Tag Archives: violence

Heartless Heartless 5 star

August 26th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“The darker it gets the more you see, but it’s got to get a lot darker before you see me.”

I had to watch this again in the end before I felt remotely able to write about it and I’m still unsure of what to say beyond simply knowing this is an incredible movie. This is my first experience of Philip Ridley’s work but on the strength of it I’ll certainly be looking back over his back catalogue, which I’ve heard even more good things about than I did this latest production. When they talked about this movie on the Five Live movie podcast I knew I had to see it because it sounded fascinating… it turned out to be even more so than I even expected.

The most recognisable aspect of the story is the Faust-like “deal with the devil” idea – best done in cinema so far, perhaps, in Alan Parker’s Angel Heart – but to make comparisons between this movie and that is barely touching the surface of the painful depths it goes into with the main character Jamie, played terrifically by Jim Sturgess. Where Parker’s movie blended Faust with film noir, Heartless – with the rest of its cast including the likes of Ruth Sheen and Timothy Spall as Jamie’s parents – feels more like Mike Leigh‘s Faust by way of the recent Harry Brown …and still that doesn’t begin to cover it.

Jamie’s a young man born with a large birthmark on his face that makes him feel like he’ll never be loved as others around him, living in a terror-stricken city that he feels completely unable to deal with. We see scars on his wrists. His father is dead, and in a shocking early scene his mother, too, is taken from him (slight spoiler, sorry; but this is a movie I believe can’t even be spoiled if you’ve seen it 10 times). There seems to be something supernatural afoot, and Jamie in his desperation and sheer loss with the world (Sturgess plays much of his role with an almost bemused expression on his face even at the most horrendous scenarios) finds it all too easy to believe, so when a man steps in claiming he can fix it all with a molotov cocktail, he kinda figures what has he got to lose?

It’s at this point when I first watched the movie that it really and truly grabbed me. For reasons that will be clearer the better you know me, I’m something of a sucker for stories where wishes are granted by supernatural means, and the way Jamie’s “wish” is “granted” here, it’s hard to describe but I believed in it completely. If you hadn’t guessed, his wish entails the good riddance of his birthmark, and the love of an Eastern European girl he met earlier in the movie. If you hadn’t guessed, too, all is still far from as it seems. He gets all that, more, and bizarrely the strange man’s young Indian helper as a daughter… which makes this strange man just a little upset.

This is where I lose my train of thought as to where this review is going, lol. This movie just has so much in it that I won’t even feel like I can adequately sum up my thoughts about it after 5 or 10 viewings. I just know that I will watch it that many times. While the movie is assuredly of the horror genre, and has many spooky, grisly, indeed in places outrightly B-movie outrageous moments, it is also far from – as the title might suggest – heartless. The theme of the movie is torn between the beautiful lyric (from a song sung by Sturgess on the glorious soundtrack) above and the sentiment expressed by Jamie’s new and shortlived neighbour AJ, played by Noel Clarke: “That’s the real bravery. To know nothing means anything and still wanna get out of f**king bed.” The last half hour of the movie changes everything you feel beforehand, and that’s why I needed to watch it again, and I’m still wanting to go back for more. For what it is, it’s a stunning movie, heartfelt, dangerous, and willing to be a little strange. Sturgess is fantastic, and the soundtrack beautiful. You really have to see this movie.

Island of the Damned aka Who Can Kill a Child? Island of the Damned aka Who Can Kill a Child? 4 star

March 5th, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , ,

… aka Trapped, etc etc …

Well, I’m a big fan of evil movie children, so this was immediately right up my alley, hehe. This is one of those movies that gets around the “shoulda been under 90 minutes” problem I usually have with anything so genre as it is that runs over that magic figure by using its extra 30 minutes up front to introduce its main characters. For where the movie goes in the end, the opening is fiendishly slow but it makes the real bulk of the movie, from 30 minutes in when they leave the mainland, all the more gripping than it’d likely be without the set-up.

Will He, Won't He?

The thing I find most noteworthy about this is how genuinely on edge it put me. If I’d read a review of this that drew out how scary some of the smiling children are here I wouldn’t have believed it. But there’s something about some of those smiles, let’s call it the Hannibal Lector effect – remembering that moment when Clarice Starling first happened upon the genius cannibal, that simple smile with no real explanation behind it. Even on the most beautiful adolescent girl, the first of the island’s residents that we see, even as she seems to all intents and purposes to be perfectly harmless, it’s almost downright terrifying.

The second thing that makes this movie a cut above most of the genre is that it really goes all the way. I don’t know how to elaborate on that without spoiling it, but hey it’s been out for over 30 years so consider yourself warned, lol. There’s a moment at the end here where I really didn’t know where the movie was going to turn. I didn’t know where I wanted it to turn, even. But once the moment passed, I knew that I would’ve felt betrayed if it’d gone the other way. That didn’t stop the feeling of, “OMG he did it!” in my stomach though.

It borrows from plenty of movies – of course the title itself (the one I’ll always refer to it as, at least) recalls Children and Village of the Damned – and there are just a couple of scenes towards the end that attempt to explain away the childrens’ condition in a manner akin to those older movies, when really it works better when there’s no explanation. And if you’re coming here for gory visuals you might be disappointed by how fake they are. But this has bold intentions and takes no prisoners. I found myself right on the fence between seeing it as almost black comedy and a genuinely scary social commentary and I can imagine repeat viewings taking me to either extreme entirely. Definitely worth seeking out if you’re a fan of the genre, and worth taking time out for even if you’re not.

The Wrestler The Wrestler 4 star

January 28th, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , ,

It’s funny – sometimes I stall on writing a review, and in the time between that and finally writing I hear or read something that makes what I was planning to say anyway even more worth saying to me. In this case it was Mark Kermode this past weekend saying in his top ten rundown that Evan Rachel Wood’s character here was the weak link in this movie. This kind of forces the issue for me because one of the things I was going to say in this review was to single Wood out, really baffled as to why nobody else was doing so. That not only did Kermode never mention Wood in his review, but then when he finally does mention her does it in a negative light, lol, just really bugged me. This is not to put down Marisa Tomei at all – she’s a fantastic actress and she does here everything she can with a character who just doesn’t have any particularly standout moments. Evan Rachel Wood has been quietly working away for over a decade now, and while I’ve never seen a bad performance from her, I’ve never heard anybody share my admiration for her with the sole possible exception of “Thirteen”. This movie just seemed like the perfect time for people to notice her – she has some absolutely electrifying scenes with Mickey Rourke but … nada. So my main thing here is to kind of give her a little ovation – I think she’s fantastic and one day perhaps she’ll actually get noticed by others, lol. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now. Go Evan. You’ve got a huge fan here.

As to the rest of the movie – well … it’s Rourke. Another thing Kermode said that kind of threw me was his saying without Tomei’s character it would just be Mickey Rourke doing the “coulda been a contender” speech from On the Waterfront … which made me try to remember that older movie and think, is this in fact almost a flat update of it? It’s not fresh enough in my memory to answer … it just got me wondering. I think Kermode even undersold this part of the movie in his mostly favourable review. I think you could take out the other stuff and leave just Rourke and it’ll still be a much richer movie than I expected. This is like Boogie Nights in reverse, you have this wreck of a man who was once “something” suddenly having to balance a potato salad order for an old lady; sitting in a half-assed “convention”, looking round and realising that that “something” he was really wasn’t so much at all. I’ve said so many times of characters like this that I find it hard to feel sympathy for people who do these things, but dang if I didn’t feel the sting right the way through for Rourke. The final breakdown in the supermarket is the first thing I’ve almost had to look away from the screen for for years, it’s just too painful to witness. I was curious about Darren Aronofsky following something so ambitious as The Fountain with something like this but it was definitely worth it.

The Rules of Attraction The Rules of Attraction 5 star

January 21st, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , , , ,

“I must insist you bring back your friend’s corpse for me to do some tests!”

It’s been a while since I watched one of my all-time faves and got that horrible feeling as it began that, eep, this might be the viewing where I finally change my mind. I got it pretty powerful in the pre-credits sequence here – almost to the point of wondering why I keep insisting it should be Roger Avary, who directed here, who directs Glamorama whenever the time comes, Lunar Park for that matter, any Bret Easton Ellis movie that comes along (I wouldn’t mind a remake of Less Than Zero either). I’m pretty sure I’ve written about this movie before so forgive me if I repeat myself in places.

Anyway, the trepidation shook off eventually … and the reason I think Avary should direct Easton Ellis is simply, I think this is how Easton Ellis should look. It should have the gimmicky touches of style, the reverse film, the clever split screen joining together. In the end, yes, I admit it is less than the movie I once thought it was. The drug deal “climax” feels very clunky and an earlier scene setting that up is clunk city with the “asshole on my elbow” guy and the ludicrous excess of swearing. But it has so many great scenes in it: two of which, Victor’s trip to Europe and the girl’s suicide to “Without You” (though I’ve recently discovered Janis Ian’s “Sunset of Your Life” works even better over that scene), I think are masterful – and i just love the overall production and costume design, the cinematography and the soundtrack. It seems Hollywood is loathe to give Roger Avary another shot behind the camera, unless he’s just unwilling to do it himself, but it should be clear to anyone who watches this movie, whether they like it or not, that there’s the germ of a great director here. It’s a movie I will revisit again and again because there’s just so much life and invention in it.

Unforgiven Unforgiven 5 star

January 20th, 2009 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

“I guess they had it coming.”
“We all got it coming, kid.”

It’s certainly not as tight as the more recent clutch of Eastwood’s films (excepting Flags and Letters perhaps) and it was probably for that reason that I still remember the first time I saw this movie, bored out of my mind at the age of 17 or so, wondering just why it was considered in so many circles so brilliant. The last time I saw it was on DVD so I’d guess I was early 20s and it was a different movie entirely – maybe the novelty of DVD made me give it that little bit more time but I’d like to think I plain just “got it” more that time.

This might be only the third time I’ve seen it in my life, and it’s a changed film again. I’ve certainly seen it few enough times to always forget just exactly what the story is – I remember an element of revenge, and I remember the powerful message about violence, but I forget the parts Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris and Gene Hackman have to play in it all; I forget the astonishing depiction of the group of women the story revolves around – I was reminded of that camaraderie to be found among the bank girls of Dog Day Afternoon for some reason, just so real in the way they stick by one another and their fearless “leaders”, (in Dog Day, the way the manager opts to go back into the bank despite having the opportunity to escape; here the woman yelling back at the people throwing rocks through the window in protest at their actions).

I’m still struck by the slightly plodding nature of it in places – yet I’m struck by it only because I can’t fathom, in spite of this slowness that would normally turn me off a movie (see Revolutionary Road most recently), why I find myself glued to the screen, catatonic-like, to Eastwood’s completely arresting chunks of film. Here is a film set over a hundred years ago; made almost 20 years ago; but it feels utterly present even as it glows out of a 28” widescreen in the corner.

Again rooting around for someone else’s words to describe this sense I get from Eastwood’s movies (boy, I can’t wait to work through the fistfuls I haven’t seen yet), I turned to Roger Ebert’s review of this movie and found them:

“Not a boring montage of quick cuts and meaningless violence, but a story told through deliberate strategy, in which events may not be possible, but are somehow plausible.”

(lol … Changeling, Million Dollar Baby anyone?) My italics on the deliberate strategy – I think that’s the key to all of Eastwood’s work … he just always works methodically through a particularly muddy issue and emerges with something every time that, though he does address the tricky grey areas, is nevertheless absolute about where he stands; more’s the point, convinces you to side with him. I really think I might be in agreement with others on this one – the guy has made a ton of great movies, but this one is just something else.

Seed Seed 3 star

December 8th, 2008 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

Watched purely for Jodelle Ferland – though, I’ve gotta say, despite the fact I probably still would never have watched this (or Bloodrayne 2, for that matter) following my first Uwe Boll experience, I was slightly less apprehensive having seen one or two stills for this movie. And it’s true, like the earlier Rob Zombie movies, there is something here of note. The visual design of the movie isn’t as perfect, perhaps, as Zombie’s work; but in Seed himself there is certainly a villain worthy of the screen. The whole thing is horrifically structured – taking 50 minutes to accomplish what most movies would cover in their first 10, for example – but along with the look of the villain, the beautiful Jodelle – she’s not the best with dialogue, but she can do frightened better than anyone – I’d add the almost unwatchable scene of Seed hammering one of his victims to death. The debate as to whether this kind of thing appeals to the wrong senses and whatnot can be dealt with elsewhere. But say what you will about Boll – that scene is some kind of technical marvel, and quite one of the nastiest things I’ve seen in some time.

In Bruges In Bruges 4 star

June 12th, 2008 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

“You were gonna kill me?”
“You were gonna kill yourself!”
“… I’m allowed!”

The thing that shocked me most about this after all I’d heard about it is despite, yes, it’s full of swears and violence etc … how genuinely warm it is. By the time the climax comes, though these characters are tremendously flawed and potty-mouthed, you really feel what they’re going through as they get their come-uppance etc in the end. Again there’s quite a Grosse Pointe Blank-y vibe to this movie, the juxtaposition of the violence there with the small town, here with the tourist spot, and the awkward relationship between two hitmen. It’s easily the best film I’ve seen so far this year, Carter Burwell’s score is typically gorgeous, and Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are perhaps the best they’ve ever been. (Incidentally sorry for the short and scattered reviews this week: Second Life and new Mac have taken precedence lol)

Funny Games U.S. Funny Games U.S. 3 star

April 19th, 2008 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , ,

Again, I’m guilty of not having seen the original here which probably makes me a bad film lover, though it seems to be the right way to approach the thing as the director really made it almost exclusively because he felt too few people had seen the non-English-speaking production … which is kinda sad in itself to begin with.

I guess I want to start before I go “off on one” so to speak (it’s not guaranteed but it’s possible … oh it’s always possible lol …) by saying, I get what the director is trying to do and say with this film (and, presumably, the original) – if only because his self-confessed intentions have been so well-documented. Again, I find this kind of sad – like the saying goes, if you could put it into words, well, what’s the point in painting it? And a lot of the more positive reviews of this movie seem to go in one direction against the criticism, amounting to, “You don’t get it. THIS is what it means,” which to me really says it all.

I didn’t personally get the intention in the end. By which I mean – I get it, but it didn’t work for me as apparently was intended. Though none of the horrors are actually shown onscreen, I felt as the end credits rolled that I’d seen them anyway – that I’d got my kicks, as it were, despite the approach. I saw Naomi Watts in her underwear and tied up, I heard her screams, and those screams were so terrifying that I looked away even though I knew there was nothing to see. So I won’t deny its incredible use of cinema … but, honestly, I never really felt like it was any different from what has come before – Texas Chainsaw, Last House, Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs. Frankly, Cannibal Holocaust did a much better job of making me feel “involved” in the horror; in this whole department, there’s really only one short sequence here that lived up to what I expected.

Haneke is a fine film maker – you can feel a lot of Kubrickian influence here and I’m interested in seeing his other work. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are fantastic. All the technical stuff is top notch. It takes a long time to get going, though, and even once it does it’s far from gripping; and in the end, personally I feel it fails miserably in its aspirations. I think those who think the naysayers are missing the point on this one need to go back and look at how intelligent a lot of the old nasties really were.