Shi gan / Time (2006)

"Happinet Pictures presents..." - starts the movie which is rather an ironic statement according the later happenings. After his visit in timeless, universal tragedy (The Bow) Kim Ki-duk found his way back to the contemporary South Korean drama. Because what could be more from our period than the horroristic world of the aesthetic clinics and their slaughterhouses?
The very beginning tells already about the director: Nobody can mix better the brutality with the kitsch than Ki-duk. During the credits the viewer forced to watch all the horror of a face operation (actually in reality it is part of applying for such a surgery) and listen some Hisaishi-like soft, overemotional music (Noh Hyung-woo). Ki-duk is one of the only exceptions among film directors whose movies are able to handle this discrepancy. The truism with all its banality somehow fits to him. This time the cliche called "Time will change everything". But who would dare to translate literally this stupid statement? Who would mix together the pain of a lost love with the 6 months recovery pain of a face operation? Who would combine with these to emotions with the healing feature of time?
According to Seh-hee and Ji-woo's relationship Ki-duk doesn't talk about love. In his contemporary metal-cold metropolises love doesn't exist anymore. There is something which reminds us to the love, the movie calls them 'vibration' and 'affection'. But these ruins of the real emotion cannot substitute the feelings of a true and honest love. The affection is rather impersonated: the people aren't in love with the personality but the outlook, the physical appearance. As Seh-hee realizes after an unsuccessful love-making: "It can be boring to look at the same face all the time." And this is the source of the couple's and the film's tragedy.
It is really worth to watch even if you're not the biggest fan of the director. The final loop which opens masterfully the film's horizon is simple perfect!

The realism is more frightful than the horror. Click:



8/10

Revolver (2005)

I'm definitely on a lucky spree. Even those films gave me an absolute positive surprise which mostly got a bad critics. In this regard Guy Ritchie's "Revolver" (2005) is the biggest amazement during the last weeks!
First of all one very important remark: I don't like his 'famous' movies ("Lock, Stock,..." and "Snatch") very much. They were entertaining and funny but nothing more. Just like some practice for a director who is preparing for the big shot. Interesting to recognize that usually the directors who are working on art projects after a while sliding into the mainstream. Michael Haneke (did you know that he is working on his own "Funny Games" remake in Hollywood?) or Christopher Nolan are coming into my mind (ok, after the "Insomnia" Nolan found himself again). In contrast, Ritchie's case is completely the opposite of this practice: after the easy pieces he could try his real talent in a very complex and deep movie. Of course his efforts went wrong, the film busted up at the box office as it used to be in these cases. After the funny movies of his the audience was trained for Brad Pitt and jokes at every corner. Instead of this they got something completely different. Only the visuals remained: the cinematography and the way of directing is like in the former movies (Ritchie's strenght is the compressed nonlinear told montage-storytelling).
"The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent" – quotes Ritchie the "Fundaments of Chess" from 1883 and gives the essence of the story and his attitude against his audiences too. The story is rather complicated, it's easier to approach not from the direction of the fabula. It's better to say that the protagonist (Jason Statham - he plays in a good movie which is an exception in his career) is a gambler who - it seems - ownes the ultimate winning formula, some kind of combination of a chess and cons (yes, if you like "Pi", you will love this one too). He is surrounded with gangsters, hitmans, Japanese and any kinds of mobsters, mysterious criminal powers, dumb bodyguards and so on. The characters are perfect, my favourite is the soft-hearted sturrerer hitman called Sorter (!) but maybe you'll like better Avi (Andre3000 (the thin guy) from the Outkast) or Macha (Ray Liotta in his leopard-underwear). No, your favourite will be Lord John, the Japanese drug-dandy!
Anyway, I think you are convinced already that you have to watch this film. The only doubt is how you will answer the regular question: "What was exactly the movie about?" I have a spoiler-like hint: What do you think about the idea, that the real protagonist is not Statham, but Liotta?

[A small selfish note at the end: The old lady's cup is the same as Karolien has. Check the screenshot:]

9/10

Born to Kill (1947)

"Born to Kill" - Very effective. Until yesterday it had only one cinematic meaning for me: Private Joker's helmet has the same tag in Kubrick's Vietnam inferno, "Full Metal Jacket".
Robert Wise's crime movie is not the best noir I've ever seen, but it has its own values. The film is turning out the femme fatale tradition to show an obsessed woman's sick relationship to a brutal maniac guy (looks like Ben Affleck:)), a typical social status climber, who is similarly possessed by the same woman. That's fair enough for a Shakespearean massacre. The story is thrown into "the biggest little city in the world" (Reno), where Laura - I mean - Laury Palmer is getting murdered. In contrast to the "Twin Peaks" here we know exactly who is the brutal killer, the suspense is getting shape through the physical and mental consequences of the case.
If you want to watch a psychological crime drama, you found your movie for tonight, but if you need a really dark tricksy noir classic, step back three years in time and check my favourite "Double Indemnity" by Billy Wilder (1944).
[I swear it is only a coincidence, but my new favourite second line character, Elisha Cook Jr. appears in this movie again as Mart (obsessed too, of course). Maybe his name was the first at the letter 'L' as 'Loser' in the "Hollywood telephone book". Finally I found his equivalent in contemporary cinema: if I say only the name, William H. Macy, and you will know Elisha Cook Jr.'s all attributes (even his physichal ones...)]
Wish I could show his hazy voice too:



6/10

The Big Sleep (1946)

Tonight back in time again: 10 years earlier than yesterday, 1946: "The Big Sleep". I know it's a shame but I haven't seen this huge classic before. Somehow I waited for the perfect moment to spend two peaceful hours to this. Hawks, Faulkner, Chandler, Bogart and Bacall - maybe you understand me..
- "How do you like the brandy Sir?"
- "In a glass."
Wow. Bogart is the perfect character to personate Chandler's Marlowe. He is the type who is never thinking on answers, just spits them out next to his regular cigarettes. Not too much, just perfect. He doesn't give a shit about Marcel Proust, sweating like a horse, drinking as an alcoholist, but the girls are fainting around him (within 30 minutes he broke 5 hearts at least, you can check it out).
But. From a movie which is on the 99th best-film-ever-made spot in the imdb I expected a bit more. I prepared some complicated noir stuff, but I need to admit that sometimes I felt myself lost in the labyrinth of relationships, intrigues and love-like emotional ramps. Even Chandler was surprised about his own complicated story when couldn't answer to a question: Actually who killed Owen Taylor (the guy who landed into the water with his car)?
So if you like Chandler, you should watch Bogart's perfect impersonation, but if you like Hawks, it's much worth to check his "His Girl Friday". He is the master of character-building, that's why other genres, like the screwball comedies fit better to him. Remember the "fake" police call scene from "The Big Sleep" and you will know what I want to say with this..
[Small remark: There is a character which appears both today's and yesterday's films. The loser Harry Jones in Hawks' film is the same guy (Elisha Cook Jr.) who played the wretched cashier at the horserace track in Kubrick's "The Killing". So what?:)]
7/10

The Killing (1956)

Today was another typical grey monday so I din't want to ruin it more as it is already. Back at home in Hungary the fight just started on the streets: sad thing, maybe one day we can celebrate the '56 revolution without throwing molotov-coctails. My idea is more peaceful how to remember to 1956 - taking no risk I decided to watch something from Kubrick. Choosing his horsetrack-robbery masterpiece from '56 I couldn't make any mistake.

I remembered well that this one is better than the "Killer's Kiss", but my memories made me wrong: this one is an astonishing classic piece especially with its way of storytelling. The seeds of the network-narrative (almost 40 years before the deified Tarantino), the different pov's repetitions (2 steps forward 1 back), the mixture of documentary and feature elements are all serving a perfect plot, which here isn't only a narrative term: the plot is the perfect plan itself! The whole movie is about planning, to building up a flawless plan, an accomplished story. The diegetic world - Kubrick's name is a guarantee - 100% authentic: Weegee-like death stills, archive footages from the horserace-field, news-type narrator.

Instead of all my admiration I had to remove one point. Yes, it's about how "Mr. Muggles" solves the crime...

Believe me it's a must see.

"Johnny, you gotta run!"

"Yeah, but what is the difference?"

9/10

bobby peru

should have started with this...

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

You have to watch it!
Actually knowing James Mangold's movies I expected this kind of quality. The "Identity" is one of my favorites, but Russell Crowe is pretty close behind Cusack's back. I haven't seen the original version (Delmer Daves, 1957), maybe after this enthusiasm I'll sacrifice another two hours for it.
I don't know how you feel, but for me Mangold's version haunted Zinnemann's "High Noon" (1952) all the time. Of course both are using the same deadline-narrative but there are more similarities, at least around how they build up their atmospheres. I can confess that I'm not a (big) western fan, that's why my keen words count double.
Bordwell has right (as usual): Mangold is coming from classic Hollywood storytelling with high attention to his characters psychology, playin with sudden shifts between sentiment and humor.
The eyes of Ben Foster shouldn't come into my dreams...



10/10

1

21st of October, 2007
1:39AM