directjw Reviews

Hugo (2011)

Scorsese Makes Another Masterpiece

[10/10 · 26 November 2011]

Scorsese is without a doubt one of the greatest living, if not the best, American film directors. His filmography is beyond compare in terms of its consistency of quality and diversity of genres covered. With Hugo, he has made one of his most personal films, as it deals with a young boy who discovers and falls in love with cinema. What sets Hugo apart from other family films from the likes of Pixar and Disney is that it does not resort to cloying pop culture references, and it respects the intelligence of both children and adults.

Most significantly, Hugo is in the end a love letter to film, to the wonder and awe that the first films and filmmakers felt as they created moving images. Scorsese is saying that this love for the film medium has been steadily depleted with the advancement of technology, but ironically, Scorsese is using the latest cinematic technology (3D), and using it to comment upon film history.

SPOILER ALERT!

The homage scene of silent films at the end of Hugo left the audience in tears, and Hugo is, without a doubt, one of Scorsese's top five films.

Inland Empire (2006)

A Film That Haunts You Forever

[10/10 · 2 May 2007]

When I first saw Inland Empire at the American Film Institute Festival back in 2006, I was initially disappointed with the film.

At the time, I felt like it was a pale imitation of Mulholland Drive, which I still consider to by Lynch's masterpiece. Whereas Mulholland Drive was able to anchor its non-linear structure to a coherent narrative, Inland Empire seemed to be nothing more than a random set of scenes strung together arbitrarily. Blue Velvet also dealt with similar themes as Inland Empire, and also had a stronger narrative flow.

And, to be completely honest, I had a huge headache after watching Inland Empire, and by the time the third hour started, and the prostitutes started shouting incoherently at each other on some Eastern European street, I was getting annoyed and frustrated with the film.

At the same time, I couldn't get Inland Empire out of my mind for days, and even months, after watching it. Certain scenes from the film would pop into my mind as I was going about my daily life. It was like the film was haunting me.

Then, the more I thought about the film, the more it made sense to me, and I started to connect certain scenes together, and appreciate the stream of conscious approach Lynch took in making the film.

Now, I consider Inland Empire to be a masterpiece, and Lynch's second best film behind Mulholland Drive. To draw another parallel, Inland Empire is Lynch's Casino, and Mulholland Drive is his Goodfellas.

What Lynch is doing with Inland Empire is trying to recreate as accurately as possible the dream state into a narrative form, but whereas his earlier films flirted with the non-linear realm of the subconscious, they were still anchored by straightforward linear narratives.

With Inland Empire, Lynch abandons all narrative conventions, and in the process invents a new form of cinema--cinema as dream state.

Whatever you do, do not try to make logical sense of this movie, because that is not its point.

Just experience it, and don't over analyze it. See how it makes you FEEL.

Lynch is a genius, that is all I can say.

Human Nature (2001)

A Freudian Comedy

[10/10 · 2 May 2007]

Freud stated that all human behavior is determined by primal instincts, such as sex and hunger.

Kaufman and Gondry's Human Nature brilliantly explores this notion, and it is a blast to watch.

This is one of the funniest, most intelligent films I have ever seen about human relationships...if Woody Allen and Salvador Dali ever collaborated on a film, it would look something like Human Nature.

What makes this film so brilliant is that it explores so many intelligent themes, such as American versus French culture, the battle of the sexes, the survival instinct, the dangers of repression and the resultant outbreak of the Id, and yet is able to sustain a lighthearted, surreal sense of humor throughout it all.

I believe that the reason this film was not so well-received was because Being John Malkovich was so well-received, that expectations were exceedingly high for Kaufman's follow up film, Human Nature. When Human Nature turned out to be a vastly different film from Being John Malkovich, the critics predictably were not satisfied with the film.

Michel Gondry, the director of Human Nature, is a true original, and all of his subsequent films, Eternal Sunshine, Dave Chappelle's Block Party, and the Science of Sleep, are also brilliant.

But for me, Human Nature is his best film so far, because it is able to balance the drama and the comedy without one overwhelming the other, as in Eternal Sunshine.

The Great Dictator (1940)

Great Satire

[10/10 · 12 April 2007]

Although I haven't seen it yet, I know that Chaplin is a genius, and only someone of his talent would take on this daring subject matter--a comedy about Hitler. All great satire is based on going out on an edge. Also, all great comedy deals with the other side--pathos. This film seems like it will skirt both sides. Like Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, The Great Dictator deals with history through the distorted lens of satire. The only way to deal with the horrors of this world is by laughing at it. And hopefully, through laughter, we can learn to view the world in a new light. Another film that does this that comes to my mind is Emir Kusturica's Underground, and Fando And Lis. So, let me watch the film first.

The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan (2004 TV Movie)

Obviously a hoax, but interesting nevertheless

[10/10 · 18 July 2004]

You have to be completely gullible to think that this "documentary" was authentic, as the interviewees are obviously actors, and there are scenes where artificial lighting was obviously used, as in the scenes in the "haunted" house where Night supposedly used to live in. Also, Night isn't much of an actor himself, as you can tell by the interviews conducted with him that he was, well, acting. Then, at the end of the film, the Kahn has a corny coda where we hear Night leaving him a phone message pleading to him not to show this movie because, "the public won't believe a thing he shows", then he proceeds to interview people about their experiences with the supernatural. This is an obvious attempt to dupe the viewer into thinking that what they had just seen was the real thing.

With the said, the movie itself was well-made, and does raise some interesting questions about the nature of documentaries. When you think about it, a documentary is no more a portrayal of the truth as a work of ficiton is, as all documentaries are essentially depicting the truth as viewed by the filmmaker himself. Thus, Kahn's frantic search for supernatural connections in Night's life's are in reality nothing more than his attempt to salvage a project which was falling apart. In a way, all docs are like this, in the sense that the filmmaker starts out with an initial purpose and slant, and then the doc takes on a life of its own.

There's an interesting scene where Kahn is hanging out with Night, and Night gets angry at him because he keep trying to find an "angle" for his movie. Night suggests that not every movie has to have an angle, an interesting commentary on the nature of documentary film-making. Of course, the whole movie is a hoax anyways.

But for me, the most damning evidence of the inauthenticity of the movie were the scenes in Night's old house. If you ever shot a movie on film, which this doc was shot on, you know that when you shoot in dark rooms with boarded up windows, there's not enough lighting for the film to pick up any images. However, somehow Kahn was able to get pristine footage of a darkened room, despite the fact that all the windows are boarded up and there are no sources of sunlight.

Sci-Fi Channel and Kahn should just fess up and admit that Buried Secrets is a publicity stunt, albeit a well-made and perceptive one, to cash in on The Village. I mean, there are commercials for The Village during every break! In a way, this doc is offensive on that it is cashing in on the present craze in belief in the supernatural, and I wonder how those on the other side will react to this after Night and Kahn eventually pass away and enter the other side.

But, that's life, I suppose.

The Last Samurai (2003)

The White Samurai

[10/10 · 14 December 2003]

First off, let me state that I am Asian, so I am writing about The Last Samurai from the perspective of an Asian viewer.

This could have been a great, classic epic about the clash between the East and the West, but the last twenty minutes of the film ruin everything that the filmmakers worked so hard at. Although I won't give away the end of the film, all I will say is that the film finally succumbs to Hollywood conventions which it worked so hard to avoid prior to that point. What I will say is that the last two scenes of the film are racist to the extreme in that the White man triumphs over his Asian comrades in the most blatantly offensive manner! Just watch the film, and you will see what I mean.

However, prior to the offensive conclusion of the film, The Last Samurai is for the most part a thoughtful and respectful film about Japanese culture and history. Also, Edward Zwick did a great job of developing the characters of the lead Samurai and the Cruise character. Their relationship was endlessly fascinating and enlightening. Also, the battle scenes were among the best that I have ever seen, almost up there, but not quite, with the master himself, Kurosawa.

But I must admit that I am tired of seeing films about the White man who meets the noble savages, and learns to appreciate and eventually assimilate their ways (Dances With Wolves, Last of the Mohicans, The Thin Red Line, Zwick's own film Glory, and the list goes on...). I guess that this is a standard convention because Caucasian audiences need a lead character which they can identify with. But, as an Asian viewer, I find this filmic device rather offensive, because if I want to understand another culture, I want to view it through the lens of the culture itself, not through the eyes of a colonizing force from outside the culture.

I know that it sound like I don't like The Last Samurai, but as I stated earlier, there is much to admire in the film. But, I believe that The Last Samurai could have been a classic if the filmmakers disposed of Cruise' character entirely, and just focused on the conflict between the Samurai culture and the modernizing forces of the mainstream Japanese culture at the time. Oh, and one more quibble, is it just me, or is it extremely offensive and disrespectful when the Cruise character ends up getting romantically involved with the wife of the man whom he killed in battle? Come, on, guys, this is just wrong.

Someone hand over the Last Samurai's script to a Japanese director, and let the Japanese tell their story, please.

And Mr. Zwick, I haven't seen Courage Under Fire yet, but please, if you do another war movie, try to avoid racially charged subjects such as Black regiments during the Civil War, and Japanese samurai fighters.

The Emperor and the Assassin (1998)

A grand, historical epic!

[7 November 2003]

Chen Kaige's Emperor and the Assassin, if marketed correctly, could have been a massive hit in the States. But, it opened in limited release, and hardly anyone ended up watching it. What a shame, as this is a grand, lavish epic which recalls the epic spectacles of directors such as David Lean and King Vidor. Like these earlier directors, Kaige does a great job of balancing out an intimate, human story against the backgroup of grand, historic events.

The climax of the film, when the emperor confronts the assassin, is a classic!

To Live (1994)

Epic Filmmaking of the Highest Calibre!

[7 November 2003]

This is without a doubt Zhang Yimou's masterpiece. I saw To Live many years ago, but it is a film which still haunts my mind. What most impressed me about this film was its ability to focus on both the intimate story of a family, and the larger historic forces which surrounded this family. Also, the acting, as expected, from Gong Li, was great. This is a very emotional, sometimes difficult to watch, but ultimately rewarding film about the strength of family.

A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

A great Chinese epic

[10/10 · 7 November 2003]

Edward Yang's A Brighter Summer's Day is a very effective epic. However, unlike epic films made in the U.S., Yang's movie is epic on a more intimate level, as it focuses on the daily life of a Chinese family during turbulent times.

There are no melodramatic scenes, everything feels authentic and honest. Of course, a film of such high quality as this is a tough sell in the U.S., hence it wasn't released here. Or if it is ever released, it will be heavily edited down.

Yang's film has allusions to Tolstoy's War and Peace, and its gangster elements are refereshingly unique compared to other gangster movies. If you get the chance to watch this four hour movie, do so by all means. I saw the entire film in one sitting without one restroom break!

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Tarantino's Masterpiece About Cereal

[10/10 · 21 October 2003]

As if Pulp Fiction didn't confirm it, Kill Bill finally certifies Tarantino as a genius. What is a genius? Someone who possesses uncanny knowledge of his medium, and has the inborn skills to master and tranform his artform.

With Kill Bill, Tarantino references everything from grindhouse cinema, to sphaghetti Westerns, to early Brian De Palma, giallos, and even Kurosawa's Samurai movies. However, in the process of referencing these movies, what makes Tarantino so brilliant is that he reveals the artificiality of movies, thus forcing us to laugh at, instead of be repulsed by, the copious amounts of gore and bloodshed. Why? Because all the spurting limbs, beheadings, and scalpings exist in a parallel, cinematic universe totally divorced from the real world.

To prove this point, Tarantino opens with a scene of intense bloodshed, which culminates in the Bride's first victim lying in a pool of blood, and a pool of "Kaboom" cereal. The cereal, with its fake facade, and sugary coating, is the ultimate symbol of the pop-culture world of movies which Kill Bill exists in. Just like the tacky cereal, the violence and blood in Kill Bill is so over-the-top that anyone who takes it seriously is totally misguided.

So, for anyone who argues that Kill Bill is too violent, they should stop eating cereal, and leave the rest of us to indulge in our junk food!

That, I suspect, is why Kill Bill is receiving negative reviews from some highbrow critics (The New Yorker, anyone?). Instead of referencing "high" art, such as Shakespeare and James Joyce, Kill Bill references what many refer to as trash cinema. But, the true geniuses are the ones, who, like Tarantino, see the beauty in popular culture.

Kill Bill proves that Tarantino is both insane, and brilliant.

I also suspect that after Kill Bill, Tarantino may head in a completely different direction, as he may run out of things to reference, or he may start referncing his own movies.

To all the naysayers, go watch your six hour movies about rich snobs eating and killing the masses.

Goodfellas (1990)

Scorsese's Masterpiece

[10/10 · 26 June 2003]

Martin Scorsese is the greatest living American director, and Goodfellas is clearly his masterpiece. The reason why is because it is essentially a culmination of all the themes and filmic styles he was working with prior to Goodfellas. What makes Goodfellas stands out is the passion which Scorsese displays in every scene. Unlike Casino and Gangs of New York, which were also great movies, Goodfellas has a sense of enjoyment and liveliness amidst all the carnage.

After Goodfellas, Scorsese made plenty of great movies, but nothing he has done since, and prior to Goodfellas, reaches the pinnacle of this miraculous piece of filmmaking.

Long live Scorsese!

Zombie (1979)

The Zombi Apocalypse

[10/10 · 26 June 2003]

This is one of the better Zombie movies I have seen, and it's non-linear flashback structure is clearly echoed by Tarantino in Pulp Fiction. I saw it awhile back, and like a typical Fulci movie, there's the requisite amounts of gore. But, what I liked about it was the tight pacing, and the imaginative use of gore. I think Tarantino should remake this flick!

The Holy Mountain (1973)

A Greatly Flawed Potential Masterpiece By a Mystic Visionary

[10/10 · 26 June 2003]

First off, I have to say that I felt that the first hour of Holy Mountain contained some of the most amazing scenes I have ever viewed. However, once Holy Mountain starts to become a new-age sermon about getting back in touch with nature, the movie fell apart. It's too bad because this movie could have been one of the best, most hallucinatory movies ever made, like La Dolce Vita, but on acid. Nevertheless, I still believe that Jodorowsky is a genius, and I look forward to whatever future projects he may work on!

Suspiria (1977)

One of the best films of all time

[10/10 · 24 September 2002]

What more can I say? Not only is Suspiria one of the best horror films of all time, it is one of the best films of all time, period. What makes it so great is its innovative use of color and sound to create a haunting experience. Argento has made plenty of great movies, but none which match the power of Suspiria. Argento's later films may be more thematically and narratively complex, but Suspiria still retains a primal power which is missing from his later films. The reason why it is so scary is because of the intense quiet which pervades so many of the scenes. I won't say anymore...just watch the movie!

Titus (1999)

I can't shake this movie out of my head...

[10/10 · 12 September 2002]

When I first saw Titus in 1999, I was both disappointed and yet there was something about it that kept my interest. I eventually bought the DVD, and watched it again, and this time I appreciated the movie more. What I like most about the movie is the originality and the strength of its vision. Julie Taymor has already established herself as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of stage directors. Now, with Titus, Taymor has shown that she is a master filmmaker also. Although Titus is not a perfect film, at times it is too stagy, as if Taymor forgot at points that she was suppossed to be directing a movie and not a play, in the end the strong and daring voice of the director shines through.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

A strangely brilliant yet flawed film

[10/10 · 12 September 2002]

First off, the Exorcist II is not one of Boorman's best films, and it is not intended to be a horror film. With those points out of the way, I must say that Exorcist II is a very interesting film, in the way that it probes metaphysical questions about religion, ideas about "primitive" cultures, and themes of salvation and redemption. Although at times the symbolism is a bit heavy-handed, Exorcist II is still one of the more thought-provoking and intelligent Hollywood films. So, in summary, although it is far from a great film, Exorcist II is also not the horrible piece of filmmaking some would lead you to believe.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

What more can I say?

[10/10 · 12 September 2002]

This is one of the best films ever made, and it's flashback structure, intercut with the story set in the present, makes is a more narratively complex, and ambitious, film than the first Godfather. Somehow, the Godfather trilogy has entered the mythology of cinema, and modern history. Perhaps it is because the Corleone family symbolizes the modern capitalist system in America, and how one family rises to the top through vicious means. Most importantly, the Godfather movies question the American dream, and asks whether in the end, is it worth it to obtain the heavens, only to have to end up in Hell?

Devils on the Doorstep (2000)

The Chinese "Underground"! A great, tragic, dramedy!

[10/10 · 23 April 2001]

Like Emir Kusturica's Underground, Devils on the Doorstep is a great, epic comedy-drama which examines how history can effect and destroy a small group of people. Like Underground, Devils mixes Rabelaisian humour with powerful drama to create a rousing, albeit bitter, commentary on the foibles of the human condition.

I watched the 139 minute version at the San Francisco International Film Festival, and when the film was over, the audience broke out into thunderous applause. I believe that 139 minutes is long enough for this film, although it would be interesting to see the 162 minute version.

Devils begins as a humorous comedy-drama examining how a group of Chinese villagers react to two Japanese POWS who are dumped mysteriously into their village. It is both touching and hilarious to see how the villagers deal with the POWS. However, Devils takes an unexpectedly tragic and violent turn in the last quarter of the film, when the realities of WWII destroy the lives of all the villagers.

The climatic party scene near the end of the film is one of the best scenes I have ever seen- the laughter and joy at the beginning of the party cushion us for the horrific violence which ensues.

Watch Devils on the Doorstep and enjoy the human comedy, but be warned about the last act of the film, which is unforgettably powerful and wrenching.

All That Jazz (1979)

My Favorite Musical!

[10/10 · 15 March 2001]

Every time this movie is on TV, I immediately stop what I'm doing and watch the whole movie through to the end. I loved the rapid, jazzy editing, the risque musical numbers, and the crazy energy of the lead actor, Roy Scheider! To me, this film was about a man seeking a higher form of happiness, but encountering barriers along every step. In the end, he succumbs to death, but not before giving the performance of a lifetime! His farewell words are: I think I'm going to. . . die! And then he floats to the light at the end of the tunnel. . .

Brilliant.

Dune (2000)

A glorious achievement!

[10/10 · 6 December 2000]

I have to admit that I was a bit skeptical about this miniseries before watching it. First off, the director, at least according to his filmography, didn't seem like an ideal match for this project. Also, many mini-series based on great books- such as Stephen King's The Stand and The Shining, or for that matter, almost every Stephen King mini-seires- do not work because they are too faithful to the books. Books and movies are different artistic mediums, and what works in one may not work in the other.

With all that out of the way, I must say that I just loved John Harrison's epic adaptation of Dune. I read about half of the book-- I loved the book, but I just never found the time to finish it. What I liked about the mini-series was that although it was based on the book, it wasn't a line-by-line repeat of the book. It captured the grand, dark, intelligent scope of the book. The acting was great, the cinematography (of course) was great, and the overall impact of the mini-series was powerful and dramatic.

I am not a fan of the David Lynch version. I felt that Lynch's version actually started out good, but as soon as Duke Leto was killed and Paul was forced into the desert, the movie became laughably bad. What I liked about the new version was that it took its time to develop the characters and the whole race of the Fremen. It was very anthropological in its approach to the Fremen (I was an anthopology major), and it did a wonderful job of portraying the rituals and mores of the Fremen.

I also liked the fact that, unlike the Lynch version, the mini-series was leisurely paced. The slow pace allowed the story to develop more, and it allowed the film to envelope you like a good book. Also, I loved the costume design and the dialogue-- the whole movie felt almost Shakespearean in its story arc and look. It was very much like a sci-fi epic as written by Shakespeare, and directed by Luchino Visconti. I would love to see this on the big screen! Does anyone know when the DVD will come out?

To John Harrison and the entire crew of Dune, congratulations!

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

A Postmodern Masterpiece

[10/10 · 29 October 2000]

Once again, another great film is misunderstood by most people. Blair Witch 2 is one of the best films of the year, and far superior to the first film.

The point of Blair Witch 2 is that there ultimately is no absolute reality. I won't give away the plot, but all I will say is that an extremely violent event occurs, and the film is about how this violence effects the supposed perpetrators of the violence and the community in which the violence is committed.

Everything in this film is purposefully ambiguous because that is how reality now is like in our media-driven culture. Through the medium of video and film, several different layers of reality are created, and all of them can be equally true. That, in a nutshell, is the whole point of Blair Witch 2. Berlinger cleverly cuts back and forth between film and video to reveal how these two different mediums can both distort and reflect reality.

In the end, when yet another level of reality is revealed to the viewer, one is left shocked and reeling.

Don't believe what other people say, see Blair Witch 2 and make up your own mind. It will change your perception of reality forever.

War and Peace (1956)

Leo Tolstoy would have been proud. . .

[10/10 · 16 April 2000]

Those critics who accused King Vidor's "War and Peace" of being a gross simplification of Tolstoy's novel must never have actually read "War and Peace." The movie was a perfect adaptation of Tolstoy's epic (which I have read twice). I was surprised that King Vidor could translate a 1000 plus page novel into a three and a half hour movie. Like the book, the film War and Peace is about the eternal battle between belief and unbelief, good and evil, ambition and altruism, between war and peace. The three main characters, Pierre, Natasha, and Andrey, are played perfectly by the three leads, and Audrey Hepburn lights up every scene she is in. Natasha is symbolic of the all-encompassing love which we all need to survive in a world in which selfishness and death exist. By deciding to leave Moscow, instead of facing the advancing Napoleon-led French army, the Russians are practicing Ghandi's teaching of passive resistance (Tolstoy was a great admirer of Ghandi). Another great scene is when Andrey finally realizes on his death bed that death is just an "awakening," and that just one moment of love can redeem a life filled with hate. The film also did a good job of contrasting the characters of Napoleon, Pierre, and Andrey. In a way, Napoleon was the monster which both Pierre and Andrey could have turned into, and which, at certain points in the movie, Pierre and Andrey do turn into (such as the scene where Pierre throws a table at his wife). However, the person who holds them back from turning into Napoleonic beasts is Natasha, whose love is transcendent. It was also interesting how the Russian general continually insisted on retreating instead of attacking the French army. By meeting destruction with peace, in the end, the Russians turn out to be victorious. There were a few sections of the book which would have been interesting to include in the film, such as Pierre's surreal dream sequence about death knocking on his door, or Pierre's involvement with the freemasons. Perhaps one scene summarizes up what the film, and the book, were ultimately about. When Pierre is about to witness a battle, he is holding a flower in his hand. Just as the battle turns deadly, the flower falls from his hand. Can one act of love redeem a lifetime of death and destruction?

Casanova (1976)

Without a doubt Fellini's best, and, ironically, most depressing film.

[10/10 · 21 November 1999]

I totally disagree with the critical trend of discrediting Fellini's later films as symptomatic of his decline. Instead, I believe that Fellini's last films were actually his best. And Casanova, by far Fellin's worst reviewed film, is Fellin's masterpiece-- a sad, funny, wistful, grotesque, Rabelisian epic of a film.

In a way, Casanova is a foil to Fellini's earlier classic La Dolce Vita-- the main difference being that the former is more pessimistic in tone, while the latter is enfused with a youthful optimism. In a way, that's how the films of Fellini have progressed; his earlier films were filled with an almost child-like love for life (albeit with some very dark edges), while his later films became increasingly darker and more depressing. Strangely enough, Fellini's later films were also his best, both on a technical level, and in terms of thematic depth.

Casanova is not only the story of a man, it is also about a whole era-- an era of grand opulence and grand waste. Like in many of Fellini's other films, the protagonist of Casanova serves as a guide for us through a phantasmagoric carnival-like world. Casanova is depicted as a sexually-ravenuous, and deeply cynical man. He is constantly searching for some kind of image of the perfect woman-- an ideal which eventually leads to his own destruction.

Casanova is not a film for everyone-- despite having the usual Fellinisque scenes of ribaldry, Casanova is for the most part slowly paced (it reminds me of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon). Ultimately, Casanova, like Fellini's And the Ship Sails On, is about the passing of a golden age into oblivion. One leaves Casanova feeling both depressed, and yet somehow hopeful. Why?

Perhaps because like all great artists, Fellini realizes that in our darkest hours, we still can hold on to our memories of happier times.

The Devil's Honey (1986)

Sadomasochism, love, obsession. . . another Fulci classic!

[10/10 · 18 November 1999]

This is an atypical Lucio Fulci film in that it focuses on themes which are usually examined by Jess Franco. Nevertheless, this is still one of my top three favorite Fulci films (behind Lizard in a Woman's Skin and New York Ripper). It is an interesting examination of an increasingly dangerous sadomasochistic relationship, a relationship tinged with unbridled lust, obsession, torture, and love.

Although the first thirty minutes of the film (with the exception of the great saxophone sex scene) are quite silly and cheaply done, the second half of the film completely surprised me with its serious and dark tone. As the film progresses, we are increasingly drawn into a truly screwed up relationship, until we realize that the only resolution to this relationship is absolute nihilism and destruction.

An atypical, yet ultimately satisfying film by the maestro Fulci. Would make a great double feature with Adrian Lynne's "9 1/2 Weeks"!

The Phantom of the Opera (1998)

Should have been called "The Stendhal Syndrome Part 2"

[10/10 · 5 November 1999]

First off, The Phantom of the Opera is not as bad as most of these comments say it is. In face, I thought that it was one of Argento's most personal, daring, and visually sumptuous films. I actually attended the U.S. premiere of this film in San Francisco, and midway through the film, the projection went haywire, and the film had to be stopped for five minutes. This kind of ruined the momentum, but when Phantom started again, I was completely engrossed.

Phantom of the Opera extends the themes which Argento had developed in The Stendhal Syndrome. Phantom is an interesting blend of the Freudian father-daughter themes explored in Stendhal Syndrome and Argento's fascination with Opera as an artform. The melodramatic scenes in Phantom, which some viewers may see as being just plain corny, are actually necessary in order to be faithful to both the novel which Phantom was based on, and to the nature of opera as an art form. Also, the Phantom is obviously some sort of dark father figure for Asia's character-- a figure which doesn't hesitate to kill those who bother Asia.

The dark, winding catacombs house the lair of the Phantom. The lair itself is a womb-like enclosure, similar to the serial killer's lair in Stendhal Syndrome. In both films, Asia is eventually forced into a sadomasochistic relationship with the villians, and locked into the constricting confines of their lairs. These relationships are both based on bondage, and undying love.

However, in both Phantom and Stendhal, Asia eventually frees herself from the bondage of her captors, and both films end with Asia facing some sort of light. It's ironic that Asia is getting more notice in America than her father is. . . is she finally freeing herself from his fatherly bond?