"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