Review CLXI - Sexy Beast

Review 161
Sexy Beast (2000)

It's been a while guys. Let me tell you, the end of the semester has been hectic. It's still not over, but we're almost there. Consequently, I figured it'd be time to write a review on a film related to fear and stress, Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast starring Ray Winstone, Amanda Redman, Cavan Kendall, Julianne White, and Ben Kingsley. Let's dive right in!

While looking over his fine swimming pool in Spain, Gary "Gal" Dove (Ray Winstone) is nearly killed by a giant boulder. Believing his life to have been spared, he soon finds out from his best friend Aitch (Cavan Kendall) that an old friend of theirs from their con days, Don Logan (Ben Kingsley), is coming to visit them in hopes of encouraging Gal to take up a bank heist job. With Gal's and Aitch's wives unhappy with the visit, Gal decides he must overcome his fear and refuse Don's invitation. However, easier said than done with such a man.

Sexy Beast is labelled as a crime film, which I suppose it is. I mean, the plot revolves around a bank heist. However, the movie itself focuses on getting to the robbery rather than the robbery itself. This is what sets it apart.

The main theme of the movie is fear. Before we meet Don, we already get a sense that this is not a man to be messed with. When his name is mentioned at the dinner table after Aitch tells Gal that he called, everyone at the table becomes agitated. DeeDee (Amanda Redman) actively encourages Gal to tell him he's quit the con life, with Gal agreeing that he will. When we first see Don, well, he doesn't necessarily give the most menacing appearance, but it is only when he starts speaking, with his first line complaining about the sun in a rather raunchy way, we know what we're in for. Aitch obviously brown noses with the man before Don tells him to leave with the women. We then hear the whole robbery plan and reasons behind it. However, Gal, true to his word, tells Don that he is done with the con life. Don actively encourages him, telling him he's the best, and confessing his love to Jackie (Julianne White), Aitch's wife, to Gal. Nothing stirs Gal from his decision. Violence ensues as Don tries a different approach, to no avail. After "missing" his flight, Don rushes back to Gal's home, only to reach one of our climaxes of the film. Without spoiling anything, let's just say it convinces Gal to do the job.

But this part of the movie lasts for almost two-thirds. Spoiler: we don't see the robbery until after this. The film really focuses on a man who did jail time and is now trying to live his life out in a villa in Spain with his wife and two friends. And that's what makes this film special. You get the trash-talking, you get the plans for the robbery, you get all that, but instead of that being the focus, it's showing a man trying to not back down and agree to do the heist.

And really, that's the focus. It's this man trying to overcome fear. There is a demented anthropomorphic rabbit that appears every so often, and it symbolises Gal's fear with Don. He's scared Don will kill him or never leave him. But in this case, he's facing his fear and won't back down. I think this even represents how people can have difficulty saying no to tasks at work in fear of being yelled at or cursed. But, in the end, you'll probably walk out fine. I think saying yes to opportunities is fine, but knowing when to say no is equally as important. It's pretty neat.

I won't say that Sexy Beast is a masterpiece by any stretch, but it's damned interesting. It's a different take on a film like Ocean's Eleven and instead focuses on getting the heist together. When you think you've reached one climax, you realise you still have another one. It's pretty cool. If you're looking for something different to watch, but still want a crime type of kick, definitely check this one out. Ray Winstone (I keep saying Flinstone in my head) really does a great job, and Ben Kingsley, well, what can I expect but a great madman? A nice little film.

Review LXII - Otesánek

Review LXII
Otesánek (2000)

I can't remember if I ever spoke of Jan Svankmajer on here, but, if I haven't, well, this guy is odd. I first discovered him a few years back when I read about his adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, Alice. I soon watched a few of his shorts, and, well, I think Meat Love sums up his style well. Anyway, I was in the mood for something odd a little while back, and so I suggested to my movie-watcher friend that we check out Otesánek, or Little Otik or Greedy Guts as it is known in English. Trust me when I say it was definitely odd.

Bozena (Veronika Zilková) and Karel (Jan Hartl) desperately want a child, but, due to unfortunate medical circumstances, the couple will likely never have a child of their own. Karel, while fixing up his wife's and his cottage house, discovers a giant tree stump. He jokingly carves it to look like a baby. Bozena, however, takes the situation seriously, adopting the stump as a real child, naming him Otik, and begins faking pregnancy to bring him into their home permanently. However, as foretold in a fairy tale, Otik might be a bit more troublesome than the couple expected.

The synopsis alone, I think, can already foretell how weird this film will get. Still, while it was off the wall, I really enjoyed it. Why? I'll try and answer that since I'm not entirely sure why I loved it so much. For one, it is funny. I found myself laughing at the ridiculousness of the couple ("He's our son - we must stick by him!"), the random pedophile neighbour (Zdenek Kozák) and his scary hand-penis (you'll understand after watching the film), and little Otik himself. The film doesn't have a lot of the stop-motion Jan Svankmajer is known for, but, when you do get it, while it was creepy, you can't help but admire it. I'm a sucker for stop-motion, so I can't help but admire Jan Svankmajer's work. Again, though, I have to stress that this isn't stop-motion heavy at all, so if you're seeking such a style, check out his shorts or Alice. Still, it is easy to see it's a Jan Svankmajer film, and, given that I admire his work, that could be a second reason as to why I liked it. Finally, I really enjoyed the film because, while there was the surface story, there was one left to interpret. I'll go into deal in a new paragraph, so, if you're looking to have fun interpreting the film and avoiding any spoilers, just skip the next paragraph.

Okay, so for all of you who don't spoiling the film and its message, let's go in depth! The last English teacher I had in high school told me that, if ever you're given the chore of interpreting a story in college, just say it's about sex. Not surprisingly, this seems to work for films, as well! My friend and I decided that Otesánek is all about impotency and sex. Let's go with the father as an example given that he really displays the impotency bit well. First of all, at the beginning of the film, we can see Karel observing people getting babies in a charcuterie style. Not to mention there is a lot of emphasis on baby penises throughout the film, though especially in the beginning (it was a tad awkward). Yet, he and his wife are unable to have a child. Erectile dysfunction anyone? It seems he overcomes this baby issue when he produces the tree stump baby (with meticulous details of the penis again), but his wife soon takes it to another level and he loses control again. Every time he tries to tell his wife that the baby needs to go, even after it chews off part of her hair, eats a cat, and even starts eating people, he is unable to stop it. The first time, he's ready to take an axe, a phallic object n'est pas, to the baby, but he fails. Impotency strike one! Again, throughout all this, he tells his wife the baby needs to go, but always backs down. Finally, when he decides to take a stand given that two people have died, he asks his neighbour for a chainsaw - another phallic object, we shall say. He's asking for help, as well, which could mean something. Anyway, he goes to the basement, chainsaw in hand, ready to face the beast which has now grown to a ginormous size, and... he throws the chainsaw to the ground and gets eaten. Once again, an extraordinary example of impotency. The women in the film don't go unscathed, either. It seems that every woman who has the ability to have children is way off psychologically. The mother wants to have this tree stump baby so badly she fakes a pregnancy and is not put off by the fact that her "child" is eating people. In short, she's crazy. The little girl (Kristina Adamcová), who is lonely and extremely interested in babies and sex, feeds people to little Otik, and, after learning how Otik will be stopped, tries her best to prevent it. Finally, the little girl's mother (Jaroslava Kretschmerová) seems neglectful of her child, to an extent. However, when she notices people in the building are being killed, she locks her entire family in their apartment and stands watch. While in this particular instance it might make sense, it is still a slightly off reaction. The females, all within the age to be sexually active and have children - except for the pre-pubescent girl who is a little bit younger, though some girls at ten get their period - are all slightly off in the head. The girl and the mother are also entranced by "wood", where the word can also mean penis. Anyway, there are more details, but I think that is detailed enough for here.

The film was interesting, and I was really able to enjoy this one, so I'm giving it eight stars on ten. If you like peculiar films, definitely give this one a watch. Otherwise, make sure you have an open mind if you decide to check this one out.

Pirate Bay torrent (with English subtitles!)

Review LVIII - Amores perros

Review LVIII
Amores perros (2000)

Human beings are creatures that rely on others for comfort. We don't live as solitary beings, and instead have adopted a way of living that requires the love and caring from others in order to maintain a certain level of happiness. This could be via family, friends, or significant others. Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores perros (or "Love's a Bitch" as it is sometimes translated into English) explores the love people think they perceive and demonstrates how it can lead to our downfall or our transcendence through a single event - a car crash. It stars Gael García Bernal, Vanessa Bauche, Álvaro Guerrero, Goya Toledo, Emilio Echevarría, and Lourdes Echevarría.

The film is separated into three segments. The first focuses on the tale of Octavio (Gael García Bernal) and Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Susana is a young mother who is married to Ramiro (Marco Pérez), a man who makes ends meet by robbing stores. Ramiro is abusive to Susana, and Octavio, Ramiro's brother, who also loves Susana, is angered by this. Octavio dreams of running away with her, and, through dog fighting, he holds the belief he will win her over.

The second segment focuses on Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) and Valeria (Goya Toledo). Daniel was a unhappily married man with two daughters who wound up in an affair with the famous supermodel, Valeria. He leaves his family behind to grow this infatuation, but when Valeria severely injuries her leg in a car crash, their love will be tested.

The final segment focuses on El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) and his daughter, Maru (Lourdes Echevarría). El Chivo, a hitman who poses as a homeless man, participated in guerrilla tactics and landed in jail because of them. A business man approaches and asks him to take out his partner. However, planned events become skewed following a car crash which will leave El Chivo debating the meaning of his existence.

If you know Alejandro González Iñárritu (and you may since he directed 21 Grams and Babel, both Oscar-nominated films, which are actually part of a trilogy of hard love, the first being Amores perros), then you already have a sense of how Amores perros will be executed. The film is more linear than 21 Grams, but it still revolves around a single event that captures the lives of different people. Personally, I find it pretty remarkable as a story because of this event. It shows how small the world can be and the basic concept that everything in this world is connected. I've yet to see Babel (though I read a summary written by a friend for an essay, so I know the story already), but I can definitely say I enjoyed 21 Grams and Amores perros a lot. I don't recall 21 Grams that much since I watched it when I was young, but I can definitely comment that Amores perros was well done. It was melancholic, and it captured that feature of life very well. The characters - Octavio, Susana, Daniel, Valeria, and El Chivo - are three-dimensional who think life is going one way but learn that it isn't what it's cracked up to be. Congratulations to all the actors - you definitely did a great job in your roles. Again, don't go into this film expecting something heart-warming because it isn't. It reveals the hardships of life, and I think it does a great job.

The plot is interesting, and it really showed desperation. Each segment captures a different point about love and, with every one, I was yelling out what the characters should do. But you realise that, if you're in that situation, you don't necessarily think straight. As they (yes, they) say, "Love is blind." I'm warning you now, though, that dogs are a prominent feature in the film (think what they could mean symbolically), and there is a lot of canine abuse. Obviously it's for symbolic purposes and I thought it aided in proving a point, but as a person who has grown up with animals, including dogs, and still has many animals, it was hard to watch sometimes. I'd say don't let the dog fighting and dog abuse prevent you from watching the film because, again, its symbolism is powerful, but I'd rather give a short warning so you don't turn off the film in disgust. It's worth a watch anyway.

The film was authentic and depressing, and it definitely deserved the Oscar nod it got for Best Foreign Film. I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It was interesting and well captured, and it made me cringe and feel, something very little films can do. Also, might I mention I love the play-on-words for the title?

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XI - Joint Security Area

Review XI
Joint Security Area (2000)

Park Chan-wook is an extremely talented director, thus when I saw he directed the film Gongdong gyeongbi guyeok JSA, also known as Joint Security Area in English, which stars Song Kang-ho, Shin Ha-kyn, and Lee Byung-hun, actors I know and love, as well as Lee Yeong-ae and Kim Tae-woo, I made it a film I had to watch.

The film revolves around Major Sophie E. Jean (Lee Yeong-ae), a Swiss major who is accompanied by Swedish lieutenant colonel Perrson (Herbert Ulrich), both part of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, as the two investigate the death of two North Korean soldiers by a South Korean soldier, sergeant Lee Soo-hyeok (Lee Byung-hun).

I found the story heart-warming, and it was told very well. It shows the hardships of war, but the good things that can come out of it as well. It also gives some history on the conflict between North Korea and South Korea, which I enjoyed. While I know a bit about it (I knew about the "Bridge of No Return" and the "Axe Murder Incident" that are mentioned in the film), it still taught me new things, as well as actually demonstrated the way procedure is followed in the Korean Demilitarized Zone. While I wouldn't say it goes in great depth, it does talk about the Korean war, and without bias. I like that. It doesn't glorify one side (even if North Korea is Best Korea); the film shows how both North Korea and South Korea is composed of human beings who share similar feelings and needs.

The acting was grand, as well as the writing. The story was really interesting, and it wasn't over-dramatised, which I find Asian films can suffer from at times. I love the way story resolves at the end too; it's very human, and, as I said, it wasn't over-dramatised. I really wouldn't like to give anything away, so I'll stop here, but if you watch the film, you'll know what I mean.

While I found Major Sophie E. Jean was kind of just placed there, you still got a bit of history about her. I also think the Swedish lieutenant was unnecessary to the plot, but at the same time, they wouldn't only send one person in on an investigation like this. While I enjoyed the story, I found some elements rushed. The idea of the investigation was appropriate, but I find the way they incorporated itself into the story was not well done. We get a flashback instead of the Major discovering stuff on her own. I think the flashback was amazing, but I think they should have incorporated the flashback into the investigation a lot better. It seems almost like they added in the Major and Lieutenant at the end to add to the story instead of really making them part of the story. Either they should have put more emphasis on the investigation part, or taken it out altogether.

Overall, I'd give the movie eight stars on ten. While I found the story a bit rushed at some points, the main story was well shown, by acting and by writing. I found it very heart-warming and informative. If you like historical films or a good dramatic film, it's definitely worth the watch.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review II - Battlefield Earth

Review II
Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 (2000)

If you haven't heard about this film, I'm not surprised. The only thing going for it is that it has been dubbed one of the worst films ever made. If you hate watching bad movies, though, you would definitely stay clear of this. It was directed by Roger Christian and stars Barry Pepper, Forest Whitaker, and John Travolta. If you didn't already know, John Travolta is a scientologist, and he is outspoken about his beliefs. For this reason, he decided to help finance and produce a film adaptation of a L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) novel. What was produced was only half of what the novel consisted of, but a second part would never be made because of the bomb the film was at the box office. The film in question was Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, or simply Battlefield Earth for short.

The plot is set one thousand years into the future and revolves around an alien species that has taken over Earth for that amount of time. Human beings (known as "man-animals" by the aliens) are going extinct, but one alien in particular, Terl (John Travolta), believes the "man-animals" can help them mine the gold they want. He thus decides to teach one man, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper), the language of the alien race and the lost information of his ancestors. Soon, however, the aliens meet their match when the human beings decide to take a stand and take back Earth as their own.

I honestly didn't think this film was that bad. In fact, I thought it was funny. I realise it wasn't aiming to be a comedy, but John Travolta's acting was perfect for a good laugh. Not to mention that Terl (Travolta's character) is a complete dolt for teaching a human being all the knowledge of his ancestors, as well as the language of the Psychlos (the aliens). He makes a big deal out of explaining that in the original fight between the humans and the aliens, the fight lasted nine minutes because the humans were no match. However, and I'm going to spoil the film in this sentence, the humans take down the Psychlos' planet, yes their planet, in a short amount of time by seizing the aliens' equipment. I never read the novel, so I don't know how accurate the plot is to the original story. If this is L. Ron Hubbard's writing, then the plot holes come from his novel, not the screenplay writers. Still, the idiocy of the plot adds to the hilarity of the film, and I legitimately found myself laughing more often than I do in most comedy films. Not to mention that some things took ages to happen, and other times, a plot point would pop out of nowhere, ignoring everything that was already there.

The film was two hours long when it could have easily been a lot shorter. I didn't actually watch the film in two sittings so maybe that's why I didn't think it was too bad. I could imagine, though, that in the theatre, it seemed very lengthy. It was, but I didn't see much of a problem with the length. Still, I don't feel I can properly judge the film on its length because I didn't watch it the whole way through.

Everyone also complains about the dutch angles throughout the film. I'm not a cinematographer, so maybe that's why I wasn't bothered by the dutch angles. I mean, it was strange that everything was tilted a lot of time since dutch angles are used for specific reasons in films (for tension or to show the delirium of a character, for example), but, again, it was something to laugh about. There was also a very strange use of slow motion. I'm not a fan of slow motion because most people do it wrong. Here, it is used for no reason it seems.

Overall, I would give the film a five out of ten. I found it funny, and it was entertaining throughout the film. However, everything I found funny is what is wrong with the film - the acting, the plot, even the way it was filmed. Maybe if it had just come out, and I had no idea what to expect, then I would be mad, but I watched this filming knowing it was bad. I knew everything that was wrong with it, so I didn't expect anything. Not to mention it is a film based on a novel by L. Ron Hubbard. No offense, but with just that information, I would not be expecting anything. Although the film does not promote Scientology, it is still based on a novel written by the man who created it. If you're interested in the film, don't go into it expecting anything. If you do, you'll be very disappointed.

Pirate Bay torrent