Saturday, December 23, 2006

Shadow of the Wraith (Ikisudama, 2001)



Ikisudama (a.k.a. Shadow of the Wraith) is a pair of supernatural thrillers told in two parts. Part One takes place in one of the many fine Japanese schools that Asian horror fans have come to recognize, and by now, may be able to recognize on sight. It begins as Ryoji and Mariko, a pair of high school 'lovers' get to know each other in a vacant gymnasium. When, during class, another student, Asaji, mistakes an act of kindness from Ryoji as as some sort of declaration of love and begins to follow/stalk Ryoji around school. Asaji's behavior quickly extends beyond the walls of their school. Ryoji becomes suspicious of Asaji's intentions and it doesn't take very much longer for Mariko (Ryoji's girlfriend) to join that club. But as they say, two's company and three's a crowd, but Asaji is not the type to take a hint.

The second story is a loose continuation of the first story involving Ryoji's brother and band-mate Kazuhiko, who moves into their older sister and husband's apartment. Someone else is also moving into Kazuhiko's building; a young girl named Naoko. They briefly meet outside the building as he is in the courtyard taking photos. She and Kazuhiko find themselves in the same school and the same class where she tells her class the story of her old neighborhood where a curse had consumed family after family on her street, and Kazuhiko warns her that there are similar event taking place in apartments that share the number 5. Naoko has moved into Apartment 505.

Shadow of the Wraith takes place in two parts; Part One: Shadow of the Wraith, and Part Two: The Hollow Stone. The director obviously favored a two-part system rather than integrating the stories into a single story. Why? Only he may know. The stories might have been more compelling as one. There's seemingly little or no time issues to prevent this other than they needed a separate story for the other "star". The juxtaposition of the two story-lines would have most assuredly held my interest better.

Ikisudama plays like the candy-coated thrillers of yesterday such as Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer and so many other tame MTV-style suspense films. Style over substance. With a partial reprieve for The Hollow Stone 'episode', as it was the more actualized and convincing of the two. Part One plays more like a Twilight Zone episode, but not a classic Rod Serling episode; more like one of the new Forest Whittaker hosted, remade, regurgitated episodes with today's "stars". Or more precisely, like Fatal Attraction. I think I rolled my eyes so many times that it must have looked as if I just hopped off of The Riddler's Revenge at Six Flags! Low budget special effects, manufactured and transparent suspense aside, the final nail in the coffin for Part 1 was the cheesy pop song that robbed the music from 'I Only Want To Be With You' as we get a look at the band Marshall Law, which in real life is an actual brother-brother duo known as Doggy Bag. Who by the way, get top billing in the end credits and individual, widely spaced mentions. Something their agent(s) probably insisted on.

This movie was clearly a vehicle for the duo. There's very little positive about Ikisudama other than one short, tense scene in Part One and the premise in Part Two is interesting but not fulfilling. Horror fans will want to see it just to see it, but they shouldn't expect anything new or exciting. Or maybe just pass on it all together.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Dating Death (2004)



Dating Death is certainly a throwback to the early days of slasher who-done-its. It has that relentless attack on a viewers' senses that early 80's classics like April Fool's Day and Return To Horror High treat us to. People are dying left & right, nobody can get a grip on what's happening to them and yet the fact remains that there's a killer among them! Sensibilities are discarded and rational judgment is throw out the window. In Dating Death, people are thrown out the window with after it.

A group of long-time friends are partying together and someone has the clever idea of playing Truth or Dare. Immediately, someone shouts "truth" and volunteers another to answer the question "Who do you admire?" (As the English translation is a little sketchy, I assume a more literal translation is a playful and coy, 'Who do you have a crush on?') Around the room they go and each of the five guys choose Sophie, a wealthy girl whom everyone of the group trips over themselves in a vain attempt to get her to "notice" them. This doesn't sit well with Lily, Sophie's friend, because one of the five is her secret lover Ken. Ken reluctantly, out of respect, proclaims that he adores Sophie as well, but only after Sophie had called Ken's name earlier in the game. This really rubs Lily the wrong way and she storms off. The other four guys who are gunning for the affections of Sophie don't take this well either (for some odd reason). Later, the guys head downstairs to shoot pool and one of them disappears...and the game begins.

** spoilers **

In the morning the group waits in the lobby to catch the boat back home from the island resort, but one of the group, namely Ken, is still missing. A quick search of the hotel yields nothing and they head to Ken's room but are shocked to find a river of blood leading from the window to the bed and a severed hand at the foot of the bed. No sign of Ken anywhere. A year later, the group reunites at a dinner party hosted by Sophie at a posh restaurant, but competition for Sophie's attention hasn't subsided in the least. The guys spend the entire dinner shouting at each other and posturing. As the dinner ends and the friend's disperse, each of them find a mysterious invitation slipped in their pockets and purses calling them back to the island resort. And of course, they go.

The group arrive at the resort, the boat leaves and there's no way off the resort island until their boat is scheduled return days later (how convenient!), they curiously head to Ken's room and find a black hand print on the ceiling. Sophie's uncle, the caretaker, has tried to remove it with dozens of methods but to no avail. The group is left wondering who left the mysterious palm print, and soon suspicions of one another resurface and of the whereabouts of Ken.

** end spoilers **

One by one they received an invitation, one by one they stepped off the boat, one by one they they entered the building and one by one they'll die.

The simple, calculated premise of Dating Death is what makes this movie work. It's the classic 'Don't go in there!' or 'Don't open that door!' that draws us into the film. As if we're put in the position of participants in the film. Quite refreshing if you ask me. Dating Death has the elements of the classic blood & guts slasher and the suspense of even earlier classic films like 'And Then There Were None' from which it borrows the formula, I'm sure. Each disappearance more disturbing than the last, each more tense and suspicious than the last, and when you've got it figured out, you'll be wrong. Dating Death hold out until the very end. Other than a cheesy farewell sequence, it's a totally engrossing and more importantly, fun movie as far as slashers go.

Sure it's low budget, formulaic (to a point) and a tad campy. But for crying out loud, it is called Dating Death! If it sound like I'm defending it, it's because I am. Not many seem to get this movie and feel the need to hold it to unreasonably high standards or take it much too seriously. That's my humble opinion. The only bug I have with it is the DVD's subtitles. The English subtitles, to be specific, on the Mandarin Films release. They get the the point across well enough, but the studio might benefit from a better translator or simply to clarify the dialogue. In the end though, it's a horribly good movie.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (2006)

For better or for worse, Oak Street Cinema (nestled on the East Bank of the University of Minnesota) is one of only five theaters in the United States showing the Stanley Nelson directed "Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple". Upon entering the theater, overheard was a fellow patron inquiring of the girl tearing tickets, "...so how's the movie?"; to wit she replied, "I haven't watched it, but I hear it's depressing.". Her information was accurate indeed.

Skipping ahead because there is without doubt a general cognizance about Jim Jones and the eventual mass suicide at the "jungle utopia" in Guyana, I can only add I wasn't fully prepared for what the film had to add to the story. The never-before-seen film footage and audio was orthodox for a Jonestown chronicle, not that I'm well versed in Jonestown lore, only it ran rather vanilla in terms of new information on the subject. It was the cumulative effect of the footage, audio, pictures, and testimony from former Peoples Temple members which gave me a sick feeling as the conclusion unfolded. Example: the little known visit by an entourage of United States officials and media including U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan. Ryan initiated this visit under the pretext that family of Temple members were being held against their will; a secondary reason was tax evasion charges stemming from Jim Jones' affiliation with the San Francisco Democratic Party, who appointed Jones as San Fransisco's Housing Commissioner due to his (supposed) instrumental help in "getting out the vote" for the eventual winning mayoral candidate. Ryan's arrival to Jonestown created a tempered intensity inside the town as several members slipped notes to the small contingent of accompanying press saying they wanted out — these notes were soon discovered and delivered to Jones. Audio directly from that fated afternoon is tough to listen to and the events immediately following, as recounted by the only two survivors of Ryan's entourage, prompting a type of brutality that seems irreal.

Of course, it's the surviving members (and deceased, for that matter) that make this film. As a loose point of reference, Christopher Lasch's book "Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations", recounts a former Weatherman member who, upon her (inevitable) disenchantment with the the group's leadership to which she had fundamentally surrendered to, remarked that she 'didn't care what the group did, only that she was bathed in attention, ...[she] felt omnipotent when surrounded by the group leaders.'. This insight, for me, added to the films narrative of how people were sucked into Jones' visions of utopia and how a perfected world should work. But in the end, it's just a control freak named Jim Jones preying, patronizing, then forcing his will and his own brand of sadism on vulnerable men, women, and children.

"You don't need to worship me.  All I want from you is to do right.  Feed my children — Do something about the misery around you — Take care of the animals.  I don't care whether you like me, call me Jim Jones, call me asshole ... if you want to call me God, then I'm God.  I don't care what you call me.  Call me Father.  Call me mother.  Call me hermaphrodite.  Call me queer — call me whatever you want, ... just do what's right.
Do what's right."


- Jim Jones,
transcribed Jonestown Audiotapes.


I think that excerpt speaks for itself. Jones preached community, love, and commitment to his followers — with himself as the source and foundation — only his was a one-way street of sorts that required absolute and rigorous obedience; a dichotomy which members realized much too late, or alas, not at all. To open the film a former member declares: "Nobody joins a cult; nobody joins something they think is going to hurt them.", and it's difficult to sit and watch that very thing happen.

Friday, September 8, 2006

Tell Me Something (Telmisseomding, 1999)



Tell Me Something gets off the starting block with a series of grizzly discoveries. Dismembered bodies are being dropped off around Seoul on a rainy night. When Detective Jo (Han Suk-kyu) and his partner Detective Oh (Jang Han-seong) are called in to handle the case, they can hardly imagine what they're stepping into. Shortly after meeting with the Medical Examiner, the detectives discover that the body parts found do not belong to one particular corpse. In short order, another round of corpses turn up (in some pretty strange places) and Detectives Jo and Ho put together a special team, on order from the police commissioner, to catch this serial killer, who's victims seem to be connected to the daughter of a famous Korean artist. Her name is Chae Su-yeon (Shim Eun-ha). Su-yeon and her roommate Seungmin (Jung-ah Yum; H, Tale of Two Sisters) are soon under the protection & watchful eye of the police, with Su-yeon being taken into protective custody when a new boyfriend is (partially) found after a night out with Su-yeon. Things get more complicated when Detective Jo finds himself developing feelings for Su-yeon. Her quiet, guarded manner forces Detective Jo to comb through her entire life, and make Su-yeon relive a past she would rather forget, to find connections with people she has known and the murders. Su-yeon soon tires of the interviewing and questioning and refuses to talk anymore. She returns to her home. The list of suspects grows... The murderer gets aggressive...

Firstly, I want to address/refute the plot hole factor. There is a fairly obvious jump that needs to be made concerning Detective Ho and an integral part of the investigation. Something that was most likely cut for continuity reasons or time constraints concerning Detective Ho making the connection between the killer and a certain apartment, is more or less overblown. By itself, it may stick out, but due to the film's complex story-line and fully realized characters it's an easy jump to make, even after a few viewings. I'll wager that it goes unnoticed, even after multiple viewings.

There's also said to be "motivation issues" with a character or two, but again, any reasonable viewer can make the connections, as they're deftly handled through a short flashback sequence near the end and an overall impressive screenplay. Besides, it's not like Tell Me Something is a docudrama. The film's revelation stands firm with what precedes it, no question in my mind. The fact that Tell Me Something can lay everything on the table and allow us to participate, makes the ending more dynamic and powerful. Yet it challenges us to choose our suspect and work it out for ourselves as we watch, speaks volumes. The obvious choice is most certainly the right one, veteran crime & mystery fans will know what's what right away. Good 'ol Occam's Razor.

Although this slow-burner (a healthy runtime of 118 minutes) is essentially a movie that tells you something and then tries to dissuade you with oh so much powerful gore and an intense dramatic elements. It's definitely made in a Hollywood-esque way and was a smash hit for S. Korean Film in 1999. Killer cinematography adds whole new dimensions to the film; bright, airy days & damp, inky nights. Add the powerful, ethereal humming from Enya's "Boadicea" as well as tunes from Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Placebo (who's album cover makes its way into the film), and Yoon-Hyun Chang's mysterious, murderous world comes alive. On the inside it's a gruesome, brutal crime-thriller. On the outside, it's a stylish, bizarre, almost arty film noir. A must see in any event.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Grizzly Man (2005)

Let me start by admitting that the film's fascination factor is very high, in general. But don't get me wrong, its content is harrowing, gripping, and sad, yet can be described and both mondo and functionally educational. Werner Herzog himself narrates the epic travels of grizzly bear activist Timothy Treadwell, along with his friend and companion Amie Huguenard, as they spend months at a time in the Alaskan wilderness themselves documenting the plight, and their fascination with, the Alaskan grizzly. Rather than re-recount what happens, here's my take:

I don't tend to dismiss or minimize Treadwell's passion for "his" bears, in fact, it's something to be celebrated on a certain level. A passion his friends and acquaintances will readily and profusely corroborate, and one that comes through in his own words and video diaries. It's quite obvious he felt deeply for those bears — however misplaced those feelings were. As Herzog himself points out on multiple occasions, Treadwell lost the ability to differentiate between humans and the animals he spent time and was infinitely fascinated with. One thing that bothered me about Treadwell's video confessions was the characterization of his presence as "research". Now I have no doubt he believed his observations were genuinely professional, but the reality was that he was simply a layman. An actual expert based on Kodiak Island put this into glaring perspective. His sobering analysis couldn't be more at odds with Treadwell's cavalier behavior. On top of this, even Herzog himself provides a chilling commentary late in the film concerning the very bear that probably killed Treadwell which provides an insight that most would be aware of but Treadwell seemed to miss completely. Or one he ignored.

His attitude also flew in the face of the reality in which he was living; one that manifested into the worst of all possible conclusions. He was pompous and arrogant at times toward the very environment he claimed to hold in the highest regard. Treadwell was clearly manic-depressive, if not a touch insane. Fascination turned to empathy, which morphed into a sort of pity. Treadwell's outbursts toward the Department of Wildlife and his friends and colleagues only fed his mania. Was he someone who never grew up mentally and/or emotionally? Lost in his own world? A daydream believer? There's nothing wrong with having ideals, but hubris can lead to grave mistakes

"No one knows where I am. Even I don't know where I am." – T. Treadwell

I have no doubt that audiences took Treadwell at his word when he declared he would rather die in the wilderness than return to the world he once knew, — those being his time in California — a definitive and self-fulfilling prophecy. In the end though, both his own and Huguenard's death can only be described as tragic. This film has the gravitas to teach as well as mystify, and really should be experienced if you're not faint of heart. The film's final scenes are particularly poignant and sobering. Honestly, I sort of wanted Treadwell's friend and confidante Jewel Palovak to make the audio tape available to Herzog (accompanied by a warning no doubt) but at the same time it's probably best it wasn't. The film stands as a masterwork nonetheless.

Monday, August 14, 2006

EM: Embalming (Embamingu, 1999)



Embamingu is a murder mystery/thriller-esque film where a high school student named Yoshiki Shindo, (Masatoshi Matsuo; he plays Toshio Yabe three years later in Kyoshi Kurosawa's Kairo), who mysteriously falls from a building and dies. We join the film as Detective Hiraoka (Yutaka Matsushige) is surveying the scene from the rooftop. He calls a friend, who happens to be the local hospital's embalmer, Miyako Murakami (Reiko Takashima) to witness a freshly dead body, which for some reason she has wanted. Miyako's morbid fascination aside, the skeptical detective prefers to treat the case as a murder and thus begins the long, winding road into EM Embalming.

In short order we're treated to an up close and personal look at the embalming process as Miyako and her assistant (a role deftly handled by fellow director Seijun Suzuki; Pistol Opera) poke and prod the life-like corpse with scalpels and heavy machinery designed to empty and replace the body's blood supply. A powerful local Buddhist Chief named Jion inserts himself into the fray on behalf of Yoshiki's family to denounce the embalming process as sacrilege, completely against Buddhist Doctrine. But Jion's motives are less than honorable or straightforward. He attracts much attention after Yoshiki's head is stolen off of the body, which is still at the hospital. And one of Yoshiki's girlfriends, who had serious issues of her own, becomes a player in the game when she turns up, first at the crime scene, and then with what appears to be Yoshiki's doppelganger. Things really get complex when Detective Hiraoka follows up on a tip concerning the trafficking of human body parts and a reclusive, discredited surgeon named Mr. Fuji is implicated in the illegal trafficking.

How and why was the son of a powerful city councilman killed? Who is behind it? Miyako & Detective Hiraoka will put their careers and lives on the line to crack the case and expose the truth.

Embalmingu is a tough nut to crack, review-wise. It raises questions about the ethically of embalming in the guise of a thriller/crime drama. It's rather weak premise facilitates an argument that the movie has with itself concerning which is right, the practice of embalming or the Buddhist way of letting the physical body return to the Earth naturally. At the root of EM's message is a timeless question and one everyone has wrestled with at some point: What does is mean to die and is there a 'correct' way to handle the human body? Catholics have a fairly strict set of criteria, Buddhists have their own criteria, as do Christians in general. Where does science fit in? Or should it?

EM tackles this issue head on, albeit in a sloppy, sometimes haphazard manner. At one point, I likened EM to a lengthy public service announcement. It's half-hearted screenplay/dialogue often seems as if it were written by the Public Relations Department of Japan's Embalming Concern. I made that department up, but only to illustrate my point. There are several instances where the "advocacy" for embalming became heavy-handed and sort of preachy. Miyako, obviously, is fairly cavalier about preserving the body for those extra few days for funeral purposes and for family closure; she's the "pro" voice. Jion is the more traditional voice, as he quotes Buddhist teachings and even though his motives cast a suspecting shadow on the weight of this view, he's is the opposing view in this movie. The youth in the film seem to be completely clueless to what embalming is, yet strive to embrace it, and the movie seems to step up in a manner as to serve as their professor. When Yoshiki dies, Rika believes she can be reunited with him through embalming; believing that he can be reanimated or something. Kind of ridiculous, isn't it. You'll get used to it with EM.

That's not to say it's a bad movie, by any means. Fans of bloody, stomach turning gore will jump for joy. At one especially gruesome point during the opening scene, we see the busted skull being packed, with what appears to be cotton, and then dried and the section of bone replaced. Miyako and her assistant (who looks like the classic old, wise, white-haired sensei of yore) perform Yoshiki's embalming under the close scrutiny of the camera. I can't describe the realism of the corpse up there on the embalming table other than "cringe-inducing & spine-shivering". Some of the gore is a tad cheesy, but thankfully stops short of being comical. The major problem I have with EM is that most of the movie's revelations occur during a long-winded diatribes that had me rolling my eyes and wishing the writers would have cut some of the redundancies and used that time to develop those via action and genuine character development. Also, some of the sub-plots had me just wondering, "Why?". Particularly the "Miyako's father" stuff. I suppose it was meant to be that character development I spoke of earlier, but I felt that particular angle was slightly unnecessary and superfluous. The scenes themselves are necessary though. You'll see why.

In closing, Embamingu is definitely a unique, but flawed, film that raises great questions about life & death, and attempts to take a stand. I can't argue with EM's pluckiness and even though it's not my particular brand of horror, it's worth a look...or two; so as to allow some of it to make a little more sense.

Friday, June 2, 2006

8 1/2 (8½ or Otto e mezzo, 1963)



8½ opens in a dream. Or maybe more precisely, a daydream. A man is stuck in heavy traffic. Not a car is moving. It's utter gridlock. It appears that most everyone in close proximity is deeply focused on him, with the exception of a car or two and in short order, his car begins to fill with smoke. He begins to choke and tries to escape the car but cannot. He struggles with the latches, but has to crawl out a window. Then he proceeds to float above the gridlocked traffic and into the sky, where he notices a rope tied to his ankle and a man below is basically flying him like a kite. The man is actually trying to pull him to the ground. The man in the sky reaches to liberate his leg from the rope, wishing to float away free. But the dream ends.

Guido is a mollycoddled famous director who we find, in the beginning of the film, being pampered and who's "well being" is being scrutinized by a room full of attendants. I'm tempted to do a straightforward account as if this were a simpler film, but is a film about the making of a film and simultaneously, what seems to be, a real-time documentary about said film about a film. But I don't think that's complex enough. A fourth dimension to add might be the context of Federico Fellini's actual life is being played out above and beyond that. Fellini does a pretty fine job at intertwining those threads, with an emphasis on his self-examination. He lays it all out there. He may have benefited more from a Freudian examination.

The tortured and eternally frustrated director seems to be at a crossroads in his career. He's on the cusp of his biggest film to date. The only problem is he doesn't seem to be inspired or motivated to make it. He seems willing to play the roll of director, but hardly seems to enjoy getting his hands dirty anymore. All day, everyday, he carries a pained look on his face as he has to fend off his anxious producer or evade countless wanna-be actors or has-been actresses. It doesn't help that the perfect lead actress isn't the one he's been seeing behind his wife's back. On top of juggling his mistresses (of which he's alternately tired and inspired to do), he's constantly getting his ass kissed by staff who have relatives sprouting from everywhere to get in on the film. It begins to pain him to have to meet with his staff, his producers, or longtime friends in the industry who find it difficult to associate with Guido because "he's changed".

What's amazing about is that it's extraordinarily well thought out and meticulously planned. For all the soul searching going on and questions being raised, the film uses Guido's past and several delusional/male fantasies to answer them. Just as a something to ponder comes up, it's addressed. After all, it his his film. But, as segmented and, dare I say, somewhat dissatisfying as that aspect is, it comes off as clever and insightful. I love how Guido seems to always be in a state of reflection, but at the same time, he conducts himself as though the past doesn't exist. He comes off quite self-centered and arrogant; which to those around him choose to accept as charm. But his closest friends & family have become weary of Guido's childish exploits. In a twisted sort of way, I think that's what motivates and inspires him.

Those first few minutes of , in my opinion, is essentially the entire film encapsulated in dream form. I found that fascinating. For the entire movie to be fully effective though, it might have dispensed with what I consider to be an ending that may have appeared to be the elocution the film built up to, but was actually as evasive and nonchalant as Guido was to his wife. I believe his wife was the voice of reason in the film, but was once again, patronized and handed a bill of goods from her husband. Which makes his revelation all the more disingenuous. The journey of Guido (Fellini) into absolution has him remaining the self-centered person he truly is and at the risk of losing his marriage and career, conjures up a moment of lucidity to pacify his wife's contempt. It would be a beautiful thing indeed if it wasn't just a defense mechanism which only enables Guido's ego. Sadly, his revelation is for the benefit of himself, and maybe also for his adoring audience. The irony is, that I didn't (or wouldn't have) expected anything less. How could I?

A brilliant and deep film that is resolute and steadfast with it's content, but can surely mean many different things depending on the viewer.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl (Samehada Otoko to Momojiri Onna, 1999)

Now rating as one of the most awesome movies I have ever seen, Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl opens as a maid at a low rent motel is being urged by a coworker, who has just now quit, to follow suit and leave that stale, remote hotel. Toshiko, the maid (a wonderful Sie Kohinata) is likes what she hears but is reluctant because it would mean abandoning her uncle Michio, who runs the joint. Shortly thereafter Toshiko discovers her uncle has "invested" her personal savings (as he has control over her finances for some reason...), she packs a bag and climbs out a window — leaving her uncle to waste away with his precious motel.

Cut to a guy named Kuroo Samehada (Tadanobu Asano) who has just stolen a serious amount  of money from the yakuza (which I take he now was a part of) and is currently being tracked to, but now chased from, a cabin in the woods where he's hold up. He flees the scene in little more than his tighty-whiteys. Now cut back to Toshiko fleeing the hotel life. Who should she run into? You guessed it.

Leadership by example.

Katsuhito Ishii's Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl if funny, quirky, action–packed and has wit and style to spare. It also features one of the most unique gang of characters I have ever witnessed. From the salaryman yakuza boss (Susumu Terashima) who collects rare soft drink tins, to his overly style–conscious ingrate son who employs his nose like a dog and is petrified that his bullet-proof white leather coat will get dirty or wet. Add in a trio of hapless wanna-be hangers-on, and a gut–busting gay assassin (Tatsuya Gashuin) who's hired by Michio to retrieve his niece. All this and a full cast of ill-mannered associates. How could you go wrong, I ask?