I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK (2006) by Chan-wook Park - (5/10)

After having finished the outstanding “Vengeance-trilogy” Chan-wook Park both surprised and disappointed the majority of his fans by releasing this romantic comedy. I suppose that he felt the need for a change. There is nothing per se wrong with romantic comedies and “I'm a Cyborg, But That’s OK” certainly has a lot of potential.

It is about a girl that is convinced that she is a cyborg and thus tries to recharge herself but cuts her own wrists in the process and gets send to an institution where she refuses to eat because cyborgs don’t have to eat. There a schizophrenic kleptomaniac falls in love with her and tries to help her in his own way. It is rather charming and cute at times but never quite seems to reach its potential. It just feels like it could have been more but it sort of never happened, it is bit of a shame really.

Piranha II: The Spawning (1981) by James Cameron - (2/10)

Only interesting and memorably thing about this movie is that this was strangely enough James Cameron’s directorial debut. In hindsight it is amazing how his career turned out given such a start.

Patch Adams (1998) by Tom Shadyac - (2/10)

I am pretty sure that, that kind of attitude in real life will get patients kill that is if you ever manage to get a medical license. Not a big fan of “woo, yeah, let us have fun and play”, oeps sorry you have leukaemia and 2 people died in ER while I was having fun here. Also the movie is moronic beyond redemption. Doctors already have a good, humanistic thing going. Robin Williams might quite possibly be the least funny “comedian” ever, if you need proof check out his stand-up acts, atrocious beyond belief.

Avatar (2009) by James Cameron - (4/10)

I saw in 3D in cinema and it was the first movie that I ever saw in 3D, I really liked the look and feel of it. I did enjoy it but only because of the visuals and because the experience was completely new to me. Story wise it is pretty much worthless it is a Dances with the Wolves, Princess Mononoke or Pocahontas knock-off, you name. It has an environmental but the same message has been repeated so many times again and again. It carries almost no meaning anymore and the people who preach it, don’t abide it. I am pretty sure that I do not need to hear it from someone whose ecological footprints is probably 700 times bigger than mine. You have to admire James Cameron’s ability to generate profit.

Starship Troopers (1997) by Paul Verhoeven - (1/10)

I got the fact that it is a satire but is that the only requirement these days for a movie to be deemed worthwhile? It has such a simple message to convey but it does it in such a moronic and heavy handed way that it is almost hard to believe that someone actually put any effort into this.

Antichrist: Chaos Reigns at the Cannes Filmfestival 2009 (2009) by Michael Sandager - (3/10)

8 minute short, showing Lars von Trier, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe walking around from press conference to press conferences at the day of the premier of Antichrist at the 2009 Cannes Filmfestival. It is very short, mostly shows them walking and not the interviews themselves, there are some brief moments from the movie itself and the whole thing is set to the same music as the movie. Only fun moment was when an interviewer demanded that Lars von Trier justifies why he made this movie. Otherwise it is a rather pointless.

The Happiness of the Katakuris (2001) by Takashi Miike - (6/10)

It is a story about – a remake as a matter of fact – about a family that is down on their luck and has decided to try running an inn, in the assumption that when the highway will be build next to, it will become a goldmine unfortunately the highway remains absent and so do the guests. When finally the first guest moves in, he suddenly dies and so do all the subsequent guys and they decide to just bury them in their yard, acting upon the assumption that a homicide investigation will surely ruin any chances of success that they have left.
Miike has spruced up the story by adding hilarious musical numbers, clay animation and all kinds of madness. In comes one of the if not the weirdest musical that you will ever see. The songs are hilarious, the overacting is glorious. When it is good, it is downright brilliant. Unfortunately it doesn’t manage to carry on the same high level through as in the beginning but it is still a wonderful, hilarious, truly weird feel good movie in a style that only Miike is capable of.

Grizzly Man (2005) by Werner Herzog - (8/10)

Overall I do prefer Herzog’s “documentaries” over his “movies”. The distinction between the two is rather vague with Herzog, non existent perhaps even. Movies will often not only be shot as documentaries but they will contain, real events such as the hand (Herzog’s own) reaching out to safe a man from falling of the mountain and dying in Aguirre, the famous boat-scene in Fitzcarraldo, casting a mentally ill man in a movie and than shaping the movie in such a way that the main character will suffer from similar misfortunes in order to get something real as opposed to acting (Stroszeck & The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser), etc.
Documentaries on the other hand will have staged scenes, made-up facts, biased opinions and will be centred around a plot that plays out more like a movie than a documentary. Purists might be disgusted by such practices and they are indeed in conflict with modern day philosophies. In the early days of documentaries such practices were common, right down to the arguable father of the documentary Robert Flaherty. The quest of a documentary is to find a truth – the authors truth – sometimes such practices will get a person closer to the truth. I am in favour of Herzog’s approach, I can certainly enjoy a purist documentary, I could debate and defend his practices for hours. Plenty of interesting things have been written about his approach, I have found the majority of the criticism ludicrous.

Grizzly Man was the biggest financial and critical success that Herzog had in years when he released it. This was not without reason, it is not only one of the best things that he has ever done, it is a downright masterpiece or at least very close to it.
Grizzly Man paints the picture of Timothy Treadwell, a man obsessed with grizzly bears, who goes out into the wilderness of Alaska for many years, once a year in the summer in order to spend time with them and observe them. He deeply cares and respects the animals but he is also highly delusional. His obsession stems forth from personal problems and an inability to fit into human society. He overemphasis his role in protecting these animals (virtually non-existent) and suffers from delusions of grandeur and narcissism. He views himself as the protector and saviour of these animals. This way he manages to find meaning to his own life but he is living what many would consider a fairytale. He seeks too much comfort and compassion in animals that do not care for humans. Eventually he gets too close, having lost all contact with reality, he goes to far in the hopes of becoming a grizzly bear himself and gets killed. Using footage that Timothy Treadwell filmed himself, Herzog tells us his own vision of the story and edits it down to show us the man himself. A man that he admires as a filmmaker whose passion and love for grizzlies is admirable in a way. Also a man that is simply too delusional and unhappy with life itself that choose to cross a boundary that men should not cross. It is a story that is told masterfully, critically but deeply humanely at the same time as well.

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003) by Ji-woon Kim - (4/10)

“A Tale of Two Sisters” came in, riding upon the wave of interest that was spurned in Korean and Japanese horror movies by the original Ring, although radically different countries in many ways, many of their popular horror movies do seem to have stylistic similarities, most likely influenced by Ring. “A Tale of Two Sisters” has often been mentioned as the best K-horror movie. I can see why, the mood is near perfect and the colours are vivid and gorgeous. The latter half of the movie simply has to many twists and surprises, it seems as if they were going for some kind of record. It is a bit similar to The Grudge (original one) but it worked bit better in that movie. Here it was simply complete overkill, it appears to manage to get some kind of record in the amount of surprise twists that a movie can have but it just stops making sense after a while and become completely disorienting. It does offer a decent resolution but by that time, you will be dizzy. If they would have thrown out a couple of the surprises you would have gotten a descent movie, reminiscent of some other ones. The style and mood are spot on by the number of twists are far too numerous and it just gets too much and too confusing after a while.

Simon of the Desert (1965) by Luis Buñuel - (6/10)

Simon of the Desert is a fun, little short movie where Buñuel makes fun in his typical way of the hermetic saint Simeon Stylites who spent 37 years living on top of a pillar on a small platform and religious asceticism in general. He is tempted by Satan. My favorite scene is probably where he heals an amputees hands and the first thing that he does is hit his child.

Unfortunately Buñuel ran out of money halfway so the movie just sort of end with Simon stuck in the 60’s in contemporary clothes in a night club. It is fun but it would have been nice to see how it would have ended if the movie had been actually finished. Buñuel appears to have written it as a novel prior to filming it, might offer some answers.

Antichrist (2009) by Lars von Trier - (5/10)

Antichrist is visually definitely one of the most beautiful if not most beautiful movie that Lars von Trier has made so far, it is a very far cry from the Dogma ’95 style that he once used to use. Visually it is breathtaking, the acting is excellent. The actual content of the movie leaves much to desire, it might seem that Lars von Trier was out there to shock. The movie opens with a couple having sex (actual penetration being briefly shown, apparently a first of sorts for a semi-mainstream movie) whilst their son dies, there is also the now infamous, genital mutilation scene. None of it is as shocking as some make it out to be and if you ignore the shock factor, not much is left there. I did not find it to be misogynistic unlike some if anything I would deem it to be misandrist but misandrism is a borderline acceptable these days, nothing wrong with that. I would say that it was the guy who was way out of line, the woman was doing fine, up until the torture that is. I did not feel that the whole thing gave any insights into grief or comping with it. Antichrist is visually breathtaking and the acting as usual in Lars von Trier’s movies is stellar but it is rather hollow on the inside.

Window Water Baby Moving (1962) by Stan Brakhage - (10/10)

Probably the purest and one of the most powerful movies that I have seen so far. It manages to convey all emotions through editing, etc. making it a pure movie in the sense that it somehow manages to just convey pure emotions. It conveys the ecstasy of childbirth through the father’s eyes with men originally being excluded from the process. It is very loving, poetic and beautiful. Given the subject matter it could have been disturbing and voyeuristic but it is none of those things, it is pure love, beauty and ecstasy. It is a love poem more than anything from a man to his firstborn and the mother of his child.

The Incredibles (2004) by Brad Bird – (4/10)

Nice little family film that pokes fun at the superhero genre, I did not find it to be entirely on par with some of Pixar’s recent work (Wall-E, Finding Nemo,…). It does actually very little with what it is given. It does deal with issues such as midlife crisis, marital dysfunction, child neglect, impotence fears, fashion faux pas and existential angst. Adults will be capable of enjoying this but somehow despite all this it still managed to feel a bit standard to me. I think that I am being just way to demanding to wards what is essentially still a movie that kids should be capable of relating to. I think that it does succeed perfectly in creating a story that kids will like but that also has moments that the adults will enjoy. Despite my hatred of dubbed movies, I did watch this one dubbed which did iritate me, I never quite got used to it. It might be that.

Roundhay Garden Scene (1888) by Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince

Roundhay Garden Scene is famous for being the first surving motion picture. It is 2 seconds of people walking in a circle. It has mostly historical value. It dates back to 1888 making cinema significantly over a hundred years old. Interesting fact is that 2 of the people shown in Roundhay Garden Scene as well as the direcor all died whitin 4 years after this movie was made.

San Francisco: Aftermath of Earthquake (1906) - (5/10)

84 seconds of footage shot after the great earthquake in San Francisco in 1906. It is mostly historically interesting. Such footage has become common place now but it was probably rare back when this was might, might have been the first time that people saw the effects of a natural disaster captured on tape. The version that I saw had some violin music that felt a bit out of place. The footage was clearly edited and placed in sequence, in a way it is a documentary avant-la-lettre. The “movie” ends with a shot of a building that carries the sign “A little disfigured but still in business. Men Wanted.”


Cinema is the only place where historic achievements document themselves, the achievement itself serves as a means of documentation.

Fitzcarraldo (1982) by Werner Herzog - (7/10)

The making of Fitzcarraldo is the stuff that legends are made from. The creation of the film itself was an act of madness and an artpiece on its own. Werner Herzog insisting on realism, demanded that the scene where they pull a 320 ton up a very steep hill, a feat never done before in history and unlikely to be ever repeated again. Perhaps even comparable to the construction of Stonehenge. They were attacked by native Indians. Klaus Kinski threw such tantrums that, the chief of the tribe that were playing the extras even offered to kill him for Herzog. Herzog even had to force him to act under gunpoint. Several actors backed out after shooting had already been done halfway. Having lost all of his money, Herzog traded shampoo at the local market for rice and lived only on that for 3 weeks. It is no wonder that Herzog called it his best documentary.

The story is about the typical Herzog outsider who has an impossible dream, to build an opera house in the middle of the jungle. He needs to raise the money necessary for this and has tried a couple of harebrained schemes for far in order to do but no luck so far. He comes to the idea of earning his fortune with rubber. In order to do so he has to not only travel through a region infested with hostile natives but he has to perform the near impossible feet of dragging his steamboat uphill through the jungle. Somewhat based on the true story, the original had a boat that weight 30 tons and was dismantled and transported like that also no opera was involved I think. As usual his quests fails but at the end there is redemption of sorts and it is gorgeous and like Herzog said, without dreams we would be just like cows grazing in the fields.

The Brothers Grimm (2005) by Terry Gilliam - (5/10)

“The Brothers Grimm” was disliked by most, it is far from a masterpiece or anything great but it is better than most give it credit. The major complaint was that the story was sacrificed for the visual, I did find the story, good enough and rather engaging in a more or less standard fairytale sort of way. The visuals were nice but not too much as some claimed. In some ways it did seem to carry a Tim Burton influence. The now posthumously famous Heath Ledger plays in this, he is good. It is a fun little movie with an almost holyday spirit to it and it is far from the train wreck that most people seem to believe that it is.

Tideland (2005) by Terry Gilliam - (4/10)

Tideland was a love or hate kind of movie with the majority centring around hate. There are those who deem it a masterpiece but they are a minority, it failed financially everywhere except for Japan where it strangely was a box-office hit apparently. Michael Palin, has said that it was either Terry Gilliam’s best or worst movie but he couldn’t decide.

The best way to describe Tideland is to say that it is a children’s story version of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but that sounds way cooler than this movie really is. It is dull, it is about how children see the world, what it is like in extremely bad situation such as this. It has a Terry Gilliam vibe to it. The whole idea, not only am I sick about artist going on about the virtues of a children’s mind or their childhood, this movie is too long, doesn’t seem to go anywhere and is rather unpleasant to watch.
Tideland was released together with “The Brothers Grimm” in 2005. Although the former was largely panned, I did find it better than most and unquestionably superior to Tideland. The girl (Jodelle Ferland) did play rather well as did Jeff Bridges.

Seven Samurai (1954) by Akira Kurosawa – (7/10)

Seven Samurai is untouchable, it is a classic. It is one of the handful of non-English spoke movie that have gotten into the Imdb top 250. It has met near universal praise from directors, critics, film lovers, casual movie going public. There is very little disputing its merits. Several scenes from it have now become universal like the approaching horde coming into view as they crest a hilltop. It is wonderfully filmed (notably the action sequences), characters are wonderful (especially Toshirō Mifune, just love him and Takashi Shimura who also played the lead in Ikiru) and the story is a classic. More importantly it is morally ambiguous with the farmers being shown as being far from perfect themselves.

I cannot say that I love it as much as everyone else seems to (I feel like some of Kurosawa’s other movies are better, Roshomon for example or even High and Low), I think that it might be held in a higher regard because of its ambitious scope but there is very little in denying its merits.

Transformers (2007) by Michael Bay - (2/10)

I do not remember seeing a movie, this was 3 hours of things flashing on the screen, transformers transforming, teenagers running and a lot of driving and also explosions. I cannot say that this was bad because I do not even consider this to be a movie. There was some plot that took about 45 seconds of the total duration. Not sure if there were characters in it. Mildly enjoyable if you like shiny stuff but I found that there was no substance or even a movie to be found anywhere in this thing.
Also I felt like the transformers were like too movable. They had too many moving parts. I remember them – a little bit – from my youth and they were cute because they could turn to something human-like with very little moving parts. They still looked like cars after transforming, I kind of liked that, that was gone in this movie, too much CGI and a demand for it, I suppose.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) by Clint Eastwood - (3/10)

Clint Eastwood has been directing movies for almost 40 years now but it seems like until recently – last decade or so – not many people noticed this fact nor did they care all that much despite him being awarded the Oscar for best Director in 1992 for The Unforgiven. The producers must love him, he never goes over schedule or over budget as a director, often even stays below. Now he seems to become one of the worlds best known directors, not bad considering that he is 80 now. Million Dollar Baby came in the wake of the critically very successful Mystic River and was bound to attract a lot of attention. Million Dollar Baby got the same amount of critical praise and financial success. To be honest, I was not impressed for it. The story is too stereotypical, standard and the ending is overtly melodramatic, meant to make people feel. I wasn’t impressed with neither Clint Eastwood’s or Hilary Swank’s acting. Morgan Freeman is always fun to see but he wasn't doing anything that he hasn't done a million times before. The whole thing is just emotional blackmail, many people responded well. Perhaps all movies are emotional blackmail but this one was a bit too much. If you do not care, people might think that you have no human emotions. The whole thing is just emotional blackmail and nothing more. I would recommend you to watch The Wrestler by Darren Aronofsky instead.

The Wrestler (2008) by Darren Aronofsky – (7/10)

The Wrestler was quite a surprise when it was released because of how, simple almost documentary like it was filmed considering Aronofsky’s previous movies. This might have been a reaction to the (undeserved, in my opinion) backlash that The Fountain received and how much difficulties he had getting that movie made and how long it took him. It did play in Aronofsky’s favour considering all the praise that Wrestler received. It did deserve it. It is a simple, straightforward story about a down on his luck wrestler who still tries to hand onto his glory days that are long gone now. He is suffering from health problems, has a troublesome relationship with a stripper, an estranged daughter, dead-end job, he has trouble paying his rent,… It is a touching, humane story with a deeply flawed character but one that you can sympathize now. Mickey Rourke plays perfect and delivers the performance for which he will probably be remembered for, mostly because he is portraying in a way his own life story. It is a touching but realistic and not sappy movie, it is worth your while. It proves an interesting and charming insight into the world of wrestling, something that I had no knowledge prior to seeing this or even a positive disposition towards it.

V for Vendetta (2005) by James McTeigue – (3/10)

I might be biased because I admire the source material for this but they really did turn something that was excellent, well thought out and provoking into something so terribly pedestrian. It might be because “V for Vendetta” was bound to become something entirely different in the current political climate, the fact that Margaret Thatcher was in charge back when the original was written should be kept in mind whilst reading the original. Anyway I just feel like they somehow managed to destroy everything that made the original worthwhile, they really sucked the life of it. The Matrix-like fights at the end of the movie were a bit nauseating. I would definitely recommend the original over this crap any day, even better go read the “Watchmen” comic, that one is a masterpiece. I think that it is safe to say that the first Matrix movie was probably the only worthwhile thing that the Wachowski brothers are ever going to be involved in. I can not blame Alan Moore for hating any attempts at filming his work, this is despicable. Probably the only good thing about this movie was Stephen Fry who is always a joy to watch. It could have been worse but that is hardly a good criteria to judge a movie by.

Through a Glass Darkly (1961) by Ingmar Bergman – (8/10)

One of Bergman’s “chamber” movie, that could have just as easily been a play as a movie but because of how wonderful the framing of the faces is, it is still much better of as a movie, I think.

The movie is about four family members gathering on a remote island. Of course, given that this is Bergman, there is plenty of tension between them that is just bound to erupt.
Her brother cannot have a conversation with their father, feels isolated and deprived of love. The father is a second-rate novelist who just returned from a trip but despite having promised that he will stay, he is planning to leave again soon. The son’s wife, has a long history of mental illness and has just been released from an asylum. Her husband is a physician. At night Karin, hears sounds and is guided to an abandoned room upstairs. There she can hear voices through the walls. They are talking about the arrival of “him”. She has an orgasm. Latter on she finds a diary that her father has been keeping where he states that he believes that her mental illness is incurable but that he must study her descent into madness. Confrontations ensue but in a typical Berman fashion since the characters are incapable of either communicating or expressing their true emotions. The husband finds his wife who has told him that she is ready to be committed again back in the same room as she was before waiting for the arrival of God. When God arrives, she witnesses nothing but a horrifying spider that tries to penetrate her. Probably my favourite, part because that is just such a interesting, disturbing way of seeing at things, seeing God.

It is a fascinating play about human relationships, inability of many to build up a normal relationship with their father or both parents perhaps and the nature of faith and God himself.

The Silence (1963) by Ingmar Bergman – (5/10)

Bergman’s movies are famously hit or miss, they are either dull and pointless or works of genius. The perspective has become screwed over time since only the masterpieces have been remembered. Hitchcock is another director who is similar in this aspect, he had arguably a lot more misses then Bergman did.

The Silence is usually considered to be one of his better works and may or may not be part of a trilogy. I did find this one to be rather unimpressive. The whole movie appears to be an allegory but as to what? It seems to serve very little purpose besides creating the notion of an allegory or a parable of sorts. Still many were impressed.

Very little is spoken as two sisters become stranded in a hotel in a country where war is about to break out whose language they do not speak, they seem to be completely opposite of each other and one of them is dying. Also there are midgets. The movie seems to have all the marks of a classic Bergman, parts of it were enjoyable but overall I was disappointed by the whole experience. It was to vague, the separate parts didn’t seem to fit into one another. Bergman seemed to be trying to make a statement of sorts, he had no idea as to about what, he just wanted to make a statement. The acting and Sven Nykvist cinematography were superb as usual. The tank may or may not be a phallic symbol according to some but the whole society is phallic-cantered anyway.

A Man Asleep (1974) by Bernard Queysanne - (7/10)

A wonderful (or more correctly accurate) portrait of depression that shows it just the way it is. It shows a french student who one day just decided to serve all contact with society. The actor never speaks but you hear what he is thinking, his endless ramblings. How he is trying to make sense of the world. How loneliness both seems like the only solution and is slowly killing him at the same time. How boredom grows around. For those who never experienced this, this as close as you will get inside the mind of someone suffering depression. Those who have will surely be capable of relating. As a matter of fact, this movie will seem nearly autobiographical to them.

Without Memory (1996) by Hirokazu Kore-Eda - (6/10)

It is a – bit hard to come by I suppose – TV documentary made by the acclaimed director Hirokazu Kore-Eda about a man who has lost the ability to make new memories after the aftercare after a medical procedure has gone wrong. The movie “Memento” referenced this case, similar cases have existed.

It is a touching documentary about a man who tries to get his life back together and tried to take care of his children despite having almost no recollection of even his own children. He leads an unique life that has a nearly insurmountable obstacle present but he tries to fulfil his role. It is touching, bit hopeful but sad as well at the same time. I was really surprised that he went out and chose to help disabled people himself despite his condition.

Eraserhead (1977) by David Lynch - (7/10)

Eraserhead is one hell of a way to start a career as a director. It is a Freudian nightmare, made more horrifying by the fact that David Lynch allegedly didn’t remember writing it, David Lynch has said that that it is his most spiritual film and that no one understands it the way that he does and I am going to agree with because as far as I can tell it is about sexual repression.

It is a story about a simple guy Henry Spenser who is on vacation and lives in an industrial wasteland of sorts. His estranged girlfriend suddenly calls him up, invites him to dinner and after a pretty odd gathering he is notified that she is pregnant with what he is assured is a human child. She gives birth to something that one would be really, pressed to call human. The thing scream the whole night, eventually his girlfriend abandons them. Also he lusts after the woman living next door and at night the woman in the radiator sings that in heaven everything is all right. He winds up killing his child. I would say that sex and sexual desires are a bad thing. It is an unsettling experience to say the least even if your interpretations are completely different from mine. It doesn’t matter, Eraserhead is an unsettling but interesting place to be.

Blue Velvet (1986) by David Lynch – (4/10)

I cannot say that I ever really got the appeal of Blue Velvet, I love Dennis Hopper’s, brilliant sex crazed, perverted, gas-huffing character just as much as the next guy. Otherwise I feel that the whole is too bland, unmemorable and frankly “normal”. I find very little appeal, the whole just feels like a sub par, test-drive for the brilliant Twin Peaks series. The idyllic American suburbia coupled with a seedy underbelly and madness are present here as well but in such a dull, standard way that very little of it sticks me as memorable or exiting. I much prefer the sugary, soap-opera style, inhabited by the clinically insane thing that Twin Peaks series had over this. Luckily David Lynch just kept getting better and better over time.

INLAND EMPIRE (2006) by David Lynch – (9/10)

INLAND EMPIRE is not a movie, it is a nightmare manifested on celluloid, debating its meaning is pointless because I am almost certain that even David Lynch has no idea on any conscience level as to what it is all about. It seems to make sense for the first hour or so and you think that you will understand it but you won’t because after that it all just starts falling apart, it becomes, a maze, nightmare, a hallucination and vision. It is not a movie, it is an experience through which you have to live, it is a baptise by fire that works on a purely subconscious level. It is a masterpiece, that David Lynch has been working his whole like towards. It is a pure expression of something, only we do not know of what. You have to experience it for yourself, it is a force of nature.

Diabolique (1955) by Henri-Georges Clouzot – (5/10)

A great thriller, mystery horror movie that has spanned dozens of imitations but no one has come even close to it. That wonderful 50’s mood, style really works to its advantage. There a lot of Hitchcock to this movie, it didn’t come as a surprise to me that Hitchcock did originally want to make this movie but got beaten to it when the rights were being sold. I don’t think that even he could have done a better job. It did seem a bit familiar when I saw it given the high amount of imitation but this one is still the best one of the bunch. It knows how to keep the suspense throughout its duration.

Diabolique (1996) by Jeremiah S. Chechik – (2/10)

Utterly pointless remake – starring Sharon Stone – of a classic movie that was already perfect the first time around. I did see this one first, didn’t think much of it. Liked the original a lot more when I saw it.

400 Blows (1959) by François Truffaut - (6/10)

A New Wave classic that captures male adolescent like no other movie, even now, more then 50 years latter, things are still really the same aren’t they?
The final frame has to be among the more memorable in cinema and really does sum it all up.

The Asphyx (1973) by Peter Newbrook – (5/10)

The Asphyx is a pretty good, unfortunately forgotten thinking mans (that is why it became forgotten) horror movie from what was probably the golden age of horror movies, the 70’s. I cannot really go into the details of the plot without spoiling the whole thing but it involves the quests for immortality that carries grave dangers and you guessed it, a very high price to pay. It doesn’t have any blood or guts, not withstanding some flaws, it is well thought out and interesting to follow. It is highly recommended for someone who either is interested in a good horror movie that doesn’t rely on gore or any fan of the genre. It is move Lovecraft than slasher.

Inglourious Basterds (2009) by Quentin Tarantino – (5/10)

I feel like “Inglourious Basterds” was massively overrated because the audiences have been desperatly wanting to love a Tarantino movie as much as they had loved Pulp Fiction but up until “Inglourious Basterds” he hadn’t been giving the masses anything that they could worship to that extent.

It is a cool movie, it has a nice feel to it, the characters are great, the acting is wonderful (obligatory mention of Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt just because I like him that much, he is not necessary that much better than anyone else in the movie) and the movie had a golden era Hollywood look and feel to it. It is a really cool movie but it didn’t have much substance or meaning. Except for the cool part, I immediately forgot most of it after watching, thus creating the illusion that it was actually better than it really was. It is a fun movie to watch but it is not the grand artistic statement or the coolest thing ever that everyone is pretending that it is.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) by Quentin Tarantino – (4/10)

I probably should give it a 5 or something but there is a fine line between homage, imitation and theft. Tarantino has been borrowing things all over, ever since Jackie Brown and with Kill Bill: Vol. 1. The whole thing just felt more like stealing than anything else. It seemed like he had cherry picked whatever moments and scenes from other movies he thought that were cool and threw them all just together. He has an too old fashioned view of anime that just reinforces negative stereotypes and scares people away from exploring some very worthwhile movies and mainly series. That is just a personal pet peeve and it didn’t influence my perception or opinion of the movie.

Peoples opinion of Tarantino’s movies seems to grow over time, looking at the imdb score, I cannot remember people being that exited over this, when it came out except for the fanboys and girls. I get the feeling that people like to pretend that they like Tarantino just a bit more than they really do but I might be delusional. The schoolgirls were cool but that has obviously been done before elsewhere.

Sukiyaki Western Django (2007) by Takashi Miike - (5/10)

Universally panned because of its silliness and ridiculousness, Sukiyaki Western Django but I don’t think that Miike was ever serious to begin with, his whole career seems to exist out of nothing but random acts of weirdness and absurdity. Sukiyaki Western Django is rather pointless but it is a fun movie, a typical western with gang shooting each other with machineguns. Takashi Miike’s first English speaking movie consists out of Japanese actors trying to pronounce phonetically written English, not sure whether they even speak English but don’t worry since the movie comes with subtitles. The plot largely follows Yojimbo. Quentin Tarantino plays a part where he is insanely overacting. It is just a fun no-brain action movie.

Izo (2004) by Takashi Miike – (4/10)

None of that made any sense whatsoever, the vast majority of Miike’s movies are weird in some way but Izo has to rank among the most insane of them all.

The movie is about an assassin called Izo who gets crucified in the 19th century, instead of dying he starts time travelling and goes to modern day Tokyo. After that it is about 2 hours of Izo killing everyone (I mean everyone) in hopes of attaining spiritual retribution. He kills samurai, yakuza, vampires, children, teachers, monks, woman carrying his child,… Takishi Kitano has a small role as the prime minister. Also there is stock footage of WW2. Random footage of the acid-folk singer Kazuki Tomakawa (check him out, he is incredible and probably the best thing about this movie). There is a final show down with mother earth.
Apparently the whole thing is philosophical and some people seem to like this movie because of that. I just say that it is pointless and mostly a guy killing other people with his sword in ridiculous ways for 2 hours (if you think that, that is cool, it gets boring surprisingly fast). It is madness but unfortunately not of the good kind.

The White Ribbon (2009) by Michael Haneke - (6/10)

The White Ribbon is the b&w winner of the 2009 Palme d’Or that was directed by Michael Haneke. It seemed begin with a statement like that because it is rather difficult to pinpoint what The White Ribbon is actually about, I could recite the plot or what happened on the screen but that wouldn’t quite explain its meaning. I think that it is about the cruelty or evil perhaps that is inside us all. I think that it is about the fact, that just because we are trying or we believe that we are trying to do good, that the nature of cruelty doesn’t change. Cruelty is cruelty with or without good intentions. Some people say that it is about the birth of Nazism, I think that is a bit of an too easy explanation. The main culprit is never, really revealed (it is rather easy to guess who it was) but that is just because that was not the point of the movie. It was meant to show cruelty or rather punishment. The cause or reasons behind it didn’t really matter.

It is up to everyone to decide for themselves what The White Ribbon was all about.

High and Low (1963) by Akira Kurosawa – (7/10)

It seems like an odd thing to say considering Kurosawa’s legacy (and the fact that I consider him to be overrated, good but overrated), I do think that High and Low is a bit of an underrated movie. It is among his best works (and better than many famous works) but it doesn’t seem to be quite as highly regarded or quite as famous, maybe because it doesn’t have samurai in it?

It plays out as an excellent ransom/ detective story in which a companies executive (played by Toshirō Mifune) son gets kidnapped and a ransom for him is demanded at the exact same time that he needs the money to complete a buyout or else he will loose everything. The movie centers on both the decision that he has to make as well as the police’s chase for the culprit. Kurosawa was a bit obsessed with getting things right so it is wonderfully shot, the moral dilemmas get handled in an interesting way, the chase is exiting but what makes the whole truly great is the ending. Where the victim and the culprit are confronted and we find out about his motives. It is one of the best things that Kurosawa has made in my opinion.

The Quince Tree Sun (1992) by Victor Erice – (5/10)

The Quince Tree Sun is the third and most likely final movie by the ellusive Spannish filmmakerVictor Erice. Overtly productive he isn’t granted that he made his first short movie almost 50 years ago now and has finished 3 full length movies so far. The tiny group of people that are actually familiar with his work once placed him and some still do on the same hight as Tarkovsky.

The Quince Tree Sun is either a documentary or a movie that was made to look like a documentary, either way, it doesn’t really matter. It is about the Spanish hyperrealist painter Antonio López García, who has been attempting for some 20 years now to paint a quince tree that grows in his garden. The movie documents his struggle to put a single moment of real-life perfection on canvas and his constant failures to achieve doing so. It is a very interesting movie, the same can be said of the struggle, what it al means and the quest itself. I did find it overly long and a bit dull, should have been quite a bit shorter or something else should have happened but than again, I suppose that, that would have been against the whole point that the movie or documentary was trying to make.

The Son (2002) by Dardenne Brothers – (6/10)

The Son by Dardenne brothers is an interesting, small movie. It is shot in a hard-core minimalist dogma 95 style (although not officially part of the movement). It feels as if someone just strapped on the camera on one the characters shoulders, not much is said, done or happens at all. The movie centres on a father whose son has been murdered and has to teach woodwork to one of the kids that were responsible for his sons death. The kid himself is unaware of who his new teacher is. The movies strength and seemingly sole point of focus lies in the relationship between the characters, unspoken heaviness and burden that lies between them and the fathers quest for forgiveness. It is an interesting movie and does a great job of portraying the fathers feelings without them ever being openly expressed. It did feel as if the movie ended too early, it seemed as if the real ending was about to come when the credits started rolling.

Psycho (1998) by Gus Van Sant – (3/10)

Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho is one of the most puzzling movies ever made because it is a shot-for-shot remake of what is often considered to be a masterpiece by many. Why was this made is the first question that almost anyone will ask. I assume that such a project can only be explained by an extreme admiration for the original by the maker. Maybe it was a way of finding out, just how Hitchcock had made the original? The thing that is most interesting about this movie is just how boring it is. This is not just because everyone who saw this was already familiar with the original. I saw this one before I saw the original. This is interesting because it shows that what makes movies interesting or brilliant is something that cannot be quite captured, the editing, the shots, dialogue, story,.. almost everything is identical in both version and yet one version is head and shoulders above the other one.

Elephant (2003) by Gus Van Sant – (3/10)

I suppose that both the making this movie as well as its critical acclaim (Palm d’Or winner) made sense in the political and cultural climate at the time. Any movie portraying or addressing the Columbine High School massacre would have made an impact. It never explicitly states that it is about that particular shooting but I think that it is pretty safe to assume that it was.

I personally found the whole thing to be incredibly dull, pointless and a stupid attempt at being intellectual and insightful. An interesting movie could have been made about this subject matter, to be honest it is surprising how dull this movie actually is given the subject matter. For whatever reason, Gus Van Sant ignored all the potentially interesting things about his subject matter and just decided to make shots that he thought that were artistic or clever. This is not film making, this is masturbation. From what I have been hearing this seems to be Gus Van Sant’s style, maybe I just don’t get it.

Black Ice (1994) by Stan Brakhage – (7/10)

I am still not quite sure yet about Stan Brakhage’s “painted” movies or the majority of his oeuvre for that matter but this one is rather beautiful. It is almost 2 minutes of this gorgeous, azure, purple, blue, crystal patterns coming straight at you. Reminds me a bit of one of the space sequences from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Looks very pretty and has a certain sense of depth to it.

Sirius Remembered (1959) by Stan Brakhage – (4/10)

Sirius Remembered consists out of footage taken over a period of a couple of months of how the family dog (Sirius) was rotting away after having been thrown out of the wood. Stan Brakhage’s movies centered on all aspects of life and death was no exception for him, not even in such a gruesome way. The movie last approximately 6 minutes and is black and white. Brakhage’s movies are always a bit, hit or miss with me. I didn’t care all that much for this one. Not per se for the slightly disturbing subject matter. It is just 6 minutes of very, shaky vague footage, that looks like a VHS which has been taped over too much. Sometimes you can make out the dog. Doesn’t do much for me.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) by Rachel Talalay – (4/10)

I think that it was pretty obvious by the time that they made this that the franchise already had died. This was made way before the reboot craze, when Hollywood could have just kept on repeating itself until the end of times. Hollywood have indeed invented a way to bring the dead back to life. Anyway, I am digressing.

It is not as bad of a movie as a lot of people say but by this point nothing that made the whole thing interesting in the first place had remained. Freddy Krueger was no longer scary, the whole thing plays a bit like a comedy. His ways of killing had not only been becoming bizarre with every movie but comical as well. He turns a kid into a piece of paper and cuts him apart, drags another kid into a video game,… The final showdown is ridiculous to say the least. The whole movie is based upon a plot device that makes no sense at all, Freddy Krueger had a daughter, something that everyone has failed to mention in all the previous movies. The scene that shows the original town, now completely devoid of children with them going mad over seeing children again for the first time of ages was pretty nice. Johnny Depp cameo is wonderfull.
The whole thing is not that bad because it still does work on a B-movie level, it is a potential guilty pleasures but most seem to disagree on that.

My Blueberry Nights (2007) by Wong Kar-Wai – (4/10)

Up until and including “2046” Wong Kar-Wai had been a pretty consistent and outstanding director. Then he decided to relocate to Hollywood and make his first English-spoken movie. In hindsight it makes a lot of sence that they invited him over, since people had been plagiriazing him for quite a while in Hollywood. Innitially I expected this to have no impact at all upon his work. Then “My Blueberry Nights” came out and I had no idea what happened. “My Blueberry Nights” is simply Wong Kar-Wai-light, it is someone trying to be him not Wong Kar-Wai himself. He was never too preoccupied with stories, rather visuals and moods as a filmmaker but “My Blueberry Nights” was simply too devoid of anything. It went nowhere, the ending didn’t make sence, it was utterly pointless as a roadmovie (me not being all that fond of the genre didn’t help all that much either), it wasn’t all that romantic, didn’t have enjoyable quicks,…
It was too stale, too bland, it was and remains watchable but serves a bit too much of a rminder as to how great his movies before were. Let us hope that this was just a small mistake, he will get his act together soon.

Thirst (2009) by Chan-wook Park – (5/10)

I am pretty sure that ever since the brilliant Vengeance-trilogy, people have been keeping an eye on Chan-wook Park in order to see what he would do next. The first thing that we got was “I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK” which was an oddball lovestory of sorts, it was not bad but it did feel like it could have been much more, it had the potential of being much better and it simply didn’t live up to it. Then came “Thirst” which was bound to cater better to the people that loved Vengeance-trilogy. It has a similar visual style as the two latter parts of the Vengeance-trilogy had, it is wonderfully over the top to say the least, check out the ocean shot towards the end. “Thirst” most met us halfway, it is part Vengeance-trilogy and part “I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK”. It is dark love story with plenty of odd moments and gruesome murders, personal relationships gone way out of hand, ridiculous sty lings and plenty of blood.

It does feel a bit like it tries to do a bit too much, a simpler approach might have been a bit better given the story. There is plenty of nice moments to be found, even though the movie is overall flawed and not quite in the same league as the Vengeance-trilogy. It is certainly not without its charm. There are plenty of good scenes, beautiful visuals and the love story is partly touching, partially unusual. Making the main character a priest was a bit too much perhaps, he is not that amazing of a character. Tae-ju is far more interesting and is by far the most engrossing character in the movie. The movies biggest flaw is probably that it manages to add very little if anything at all to a genre that has become incredibly stale, despite trying so hard.

King Kong (2005) by Peter Jackson - (4/10)

Given the fact that he had just finished the acclaimed, popular and financially very successful Lord of The Rings trilogy. Anything that Peter Jackson would have made afterwards, would have guaranteed a higher than usual degree of attention. It is safe to say that he probably had gotten in Hollywood extremely rare carte blanche. He chose to use it in probably what was the weirdest way imaginable, name to remake his childhood favourite and pop culture classic movie, namely King Kong. It is not that bad of a movie to remake, most people know the story, some nostalgia would have played a role but it had become technically outdated and campy enough to remake it whiteout being labelled a necrophilia. He could have used the opportunity to do something experimental or costly or something that would have been a sure hit and use the acclaim to become the new George Lucas. I suppose that he did what he wanted to do the most.


King Kong turned out to be a not bad, popcorn movie. The story was kept largely the same, it was rather nostalgic, campy and enjoyable to watch. It did make advantage of its own nostalgia value. It was far too long for its own good. CGI might have been a bit over the top, the original King Kong was popular originally for a big part because of its technical achievements, it did justify it, he might have wanted to tone it down a bit. Overall it was an acceptable popcorn movie, save for the standard complain that it didn’t have much going on in the way of substance and it was too long for its own good.