Sympathy For Mr Vengeance (2002) directed by Park Chan-Wook – A Film Review

Out of sheer desperation, an out of work deaf man kidnaps the infant child of his former boss to raise the money for an operation to save his sisters life. With the help of his terrorist girlfriend, they manage to snatch the young girl. However when they try to drop off the girl something goes wrong, and in the exchange the girl is killed. This in turn sets off a series of events, as this group of people begin acting out violent revenge upon one another.

Overall the narrative is quite tight. There never really seems to be a moment of dwelling to long or the story being overinflated. Although the film is two hours long, the story keeps you attentive to the action on screen. This is aided by the graceful work of the actors, director and cinematographer who all do excellent jobs here.

In the layout of the narrative there is also an interesting point to note, in the fact that the actual event in which the young kidnapped child is killed is not shown on screen. Not only does it mean we don’t have to witness the tragedy, but it also means that we have to rely on second hand information and come up with our own conclusion on what may have really come to pass.

Yet that is not to say that the film is perfect. There are some sequences where the violence or actions on screen seem a little to extreme. In particular towards the beginning of the film we see the protagonists sister moaning in pain because of her kidneys. This is then intercut with a shot of a group of young men next door circle jerking to the sound of the moaning. Personally, I found the shot gratuitous; but I do realize how the shot could be justified as symbolism of the society as a wholes lack of sympathy to other people’s pain. Other times it seems that violence is highlighted on for too long, making it seem as though the filmmakers were slightly too captivated by the acts themselves. Again, this could be explained as the filmmakers trying to show the extremities of the revenge that they seek, yet there is something about it that just seems too fetishist to convince me of this.

It seems Park set out on this film to create a clever novelistic thriller, and to that point, he mostly achieved this. He aimed to show what extremes people would go to if they felt they had no other choice and emotions compelled them to do so. And, in many ways again, the film does this. Yet there is something here that doesn’t stand quiet right. An air of exploitation stands cloaked behind this high art (to some extent societal / political) thriller. It seems to some extent that a more sensitive approach was needed in parts to the subject matter, and the times where the movie feels exploitive really take you out of the film and I believe would be off putting for most viewers. 

Stoker (2012) directed by Park Chan-Wook – A Film Review

Directed by one of South Korea’s foremost film directors, Stoker is the first of acclaimed filmmaker Park Chan Wook’s works to be made in the English language. With the story of this British / American co-production being primarily based around a girl in her late teens whose father has recently passed away, only for her estranged uncle to show up out of the blue at his funeral. The uncle soon becomes involved with his dead brothers wife, but not all is right with the mysterious stranger. Things later take a more sinister turn as the young girl finds a dead body in the house.

The film is really quite well directed as you may expect from seeing Park’s previous work. There is a real aura of suspense building throughout the movie that is well handled for the most part. The film is also well shot with some really interesting sequences to the cinematography. Acting in the film is well handled as each actor fully embodies his or her role. However, what did stand out as an off-putting component to the film was some of the blatant plot holes in the movie.

Let me explain. Throughout the film there are points of revelation of information relating to the plot and characters. There is a suspense that builds here around character motives and the possibility of danger they may hold to the protagonist. Ominous events occur, as a precursor to these larger moments of revelation, but one of things we expect to rely on is that the protagonist will react in a way that is relatable for the audience. Case in point, early into the film the protagonist (India) finds a body in her house that may or may not have been put there by her uncle and yet she doesn’t ring the police. Why? She is in no way related to this death and already suspects her uncle. But still she doesn’t go to the police.

From this point the film seems to trail off into it’s own bizarre fantasy world. Whilst at school one day, a group of caricature school bullies who are so over the top they would be out of place in a Looney Tunes cartoon attempt to confront India. She then stabs one of them as her uncle is seen watching on. It is here that she meets another classmate who seems quite friendly until a later scene, where he seems to within only a few seconds, switch into a completely different character, and attempts to rape India! None of this makes any sense! His character switch is completely out of nowhere and is in no way believable.

Her uncle Charlie, who proceeds in murdering her classmate, saves India, which is then intercut with a shower scene where India is masturbating over the murder. None of this makes any sense! Why is she suddenly displaying psychotic behavior? Why does she continually not ring the police? How can we relate to a character when there are no grounded qualities to her personality?

In some of Park’s Korean thrillers people are often forced into violent situations for a reason. Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance (2002) and Oldboy (2003) see multiple characters act violently for revenge or in an attempt to achieve some goal, but here in Stoker it seems as though everyone is aimless. Action is random and there is never any sense of reason to what is going on. A suspense thriller builds to confrontation; a mystery thriller builds to revelation and, in the end it feels as though Stoker built itself to nothing. The film seems to get lost around half way through and only really manages to stumble to the finish. That’s not to say there is no confrontation to Charlie’s actions, there is. But when it comes to a conclusion it just feels anticlimactic.

Overall the film wasn’t what you might expect from the advertisements. Its well acted, shot, edited and directed, but there are just too many plot holes to give this a good recommendation. Many critics have failed to notice these flaws and I’m sure other audience members will to, but still, this would be no reason to simply give the film a pass because of these facts. 

The Breakfast Club (1985) directed by John Hughes – A Film Review

In the nineteen eighties John Hughes created some of the most definitive films for the teenagers of that decade. Films like Sixteen Candles (1984), Weird Science (1985), Pretty in Pink (1986), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986), and the subject of this film review The Breakfast Club (1986) helped to play out issues of young people and in the end helped to define their very opinions.

Yet I was not born to this generation. In fact I wasn’t born until nineteen ninety one so I never grew up relating to these films in the same way other generations may have done. To reveal more on this, it wasn’t until my twenties that I actually first saw any of these movies. So unlike many others, I don’t have any kind of nostalgic bias to this material. This also means that I don’t really share the same kind of cultural compass that many who viewed these films at the time of their releases would have.

The basic premise of the film involves five pupils who have for varying reasons been put into a special detention class on a Saturday as punishment for their behavior. Each of them fulfills a specific stereotype of teenagers within an American high school (or any social environment for that matter) of the time. One is a jock / tough guy, another is a prom queen / popular girl, another’s a nerd / conformist and there’s also a criminal / rebel and basket case or introvert.

It’s true that like each of them, when we first meet the pupils we view them in these same terms; through the same social stereotypes. Yet as the film progresses and they as characters get to know each other better a strong bond begins to form between them. Each of them has their own social problems and unique perspective based on the experiences they’ve had. They all discuss in this time the relation between their parents and how that has influenced who they are. It’s during this time that you really begin to notice how they all share a bond in the fact that each of their personalities are formed in someway as a form of submission or rejection of what their parents have taught them. And, the way they inherently react to others is to a degree a reflection on this.

In terms of the films presentation it is really well shot with the majority of the action taking place in one location. The cinematography itself is quite minimalistic in terms of camera movement or elaborate setups. In fact for most of the film the camera is static, which allows us to fully engage the subjects and actors being presented before us without being distracted.

There are many standout performances here, well, to be honest; the film is kind of filled with them. All of the young actors completely pull off their characters and there isn’t anything in sight that pulls you out of any of their performances. Also a keynote to be made here is that none of the characters come across as cheesy or clichéd in their presentation to the audience. Instead they come across as genuine people with mixed emotions and engaging backstories that have a real influence on who they are.

In many ways this film is completely unlike any other high school movie ever made. The film at times comes across like a group psychology session in which everyone is discussing his or her problems, and in many ways I think this is one of the reasons why it is so interesting. We begin to see the posturing that each of them does at the start of the movie be slowly chipped away over time, as we begin to see their true raw emotions.

There are no real detriments to the film. Its weakest aspect is that it has a few eighties songs play throughout which to a small extent ages the film. But overall the film feels as fresh today as it would have when it was released. It’s really quite unusual to see such strong writing in a teen drama. As a lot of them often try to sell themselves on a concept of wacky adventures or moving to a new school, where character development on any real endearing level is usually left by the way side. The premise of The Breakfast Club however, forces these kids to talk with one another when they are stuck in a classroom together on a Saturday. They are forced to engage with these other people who they don’t know and through this they learn a lot about each other and some of them learning more about themselves.

For many people this film would have changed how they look at the medium itself. The fact that you could have a whole film based around people just discussing their lives and issues is something that you don’t see that often in American cinema. Aiming for a young audience and not dumbing down the material but talking to them as adults was a smart decision. To many films are created in a way that is too simplistic for younger audiences and this stands as an example of how you can make a smart film for them and have it still be successful. The reason being that this film never tried to talk down to its audience, instead it attempted to genuinely talk to them. Which is something all in itself quite refreshing.

Deck Dogz (2005) directed by Steve Pasvolsky – A Film Review

There has been in recent years a rise in the acceptability and even the enjoyment of bad movies. The term “so bad it’s good” is not a new one and has been used since at least the nineteen nighties but the demand for such films has certainly increased over the past decade. Ironic enjoyment of entertainment has seen a steady rise in recent years as films such as The Room (2003) and Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010) have come to prominent attention. In fact, it was through a similar recommendation that I came across this strangely fantastical Australian skateboarding / coming of age movie.

Having never heard of it before I had no idea what to expect. After doing some research I discovered that the writer/director had in fact previously been nominated for an academy award for an earlier short film he produced – so how bad could it really be?

Well the film starts with three teenage skater boys who live in Sydney. The three of them have a plan to go to a skate competition so that one of them (Spasm) can show off his skills in an attempt to get sponsored by the special guest judge Tony Hawk. On their journey to the competition they get expelled from school, run away from drug dealers and meet a few girls along the way. Nothing out of the ordinary so far right, just an average coming of age story so far – that is, if you read the plot anyway.

You see what separates this from other coming of age movies is the fact that none of this comes across as believable. The film is presented in such a bizarre fantasist way that it ends up coming across as wish fulfillment of the fantasies of the director. Nothing makes sense. The attempts at characters are caricatures from the one-dimensional police officers, to the authoritarian teachers or even the love interest that is only there to be stared at and have a short conversation with before the protagonists turn in the competition.

The problem is that the kids don’t have any personalities outside of their stereotypes. Blue (the Asian guy) talks and acts like he’s an African American inner city kid. The protagonist Spasm is the shy but secretly talented every day one and his other friend Poker is an orphan with a drug addict brother. There is really nothing more to them outside of these personality traits.

Acting over all in the film isn’t to bad considering the script. The cinematography also isn’t that bad but the soundtrack is pretty terrible. Animated sequences are also incorporated into certain points in the film but it doesn’t really fit and is quite off putting when it appears.

At the end of the day, the film isn’t really anything special. It isn’t particularly funny in it’s ineptness and is not really sporadic enough in its random moments of bizarre humor to recommend as a “so bad it’s good” movie. You can tell that the filmmakers really set out to make a fantasy fulfillment skateboarder film that reminded them of their younger years and, in a way, they did that. But in honesty they didn’t achieve much more than this. It’s a decent flick for what it is – it’s not great but not terrible. It has its moments but there really isn’t much more to recommend it. 

The Master directed by Paul Thomas Anderson – A Film Review

In The Master (2012) the story follows a young former soldier named Freddie Quill played by Joaquin Phoenix, who is struggling to settle into a normal routine life after the torments of war. Because of this he has become a kind of vagabond, a drifter and loner unable to settle in any one place. That is of course until he comes across the mysterious stranger Lancaster Dodd played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Dodd is a leader of a small group of quirky fundamentalists that feed Quill when they find him after he had drunkenly stowed himself away on their cruise ship the night before.

Dodd soon befriends Freddie and allows him to stay for his daughter’s wedding. After a while Quill and Dodd have a heart to heart and Freddie is forced to confront his recent problems. In doing so Freddie becomes reinvigorated and joins the cult of Dodd within which he finds a stable place for himself and a channel for his displaced emotions.

Yet Freddie is still haunted by his past. His past regrets and mistakes make him galvanize his loyalty to his newly found family. But with his unpredictable behavior and because of the way he violently acts out he remains an outsider to many.

What’s strange here is that Phoenix chooses to play the role so open. From the subtlest facial expressions to the larger emotional scenes, you can see this pain in every frame featuring the hurt and broken man.

Hoffman also stands out in his portrayal of Lancaster Dodd. Through out the film he remains charismatically drawing whilst being experientially hard to read. He seems to remain calculatedly in control of situations and yet is still able to come across as genuinely endearing. There is something quite mystical about him really as he is able to lie to cult members and somehow still give the impression of being a loving figure to his cult subjects.

In a way, through out the film the audience themselves can become endeared by this character’s cult of personality. There is a definite similarity between this character and real figures like L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith. Just like these real life leaders, Dodd’s followers observe his teachings in a way to deal with or understand problems that they lack the knowledge or ability to understand. In his claim to the knowledge they seek, he provides a charismatic leadership and a murky, somewhat logistical guide to others.

In terms of the script here the story is masterfully crafted. Sequences (although on occasions surreal) never feel unnecessary or forced into the narrative. In a way the film follows a quite loose and novelistic structure that really gives the audience (and the story in general) room to breathe.

To be really truthful, the craft of the movie in general is wholly well handled. From the cinematography, to the acting, to the direction, there isn’t any part of the film that is really a let down in a craftsmanship sense. In fact through out the entire viewing of the film there isn’t one particular example of any faults I had with it. That’s not to say the film is perfect, it was enjoyable and well put together of course but it isn’t a movie I would come back to on repeated viewings. Ok maybe that is a little hypocritical, as I have viewed it twice to this date - but what I believe I’m trying to say is that, once you feel you have fully grasped the story there isn’t really any enduring factors that will bring you back to viewing this film on a consistent basis.

In summary, The Master attempts to profile how someone may become involved in a cult and how they would react to it’s positives and negatives. With the final conflict coming from a confrontation between the ideas of submissive conformity in hope of the possibility redemption, and the freedom for someone to choose what is best for them - no matter how rational or irrational that person may be. It successfully examines and confronts all of these things, however, I don’t believe that this is the sort of film that will keep viewers coming back for more after full comprehension of the story aspects of this work.