Dir: Tomek Baginski / Poland / 2005
In an old forgotten military base far from civilization, a group of deranged military officers nurture their insanity
Friday, January 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Nunta Muta
Un debut de calitate superioara:
Spectacolul vietii,umorul debordant,tragedia amara ,umbrele trecutului sunt redate cu maiestrie de catre Horatiu Malaele in debutul sau regizoral si anume "Nunta Muta".
Acesta reuseste sa imbine toate caracteristicile mentionate mai sus intr-un mod caricatural,teatral( este o calitate) si tragi-comic reusind astfel sa ofere spectatorului privilegiul de a pastra in minte multa vreme dupa vizionare atmosfera creata de povestea filmului. Tema este placuta auzului/citirii/deducerii adica aceea a iubirii si respectului fata de un ceremonial si a semnficatiei acestuia:NUNTA.
Prin aceasta Malaele incearca sa tinteasca in mai multe puncte ,sa ironizeze,sa subtilizeze,dar in nici un caz sa serveasca adevaruri la tava care in prezentul nostru probabil ca nu ar mai conta.Teatralismul de care absurd este acuzat filmul este de fapt marele sau punct forte deoarece prin acesta se reuseste o asemenea caricaturizare a personajelor, situatiilor, umorului. Motivatia de a pune accent pe aceasta latura in redarea dramatica a povestii propriu-zise,in salturile umorului jucaus si nebunatic este usor sesizabila: Horatiu Malaele este un veritabil om de teatru, iar valoarea filmului ar fi fost scazuta daca aceasta maniera teatrala nu s-ar fi manifestat.
Tema filmului isi gaseste adevarata identitate prin jocul actoricesc reusit(se exclud scenele din prezent), prin umorul care incearca sa scoata in evidenta o trasatura marcanta a poporului roman:aceea de a face haz de necaz in pofida tuturor amaraciunilor vietii; scena din carciuma cand Gogonea este luat peste picior reprezentand un exemplu elocvent in acest sens.Cum spuneam prin tema se incearca tintirea mai multor puncte mare parte dintre acestea fiind de ordin dramatic umorul fiind un mijlocitor ce actioneaza intr-un mod debordant intre spectator si faptele de pe panza.Prin tema intra in scena subiectul de inspiratie reala,dar original prin esenta surprinzand prin mijloace inedite greutatile unui regim comunist care a lasat in urma lui drame profunde, memorii sterse si mentalitate sfaramata sub bocancii unei ideologii menite sa fie tartora de suflete.
Nunta dintre doi tineri pe nume Iancu si Mara este intrerupta de vestea mortii lui Stalin nascand astfel o comedie umana in spatele careia salasluieste o tragedie completandu-se reciproc in amalgamul intrigii si a povestii propriu-zise.Graitoare este nunta muta,graitori sunt nuntasii siliti de conjunctura nefavorabila sa fie la fel de plini de viata ca intr-o nunta adevarata nepasandu-le de recunostinta ce trebuia datorata unui tiran ce le-a smuls pamanturi pentru a le alipi unui imperiu cenusiu si morbid. Malaele puncteaza magistral acest aspect transformand povestea personala a unor oameni prea ingaduitori cu viata aspra intr-una plina de moralitate sugerand astfel un patriotism subtil lipsit de exagerari superficiale.
Desi inceputul nu este spectaculos si lasa o oarecare impresie de incordare,de fortare,de formalitate prin filtrul actoricesc si umoristic acesta se redreseaza sigur prin aparitia batranelor si a fantomei lasand o senzatie de straniu incluzand subtile trimiteri la scrierile cu caracter fantastico-psihologic ale lui Mircea Eliade reusind astfel sa pregateasca bine terenul pentru spectacolul ce va urma.Superbul cadru din lanul de grau acompaniat de goalele corpuri ale celor doua personaje principale Iancu si Mara si muzica lui Alexandru Andries reprezinta inceputul expresivitatii regizorale expresivitate ce se va manifesta foarte puternic si in scena trecerii circului, nuntii propriu-zise, Marei in ploaie cu rochia de mireasa patata de sangele lui Iancu.Continuand intr-o atmosfera plina de viata oferindu-ne din prima savurosul joc actoricesc al lui Valentin Teodosiu care creaza un personaj pitoresc si specific mentalitatii romanesti.
Una dintre cele mai bune scene ale filmului se consuma in carciuma apogeul fiind atins de disputa dintre Aschie(Teodosiu) si Vrabie(Tudorel Filimon) ce mai degraba smulge zambete prin atmosfera si aerul sugubat.In peisaj isi mai fac aparitia Dan Condurache intr-un rol de chefliu pus pe glume cu accente intelectuale,Doru Ana expresiv si Serban Pavlu in rolul profesorului trasnit.Poate ca glumele nu isi ating efectul scontat si vor fi interpretate ca niste momente oarecum distantate de comicul popular romanesc insa aceste minore greseli pot fi trecute cu vederea in detrimentul entuziasmului fata de comunitatea din acel sat si culoarea vie prin care este caracterizata.La aflarea vestii ca Iancu doreste sa o ia pe Mara de nevasta pune micuta comunitate in miscare. Urmeaza o alta scena si anume cea din grau cu Iancu si Mara surprinsi in timpului unui act sexual caracterizat drept "ancestral" continand anumite simboluri din care putem intelege mai bine ce se va intampla: secventa cand Mara este practic ingropata in grau fiind un exemplu elocvent.
Filmul ne poarta mai departe pe o scena in care regizorul si-a punctat insistent expresivitatea si anume:a vederii filmului incadrat intr-un model de tip propagandistic savuroasa nefiind vizionarea filmului ci prostia pe care acesta o declanseaza intre membrii de partid scotandu-le in evidenta servilismul si infantilitatea din gandire.Continuarea se va materializa prin momentul trecerii alaiului de circari cu George Alexandru maestru de ceremonii lasand in urma o gama variata de semnificatii spre exemplu: secventa in care observam o sclava de culoare cu figura trista captiva intr-o cusca poate sugera senzatia de sclavie impusa de sovieticii mentalitatii poporului roman in timpul regimului comunist.
Mergand mai departe ziua balciului prezinta alte simboluri ale deducerii punctului culminant speciala in primul rand fiind cel al violului si a stemei sovietice interpretate intr-un mod mai degraba formal avand in vedere faptul ca la inmormantarea Smarandei se rade scena fiind salvata de aparitia fantomei ce atrage dupa sine temeri, dezgropare, superstitii, etc. Urmatoarea secventa din camara cu Mara ingandurata si Iancu este inedita in sensul ca la un moment dat pe gatul Marei se poate observa un semn care reprezinta harta Romaniei fara Basarabia.Remarcam astfel tendintele de exprimare a identitatii patriotice ale regizorului tendinte ce nu cad intr-un superficialism care nu este necesar. Apoi devenim partasi la inceputul nunti mustind a cantec, veselie, glume bune, atmosfera prietenoasa pana cand incepe proto-drama.In mijlocul petrecerii un cadru militar rus insotit de un translator si de Gogonea anunta alaiul de nuntasi de moartea lui Stalin care nu starneste parca nici un interes in randul petrecaretilor mai mult mirati(replica lui Tudorel Filimon la auzul vestii: "Sa fie sanatos…" se numara printre cele mai savuroase).Prin infantila prostie a lui Gogonea care intrebandu-l pe cadru de ce inmormantarile sunt interzise cand si pe tovarasu’ Stalin il inmormanteaza primind o palma zdravana si fiind amenintat cu arma oamenii par sa inteleaga ca nu e de glumit cu rusii si dupa o mica consfatuire se decid sa paraseasca locul.
Se lasa seara si observam ca alaiul se reintregeste in liniste fiecare ajutand dupa puteri dand startul nuntii propriu-zise…si mute.Situatiile hazlii sunt de mare efect si chiar daca in anumite momente acestea frizeaza realitatea nu devin enervante sau inutile.Printre cele mai amuzante momente se numara dansul mirilor si lautarii care falseaza acoperindu-si instrumentele cu carpe pentru a nu provoca zgomot.Punctul culminant este excelent si nu ma incurc sustinand aceasta afirmatie.Din momentul cand socrul mic da cu palma in masa si adevarata nunta incepe pana cand camionul plin cu barbatii nuntasi se departeaza se creeaza o stare de veselie si bucurie alternata cu o profunda dezamagire.Urmarirea transmiterii acestor stari este bine tinuta in frau lucru admirabil pentru un debutant in regie.Ne intoarcem in prezent si intelegem intreaga poveste din spatele disparitiei satului, dar ne amuzam amar de reporterul jucat de Ovidiu Niculescu punandu-i intrebari unei batrane care nu il intelege si poate ca nu isi doreste sa inteleaga.
Filmul se termina bine pe acordurile chitarei lui Alexandru Andries si cu un cadru reprezentand in ansamblu complexul de fabrici in ruine si fantoma fugind dezordonat printre noroaie. La succesul acestei povesti nu ar fi drept ca meritele sa ii fie recunoscute doar lui Horatiu Malaele ci si lui Vivi Dragan Vasile pentru imaginea de o calitate foarte buna si grija pentru culori si nuante, co-scenaristului si co-producatorului Adrian Lustig care dintr-o sursa de inspiratie reala a imaginat o poveste tragi-comica si sclipitoare,actorilor ce dau viata personajelor cu naturalete(in special Meda Victor si Alexandru Potocean). Filmul in ciuda defectelor sale care sunt de ordin formal si se pot cu trece cu usurinta peste ele avand in vedere ca discutam despre un debut are o serie de calitati ce nu pot fi ignorate:tragic-comic,moralist,colorat si subtil. Tragi-comic: alternanta acestor doua caracteristici este impletita inteligent urmarind astfel ca spectatorul sa ramana cu ceva dupa vizionarea filmului.
Moralist:prin accentuarea subtilitatilor povestea se doreste a fi una cu talc sugerand cu o voce inceata,dar puternica ce se adreseaza in special celor care intr-un fel sau altul au avut de suferit de pe urma regimului comunist si celor ce nu au apucat sa savureze gustul amar al unei ideologii cenusii sa reconsidere prezentul si libertatea.
Colorat: Horatiu Malaele a reusit prin intermediul unor actori talentati si al teatralitatii sale pregnante sa creeze o lume plina de viata angrenata intr-un spectacol mai frumos sau mai aspru:spectacolul vietii. Subtil:folosirea acestui mijloc este potrivit pentru scoaterea in lumina a unor adevaruri si realitati in special de natura dureroasa cu urmari tragice. Intr-un cinematograf ce se zbate intre afirmare si dizgratie de partea afirmarii fiind tineri regizori si exemplele se cunosc care reusesc sa faca filme reusite,sa construiasca situatii si personaje care datorita caracterelor cu care sunt inzestrate devin capabile sa ramana in constiinta publicului,iar de partea dizgratiei stand acei bolnavi de imaturitate care nu au capacitatea necesara pentru a intelege ca timpul lor a trecut si ca au spus tot ce au avut de spus iata ca Horatiu Malaele a ales o cale dreapta si daca va continua sa paseasca pe ea ii va aduce pe viitor meritate aprecieri.
Un debut de calitate superioara!
© 2008 Drumea Bogdan
Spectacolul vietii,umorul debordant,tragedia amara ,umbrele trecutului sunt redate cu maiestrie de catre Horatiu Malaele in debutul sau regizoral si anume "Nunta Muta".
Acesta reuseste sa imbine toate caracteristicile mentionate mai sus intr-un mod caricatural,teatral( este o calitate) si tragi-comic reusind astfel sa ofere spectatorului privilegiul de a pastra in minte multa vreme dupa vizionare atmosfera creata de povestea filmului. Tema este placuta auzului/citirii/deducerii adica aceea a iubirii si respectului fata de un ceremonial si a semnficatiei acestuia:NUNTA.
Prin aceasta Malaele incearca sa tinteasca in mai multe puncte ,sa ironizeze,sa subtilizeze,dar in nici un caz sa serveasca adevaruri la tava care in prezentul nostru probabil ca nu ar mai conta.Teatralismul de care absurd este acuzat filmul este de fapt marele sau punct forte deoarece prin acesta se reuseste o asemenea caricaturizare a personajelor, situatiilor, umorului. Motivatia de a pune accent pe aceasta latura in redarea dramatica a povestii propriu-zise,in salturile umorului jucaus si nebunatic este usor sesizabila: Horatiu Malaele este un veritabil om de teatru, iar valoarea filmului ar fi fost scazuta daca aceasta maniera teatrala nu s-ar fi manifestat.
Tema filmului isi gaseste adevarata identitate prin jocul actoricesc reusit(se exclud scenele din prezent), prin umorul care incearca sa scoata in evidenta o trasatura marcanta a poporului roman:aceea de a face haz de necaz in pofida tuturor amaraciunilor vietii; scena din carciuma cand Gogonea este luat peste picior reprezentand un exemplu elocvent in acest sens.Cum spuneam prin tema se incearca tintirea mai multor puncte mare parte dintre acestea fiind de ordin dramatic umorul fiind un mijlocitor ce actioneaza intr-un mod debordant intre spectator si faptele de pe panza.Prin tema intra in scena subiectul de inspiratie reala,dar original prin esenta surprinzand prin mijloace inedite greutatile unui regim comunist care a lasat in urma lui drame profunde, memorii sterse si mentalitate sfaramata sub bocancii unei ideologii menite sa fie tartora de suflete.
Nunta dintre doi tineri pe nume Iancu si Mara este intrerupta de vestea mortii lui Stalin nascand astfel o comedie umana in spatele careia salasluieste o tragedie completandu-se reciproc in amalgamul intrigii si a povestii propriu-zise.Graitoare este nunta muta,graitori sunt nuntasii siliti de conjunctura nefavorabila sa fie la fel de plini de viata ca intr-o nunta adevarata nepasandu-le de recunostinta ce trebuia datorata unui tiran ce le-a smuls pamanturi pentru a le alipi unui imperiu cenusiu si morbid. Malaele puncteaza magistral acest aspect transformand povestea personala a unor oameni prea ingaduitori cu viata aspra intr-una plina de moralitate sugerand astfel un patriotism subtil lipsit de exagerari superficiale.
Desi inceputul nu este spectaculos si lasa o oarecare impresie de incordare,de fortare,de formalitate prin filtrul actoricesc si umoristic acesta se redreseaza sigur prin aparitia batranelor si a fantomei lasand o senzatie de straniu incluzand subtile trimiteri la scrierile cu caracter fantastico-psihologic ale lui Mircea Eliade reusind astfel sa pregateasca bine terenul pentru spectacolul ce va urma.Superbul cadru din lanul de grau acompaniat de goalele corpuri ale celor doua personaje principale Iancu si Mara si muzica lui Alexandru Andries reprezinta inceputul expresivitatii regizorale expresivitate ce se va manifesta foarte puternic si in scena trecerii circului, nuntii propriu-zise, Marei in ploaie cu rochia de mireasa patata de sangele lui Iancu.Continuand intr-o atmosfera plina de viata oferindu-ne din prima savurosul joc actoricesc al lui Valentin Teodosiu care creaza un personaj pitoresc si specific mentalitatii romanesti.
Una dintre cele mai bune scene ale filmului se consuma in carciuma apogeul fiind atins de disputa dintre Aschie(Teodosiu) si Vrabie(Tudorel Filimon) ce mai degraba smulge zambete prin atmosfera si aerul sugubat.In peisaj isi mai fac aparitia Dan Condurache intr-un rol de chefliu pus pe glume cu accente intelectuale,Doru Ana expresiv si Serban Pavlu in rolul profesorului trasnit.Poate ca glumele nu isi ating efectul scontat si vor fi interpretate ca niste momente oarecum distantate de comicul popular romanesc insa aceste minore greseli pot fi trecute cu vederea in detrimentul entuziasmului fata de comunitatea din acel sat si culoarea vie prin care este caracterizata.La aflarea vestii ca Iancu doreste sa o ia pe Mara de nevasta pune micuta comunitate in miscare. Urmeaza o alta scena si anume cea din grau cu Iancu si Mara surprinsi in timpului unui act sexual caracterizat drept "ancestral" continand anumite simboluri din care putem intelege mai bine ce se va intampla: secventa cand Mara este practic ingropata in grau fiind un exemplu elocvent.
Filmul ne poarta mai departe pe o scena in care regizorul si-a punctat insistent expresivitatea si anume:a vederii filmului incadrat intr-un model de tip propagandistic savuroasa nefiind vizionarea filmului ci prostia pe care acesta o declanseaza intre membrii de partid scotandu-le in evidenta servilismul si infantilitatea din gandire.Continuarea se va materializa prin momentul trecerii alaiului de circari cu George Alexandru maestru de ceremonii lasand in urma o gama variata de semnificatii spre exemplu: secventa in care observam o sclava de culoare cu figura trista captiva intr-o cusca poate sugera senzatia de sclavie impusa de sovieticii mentalitatii poporului roman in timpul regimului comunist.
Mergand mai departe ziua balciului prezinta alte simboluri ale deducerii punctului culminant speciala in primul rand fiind cel al violului si a stemei sovietice interpretate intr-un mod mai degraba formal avand in vedere faptul ca la inmormantarea Smarandei se rade scena fiind salvata de aparitia fantomei ce atrage dupa sine temeri, dezgropare, superstitii, etc. Urmatoarea secventa din camara cu Mara ingandurata si Iancu este inedita in sensul ca la un moment dat pe gatul Marei se poate observa un semn care reprezinta harta Romaniei fara Basarabia.Remarcam astfel tendintele de exprimare a identitatii patriotice ale regizorului tendinte ce nu cad intr-un superficialism care nu este necesar. Apoi devenim partasi la inceputul nunti mustind a cantec, veselie, glume bune, atmosfera prietenoasa pana cand incepe proto-drama.In mijlocul petrecerii un cadru militar rus insotit de un translator si de Gogonea anunta alaiul de nuntasi de moartea lui Stalin care nu starneste parca nici un interes in randul petrecaretilor mai mult mirati(replica lui Tudorel Filimon la auzul vestii: "Sa fie sanatos…" se numara printre cele mai savuroase).Prin infantila prostie a lui Gogonea care intrebandu-l pe cadru de ce inmormantarile sunt interzise cand si pe tovarasu’ Stalin il inmormanteaza primind o palma zdravana si fiind amenintat cu arma oamenii par sa inteleaga ca nu e de glumit cu rusii si dupa o mica consfatuire se decid sa paraseasca locul.
Se lasa seara si observam ca alaiul se reintregeste in liniste fiecare ajutand dupa puteri dand startul nuntii propriu-zise…si mute.Situatiile hazlii sunt de mare efect si chiar daca in anumite momente acestea frizeaza realitatea nu devin enervante sau inutile.Printre cele mai amuzante momente se numara dansul mirilor si lautarii care falseaza acoperindu-si instrumentele cu carpe pentru a nu provoca zgomot.Punctul culminant este excelent si nu ma incurc sustinand aceasta afirmatie.Din momentul cand socrul mic da cu palma in masa si adevarata nunta incepe pana cand camionul plin cu barbatii nuntasi se departeaza se creeaza o stare de veselie si bucurie alternata cu o profunda dezamagire.Urmarirea transmiterii acestor stari este bine tinuta in frau lucru admirabil pentru un debutant in regie.Ne intoarcem in prezent si intelegem intreaga poveste din spatele disparitiei satului, dar ne amuzam amar de reporterul jucat de Ovidiu Niculescu punandu-i intrebari unei batrane care nu il intelege si poate ca nu isi doreste sa inteleaga.
Filmul se termina bine pe acordurile chitarei lui Alexandru Andries si cu un cadru reprezentand in ansamblu complexul de fabrici in ruine si fantoma fugind dezordonat printre noroaie. La succesul acestei povesti nu ar fi drept ca meritele sa ii fie recunoscute doar lui Horatiu Malaele ci si lui Vivi Dragan Vasile pentru imaginea de o calitate foarte buna si grija pentru culori si nuante, co-scenaristului si co-producatorului Adrian Lustig care dintr-o sursa de inspiratie reala a imaginat o poveste tragi-comica si sclipitoare,actorilor ce dau viata personajelor cu naturalete(in special Meda Victor si Alexandru Potocean). Filmul in ciuda defectelor sale care sunt de ordin formal si se pot cu trece cu usurinta peste ele avand in vedere ca discutam despre un debut are o serie de calitati ce nu pot fi ignorate:tragic-comic,moralist,colorat si subtil. Tragi-comic: alternanta acestor doua caracteristici este impletita inteligent urmarind astfel ca spectatorul sa ramana cu ceva dupa vizionarea filmului.
Moralist:prin accentuarea subtilitatilor povestea se doreste a fi una cu talc sugerand cu o voce inceata,dar puternica ce se adreseaza in special celor care intr-un fel sau altul au avut de suferit de pe urma regimului comunist si celor ce nu au apucat sa savureze gustul amar al unei ideologii cenusii sa reconsidere prezentul si libertatea.
Colorat: Horatiu Malaele a reusit prin intermediul unor actori talentati si al teatralitatii sale pregnante sa creeze o lume plina de viata angrenata intr-un spectacol mai frumos sau mai aspru:spectacolul vietii. Subtil:folosirea acestui mijloc este potrivit pentru scoaterea in lumina a unor adevaruri si realitati in special de natura dureroasa cu urmari tragice. Intr-un cinematograf ce se zbate intre afirmare si dizgratie de partea afirmarii fiind tineri regizori si exemplele se cunosc care reusesc sa faca filme reusite,sa construiasca situatii si personaje care datorita caracterelor cu care sunt inzestrate devin capabile sa ramana in constiinta publicului,iar de partea dizgratiei stand acei bolnavi de imaturitate care nu au capacitatea necesara pentru a intelege ca timpul lor a trecut si ca au spus tot ce au avut de spus iata ca Horatiu Malaele a ales o cale dreapta si daca va continua sa paseasca pe ea ii va aduce pe viitor meritate aprecieri.
Un debut de calitate superioara!
© 2008 Drumea Bogdan
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Midnight Meat Train
Though fans love to toss them into the same supernatural boat, Clive Barker and his main inspiration Stephen King have very little in common. The man from Maine works in a traditional terror territory while Barker believes in the mantra “blood, beasts, and bedevilment.”
King claims the rank of best selling genre author of all time. The brazen Brit’s resume is a little less successful. So it’s safe to say that in meaningful macabre circles, they are as different as Bram Stoker and Anne Rice. But they do share one thing in common. Each has had incredibly successful novels and/or short stories destroyed by hackneyed Hollywood film adaptations. However, in the case of Midnight Meat Train, Barker finally sees his ideas wholly realized in brilliant fashion.
Though he’s very good at what he does, photographer Leon Kauffman is barely making a living. His girlfriend Maya believes in him, but that doesn’t help to pay the bills. So when his pal Jurgis gets him an interview with influential gallery owner Susan Hoff, Leon thinks his ship has finally come it. But the shrewd businesswoman sees nothing that interests her - that is, until she comes across as particularly grim photo. She suggests Leon head back onto the streets and capture the real city - mean, vicious, unrepentant. During one of his night shoots, our hero comes across a brawny man in a well tailored suit. Following him around, Leon soon discovers that he may be a serial killer. Intrigued by the motive behind this butcher, he continues his surveillance. What Leon doesn’t know is that he is putting his life, and the life of everyone he knows, in mortal danger.
Midnight Meat Train can best be described as splatter noir. It’s Fritz Lang by way of an abattoir. It is part genius, part genre excess, with enough inventive gore to make even the most seasoned lover of arterial spray sit up and take notice. Thanks to the visionary work by Versus helmer Ryuhei Kitamura and the most unsettling kills this side of Eli Roth, we get a true gut wrenching experience. This is a movie that grabs you by the errant body parts and literally rips you apart. Kitamura is a big fan of over the top violence - his infamous zombie mob movie from 2000 is second only to Riki-O: Story of Ricky in individual offal spilled. But in Midnight Meat Train, he makes every death count. By keeping the camera locked on the victim as eyes fly out and faces crumble, he turns the cinematic threat intensity up to near apocalyptic levels.
It helps that he balances things out with a romantic subplot that’s deep with emotion. Actors Bradley Cooper and Leslie Bibb turn Leon and Maya into a couple you can root for. She only wants the best for him and he loves her unconditionally. Even when her beau goes bonkers and starts acting odd, she does nothing but support him. Some might question her dedication - she ends up putting herself right in harms way during a typical “what were they thinking” brand of inappropriate snooping - but even at the end, she’s determined to stand by her man. Cooper compliments this devotion nicely. His decent into obsession may seem abrupt, but a story element near the end may help explain the sudden shift.
But it is UK thug mug Vinnie Jones who steals the show as Mahogany, long pig butcher to…no, that would be spoiling things. Indeed, the famed onscreen heavy portrays someone so enigmatic, so full of secrets that part of the joy in Midnight Meat Train is uncovering all his character clues. As they fall into place, one by one, the portrait painted is unsettling indeed. In fact, the minute Jones is proven fallible, or even worse, human, we start to really hate him. Unlike other famed mass murderers, Kitamura and his writers aren’t out to make another Voorhees. Mahogany has a purpose, and you’re enjoyment of the movie in general just may turn on it.
In fact, the ending reveal is the make or break point for Midnight Meat Train. The explanation for all the deaths, the reason the cops don’t care, how one man manages to dispatch dozens of people without raising much of a stink is satisfying if slightly surreal. It does explain what Kitamura was doing with all those remarkable CG shots of subway trains careening down unearthly tracks, and it pays off in ways that are plausible. But horror fans are a notoriously persnickety bunch. Fail to fulfill your promise or try to trick them and they will laugh you out of the fright fraternity. But Midnight Meat Train does deliver. It may require a bit more of that patented suspension of dread disbelief, but thanks to the visionary behind the lens, we enjoy the deferment.
As usual, the studio behind the film unceremoniously dumped it on a few dozen “dollar theater” screens this past August - and this after touting it for months as some kind of macabre milestone. It just goes to show how marginalized and misunderstood the genre really is. Of course, the track record of the brain behind the bloodshed may have given some of the suits pause for concern. Ryuhei Kitamura is far from a household name, and Clive Barker may be a fascinating individual and celebrated writer, but as the foundation for a film, he has very limited appeal. Midnight Meat Train might have changed all that, had the fright community been given a chance to celebrate its paranormal panache. Sadly, it looks like DVD will have to save the day - which is typical for terror.
© 2008 Bill Gibron
King claims the rank of best selling genre author of all time. The brazen Brit’s resume is a little less successful. So it’s safe to say that in meaningful macabre circles, they are as different as Bram Stoker and Anne Rice. But they do share one thing in common. Each has had incredibly successful novels and/or short stories destroyed by hackneyed Hollywood film adaptations. However, in the case of Midnight Meat Train, Barker finally sees his ideas wholly realized in brilliant fashion.
Though he’s very good at what he does, photographer Leon Kauffman is barely making a living. His girlfriend Maya believes in him, but that doesn’t help to pay the bills. So when his pal Jurgis gets him an interview with influential gallery owner Susan Hoff, Leon thinks his ship has finally come it. But the shrewd businesswoman sees nothing that interests her - that is, until she comes across as particularly grim photo. She suggests Leon head back onto the streets and capture the real city - mean, vicious, unrepentant. During one of his night shoots, our hero comes across a brawny man in a well tailored suit. Following him around, Leon soon discovers that he may be a serial killer. Intrigued by the motive behind this butcher, he continues his surveillance. What Leon doesn’t know is that he is putting his life, and the life of everyone he knows, in mortal danger.
Midnight Meat Train can best be described as splatter noir. It’s Fritz Lang by way of an abattoir. It is part genius, part genre excess, with enough inventive gore to make even the most seasoned lover of arterial spray sit up and take notice. Thanks to the visionary work by Versus helmer Ryuhei Kitamura and the most unsettling kills this side of Eli Roth, we get a true gut wrenching experience. This is a movie that grabs you by the errant body parts and literally rips you apart. Kitamura is a big fan of over the top violence - his infamous zombie mob movie from 2000 is second only to Riki-O: Story of Ricky in individual offal spilled. But in Midnight Meat Train, he makes every death count. By keeping the camera locked on the victim as eyes fly out and faces crumble, he turns the cinematic threat intensity up to near apocalyptic levels.
It helps that he balances things out with a romantic subplot that’s deep with emotion. Actors Bradley Cooper and Leslie Bibb turn Leon and Maya into a couple you can root for. She only wants the best for him and he loves her unconditionally. Even when her beau goes bonkers and starts acting odd, she does nothing but support him. Some might question her dedication - she ends up putting herself right in harms way during a typical “what were they thinking” brand of inappropriate snooping - but even at the end, she’s determined to stand by her man. Cooper compliments this devotion nicely. His decent into obsession may seem abrupt, but a story element near the end may help explain the sudden shift.
But it is UK thug mug Vinnie Jones who steals the show as Mahogany, long pig butcher to…no, that would be spoiling things. Indeed, the famed onscreen heavy portrays someone so enigmatic, so full of secrets that part of the joy in Midnight Meat Train is uncovering all his character clues. As they fall into place, one by one, the portrait painted is unsettling indeed. In fact, the minute Jones is proven fallible, or even worse, human, we start to really hate him. Unlike other famed mass murderers, Kitamura and his writers aren’t out to make another Voorhees. Mahogany has a purpose, and you’re enjoyment of the movie in general just may turn on it.
In fact, the ending reveal is the make or break point for Midnight Meat Train. The explanation for all the deaths, the reason the cops don’t care, how one man manages to dispatch dozens of people without raising much of a stink is satisfying if slightly surreal. It does explain what Kitamura was doing with all those remarkable CG shots of subway trains careening down unearthly tracks, and it pays off in ways that are plausible. But horror fans are a notoriously persnickety bunch. Fail to fulfill your promise or try to trick them and they will laugh you out of the fright fraternity. But Midnight Meat Train does deliver. It may require a bit more of that patented suspension of dread disbelief, but thanks to the visionary behind the lens, we enjoy the deferment.
As usual, the studio behind the film unceremoniously dumped it on a few dozen “dollar theater” screens this past August - and this after touting it for months as some kind of macabre milestone. It just goes to show how marginalized and misunderstood the genre really is. Of course, the track record of the brain behind the bloodshed may have given some of the suits pause for concern. Ryuhei Kitamura is far from a household name, and Clive Barker may be a fascinating individual and celebrated writer, but as the foundation for a film, he has very limited appeal. Midnight Meat Train might have changed all that, had the fright community been given a chance to celebrate its paranormal panache. Sadly, it looks like DVD will have to save the day - which is typical for terror.
© 2008 Bill Gibron
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Jacket
The Jacket (2005)
(Warner Bros.)
Directed by John Maybury
Starring Adrien Brody, Keira Knightley, Kris Kristofferson, and Jennifer Jason Leigh
Ok, so what happens when you take the time traveling aspects of 12 Monkeys, mix in the time altering aspects of The Butterfly Effect, and then throw everything in the setting of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? You get a film that is almost as hard to follow as the cinematic recipe outlined above.
Oscar winner Adrien Brody stars as Jack Starks, a Gulf War veteran who ends up hitching a ride that not only changes his future but that of the other people he meets that fateful once upon a time. Things quickly go from bad to worse for Starks as in no time at all he finds himself sitting in court accused of murder and then hustled off to an insane asylum to be "rehabilitated."
Ah, rehab! It never works very well in these films. A pill here, a group talk session there, more pills, and then whattaya know?!? You find yourself strapped into a torturous straight-jacket, shot up with some unknown concoction of drugs, laid down upon a cold slab, and shoved into an old morgue freezer. Alone. In the Dark. Unable to move. Silence and darkness can be a most disorienting and disturbing thing for a human being. For Jack Starks it ends up being that and more.
This is where The Jacket really kicks into gear. Director John Maybury masterfully uses the camera to exploit the kind of madness one would drift into if subjected to such treatment. Through a series of quick cuts and extremely tight shots, the audience is made to feel the type of claustrophobia our protagonist is going through. These are by far the most effective moments of the film and are worth the price of admission alone.
From there The Jacket becomes a not so unique time travel tale with Starks racing against time to alter the future he has seen while trying to save his own soul. It's never once explained why or how Starks being placed in the jacket can enable him to traverse time. Astral Projection? Psychic Slingshot™? Who Knows! But Brody's unnerving yet sympathetic performance is enough to make you look past the inconsistencies and flat out lapses in logic.
The rest of the cast seems to be just going through the motions of the film's setup. Nothing really bad, but certainly nothing memorable either. The most fun to be had with The Jacket's co-stars comes in the form of spotting One Day at a Time's Mackenzie Phillips (or maybe it was the lead singer from The Black Crowes? Uncanny resemblence I tell ya!) doing her very best Nurse Ratched impersonation.
As a whole, the film ends up a mixed but mostly satisfying bag. As incoherent as it is enjoyable, The Jacket hits the marks that it set out to, yet leaves the audience a bit cold with its squeaky clean ending.
© 2005 Uncle Creepy
(Warner Bros.)
Directed by John Maybury
Starring Adrien Brody, Keira Knightley, Kris Kristofferson, and Jennifer Jason Leigh
Ok, so what happens when you take the time traveling aspects of 12 Monkeys, mix in the time altering aspects of The Butterfly Effect, and then throw everything in the setting of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? You get a film that is almost as hard to follow as the cinematic recipe outlined above.
Oscar winner Adrien Brody stars as Jack Starks, a Gulf War veteran who ends up hitching a ride that not only changes his future but that of the other people he meets that fateful once upon a time. Things quickly go from bad to worse for Starks as in no time at all he finds himself sitting in court accused of murder and then hustled off to an insane asylum to be "rehabilitated."
Ah, rehab! It never works very well in these films. A pill here, a group talk session there, more pills, and then whattaya know?!? You find yourself strapped into a torturous straight-jacket, shot up with some unknown concoction of drugs, laid down upon a cold slab, and shoved into an old morgue freezer. Alone. In the Dark. Unable to move. Silence and darkness can be a most disorienting and disturbing thing for a human being. For Jack Starks it ends up being that and more.
This is where The Jacket really kicks into gear. Director John Maybury masterfully uses the camera to exploit the kind of madness one would drift into if subjected to such treatment. Through a series of quick cuts and extremely tight shots, the audience is made to feel the type of claustrophobia our protagonist is going through. These are by far the most effective moments of the film and are worth the price of admission alone.
From there The Jacket becomes a not so unique time travel tale with Starks racing against time to alter the future he has seen while trying to save his own soul. It's never once explained why or how Starks being placed in the jacket can enable him to traverse time. Astral Projection? Psychic Slingshot™? Who Knows! But Brody's unnerving yet sympathetic performance is enough to make you look past the inconsistencies and flat out lapses in logic.
The rest of the cast seems to be just going through the motions of the film's setup. Nothing really bad, but certainly nothing memorable either. The most fun to be had with The Jacket's co-stars comes in the form of spotting One Day at a Time's Mackenzie Phillips (or maybe it was the lead singer from The Black Crowes? Uncanny resemblence I tell ya!) doing her very best Nurse Ratched impersonation.
As a whole, the film ends up a mixed but mostly satisfying bag. As incoherent as it is enjoyable, The Jacket hits the marks that it set out to, yet leaves the audience a bit cold with its squeaky clean ending.
© 2005 Uncle Creepy
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The Mist
With this, his third theatrical adaptation of a Stephen King story, Frank Darabont has proven two things: First, that magic happens whenever he and King get together and the two of them should consider moving into a duplex. Second, that Frank Darabont is a sadist. He gets his jollies by hurting his audience. Not physically, but emotionally.
Where other filmmakers get a reaction by ratcheting up the tension or raising the stakes to deliver thrills, Darabont does it by stabbing his audience with an emotional knife, and then twisting and turning it until we’re utterly drained of feeling. He takes special pleasure in sticking his switchblade into men, and previous Darabont directorial efforts like The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption seem specifically geared to hit that soft, gooey spot that the hardened, manly man ego keeps hidden away deep inside. Frank Darabont earns a living making grown men cry, and there’s no one better at it.
With The Mist, he’s done it again. By the time the film’s credits rolled I was wrecked, a mass of roiling emotion and depression. The movie sticks with you long after the lights come on; it lingers in your soul like a recurring nightmare or the shadowy vision of an inevitable and terrible future.
It starts with a storm and a geeky, blink and you’ll miss it, nod to fans of Stephen King’s “Dark Tower” novels. David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his family retreat to their basement to ride out the bad weather. When they emerge in the morning a tree has crashed through their front window, and the power is out. David and his young son go into town for supplies, leaving his wife behind. It’s at the grocery store where David first realizes something is horribly wrong. A man, bloodied and panicked, races into the store screaming “there’s something in the mist!” Just as David and the other customers look out the window to see an unnatural mist rolling towards the store, the city’s air raid sirens sound.
They soon discover they’re trapped inside the store. To leave is to go into the mist, and inside the mist are unspeakable, unbelievable, life-ending horrors. David and the group of customers hidden inside the store go through all the things anyone would: Shock, confusion, disbelief. But the danger, no matter how bizarre and inconceivable, is real. Tensions mount as time passes. Soon David and a handful of other like-minded survivors begin to realize that it may be just as dangerous inside the store as it is outside it.
More terrifying than the horrifying creatures lurking outside the store are the two-legged beings lurking within it. The Mist is more than just some monster movie, instead it’s a careful examination of human nature. Darabont’s adapted script develops each character carefully, and the film’s real thrills come from following his group of terrified survivors as they fight, fear, and quite simply fall apart in different ways as hope drains away. Some turn to God and fatalism, others turn to logic, still others choose denial and pay for their refusal to face facts. David Drayton however, simply refuses to give up.
Thomas Jane carries the movie as Drayton, an artist turned temporary leader. But it’s not just Jane that turns in a genius performance here. Darabont has assembled an amazing ensemble cast of character actors and unknown, who embody not just their given characters but different aspects of the human spirit. The Mist’s uncanny ability to get us so invested in those character archetypes is what really makes the film so effective. Every death hurts bitterly, every failed attempt at escape gores you straight to the soul. Even the film’s villains are more than two-dimensional characters. You know where they’re coming from. You could be one of these people. You know these people. What would you do if real insanity was unleashed on the world? How would you face not just your death, but the death of everyone you’ve ever cared about?
If there’s any flaw in the film, it’s in some of the specifics of the Darabont’s script which at times, leans towards the predictable. But like everything Darabont does The Mist connects with its audience on such a deeply emotional level that those trifling problems are easily overcome. The film’s monster movie elements are there only to serve as a catalyst for a much deeper, brutally emotive, thought-provoking story. This is a brilliantly smart, character-driven horror film; and it’ll rock you to the core.
© 2007 Josh Tyler
Where other filmmakers get a reaction by ratcheting up the tension or raising the stakes to deliver thrills, Darabont does it by stabbing his audience with an emotional knife, and then twisting and turning it until we’re utterly drained of feeling. He takes special pleasure in sticking his switchblade into men, and previous Darabont directorial efforts like The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption seem specifically geared to hit that soft, gooey spot that the hardened, manly man ego keeps hidden away deep inside. Frank Darabont earns a living making grown men cry, and there’s no one better at it.
With The Mist, he’s done it again. By the time the film’s credits rolled I was wrecked, a mass of roiling emotion and depression. The movie sticks with you long after the lights come on; it lingers in your soul like a recurring nightmare or the shadowy vision of an inevitable and terrible future.
It starts with a storm and a geeky, blink and you’ll miss it, nod to fans of Stephen King’s “Dark Tower” novels. David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his family retreat to their basement to ride out the bad weather. When they emerge in the morning a tree has crashed through their front window, and the power is out. David and his young son go into town for supplies, leaving his wife behind. It’s at the grocery store where David first realizes something is horribly wrong. A man, bloodied and panicked, races into the store screaming “there’s something in the mist!” Just as David and the other customers look out the window to see an unnatural mist rolling towards the store, the city’s air raid sirens sound.
They soon discover they’re trapped inside the store. To leave is to go into the mist, and inside the mist are unspeakable, unbelievable, life-ending horrors. David and the group of customers hidden inside the store go through all the things anyone would: Shock, confusion, disbelief. But the danger, no matter how bizarre and inconceivable, is real. Tensions mount as time passes. Soon David and a handful of other like-minded survivors begin to realize that it may be just as dangerous inside the store as it is outside it.
More terrifying than the horrifying creatures lurking outside the store are the two-legged beings lurking within it. The Mist is more than just some monster movie, instead it’s a careful examination of human nature. Darabont’s adapted script develops each character carefully, and the film’s real thrills come from following his group of terrified survivors as they fight, fear, and quite simply fall apart in different ways as hope drains away. Some turn to God and fatalism, others turn to logic, still others choose denial and pay for their refusal to face facts. David Drayton however, simply refuses to give up.
Thomas Jane carries the movie as Drayton, an artist turned temporary leader. But it’s not just Jane that turns in a genius performance here. Darabont has assembled an amazing ensemble cast of character actors and unknown, who embody not just their given characters but different aspects of the human spirit. The Mist’s uncanny ability to get us so invested in those character archetypes is what really makes the film so effective. Every death hurts bitterly, every failed attempt at escape gores you straight to the soul. Even the film’s villains are more than two-dimensional characters. You know where they’re coming from. You could be one of these people. You know these people. What would you do if real insanity was unleashed on the world? How would you face not just your death, but the death of everyone you’ve ever cared about?
If there’s any flaw in the film, it’s in some of the specifics of the Darabont’s script which at times, leans towards the predictable. But like everything Darabont does The Mist connects with its audience on such a deeply emotional level that those trifling problems are easily overcome. The film’s monster movie elements are there only to serve as a catalyst for a much deeper, brutally emotive, thought-provoking story. This is a brilliantly smart, character-driven horror film; and it’ll rock you to the core.
© 2007 Josh Tyler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search