Reviews

From the minds of two industrial music pioneers (musician Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and director Peter Christopherson of Coil and Throbbing Gristle) comes a perfect example of the blurring line between art and pornography. A film-short that is both celebrated and reviled for its style and content, "Broken" is one of the most shocking pieces of film ever to be unreleased. Mistaken as a snuff film by some (Reznor is no stranger to this...footage from the "Down In It" video caused some controversy some time before this film), "Broken" is a visual companion to what was arguably Reznor's most tortured and angst-ridden album. It tells the story of a man who randomly kidnaps another man for the purpose of torture and murder. He pulls the victim's teeth out, forces him to drink lighter fluid, slashes him, disembowels him, sodomizes him, all the while forcing this poor soul to watch Nine Inch Nails videos. The thing that gives this film away as a work of fiction is the style. The scenes of the killer being executed, the police finding his hideout and sifting through the remains of his past victims, and the NIN videos themselves...all done very professionally in contrast to the grainy, distorted video of the torture scenes. Not only that, but Reznor's and Christopherson's penchant for low-frequency industrial noise and sound manipulation is very present (just listen to the low-static hum that intros the whole film...very Coil, very NIN). When taking these qualities into consideration, it's easy to tell that the film is elaborate fiction. However, the film does capture a gritty realism that provides much in the way of shock value. We never see too much of the torture, just enough to know what's being done, and what we don't know is implied...subliminal horror at its best. Also, this does well to hide what are probably some very high-quality special effects, given a sense of truth by the poor video. The NIN videos are fairly violent as well. From the vinyl bodybag being drowned by fluid from the sewage pipes to the band clip of "Wish" (which oddly mirrors The Scorpions' "Rock You Like a Hurricane" video) to the mechanical torture slave of "Happiness in Slavery" (played by the dear-departed Bob Flanagan), they are a perfect mirror to the angry industrial thrash of the album. All in all, the film plays on the ultimate possibilities for an album of this level of rage. People who enjoy this film for the technical qualities are most likely able to detach themselves from the disturbing content, while people who do enjoy it for the content are simply perverts. Never was a case of art vs. pornography so clear than with NIN's "Broken." Whether it is beautiful or disgusting or both, kudos to Trent Reznor and Peter Christopherson and all at the NIN camp for making such a twisted and uniquely putrid visual work.

While Miike Takashi has not written any of the films he has directed, his style and formula (or lack thereof) has made him a force to be reckoned with in modern filmmaking. He takes the most mundane of stories and scenarios and gives it a fresh jolt of adrenaline and emotion, making his films seem as fresh and as original as anything by David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick. "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha" was about a cop and a criminal struggling against each other and ultimately destroying both their families and themselves. "Dead or Alive 2: Tôbôsha" was about two hitmen rediscovering their innocence only to lose it again and ultimately destroy themselves. Now we have "Dead or Alive: Final," the third and final installment in a trilogy of films that are unrelated to each other...and yet they've all got something in common besides the director and the two main actors.

"Dead or Alive: Final" plunges us into Yokohama of 2346, where a homosexual mayor has outlawed human breeding and keep srigid control through use of birth control pills and his chief enforcer, Officer Honda (Takeuchi Riki). Standing in the mayor's way is a group of rebels, led by Fong (Terence Yin) and Jun (Josie Ho), who now have a new ally, a "replicant" by the name of Ryo (Aikawa Sho, still sporting his cool blond hair). Immediately, the "Blade Runner" references run rampant, right down to the terminology. The use of the word "replicant" to describe Ryo, the omnipresent floating blimp with the huge TV screens flashing advertisements, the decrepit rain-swept environment of a ravaged city, even the characters themselves, all homages to "Blade Runner." Oh but there are other sci-fi nods too. Elements of "THX-1138," "The Matrix," "The Terminator," etc...it's all there, making "Dead or Alive: Final" almost a satire (and sometimes a parody) of sci-fi cinema.

There's more than just the humorous nod to sci-fi going on. Yet again, Miike has given us a few thrills via his "Don't expect anything" style. While there is nothing truly shocking in this film compared to its predecessors (save for the ending), there is still the nod to Kitano's films (i.e. beautiful scenery, long shots of characters, and even a few beach scenes). But while Kitano is poetic, Miike is like a jackhammer, hitting you full-on in the face with his own brand of filmmaking. The story is nothing new, and even the characters are easily understood and familiar, but there is something about Miike's gritty take on the conventions of genres and cinema that gives it an originality. Who else but Miike could make three completely different and unrelated films and tie them all together into a package that is both confusing and cohesive? Okay, so the ending still threw me for a loop, but it was typical of Miike.

In the end, we are left with many of the same themes...the predominant one being that some people just never quit, and in the end it will destroy them. Honda's son is kidnapped, and even after he is returned, he is still hellbent on stopping the rebels. Ryo could easily back out of the fight and go on with his life, but he can't. The evil dictator could easily allow people to live their lives as they see fit, but he refuses to relent. Even a scene where a rebel is given the choice to either die or take the birth control drug, he decides to die for a cause that is pretty much lost. In all three "Dead or Alive" movies, nobody quits...and as a result everybody dies. The people who do know when to back down are the ones who survive. Ryo and Honda can't quit...and in the end, they meet for their final showdown, which resonates their endings in the previous two films. The tie in is not as neat as it could have been, but again, it's typical of Miike to give us something we really would not have expected, and at the same time that it's shocking, it makes a strange kind of sense. "Dead or Alive: Final" ties in all three movies, but not in the way that you might think. It yet again presents the same themes but from a completely different angle. It's like telling the same story...but not the same story. The idea is the same, but the details are different. There is the essence of the "Dead or Alive" films, and is probably the essence of Miike's films. They're nothing new...and yet, they are. It's not for everybody, but it's certainly different.

The best way to describe Miike Takashi's style would be, "Don't expect anything." It's not even "Expect the unexpected" because most of the things we don't expect...are somewhat expected simply because it's hard to fathom what we haven't seen before that we would actually WANT to see. Who wants to actually see necrophilia in a film? Who wants to actually see children being subjected to enough sexual innuendo to give Mary Whitehouse a heart attack? Who wants to see a person left for dead and eaten away by flies? Nobody really thinks about those things, so even when people tell us to expect the unexpected, there are certain things we won't even consider. This gives Miike the perfect opportunity to completely screw with the audience's preconceptions on what is and is not acceptable in film. I stated in a review of "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha" that Miike's use of shocking imagery plays with the audience not only by the shock itself, but by the banality of it. The characters in his films have little or no reaction much of the bizarre and crazy things that are happening around them. Their indifference translates to us in a sense...so what should be shocking becomes less shocking, and more confusing...and sometimes the confusion wears off too, to the point where we don't care, it's just par for the course. And in Miike's world, it is.

So here we have a sequel that is not really a sequel, at least not literally. "Dead or Alive 2: Tôbôsha" begins completely differently from its predecessor, so immediately the audience is confused. We thought we had Miike, or at least the "Dead or Alive" formula figured out, right? Wrong, here we begin not with a frenetic ultra-violent intro, we have a humorous little scenario about Chinese Triads vs. Japanese Yakuza being explained to hitman Otamoko Mizuki (Aikawa Sho, now sporting blond hair) by a magician ("Tetsuo" director Tsukamoto Shinya turning out a funny little cameo). Just as Mizuki is about to pull a hit, his job's done for him by one of the target's henchmen. He finds out that it was his childhood friend Sawada Shuichi. What ensues is a slow-paced trip down memory lane as the two return to the place where they grew up, meet up with another friend who stayed behind, and rediscover the innocence they lost so quickly. The two decide to return to Tokyo to pull off hits together, donating all their profits to vaccinate children in third-world nations.

Like the first film, "Dead or Alive 2: Tôbôsha" has a great deal of slow-pacing, with a great deal of beautiful scenery similar to Kitano "Beat" Takeshi's "Sonatine." While the action is not entirely lacking, it does not have the frenetic pace and hip-bizareness of "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha." Instead, action scenes are played with a great deal of symbolism. There is a scene of a Yakuza/Triad gang war being interspersed with scenes of Mizuki and Shuichi performing a play for children (which is hilarious considering the abundant sexual innuendo in the play, but nobody apart from the players seems to get it...and the kids love it). There is a recurring motif of seeing the main characters as both adults and the children they once were, with the phrase "Where are you?" popping up occasionally. In the confusing, almost David Lynch-like ending, it changes to "Where are you going?" Does violence beget violence? Is innocence truly lost when we grow up? And is it ever truly too late to get it back?

Thematically, it's similar to "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha," with both beckoning the question of what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior, and is there ever a point to give up? The recurring element in both movies is that of whether or not to quit. The question seems to be answered with a resounding "no." None of the characters quit, and in the end, it ultimately destroys them, for better or for worse. Is "Dead or Alive 2: Tôbôsha" any less confusing and any less "what the hell?" then its prequel? No, but while one relies on ultra-violence and attitude, the second one relies on emotions and symbolism. Two different approaches to what ultimately are the same themes. Aside from this and the actors, there's not much of a connection between the first and second "Dead or Alive" films, but...hey, it's thoughtful storytelling, Miike-style.

After seeing "Oodishon" and "Koroshiya-1," I became an instant fan of Miike Takashi's filmmaking style. His ability to present what would be in the hands of another director a hacknyed and familiar story is nothing short of brilliant. He takes old formulas and infuses them with new life, sometimes through shock value, confusion, humor, and actually brilliant filmmaking. His visuals are always incredible, where even the most mundane shot looks like a great photograph, proving that Miike has a great eye. So here we have "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha," the first in what would become one of the most controversial and bizarre trilogies in film history. It has relatively good acting, and a great ensemble cast, including two of my favorite Japanese actors (besides Takeuchi and Aikawa, there's Terajima Susumu and Osugi Ren, both alumni of Kitano "Beat" Takeshi's films). Make no mistake, this is not your run-of-the-mill action/drama movie.

The overall story has been done, basically the cop vs. criminal motif. Ryuichi (Takeuchi Riki) heads a small group of misfits who were once Chinese war orphans. Having no place either in the Chinese Triads or the Japanese Yakuza, they wage their own little streetwar against both sides. Detective Jojima (Aikawa Sho) is hot on their trail, but he has problems of his own. He knows his wife is cheating on him and their daughter is dying and he can not afford the operation needed to save her life. It sounds like something out of a John Woo movie, right? Something akin to "Hard Boiled" or "The Killer," but whereas John Woo presents violence in an operatic sense, Miike shows us something more hip and gritty.

The beginning sequence of the film is a montage of everything from gay sex in a bathroom, to snorting 18-foot lines of cocaine, to strippers, to arterial spray, to gluttony, to...pretty much every deadly sin out there. Is it shocking, not particularly (at least not to me), but the MTV-style editing full of fast cuts, sexual imagery, and bright colors gives it a burst of adrenaline that is just a counterbalance to what becomes a very slow and quiet film for the most part. The main plot of the movie is presented in a style similar to Kitano "Beat" Takeshi, with long shots and conversations between characters, with only the most shocking acts of depravity made unshocking by the characters' reactions. There is a scene where Aikawa talks to an informant who is setting up to film a bestiality scene, and his reaction is...almost nonexistent. Or the Yakuza's reaction to their boss drowning a girl in a kiddie pool full of her own feces. It should be shocking and disgusting (and it is), but the shock is diminished by the banality of it. It's as if Miike is playing with the audience, testing our limits and asking us to question what we find acceptable. If another director presented these acts, he or she might show it as if to glamorize it, to overemphasize its putridity. Miike...just shows it as if it's normal, and while some will be offended by this, he has often made the claim that he just wants to get a reaction. And one way or the other, he does. This is the point of the ending, which for awhile matches the ultrahip attitude of the beginning before delving into territory best left to fantasy films. But again, Miike has given us a surprise that is both shocking...and somehow expected because it's unexpected.

The best way to explain this is that line from the movie "Se7en," when Morgan Freeman says to Brad Pitt, "If John Doe's head opens and a UFO flies out, I want you to have expected it." This perfectly describes "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha" and Miike's style. If it's a Miike film, you're going to see things that are unexpected and even offensive, but because it's Miike, you almost DO expect it, and it almost DOES make a strange sense. Again, he's playing with the audience. Do we really know what we want? Do we really know what to expect? No...and that is Miike's strength. So what if it breaks all the rules of good plot and storytelling, so what if it breaks all the rules of good filmmaking? It's Miike, and it's his formula in full swing. "Dead or Alive: Hanzaisha" is pretty much the epitome of Miike's brand of filmmaking.

I have just watched "The Man Who Fell to Earth" from beginning to end after seeing several scenes here and there from years of flipping past the sci-fi channel or whatever other channel this film might've been shown on. I must say that I think it is one of the most interesting films I've ever seen. Now before you start thinking this is going to be a review of blind worship, stop for a moment and remember that just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's likeable. Art is not meant to be appealing. It's meant to cause a reaction, it's meant to make you think, it's meant to make you uncomfortable. Art forces feelings upon you that you might rather not experience, so whether you like it or not, this film is a work of art. But some art...in fact a lot of art...is trash. Is this movie trash? Some say yes, some say not. Some think it's brilliant, others think it a waste of time. Some think the narrative's dependence on visual stimulus as opposed to linear storytelling is a touch of cinematic beauty, while others dismiss it as experimental tripe.

Somebody wrote a scathing review saying that if you like junk like "Lost Highway," you might enjoy this movie. Well, no offense meant, but I'd like to say that this person has made clear that he can't see past what's appealing. Why watch something that's unappealing you might ask? Because that's what art's supposed to do...it challenges you and your values. Sometimes it reinforces them, and sometimes it will blatantly attack them. You have to draw your own conclusions and interpretations. "The Man Who Fell to Earth" is no different. Yes, the film seems to jump from time to time, one scene juxtaposed with a scene that takes place 20 years later, a flashback that may or may not be a flashback, it is confusing. I know I was confused. It's not a linear narrative...it's telling a story through pictures, with occasional words just to make sure you have a little more than an inkling as to what you're supposed to be seeing. Personally, I would be interested to see the movie without dialogue...like "Aeon Flux," a story can be told philosophically and artistically without words.

What is the story? Well...quite simply, David Bowie, in his first and probably one of his best on-screen performances, is an alien on Earth trying to find a way to get water back to his world. Is it as simple as it sounds? Not by any means. But you have to believe it to see it. You will be confused, you might even be offended (there's a lot of sexually explicit scenes that border on pornography), but one way or the other, this film is meant to be visually stimulating. What you see will make you think...if you're repulsed by it and feel the urge to turn it off, then it's simply not your kind of movie.

On the whole, I like this movie, though I must be in a certain mood to watch it. It is not easy to watch, there are long stretches without dialogue, and when there is dialogue, it's often confusing. But no matter what, I like what I was seeing on the screen. I do feel like watching it again because I know there is more to absorb and take in, there's more to think about that I missed before. But that's the kind of person I am...I want to think, and I want that discomfort this movie gives me because I am alleviated by the need to solve it, not dismiss it. Bowie is in fine form, probably used to alienation being a Brit in America, and having played his own Ziggy Stardust character in the past. The rest of the cast performs rather competently, although nobody's performance shines as much as Bowie's (although Candy Clarke is pretty good in some scenes, and Rip Torn's deadpan performance is a bit of dry humor).

Dispute me if you must, I give this movie ***1/2 out of ****.

"Blood: The Last Vampire" is impressive and not impressive for a number of reasons. The reasons it is impressive is...well, quite obviously the animation is worthy of mention. Taking digital animation much further than in "Ghost in the Shell," this film is probably as state-of-the-art as animation can get these days. They even made alternate takes and angles for use in the trailer, giving it a more live action feel. The visuals are intense, the music is effective, it should be a massive hit, right? Wrong, and for the reasons it's not impressive, which are unfortunately too much to save it. The first problem...it's too short, not even lasting a full hour. Obvious not meant to be a full-on movie, but it should've been. The story is weak, but only because it's not developed beyond a concept, as opposed to a drawn out plot. The concept is Saya is "the only remaining original" vampire, and the government contracts her to hunt down vampiric demons. We have little or no back story, no explanation of how Saya is the only original, no explanation of the people she works for, or why she seems to hunt her own kind...or even if they are her own kind. There's so much missing from the story, that one wonders if the workload was really worth it. Bottom line, the plot could've been simple, but it should've been drawn out. MORE, give us MORE! Now, on the other hand, if this were a pilot episode to a series, it might be more tolerable, but with the expenses and effort put into just this one 50-minute feature, it seems unlikely. "Blood: The Last Vampire" WANTED to be better than it was, and SHOULD'VE been better than it was. Alas, somebody forgot that what makes a good anime is not just the animation but the story as well, the main thing that distinguishes anime from most other forms of animation.

"Cyborg" is a bad movie. No, really...it's really bad. There's absolutely NO production value at all. Nobody really ACTED in it. It pulls off all the stops on action/sci-fi/B-movie cliches. And y'know what? For all the trash that this movie is...it's so bad it's good. It's one of the best "worst movies ever" because it revels in being as bad as it is. It makes no aspirations to be more than what it is. It's very honestly a crappy movie, and it never pretends to be anything more. For that, it's actually pretty good. Turn off your brain, watch and enjoy.

In "Communion," Whitley Strieber's autobiographical book comes to life...sort of. Viewing this movie is a strange experience, and certainly not for all tastes. It is a very cerebral piece of work from a director who did not wholeheartedly agree with Strieber's interpretation of the events surrounding his so-called abduction. Phillipe Mora makes an effort to give the film an air of surrealism, right down to even having the blatant symbolism of DeChirico paintings on the walls of Strieber's home (whether or not Strieber actually had such paintings is beside the point). The director tries to give the impression that Strieber is suffering a breakdown while simultaneously trying to present the events without too much distortion. Tough task...it's easy to see why the film seems diluted and without chemistry.

However, this also provides the film with an atmosphere that can also help enhance the whole point, which is not "was Whitley Strieber abducted by aliens," but rather "how did Whitley's interpretation of an inexplicable event effect him and those around him?" One of the last scenes, an exchange between Strieber and his wife in a museum, conveys this point perfectly. "It's just God, masks of God." It can be equated with a religious experience, feeling the touch of God. Strieber FELT the touch of an outside presence. Does that mean he was visited by aliens? This is irrelevant, and I firmly believe that this is what the point of the film should be. And let's face it, the film is called "Communion," which means "to be at one with God."

The mechanics of the film are rather well constructed. Christopher Walken is in fine form as Strieber, giving a wonderful portrayal of a writer on the edge (of a discovery or his sanity?). Lindsay Crouse does a good job as Strieber's wife. The acting is slightly flat in some areas, but this might've been another device of Mora's to add to the surrealism. Constant uses of the New York skyline add a sense of foreboding to the film, not just because of the beauty of these scenes, but because it helps give the impression of an outside presence. The music (with Eric Clapton on guitar) is pretty good, typical of the synthesizer-based scores of most '80's movies, but it adds well to the setting. And even though the special effects may seem laughable, Mora has made the case (perhaps pretentiously) that this was also deliberate. The FOX TV version (which seems to be the version being shown on Showtime Digital Cable) adds several sequences, and increases the light contrast in certain scenes, adding a glowing white haze to many scenes. Some have complained about the scene in the psychiatrist's office being so bright, but I think it also helps get the message that there may be an outside presence surrounding all of us, whether we recognize it or not.

"Communion" is an interesting movie that suffered from a view that was perhaps too short-sighted. If the film were made today, one can be sure the message might have been lost on overbloated special effects, and the surreal effect would've been diminished to appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-going audiences. No matter what your stance on alien abduction, this is a very thought-provoking film. Give it a chance...watch it.

"Red Dragon" is the second attempt at a film adaptation of the first book in Thomas Harris' "Hannibal Lecter" trilogy...the first being "Manhunter," from 1986. Since I am a fan of "Manhunter," comparisons were inevitable for me...so I have to say right away that this review will be biased and somewhat scathing to "Red Dragon."

First the pros: -The production...as dark and as macabre as "Silence of the Lambs." Director Brett Ratner has successful captured the decrepit atmosphere of the now-classic "Silence..." perfectly, from the semi-decaying settings to the intense contrast between light and dark. -Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as the psychopathic Francis Dollarhyde. From his blank facial expressions to the huge tattoo on his back and the scar on his lip, to his mannerisms and speech, he is playing a perfect psycho. He is far scarier than Anthony Hopkins is.

Those are the only good things I can really think of...now for the cons: -Bad portrayal of the characters. Edward Norton as Will Graham is set up from the very beginning to be a psychologically troubled, slightly crazy investigator, but he fails to deliver. As the man who caught Hannibal Lecter (rather bloodily), and who went to a mental ward subsequently (as told by press clippings in the opening credits), you'd think he would be more morbid and introspective...not the case. Instead, he seems very enthusiastic about solving the case and getting to the end. His conversations with Lecter are not nearly as tense as they should be. His apprehension about returning to the FBI is not as heartfelt as it should be. Overall, the character was turned from a very intense one into the quintessential cop. Harvey Keitel is competent as Jack Crawford, but rather uninteresting...he seems in the background most of the time and hardly active at all. And Anthony Hopkins is too comfortable in the role of Hannibal. From the past two movies, we know what to expect from him. His scary expressions and actions are no longer scary...rather, they invoke a smile and even a chuckle from the audience. He's too charming, too witty, too...too Hannibal. It's just not scary anymore. And Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the part of Freddie Lounds (who was supposed to be a loud-mouth, annoying jerk) as if he were half asleep. He is the least interesting character overall. -Not sure if it was a bad script or bad direction. Much of the dialogue is the same as in the book and in "Manhunter," but it does not come across nearly as well as it should. It seems uninteresting and bland. One might think I feel this way because I know it from the book and "Manhunter," but everytime I go back to them, it always seems worth reading and hearing...in "Red Dragon," it's quite the opposite. -Different ending. The ending in "Red Dragon" is rather typical...just when you think the bad guy is dead, he comes back. Just when you think his evil has been established, we invoke a moment of sympathy where we're supposed to feel sorry for him (Norton's character certainly did), and it's all done in a blaze of fire and gunshots. -Final con...when I saw the film, the audience was mostly 30-40-year-olds...you know there's a problem when a movie that's supposed to be psychologically disturbing makes this crowd bust out laughing.

"Manhunter" may have suffered from the dated '80's atmosphere, but it stands the test of time. The script is so well-adapted and the characters so three-dimensional that even though we know the outcome, it's always interesting and satisfying. The scene where Will Graham discovers how Dollarhyde picks his victims is so quick and unspectacular in "Red Dragon," that one wonders if it was worth the trouble. In "Manhunter," it is a highpoint of the movie when Will uses his skills of deduction to realize this crucial element to catching the killer. The scene when Dollarhyde tortures Lounds is silently frightening in "Manhunter," whereas here, the scene had to be made weirder by taking Lounds' clothes off. As if the soliloquoy from Dollarhyde about being "The Dragon" wasn't strange and scary enough?

Comparisons aside, "Red Dragon" is a movie to see if you haven't seen "Manhunter" or read the book. Without this bias, it can seem like a rather enjoyable and even scary movie. However, most people I know who've seen "Manhunter" love it despite the dated nature of the production design (seem director of photography Dante Spinotti worked on both versions). "Manhunter" got it right. "Red Dragon," tries but falls short. Maybe it would've worked better if more time had passed between "Red Dragon" and "Hannibal?" Maybe more could've been served by better direction? Maybe if they'd watched "Manhunter" a little more to see what worked in the characters? Who knows...I prefer "Manhunter." But I'll still say see "Red Dragon." It's all personal opinion and preference.

After numerous attempts to watch this movie from beginning to end (not from lacking the stomach to stand the graphic nature of many of the scenes, but simply from countless interruptions), I've finally seen this film in its entirety. Having only read bits and pieces of the book (enough to understand that the book was far more lurid and explicit), I can't comment on just how well the film adapted the novel. However, I can comment on the film and its own merits...and it has many.

First of all, the direction and photography are wonderful. The atmosphere of the yuppie and materialist world of 1987 is captured beautifully through the sterile gaze of the New York high-rises and designer business suits. The soundtrack is a great melange of '80's pop songs and an engaging symphonic score. The acting is top-notch from all parties, especially the lead. Christian Bale delivers well as a man without soul or conscience while at the same time appealing to our sensibilities, imparting on our forgiveness, and feeding off our own morbid fantasies. And that is exactly what this movie is about.

Bale portrays Patrick Bateman, the ultimate example of young urban professional materialist culture. From the unemotional narration, to the blank expressions on his face (even when he smiles, we can see right through the facade and see the emptiness), everything about Bale's performance conveys the mental illness of Bateman. Chloe Sevigny is a treat as his secretary, the one person throughout the movie who actually touches the slightest glimmer of humanity he may possess.

Some people I know have panned this movie because of the confusing ending and the lack of real action. What these people fail to realize is that this film is not about a serial killer, nor is it the testimonial of a man confessing his sins. It is a story about a psychotic...the difference lies in that while a serial killer story would be simplistic, this is far more complex. By the end, we question whether or not Bateman actually killed anybody, how he could've been getting away with it, and even if any of the movie ever actually happened. All the tiny clues are there, from people not noticing bloodstains to someone thinking he said "Mergers" instead of "Murders." Is he really a killer? This should not be the question...rather the question should be if the man is crazy...the answer. Yes. In the sickest, most twisted possible way the story could end, we see just how insane Patrick Bateman is...and it is utterly eerie.

"American Psycho" is a movie that pushes the limits of the audience's ability to cope, for a number of reasons. A film told from the point of view of a psychotic is harsh enough, but the film also beckons the audience to question their own sanity. You're forced to look at your own sensibilities and morals and put them to the test...can you condone Bateman's actions and thoughts? Do you agree with them? Sometimes you find yourself saying yes to these questions, and for this some people may call it a travesty. By the same token, it pushes the envelope...thus it could even be called a triumph. Be warned...this is not a film for all tastes, but one thing is certain...it is one of a kind.

I'm a fan of the literary works of J.G. Ballard, so when I heard that "Crash" had been made into a movie, I knew I had to see it. Having read the original book by J.G. Ballard, I can honestly say that it's a story that worked better in book form than in film. Somehow the idea of people so emotionally detached from their own selves, finding solace only in the orgasmic chill of a near-fatal car crash just doesn't seem to work on screen as it does on the page. The book actually manages to keep you intrigued and want to keep reading in spite of the lack of emotion exhibited by the characters. In the book, it didn't matter that you didn't care for the characters because as a book it read more as a theoretical guide on the link between near-death experience and orgasm. This is not a strange idea since it has been theorized before that the brain experiences certain chemical reactions as a result of both death and orgasm. However, this film is not a documentary. It is a fictional drama (insert ironic laugh here) about people who are so out of touch with themselves on a sexual and emotional level that they involve themselves in mostly deliberate car crashes to reach the high of the ultimate orgasm. Sound intriguing? It's not...at least not in this film. David Cronenberg is a brilliant director with a unique style that can only be matched by certain other directors (two other David's come to mind...Fincher and Lynch). But somehow, he had the idea that this would work as a movie. The viewer ultimately do not care about the characters or their emotional desolation. The viewer does not find their acts of self-destruction interesting or attention-worthy. The viewer does not find their meaningless near-death horniness interesting to watch, nor does the viewer find the sex anymore enticing. It's literally a movie where everybody f**** everybody...but it just doesn't seem worth it. Controversial? Yes...but in a good way? No. The only saving graces are the visual style (which is both ludicrous and grotesque, but would work better as a series of disjointed images if it weren't for the attempt to put a story to it), and the outstandingly eerie score by Howard Shore (the man behind the score for "Seven," "The Game," and won an Oscar for "Lord of the Rings"). This is the kind of movie to watch if you need your faith in modern cinema destroyed. If you're looking for something that will reaffirm your faith in human dignity...this is not it. Point of order...READ THE BOOK INSTEAD!!! The book is interesting, whereas the movie is just...unnecessary.

This film is considered a science fiction classic, and for good reason. It was one of the earliest films to show how a low-budget became a tool, not just for first-time filmmakers, but also for creating an influential vision of the future: the dystopic, post-apocalyptic future that has left civilization in ruin and depression. It was also the film that made Mel Gibson an international star, and to think he was only paid $15,000. Sure that was worth more in 1979 than it is today, but even then, to think he was paid such a small amount for such a passionate and intense performance.

From the first moments when you can barely make out Mel Gibson's face, you can already tell he has a presence above everything else on the screen. His face alone shows emotions that most actors need pages and pages of dialogue to convey. The performances of Steve Bisley as Goose, and Hugh Keays-Byrne as the sadistic Toecutter are also especially noteworthy. From the second you see the Toecutter's face, you can tell the level of evil this character is capable of, and it's no less effective, frightening, or viciously satisfying to watch him actually perform his evil acts. Bisley plays the Goose as the ham that he is, always laughing and smiling, but when things get serious he shows desperation just as well.

The stunts are brilliatly executed, and again exceptional when considering the lack of a big budget. You can tell how films like "Ronin" and the remake of "Gone in Sixty Seconds," or any film that had an elaborate car chase that followed HAD to be influenced by this film. Kudos to director George Miller for satisfying both the audience's need for some outlandish violence, while also establishing the groundwork for the way car chases would be filmed from then on. He was also brilliant in his mastery of suspense. You knew what was going to happen, but you couldn't help but sit on the edge of your seat to watch and wait for it. He handles suspense with the same subtlety as Hitchcock, showing you just enough to know what's happening, but without showing too much, which makes the effect even more horrifying. You know the bikers ran over the wife and child, but without seeing it, you were all the more horrified by it. There's also the great soundtrack from Brian May. Who would think that the guitarist from Queen could create a soundtrack that mimics the suspense of the visuals, while also echoing the despair of the Mad Max character.

As for the plot...it's mundane and nothing that hadn't been done before or since, but that doesn't matter. The execution of the film, the performances of the actors, everything about the way this film was made shows that even a simple and familiar plot can be given a fresh perspective by a little ingenuity and passionate execution. "Mad Max" is definitely one of the best science-fiction films of all time, one of the best independent films of all time, and definitely one of the best Mel Gibson performances of all time. If you haven't seen this movie...go rent it, right now!

First off, I must make note of a few things.

First, to those of you who criticize the film for being historically inaccurate, or who think the script is incoherent, or who think it's too long and boring, or who think the ending was disappointing, or all of the above...you are all IDIOTS!!! It's quite clear you are the type of person who would not go to a performance of Shakespeare, or who think that "Armageddon" was the pinnacle of filmmaking. Uncultured, uneducated morons...that's all you are! Second, I first saw this film when I was four years old. Now, I'm not as big into classical music as my parents are, but I do listen to the occasional symphony, sonata, and even some opera. But from the beginning, even at my young age, I knew this was one of the most extraordinary films I'd ever see. And to this day, I've been right. I've yet to see a film that captures my heart the way "Amadeus" does.

Right from the start, this film is NOT a historical account on the life of Mozart. Of course it's inaccurate because Peter Shaffer wrote the original play of "Amadeus" not as a biography, but as a drama based on events in the life of Mozart. So the question as to whether or not Salieri really hated Mozart, whether or not he really killed him, is totally pointless. The point of this film was to tell a dramatic story, based on two figures in history. And those two figures are portrayed masterfully by F. Murray Abraham (who totally deserved the Oscar he received) and Tom Hulce (it's a shame he didn't get an Oscar as well). And while every actor played their roles wonderfully, Abraham and Hulce are truly the stars, not just because they got top billing or because they are the main characters. Both play their roles with great passion, humor, and empathy. Both are able to represent their characters with great humor, while simultaneously demanding the attention and sympathy of the audience. Salieri comes across both as a man worthy of our respect and our sympathy, while at the same time never sacrificing the image that he is a deranged man who was hell bent on ending Mozart's life. The same can be said of Mozart, who we see to be the vulgar clown he was, whose exploits were matched only by his passion for his music.

Peter Shaffer's script is brilliant, full of subtle humor and wonderful dialogue. If you disagree, then I suggest you read a few more books before you can get to the level of sophistication required to appreciate it. Milos Forman's direction is also brilliant. The use of natural light to capture the atmosphere of the time period was a clever touch that created a marvelous effect on the visual tone of the movie, matched only by the great stage direction, costumes, and the music.

Ah, the music...Neville Marriner conducting Mozart's music is a wonderful compliment to the action in the film (or rather...the other way around, the film compliments the music). My favorite scenes are those of Mozart or Salieri in the conductor's seat, directing their music on stage, especially the Commendatore scene of "Don Giovanni." My other favorite scene is when Mozart is dictating "Confutatis" to Salieri. Both scenes just as Salieri described "Don Giovanni,"..."It was terrifying and wonderful to watch."

This is truly one of the greatest films of all time, and to this day I still make it a point to watch it at least once a month. Each time, I find something new about it...and if I don't, then it doesn't matter...it's still a joy to watch. Not many films have stayed with me since my childhood, but this one I will watch until the day I die. Those who can not appreciate it...go back to watching "American Pie" or whatever brainless teenage movie they're coming out with now. Jason Biggs or Seann William Scott could NEVER reach the level of acting potential shown by this movie. Nothing Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer can make will reach the level of cinematic perfection presented by this film. "Amadeus" truly is "Beloved by God."

I was a fan of John Woo based on his reputation, and after seeing his American films, "Broken Arrow," "Face/Off," and "Hard Target." From these films I could tell why he was one of the best-known action film directors in the world. But this was the first of the original Hong-Kong action flicks of his that I'd seen, and it beats out the American films by far. Two hours of non-stop shoot-'em-up action a la stylized and overly elaborate gunfight sequences that left me breathless. I had to put a few scenes in slow motion to catch everything that was going on. The plot seems like a typical cop-out-for-revenge/buddy-cop movie, but there are some intracacies that play on the viewer's ability to pay attention to the story while also being stimulated by seemingly endless showers of bullets. But let's not kid ourselves...the action is the star here. Woo even manages to pit some humor in the middle of some excessive violence, in the scene where Chow Yun-Fat holds a baby in his arms while simulatenously killing off the bad guys, and then saying to the child, "X-Rated Action!" Indeed...and it's all so spectacular to watch. If you're a fan of non-stop edge-of-your-seat action, if you like your action served up hot and bloody, this is the movie for you!

I saw "Desperado" before I had seen this film. From what I heard, "Desperado" was an Americanized remake/sequel of "El Mariachi," that the plot was the same, the action pretty much the same, just at a lower budget. Well, after renting the DVD of this film ("Desperado" was on the flip-side of the dual DVD), I have to say that "El Mariachi" impresses me in ways no big budget film has done in quite a while. The story may not have been wholly original, but it was well-executed. A struggling Mariachi guitarist walks into town looking for work, while at the same time a mob boss has sent his goons to hunt down a killer who carries his guns in a guitar case. They mistake the Mariachi for the killer, and the unsuspecting guitarist's world is turned upside-down. What ensues is a lot of action, gunplay, and a really great movie. The fact that the film is made on a nothing budget of $7,000 shows just how brilliant Robert Rodriguez is (watch the commentaries, they're actually fun and interesting). The actors did a commendable job in this film (considering none of them were professionals), especially the lead Carlos Gallardo. The cinematography is excellent, considering the lack of a film crew. The editing is very stylish and an excellent example of what can be done with a little ingenuity and even less money. This is the way independent films should be done. "Blair Witch Project" NOTHING! This is a film that should be shown in university film-making 101 classes. It's a prime example of making a great movie AND money management (Rodriguez's best advice to filmmakers, "Refuse to spend money, because then you learn how to cut corners and still make an effective film."). This is the independent film to end all independent films. WATCH IT!

I watched this movie when it first came out back in '91, and I thought it was great. Sure I was only 10 at the time, but I loved the show "Knight Rider," and I thought this was a nice little addition to its legacy.

Sure they only show Kitt as the new car for only the last half hour of the film, but it's worth it at least to see the world's most famous talking car in action again. And David Hasselhoff is wonderful in the role that made in famous, the lone rider of justice Michael Knight. Edward Mulhare returns as Knight's mentor and boss, but alas his stay is short lived as well.

But come on people, it was supposed to be an end and a new beginning. There was all the potential in the world for this to be the pilot of a new Knight Rider where we are out with the old and in with the new. A new car, new characters, and a new world to enforce. Alas, it wasn't to be (at least not in this incarnation).

However, as a television film, the acting is great, the plot is pretty interesting (imagine a world where handguns are banned, and crime is still a problem...do I hear sci-fi social commentary here?). If nothing else, it's good entertainment for 2 hours. If you ever have a chance to see it, I recommend you watch it. It's not really as bad as you might think...

Part of the reason I saw this movie was because my girlfriend urged me to watch this movie with her. The other part being because once she mentioned the title, I remembered seeing the trailer for it before and Yes' "Heart of the Sunrise," one of my favorite songs of all time, played on the trailer. I figured any film that uses a Yes song in the trailer has to be good. Sure enough, this was a good film. The visual style of the film is rather original, at least for 1998. The film quality seems to be deliberately lower than modern standards, giving the film an early '80's, late '70's feeling to it. The tacky colors, lighting, and frenetic camera work also echoes '70's. Even Vincent Gallo's wardrobe, which looks just a little bit too tight. Everything about this movie is done so stylistically, the camera angles are original and even add to a sense of humor. The performances are incredible from everybody. Angelica Huston's deadpan portrayal of a dysfunctional mother is just hilarious. Christina Ricci is great as always (though I've never been a fan of her blond hairdo as opposed to her natural dark), and even the appearances by Mickey Rourke and Jan-Michael Vincent are great. The movie seems rather bland and sometimes too bizarre to watch, but in spite of this, there are times when moments of plight seem too funny to not laugh out loud. The soundtrack is great, from Vincent Gallo's score to songs by King Crimson, Yes, and Stan Getz. "Buffalo '66" is a wonderful film, full of originality and soul, and I look forward to Vincent Gallo's next film.

Gregg Araki is certainly one of the strangest directors ever to emerge in the genre of independent filmmaking, and "The Living End" is no exception to his unique style, which is reminiscent of Jean-Luc Goddard while maintaining an individuality that makes it clearly a film by Araki. I've heard the film described as a "gay 'Thelma & Louise,'" but I think this to be inaccurate. This film I think is far more powerful than "Thelma & Louise." Two HIV positive gay men, one the sensible-living perfectly normal Jon, the other the free-wheeling hustler Luke, who from the very first shot in the film we can tell has totally given up as he graffitis "F**k the World" on the wall. More typical Araki catches phrases run rampant throughout the film as these two men go on a road trip around the west coast trying to find something worth their time. What makes the film so powerful is the presentation of its message, rather than the message itself. The difference between sex and real love is subtlely explored as the relationship between Jon and Luke grows more and more complicated, as Luke's hairtrigger attitude often gets them in trouble and Jon steadily wanting to give up love to continue his life for as long as he can and as responsibly as he can, though it never seems to work. Sometimes it's not so subtle, but for the most part the notion of love between these two people is so skillfully handled that the air of sadness that hangs over them just resonates, in spite of the large number of humorous moments. The ending is so brutally sad, though totally unexpected. I won't give it away but you'll have to see it for yourself, it is a wonderful movie. It certainly is not for all tastes. However, if you can appreciate good cinema, then I think this film will not disappoint you. You might not like it, but it is a very powerful film.

This movie was weird from the start. Immediately the soundtrack is kicking with Filter's "It's Gonna Kill Me" as we see computer-generated images of two scorpions fighting to the death. Oddly enough, that showcases the strangely violent and almost operatic fight between our two Elvis-afficionado cons, Kevin Coster (wonderful as the villain, one of the most divergent roles of his career) and Kurt Russell (great as always). The violent gunfights are handled in a very stylish manner that echoes the influence of John Woo's Hong Kong flicks. The acting is good, nothing truly Oscar material (though as I said Costner's villainous portrayal is to die for), from many big names stars. Even in the most violent of scenes, there is a great deal of cartoonish humor applied to this movie, making it ultimately ridiculous, but a highly entertaining ride of a film. A pulsing soundtrack that ranges from classic Elvis tunes (of course) to heart-pounding industrial hits from Hednoize, Filter, and many other top industrial and hip-hop bands. It's an action shoot-em up with some rather good plot twists. Nothing exceptional, just a good movie, certainly worth seeing at least one.

By the time the 2+ hours of this film were done, those were the words I uttered as I watched the rest of the audience walk out with looks that ranged from disgust to apathy to pure enjoyment. This film takes the characters that we have come to know and love from "Silence of the Lambs" 10 years ago, and transforms them into something beyond themselves.

The role that won Sir Anthony Hopkins his Academy Award is taken to every possible extreme in this examination of his character. He is very clearly having fun with himself in this film, doing everything from testing the audience's mettle for the sick and depraved (let's just leave it to say that it is far gorier than its predecessor) to going to great lengths to make a joke in the most obscene of situations, and he is not afraid to resort to cliches of one-liners and demonic facial gestures to achieve the grim effect of a fright that feels so welcome. In spite of the sickness of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lector, there is very much a sense that he is the hero of this film (an anti-hero as it may be, but despite his evil, you find yourself more on his side). Lector is given motivation for his actions, not just the rationalization of killing (eating people) through twisted logic, but there is a sense of understanding his position. We see now that he kills not indiscriminately, but according to a selective set of ethics. The last half-hour of the film is without a doubt some of the most frightening (not just because of the gore but also the performances).

Speaking of performances, it is hard to imagine this woman is the same Clarice Starling from "Silence of the Lambs." The 10 year history between the two films clearly establishes that Starling has changed in more ways than some would like to believe, and as such Jodie Foster's portrayal, while it would probably be good since there is a background from which she can draw, it would also probably fail simply because there is a distinct difference between the two. The Clarice of the first film is not the same woman here, and as such Julianne Moore does an excellent job in bringing a new perspective to an almost new character. Gary Oldman is pretty incredible two as the horribly disfigured millionaire who happens to be the one survivor of Lector's past onslaughts.

Ridley Scott's direction has always been lush in its visual approach, as proven by films like "Blade Runner," "Alien," "White Squall," and his bloodiest movie until this one "Gladiator." His use of grim lighting in this film borders on cliche, but it is handled in such a way that the film could not have survived without those very devices.

On the whole, "Hannibal" is an excellent sequel because it brings new perspectives to characters we already know and love, and it does well to introduce new characters without making them seem extemporaneous or gratuitous. However, the film is certainly not for all tastes. The first hour, while entertaining, relies heavily on the act of detecting and locating Lector before it takes a gross turn in the last hour for the gore-filled chase that continues up until the end of the film. The blood is the least of it, but I won't give it away, you have to see just how disgusting this film gets for yourself. Those with weak stomachs should be ready to throw up and wretch. "Hannibal" is a sick movie, but it is a great movie nonetheless. And if you think you can handle it, you won't be disappointed.

For a film that was made on a budget that would make Steven Spielberg die laughing, "Evil Dead" was one for the most interesting pieces of horror cinema I've ever seen. I watched the series backwards, so "Army of Darkness" was the film I saw first, then "Evil Dead II." While "Evil Dead II" is probably still my favorite, it was interesting to see where it all started.

The camera work is incredibly good, and the fast motion sequences showing the demon's approach was pretty well done, if not completely original. Though also interesting, and kinda funny to note is that we see the characters running away, but when the camera switches away from the demon's view, we don't see the demon, and that seems like a touch of genius...we know it's there, but we can't see it, and while it probably was a limitation of the budget, it actually proved to be a great method of suspense.

The special effects are as laughable as they were in the rest of the series, but there's something to be said for a film that takes its chances and goes to the extreme in lieu of lacking resources. People complain about this a lot, but I have to say to them "get a sense of humor." The whole point of the "Evil Dead" series was to mock horror films and show how campy they were and that they could get even worse. It's humor is in that the film tries to take itself seriously, but the lack of a big budget makes this not only impossible, but even funny in spite of the fact that it could conceivable be a serious film.

The acting is also terrible, but again in that way that it's so obviously bad that it's hard to tell were the actors just plain bad or were they doing that deliberately to serve the purpose of mocking the genre. Bruce Campbell's introduction into the world of abused heroes is interesting since his character is actually less of a chauvinist in this one than he ultimately became famous for. But it works, and the horror on his face when his friend has no reservations about chopping up his possessed girlfriend is actually believable.

Overall, this movie is a great piece of cinema. It's humorous, but serious as well, and its greatest strength is its ability to draw the line between being part of the genre and mocking it. There are plenty of moments of original horror (I don't think anybody could keep their composure during the "Tree Rape" scene, which they repeated to lesser effect in "Evil Dead II," but let's face it that movie was supposed to be a rehash and extension). Give the film a chance and don't take it too seriously. Otherwise you're missing the point.