"Conversations with Other Women" Review

“Conversations with Other Women” is one of the more bittersweet films I’ve seen. It begins at a wedding reception where a man (Aaron Eckhart) spots a woman (Helen Bonham Carter) that fancies his interest. He gets two glasses of champagne and approaches her. From here the 86-minute movie plays out in roughly real time as the two converse throughout the remainder of the night.

The most noticeable technique used in the movie is that there are two cameras on the actors throughout the course of the movie. The screen is split down the line, with one camera focusing entirely on the man, and the other focusing entirely on the woman. This brings an effect employed by the documentary “Woodstock” where one of the cameras will periodically switch to a past event or with other characters that will serve to form contradictions, revelations, inner thoughts and expectations in comparison to what the man and woman are talking about. It’s a great method that must have been very hard to shoot and edit because you essentially have two scenes going on at the same time. But the film pulls it off and the final result works beautifully here.

I enjoy “bottled” movies like these where we follow two people for an extended period of time in one general area for the majority of the film. My favorite Bergman film “Scenes From A Marriage” comes to mind. That was a movie that almost exclusively dealt with a married couple’s fall from love and subsequent reformation. All told in extensive, single scenes in one area.

"So, do you...like...come here often?"

Some viewers might pick up from the very beginning, some maybe half way through the movie (I picked up about fifteen minutes in), but everyone will know by the end that there is a connection between the man and woman that is almost never said aloud. What that connection is, I will not say, but it goes to show the strength of the writing and the acting of Eckhart and Carter that the revelation is not obvious but a natural progression. They seem to be talking about something, but underneath, they are talking about something else entirely and there is never any moment where the movie goes: “Hey, this is what they are really talking about!“ It trusts are intelligence to eventually figure it out. After I made the revelation I was shocked and after a few minutes I couldn’t image how they could have been talking about what I thought they were talking about before. Still with me?

For how well written the script is and how creative the camera shots are, the movie would have fallen apart if the two leads were not good, and, in this inspired coupling,  Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart are amazing. Both do a great job at giving the dialog weight; occasionally giving looks and silences that evoke a history of regretted decisions, questionable statements and unsure futures.

There’s not much else really to comment on the movie, lest I go to spoiler territory. But the movie doesn’t abide by the same plot structure you usually see in film. It is an observation of two people having an intimate conversation for an hour and a half. Take in the wonderful performances and dialog and remember, as the characters do, that when the movie is over, you will never see them again.

Rating: 4/4

"Pale Flower" Review

“Pale Flower” is one of the darkest film noirs I have seen-both literally and figuratively. It oozes with atmosphere and shows a view of Japan cinema that I have never seen before. Muraki is one of the coolest anti-heroes I have seen this side of Jef Costello from “Le Samurai“, only he uses his coolness as a mask to cover his sociopathic views of life. He is a sad figure; just released from prison on a three year sentence for murdering a man for his mob, he immediately goes back to his own stomping grounds where he goes to gamble what money he has. At one of these games, he meets the gorgeous Saeko (Mariko Kaga), a thrill junky that enjoys high stakes, whether it be in a game or real life.

The story is about a man that lives for his gang, and his growing fondness towards a girl. Muraki (played wonderfully reserved by Ryo Ikebe) knows, or rather thinks that there is no going back, yet he can’t deny his attractions for Saeko, who, the longer she stays around him, the more dangerous being involved with his lifestyle will become for her.

A tough customer. Make no mistake.

The scenes are lit fantastically, at times we don’t know where the characters are on the screen; they go from one light source into the darkness and show up farther away at another. One scene that has Muraki trying to hunt down an assassin is a haunting mix of barely lit allies and two pairs of footsteps stomping franticly on the damp pavement. Sound is key in this movie, as at times, we can’t even see entirely what is going on during the frequently dark shots. The sound of footsteps are prominent throughout as Muraki walks through the various dark allies and buildings that has encompassed his life.

The cuts are jarring at times, with director Masahiro Shinoda undoubtedly influenced from the French New Wave. He films “Pale Flower” on actual streets in Japan. There are scenes where characters talk in markets and subways around huge crowds of people.

There is a great scene that involves the two racing on the city streets at the dead of night with a random driver at speeds over 100 miles per hour. If it was done by studio conventions at the time, it would be completely different and less memorable. There is no music, only the screeching of tires and the hard wind and the sound of the overworked engine. It abruptly ends when the other driver stops unexpectedly, gets out of the car-and hugs Saeko. Both are laughing historically. It was nothing more than a thrill. Muraki only looks on. It is harrowing.

Alone in a city of millions.

Note: From here on I will be discussing plot points. Significant spoilers follow. If you are interested in the movie, I recommend going and watching it. I give it my highest recommendation. Right now it is available on netflix instant. Come back after watching for my thoughts on the film itself.

Why is so much attention given to Yoh, the man who tried to kill Muraki? He is a known junkie and “bad seed”, yet after his attempt to kill Muraki in the middle of the film, he is never seen again. I think he represents an even darker path, a darker lifestyle than Muraki. Staying in the very back of the game room, he represents, and literally is, for Saeko, what is at the end of the dark path in this underground lifestyle. She is in love with the dangers of the world and Muraki sees this in her, which is why he asks her to come with her to witness the assassination he has decided to do for the mob. 



In a lot of Japanese cinema, there seems to be a strong code of honor, be it a tale set in Feudal or modern times. This gangster tale is no different. Muraki can’t escape his fate because I believe he thinks he can not. He has made a commitment to his mob and can not, will not leave it. He decides to kill the man because that’s what he, as a soldier to the mob, is there to do.

Who is this girl?

Before the climax, he and Saeko share a brief conversation together that beautifully expresses their feelings. And they give each other a long stare before Muraki walks away to his fate. It is haunting. For the assassination, I will only say that, again, it is masterfully done, with orchestral music being the only sound to accompany the startling images. 
I think Muraki wanted to show Saeko the murder to show her the limits of thrill seeking. It was his own form of the “startled straight” program.

At the end, Muraki is in prison, two years later. Who knows how long he has to serve this time? An underling from his gang newly arrives and talks to him about Saeko’s fate and hints at a surprising revelation that she might have been hiding her identity-until Muraki ends the conversation when he is called on by guards to return to his cell. He does not press for more information.

Ships passing in the night.

I don’t think it really does matter who Saeko is. As Muraki says at the end, she’s dead, it doesn’t matter. The movie is about Muraki’s relationship with Saeko, not Saeko and Yoh’s or anyone else’s. The point isn’t about who Saeko was, it who she was to Muraki, which was a potential lover, someone he could have cared for. Instead of going the route he did and killing another person for the mob, he could’ve left with her and be happy, which, because he didn’t, her fate was sealed and they will never be together, which makes the ending even more sad. I feel bad for Muraki. His view of life is depressing and the one woman that might have shown him otherwise came too late in his life. All he knows is the mob. It’s easier for him to kill than to love someone.  It is always easier to destroy things than to nourish them; especially our own lives.

Rating: 4/4

"Hot Tub Time Machine" Review

“Hot Tub Time Machine” is that rare comedy that actually is funny from beginning to end; any time the movie is threatened of being weighted down by dramatic affair, the plot pulls a 180, and manages to keep everything fun. This movie is an improbable good time.

The plot is ridiculous but when the title is “Hot Tub Time Machine” you’re not expecting Ingmar Burgman. Three friends hate their lives in 2010. Adam (John Cusack) is going through a bad break-up while taking care of his neglectful sister’s anti-social son, Jacob (Clark Duke). His old friend, Nick (Craig Robinson) works in the worst possible way with animals and is sure that his wife is having an affair. The three decide to take a trip together when their self-destructive  friend, Lou (played with youthful vigor by Rob Corddry) is found in his garage, filled with alcohol, energy drinks and car-exhaust.  Lou claims it wasn’t a suicide attempt but nonetheless goes anyway, seeing as how none of them seem to talk to each other anymore. The vacation spot of choice is their favorite place from 1986. Eventful moments happened here: Adam dumped his “great white buffalo” A.K.A. the possible love of his life, Nick blew his big chance as a singer and Lou got assaulted multiple times amid his drug usage. Even Jacob, whose mother (Collette Wolfe) was there at that time, was conceived at this vacation. You can see where this goes. When they arrive, the town is obviously past its prime, with more vacant stores than tourists. On their first night they go on a drunken bender and end up in their room’s hot tub. After waking up, they find out that the machine somehow has transported them back to 1986. Realizing that catastrophic events could happen if they change time, the three friends have to do everything that happened to them on their vacation, less they change the course of history itself and possibly denying Jacob his chance to be born.

What could go wrong?

Needless to say it is easier said than done and this leads to a plot that plays with time travel in a way that both gives the middle finger to “Back to the Future” as well as honors it. Again,  it’s ridiculous and crude, but that’s what makes it so entertaining. The characters aren’t a bunch of stiffs; they kind of want to change their lives and flirt with the idea on more than one occasion. This leads to hilarious scenes of the characters arguing with each other with surprisingly effective dialog that has them correcting each others phrases and question their dedication to their future and past circumstances. The Butterfly-Effect (both the movie and the theory) is discussed.

All of the actors do a great job, but I have to give particular praise to Rob Corddry in particular. Known mostly for his role in Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, Corddry gives a new range of acting that I have never seen from him. In the past, I have seen him mostly in roles that involve him being a sweet but dumb person. As party animal, Lou, Corddry rises to new levels of manic.

One thing that I enjoyed about the movie was its use of the 80s setting. It doesn’t poke fun at the 80s or heighten its pop culture; in fact, taking out the timey-wimey scenes, it actually feels like a movie that was filmed in that decade of pink neon and leg warmers. One of the biggest laughs for me came when Cusack’s character, in a mood of depression, drinks, snorts, eats and smokes every drug imaginable while writing poetry and listening to (I Just) Died in your Arms Tonight by Cutting Crew.

The movie doesn’t give enough time for the characters as needed to make a stronger bond as you would like, but because of the performances, and dialog we are at least convinced that the characters at least share a strong relationship. One of the biggest problems is the ending. It’s not that it’s particularly bad ,but again, I couldn’t help but wonder if the end result is particularly the best situation. In fact, it’s kind of depressing. Instead of giving us a little drama-or better yet-sweetness, the movie again keeps reverting to laughs. While there is nothing wrong with the ending or the entirety of the movie for what it is-I can’t help but think that it could have ended up being more than the sum of it’s parts. “Superbad” was able to have great character development and emotional scenes without disrupting its humorous flow. But it’s alright, it’s still, as it is, a very funny and just entertaining movie. When I was a kid, hearing stories from my uncles, I used to wish that I could have grown up in the 80s, and this film makes me want to wish that all over again.

Rating: 3/4

"13 Assassins" Review

  
    Takashi Miike’s “13 Assassins” has what Orson Welles described as a “star part” in the play “Mister Wu“, where the first act involves characters nervously waiting for the famous Mister Wu for an hour.

    In Miike’s film, the “star part” that everyone waits for is battle. The first hour of the movie introduces us to our antagonist and scene after scene is used to show how psychopathic he is. Everyone, I mean everyone wants him dead. But due to his Shogun lineage, no one can touch him. So a rouge group of samurai (guess how many) are formed to conduct an assassination. We are introduced to all of the samurai, little by little. Some are given more back story than others, though it’s a shame that none of them really do get enough. About one scene each is given to them, mostly to show how they are recruited.

     We are given glimpses of the samurai’s personalities and interesting history but they’re never touched on again. It’s of little importance in the second half, however; around the hour and fifteen minute mark, the good guys confront the bad guy and his band of 200 bodyguards and it takes the rest of the roughly two hour movie until the battle is over. This 45 minute action sequence is what the movie has been building up for, and unlike so, so many action movies, it does not disappoint.

    I’ve only seen one other film by Miike: The very good “Audition”. In that film, Miike manipulates violence in a way to play to the strengths of horror. Here, he plays it to the strengths of an action picture. The action is very controlled. Every shot has a purpose. There is an action and a reaction. He barely moves the camera; I’m not talking about Yasujiro Ozu stillness, but compared to the usual chaotic cinematography we see in action movies these days, this might as well be. The action is long, but the shots are creative, and the characters are all progressing in some way.

    Even in a battle of 213 men, there is never a moment where we cannot understand what is happening and wonder who is fighting who. There is no music during the fight as well, which I think is for the best, as scores too often tell us what to feel in battle moments. Here, war makes its own music through the clashing of swords and screams. The movie is bloody but not gratuitous: Quick bursts of blood come after the slice of a sword. Stab wounds cover the mounting dead throughout, a stream slowly turns to blood. This is not glorifying battle sequences, which is in part why it succeeds. We follow the samurai and we feel every moment. The battle, again, lasts a good forty minutes, yet like many great scenes, it flies by. Needless to say that it culminates in a duel that is more intense than most Mexican standoffs in film.

    I have a fondness for Samurai movies; Samurai make for interesting and heroic characters and their strong beliefs are a fascinating look at another time and culture and are able to be used as a template for a broad range of stories from Masaki Kobayashi’s “Samurai Rebellion” and “Harakiri”, which deal with the injustices of the government at the time, to Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon”, that explores our own human perception. Undoubtedly this movie will bring thoughts of Kurosawa’s classic “Seven Samurai” to mind. Like “13 Assassins”, the film is about the formation of a small group of samurai that ends with an epic fight sequence with a much larger group of adversaries. While this movie does not reach the same level of greatness as Kurosawa’s, it is still a well made action movie. We get a horrifying villain, a noble hero and a battle that continues to progress the story rather than stopping it dead in its tracks. This is what more action movies need to be like.

Rating:  3/4

What Happened to Venom?

For no reason but curiosity's sake, I google searched Venom and to my surprise this is one of the first pictures that popped up in the images section:

...

What has happened to Venom? What has happened to my favorite Spider-Man villain?

I've collected comic books since I can remember. Of all my comics, the issues I believe are the most valuable are The Amazing Spider-Man issues #298, 299 and 300. All three are significant. Issue 298 is Todd McFarlane's first work on what would be one of the most famous artist runs on Spider-Man. It also included an oh so brief cameo of a shape that would be known as Venom.

Cameo on the last page of TASM# 298.

This is where it gets tricky; depending on what comic book price guide you look at, Venom's first appearance was either Amazing Spider-Man #299 or 300, since I read Wizard magazine, they listed 299 as only a cameo and issue 300 as the first appearance. Honestly both have good arguments. Issue 299 has the first shot of him on the last panel of the comic.

Cameo/First Appearance on the last page of TASM#299.

The reasons why I assume that could be considered a cameo are due to the unknown factors that are present in this issue. For example, we have no idea who he is. We assume that it is the symbiote but the name "Venom" does not appear until the next issue, as well as his first encounter with Spider-Man.
Issue 300 is my pride and joy: It features a great Venom story and set the bench mark for how great of a villain Venom could be: which was pretty much a bigger, stronger Spider-Man with a mouth. Capable of avoiding Spider-Man's great "spider-sense", he is (or was at the time) the only villain that could sneak up or stalk Spidey. He could do literally everything Spider-Man could do but do it better. He had a one-up on him in every way except in the brains department. I wouldn't call Venom insane, just disillusioned; you're dealing with a man, Eddie Brock (also a reporter) that was on the verge of suicide due to what he believes is Spider-Man's fault. Then you also have the alien symbiote, which knows all of Spider-Man's secrets and has some serious separation anxiety  when the ol' web head used some church bells to stop what it wanted to be a "life-time partnership" if you get me. Venom was Spider-Man's ultimate challenge; I found him to be a "Spider-Man gone wrong": A sickly minded individual that is hypocritical and completely selfish in his actions. If Spider-Man's motto is "With great power comes great responsibility" than Venom's is "With great power comes great opportunity to kill Spider-Man". That's another reason why I love his character: He simply wants to kill Spider-Man. That's it. What greater foe could Spider-Man have than a dark doppelganger that has all his powers and can sneak up on him, and who's only goal in life is to see him dead?

Venom's back! TASM#316

Though he was defeated in issue 300, writer David Michelinie and McFarlane knew they had a gem of a character on their hands. Unfortunately, they would only work together on Venom for three more issues. But what issues they were. Not to spoil anything if someone is interested in picking them up but suffice it to say that they are the best Venom stories you can ever find. Amazing Spider-Man issues 316 and 317 are the BEST Spider-Man fights I have ever seen; Venom is once again shown as an unstoppable force, letting no one come between him and his goal of Spider-Man's death. He even assaults Black Cat more or less because she was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Venom's only form of negotiation.

 What captures these fights the best is how we follow Spider-Man as Venom plays with him for a bit; He is in constant paranoia, whether he is fighting Venom or not. He even tries to find help from other superheros so he won't have to fight Venom. He really thinks he might die in the fight. And he almost did. I've rarely seen a villain put Spider-Man through such physical and mental torture.

Fuck.

Both issues end with Spider-Man pushed to the breaking point. It's so startling to see Spider-Man, truly one of the most lovable superheros of all time, snap; and the results are not pretty. However the climax of the story is fantastic and when you think about it, probably the smartest and only way it can end. This is what Spider-Man 3 should have been.
But then Erik Larsen came and screwed everything up.
Replacing Todd McFarlane as the artist for The Amazing Spider-Man was a tall order...and big shoes that Larsen, I would say, couldn't fill. This is shown no more than the change that he made to Venom that would so, so unfortunately stick with practically every other comic book artist and eventually pop culture: Venom's Tongue.

And to think he was so beautiful...

Ugh. Barely out of the gate and Venom has already been ruined. Images, of course, are always so important to comic-books; they go hand in hand with the words to create these vivid characters. Changing something on a costume is like changing the character entirely it would seem. (Just look at the Superman costume change in the early 2000s.) What the grotesquely long tongue did to Venom was put him on a road that would lead to a de-evolution of the character. Putting a tongue-a long one at that-already strikes up an image in your mind: a dog, panting and salivating for food, which, turns out, Larson added plenty of too for Venom!

Venom REALLY wants Spider-Man...to take him out to dinner.

When you put such overly animalistic qualities in a character such as this, not only are you changing the look and feel of a character but slowly but surely, the nature of the character as well. Like when one of your friends tells you to call them by a different name when you graduate from Elementary School to Jr. High: you think it might be a stupid change, but eventually you learn to live with it, almost forgetting that he or she was ever called a different name at all.
Maybe people didn't pay much mind to the change because Venom's original look was only seen in four issues before Larson added the tongue; maybe they almost fooled themselves into thinking that there was still room for improvement. A sadder possibility is that many kids didn't become comic fans until after McFarlane left Spider-Man and first saw Venom as this drooling monster. I've seen a fair share of blogs and comments of how people hated that Venom in Spider-Man 3 didn't have a tongue, which is funny because I'd say that was one of the few things that the movie actually did right.

What's wrong with this picture? Ugh.

But what is so bad about the tongue? Well, what do you think of when you see a character with jagged teeth and a protruding tongue with slobber everywhere? For me, I'm thinking the person is, frankly, a dumb ass. If he can't even wipe spit off his mouth, how can he ever plot to kill Spider-Man? How can he be menacing? It paints a portrait of ignorance to a once ruthless, menacing figure. Looking at McFarlane's Venom, I can see how he could hunt Spider-Man down and be smart enough to stalk him when he is at his most vulnerable. When I see Larsen's, I see a reckless animal that looks like he can't even operate a toilet properly, let alone properly set a plan into action that could lead to the death of a superhero.

Unfortunately, like almost every bad idea that comes along in the Spider-Man comics, the tongue stuck. And artists have had their way with Venom since, almost trying to one-up each other in turning the once threatening villain into a misunderstood anti-hero that was battling cancer and using the symbiote to keep himself alive, which turns out, needed brains to keep stable or else it would go out of control and transform into an animal like monster-complete with a tail and claws. That's what I got from the few issues I looked at post 1998-ish; I stopped reading Spider-Man during the infamous "clone saga" and from what I've seen since, I'm glad. I've never seen a superhero suffer such severe retcons as Spider-Man. It was reasons like this that made me give up comics for a while and focus mainly on movies and books. (I was never a Marvel or DC fan. I liked them both. I just wanted good stories, which, come late 90s, was very sorely lacking.)

What I hate in particularly is that apparently Venom is no longer the combination of Eddie Brock and the symbiote. Now, the symbiote has been named Venom, making Eddie Brock just a human for it to latch onto and use for it's own gain.

Ugggggh.

So now the symbiote is just being passed around so everyone can see different variations of Venom. Oh, what if the symbiote was combined with the Scorpion?! Etc. Etc.

OH, COME ON!

Recently, I have seen a new look that I am quite pleased with for Venom; he is now featured in his own comic book series with a neat twist. First off, it's not Venom, but the symbiote combined with an military veteran, Flash Thompson. (Who first appeared on the same page as Peter Parker waaaay back in Amazing Fantasy#15.) The catch? Flash lost his legs in combat but the symbiote can fix that-though he is only allowed to be in the suit for 24 hours or the symbiote will attempt to get another life-time partnership in the form of permanently bonding to it's host. So he does special black ops projects for the government. It's a nice twist. And so far, from the brief issues that I've read, I've enjoyed it.

Bringing some of that ol' McFarlane style back, aye?

But it's still not Venom. Not the true Venom, the one old comic book fans know of. I can only hope that, somewhere down the line, they will bring the character back to his original roots. Venom isn't just the symbiote, and it isn't after brains and it isn't a drooling animal. Venom was everything bad that Spider-Man could have become and worse. He was a predator that hunted a powerful superhero and wanted no more, no less than his death. Venom was a great representation of power being handled the wrong way; Eddie Brock accepted the power of the symbiote, not ruled by it. And, of course, most of all, he was a great challenge for a great superhero. Like The Joker does with Batman, Venom originally pushed Spider-Man to his limits, which were challenges executed with some of the best artists of the day. Hopefully we can see a repeat of that original intent go back to full-swing.

Yeah, we happy.