I hate to be so negative, but this is quite possibly the seediest, most unpleasant viewing experience I have ever had. Number one: this is NOT a documentary. The trip to "find love" was possibly real, but what we have are a series of contrived, appallingly acted skits by three guys who clearly think they're a lot more charming and entertaining than they actually are (nb: the incessant recurring to entire bits devoted to T-shirts they think are hilarious). Plus, it makes one queasy to see these guys claiming to look for love, and concentrating on women a third of their age, and going to massage parlours and the like. Plus, in this era especially, using transgenderism as a punchline is incredibly ill-advised. And if we are to believe the final act that the characters partake in to make money, well, then that would explain a lot about the state of the world today. There are occasional comments about the protagonists' admiration of the Filipino culture, but all we see are these grown men exploiting young girls' financial desperation to get their kicks. They can kid themselves on as much as they want. Then we have, of course, the tried and trusted cliché of "man is pushed into swimming pool", not just as a gag, but as a climactic plot point. Ludicrous. These guys should be ashamed of their trip, doubly ashamed that they thought it needed filming for posterity, and triply ashamed that they thought the world needed to see it. I'm disgusted, quite frankly. Avoid like the plague.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Bangkok Dangerous
(2008)
Not that bad, however...
23 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
...it's best if you don't see the film as a remake of the, admittedly better, 2000 original.
The plot of the film, other than being set in Bangkok and the world of gangsters and hit men, is really nothing like the other film of the same name. It could even be seen as a prequel, if it weren't for the fact that (Spoiler) Joe (Cage's) protegé isn't deaf, that disability being instead suffered by Joe's love interest (a wonderfully moving performance from Charlie Young) in this film (End Spoiler). There is one scene directly lifted from the original, that I won't ruin, other than say it sadly wasn't the scene I was hoping for...
...All that being said, once again, the film isn't bad. Cage sadly mumbles and sleepwalks his way through somewhat, seemingly having exhausted himself 10 years ago with the histrionics of "Face/Off", but overlook that, and you're left with a pretty decent, if cliché ridden and predictable, little actioner.
The plot of the film, other than being set in Bangkok and the world of gangsters and hit men, is really nothing like the other film of the same name. It could even be seen as a prequel, if it weren't for the fact that (Spoiler) Joe (Cage's) protegé isn't deaf, that disability being instead suffered by Joe's love interest (a wonderfully moving performance from Charlie Young) in this film (End Spoiler). There is one scene directly lifted from the original, that I won't ruin, other than say it sadly wasn't the scene I was hoping for...
...All that being said, once again, the film isn't bad. Cage sadly mumbles and sleepwalks his way through somewhat, seemingly having exhausted himself 10 years ago with the histrionics of "Face/Off", but overlook that, and you're left with a pretty decent, if cliché ridden and predictable, little actioner.
Intimate Stories
(2002)
"The Straight Story" Latino-style...
13 August 2003
"Historias Minimas" is a simple yet delightful tale, which follows three different people at different stages of their life (young mother Maria, middle-aged salesman Roberto and elderly shopowner Justo) who each doggedly pursue a dream, in a journey that will take them all to the same place.
The film, comparable to David Lynch's "The Straight Story", is a joy from start to finish. The cinematography is astounding, perfectly illustrating the barren beauty of the Patagonian plains, whereas the lead actors (particularly Roberto and Justo) give phenomenally realistic and warm performances. Most of the actors are non-professionals, and the discomfort of some of the actors in smaller roles is obvious, but this just adds to the film's overall charm.
Most importantly, however, I loved this film as it is a completely uncynical testament to the warmth of the human spirit. In it, our trio are helped along the way by complete strangers who ask for nothing in return. If only it were like that all the time...
A must-see.
The film, comparable to David Lynch's "The Straight Story", is a joy from start to finish. The cinematography is astounding, perfectly illustrating the barren beauty of the Patagonian plains, whereas the lead actors (particularly Roberto and Justo) give phenomenally realistic and warm performances. Most of the actors are non-professionals, and the discomfort of some of the actors in smaller roles is obvious, but this just adds to the film's overall charm.
Most importantly, however, I loved this film as it is a completely uncynical testament to the warmth of the human spirit. In it, our trio are helped along the way by complete strangers who ask for nothing in return. If only it were like that all the time...
A must-see.
American Ninja
(1985)
A few more clunkers...
5 March 2003
I stumbled upon this last night, not having seen it in years, and, oh, dear. I quite liked this film when I was a kid (I preferred the sequel, which is on TV tonight, but I'm too scared to even attempt viewing it). Anyway, there were loads of things that caught my eye, and I was going to point them out here, but I've noticed that loads of people have beat me to it (the jeep-tree explosion, the toy helicopter, the ninjas queuing up for a shot at Joe), so I won't bother. Here, however, are a few that seemingly went unnoticed:
1) The flashback: first, no way is that kid 6. Second of all, how does climbing a tree and slicing coconuts constitute intense ninja training? I climbed trees all the time when I was a kid. I ate the odd Bounty too, does this make me a ninja?
2) The finale is reminiscent of that of UK gameshow "The Krypton Factor". Thrilling.
3) The music is stolen from 70s cop show "CHiPS". Spooky.
And yes, I miss Steve James too, but, other than "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka", he didn't make a single film that didn't blow.
1) The flashback: first, no way is that kid 6. Second of all, how does climbing a tree and slicing coconuts constitute intense ninja training? I climbed trees all the time when I was a kid. I ate the odd Bounty too, does this make me a ninja?
2) The finale is reminiscent of that of UK gameshow "The Krypton Factor". Thrilling.
3) The music is stolen from 70s cop show "CHiPS". Spooky.
And yes, I miss Steve James too, but, other than "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka", he didn't make a single film that didn't blow.
Irreversible
(2002)
For what it's worth...
26 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
... here's my own, personal reading of Irreversible. I don't normally make comments on films here, but, on this occasion, I have felt moved to, as I truly feel that the film, in some ways, has saved my life. I really don't wish to enter into the work of art/sick piece of rubbish debate (although I, for the record, thought that the film was a masterpiece), but rather, I would like to share with you the conclusions I reached by the end of the film. Perhaps they will give you a new angle upon a second viewing.
WARNING: SPOILERS
(NB: To avoid confusion, from now on I am going to refer to moments of the film based on the order in which they appear onscreen, eg. the beginning of the film means the scene with the two men talking in the room above "Le Rectum")
In the second, infinitely easier to watch part of the movie, we have a couple of revelations: Alex (Monica Bellucci) is reading a book on dreams that predict the future. Later in the film, towards the end, we see her and Marcus (Vincent Cassel, who for my money gave possibly the most fantastically intense performance of the year in this film), waking up. Marcus admits to dreaming that he lost the feeling in his arm (an allusion to his arm getting severely broken at the beginning of the movie), whereas Alex describes the tunnel where we saw her getting raped earlier. We then see Alex find out that she is pregnant.
The final scene has Alex lying in a park, reading the above-mentioned book, while children play around her. Then, the camera swivels towards the sky, we witness some strobe lighting, and the curtains close on the film's final message: "Time destroys everything".
Now, here's the question: Does time destroy everything? In English, the saying goes "Time heals all wounds". After a long walk (much needed after witnessing some horrifically graphic scenes), I came to this conclusion: neither of the above are true. Time is like an express train on a long, interminable track. We board at one station (birth), and get off at another (death). But we can't stop the train. What we can do is make the most of our journey.
The best way to illustrate my finding is to take the two above contradictory time-related statements: imagine, if you will, two people who have a parent die at the exact same time. The two people are the same age, have had the same intensity of love from said parent, and have had the same level of proximity to the parent. This does not mean that both will react in the same way. While it is obvious that both will grieve for a period, one may eventually come to terms with the fact that death is a part of life and move on, while the other may become resentful and bitter, withdrawing more and more into themselves. What this means is that life is both what happens to us and how we perceive it: how big a deal we make out of it.
With the revelations given to me in the final scenes, I realised that I had the power to decide that Alex was never raped, and that Marcus and Pierre never made the subsequent descent into hell. This is backed up by the final scene, in which Alex seems to be some way into her pregnancy (although this may just be the angle at which she is shot). The film is a work of fiction, and therefore I can make that decision: it was all a dream, and, contrary to public belief, the film was in fact shot in the correct chronological order, starting with the nightmare and ending with the pair waking up. Dreams are, by nature, hazy, disorientating affairs, which explains the camerawork, sound and editing.
Another realisation I made was that, given enough time and without external influences, a human being (if of sound mind) will always see what is right (whether they choose to act on it or not is another matter). This is illustrated by the speech of the Butcher from Noe's earlier "I Stand Alone" (Philippe Nahon), who admits that he was wrong in all he did in that movie.
But more importantly, the film teaches us to learn all we can out of life, to consider all the possibilities, and to seek happiness and peace in all we do, for every second counts.
Anyway, that's my two bits. And while I will admit that, on a number of occasions I was forced to look away, and indeed nearly vomited at a couple of points, I ran the course and came to the conclusion that "Irreversible" is a profound, moving and not at all gratuitous piece of work (having said that, anything can be profound if you read enough into it). I feel privileged to be one of the few people living in Britain who (at present) seems likely to get the chance to decide this for themselves. It's a great shame that the film is unlikely to ever be released here, and I'm disgusted that the BBFC can't see past the sensationalism surrounding the work (stirred up mainly by people who haven't even seen the whole film) and get to the heart beating inside it. If it is released uncut, and only one person came away as enriched as I have, it would be more than worthwhile.
WARNING: SPOILERS
(NB: To avoid confusion, from now on I am going to refer to moments of the film based on the order in which they appear onscreen, eg. the beginning of the film means the scene with the two men talking in the room above "Le Rectum")
In the second, infinitely easier to watch part of the movie, we have a couple of revelations: Alex (Monica Bellucci) is reading a book on dreams that predict the future. Later in the film, towards the end, we see her and Marcus (Vincent Cassel, who for my money gave possibly the most fantastically intense performance of the year in this film), waking up. Marcus admits to dreaming that he lost the feeling in his arm (an allusion to his arm getting severely broken at the beginning of the movie), whereas Alex describes the tunnel where we saw her getting raped earlier. We then see Alex find out that she is pregnant.
The final scene has Alex lying in a park, reading the above-mentioned book, while children play around her. Then, the camera swivels towards the sky, we witness some strobe lighting, and the curtains close on the film's final message: "Time destroys everything".
Now, here's the question: Does time destroy everything? In English, the saying goes "Time heals all wounds". After a long walk (much needed after witnessing some horrifically graphic scenes), I came to this conclusion: neither of the above are true. Time is like an express train on a long, interminable track. We board at one station (birth), and get off at another (death). But we can't stop the train. What we can do is make the most of our journey.
The best way to illustrate my finding is to take the two above contradictory time-related statements: imagine, if you will, two people who have a parent die at the exact same time. The two people are the same age, have had the same intensity of love from said parent, and have had the same level of proximity to the parent. This does not mean that both will react in the same way. While it is obvious that both will grieve for a period, one may eventually come to terms with the fact that death is a part of life and move on, while the other may become resentful and bitter, withdrawing more and more into themselves. What this means is that life is both what happens to us and how we perceive it: how big a deal we make out of it.
With the revelations given to me in the final scenes, I realised that I had the power to decide that Alex was never raped, and that Marcus and Pierre never made the subsequent descent into hell. This is backed up by the final scene, in which Alex seems to be some way into her pregnancy (although this may just be the angle at which she is shot). The film is a work of fiction, and therefore I can make that decision: it was all a dream, and, contrary to public belief, the film was in fact shot in the correct chronological order, starting with the nightmare and ending with the pair waking up. Dreams are, by nature, hazy, disorientating affairs, which explains the camerawork, sound and editing.
Another realisation I made was that, given enough time and without external influences, a human being (if of sound mind) will always see what is right (whether they choose to act on it or not is another matter). This is illustrated by the speech of the Butcher from Noe's earlier "I Stand Alone" (Philippe Nahon), who admits that he was wrong in all he did in that movie.
But more importantly, the film teaches us to learn all we can out of life, to consider all the possibilities, and to seek happiness and peace in all we do, for every second counts.
Anyway, that's my two bits. And while I will admit that, on a number of occasions I was forced to look away, and indeed nearly vomited at a couple of points, I ran the course and came to the conclusion that "Irreversible" is a profound, moving and not at all gratuitous piece of work (having said that, anything can be profound if you read enough into it). I feel privileged to be one of the few people living in Britain who (at present) seems likely to get the chance to decide this for themselves. It's a great shame that the film is unlikely to ever be released here, and I'm disgusted that the BBFC can't see past the sensationalism surrounding the work (stirred up mainly by people who haven't even seen the whole film) and get to the heart beating inside it. If it is released uncut, and only one person came away as enriched as I have, it would be more than worthwhile.
Tell Your Friends