Scarface (1931)

I think in terms of remakes, the 80's version of Scarface is better than this, the 30's Howard Hawks original. 
The stories are essentially the same with a smart thug calculating his way to the top and be king gangster running booze (not the coke of the 80's), with dollops of violence and killen-ings. Other common threads include Tony's unhealthy if more subtle interest in his sister and his lieutenant and her get into a relationship too.
Also 80's Scarface has an extra hour on this one but De Palma's version hardly has any fat on it's running time.
Paul Muni is great and necessarily charismatic as Tony but when we're talking about iconic gangsters, Pacino's Tony Montana is just the definition of maniacal blind ambition -Muni's Tony at least has trace amounts of empathy. Karen Morley is just as great as the moll Tony's affections are vying for- the one you'll remember Michelle Pfeiffer playing in the remake.
You can see why Hawks was so influential to Tarantino and Scorsese- there are so many visual flourishes. Anyone who knows anything about Hawks, knows he was thought quite the exploitation director at the time but 80years later, his Scarface will hardly shock anyone with it's PG violence but i'd counter it's just as exciting and i'm going to say 'jaunty', in the way only films of the 30's could be. Actually the one thing 30's Scarface has over the 80's one is, it has a very ambitious car chase (of the 30's). (FFWD to between 1min18secs - 2min-20secs)

I think the main thing, De Palma and Oliver Stone's Scarface has over this one is major tension, like that of the chainsaw scene but obviously 50years later the limits of taste had... Well, there were few limits left by the 80's.


I watched Scarface (1932) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Blue Valentine (2010)...

The Thin Man (1934)

This will be tough to write because as much as i hate to say it- The Thin Man is not very good. 

It has one huge asset but otherwise it's an extremely by-the-numbers detective story. I've not seen any films starring Myrna Loy or William Powell before this but I'll bet a gazillion dollars that they don't work half as well separately as they do together. These two guys together is like cinematic alchemy- they must be the one of the greatest on-screen couples in cinema. I must be clear-it's not that 'every-sigh-aches-with-love' bond or they have this explosive sexual chemistry sort of dealy. 
They just have this great believable affectionate teasing, the same that all the greatest relationships have, down pat.
They have this luminescent bond that could survive anything.

At one point, Nick Charles punches his wife.
I guess the type of relationship they share is what one would expect from of a 30's/40's screwball comedy but their love is not used as a devise to make comedy, it's a delightful draw as well as the comedy; it's not about a developing relationship, it's about an already well-defined couple. It goes without saying that any scene without them makes the film flatline and sadly, there's a fair amount of that.
I mean to say the script by Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich is titanium-strong on dialogue & kitten-weak on plot. The plot is stodgey at best- you feel like they're pushing through the exposition so they can get back to the fun-to-write 'talky' stuff. I don't know but I doubt this issue pervades the Dashiell Hammett book this was based on, but i plan to read it. A curious thing about this film is the jolly positive effect of alcohol. Nick and Nora Charles drink like fish. They inhale booze. Are there any negative effects? If anything their intake might make them more effective in their laisse faire style of sleuthing.
I think the following exchange epitomises their relationship-

How much have you had to drink?  

5 Martinis.

Humph...well, I'm gonna need 4more Martini's over here then....

I guess at the time, The Thin Man must have been just a very idiosyncratic take on the murder mystery, complete with the mischievous drawing room group reveal of the murderer but the tone is that of our heroes saying- 
'We're gonna invite all the suspects... here?'
'Yeah.'
'What if something happens to us?'
'Hmmm-i do really want to find out who did do it...'

It's strange because i liked this movie but i know it's not very good; It could be better so i'll no doubt be watching at least one more of the 6 'Thin Man' movies made...


I watched The Thin Man (1934) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Scarface (1932)...

The Night Porter (1974)

The Night Porter was a great educator for me, in terms of understanding the dynamics of a sado-masochistic relationship.  I love love love Secretary and that's a good foundation in figuring out the appeal but this film more intermediate. Not more extreme, which is strange to say considering it's about a Nazi and his concentration camp muse but The Night Porter is not quite as broad-more pronounced. In essence- this is the story of Max, a hotel manager in 1957  trying to keep his head down after the war, haunted by his past. His existence changes when the young girl, Lucia he was infatuated with, happens to stay in his hotel in Venice. As you do.  They are almost coma-stricken by this revelation, having to remember their horrific past. Not that it was particularly horrific at the time for Max; if anything it was probably the best time of his life. Lucia certainly not so much. Her appearance in flashback is comparable to a chemical-lab rabbit with her pale complexion and sickly red hair. As much as they try to avoid each other since they're staying in such close quarters, Max decides to violently confront Lucia but they resolve to recede to the previous sub/dom relationship, we didn't yet know they had. At that point, i guessed at that point- their affair on a scale of successful German manufacturing would be Hindenburg-grade. Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling are just impeccable here. They both have real meaty complex roles to play here. Rampling has to completely strip herself of 'ego' to play the scenes where her whole presence has been stolen by the physical and mental torture of existing in this concentration camp.  Bogarde's character is literally one of the most conscienceless people portrayed on screen. Not because he is constantly doing reprehensible things but because he shows no remorse for the things he's done. He can't even refrain remorse. I mean you have to celebrate Liliana Cavani for her metered direction and script but Bogarde's denial about what he did or is doing to Lucia is hypnotic to the point, the audience begins to forget he's a man who's abused people, desecrated bodies. He plays it on the knife-edge of 'humanity'-Max is a human character who can be completely inhuman. We're aware he's possessive of Lucia but only in the sense, she is his possession. I don't know if this is based on anything in reality but they have this device, where all the former Nazis have a mock trial, to exercise the things they've done as a therapy of sorts. I'm fascinated by the thought process that realised that these people would need to confess the horrendous things they've done or that they would want to. If i have any issues with the film, it's that it's kinda too long and the 1st hour floats around before it decides what it wants to do. I guess what I'm saying is the 1st half could be condensed into 30mins but The Night Porter is a very striking film like this NSFpretty-much-any-situation-you'd-have to-explain-yourself fantasy scene- Lot of might think 'this is what you call fuckery, 'Black Swan' not your petty body-horror shit'... I watched The Night Porter (1974) on LoveFilm Player. My 2011 in Movies will return with Blue Valentine (2010)...

Blow Out (1981)

It's one of Tarantino's top 5 favorite films. That's the only reason i want to see Blow Out. 

Not De Palma, who i respect if i don't always like and not Travolta, who in my opinion is wildly hit-and.miss. I just want to see what could possibly be so great that it's held in such high esteem by one of the world's most famous cineastes.

You probably shouldn't start your writing with a metaphor but here it goes-  Blow Out is a reimagining of Antonioni's Blow Up, which was about a photographer who witnesses a murder. Blow Out is about a movie sound recordist who witnesses a murder (a car tire is 'blown out' leading to the murder). Now when you see what De Palma has done there, you think 'hmmm clever, very wry' which is a bit like the film it's self. It's very well made, it's a good idea, it's not predicable but there's no soul to it. You feel very disconnected while watching it. In the 'conspiracy thriller' genre, it's still a fresh idea/story 30years later and John Travolta has probably never been better but it's just 'robotic'- it looks good but it's not engaging. The way he directs certain scenes is almost lyrical, particularly a shot where Travolta is searching his office rabid for missing material:-

(FFWD to between 4min.40s-7min.30s)                         

The mise en scene is plain and direct. I guess this is what Tarantino appreciates about Blow Out. That and it's commentary on low-budget schlock cinema- Travolta is a sound recordist for teen-slasher movies and that gives De Palma, the opportunity to mock his own rep as an American 'giallo' filmmaker.

But then again, I'm thinking the problem might be with Nancy Allen, playing Alice. She's a character so dumb and feckless, i couldn't bring myself to care about her. She's the woman-in-danger and female interest. I say female interest because she may supposed to be the love interest but she and Travolta have zero chemistry. (Maybe because her husband was on set. Brian De Palma.) Her energy towards him seems purely sisterly.
That is to say, i didn't want anything bad to happen to her but I'm struggling to believe Travolta is trying to save the love of his life.
I have to call out Dennis 'Sipowicz' Franz for special praise- his lascivious lecherous sleazeball is really great. You could almost taste in desperation. Bleh...salty.
John Lithgow plays an unhinged psycho, but to be fair, this was probably the first time in a long list of his sociopaths.
I think De Palma will be fondly remembered in the annals of cinema as a great director, more than a technician or cameraman but he isn't an auteur. He can't write as well as he photographs and i think that's what lets Blow Out down.
In rap-music terms (!?), De Palma is like Dr Dre or The RZA. They made groundbreaking music but in rap-music, they're no one's favourite rapper.
People talk about De Palma's interest in voyeurism but isn't voyeurism supposed to feel exciting and engaging?

I watched Blow Out (1981), on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with The Night Porter (1974).

Jonah Hex (2010)

Sometimes you just watch movies to have an opinion on them. 
Like James Cameron movies.
Jonah Hex is one of those. This mean it is likely to be shit but i'm still excited to see it since, i want to have my own opinion and i want to see where it goes wrong and how it does so.

Before i begin that polite hatchet job of Jonah Hex, i'll start with what good with it. It's short- it's 80mins (inc. 6mins of credits...). This blog's 'reason d'etre' will likely be- films are too long but 80mins is 'hell's bells, that's short' short. That's the size of a HBO pilot but with 4x the budget, which admittedly is pretty much on the screen with practical stunts and explosions. Neveldine/Taylor's script is not horrible, it's passable in so much as there are 'zingy' lines and the story's not so ambitious, it could become stodgy. Um, what else... people had work for a few months in 2009? Anyway, it's basically unmitigatingly crap. But we knew this. We'd heard. The question is why? Where does it fall down? Well everywhere really but mostly the acting.  From the droney Mastodon score to the paint-by-numbers direction. Jimmy Hayward was a Pixar (no-less) animator who got lucky. Hollywood- please stop letting CGI people direct live-action films, it'll never work. I'll admit it's not as bad as when Mel Gibson let his hairdresser direct Paparazzi but that was an isolated incident. I guarantee that from now on. (Fun Fact - Jon Peters, Joel Schumacher and Danny De Vito also started as hairdressers.) I'm not going to address the role of Malkovich in this film. It's not that urgent or important to me, to do so. I could talk shit about his acting but i want to focus on Michael Fassbender. Let me just compose myself, Michael Fassbender. I'm not upset... I'm just very disappointed. So much potential gone to waste Mike...  You were like 5 wins and undefeated in your short career. From Inglorious Basterds to Fishtank to Hunger.  Hunger-what a sumptuous cinematic debut. And then this... Playing irish henchman #1. If that wasn't so abhorrent, you really 'mick' it up to eleven. You're a proud Irishman FFS. It was so bad, i thought you were going to ask Jonah Hex if he wanted his drive tarmac'ed. I expect it of him, he says thumbing at Malkovich. But not you Fassbender. Not you. Apparently other-modern-acting-great Michael Shannon was in this, but I don't remember seeing him sooo... congrats to him. That's the cinematic equivalent of having gym-note from your mother. Not going to lay into Megan Fox cos well, Megan Foxs are meant to be seen and not heard but Josh Brolin has the capacity to be great- very good in W. and No Country.., generally solid actor. Here- phoning it in... just faxing it in. I get overarching feeling all the actors knew this was a piece of shit, the producers set-out to make 5-showing-a-day-for- 2weeks programmer. That this was made for the short-term, not as art made to last the test of time. It's already failed last year.

I watched Jonah Hex (2010) on Blu-Ray via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Blow Out (1981)...

Cold Sweat (1971)

I'm beginning to think i like the idea of Charles Bronson for more than the guy's creative output.
I can't say i would watch a Charles Bronson movie simply because he's in it. I wanted to see Twinky, to see how he would fit in that film. I decided to watch Cold Sweat because it was directed by Terence Young (the director of Dr. No and From Russia With Love) and it also starred latter-career James Mason. 

This trailer actually makes this movie seem watchable:-

I mean it's not, but it was a pleasant hope for a few minutes, eh? 
This is probably a better representation of the film...

Fundamentally, this is a piss-poor script featuring piss-poor acting. I love Bronson's accent and the cadence of the way he speaks but his voice is something that should be used sparingly. As you can see, he can be glib and threatening but he's not very good at the concept of delivering sarcasm.
I gotta talk about Liv Ullman. She will always be most famous for starring in and being muse of Ingmar Bergman('s films) but her inflection of the English language is so bad I suspect she still can't speak English. Her first scene in this film was likely the first time she ever spoke English... ever. I say this because every time she opens her mouth, she look so worried she's gonna make a mistake. This serves her well when she's being held hostage but when she has scenes with her screen-husband Bronson, like when she says 'Sometimes i wonder why i stay married, then sometimes i know why i stay married'- your brain is screaming 'IT'S BECAUSE HE BEATS YOU ISN'T IT, YOU POOR WOMAN!' 
I don't think the character does but all her dialogue sounds like the voice of a battered wife.
James 'Lo-li-ta!' Mason doesn't fare much better. 
I suspect he was so fugging wasted during the making of this film- that they wrote that his character had to be strapped to a chair, halfway through!
As further proof, in a choice likely made by a liver-pickled ham- he decided to play the role of a former army captain channelling General Custer it would seem. Why is he doing a bad Southern USA accent, no one else is doing an 'accent'? No one's ever told you to do it before when you were in American movies! Why do it when you're in the South of France? It's mental.
Look, basically I can see what's happened here. Terry Young put out the call- 'come to friggin Nicé for 2 weeks. We'll work for a few hours a day, the rest will be a lovely piss-up. Leave your wallet at home- Bring the family- it'll be great!'
Well, I had a sneaking suspiction it might be shitty. It is but that's not to say it's kinda fun too. It reminds us that grindhouse movies weren't always super violent or super-sexualised - sometimes all you needed was a great gonzo car-chase in the South of France.

I love that he doesn't have enough momentum to free-wheel down the mountain, that he has to actually accelerate!

But please don't watch Cold Sweat. Watch the clips I've found for you on YouTube. They feature all the best stupid dialogue bits and the car-chase centrepiece. And because it's called Cold Sweat. There's nothing contextual about that title in this film. It's maddening!

I watched Cold Sweat (1971) on LoveFilm Online - http://bit.ly/eBtaIa
My 2011 in Movies will return with Jonah Hex (2010)...

NEDS (2010)

You know what the UK film makers have really become adept at making over the past decade?
Teen Movies. Not John Hughes rite-de-passage stories or that Twilight bs but hard-edged grimey tales like Fishtank or the superlative This Is England or softer 'brit-ish' fare like An Education. I've never seen a Peter Mullan film before (there was a double bill of his previous/first 2- The Magdalene Sisters and Orphans on Film4 last week but i zonked out) but i'd imagine he would be the best experienced person to make a Glaswegian coming-of-age story...


Man. NEDS has left me exausted but it's a great way to spend a few hours. 
John at 11 has entered high school, genuinely happy to study and read while everyone else is there to mess around. He's methodical and studious but because of his thuggish brother, his school want to tar him with the same brush by holding him back. 
2years later and he's excelling at school and now, others are  judging him based on his background but he's developing new friends in a gang, trading on his brother's name.
At it's core, this is a film about the attraction and corruption of violence. 
You never hear about the allure of violence. People don't generally talk about it but we all accept it vicariously through film or sport or books. We're all excited by it- it spices things up.
We draw the line on inter-personal violence but we've all been in situations at least once in our lives where we've felt the adrenaline of aggressing or being aggressed by someone. It's nothing a well-adjusted person would describe as pleasant or enjoyable but you're likely to remember it. NEDS is about submitting to violence as a lifestyle. It's not the first film about that- there's Fight Club and The Football Factory, maybe The Hurt Locker but this is the only one i recall that's about becoming violent at a formative age.
Conor McCarron playing John is phenomenal considering he has none or little experience and he has to carry the film. His casting must have been the biggest bet Mullan has ever made and it pays with massive dividends.
It feels like it goes without saying but Peter Mullan can really weave a hard story and while it's bleak, it's never depressing and not in a way that appears like he's given himself the juiciest role but Mullan just casts the most malevolent air across any scene he's in, as John's alcoholic abusive father. At one point, he enters a room and everyone stops what they're doing until he leaves and then they carry on. But better than his acting, which is no weak-link, is his direction.  He doesn't let you off with as much comedy as Shane Meadows does in This Is England (the film it's closest to stylistically) but NEDS has lots of funny moments. 
But you need those because when John sinks into violence, it completely changes his personality and the atmosphere in the film. He develops the sort of cold disconnection for violence reserved for paratroopers and it just wrecks his life. It's like watching someone's decent into drug addiction. You appreciate that getting into gang fights is exciting for John because of the camaraderie and recreational aspects but he starts using violence to solve all his problems and the results are irrevocable. 
NEDS is just a brilliant film about violence, where every act of violence has a lasting consequence.


I watched NEDS (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Cold Sweat(1970)...

Le Dîner de Cons (1998)

Le Dîner de Cons (or 'The Dinner Game') is the pre-make (sorry.) of recent film, Dinner For Schmucks. 

I'm sure i'll watch that over the coming months but today is all about French farce by the don of modern French farce, Francis Veber.

Based on the trailer for Dinner for Schmucks, i can tell they're very different movies; certainly not a-shot-for-shot remake. The '...Schmucks' version makes more of the 'who can bring a biggest weirdo to dinner' concept. Le Dîner de Cons is more about a horrible jerk getting his comeuppance from a delightful if boring schlub. More importantly it's really, really funny. Le Dîner de Cons is like watching 3 episodes of your favorite 3-wall sitcom back-to-back.

It's 75mins long- i wish more film-makers had the balls to make more movies shorter. 

Most films are too long- i've said it before, i'll say it again. If i can say your films too short, that's A* praise. Not to say Le Dîner de Cons is too short but if he felt like it, Veber could have milked another 5-10mins outta the film/story. But that might be the calculated decision of a comedy genius; Veber's pace and timing is a masterclass in dialogue and absurdity.

Jacques Villeret's character of 'Pignon' has this great 'gaul from 'Asterix' look about him- it's a brilliant tool to perform his buffoonery with. Thierry Lhermitte playing Brochant is a well-kempt cruel charming asshole. That's a lot of possibly conflicting adjectives for one guy to play but he sells all of them every minute he's on screen.

For the most part, it all takes place in Brochant's apartment and we just watch Pignon slowly take his life apart quite naively. And when he tries to fix it... He ends up making it worse. Classic 1 step forward, 2 steps back. As I've said, it appears that Brochant is just the straight-man but he's mean and increasingly biligerant with Pignon, he cheats on his wife, feels no guilt about the 'dinner game' but while you hardly feel sorry for him, you can understand his despair with the matchstick-model-making lug.
Because Pignon is so-wide eyed to help Brochant- who just wants him to go away, their relationship is almost kinda like Dennis and Mr Wilson from the American 'Dennis the Menace'

I also admire that Veber waits until the last 5mins to reveal Brochant's intent for inviting Pignon around to dinner. In most films of this ilk (Dinner for Schmucks included probably), the last 30mins is made up of- the reveal, the wronged one storms off-the other feels guilty-there's an emotional montage of them going about their lives without the other and then finally, they make friends- The end.

'Here it's like, 'i'm pissed with you but who cares at this point'- The end. 
But then that's the difference between Brochant and Pignon- he knows life's too short to hold grudges and some might take advantage of you but when you're happy and secure with yourself, you don't sweat the small stuff...


I watched Le Dîner de Cons (1998), on BBC I-Player.
My 2011 in Movies will return with NEDS (2010)...

Black Swan (2010)

Via here

Look- Black Swan is not allowed to be shitty. 
It can only be phenomenal. I feel like it's been kept from me and i needed to see it NOW since I saw the trailer, which seems like years ago. Not that i'm not rabid about Darren Aronofsky or Natalie Portman. They're generally pretty good but it seems like they've struck a nerve with Black Swan, especially with Portman- it's like this role is going to be the one that defines a career. I mean we all love her in Leon but you wouldn't want to be defined by something you did while you were a child. So i'm looking forward for to some bat-shit crazy Giallo.

Sit-down. Oh. You are sat, anyway this is gonna take a while.

Black Swan is about so many things. I feel- right now, having just seen it- like it's the definitive film on so many subjects:- Illness, The Human Body, Femininity, Performing and Stardom.

It can be so simple to forget that our bodies are these amazing machines. You might have problems with your body but when you think about the way it’s constructed and repairs its self, it’s astounding. Black Swan (amongst the things above, which I’ll get to) is about a body at its limit. Not a conked-out Model T but a Lamborghini that’s been going full speed for so long without stopping. The difference between the human body and say... a washing machine is the brain; the consciousness and unconsciousness. Natalie Portman’s Nina has her body telling her, she has to Slow. Down.

Her brain will not allow it.

I want to say Nina has body dysmorphia, but it’s not quite that. Body dysmorphia is ‘a preoccupation with an imagined defect in appearance causing significant stress or behavioral impairment’. Nina is imagining body defects but she’s quite relaxed about them. For example, if she where to accidentally seriously cut herself, she would nonchalantly seal the cut and work through the pain. Her brain is dulled to physical pain. The only pain she can feel is deeply psychological and it’s constant and it can’t be moderated.

Playing this character must have been exhausting for her- Natalie Portman is highly strung in almost every scene. It feels her hallucinations are her body sneaking into her brain to remind to stop but her brain is so consentrated on perfection in her dancing that nothing else is going through.

Not that the dancing is the challenging part for Nina, if anything she probably feels ‘on top’ of the dancing; it’s performing aspects of her character she’s not in-tune with, that will be her struggle.

As the Queen Swan, she has to be the white swan- virginal and pure but she also has to be the black swan- sensual and alluring. How can she be seductive, when her whole being is so closed to anything that isn’t ballet.

Nina is the white swan; she is studious but she’s ultimately asexual. In the same way, you go on a course to build your skills at work- Nina objectively devises she will need to discover her sexuality. She's beginning to realise that sensuality is as important to her female identity as her poise and grace.

Obviously developing your sexuality to the point, you feel in control- that it’s part of your equilibrium is something that takes years to develop and has the tendency to be messy even in the most ideal conditions. Nina is trying to rush it through in a matter of weeks.

But when she does become the Black Swan, it’s simply joyous. It’s the visual definition of a flower in bloom, a star being born; the experience absorbing of a transcendental performance. You're watching Nina ascend to greatness but also Natalie Portman. At the end of the performance/film, you feel like you've just seen The Beatles at the Cavern Club or Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire.

It's for this reason, i feel sorry for anyone else in Black Swan that isn’t called Natalie Portman.

Everyone else is set-dressing; props in the Natalie Portman Show. Not that she’s over the top, Norma Desmond-like in her performance- it’s just that she has to be and is the best thing in every scene. It’s almost like she has to nail the character of Nina 100%, so she never has to do it again like she’s exorcising everything that came before in her career. The reason people love Black Swan so, is that you are literally watching an actor shedding their skin and maturing into their future-self. As much as I love Vincent Cassel, he can’t attempt to get a look in. It must be the only film, where he’s not the best thing in it.

That said, Barbara Hershey is pretty terrifying as Nina’s obsessive stage-mother. I’d imagine that after seeing Black Swan, a lot of girls will call their mothers and say ‘Mom, I’ve overreacted in the past- You are definitely not that bad…’

As I’ve said Aronofsky’s ouvre has not always excited me- Pi is far too cold, The Fountain is far too ponderous, Requiem For A Dream is too bleak for my taste BUT The Wrestler was a massive sea-change. There was compassion and emotion there. I don’t think he’s an auteur in the conventional sense but he can tell a story.

Because Black Swan is so much about hallucination and façade, Aronofsky’s uses this sense of visual distortion. He uses mirrors, lookalikes and blurring and obviously the shakiness’ of hand-held digital photography.

His use of hand-held digital camera shows is a subtle but implicit style choice. People misconceive hand-held photography in fiction as an implication of ‘reality’/vérité but being so close-up to people is unreal, the act of being in someone else’s face is about implying tension.

I think my mother (Hi Mom!) summed up the experience of Black Swan best, when she told me that when the lights went up after she’d seen it- all these guys were mouthing to their dates, ‘What the fuck was that about?!'
I'm constantly wondering the female experience but after Black Swan, I feel like I'm a bit more informed.


I watched Black Swan (2010) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Le Diner de Cons(1998) ...

Thirst (2009)

Vampires. What is the enduring fascination?
Are they stories that allude to obsession or addiction? Does the 'biting' represent sexual promiscuity or is it themes of burgeoning sexual awakening that resonate with young 'Twilight' readers? Park Chan Wook's Thirst is a bit of all the above.

Song Kang-ho plays Catholic priest, Sang-hyeon, who unhappy with not being able to help enough people travels to help find a cure to a new degenerative disease, by allowing himself to be tested on. Not unusually, he dies. But is reborn, which means he is welcomed back with a near-saintly esteem. On his return he is introduced to a supremely dysfunctional matrocractic family- highlighted mostly by the fact, their adoptive daughter Tae-ju is their slave and most worryingly, wife to their coddled-idiot son. Naturally the priest is pretty wierded out by this and sees it as his duty to try and save her from her life. But at the same time, he's realising that he's developed a preternatural need for blood...
If you've seen a Park Chan Wook film before, you know the 'proportion of retribution by the wronged' is an idea he's interested in. Here with Tae-ju's Cinderella story, you know it's not going to be subtle or pleasant. She is unlikely to 'turn the other cheek'. You realise her revenge is going to quite premeditated if unconscious as she 'sics' her new vampire beau on her abusers\family.
Unlike most vampires, Sang-hyeon's change is as philosophical as it is physical. After dying, Sang-hyeon becomes far less interested in his strict Catholic training and develops more carnal needs and there's a great sincerity with the way Park handles it; With both characters, sex starts off as a thoroughly therapeutic exchange that they're using to experience intimacy they've never been able to enjoy before. 
And as their relationship deteriorates due to Tae-ju's misleading if understandable duplicity, we realise that the level of her abuse has damaged her as she may not be able to recover and heal, to forgive and move on and Sang-hyeon is unsure if he can forgive her for the things he did with good intention for her.
I love the way the camera move in certain scenes as well; at times it's almost like it looks around to see if the coast is clear before pulling it's self over the wall to peek at what's going on. 
Makes De Palma look like a beardo-hack.
Whenever I've watched a Park Chan Wook film, because the subject matter is dark as is the humor- I'm always concerned it's gonna go too far but i think his genius lies in not allowing that or knowing how far to go. You certainly feel like you've seen a challenging piece but never sullied by it. Thirst is the same but you're watching a director working in genre convention and on a bigger scale than he's been able to before and it suits him. It's a vampire movie but it's lasting effect is a film about freedom and forgiveness.


I watched Thirst (2009) on LoveFilm Online - http://bit.ly/gBgcLM
My 2011 in Movies will return with Black Swan (2010)...

You Can Count On Me (2000)

This was one of those rare situations, where i'd heard good things- award noms and such- but didn't really know what this film was about.
Only that it featured Laura Linney and a Mark 'The Ruffley Buffalo' Ruffalo...


It's kinda hard for me to write about this film based on non-expectations but lets compare it with the bummy, Lonesome Jim since there are similarities:- both are centred on loners coming 'home' but You Can Count on Me is good. Lonesome Jim - mmmeh.
Laura Linney and The Ruffalo play brother and sister, Ruffalo returning to spend time in the rural upstate New York town he grew to stay with his bank supervisor sister that's never left. We don't know why exactly but we know he's coming back to borrow money. We know she's excited because she places family highly because they were orphaned at a young age. So yeah this isn't going to be any great yarn, just a moderately quiet drama about these two different people.
If the film has a discernable thread, i'd say it was about these 2 people  exploring catharsis in their lives in different ways. The Laura Linney character vicariously has these non-committal relationships with men. The Ruffalo's character is just obstinate and can't help but do the opposite of the right thing. Not that he is trying to do wrong but needs to make mistakes before he'll learn-sometimes his decisions seem like he makes them just to see how they'll play out...
They both do. The unconscious decisions they make have no positive outcome.
Matthew Broderick has great against-type role here as, 'a bit of a prick.' First, he was Bueller (who probably was a fair slice of prick incidentally) then he settled into 'pleasant bumbling dink', but here it's kinda nice to see him being 'a toxic middle-management arse-biscuit'. 

It's like his career is going from playing insolent to indolent to impotent.

Linney is pretty good here but it's the kinda role middle aged actresses do all the time and there's nothing particularly surprising on show here. She's really good- that's plain to see.
This however was the role that really kicked off Mark Ruffalo's career and maybe because it's a complex character, maybe Ruffalo knew it was a good canvas to play with as an actor- he's just doing sterling work. He's just a character with a lot of fight in him but nothing to fight against; someone who's still carrying his teenage rebellion into his late 20's. I think the hallmark of great acting sometimes is recognition, in the sense of relating to or if you can't relate, recognising that character in people you know and i felt like i knew many people like Ruffalo in this movie.
The writing... I have an obtuse 'beef' with the writing. Now, the writer/ director Kenneth Lonergan is a very prolific NY playwrite and for a 'human drama', i think there a good story here but i think it's weird that the dialogue here is... not great. I guess it's me but i just expected more punchy dialogue from a playwrite is all. He did get an Oscar nom. It's me.


I watched You Can Count On Me (2000), on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Thirst (2009)...

Please Give (2010)

I remember the 1st time I saw Catherine Keener.
It was in Being John Malkovich more than 10years ago. She completely takes over every scene she's in, in that film. Over the years, she's steadily rose through to prominence- most famously in The 40 Year Old Virgin. So I look forward to her and Oliver Platt in, I expect a thoughtful character piece. I feel in very safe hands. I don't expect anything ground-breaking but maybe it could transcend it's talky New York comedy-drama vibe...


I've only just realised something. Films like It's Kind of a Funny Story and Please Give only have it's actors and writing to depend on. They'll never be lauded for technical brilliance- it's unlikely you'll feel you've watched anything hitherto unseen and yet despite that; despite the focus being on the acting and writing, it's going to make it hard for people to generally be excited to see these types of movies. 
It's sad because I think Please Give, does transcend it's 'New York comedy-drama' ghetto because it has great acting and writing in spades.
Writer/Director Nicole Holofcener, really excels in writing really great funny dialogue and she's put together this great cast to bring it to life.
Catherine Keener plays the owner of a vintage furniture store with husband Oliver Platt, that buy stuff 'from the children of dead people' and sell it for an inflated price but is overcome by her guilt about.. everything. She feels bad about the homeless, staving children, you name it. Not unusual maybe but she really is obviously encumbered by it. I knew Keener was good in this because I could empathise with her despite not being very good at feeling guilty myself. If i feel guilty about anything- it's not feeling guilty enough but then I'm feeling guilty about not being very good at feeling guilty. Then i start think about dinner time. 
The girl who plays her daughter, Sarah Steele is very good here too, standing-out in what's essentially reacting to the overbearing sympathy her mother spreads around.
And you know what, it does have something hitherto unseen - Amanda Peet really getting her teeth into a role; well at least not since Igby Goes Down. She really plays her bitchy, direct character with a poise of insecurity. I think only with Rebecca Hall's character is the characterisation a bit thin, the character doesn't really develop though Rebecca Hall is good here and Oliver Platt is doing his irrepressible Oliver Platt routine but you wouldn't want to have the film without him.
Like I said before, Please Give is no visual spectacle, not that you expect it to be. It has a very Upper-West Side aesthetic that fits the film but it's in it's exploration of trying to help others and trying to make tangible good- what the film was always going to be judged against- it really succeeds in a conclusion, not where characters have changed but have a better understanding on how to feel better. It's an incredibly enjoyable film with relatable characters.
Oh yeah- i almost forgot- Please Give has one of the most jarring cold-openings of any film... 
So now you gotta watch it.


I watched Please Give (2010) on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with You Can Count on Me (2000)..