Only God Forgives by Nicolas Winding Refn

Only God Forgives by Nicolas Winding
Refn

Julian, a drug-smuggler thriving in Bangkok’s criminal underworld, sees his life get complicated when his mother
compels him to find and kill whoever is responsible for his brother’s recent death. Chang, a Thai police lieutenant, is exacting his own brand of vigilante justice and punishing everybody involved.

Only God Forgives is the classic case of a director doing a continuation of his authorial style. An aesthetic that was recognized in a previously successful film is further explored in a more extreme fashion in a follow-up piece. Very often it’s focused on using the established cinematic style to carry the entire movie. Wong Kar Wai made Fallen Angels after the success of Chungking Express. David Lynch made Inland Empire after the success of Muholland Drive. Terrence Malick made To the Wonder after Tree of Life.

Only God Forgives is Nicolas Winding Refn’s stylistic continuation of Drive. What’s stripped away is the frequent plot turns, traditional character development and character likability. These are probably the most quiet cinematic gangsters I’ve ever seen in my life. Characters are posed like empty vessels. They don’t talk much. Sometimes when they do, the director mutes their dialogue. Ryan Gosling plays a still taciturn character in a similar way he did in Drive. Kristin Scott Thomas is an effective threatening presence as Julian’s stern mother Crystal. There’s very little to draw from Gosling’s Julian, but it is there. Even within it’s morally ambiguous world, there is a clear character arc. Julian is an active character trying to find redemption but also wants to please his mother. Which leads to me to the Chang character…

Nicolas Winding Refn has said the Lieutenant Chang character represents the Old Testament God, exacting judgment and punishment on all the sinners in the story. I am not sure how clear that is in the film unless the audience read the press notes beforehand. Does the God theme really matter? In a way, yes. The film is so stoic with its characters posed like figurines, you cannot help but inject symbolism into the film’s empty canvas to derive meaning out of it. Trying to watch this film as a genre crime thriller, which is what it is on the surface, would be relatively more frustrating. Luckily I caught on to it.

The Chang character, in a perpetual black shirt with a white collar, is dressed like a priest. He is a violent enforcer of poetic justice, and all his actions are ritual-like. In a more traditional movie, Chang would have been the protagonist. Here, he’s the antagonist. From the story’s perspective, where all the characters are varyingly degrees of bad, it’s as if Chang is the Grim Reaper coming to collect souls even though he in fact is a force for good. That’s a really interesting left-field story choice and I dug that. Lieutenant Chang is the most fascinating character and a great antagonist.

There is an indulgent aspect to Only God Forgives, any director taking on big questions will naturally come off that way. Refn could have easily written a theology thesis but he’s chosen to express his thoughts with narrative film. I have no problem with that but it automatically sets up qualifiers for audiences to enjoy the film. While it is not necessary, I think having viewed Drive first will help one familiarize with Refn’s film language before seeing this movie. As for the God themes, it can go either which way. Some may find it pretentious, but I found images from the film stuck with me long after and I am still pondering the film’s themes. I found the Julian and Chang characters compelling. So for that, Only God Forgives is neither the masterpiece nor disaster that all the Cannes hype is suggesting, but more of a hyper-stylized personal statement. It will surely divide audiences, and your enjoyment will depend on how you deal with abstractions.

Trance by Danny Boyle

Trance by Danny Boyle

An art auctioneer who has become mixed up with a group of criminals partners with a hypnotherapist in order to recover a lost painting.

Danny Boyle’s new film Trance is an cinematic assault on the senses, and unapologetically so. The premise behind Trance is inherently silly. This is a world in which where hypnosis is magic and accomplishes everything. I doubt any real gangster in the world would ever incorporate a doctor of any kind to assist them with crime.  Audiences just have to go along with it. With trippy cinematography and an awesome soundtrack that I want on my mp3 playlist, Boyle crafts a colorful thrill ride of a film.In the past, Danny Boyle has experimented with genre to varying degrees of success. 28 Days Later worked for me, Sunshine did not. For Trance, the genre-shifting nature works mostly because of its three stars giving it the proper balance. All three lead actors are given dimensional characters to play. Vincent Cassell and James McAvoy seem to be enjoying their roles as they get to play out not only their own characters’ complexities, but their fantasies and projections as well. The standout, surprisingly, is Rosario Dawson.

This is the best Rosario Dawson role I have seen thus far. In her past roles, her sex appeal has been used too blatantly and it has taken away from her performances. The more you intentionally portray someone as sexy on film, the less sexy it is. I am too aware that I am supposed to be aroused by something that I am not totally immersed in. It’s more the idea of sex and the building of sexual tension that creates onscreen sexiness. Danny Boyle sets up the proper atmosphere and films her in a way that forwards the story. Boyle creates an allure to Rosario Dawson’s hypnotherapist character, who’s just sitting down in plain office attire hypnotizing the male characters with words. Her presence adds an entire genre, the erotic thriller, and it sets the film off on a corkscrew spiral mixing film genres, reality and dream states. Nobody is who they seem to be and the film delivers some nice twists and turns.

There’s a trashiness that the film revels in, as if the film is fine with the audience being aroused and indulging into its stimulus. It never gets serious enough for the audience to ever truly take it seriously. So for that, Trance is a fun naughty little piece of pop art, that’s not to be taken seriously and I was comfortably lost in it.

Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez

Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez

Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of the Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.

The three Evil Dead films is a trilogy of inconsistencies. The opening of Evil Dead 2 rewrites the events of first Evil Dead, and Army of
Darkness’ opening rewrites the conclusion of Evil Dead 2. The sequencing of events has always connected only inside the audience’s minds as a complete storyline. My first-ever experience with the Evil Dead franchise wasn’t watching the films but instead going to see Evil Dead Musical, which combined the first two Evil Dead story lines together (which in my opinion was much better). So I didn’t know what a remake would mean in context to continuing the story or what kind of expectations to have for an Evil Dead remake. So to get right into it…

The new Evil Dead… is so-so. I did not find the reason that justified this remake.

The major issue with Evil Dead is that there is no X factor. It’s neither funny or has a lead performance akin to Bruce Campbell’s in the original that raises the piece above the sum of its parts. I’m not asking for either again. The story plays fast and loose with its characters, as a result we never genuinely know who we should be rooting for till it’s too late. The typical stupid horror movie mistakes they make are unbelievably stupid. The lack of humor in itself is not a problem but there’s no additional layer or emotion contrasting to what’s going on. So the audience is left simply moving through the plot points, guessing who’s turn it is to die next. That would be okay if we weren’t
already so familiar with the story. Evil Dead completely relies on its scares to entertain the audience alone, and somehow that falls short.

The practical in-camera effects deserve praise, as they add effective weight to the scares and sufficient texture to the gore. The end
result is quite cringe-worthy. Practical effects bring more weight to the spectacle than CGI and I applaud anyone who is not letting
practical effects die. I suspect director Fede Alvarez would say the X factor is the gore and the scares. But after the Joss
Whedon-produced Cabin in the Woods, I’m expecting more now by default. If only this movie was released first….

It’s been reported Sam Raimi is going to make Army of Darkness 2, which will connect to the events of this remake. He’s
free to do what he wants, but it’s not going to improve this Evil Dead remake by any means. For that, viewers who haven’t seen The Evil Dead will be probably enjoy this more. Fans of the original like myself would probably like this remake a lot more if it wasn’t called Evil Dead.

Pacific Rim by Guillermo del Toro – 100th post!

Pacific Rim by Guillermo Del Toro

As a war between humankind and monstrous sea creatures wages on, a former pilot and a trainee are paired up to drive a seemingly obsolete special weapon in a desperate effort to save the world from the apocalypse.

The fights are the main attraction. You either go along with that premise or not, there’s no two ways about it. In reality, it’s probably more resourceful to bomb these giant monsters or shoot them with a very big cannon, instead of making giant robots to punch them to death. But where’s the fun in that? Suffice to say, the fights are a tense visceral experience and the scale of everything delivers an epic sense of awe. They do everything to up the ante and surprise the audience. Special moves are only used in climatic moments and there’s just something about a giant robot using a boat as a bat that’s just hilarious and jaw-dropping. These fights run very dangerously to the cinematic equivalent of watching somebody play a video game. That’s why I like the drifting mind meld concept, because it solves that problem by it properly adding both physical and emotional conflict to the pilots controlling the Jaegars as well. It focuses to how well these pilots are controlling the Jaegars as opposed to how the Jaegars are fighting the Kaijus.

The fights are shot somewhat tightly but for a very good reason. Shooting the fights close holds the tension and injects the sense of jeopardy and stake into every exchange in the fight choreography. I imagine if the fights were covered entirely in long wide shots, it would lose that sense of scale and the fights would look silly. That said, I had no problem following what’s going on because emotionally it felt right to be watching them that way. And personally, it was doubly fun that the film was set in Hong Kong.

There’s been a common complaint that the characters lacked development, I disagree.  Basically these people all have baggage and they have to band together as a team or fall apart. The film spends time building arcs for its ensemble cast, and it’s sufficient to justify the epic robot monster fights. That’s it, so I don’t understand that complaint. Adding neat little quirks or oddball idiosyncrasies to these characters would have been overkill.

The dialogue is one of the film’s weaker portions. However, depending on how well each actor was able to milk the lines, I was still able to have fun with it. I couldn’t stop cackling at Charlie Day’s fast-paced high-pitched deliveries, who rises above being “Dr. Exposition” and balances the film with comic relief. Day’s exchange with the rival math-based scientist played by Burn Gorman is essentially a cartoon-level quarrel equivalent to Daffy Duck arguing with Bugs Bunny. The math Gorman’s scientist applies is is grade-school at best. Ron Perlman facetiously entertains in flying colors as the Kaiju body parts black marketer Hannibal Chau, the most asshole character name ever created. Idris Elba also adds significant weight as the team leader. So for me, the side characters take the cake from the Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi storyline, which was played very straight for story purposes.

Guillermo del Toro is aware of current big-budget blockbuster tropes and differentiates himself from those trends in Pacific Rim. There are no homage or geek references to distract or alienate the audience. Rinko Kikuchi’s Mako character is not sexualized or filmed through a salivating male gaze; she is a real human character with a story and treated as such. The film doesn’t play like a military recruitment advertisement nor has any blatant nationalistic or jingoistic intentions. Perhaps one of my favorite things about Pacific Rim is it tonally divorces itself from post-9/11 sentimentality. The world has its own distinct fictional reality, where destruction is not linked by evoking imagery, memories or emotions from September 11th. Civilians evacuate from buildings, hide in shelters and the streets are clear for the Jaegers to bash the Kaijus. Most importantly, del Toro never dwells heavily on despair or hopelessness and the audience can enjoy the city-wide destruction guilt-free. All those things counted together, Pacific Rim is truly a breath of fresh air amidst current blockbuster aesthetics and a film made with the most earnest intentions.

Without an A-list star, a love story or a recognizable established franchise (i.e. Godzilla or Transformers) , it’s not hard to see why Pacific Rim didn’t score at the box office. As Snakes On A Plane proved at its theatrical release, the geek fan base doesn’t represent much of the core population. The geeks merely are just the most vocal. Perhaps other parts of the demographic are alienated just by the material itself, despite that del Toro is aiming to entertain everybody. If there’s one underdog movie people should give a chance to this summer, let it be Pacific Rim. It’s a passionate earnest film made by a director that loves the material and wants to deliver good clean fun with a positive message for everybody. His attention to every little detail exudes his excitement for the material; that passion rubbed off on me and elevated my enjoyment.  It’s the most fun I’ve had watching a movie this summer. Guillermo del Toro, give me a hug!

Juan of the Dead by Alejandro Brugues

Juan of the Dead by Alejandro Brugués

A group of slackers face an army of zombies, as the Cuban government and media claim the living dead are dissidents revolting against the government. They decide the best way to deal with the situation is to start a business helping civilians kill their infected loved ones.

Instead of being a zombie film set in Cuba, Juan of the Dead succeeds by being a film about Cuba with zombies in it. The zombie movie tropes are incorporated and contextualized to make a social commentary about Cuba. I’m all for exploitation films having societal themes and it’s been a while since we have seen a zombie film done this way. It’s not new but yet it feels fresh.

In an American or British film where I would be more familiar with the culture, the characters choosing to profit off of the zombie outbreak by starting a “clean-up” business to kill infected relatives would make them very unlikable. As a viewer who’s foreign to Cuba and its political context, this cultural gap created a foreign gaze which allowed me to look inside Cuba’s struggles and the living conditions. That made it easier to go along with these misfits because it interested me more experiencing their view of life within the Cuban context. That makes for the most engaging parts of Juan of the Dead.

The zombie action set pieces and black comedy gags serve the story well. It hits the mark by being so violent it’s hilarious. Two sequences, one underwater sequence and another featuring a pick-up truck with a harpoon gun, both felt really creative. Havana is realistically incorporated into the action as well.

We get the sense our heroes are not intentionally slackers by choice but more a group of people that couldn’t find a place in a neglecting society and trying to do what they can to survive. I liked this band of misfits and it was entertaining watching them assembling into a team. Their first team outing had me laughing. As a fellow student of martial arts, any protagonist that fights with a pair of nunchukus is alright in my book.

World War Z by Marc Forster

World War Z by Marc Forster

Gerry Lane, a retired United Nations employee who must travel the world to find a way to stop a zombie pandemic.

I haven’t read the original novel going into World War Z. There have been some complaints that this film departs heavily  from the novel, but apparently the novel reads like a series of personal accounts. If that’s the case, it’s probably more effective to experience the story through a first-person perspective for a film. On with the review…

The PG-13 rating has always been an interesting constraint for horror movies as it cancels the use of gore and forces more ingenuity in creating the scares. Marc Forster creates a constant frantic sense of jeopardy and properly raises the stakes. Even though it’s possible to outsmart and escape from these running zombies, we fear that the characters will eventually fatigue and lose from being outnumbered. The opening set piece was shot too shaky and cut too fast and it seemed like Marc Forster didn’t learn anything from the action in Quantum of Solace. But the set pieces improve as the film progresses.

By the finale, I was fully immersed into this world, alert of everything that can startle the fast-running zombies and looking out for every possible human mistake. I was cringing at every door squeak and wished a can of WD-40 would just fall out of the sky on their laps. That said, the characters don’t make typical stupid horror movie mistakes. Even in times of risk and with the occasional accidental mistake, they take the proper precautions and do the most sensical thing.

Zombie films typically are set in a town or city. What makes World War Z an unique experience is its international scope, we get to see the entire world react to the zombie outbreak. It gives a political and cultural cross-section of how different countries would react to such a catastrophic event. It holds a mirror to our current world. This was the most interesting part of it for personally as it sets itself apart from George Romero films or The Walking Dead.

The most valuable Brad Pitt brings to the film besides his star power is the big-budget production values itself. The cast performs fine but it’s by no means a performance-driven film. The studio has decided to produce a sequel, as the war in the novel lasts for a decade. And it will probably continue to draw from the U.N reports in the novel. Depending if Brad Pitt returns to the role or if the story unfolds with a new protagonist, the story can go either which way. I’ll probably see it then but for now, the epilogue doesn’t tease me that much.

Man of Steel by Zack Snyder

Man of Steel by Zack Snyder

A young Clark Kent is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race.

The story of Superman, a character created during World War II, is dated by today’s standards. The fragility of his dual identity is never touched upon. The supposed smart career woman who he’s in love with never sees through his disguise as Clark Kent. He’s all powerful, doesn’t lie and always does the right thing. Nothing can physically hurt him except Kryptonite. How do you find conflict for this character? How can he grow? What is there for him to learn? This makes Superman a writer’s nightmare. The original material has written itself into a corner. It’s clear that the filmmakers’ goal was to undo many of these trappings and update Superman to a real modern context. Content aside, I’m a Christopher Nolan fan but I have never liked any of Zack Snyder’s films. What would be the end result of a Nolan-produced Zack Snyder production? Would they accomplish their goals? Is this vision of Superman going to be entertaining? This left me going in with an open mind.

Henry Cavill makes both a great Clark Kent and Superman. Surprisingly much of it is a silent performance, as he has minimal dialogue and communicates a lot of the inner turmoil through his face. The story gives him a lot to play and watching Clark grow into Superman step-by-step make up for the the most interesting segments. When he makes the choice to become Superman, we feel the gravity of that choice. The film is called Man of Steel for that very reason.

Lois Lane is the trickiest part to cast out of all the characters. The career-driven overachieving qualities of Lois Lane, if not balanced correctly, can easily make her into a bitch. She should be a jerk, but a likable jerk. It’s in Superman’s overwhelming presence where her heartier side slowly surfaces.
 Amy Adams nails the career woman part of Lois from her first scene. The heartier side she plays out convincingly as well but unfortunately the romance is a bit rushed. I would have liked to see Lois’s vulnerable side melt away slower and have it unfold in a sequel.

Russell Crowe gives the film an engaging energetic kickstart as Jor-el; he puts an enthusiasm into this role he hasn’t in years. Michael Shannon brings a ferocious intensity to General Zod, who’s written as more complex and more relatable than Terrence Stamp’s version. I believe his motivation and anger. Laurence Fishburne is always a welcome presence and makes a fine Perry White, but what is up with that diamond earring? Is that suitable for work?

Kevin Costner is the heart of the movie as Jonathan Kent. He and Diane Lane make really convincing on-screen parents. Both are real-life parents and there’s something about how being a parent that physically changes the way carry yourself that’s hard to fabricate. That quality is captured effectively here and the values the Kents instill into Clark echoes throughout the film. Martha Kent’s first scene with a young Clark at school almost moved me to tears.

Hans Zimmer’s music punctuates the film’s goal by scoring a “Man of Steel” theme as opposed to a Superman theme. There’s no distinct attempt at trying to capture Superman’s presence with musical keys, the emphasis is the man himself. This separates it from John William’s class original score. The bombastic loud soaring god-like moments are operatic, and the quieter human moments show a lonely man moving from contemplation towards action.

Zack Snyder makes good directorial choices. Snyder’s held back with his trademark slow motion shots and thank goodness for that. The handheld cinematography effectively grounds the scenes, particularly the childhood scenes in Smallville evoke Terrence Malick films. The non-linear flashbacks is a great choice as it mixes things up for an origin story that we have seen before. It was more interesting we didn’t have to go through it linearly.

The finale is too long, partly it’s a reaction from all the complaints of no action from Superman Returns. People have been talking about the issue of too much destruction. It’s more that a lot of the destruction is caused by Superman himself. He seems unaware of his surroundings and is actively using the surrounding buildings to hurt his enemies. This would have been nullified if Cavill’s Superman just saved more civilians between the fights and if the aftermath of the destruction was addressed by the media. Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh’s versions had no problem multi-tasking. The only one Superman power that wasn’t shown was the super breath, and there were many instances he could have used that power to put out a few fires. Maybe Superman hasn’t learned that power yet but he could have used his powers more creatively as well. On a tangential note, I loved the design of the heat vision. There was a destructive ‘last resort’ quality that looked scary and painful to fire out of your eyes.

Finally, some people might feel cheated by or downright reject these changes to the Superman mythos, but these changes properly inject the necessary weaknesses that can set this version of Superman on a journey with enough lessons to learn for subsequent films (assuming they’re making at least three of these including a Justice League movie). The new places they go with Superman were ultimately what thrilled me and the quiet human moments were what moved me. Personally I would have traded 10 minutes out of the finale for 10 more minutes in Smallville.

I look forward to where they take this version of Superman. Depending on which direction of the next film may affect how I feel about Man of Steel because there are a lot of things that are left unfinished that can be fixed in the sequel (i.e. the romance, the aftermath of the damage, Superman saving more people, how the world is reacting to his presence). It’s time to cast Lex Luthor!

Drug War by Johnnie To

Drug War by Johnnie To

Police captain Zhang (played by Sun Honglei) partners with a drug lord named Timmy Choi (played by Louis Koo) after he is arrested. To avoid the death penalty, Choi agrees to reveal information about his partners who operate a cocaine ring. Zhang grows suspicious of Choi’s honesty as several police officers began a raid on the drug ring.

Drug War is a crime film made and released in Mainland China by a Hong Kong film company. Naturally there is going to be an element of political compromise. All the policemen are Mainland Chinese and all the drug dealers are from Hong Kong (Take a guess which side wins in the end). Nationalism in movies has never really bothered me unless it’s oozing with disgustingness (i.e. Michael Bay’s Armageddon). That is not the case here and I don’t have a problem with that. My interest is not the politics, but rather what Johnnie To will bring to drug film set in Mainland China. The answer? Not too much.

What’s missing from Drug War are the Johnnie To quirks. The zany off-the-wall characters who have speech impediments and odd ticks are gone. The dramatic noir lighting, minimalistic stage-like blocking or themes of brotherhood are gone. Even the gunplay is less stylized and presented in a realistic fashion. I don’t miss any of these specific quirks or tropes, but without the idiosyncratic Johnnie To stamp, what’s left is a very straightforward police procedural.

The characters are servicing the plot, which is odd for a Johnnie To film because usually it’s the other way round. We don’t get insight into the distinct personalities of the drug dealers or police officers and their relationships (like in Election, an ensemble piece where it manages to characterize the supporting characters). We don’t know if they have family members or girlfriends waiting for them at home or any backstory. The story is simply moving beat-by-beat linearly on the central question of how trustworthy Louis Koo’s drug lord character is. There’s nobody you’re supposed to be rooting for, but things are continually changing and you simply watch awaiting the final outcome.

To, a director and producer with his own production company, has always been best when he has free reign. The limits of To’s free reign authorship is that he is very culturally rooted to Hong Kong and possesses a firm voice regarding to its politics (Election), economic condition (Life Without Principle), daily life in Hong Kong (the office politics in Needing You), or even local nostalgia (Throwdown, Sparrow). As exemplified in 2008’s Vengeance, a project which was co-financed by French financiers and starred French rock singer Johnny Halliday, To’s directorial voice is weaker when he steps outside of his comfort zone. The three Hong Kong actors casted alongside Johnny Halliday to couch the star for two thirds of Vengeance mirrors the Milkyway regulars who show up as the seven Hong Kong drug bosses in Drug War’s denouement. It’s like he is trying to recalibrate the film by filling it with things he’s familiar with. However, there is no sense of To’s personal perspective on the topic of drug running, drug addiction, crime or how the police work in China through the film’s story, themes or characters. That makes a bit tame because To has fared much better in the past.

In context to Johnnie To’s back catalogue, Drug War will be remembered for pushing the boundaries with the Chinese Film Bureau. The Mainland police are shown working undercover and solving crimes, having gun battles with criminals and some even dying in the line of duty; these are all images that were previously not allowed to be shown in a Mainland theatrical release. Yet now we are seeing them onscreen. So that is a proper achievement that’s worth celebrating. The final product is probably more telling of Chinese film censorship than of To’s directorial sensibilities. But I can’t help but think that there is a grittier, nuttier version of Drug War lying in the corner of Johnnie To’s desk that is stamped “rejected”, namely the version of the story that he didn’t get to make.