Reviews by Happy Vader

This film is about a director directing a director directing a film. Inception much? Here, lets put it this way: E. Elias Merhige is directing F.W. Murnau directing his landmark horror film, Nosferatu. But of course, it is a fictionalized account and stylishly done. I consider Nosferatu to be the greatest horror film ever made, hands down. Not only it laid down all the blueprints of horror, but still to this day stays true to the term. When I heard about this film, I just had to see it. The mix of both real and fiction intrigued me a lot and I thoroughly enjoyed the pace of the film. Just like Nosferatu, Shadow of the Vampire is also a cool title, adding mystery and curiosity to it. The film was like a great gift to me since I love Nosferatu a lot. I finally got to see the "behind the scenes" and yes, I know, I know, it's mostly fiction, but at least I have an idea now, a picture.

Changing tracks, I've seen a-many vampire movies but believe me, none had the screen power and dominance as Max Schreck, the guy who played the original Nosferatu back in 1922. His performance was flawless right down to the core. Perfection unmatched. The only one who comes this close is Bela Lugosi. After watching this film, I think we have a new contender: Willem Dafoe. His take on the character was chillingly unnerving. It actually made me jump from my skin because of his uncut originality and frightening nature. He was perfect and outstanding in his character. Modern performances don't stand a chance against him. But the main highlight has to be John Malkovich as F.W. Murnau. Granted, he never was in my top 20, or even top 50, but I guess I have to keep a wary eye on him in future films. His maniacal stare and easy flow of poetry made him arguably the best performance of the film and, by definition, one of the greatest ever. I don't know whether I'm right or not, but John Malkovich played two personalities at once: The man and the monster. And he handled both with a majestic flair. The movements, the lines, everything was convincing. Impressive right down to boot. Malkovich should star in more film like these!

In all, Shadow of the Vampire is no doubt a master of a film. Honestly, it felt like a very long, demented orchestra in motion, and I enjoyed it right to the last note, the last chime, the last bell. Can be used as a good gateway to the yesteryear's cinema!

8.5/10

I must be insane to call this film great. But then again, I must be insane not to call this film great. Funny Games, directed by Michael Haneke, is a prime example of a great psychological, or the appropriate term would be mindf***, horror of high intense. Anyway, Funny Games plays like an episode of Big Brother gone wrong. And, in order to prevent losing their precious viewers, the director kept rolling, showing the world the sadistic nature of Peter and Paul (who affectionately call each other Tom & Jerry and Beavis & Butthead). But you see, it's precisely the all-too-real feel to it that makes tis film unique and different from its peers. That, and the performances by the main five cast members. Basically, the film is not for the faint-hearted or weak-minded people. But it's not for horror fans either. It's mostly for thinkers. If you can understand what the hell happened by the end of the film, you will have known that you were the intended audience and not some half-baked ass wanting a cheap thrill. That came off harsh, didn't it?

You know the killers are cold-hearted when they kill in pairs. When they're alone, the killer is scary, yes, but he is limited. But when he has friends, the brutality seems to have no end to it. Google 3 Guys 1 Hammer and you will understand. Here we have Peter & Paul terrorizing a family. They're worse than hack 'n slash killers because they kill slowly and calmly, as if it's their profession, which, by the looks of it, could be. Not only they were well written for the screen, but they were so well acted that it's a wonder those two didn't become well-known actors. Arno Frisch plays Paul, the leader of the two, and the most talkative. His performance was the best from the film and very professional. He so fully embodied the character that the effect was uncharacteristically convincing. The performance is a must-watch. His buddy, Peter, is played by Frank Giering, widely considered to be his breakout performance, a statement I must agree with. Even though he became his character only 90%, the overall effect was damn scary because Frank looked, acted and talked like a true, no-bullshit serial killer. And seeing that was great. I forgot to mention, they have a third member, and that third member is YOU! (if you watch the film, you will understand!). From the family, Ulrich Muhe as Georg was also brilliant. He had his character in check from the start, but it was Susanne Lothar as Anna that impressed me the most. One of the damn best performances from the horror genre. It was terribly awesome! The little kid was good, too, you know, with his terrified expressions and watery eyes!

Great performances in horror films are very rare, take it from me, I know. They're either one-sided or gain pace somewhere near the end. But you won't find any of that in this one. It looks and feels genuine. Authentic. Real. As real as if they're "live" actors in a very long snuff film. You won't be disappointed, I promise.

In conclusion, Funny Games is controversial and seriously not for yellow tummies. If you're tired of watching the same old kills in every horror movie, then the uniqueness in this film should be a good surprise!

8.5/10

A damn perfect parody film by the (only) master of that genre, Mel Brooks. Sure, in success, it is often overshadowed by his other works but in terms of originiality and humour, this has to overshadow them all. My first time viewing wasn't really that great and I passed it off as a decent movie but from second viewing onwards, it became funnier each time. Now, you see, Mr. Brooks's films are not the least bit repulsive or disgusting or tasteless, far from it. You won't find people hawking in other people's plates, or people picking their noses, none of that and this is why I feel safe in watching his comedies. Even the now-iconic flatulence scene from Blazing Saddles is funny compared to the modern-shit of the now!

His way of handling a comedy, and the characters, may not be unique or special, but it certainly is one of the best. His style truly brings out the best in the characters and the appropriate timing of the jokes truly brings the experience to a higher level. You see, spoof movies of the then played like full-functioning movies and not like very, very long commercial ads like they tend to do it now. That being said, let's go to the performances:

Young Frankenstein has the best cast, no questions. High Anxiety is number two, argue all you want to. Not only it has the impeccably talented Cloris Leachman, the another impeccably talented Harvey Korman and the irresistible Madeline Kahn, but this time Mel Brooks himself joins the fray, followed closely by funnyman Ron Carey. These five played their roles to almost perfection. Cloris Leachman plays Nurse Diesel; A parody of Nurse Ratched. This is one of her best roles and each & every of her line delivery is the absolute tops. In all senses, the film belonged to her and her solely. Then we have Madeline Kahn as Victoria Brisbane. Female comedians are rarely this better, oops sorry. If you look at Kahn in this movie, then you will realize just how daring and brave she was, because to many, a performance like this can put them in the bin. Anyway, then we have Harvey Korman as Dr. Montague. This dude was just awesome. His facial expressions, line delivery, comic timing, everything was superb. From the males, he was probably matched only by Ron Carey's performance, who plays Brophy, Richard H. Thorndyke's, assistant (who is played by Mel Brooks). Carey's performance may not be unique or special but he filled in the gaps by his originality and likability. He made his character the most memorable from the film!

In conclusion, High Anxiety is damn near perfect and should be, in my opinion, the poster-film of the spoof genre and not Airplane! It's very addictive, achingly funny and filled with good performances all around!

8.5/10

It's no secret that Zhang Yimou directs some of the beautiful movies in cinema history. His extensive and vivid use of colour is gorgeous. More than 10 years before he directed his modern-classics, Hero and House of Flying Daggers, Raise the Red Lantern was there. The film has a simple storyline, a restricted location and a great cinematography. Oh, and it also employs beautiful use of colour. Sometimes I think Zhang Yimou is a product of an explosion in a colour factory.

Raise the Red Lantern quite literally pits 4 women against each other and the film observes enviness, jealousy, hatred, anger, love & sorrow. Also, to some extend, Totalitarianism. Every woman wants to be the top misstree in front of the master and wants the red lanterns hung in front of their house. The 4th Mistress quickly catches the eye of her personal maid, Ya'ver, the 3rd Mistress & the 2nd Mistress. One thing leads to another and the 3rd Mistress ends up dead, the maid ends up dead, and the 4th Mistress goes insane, causing The Master to marry once more. Enter 5th Mistress, but thank goodness the film ends there, because another 2 hours would've been hectic. Not that I would've minded it, but enough is enough! I think the appropriate title should've been Personality Clash or This is how Women silenty kill each other, or something like that.

The pacing of the film is good. The slow and smooth camera movements did the trick. Red Lantern also employs repetition and I think it was a good move. It kept reminding us of what we're watching and what the film's story is all about. Unlike Hero or House of Flying Daggers which were clearly story-driven, this film was more character-and-music driven. The heavy metal? background music was awesome and I think it perfectly matches the mood and characteristics of the film and the women, respectively.

From the performances, Gong-Li had the upper-hand, while He Caifi was just a rung below, but both were amazing in their characters. They both, out of all, portrayed the frustration, the anger, the hidden hatred, and then a sudden affection for each other, almost perfectly. The film was entirely on their shoulders and both handled the weight flawlessly!

My ending note will be: Not just a great film. A landmark film! It has characters which are divided in two: Either you end up hating them, or loving them. A quite-powerful film that demands a repeat!

9.0/10

If I were to make a book on the greatest movies of Steven Spielberg, then A.I. would fit the pen-ultimate chapter. Why so? Because, to a vast majority, this is the last greatest film he directed, but to me, his second-last greatest with the last being The Terminal. (I may be in the minority here but I really like the film). After that, he directed a string of just OK films. Good, but not great, with one being one of the worst I've seen.

Anyway, A.I. is arguably one of the greatest heartbreaking films ever made and is a modern classic in the sci-fi genre. The story folds in a nice manner, with a good introduction and a heartbreaking ending, that will stay with you for a long time. The characters were very Spielberg-esque while the movie itself was very Kubrick-esque. No wonders and surprises there. However, I do have certain qualms: The humans and the Mecha's were portrayed in a very cliche and dog-tired manner. There was nothing unique, special or new in them. There was little or no understanding to the human characters and were mostly one-sided while the Mecha's, well, most were just "been there, done that". So, story-wise, the film was very strong but could've done better on the characters, giving them a much deeper depth. While the human world was shown in a restricted manner, the Mecha world was shown in a satisfactory style. Not wildly impressive, just satisfactory.

Despite the fact that the film runs on a decent, accepted speed, it actually comes to its true pace when David wakes up 2000 years into the future. Those 20-or-so minutes felt like they belonged to A.I. and it was a delight to watch!

Now, in the performances, I will point out 3. What ever happened to Haley-Joel Osment? He was billed as one of the best child-star, particularly due to his success on 6th Sense but I hardly hear about him now. I mean, he just vanished. Anyway, before he did, his performance as David truly won me over. You want real proof? Watch the scene in the forest with his mother. I've never seen such an emotion-filled performance by a child-actor. I guess I have to update my greatest criers in Hollywood list. A must-watch performance and it's bound to leave you impressed. Then we have Frances O' Connor as Monica, David's adoptive mother. Prior this film, I'd never heard or seen of her so it was a good surprise. I was impressed by her performance, too and she sure looks like a good candidate to my above mentioned list. Granted, she starts off slowly, kinda clunky, but quickly balances and stabilizes herself. A good performance to the very end. Then we have Jude Law as Gigolo Joe, a Mecha David befriends. Law is a fine actor and one look at his performance in this film, and Sky Captain, makes me think that he could've been times better should he had been in the 30's silent era of movies. Just like O' Connor, he starts off clunky, and goofish, but takes control of his character and stands on his feet. It was a good move on Spielberg's part to cast Law as Gigolo Joe. I can't think of any other better actor to portray him. Apart from the three mentioned, all the others were either fine, or plain decent, nothing too extraordinary. So, there you go!

In conclusion, despite the quite-cliched characters and stereotypical scenes, A.I. is a truly magnificent film that is supposed to be treasured for a long time. @Mr. Spielberg: How about another film like this?

9.5/10

I just realized how naive I really am. I haven't seen much of pre-70's horror, bar the Universal ones, and I have only one image of them: That they're minimalistic, completely devoid of any blood/gore and totally suspense-ish. Well, Eyes Without a Face proved me wrong. Dead wrong. This film is a bloody, and sympathetic, real fairy-tale in motion. The thing about old films are that they're brutally honest in their titles, no misleading or anything. If it says I Cut Off His Tongue And Hung It In The Entrance Of The Buckingham Palace, then that said film will offer you exactly that, but thank goodness, no such film exists. Now, this film commands not only your attention but also your nerves, all of them, for its quite-disturbing imagery and the dread-filled 5 minute skin grafting scene. Not only it is brilliant, but a great example of surgical-porn. The reason why that scene, and the whole film for that matter, shocked me because I had absolutely no idea that films like this existed in the yesteryear's cinema. Yup, like I said, I'm naive all-right. Eyes Without a Face was a fun find and is worth every 80 minutes of it.

Anyway, 10 minutes into the film and I knew it would turn out to be great and would eventually end up in my greatest films list. How right I was proven. The direction is very good, the mood consistently changes from chilly to suspense to heart-breaking, especially in the scenes where Christiane is concerned. Her sad eyes and mask for a face is just too much to take it in and one must remember that it's all a film. Further, the background music, I believe there are two, are just friggin' brilliant. Never quite heard anything like that in a movie.

Now, in the performance department, the three principal actors were truly brilliant. Stealing the show was Pierre Brasseur as Dr. Genessier, a character who can be used as an example in the famous Trolley Problem. He was magnificus in his role. A role that deserves a standing ovation, yes it was that great. I favour performances like this over almost everything else. To me it's one of the best examples of great acting. Then, from the ladies, we have Edith Scob as Christiane Genessier, the doctor's daughter. Her smooth, fluid movements and soft hand movements just won me over. I could watch that performance over and over again. Then we have Alida Valli as Louise, the doctor's secretary. Mentioning her last doesn't mean she was the weakest. No, far from it. If Pierre provided one strong shoulder to the film, then Alida provided the other, with Edith just smoothly sliding in-between. Alida's performance may not win you the first time but in time you will realize that this film just could not have done without her. I hope to see more of her films!

In conclusion, this is one of the better results I've had this week and has now become one of my personal all-time favourites, a permanent addition to it. If you still haven't seen it, you're missing a true, and terribly awesome, experience. So, do yourself a favour and download Eyes Without a Face now and great prepared for a lot of tense and gory moments. OK, not Wizard of Gore gory, but Psycho gory!

9.0/10

A decent remake, but unlike the 1984, it's not inspiring at all. It's more of a journey of a kid that's all. Also, the 1984 was a little dark whereas this one is not and since there were so many changes done, didn't feel like a remake at all. Despite the fact that many characters are introduced very early in the movie, they become secondary extras as the movie progresses, with some of them not returning at all. Take Harry for instance. Introduced as a potential supporting character but disappears suddenly. The main antagonist Chen starts off great, stands on his own feet, but suffers through bad script-writing. Same goes for Meiying, although I liked her screen-time and presence.

Sorry to say this but Harald Zwart couldn't handle several characters at once and as the film progressed, the sole spotlight was on Dre Parker only, which wasn't satisfactory enough. The cinematography, especially during the fights, weren't that good and were keen on showing the expressions more and the actual fight less. So basically it's a decent movie, nothing special in my eyes and it just didn't have the charm and magic of the original 1984.

Anyway, I would like to use this film as a good example of screen chemistry. And I'm talking about Taraji B. Henson and Jaden Smith. Impeccable chemistry, if you ask me. I would love to see them do another film together, playing the same mother-son roles. Then we have Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan. Who better actor to play a mentor? Their chemistry was also great and should they too do another film together, I'm there. From the supporting I liked Wenwen Han as Meiying. Sweet performance and very easy to the eye but I agree, Meiying and Dre are still too young to fall in love. I mean, they haven't even reached puberty yet and it was quite disturbing to see that. All the others were quite OK!

Performance-wise, the film is very good but story-wise, it's quite-disappointing.

Great film and deserves to be seen, Back to the Future is. Not only it's a great and enjoyable flick, but it's a true experience the first time around. The laughs are very enjoyable and they stay within the boundaries of funny. At first the story struck me as silly, irrational even, but 30 minutes into the film and all of that disappeared. Sure, the effects are now showing their age but the jokes aren't, and they still remain fresh.

From the performances, Michael J. Fox, Crispin Glover and Christopher Lloyd were truly amazing in their roles. Each of them shared a great chemistry with each other and were very memorable in their roles. Although I haven't seen much of her films, Lea Thompson was also decent in her role, although nothing memorable in my eyes. The rest of the cast were just OK, but not bad.

This film is my third favourite Robert Zemeckis film (after Forrest Gump & Cast Away) but in terms of entertainment, this is number one. A must-watch indeed!

8.0/10

There are four ways to make a film as powerful and memorable as Stalker: 1) Minimal, but well-use, of dialogue and monologues, 2) The film should be clouded by an atmosphere of immense power and tranquility, 3) Explain nothing, but show everything and anything you possibly can. Let your thinking flow from your brain to the camera and 4) Have Andrei Tarkovsky on one's team. With the exception of the fourth, many directors can make a film like Stalker if they follow the first three rules.

Stalker belongs to the art film "genre", a genre I think of as A f**** awesome genre. No really, has there ever been a bad arthouse film? There could be, but I still haven't seen a bad one. Arthouse movies, alongside Cult movies, often attract small audiences as they are not for everyone, as opposed to a mainstream film which is for everyone, even if you're not part of that group. Stalker employs extensive use of long-shots, minimal dialogues, unexplained happenings and a heavy brown monochrome layer in some of its scenes. And, oh, it's a little more than 2-and-a-half hours. This repels most viewers as they cannot sit through the silence and/or listen to only clinking and clunking. They want action or two ladies dishing out on each-other and in this, miss out such great and innovative movies like Stalker or any of Andrei's work and Picnic at Hanging Rock, a film I strongly recommend, alongside this one.

You know what my expectations of this film were just by looking at the poster? A huge, imposing, silent man who stalks 12 year old's and often lurks around subways and/or deserted areas, checking them out, and smoking. What the film offered me was something much more better, much, much better. The word stalker here means a guide who takes (mostly) down-on-their-luck people to a room in The Zone, a place where normal laws of physics do not apply. The room is rumoured to fulfill one's most innermost desires. The Zone is a creation of a genius, an absolute genius. What The Zone shows is calm and peaceful, what it hides is monstrous and unpredicting. Beast behind the beauty. Over here Tarkovsky wastes no time to show us the place using long-shots and tension and fear among the principal characters, all done masterfully. If you think Mother Nature is cruel in our real world, then she is at her most-worst in The Zone. The way she manifests the past-story of The Professor by putting two skeletons in an intimate position makes me wanna think of The Zone as an early un-realized draft of Silent Hill. Also, it's a journey to the heart of darkness and the soul of mankind.

The cinematography is not only excellent but it truly defines the meaning of directing and show-casing a movie. I think they should invent a whole-new word just for this movie because I think it deserves it. Those who appreciate movies like these will concur while others would just crunch their nose.

OK, I'm no fan of remakes but should Hollywood do one, exactly like it is, then I'm there, or otherwise Hollywood is definitely burning down. Anyway, I would love to see a decent remake!

Now to the performances: From world-wide known actors, you know what to expect and when you don't get that, you casually push it aside, because they've done other better roles. But from vastly unknown ones, you just don't know how it will all turn up and such was the case with the three principal actors: Alexander Kaidanovsky as the titular character. Not was he only brilliant but his way of tackling his character is one of the best I've seen. Nikolai Grinko as The Professor. Although not that better than the other two, he bought a level of understanding to his character and his little dialogues here were up to the mark, but the best performance was by Anatoli Solonitsyn as The Writer. As soon as they land in The Zone, his performance takes a high toll. His twitches here and his rumblings and mumblings there really did the trick and made him the most human, realistic character in the film. All three were great in their respective characters. Even though she only appears for a short-time, I also enjoyed Alisa Freindlich as The Stalker's Wife. Her ending monologue is quite-impressive and I liked her hand movements.

In conclusion, Stalker is just about one of the most powerful movies I've seen and if you're expecting a tumbling mess, then you're in for a very rude awakening. Stalker is a must watch!

9.1/10

My third Peter Weir film and his best so far. I've rated all three films, The Truman Show, Dead Poets Society and Picnic at Hanging Rock more than 9.0 stars and this one is the highest rated, so far.

There's cinema, then there's beautiful cinema and then there's Picnic at Hanging Rock, a movie so tantalizing, so ethereal, so sublime, that you may scream out IMPOSSIBLE because no-other film has quite reached this level. There are others, yes, and I've seen many, but this one is a true eye-candy. The innocence and sweetness is in the beautiful ladies and the excellent cinematography but they start and stop there. You see, Picnic is not a sweet movie, far from it, it's a haunting, surreal movie with a violent atmosphere to it. Students of Appleyard College go on a picnic trip to Hanging Rock. Once there, three students and one teacher end up missing and the rest of the film is about searching for them. The teacher is implied to have been raped and as for the students, no-one has the foggiest. One of the students, Irma, is found one week later, badly scratched and dehydrated but are unsuccessful on the others.

Beautiful the movie may be, it left me disturbed in a way no other movie ever did. I mean, anything explicitly violent could've happened to them. Attacked by a wild animal? Brutal kidnapping? Falling down a deep hole? OK, seriously, stop thinking, don't make it worse! I think I actually cried when the film finished because they're still out there... that's it!

I've noticed one thing that music has always been a great part of Peter Weir's movies and boy 'o boy! Is the music the greatest ever? To me the most beautiful music score was the one in Blade Runner but this one, called Diona, beats it by miles. It's powerful, haunting and seriously attention grabbing. Perfect way to start off a film and to fuel it. Excellent job!

So far I haven't written about the performances and yet that is the reason why I write reviews. Now, it has a host of relatively-unknown Australian/Welsh actors that you may or may-not have seen in other movies. The only two that kinda impressed me were by Dominic Guard as Michael and Wyn Roberts as Sgt. Bumpher. Both were good in their respective characters but that's all. To some extend, I said some, Magaret Nelson as Sara. She had a classic dark quality to her that had me mesmerized!

So, Picnic at Hanging Rock is one of Australian Cinema's finest works and one of the most, most beautiful piece of work I've ever seen. If it doesn't leave you haunted, then go play Limbo... at-least that will, if not anything else!

9.3/10