josh Gad), who is a rich fat geeky programmer with a girlfriend offers him to get a job of trying to convince doctors to perscribe Zoloft and Zithromax. While trying to convince Dr. Knight (Hank Azaria) to perscribe these drugs, he finds his patient Maggie, who has Parkinson’s at stage one (Anna Hathaway), attractive to he tries to get a date with her and the rest follows.

The first thing I noticed about Love and Other Drugs that it had just the right tone for such a film. These films need to find a place between being humorous and being serious. If they’re too humorous, you can’t take the romance seriously and thus the main attraction of the film equals zero. If your film is too serious, then it can’t be taken seriously. When your characters act as if every single move of them is a life or death decision, they can be hard to relate to. Love and Other Drugs sits right in the middle. Its mood is a bit lighter than Up in the Air, but that’s mostly because the main characters are still young, pretty and sex hungry while Up in the Air dealt with adults.

However, the pillar that romantic films rely on the most is the romantic leads. They are the whole reason why the film exists in the first place. Just like how an action film can’t thrill if you can’t root for the hero, a good lead can sometimes salvage a dull film. Love and Other Drugs has that both in performances and the character themselves. Maggie and Jamie don’t just connect randomly. Their characters suit each other. Jamie is this seductive, handsome guy who can only flirt and nothing else, so obviously he can get almost every womam in bed. Maggie is super-cynical about everything, including relationships, and that’s exactly why will fall for such a man. Eventually they develop feelings towards each other, that’s obligatory, but since their characters match the growth makes sense. Jake Gyllenhaal and Anna Hathaway do a good job playing these characters, giving them the vibe of people you may want to sleep with but not really the people you will want to talk with. Another notable pefromance is Josh Gad as the geeky little brother. I actually thought it was Jonah Hill. He even has the same hair and voice. He also gets the best line in the movie. The challenge for Gad was to make his character goofy enough, but not turn him into a complete joke and he succeeds. There’s also a subplot involving his relationship which helps him seem more like a character instead of just a joker.

There is one thing in Love and Other Drugs that should have stuck out badly, but doesn’t. I hadn’t noticed it until I read some reviews. The plot of the film is pretty messy. There are about three things going on in this movie and it jumps from one to another. There is the story of Jamie as trying to make money so his parents will be satisfieds, and simply a tale of a man trying to get paid. There is the story of Maggie’s Parkinsons, Jamie’s attempt to find treatment and the aforementioned subplot with Josh. The film doesn’t really do a good job connecting all of these. They do feel like seperate stories that use the same character, but it never bothered me. The focus is never on these plots. They serve as nothing but backdrop to develop the characters. Even the subplot with Josh helps to emphasize the contrast between him and Jame. The film dodged this obstacle not because it solved the problem but because it didn’t pay attention to it, and that worked. Eraser, an actioner starring Arnie Schwartz also does that by dropping the plot about halfway through and focusing on the action.

By the way, it is very refreshing to see a comedy that treats nudity and sexuality as a casaual thing that exists and that’s it. There is plenty of nudity and some sexual humor in it (the best line is a sex joke, actually), but the film never acts if these were novel concepts it discovered. That’s the biggest problem with any comedy film that is rated PG-13 or higher. It acts as if the material is ‘shocking’ and will make us feel awkward, oblivious to the fact people owned sexual organs since the beginning of existance.

I don’t know if Love and Other Drugs is the film people look for when they want to watch a romantic comedy. I hope they do, because there’s very little to dislike here. The couple doesn’t seem likeable at first but since they suit each other so well and since there is chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Hathaway, they can carry the films. There are some good jokes, there’s the right tone and a pretty messy plot that doesn’t distract and thus doesn’t sabotage the enjoyment. It didn’t have the punch of Up in the Air, but it got enough basics right. I was engaged. I cared about what’s going on. I had a good time. I hope this dangerous, uncharted territory of romantic films contains more films like this one.

Highs: The romantic lead, the right tone, that one good line I won’t spoil
Lows: The plot is a bit messy, it doesn’t pack any punch

Rating: 3/5 (I’m undecided between this and 3.5/5)

Title: Love and Other Drugs
Director: Edward Zwick
Screenplay: Edward Zwick, Charles Randolph, Marhsall Herskovitz
Starring: Jake Gylleenhaal, Anna Hathaway, Oliver Platt
Genre: Romance
Subgenre: Romantic Comedy, Drama
Running Time: 112 Minutes
Release Date: November 24, 2010

[Film] Brazil (1985)

It’s all in your head

I knew it would happen. Brazil, at first, looked like an attempt to make my favorite film. The genres this film fits into are Science Fiction, Dystopian, Fantasy, Black Comedy and Surrealism. It only takes one of these to get me interested in a film, so imagine all of them in one. It was directed by Terry Gilliam, who directed the fantastic 12 Monkeys and, judging by the looks of his other films, will become one of my favorite directors once I watch more of his output. It has Robert De Niro in the cast. It attempts to be a goofy version of 1984. It had all the right ingridients, but, obviously, if it’s cooked in a tempeture too high or too low, or if you don’t put the ingridients in the right place or order or amount, the result will be crap. That was my only fear, and it turned out that whoever cooked this sucks.

Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) is a gouvernment employee in a dystopia that’s knee-deep in bureaucracy. Everything demands forms to sign. He also has frequent daydreams about saving a damsel in distress. A fly gets stuck in a machine which causes the arrest form for a man named Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro0 to be changed to Archbald Buttle (Brian Miller). Sam is sent to deal with this error and discovers the woman living in the apartment above the Buttle’s is in fact the woman in his dream. He wants to get information out of here, falls in love for no apparent reasons, and almost-Lynchian randomness ensues.

It’s a lot duller than it sounds.

When people talk about this film, you will hear 1984 getting mentioned and for a good reason. It’s not just that they’re both sterile dystopias, it’s also that they both have excellent ideas but shitty stories. 1984 at least knew how to organize its ideas, and that’s why the its first part is a classic, its second part is bollocks and the third part is merely okay. Brazil doesn’t know how to do that. It’s full of ideas, and the length is enough to put them all to good use, but it never does that. It doesn’t matter how weird or abstract your film is, it needs a sense of direction that it’s going somewhere. If you can’t make it work like prose, make it work like poetry, or like instrumental music. Imagine if the greatest musicians in the world gathered together and blasted their instruements with no purpose. It would be like watching Brazil.

The idea of a man who dreams about a women who eventually turns up in real life is a good one, and it would especially well in such a sterile dystopia. You would have a great contrast there. In fact, a love story in Brazil makes more sense than the love story in 1984 since the world of Brazil is calculated, cold and formal where 1984 is just repressive. A romantic relationship is the complete opposite of this world. Yet, instead of developing something that will at least resemble a romance, it just throws it in there randomly. They just suddenly fall in love. They barely talk. Up until that point Brazil is pretty good. It’s not great, it’s still aimless, but it’s more ordered and it feels like it’s about to kick into a higher gear. It was better than Primer. It’s when the love story emerges that the film starts to implode and Primer starts to look better.

The worst comes during the final part, which should be the best part because it’s when the film kicks into ‘surrealist’ gear, only by the time it arrived the film became so annoying I couldn’t enjoy it. There was good and creative imagery, but the transition towards that part is just so clumsy. The story before was never good and only had potential, and since the second part was just stupid, I didn’t feel like sitting and watching the goofiest images the filmmakers could think of. There’s even a suckr-punching twist at the end, but I didn’t care at all. I focused less on the film as it gradually lost focus. Even Tetsuo: The Iron Man, a film only an hour long with blurred images, quick cuts and Industrial music had more focused direction. It’s not the weirdness that pissed me off. It was the lack of focus that did. Weirdness without focus is just a man wearing underwear for a hat and making weird noises while walking on the street. It’s pretty annoying.

Another problem with Brazil is its tone. It’s a different case of “not sure what it is”. Machete jumps from being a political-driven drama to an exploitation film, but at least it had a clear tone during single scenes. Brazil is not sure whether it’s a gloomy dystopian film (like Dark City) or a goofy Science Fiction tale (I can’t think of any goofy Sci-Fi films. That’s not good. Dark Star? I still need to watch that). The optimal option is obviously to merge these two, but the film is not sure about that either. It’s so unfocused that I couldn’t tell whether it tried to merge these two styles and failed, which would have been admirable, or if it just decided to stand between these two, thus having no tone at all (which explains why I couldn’t really care). This film is one big bag of uncertainty. Before anyone pulls something, there’s a difference between “open to interpartion” and just plain vague.

I wanted to like this. I wish I could like this and then tell everyone they’re stupid for liking Matrix or Inception or Doctor Who and that they should watch this since this is (very) deep and says something about (the meaning of) life. In the end, Brazil is the example of when my favorite kind of films don’t work. As much as I love films that would ruin the party, I still have standarts, and weirdness does not excuse a lack of focus. If you have a taste for strange or unique cinema, Brazil is worth watching just to absorb all its (wasted) ideas. If you don’t, then don’t even come close. If you want to see a film of this type that works, watch Videodrome or 12 Monkeys. After all, Primer is better than this. At least Primer stopped before collapsing completely. Brazil is a plane crash whose fire illuminates the darkness that is the question “why would anyone watch such films?”.

Highs: It’s full of great and unique ideas, and it is very original
Lows: Complete lack of focus ruins everything

Rating: 2.5/5

Title: Brazil
Director: Terry Gilliam
Screenplay: Terry Gillaim, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown
Starring: Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro, Kim Greist
Genre: Science Fiction
Subgenre: Black Comedy, Dystopian, Surrealism, Fantasy
Running Time: 143 Minutes
Release Date: 20 Febuary, 1985