The Evil Dead (1981)

Director: Sam Raimi
Stars: Bruce Campbell


Review:

Work is so utterly terrible, and I am giving myself a good treat tonight. Despite being a horror movie fan, there's quite a number of mandatory horror movies that I havent seen yet, such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), It's Alive (1974), and this one. I have seen Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Army of Darkness (1992), but it even surprise me that I havent had the opportunity or occasion to watch this original masterpiece.

A group of friends went for camping. They came to a camp that hidden a book and a tape. The tape was recorded by a archaeologist that was researching the evil demons. He left an incarnation in the tape translated from the book to woke the evil demons, and the demons are possessing the group of friends. To cast out the demons, our hero Ash must dismember them one by one.

The basic is same as other horror movies, but it gets to original content as soon as possible. We spent several minutes to know that they get to the camp, and several minutes for them to discover the book. And from then on, all hell was gonna break loose.

Raped by a tree. Where else could you see this?

Many of the shots are taken in subjective camera angle, in which the audience were in the position of the demons, watching the victims screaming scared, but not exactly know what the victims were seeing. A cheap reason for using this camera angle is to avoid special effects. Another reason that works for the movie is the audience get to see how scared the characters was, and imagine the horrible things that they see. Nowadays it would be a monster in CG, but that is not imaginative. The beauty of it is the audience will automatically project what they think is scary to what they did not see, but showing everything ruined the whole imagination.

Subjective Camera. What you can think of is what they see.

I am a Computer Scientist and CG is no mystery to me. Ray tracing, Marching Cubes, Point-cloud reconstruction with B-spline surface and Newton's Method etc I know all their tricks, and this really makes CG non-effective to me. One main weakness that they couldnt do in at least 5 years I would say, is CGI looks too clean. People's guts were flying out, but they look shiny and clean without a particle of dust, and we know it is CG. This is beyond their reach since actually they are not modelling the CG with every little tiny details, but just generate it with bump mapping and interpolating. (Sorry for getting a little technical) And with such cleaness we are not scared. We are scared of dirtyness, which only old special effects can give.

He has blood, or at least red liquid, covered his face. At least you know that.

The director Sam Raimi now best known for his Spiderman movies, shown a change of tone in his Evil Dead trilogy. The movies gradually increase in comedy and lessen horror, and that is why I like the original 1981 Evil Dead the best. Horror and comedy are really opposite things. You do not laugh when you are scared, except you have lost your mind. A movie can be funny or scary, but not both. For a movie like Evil Dead, I like it the scarier the better.

Riki-Oh (1991)

Director: Lam Nai Choi
Stars: Fan Siu Wong


Review:

As a Hong-Konger, if I were to list some of the famous Hong Kong movies, I would say those Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movies, maybe also Infernal Affairs (2002). But it turns out that this one is actually pretty famous, at least among cult-film lovers. It is hard to define what is a cult-film but Riki-Oh is a cult film in every sense of the word. The special effect is cheap, and several parts of the plot seems unexplained or irrelevent, but everything is so bad it's good.

The movie follows Ricky, who was thrown into prison because of manslaughter and assault. He started a fight over an innocent old man, and turned out he is so strong that he can punch through human bodies. The warden afraid he is actually a special agent coming to investigate their secret of planting opium, he sent the Gang of Four, the four most powerful people in the prison to take care of Ricky. And, spoiler alert, what hysterical is Ricky is really not a special agent.

Riki-Oh is a film adaption of a manga, and faithfully so. It reenacts almost every scene in the first chapter of the manga, and maintained, if not exceeded, the gore level. It is so brutal that it maybe one of the gorest movie of all time. People seem to feel no pain and despite seeing all those gore and violence, they still have the mood for some sense of humour. For example there is this infamous scene that a guy cut himself to strangle Ricky with his own guts. Witnessing the badassness of this guy, the vice-warden said, "Alright you got a lot of guts Oscar!"

Alright you got a lot of guts Oscar!

Same scene in the manga.

Other crazy scenes include Ricky connecting his tendons of his own arm by himself, Ricky punches through someone's jaw, Ricky completely destroy one's fist, someone got skinned alive, and someone got shredded into a pot of meat. And more, and more.

Head explosion.

Same scene in the manga.

Punching half the head away.

Same scene in the manga.

Riki-Oh is definitely not for one with a faint of heart, or anyone who does not appreciate exploitation movies. But for cult movie fans, this is mandatory.

Rope (1948)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Stars: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger


Review:

Remember the stupid villain in novels, movies, tv shows comics and animations, who did his bad deeds but thought it was too boring to totally cover it up, left some sort of evidence as a taunt or challenge to the good guy, and became the downfall of him? Well there is two of those in this movie, and we know that right from the start. But we cant really blame them because this movie probably the first to give the villains such stupid ideas. Another reason you cant blame them because this movie is so great that you accept their stupidity so that you can watch this film.

David got kill in 2 minutes after film starts, counting from the Universal trailer.

Brandon and Philip killed their schoolmate David in their house, and hid his body inside a chest, because they think they are superior and David is inferior, a convenient reason to have a killing spree for the audience in countless movies. To make things funnier, Brandon held a party to invite their friends in their house will David's body hidden, but the teacher Rupert, played by James Stewart, already felt fishy.

Brandon explains to Rupert what is that occation to have champagne with stupid reaons.

What makes this movie so great is the pacing and the imitation of the stars. Right after the opening credit we saw David got killed. This might be one of the fastest death in movies I have ever seen. Philip is freaked out and scared. Brandon look enjoyed and want to play it cool, but he also freaked since you see his hands shaking and stutters, and feel his tense. Along the way the guests tested their nerves, in which David slowly breaks down and the tension between Brandon and David grows.

Rupert spotted something not right.

James Stewart plays the clever detective role and picked out the strange things. He is more sober and less talkative than I have seen him in Read Window (1954). He also looked older too, probably to better match with the character. He stares and hestiates to remind us in such a natural way the mistakes Brandon and Philip had made. The final showdown between him and the murderers are also beautiful. He knew all the things by then but he had to play stupid, since he suspected Brandon had a gun in his pocket. But he could not back away since he wanted to know what happened to the victim and to expose their crime. The moral conflict effectively transcents to the audience by the acting.

Humanity lecture. Yes but no thanks.

My only complain of the movie is towards the end we got about 5 minutes of lecture on human equality, that nobody is to decide who is superior and all of that crap. By then it was probably referring to the Nazis, but now we have been fed of this so many times we are sick of it. Yes I got it and I agree, but I do not like to be lectured.

This is probably my second favourate Hitchcock movie, the first being North by Northwest (1959). Both are fast paced and intense, but I prefer the humour of the Cary Grant character just a little more. While I love other Hitchcock movie like Vertigo (1958),  I appreciate the simple set and plot and the drama Rope creates.

Silent Hill (2006)

Director: Christophe Gans
Stars: Sean Bean....and a bunch of people I never heard of


Review:

Film adaptations of video games suck. They always are not even bad, but also painful to watch what have the game we knew and loved became. Even put Uwe Boll out of the question, consider Super Mario Bros (1993), Street Fighter (1994), Mortal Kombat (1995) and Doom (2005). Silent Hill is no masterpiece and is quite stupid in terms of plot, but it still easily be the best of film adaptation of video game I have ever seen.

A couple adapted an orphan girl, and when that girl become 9, or 10, she sleep-walks and screamed "Silent Hill" in her unconscienceness. Her mother took her to Silent Hill the ghost town, and experience the haunting there.

If you examine the plot more closely, it is stupid. But this film is not about the plot, but the visual and re-enactment of the scenes from the video-game. It adopted the original score, re-enacted the car crash scene, and the outlook of the town is faithful to the game. I found it creepy the first time I saw it and I have never played the game back then.

If you didnt see the movie, you can still tell this is silent hill.

Remember the mirror scene in Silent Hill 3?

No Silent Hill is complete without hospital and nurse.

I can understand gamers hated it because it differs from the game. In the film, Dahlia is a mother that wanted to protect her child, and all townfolks wronged her child. In the game, silent hill is a town the draws sinners to face their own sin by witnessing and facing monster that resembles their own guilt. The film lacks such deeper meaning, and just about a women seeing some creepy stuff.

The film is not as good as the game, yes I totally agree with that. But Silent-Hill fans should be grateful that at least the film captured some of the feel of the game. I am a Max Payne fan and look what it became. A fucking trainwreck. As far as video game adaptation goes, it is not bad.

For a few dollars more (1965)

Director: Sergio Leone
Stars: Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte


Review:
For a few dollars more (1965) is the second installment of the dollars trilogy, followed by many considered to the the greatest (spaghetti) western of all time, The Good, the bad and The Ugly (1966). Leone's directorial debut, the first of the dollars trilogy, A fistful of Dollars (1964) is actually a rip-off from the Akira Kurosawa film Yoyimbo (1961), and was successfully sued. For a few dollars more is the first time Leone is all on his own, and you can see that it is carefully designed and structured in story and characterization.

The film starts by setting up the characters. Lee van Cleef saw a wanted poster in a train station and the ticket seller told him "nobody dared to go after that killer". Actually that guy is just schmuck and Lee got him and claimed the reward. Eastwood is set up the same way, and we see and understand Lee and Eastwood are both good gunfighters.

Next the villian Indio was established. He was imprisoned and ruthless killing everybody in his prison break, with one exception so that he can tell the other his tale. Probably the tutor of Mickey Knox from Natural Born Killers (1994). Indio also got the man who put him in prison in the first place, and killed his whole family, including a infant child. We now have the image that Indio is a crazy, brutal, and reckless bad guy.

The characters do things in the most "western" way in any other western I have ever seen, and it is so much fun to watch. They just awkwardly doing things, and after they have done we understand what they was trying to accomplish. Lee light a match using the face of one of the member of Indio's gang to piss him off. But the gang member holds back and leave. The bartender asked "Why did you chose my place to commit suicide? I know that guy and it is a miracle he didnt shot you." "Yes there must be some reason." So Lee wanted to confirm that those are the gang members, and they wanted to do something big.

Shadowed by The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, relatively few people talked about For a few dollars more, but that doesnt mean it was a ton of fun to watch.

Videodrome (1983)

Director: David Cronenberg
Stars: James Wood


Review:

Videodrome is one of my favourite movie of all time, and the best ever from David Cronenberg, among other classics such as The Fly (1986), Scanners (1981) and The Brood (1979). It is a multi-layered movie that can be enjoyed on your preference.

The president of Channel 83, Max Renn, had captured pirate signal of a underground show called Videodrome, which contains nothing but people getting tortured and murdered. Amused by the show and seeing the business opportunity to broadcast it, he tried to track the programme down, and gradually came to realize that the show creates a brain trumour to the viewers and made to lost in what is reality and hallucinations.

On the outfront it is a mid-night thriller, the one that would be shown as late night programme on TV, when the kids were sound asleep. It had it all: sex, violence, 80's special effects to gross you out, you name it. And it is on repeated viewing did I know it is so fast paced that once you predict how the plot goes, it already was happening. It satisfy anyone who like 80's horror movies.

SM-ing with a television

On the next level you relate to the protagonist, Max, played by James Wood. We realize we are sort of the same person as him: we enjoy watching violence and torture on video, and we always demand more hardcore stuff. There is a lot of movie now that is just like videodrome, with little or no plot and just people getting tortured, mutilated and murdered. It makes us feel we are as vulnerable as Max, and wonder whether we will have a brain tumour ourselves.

Videodrome. You have watched it now. Be prepared for a brain tumour.

On top of that, we gets political and realize the scary fact the television had become the retina of the mind's eye. When there was no internet, people sit around at night just watching television. Whatever the television shows, people bought it and believe it. It could be advertisement tells us to buy products, or some government propagada instructs us not to question anything, or videodrome. Nowadays with the internet the effect of television diminished but the phenomenon just transformed to a new morph, and we were never as close as to living in the "strange new world" the movie described, in which we are nothing but some data that causes the liquid crystal to shine in a certain way.

James wood is an actor that, though not with a handsome face, with a lot of personality. When he plays a character you believe in real life he is the same in realife, sort of like Bill Murray. He is sly, with a smart mouth, and didnt lose his sense of humour even when he is in deep shit. Shame that the only performance I have seen him do besides Videodrome are Scary Movie 2 and GTA:SA as Mike Torreno. I will sure track down some more of his work.

U-Turn (1997)

Director: Oliver Stone
Stars: Sean Penn, Jennifer Lopez, Billy Bob Thornton, Nick Nolte

Review:

This movie is really a gem to be discovered. Not many people knows and not many people appreicated. Roger Ebert called it a "repetitive, pointless exercise in film-making", for everyparts of it comes from somewhere. Yes the plot does bear quite resemblemence to Red Rock West (1994) starring Nick Cage, but the different focus, style and direction makes it an impressive movie in its own right.

The plot centers around a stranger to a new town, who meet a husband that wants to kill her wife and the wife who wants to kill the husband. While Red Rock West focuses on the plot, U Turn focuses on the town. The main character Bobby, played by Sean Penn, had his car broken in the middle of nowhere in a hurry to some business. He had to stop at a town, and a series of bad luck happens, while he get involved into the couple that wanted each other murdered.

The main attraction of this movie is the town. In the middle of nowhere, a burning sun, surrounded by eagles, waiting for you to die to eat your flesh. A road that leads out of town but kills you on the way without a mean of transportation, and a broken car. Moreover, this town is a trap, and everything in it is a trap. Every decision you make is a wrong one. Get your car fixed, wrong. Go to the grogery store for something to eat, wrong. Meet a beautiful girl, wrong. Buying a bum a Dr. Pepper, wrong. Playing a juke for a girl, wrong. Talking to that girl, wrong. Accepting a man's offer to kill his wife, wrong. It goes to a point that it is funny to see how much worse could it gets.

Sean Penn did a great job in acting a man slowing delving into madness and desperation. At first he got a attitude, then later bargained for the reward he deserves for murdering, and murders just for a ride out of the town. You can feel his frustration builds and builds, and saying the same "WTF" he said, and understand every move he took. The direction also provide a psychodelical feel, lesser but more realistic than in Stone's earlier work Natural Born Killers, that having you feel the heat of the desert, and made you wonder if it is the heat or you are going crazy.

This movie is one of those I would call a "journey movie". The protagonist goes through a journey, and you gained the experience. This one probably not the strongest piece from Oliver Stone, but I rate it higher than even Natural Born Killers.