Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom / Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

Old Monk: "Lust awakens the desire to possess. And that awakens the intent to murder."

By Ki-duk Kim
With Yeong-su Oh, Ki-duk Kim, Young-min Kim

I think I met Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring by accident while browsing IMDb. It was possibly a movie similar to something I saw, but it might just be random. Or maybe I was seeing through the top#250 and realized I never saw this one.

An old monk lives in isolation in a house in the middle of a lake. With him lives a young boy who is training to be a monk. One day, the young boy attaches a rock with a string around a fish and laughs at the fish that is painfully trying to swim away. Oblivious to the fact the old monk is watching him, he applies the same treatment to a frog and then a snake. The old monk attaches a string and a rock while the boy sleeps. When the boy wakes up, he complains that he cannot walk because he is attached to a rock. The young monk then realizes it was wrong to do so to the animals and the old monk tells him to go free the animals. If any of them died, then the young monk will have a heart of stone for all his life.

Years passes and the boy grows into a young adult when a young woman comes visit them to cure her bad health, the monk quickly falls for her. The woman first ignores him but they soon fall in love and sex comes naturally after. The old monk who ends up seeing them does not blame the young monk, but as the woman's health is much better, tells them that it was the right cure. Once the woman is healed, she prepares to leave-- a painful departure for the young monk, who one morning, abandons the lake and flees... But he is bound to return some day.

First of all, I have to say that this was one of the most beautiful movies I have seen. Not only the scenery, but the house in the middle of a lake and in the middle of a valley is absolutely stunning, and the passing of the seasons--which are not only metaphorical of the life of a person and the emotional states of their mind--are also filmed in their respective corresponding season. This all adds up to create scenes of rare splendor.

There is a real clever economy of dialogue. There aren't many to begin with, but the ones present are carefully picked and always speak volumes. The relationship between the old and the young monk (who is played by a different actor in each and every season) is complex but a pleasure to watch. I admittedly haven't deciphered all the symbolism, for example, I don't know if there is an explanation as to why each season finds them having a different pet with them, but I am certain there are explanations.

I was most stunned with the winter scenery when the water turns to ice. The movie has a lot to say about the cycle of life, the cycles through life and the repetitive wheel of fate. It seems to have quite a fatalistic take on life as the mistakes of our childhood can carry through a whole life, or maybe this is simply a symbol.

It was one of the hardest movie to choose a snapshot from as it had so many beautiful ones. In a way, I wish that the two young people didn't have sex, it seemed too simple to have them go for it simply because they are the only two in a deserted place. I wanted the young monk to show remorse or guilt in regard of his faith but very little of it was used. This is only a detail and I think that quite realistically what happened in the movie is what would happen in most cases.

The movie is a tour de force.  The filming must have been a patient task over different seasons but also for the actors, especially the one playing the adult monk (who is in fact the director) and how he had to walk on a lake of ice, fall, etc. There are such beautiful scenes around the pond, whether it's the ice sculpture or the young boy who is smaller than the head of the Buddha. And the wooden doors with paintings that open for every season on a new scenery. The doors could be another theme as the doors in their house were quite interesting.

I liked: The scenery. The economy of dialogues. The evolution of a person.  Asceticism and faith. It's a film that can't leave you indifferent.

I disliked: Is it pessimistic? Fatalistic? It is hard to decide. I found the segments of Spring and Winter superior to the rest.

93/100
I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys Movies with a capital m, the ones that hold a message, a meaning.

Errors of the Human Body (2012)

Geoff Burton: "From first symptoms to death, the entire process took little over a week."

By Eron Sheean
With Michael Eklund, Karoline Herfurth and Tómas Lemarquis

It was after watching The Call (2013) that I decided to browse through Michael Eklund's filmography hoping to find other portrayals of deranged characters. Errors of the Human Body is a title that immediately hooked me and I wanted to know more. The poster looked marvelous and it seemed to have won some awards and nominations so I decided to see it.

Doctor Geoff Burton was once renowned and a beacon of hope to the medical field, but a rare genetic condition that led to his son's death ruined him.On the verge of being fired he accepts a job offer in Germany. The transfer was supported by a young female doctor who was once Burton's intern and with whom he had a liaison. Once he arrives, he discovers what Rebekka is working on: a way to have cells regenerated extremely fast. However, the processes which work in amphibians seems bound to failure when tested in mammal embryos. This is until Jarek, Rebekka's previous partner on the project, tries it illegally on a mouse. Geoff, who was following the scene, steals the mouse in either desperate scientific interest or a desire to protect Rebekka's project. From there on, Geoff's mental health begins to deteriorate as he enters a conflict with Jarek and is plagued by his past.

I was quite pleased with what strikes first in the movie: the constant ambient low tune of disturbing music and the quality of the medical environment which was not portrayed in the typical scientific way, but was filmed in a way that made it beautiful. The story is quite simple overall but the flashback of the past along with the deterioration of everything around Geoff makes the movie really smooth. Geoff Burton's character reminded me in many ways of the protagonist in The Machinist (2004).

Eklund really shines in this deranged guilt-ridden persona, although he might now be typecast as the new crazy actor (that'll give Michael Shannon a break). The scene at the party with loud electronic music, bright neon colors and costumes is really a pleasure to see. In the background, a great deal of moral issues are dealt with, but the first plane is always about Geoff.

The film depicts a bare, rough and industrial vision of Germany which seemed to be in perfect harmony with the isolation of the main character. I couldn't help but wish there was more that was done with the tools we were shown. In the end it felt like a really lonely and caustic movie. At least it managed what Splice (2009) didn't; to make research in medicine look good. I wish there was more and maybe this is where the movie feels a little short in its unfolding. I think I felt really similar after watching Antiviral (2012) where I loved the world I was thrown in and it was visually astounding, but the story left me wanting for more.

I liked: Constant background noises and music. Geoff and Eklund's acting. Exploration and depiction of guilt.

I disliked: There was more to do, more to say. Some scenes seemed unrealistic--for example, a chase scene with a mouse is far stretched--the protagonist was after all a top notch scientist.

72/100
I'm really going to look forward to future movies by Eron Sheean. I like his directorial work. I would recommend this to those who enjoyed Antiviral (2012) and also maybe Upstream Color (2013).

Passion (2012)

Christine: "You are truly mysterious."

By Brian De Palma
With Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Karoline Herfurth

Admittedly I didn't remember what this film was about when I started to watch it -- but knew it starred the charismatic Rachel McAdams.

To start off, this is a dense film. It doesn't seem so when you start watching it, but it's a film worth paying attention to because every single detail is relevant: be it the music, colors, costumes, or dialogue. What starts off as a power struggle between two executives of an advertising company ends in a catastrophe, but not without plenty of foreshadowing and motive which implicates every main character in question.

I enjoyed the colors and their symbolism. The red, blue, and green -- the primary colors -- and of course shades of white and black. In a sense it seemed to me that it showed how every character could, to use a cliched phrase, "turn their colors" any minute. As the film starts, Isabelle is shown as a naive woman with a high pitched voice, who is seduced by Christine, a powerful femme fatale who has her under a thrall. At the same time, Isabelle is admired by Dani, her assistant, though she is seemingly unaware of this.

In many ways I think this is more of a symbolic film than one narrating factual events, and as the stakes grow higher and higher, the symbols become more jumbled, intricate, and intense.

Was anyone murdered? Did Christine really have a twin sister? Was there really a ballet playing and if so why did the woman in the ballet have such a strange all-knowing glimmer in her eyes? Moreover, is anyone really innocent at all? The justice system is shown here as more and more a farce, something to be played. At times it reminded me of Franz Kafka's The Trial, the work situation and rivalry taking on a sort of meaningless role, an endless play of words.

I liked: The ambiguity was stellar. It questions the standard whodunit as there is no clear cut answer to be found, and every interpretation can be played out fairly. The music fit very well with the scenes, and stylistically I would say this film was a success.

I disliked: I found at times the characters were too much symbols -- but of course this can be because they each take turns wearing a symbolic mask, and acting a role. Everything is a performance. This is highlighted the most when the same scene is shot twice (which happened a few times) but most memorable when one scene was shown with desperation and seen in another light as something humorous.

70/100
I would recommend this film to you if you're watching it with someone and can pick it apart with another point of view. It might be frustrating to see it and have multitudes of hypothesis running around in your head without a way to understand them. A very visually pleasing film, with a rather delicious plot to mull over afterwards.

Passion (2012)

Christine: "I killed her. And they never told me that they love me ever again." 

By Brian De Palma
With Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Karoline Herfurth

I was excited to see Passion as I had heard about it before and more than just the lesbian undertones, the plot seemed interesting and I think Rachel McAdams, just like wine, gets better with age.

Christine and Isabelle work in the same advertising agency but it seems they have more than a simple work relationship as Christine blatantly hits on Isabelle. When Isabelle scores a good deal, Christine takes all the credit, saying that it'll make them both look good and after all it's simply business. This declares war between the two. Never too far from each other emotionally, the blows they share quickly escalate. It certainly doesn't help that they are both sleeping with the same man on the side, Dirk, an accountant who has been stealing money from the company and who Christine won't cover for anymore. While all this unfolds, Dani, Isabelle's sexy young assistant, has her eyes set on Isabelle and is increasingly annoyed by Christine's attitude. In a happy confusion of musical ecstasy, pills, sex games and dreams- a murder is committed.

What first strikes the viewer is the utter class and distinguished sense of fashion that everyone seems to share. Art meets models and workplace meets chic couture in this very clean atmosphere where the dirty deeds of jealousy are out in the open. No one is unattainable, emotionally, physically and sexually. There are no boundaries of gender and emotional issues are dealt with sex or unleashed rage.

I think a strong aspect of the movie resided in this dichotomy between two worlds that live side by side, inter-lapping most of the time: the elite and the gutter. This is true particularly in the first half of the movie,and in the second part is where your senses are put to their most extensive usage as the music tackles you and the directorial tricks have you wondering about the significance of what you see.

What is real? This might be the true question asked by Passion. A common cinematic trick, the dream, has always led to uneasiness and disbelief in the viewer's mind. Here it is not only that, but the dreams are intertwined with sleeping pills and unraveled identities.

In addition to the wardrobe and directorial tricks, the most important aspect of the movie is carried by the three main actresses. One would argue that it is mostly about the two, Isabelle and Christine (respectively Naomi Rapace and Rachel McAdams) but I think the role of Dani (Karoline Herfurth) was just as pivotal. I was in awe in front of these ladies: their characters were pure evil, yet their fragile emotions made me care for their mind games, as disgusting as they got.

What pleased me most was the uneasiness at figuring everyone out. It is possible to interpret everyone's actions in multiple ways. It certainly doesn't make it an easy film to grasp, but I tend to enjoy unraveling the mystery beyond the mystery.

There are things, however, that I didn't enjoy. The use of phone camera is a little far stretched, the fashion can be judged as an effort to camouflage style under substance, and the police is often times a caricature of what it should be. Finally, the one masculine role seemed to be a puppet that could be toyed with.

I liked: Music. Played with my mind and senses. Visually impressive. Joyous artful bisexuality of everybody involved. Cryptic color symbolism. Mysterious.

I disliked: Falls into some predictable clichés at time. A very sadistic society. Cameras everywhere.

71/100
I quite liked that I didn't get all of it and that even after discussing it, there are still different ways to interpret it. In a way, it reminded me of Chloe (2009) maybe because they are both adaptations of French movies.

The Grass Is Singing (1950) -- Book Review

"Loneliness, she thought, was craving for other people's company. But she did not know that loneliness can be an unnoticed cramping of the spirit for lack of companionship."

By Doris Lessing

While I was browsing for books in the bookshelf that holds mostly books that my siblings and I read for school, I noticed The Grass Is Singing (or Vaincue par la brousse as my French version says) and was drawn to it. I like to read books that are set in a certain historical and geopolitical context and this book seemed like a shining example. I probably wouldn't be mistaken if I were to say this was the first book I read about South Africa.

The book starts with a note in a journal about the murder of Mary Turner, white, by a black servant. We live this first chapter through the eyes of Charlie Slatter, the neighbor of the Turners. Charlie is a successful farmer, as opposed to the Turners, and had plans of buying their farm once they left. The black servant confesses to the murder without reluctance and even if there is a possible doubt in him being coerced to do so (either the murder or the confession for that matter), we don't really doubt it.

To understand the death of Mary Turner and discover, not by whom but why she was murdered, the book takes us back into Mary's life. We learn about her alcoholic father and emotionally abusive mother, and the blatant racism of the whites of Rhodesia (now, Zimbabwe) against those they called the "niggers" or "natives".

However, once Mary leaves and manages to be on her own she becomes quite a successful woman in her own right. A good job, friends she feels comfortable with, boys with whom she can be friend without ever having to engage in any sort of relationships and most of all a deep sense of worth. This all starts to go downhill when she once overhears her friends saying how it is weird that she is still single at her age, that she has no desire to marry. Deeply hurt by those comments, because she thought her friends would behave around her the same as they would behind her back, she starts to get paranoid that they all see her as different and inept. More by way of trying to fit in than because of her own desire, she decides on getting married.

She meets farmer Dick Turner, who is lonely and desirous for company and children. They get married and Dick, who is very poor, tells her they should wait for a better season and more money before they have children. This ends up being the way everything will happen for the couple on the farm from then on.

The only thing Mary likes in her husband is his pride, as he would never borrow any money and would always believe he can make the money back with a good season. But Dick Turner never makes a good decision, nor blessed by a good season and as such they never have any money for holidays, or even for things like putting a roof over their living room. Mary gets more and more isolated as the years pass and the heat seems to team up with her loneliness to drive her towards an end. Her spiraling descent is discernible to the reader, who is already told of her being murdered in the end.

I immediately enjoyed the intrigue and writing style of the book. The first shock is the blatant racism of the characters which sets you aback with their treatment of the "natives" like animals and the constant need to "save face for the Whites against the niggers". In a way, the racism is so exposed that we learn a great deal from the characters through it.

Dick Turner is a complex character, always depicted as a loser who never gets anything right yet is very strong willed and never prone to pessimism or depression. Most of the book is centered on Mary and her depression through sheer isolation and the defeat of her dreams -- which is painful to watch unravel. In a slow and meticulous way, we see it happening. I felt it was easy to tell what would happen, yet it took time, slowly burdening Mary more and more. In a way, the slow depression and boredom of rural life that Mary goes through reminded me of Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary.

There is very little action going on when you consider their farm life goes on for at least 15 years living on small hopes: a new field or a new plant, a shop or an interaction with the natives.

The other book I was reminded of is Chronicle of a Death Foretold--not so much in its narrative, but because we know exactly what is going to happen, yet, it still manages to clench our guts when it does.

I would say this was my favorite part of the story--the slow, burning hot series of afternoon that Mary would have to spend alone. Nothing happens yet we slowly witness her downfall. And we slowly start to wonder if they'll leave, at first, but then we realize it's impossible they can't live. And it feels that if someone could die of sheer boredom, maybe Mary would have, but it's impossible so how does she turn up dead on the first page? How did she let a native, of which she was always so mean to, get near enough of her to kill her? And the crushing hand of time that slowly but so surely deteriorates Mary's physical and mental health.

 I wasn't surprised to read that Doris Lessing later wrote more feminist novels as this definitely has proto-feminist undertones to it. I pondered whether Mary was asexual too. A scathing critique of a society that thinks evil of those who don't abide by its rules.

I liked: Slow death. Isolation. The clash of characters between Dick and Mary. Historical context. Open to interpretation.

I disliked: The social critics are done through repeated occurrences of them. No mystery.

73/100
It's hard to pinpoint what the book is precisely about- South Africa, colonialism, isolation, sanity. Or simply Humanism.

The Coldest Summer -- Book Review

Latifa spent the whole day familiarizing herself with Baaba and Umar. She found their behavior somehow weird, but you find different kinds of people here in Kano, she thought. 

By Fatima Dansumaila

Last semester during one of the courses I was taking, I had the fortune of meeting the first published writer I ever personally met, Nigerian-born Fatima Dansumaila. Her novel was published when she was seventeen, and she kindly offered me a signed copy of it. I was fascinated by it, naturally, but didn't get around to reading it until a few days ago.

It's fair to say this was one of the most engaging narratives I have read. The book was page-turner, which I don't think is necessarily the easiest feat. It chronicles the lives of two sisters, Saratu and Latifa, who have been raised in the US but returned to Nigeria due to their increasingly politically active father. After a foiled kidnapping event, the sisters discover their parents have been assassinated in the middle of the night and they are handed over to their conniving next-of-kin.

In many ways this novel follows the classic trajectory of a Cinderella tale with a twist. A feminist narrative, the two sisters and their helpful friend help overturn their drug addicted and abusive relatives who have every intention of swindling them of their inheritance (which runs in the millions) and at the same time are plotting to have them married off to men four times their age.

The secondary characters are intriguing: the poor, aged, and unorthodox widower--whose late wife was Indian, and as such developed in him an appreciation for Bollywood songs and movies-- who lives across the street where Latifa is confined, and who eventually helps her achieve her freedom, and Maryam, the wealthy girl who lives across where Saratu is kept and who seems to have it all except that she is struggling with being caught pregnant out of wedlock to a man her father doesn't approve of and who is coercing her to undergo an abortion.

I once read somewhere that every successful story has an identifiable and strong villain--and this novel is adept at creating villains that are at once realistic without being reduced to cardboard characters. Hajiya Jamila, the woman who takes Latifa under her wing, is a notorious drug dealer with numerous young boyfriends and a kitchen full of alcohol. Yet she isn't happy -- her boyfriends are addicted to heroin, and her days are filled with a seeming endlessness. Her spurts of remorse over her master plan to rob her niece of all she has are in some ways preferable to the family that adopts Saratu, showers her with compliments but are even more greedy and are preparing for her marriage to Maryam's sixty year old father.

I enjoyed this novel for a number of reasons: reading about the different foods in Nigerian households, the socioeconomic setup of the community mirrored what I've noticed in Bangladesh, for example, the way a wealthy person is estimated by how many cars they have or generators in their home (as the electricity is prone to going out) and the ways in which differences in wealth can sour relations between blood relatives and especially so if one has grown up away from the country without the opportunity to develop emotional bonds with relatives. The naivete of Saratu, who truly believes in all the kind words she is hearing at her adoptive family and their disdain at her innocence is quite similar, perhaps stereo-typically so, to something I've heard time and again directed to me and my sister. The kind of street smarts that a place like Nigeria can teach children, as well as the very omnipresent misogyny of the culture and its interpretations of religion are both eye opening and tragically realistic.

What bothered me however was the conclusion the two sisters and even the relatives came back to again and again--that they can all achieve their dreams if they travel to the US. It's almost as though all they could see in their "motherland" was corruption and decay, and they are not given the ability to find a way to be reconciled with Nigeria, or win the war and remain on the turf instead of being exiled. It's as though they were equating Nigeria with all that is bad--and as such I felt it descended into a 2D plane instead of reaching greater psychological depths. Of course, this could be arguably counteracted by the ending in which the reader sees Hajiya Jamila, even after attempted murder of Latifa, manage to get away and track her to the US -- implying that as long as the sisters are not of age and have vast amounts of money to their name, they will continue to be targeted, no matter where they are. But I felt this was very possibly included more as a suspense or thriller hook than to make a point about the world not being safe, as opposed to only Nigeria not being safe.

I liked: The pacing, the humor which mocks the hypocrisy of people and their ways of justifying unethical acts through religion (in one scene where after the aunt, Baaba, who had adopted Saratu realized she could use her role as the guardian to secure Saratu's inheritance, she immediately thanked Allah and prayed out of gratitude for having been given the brains to cook up such a scheme) the plot, the side characters.

I disliked: The edition I was reading had numerous spelling and grammatical errors and some words which I felt were awkward in context. The story was stereotypical at times, and many of the situations and characters are one-dimensional.

68/100
All in all, a thoroughly captivating novel and especially so for anyone interested in the domestic life in Nigeria, in familial drama, or in just a very feel-good story about the struggles of two orphans.

The Woman in the Window (1944)

Dist. Atty. Frank Lalor: "We rarely arrest people just for knowing where the body was."

By Fritz Lang
With Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett and Raymond Massey

I am not sure which movie it was that I saw and was similar to The Woman in the Window, and/or recommended it, but it was definitely one of the recent film-noir that I've been watching--possibly The Big Heat (1953).

Professor Richard Wanley teaches psychology of homicide in college. When his wife and kids have to leave for a while, he meets up with his friends at a men's club. Next to the club is an art gallery where the portrait of a woman haunts the three men, both because of the beauty of the painting but also of the subject. Richard decides to go home early after having one drink too much but on his way out he is mesmerized by the portrait once again. Much to his surprise the woman appears next to him and says she likes to watch people looking at her portrait. The two of them decide to get a drink at her place and while they are talking another man rushes in and slaps the woman. The professor fights back to help her but the intruder quickly starts strangling Richard. Alice, the woman in the window, hands over a pair of scissors to Richard who manages to set himself free by killing the intruder. These two strangers then have body on their hand and need to come up with a solution quickly.

I thought the movie was a little contrived in its plot but it took some risks for it and I think it paid off quite well. Edward G. Robinson is always so masterful and his characters always appear calm even in the most heightened situations. The fact that Richard's friends were a district attorney and a doctor felt a little far stretched but it took nothing away from the mystery.

I am not quite sure what the message of the movie was meant to be, but I like to imagine that it dealt with psychological themes such as guilt and maybe Freud's analysis of dreams- as foreshadowed by Richard's class and the dashboard reading "Freud". I was surprised at how the movie tackled the topic of ageing men and their discussions of a middle-life crisis.

Of all the Fritz Lang's movies that I've seen, I think this one is most similar to M (1931) because of the way it follows a crime through and through with the focus remaining on the killer, we are not witnessing him trying to escape but rather fade away, to fit in.

I liked: The police investigation. An accidental killer's struggle.

I disliked: Not that impressive.

78/100
Not my favorite film-noir for some reason I can't really pinpoint, but I enjoyed the mystery and Edward G. Robinson.

Hatchet III (2013)

Marybeth: "I killed him. I killed him."

By BJ McDonnell
with Danielle Harris and Kane Hodder

It was when I saw that this movie was out that I realized there was a Hatchet II and watched it, before proceeding to watch Hatchet III. I was wary of it and had low expectations since I have seen so many horror franchises lose integrity once they change directors.

Hatchet III starts where the second one left off. Marybeth kills Victor Crowley, before proceeding to kill Victor Crowley again, before killing Victor Crowley again. Well, he seems dead enough, but the curse isn't lifted just yet. Marybeth walks in the police station, covered in blood with her shotgun and a bit of Crowley's skull, saying she killed him. As the prime suspect, since Crowley is just an urban legend, she is locked up in jail while police, paramedics and a SWAT team go to the scene. In the meantime, journalist Amanda, a Crowley expert, talks to Marybeth about the only way to lift the curse. Marybeth being the only bloodline of those who perpetrated the crime against Victor Crowley, she has to give Crowley's father's ashes back to him and then the curse will be lifted... Night comes before that and the story repeats.

I was pleasantly surprised with Hatchet III as soon as the credits started rolling, it seemed that Adam Green- director and writer of both Hatchet I & II was here as an executive producer. That is always something reassuring to know the author and man behind the idea of a film is still around for a sequel. The story is not really original, but I found the movie quite funny with its over-the-top characters. Many of the secondary characters and/or actors from the series return, not the most famous ones, but a cameo is always pleasant. What is really enjoyable are the graphics and special effects and the old school feel. It doesn't use any computer generated graphics, instead relying on what made the 80's horror so enjoyable for me: the crafty puppets and blood pumps.

Victor Crowley looks even meaner than before and he joyfully finds some of his weapons back. I found this one to have fewer downtimes than the second one but I think it could have been a little shorter. All in all, it isn't the best film I've seen but for a sequel I found it pretty good.

I liked: Gruesome killings faithful to the serie. SWAT and heavy weaponry sticking together without spreading out. Funnier than number 2.

I disliked: A lot of the new characters seem hastily created. Poor dialogues.

58/100
I sometimes complain about new horror being all about the CGI graphics--now I know where to look for old school body dismemberment.

How to Survive a Plague (2012)

Peter Staley: "I'm gonna die from this. This isn't gonna be cured for years and years and years."

By David France
With Larry Kramer, Bob Rafsky and Peter Staley

Seeing this title I was expecting something of an apocalyptic, end-of-the-world zombie type film. In fact, this documentary was far truer, exploring a disease which has cost many lives. One might say I have an interest in LGBT causes and maybe this is why I decided to see this documentary, but AIDS is not exclusive to any community.

This documentary starts in the early 80's in New York where young men and women are dying of AIDS. There is no treatment and they are even refused in the hospitals. Each with their individual pain couldn't do much so they organized and created "ACT UP" whose main focus was to be an activist group, which through civil disobedience would bring attention, awareness, and most importantly a cure to AIDS. The documentary retraces some of their fights and quarrels mostly through archives but also with some more recent interviews. It covers some of the darkest hours before the discovery of the lucky combination that would prolong the lives of many, but would come too late to save those of many more.

I think the topic is one of the most important there is. It feels so distant but I can actually remember hearing about a treatment to AIDS back then. It meant very little to me at the time. I can't say that I really loved the way the documentary was going about things but I liked the substance very much. It is very scary to think back and imagine those people taking whatever medication that was on trial simply because at that point it couldn't have done more harm.

While I think activism is double-edged blade and can sometimes backfire, it seems that this very activism has saved many lives and the politicians who at first refused to talk about how many lives AIDS had taken. There are some very emotional personal stories here, and if my rating was based solely on the people in this documentary, I'd give them all a 10 for their courage and perseverance through this tremendous pain.

I liked: The topic. Historically important.

I disliked: The shaky archive footage, the constant shouting and confrontations. It had only one sequence to explain the actual biological/chemical aspects, which I felt were important and deserved more screen time.

74/100
A little over 20 years ago, there were presidents who would go on television and say that AIDS has behavioral causes that should be looked at. This documentary could definitely teach them a thing or two. 

The Call (2013)

[repeated line]: "911, what is your emergency?"

By Brad Anderson
With Halle Berry, Abigail Breslin and Michael Eklund

I originally didn't feel like seeing The Call, and it was only after I realized Brad Anderson directed it (he also directed one of my favorite movies of all time: The Machinist (2004)) that I decided to see it.

In this film, Jordan Turner is a 911 operator who answers all sorts of calls all day long. A teenager calls her when someone tries to break into her home, and Jordan helps her by tricking the intruder to think she jumped out the window... Except that the phone call ends and Jordan makes the mistake of re-dialing which the man hears and kills the girl. Jumping six months forward, Jordan is not an operator anymore and trains new operators. At one point, she sees a girl she recently trained panicking because she couldn't locate the call of a young girl who has been kidnapped. Jordan then takes over in an attempt to locate her.

I was pleased at first when I saw Jordan plagued by guilt. Not in any masochistic way, but because Brad Anderson's movies that deal with guilt tend to be phenomenal. I think he films the psychological terror of guilt ridden individuals in the most exquisite manner.

Somehow, though, the script of this film leads us elsewhere and the theme of guilt wasn't pivotal to the movie- much to my sadness. The kidnapping explores interesting terrains but is driven mostly by the call that Casey manages to have with Jordan. It wasn't always handled in the best possible way, but it did a fairly good job and the action doesn't fail to keep the viewer at the edge of their seat.

However, I am a little saddened by the portrayal of the killer, as it relies on too many cinematic clichés. There are so many movies about serial killers and other psychopaths, yet so few of them have the decency to depict them as humans. I think the best movies about serial killers are those which dare to approach a more nuanced understanding of serial killers. It is so easy to scapegoat them and label them as monsters so we can rest peacefully and distance ourselves.

Nevertheless, the movie unfolds well as a thriller. There were a few twists here and there which I enjoyed but which could potentially have a polarizing effect on the audience.

I liked: Good suspense. Interesting close-ups. Great female-on-male kick to the face!

I disliked: Lacked psychological complexity. I'd be annoyed if an operator kept calling me sweetheart.

64/100
It should please most viewers, I think it was daring enough to make some viewers uncomfortable, but not daring enough to make it a special movie.

No One Lives (2012)

Flynn: "If I wanted to hear from an asshole, I'd rip you a new one."

By Ryûhei Kitamura
With Luke Evans, Adelaide Clemens and Derek Magyar

I remember watching Ryûhei Kitamura's The Midnight Meat Train (2008) and while I didn't like it that much, I thought it had some great visuals. Since the rating of No One Lives was pretty good for a horror movie, I decided to see it.

The movie starts with a couple travelling and talking about relocating. The discussion shifts and it seems that the girl is jealous because the man seems to know another girl. They stop for the night and end up in a restaurant where a group of crooks are eating. The crook with the biggest mouth decides to eat on the girl and bothers the couple a little but he's stopped by his mates. When the couple goes back to their motel, they are abducted and handcuffed and their car is brought to the crooks' house where the toughest of them takes care of the couple. However, things don't go as planned when the girl kills herself on the crook's blade, and the unnamed man breaks free and kills him. Back at the house, the crooks are checking out their loot, but the trunk of the car has a girl in it.

I was disappointed with the movie. I thought it started off well, and I even liked the sex scene which is fairly rare. Basically the whole movie revolves around the idea that the crooks messed up with "the wrong guy" and they will pay for it. There isn't much more than this, though it tries to develop some emotional connections between the kidnapped girl and her status of being in-between the crooks and the unnamed man but it doesn't get far enough to be interesting.

The movie develops in a very straightforward manner and does justice to its title. The killing scenes aren't that entertaining and after seeing the first one, it felt like they were just being repeated with slightly different circumstances. I think it lacked originality as the theme has been used before. There were no likable characters which made it hard to root for anyone as even the victims seemed pretty bad.

When it comes to the good things, I'd mention the scene where he hides and comes out of a body; this was the highest point of the movie. Luke Evans' cold killer looks worked the best here, though I had hoped there would be more development on his character.

I liked: Started off nicely.

I disliked: Lacks originality. Poorly developed, and almost irritating characters.

20/100
I can't think of a good reason to recommend it. I did enjoy a few scenes but it really doesn't make up for the whole film.

Hatchet II (2010)

Uncle Bob: "Come on you hatchet-faced fuck!"

By Adam Green
With Danielle Harris, Tony Todd and Kane Hodder

I remember how I met the first movie Hatchet (2006). It was through a contest of gore snapshots and one from Hatchet being particularly gruesome, I waited patiently to be able to find out the movie and when I did, I found it pretty funny, and gory obviously. So, a few days ago, I'm browsing movies and I see Hatchet III. I didn't even know there was an Hatchet II! So that's why I watched Hatchet II.

In Hatchet (2006), basically everyone was killed by Victor Crowley, except for Marybeth. Finally making it out back to town, she decides to rescue the bodies of her brother and father. Without anywhere else to go, she visits Reverend Zombie who holds the company that gave them the boat they used to go there in the first place. Reluctantly, Zombie accepts, thinking that if the legend of Victor Crowley vanishes his business will flourish. Zombie has a few conditions: he wants Trent and Marybeth's Uncle Bob to come along. With the promise of 500 dollars, he manages to gather a group of hunters and misfits with guns to go back to where the killings happened.

What is great about Hatchet, both I and II, is how it has a ton of references to the horror genre starting with the actors. We remember how Robert Englund (the one and only Freddie Kruger) was in the first movie, both I and II have Tony Todd (whose voice has been a staple of horror movies and particularly Candyman (1992)), then there's Kane Hodder (one of the many actors who have been Jason Voorhees, of Friday the 13th fame) and finally Danielle Harris (who as a child actor was already subject to one of the most cold headed killers on screen, Michael Myers of Halloween fame and who reprised a role in both the remakes of Halloween by Rob Zombie).

The film is off to a slow start, allowing the group, the legend and characters to build up before the gore sets in. When it does, it's pretty epic which I would attribute to the fact that the movie had issues getting a rating and ended up being released uncut and unrated, which for me tends to mean all the good stuff is still in.

Well, those killings are brutal and I've seen many. They are clearly over the top and politically incorrect, most of them are really funny though. The amount of blood spilled would make a heart surgeon blush. Victor Crowley has not an arsenal, but a toolbox of items to kill with and he makes an interesting use of it, like the scene where he decides it's actually funnier to use an axe on its blunt side.

A part from the killings and the funny moments every character has, the movie does not offer that much. Some of the characters are fun but some are just plain stupid. Fortunately, the main characters are quite good. All in all, it offers a pretty standard horror movie that gets bonus points for its classical horror figures, ultra gore action and a Twisted Sister t-shirt, that last one being a personal preference of mine. I don't think it was as good as Hatchet (2006), and I was bored a few times during the lengthy hunt, but overall I was entertained.

I liked: Louisiana swamps. Horror actors. Unrated and uncut.

I disliked: Overall not that memorable. You know they say "strength in numbers", then they all spread in little groups to "cover more ground".

57/100
Will please the gore fans, it has the merit of being a sequel with most of the same crew, including the director.

Stoker (2013)

India Stoker: "He used to say, sometimes you need to do something bad to stop you from doing something worse."

By Chan-wook Park
With Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode

I remember when I first heard of this film, from Tumor who also reviewed it (you can view his review here), I couldn't make head or tails of the title. What could "Stoker" possibly be? Finally, when the credits were up, it hit me that Bram Stoker wrote Dracula, one of the first vampire narratives to be popularized in Western culture. To me it seemed that the film was drawing parallels to the process of becoming a vampire and to becoming an adult, as it all begins on the protagonist's 18th birthday, the day she is orphaned as her father dies in a car crash, and the starting point of her forays into death, cannibalism, and all things sinister.

The film reveals early on her tumultuous relationship with her mother, which reaches its peak after her father's death and with the mysterious reappearance of a charming uncle whose existence she had never been aware of. At the same time, India, whose extraordinarily heightened senses have prompted her late father to teach her hunting, notices a brown spider scuttling up her leg. She makes no move to chase it away.

India's obsession with tracking and hunting grows to fill the narrative, and in a bizarre way, is encouraged by her uncle Charlie, for whom she begins to show a strong sexual awareness. Soon, people start to go missing...

The spider that India notices crawling up her leg makes a timely appearance by the end of the film, crawling out of her father-substitute uncle, making the viewer realize uncomfortably all the connotations of spiders, often representing women and death (as some species of spider kill their mate) and their role as hunters, may as well apply to India.

In all, this was an engrossing film that left enough unsaid to fuel a viewer's interest in it. The vampiric undertones of the film were subtle enough to not require an immediate suspension of belief, but were compelling enough to piece together a reliable explanation of India's 18th birthday and ascent into "adulthood" as her ascent into an eternal life -- she will no longer require new shoes every year as she will have stopped growing, and will remain eternally as she is. It also explores the psychosexual development of India, and the quintessential strained mother-daughter relationship, as well as the implications of the father-daughter bond.

I liked: The music, composed by Clint Mansell, was impeccable. The tense, innocently melodic piano tune that almost always functions as a harbinger of a lurking evil was used to perfection. All three of the lead actors played their roles convincingly, with especial kudos going to Mia whose portrayal of a troubled girl on the brink of adulthood so well done that it was almost uncomfortable to watch, the kind of painful blossoming, slick with blood (menstrual, virginal, and vampiric).

I disliked: Some may criticize this as a style-over-substance flick. I don't necessarily disagree with that estimation of this film, despite thoroughly enjoying every moment of it.

72/100
This film is an engaging coming-of-age tale of a young girl, India Stoker, and her battles with a rather feisty Electra complex, supplanted with a healthy dose of blood, cannibalism, and all the trappings of the Victorian era in a head on collision with the 21st century. A good film to watch if you are interested in psychological thrillers, vampires, or coming-of-age films. 

Wadjda (2012)

Wadjda: "You'll see when I have a bike"

By Haifaa Al-Mansour
With Waad Mohammed, Reem Abdullah and Abdullrahman Al Gohani

I was eager to see Wadjda, often publicized as the first Saudi Arabian film, which is not exactly the case but it is the first that got such recognition and is the first by a female director. I thought it would be an interesting experience to witness. The fact that it was a female director made me even more curious as women rights in Saudi Arabia are known to be a controversial issue and is mostly what the outside world is exposed to about Saudi Arabia.

Wadjda is a young girl who doesn't like school that much and is often reprimanded by the teachers for her rebellious behavior. Things aren't much better at home as her mom struggles with driver issues and her father is seeking a second wife. Wadjda doesn't seem to have many friends at school, but she has a friend who lives in the neighborhood, young boy named Abdullah. He has a bicycle which becomes Wadjda's obsession and decides to get one for herself, despite this not being tolerated in the Kingdom. Nevertheless, Wadjda  starts saving up her money to buy one. The nearest shop owner has one and after some discussion she manages to have him keep it for her until she gathers the money. In the meantime, she allows Abdullah to put up lamps from their house, for his uncle's political party's gathering.  In exchange, he lets her ride his bicycle. When her school launches a Quran reciting contest, Wadjda works hard to win the prize money which would allow her to finally buy the bicycle.

I really enjoyed Wadjda. It was fresh, with a colorful dose of rebellion and the sweetness of a child's dream. In many aspects, it reminded me of the Iranian film Children of Heaven (1997). It seems to portray a good look at life in Saudi Arabia. The acting was really good and it made me enjoy the film more because I ended up rooting for Wadjda. Some moments will feel tender, some will be really cringe-worthy and some will feel real. It is probably the strength of the movie that the viewer will go through such a range of emotions. It also shows things that will feel strange to foreign eyes without ever seeming judgmental or preachy.

The film is not flawless by any means, and I found it to have some down times and some scenes that did not quite fit in as fluidly in the movie as others. But it didn't prevent me from enjoying it as a whole. I found it clever, thoughtful and most of all, it made me think and feel. On top of that, it always feels good to see what could be a pioneering movie.

I liked: Playful, clever. A story line that pulls you in. Good children actors.

I disliked: Some scenes do not fit in as well, I felt they were put to highlight the local colors.

79/100
I'd recommend it to anyone into foreign film. Hopefully, Wadjda is only the first of many.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012)

Judge Al Cross: It's the life of a cop. A life my son chose.

By Derek Cianfrance
With Ryan Gosling, Eva Mendes, Anthony Pizza

Another film Tumor (who incidentally also reviewed this film, which you can find here) introduced me to. Earlier I had read the synopsis on IMDb and liked the premise, was intrigued by the lengths someone would go to to protect someone they loved.

The first thing you would notice about the film is its atmosphere. The muted colors, the lush greenery and what I can assume are pine trees, and the haunting music that foreshadows the problems ahead for Luke Glayton, an expert motorcyclist who works as a stuntman for a traveling show. In one of the stops, he meets Romina, a beautiful woman who appears at the beginning of the film as a troubled but independent character. Little does Luke know he has fathered a son with her, something he will come to discover a year later. By this time Romina has begun living with another man, Kofi, who is not too enthused about letting Luke into his son's life. Luke feels he has nothing to offer his son, and is sucked into a series of bank robberies to help provide for his son--attentions which go unwelcome but for which he eventually sacrifices his life.

A highly symbolic tale, some may criticize it to be burdened by silences and symbols and the screen time to have gone on for too long. Usually I am the first to be bored by arty silences and long pans of the face and so on, but for this film it somehow worked. At its core it is a film about family, about inheritance, lineage,  genealogical destiny, generational sin and fate. It's a highly deterministic tale, reminiscent of Emile Zola's novel Germinal. The sins of the fathers are passed down to the son and so on. It's also I think a film about integrity and honor--about paying one's dues and karmic repercussions.

There are six pairs of father-son relationships in this highly patriarchal film, and each son mimics either consciously or unconsciously the patterns of their father. To start with Luke and his absent father (for which Luke tries to compensate by being present for his son, Jason and ultimately fails), Luke and Robin (the man who teaches him how to rob banks and acts as a surrogate father figure), Judge Al Cross and his son, Avery Cross (who was the police officer who shot Luke to his death and is encouraged by his father to play up to this incident and use it to his advantage) and Avery Cross and his son AJ (who Jason befriends later on in the film and who uses Jason in ways similar to how his father Avery used Luke's death for his career), Luke and his son Jason (who ends up buying a motorcycle and traveling the west in the same way Luke did) and Jason and his relationship with Kofi. Mothers play little to no role in this film -- and women are curiously absent/silenced. In a telling scene, when Jason discovers he is in the house of the man who was responsible for his father's death, he is currently making out with a girl. He shoves her away to go start a fight with AJ.

Ultimately for me, this film worked because it portrays a piece of reality not everyone owns up to right away. The immense influence our parents can have on us, whether conscious or unconscious, and whether it's mimicking them or rebelling from them. Yet there is a moment of freedom, when one realizes the influence, and realizes whether to be sucked into the circle or not. In this film, each son had a moment of epiphany when they could choose whether to follow in their father's footsteps or not.

I liked: The quiet symbolism. The music, the acting.

I disliked: I would have liked more focus on the mothers, and on the women. I feel it would have added to the breadth and complexity of the film.

76/100
An engaging film narrating the coming-of-age of several characters. A movie of those little, but defining moments in our lives. Also a film about love.

Un condamné à mort s'est échappé ou Le vent souffle où il veut / A Man Escaped (1956)

Le lieutenant Fontaine : "While waiting in the courtyard, I'd gotten used to the idea of death."

By Robert Bresson
With François Leterrier and Charles Le Clainche

I can't recall how I met this film. The rating, story and era encouraged me to see it

1943 in the French town of Lyon, World War II is raging and France is occupied by Nazi Germany. The movie starts in a car with three men on the backseat. Two of them are handcuffed together, and the third one is loose because the one in the middle has a broken arm on the left so he has no handcuff there. When the car stops to let a tram, the man opens the door and makes a run for it. He is caught and beaten up then put into jail. This is Fontaine, a resistant, and this film will methodically follow his slow, patient plan to escape.

This movie is one of the most bare and methodical I've seen. Every detail is narrated and the slow process of, for example, moving planks of wood from his door is detailed minutely, a work that took one month and had to be covered up every day. More than a film, this might be a documentation of the true story of a prisoner, or at least that is how it felt. Every single noise has a meaning - footsteps in the hallway, rocks under feet, Morse code against the wall, spoon scraping against the soil etc. The intro is in fact a note from the director saying he tells the story without ornament and that is exactly what it is.

This movie felt real. Is it a good thing to aim for such realism? In this case, definitely. I don't know if it would be the case for any story but this was perfect. The viewer is stuck with Fontaine in the cell and they both want to escape. I wouldn't call it a perfect movie, but it's a perfect telling of a true story. I really enjoyed some details--for example, I think it was an awesome note of suspense when Fontaine gives the priest a note of everything he did in order to escape in case he doesn't make it. The viewer is then taken back, realizing that maybe he died while escaping or he got caught and we only know the story because of that note he gave the priest. It takes away the certainty we had that since we were being shown a true story, then the main character must have lived to tell the tale.

The movie will appear a little slow to anyone used to the contemporary standards. I guess this shows a thriller doesn't have to create anything more than a threatening environment. The dialogues aren't really important either as the narration tells us pretty much everything there is to know that the action doesn't reveal already. In any event, dialogues had to be short as the prisoners were constantly reminded that they couldn't talk to each other.

I liked: Creative and crafty, I wouldn't be surprised if the real instruments used in reality were recreated. Importance of sounds.

I disliked: Slow paced. Hard to distinguish the work of the film maker or the author.

80/100
A true thriller without any fast paced action. Skillful.

The Ron Clark Story (TV 2006)

Marissa: What, you felt helpless? They feel like that everyday.

By Randa Haines
With Matthew Perry, Judith Buchan, Griffin Cork 

Okay, I'll admit it. I watched this film because Matthew Perry stars in it and I had to see him play a semi serious role! After seeing Freedom Writers I wondered what other teacher-student movies there were out there, or more precisely, good-Samaritan-teacher-who-saves-students-from-failing-minority-group-schools movies were out there. This seemed like a fun choice -- young, bright teacher with a heart of gold moves from the quiet and ultra suburban North Carolina to the Bronx, New York and helps pull up the test scores of a class six previous teachers got tired of and fled from.

The film itself was lackluster, albeit still quite an engaging watch. Not sure why that was -- perhaps Matthew Perry's acting which inadvertently satirized the whole "inspiring teacher" routine. Like Freedom Writers, this film was also based on a real educator, Ron Clark, who wrote a handbook of 55 rules for successful teaching. When Perry enacts these rules in the film, it lacks utter credibility. I laughed out loud when he made a fuss about having the kids address him as Sir, and his "President's Rap" (which you can see in the screen shot here and was used to help the kids learn History) was so cringe-worthy that I had to laugh to put him off the hook. It's extremely difficult to take him seriously, or even the characters seriously (the slutty preteens, the boys who are already "moving" items and making bets -- one which included by when Matthew Perry would resign-- the quintessentially nerdy Indian kid who was actually quite adorable and added a level of complexity to the film as she was trying desperately to fit in and instead of making his life easier and cooperating would also rebel just to be accepted by the cool kids and so on).

Not to make this a compare and contrast to Freedom Writers, but this film too has a figure coming from a more affluent and posh social status to the "ghettos" -- the teacher here with his full on tie and khakis outfit is well juxtaposed with his crummy apartment in New York and his working two jobs (at a diner where he also happens to meet his love interest). He also takes them to trips (a Broadway show) -- and most important has faith in their success even if no one else does.

Was the film cliche? Yes. But I don't regret watching it, even if only to see Mathew Perry dance to the "President's Rap".

I liked: Matthew Perry, the innuendos, the steamy love interest Marissa, and the way all the cool kids called him "fool". I also enjoyed the attempt to approach problems in lower income communities -- neglected children for whom time to do homework is a luxury teachers don't seem to understand, abused children, children who are drawn into petty crime which could be prevented with a little guidance. The role of trust and faith -- how setting the bar high and having high expectations of someone can motivate someone to be their best self.

I disliked: It seemed like a farce at times. Issues weren't dealt with in depth. Could be an easily forgettable film.

63/100
A feel-good film that isn't a must-see by any means but for fans of Matthew Perry or those interested in teacher-student films, watching this wouldn't be the worst way to spend your time. 

This Gun for Hire (1942)

Michael Crane: "She's blazing a trail for us!"

By Frank Tuttle
With Veronica Lake, Robert Preston and Alan Ladd

This movie was recommended to me by IMDb as a similar to my tastes and seeing its page it seemed obvious that I would enjoy it. I was intrigued to see Alan Ladd's first role. I don't really know him for his movies but I know he is the grandfather of Jordan Ladd (Death Proof (2007))

In this film, Philip Raven is a cold-blooded professional killer and he has no issues "dealing with it" when the person he has to kill was supposed to be alone but is in fact with female company. Where Philip Raven starts having issues is when he realizes his employer actually double-crossed him by paying him in hot, marked dollar bills that will lead the police straight to him. Police officer Michael Crane starts seeking Raven, while Raven seeks out Willard Gates, the man who double-crossed him. All of this leads him to meet Ellen Graham, a performing magician who just started a new job for Willard Gates, and is the bride to be of police officer Michael Crane. She ends up in the seat next to Philip Raven's in the train to Los Angeles and ends up being pivotal to the chase.

This movie reminded me of a few other movies from this era. The depiction of the killer reminded me of Kiss of Death (1947) and the pursuit reminded me of both The Naked City (1948) and High Sierra (1941). These are all movies I enjoyed so the comparison was nice, though I felt This Gun for Hire was one step below the others. I didn't feel the tension rise as much as I did in the others.

I liked however the psychology in this movie, the character of Philip Raven ends up being more than just a runaway and we learn about his motivations. Ellen Graham appears double-sided which Veronica Lake portrays very skillfully. Some of the best shots in the movie are during the hideout at the factory with those tall dark chimneys threatening the freedom of the killer we end up rooting for.

The whole plot about chemical weapons eluded me and I am not sure it had a real impact on the movie. I thought maybe it was simply here as an effort to put the movie more in line with its time, the potential involvement of the USA in World War II and so on. The rest of the movie is pretty simple and straightforward.

I liked: Good pursuit and tension on the run. Interesting pivotal role of the woman leading by accident.

I disliked: Not particularly strong in the classical aspects of film-noir for example mystery, investigation or confidences.

71/100
A staple film-noir in its own right, it has however not much to distinguish itself from others. Possibly recommended for those who enjoyed The Naked City (1948).

Stoker (2013)

Evelyn Stoker: "Personally speaking, I can't wait to watch life tear you apart."

By Chan-wook Park
With Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode

Despite all the famous names in the credits, I didn't feel like watching Stoker at first. The decisive turn for me was when I realized the music was actually made by Clint Mansell who is by far my favorite soundtrack composer. It is once I actually decided to see the movie that I got more intrigued by the names in the credits, namely famous Korean director Chan-wook Park, mostly known for Oldboy (2003) who is in fact part of what is usually referred to as The Vengeance Trilogy, along with Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) and Lady Vengeance (2005), the latter being the closest to what watching Stoker felt like. Another interesting fact I came across while watching the credits unfold was that the script was written by Wentworth Miller of Prison Break (2005-2009) fame.

Stoker starts with very peculiar teenager named India, running around in the majestic property her family owns. Her father's funeral takes place right after that and along with it, Charlie comes to live with India and her mother Evelyn. Charlie is India's uncle but they never met, an aura of mystery surrounds Charlie has it seems no one really know much about him. Despite the mystery, both mother and daughter seem to fall for the charming young man.

I was pleasantly surprised with Stoker. What strikes the viewer at first is the eerie look of the property and the almost Victorian clothes they wore. I was even shocked to realize India was going to a high school where other students were dressed in contemporary clothes.

There is a lot of symbolism in the shots, which I have found common in Korean cinema. It was both visually, and thematically close to Lady Vengeance (2005), with strong, yet utterly dark and mysterious leading ladies. Despite it not being a horror movie, Chan-wook Park still proves that he is a master at making hallways look menacing and any basement with little lightning becomes threatening.

The music was really good. I might be biased because of my liking for Clint Mansell, but both that and the pieces that are played on the piano by the characters were amazing. The acting was also very good and I was quite impressed with Mia Wasikowska who seems to be blooming in talent lately. Nicole Kidman can be considered a little type cast as she appears once again as a troubled, emotionally stunted mother, but maybe it's because she plays that role so well. Matthew Goode is almost too charming to not be suspicious, which plays a great role as the movie evolves.

I don't think the mystery was the greatest element. It was decent, but some of the red herrings weren't justified in my opinion. The great atmosphere of the movie doesn't quite match up with the story, however, it does leave the viewer with a positive aftertaste.

I liked: The soundtrack. Great visuals and feel to the movie. Mysterious characters.

I disliked: I wanted more out of it. I wish I could have known more about the uncle.

75/100
It's a pretty good surprise, certainly very dark, but tightly pieced together. The Vengeance Trilogy remains better in my opinion but as Park's first English movie, it has great potential.

The Eyes of the Skin (2012) -- Book Review

In my view, poetry has the capacity of bringing us momentarily back to the oral and enveloping world. The re-oralised word of poetry brings us back to the center of an interior world. 'The poet speaks on the threshold of being,' as Gaston Bachelard notes, but it also takes place at the threshold of language. Equally, the task of art and architecture in general is to reconstruct the experience of an undifferentiated interior world, in which we are not mere spectators, but to which we inseparably belong. 

 [...]

Architecture domesticates limitless space and enables us to inhabit it, but it should likewise domesticate endless time and enable us to inhabit the continuum of time. 

 [...]

Architecture strengthens the existential experience, the one's sense of being in the world, and this is essentially a strengthened experience of the self. Instead of mere vision, or the five classical senses, architecture involves several realms of sensory experience which interact and fuse into each other. -- quoted from The Eyes of the Skin by Juhani Pallasmaa 

I am delighted that I met this book in the way that I did. It wasn't a recommendation, nor did I hear about it from another book. I was in the small acquisitions and labeling office of the university library when I saw the grey and yellow steel of the new books cart, loaded with architecture books, many still in their plastic wrapping. Many of them were fascinating to me, but not enough to take out and request the librarian to tag for me before the others. As she spoke to me I continued browsing the cart and found a slim dark blue book, bound in clear plastic wrapping. The gold lettering on the cover read The Eyes of the Skin. I tore through the plastic -- the librarian still speaking to me about this and that - and began flipping through the book. The pages weren't thick but weren't thin either -- they were an off white, the font was delicate and fine, a little like Garamond, if not Garamond. There were a few pictures. Words leaped out to me -- words like shadows, nooks, senses, the hand...and the hardcover of the book was bound in something cloth-like, smooth to the hands. I could feel my hands warming to the book.

For me it seemed that the thesis of this book was a lament on the growing obsession and precedence of the eye and the gaze above all other organs and senses. The eye for Pallasmaa is a flattening organ, a sort of piercing, pinning, and also distancing organ. It is a way to experience without a bodily closeness, and as such pushes phenomenon to an abstract plain. In contrast, smelling, listening, tasting, or touching something brings you closer, lets it invade your experience. I think Pallasmaa feels it is a more genuine or authentic experience when something is felt by the skin, or smelled, or heard, as opposed to being seen and emphasizes this with what I felt was a memorable and true line, 'In heightened emotional states and deep in thought, vision is usually repressed'.

Womb imagery pervades this little book. Architecture according to Pallusmaa should be conducive of mobility, of osmosis. The environment entering you, and you entering the environment. In layman's terms these are ideas long circulating in literary theory and in literature -- the house and the bedroom and to an extent the country being an extension of the self. As you change your home changes, and perhaps as your home changes, you change. As a child I read Pat of Silverbush, by L.M. Montgomery and the titular character Pat cries bitterly at the thought of ever parting from her house, even at the prospects of moving to a  "better" or more "elegant" house. The living places in Montgomery's novels were profoundly linked with those living in them. Anne (of Anne of Green Gables) transforms her bare bedroom after living in it and her bedroom allows her to, the house, Green Gables, allows her to. Metaphorically a womb is a place of plenitude, of constitution and reconstitution, of energies and drives, creativity, and most of all, belonging and warmth. Every particle of the body is in touch with the amniotic fluid, and similarly, every organ for Pallasmaa should be just as involved in the formation of a building -- the way the shadows are created, the sounds and echoes of the building, how the building feels on touch, how it feels to taste in contrast to simply -- how it looks from afar.

He refers to this (modern and postmodern) condition as the 'hegemony of the eye', and the decreased importance given to any other organ. In many ways the discussion in this book beckons feminist theory, and in particular discussions of traditionally conceived linear male discourse (Jacques Derrida's phallogocentrism) which privileges the masculine. Whereas l'écriture féminine is more in line with Pallasmaa's notions of how a building should be constructed and experienced since it is an attempt to reinstate the woman's body in writing, a sort of multiple, poetic, circular method of writing after the multiple erogenous zones of a woman --lips, breasts, vagina, clitoris-- as opposed to the singular penis in a man.

What struck me most about the work was its discussion on light and shadow. For years I have been trying to understand what I disliked about bright lights and in particular the white UV lights, the tube lights that I have been accustomed to growing up.

I thought this was brilliant, and of course reinforced what I felt was his emphasis on the womb-like quality of homes and abodes. Pallasmaa extends the argument, or at least I feel that the central argument of the book extends this argument to the increasing detachment of humans in the modern day, from one another and from oneself. In this way I feel the book was influenced also by Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, where the world is flooded with one dimensional images, ads, fast foods, synthetic experiences and images instead of wholesome, three dimensional, natural things. The whole world is flattened with the advent of technology, something Susan Sontag articulates when she says the world is begun to be seen as a series of photographs (and I had to admit to myself how I had begun to see sights and take 'mental pictures' of them and see them within those frames rather than as an organic part of the environment -- also reminding me of the new Instagramming phenomenon). Maybe in a way it's an attempt to be immortal, to be invincible, a sort of modern day arrogance that the world is for the taking, to be folded inside the pocket, instead of being subsumed in it, by it, being vulnerable to it and bleeding into it and from it. And hence perhaps the obsession with the immortal vampires, and as Pallasmaa writes, the obsession with clean hard lines, steel, glass, and materials which are incapable of showing wear and tear in the way wood can as it gradually softens and darkens with age.

I liked: The writing was absolutely beautiful. So profound, and so poetic. He refers to Rainer Maria Rilke a few times and mentions being inspired by him! Also, he references Bachelard whose Poetics of Space is a poetic and philosophical reverie of memoir, space, time and homes. The points he makes are well integrated, the pictures he uses are subtle and beautiful. A wonderful, accessible, and wholesome read.

I disliked: His critique of the hegemonic 'eye' seemed a bit fanatical at times. Yes, I understand how the mind and body are molded together and the ideal home could perhaps be a forest for the senses, or a facilitator between the body and environment and mind, yet I don't see how more abstract designs and abstract furniture can prevent that. Perhaps streamlined environments or those that cater to the eye can be like meditation, a case of less is more, that perhaps these environments can bring out different and just as crucial sensation. I feel more emphasis could have been put on a happy balance rather than on a complete war on terror on the eye.

94/100
A brilliant book. I would advise just about anyone to read it. A writer, a poet, an architect, a human being, a child, someone who never reads books, someone who reads everything. This is a book that can make you open your eyes to yourself, to your condition, and your environment. A book for all the senses, and a book you can own and return to time and again and find something new and compelling to ponder.

21 & Over (2013)

Miller: "It's like the Da Vinci Code, except it makes sense."

By Jon Lucas and Scott Moore
With Miles Teller, Skylar Astin and Justin Chon

I was browsing through new movies and 21 & Over came up. It looked fun and mostly about young people getting drunk and doing stupid things, which can be really fun at times. I thought this movie would be similar to Project X (2012), which I thought was funnier than it looked.

21 & Over is the story of three high school friends who are now about to graduate college. Of them, Miller and Casey decide to take Jeff Chang out for his 21st birthday. Jeff Chang doesn't know and the timing isn't the best as he has an interview for medical school the day after. Casey says he understands, but Miller won't hear it. Jeff gets really drunk really quick and from then on it's a long hazy journey to bring him home as his friends don't know his address.

The movie was pretty stupid but it got me laughing on quite a few occasions. Miles Teller's acting and sarcastic voice always got me. The movie style and direction is pretty much a mix between The Hangover (2009) for the stupid alcohol fueled debauchery and endless searches, and Project X (2012) for the out of control teenage parties.

Casey and Miller have great chemistry and I thought they carried the film well. While some jokes definitely fell flat, the absurdity of most of the situations actually ended up being funny. I found it very over-the-top and maybe, for once, it's not such a bad thing.

I have to say it is not necessarily original in its story. The music adds a lot to the atmosphere. The movie plays a lot on stereotypes and communities which can be funny at times and dull at others. That's to be expected, though. This is a thin line that takes some risks to pull off successfully but overall, it worked out fine. I never got bored, even if it wasn't a laugh riot through and through. The tackling of some more serious themes such as friendship over the years, peer pressure or college drop outs is laudable but it is not present enough to have a real impact though not invisible enough to be ignored.

I liked: Miller is really stupidly funny. The whole party atmosphere was nice.

I disliked: Some situations or jokes try to hard and end up falling flat.

56/100
I think it's funny while it lasts and quickly forgotten once it's over, maybe that's how such comedies work the best.

Freedom Writers (2007)

Andre: Why should I give you my respect to you? Because you're a teacher? I don't know you. How do I know you're not a liar standing up there. How do I know you're not a bad person standing up there? I'm not just gonna give you my respect because you're called a teacher.

By Richard LaGravenese
With Hilary Swank, Patrick Dempsey, Scott Glenn 

I found this film entirely by coincidence. I was browsing some YouTube videos of Ellen DeGeneres shows and an interview with Hilary Swank showed up in the related videos. Seeing it, I decided to check out what other films she made and discovered this little gem I'd never heard about.

Freedom Writers is based on the true story of Room 203's transformation from an underachieving class to a class that made history -- quite literally, as to date they have published a book based on their experiences in the class and the story has gone on to be dramatized in this film. In most ways it's an entirely feel-good movie and I found myself grinning and crying in turns. It isn't deeply profound in any way nor does it have a special message that has never been delivered, but it tells a compelling and engaging story, albeit a cliched and at times problematic one.

The lessons she teaches in class have their effect on both her as well as the students and their lives. For one girl, she has to make a choice between standing up for her gang and and lying in court, a decision which can result in the unjust imprisonment of a bystander. She is only able to make the "right" decision after much support from the class, in which she hears about the heroism of those helping the prosecuted Jews during the Holocaust. Another boy has had a falling out with his mother after joining a gang, and he slowly wins her approval back. For yet another boy whose family has recently been evicted from their apartment, this classroom feels like his home. In a particularly charged interaction, one boy addresses her as "Ma" -- to which she vehemently retorts, I'm not anybody's mother. The question is: is that really true?

Her investment to the classroom results in her taking on two other jobs in order to take the class to field trips, bring noted guest speakers (such as Miep Gies) and buy new books and journals for them. It seems very much that she begins to consider them her children, even if metaphorically. As such, I thought it would have been appropriate and interesting to address the boundaries she would have to erect between them and her, even if against her will, if this film strove to be more realistic. Her role as a surrogate caregiver, parent and even therapist grows stronger as the movie progresses. The fact that the classroom represents a "home" to these students is vocalized time and again -- is this in any way problematic? At what point does a school become an alternate home, and to what extent is it a teacher's duty to play these roles?

What puzzled me, and occurred to me as as a poorly justified story element was her marriage. Her husband, resenting the amount of time she is spending on the class as opposed to time they can spend together, decides to pack up and leave without as much as having a single discussion with her before hand. What was the purpose in her being married if he was just going to be a jerk and they'd get divorced anyway? Much less, her complete lack of reaction/emotion over it (she just sat down, drank two glasses of wine and I think shed one tear before moving on to normal). Just to show how a dedicated teacher will never have time for a spouse or kids of her own? And if that's the case, is this hinting at and/or even endorsing the dichotomy people seem to build between career vs. family? Does a woman always have to face this either/or situation? In their final conversation he says, "I cannot be your wife [calmly sit by and support you]". What does that even mean? That only one person in the family has to have a career or be fulfilled and that has to be the man?   While this could have been a critique, of course, I was surprised that the protagonist did not have more to add to this. Wasn't this her battle? Why did she have to sacrifice her family and her chance at a family just in order to be a good teacher? Couldn't she fight for both? Something about this didn't feel right to me.

In all, the film came to me at the right time as in the past week, one of my teachers in high school died. Seeing this film was inspirational in a way, reinforcing the idea that big changes can have minute catalysts and that everyone can make a difference in whatever small capacity they have.

I liked: The message, the positivity, and the stellar performances, especially but not limited to the lovely Hilary Swank, who really outdid herself in this role.

I disliked: People change, but not this quickly. It seemed a little cheesy to see how readily the kids in the class changed their ways. It's not that easy and it doesn't come this quick. Some important issues were overlooked, as mentioned in the paragraphs earlier. Film could have been braver, could have addressed issues more realistically. Instead, at times it felt a little made-for-TV cliche.

76/100
A well acted gem of a movie that gave me great satisfaction to see. A must-see for anyone interested in mentoring films and teacher-student films.