Frontier(s)

Frontier(s)
Language: French with English Subtitles

Brief Synopsis: After the presidential election of an extremely conservative candidate, riots break out throughout France. Five young thieves make an attempt to escape to Amsterdam and start a new life there, away from the "oppression". Due to a botched escape they are forced to stop at an inn in the countryside, which just happens to be run by a Neo-Nazi family intent on making the one female thief into their new broodmare for future generations.

My Take: After reading several poor reviews for the film, I had my reservations going in. Many said that it was simply a French Texas Chainsaw Massacre, others claimed it stole from a number of movies and was a sort of Frankenstein of horror cinema. While I definitely agree that the basic plot is similar to Texas Chainsaw, and I saw where there were some similar shots/scenes, I did not feel as if it was a direct rip-off. No, Frontiers was actually something unique.

The film starts with an ultrasound image of a fetus and closes in on the beating heart. A voice-over explains that this is the child inside of one Yasmine, and that she intends on aborting the baby to prevent it from ever having to deal with the cruelty of the world. The credits start, overlaid on fake news footage of the riots in Paris.

After Yasmine's brother is shot by police, the group splits; Yasmine and a friend going to the hospital, with her boyfriend and another male going to find an inn in the country somewhere to lay low. The two men that go to the inn find it inviting, even sleeping with two of the women there, and they tell Yasmine to come to the inn as a safe place. Shortly after, they discover that the inn is run by a family of neo-Nazis. Things spiral downhill from there.

The film is graphically violent. With an NC-17 rating in the US, it is above and beyond even the Hostel or Saw films. Unlike those franchises though, I felt myself more deeply invested in the character of Yasmine. I wanted her to survive. The assistance of the youngest of the Nazi family clan, a young pregnant woman who was kidnapped as a child and held hostage since, made the film more interesting. A number of movies have done this, with one family member acting out against the rest in their new friendship (The Hills Have Eyes remake comes to mind) but I really liked Eve, the young woman. She genuinely cared for Yasmine, and while she was damaged, she wasn't rendered as a simple two-dimensional character. Eve had backstory, and she was acted superbly.

One thing I found the most interesting about Frontier(s) is that the protagonists are young French Muslims. The obviously evil family are Christian, with a large crucifix in one scene and a character making the sign of the cross in another. This is something you would never see in a Hollywood flick, to be sure!

Overall, I found the movie to be entertaining from a horror-movie standpoint, and thought-provoking in places. There were some beautifully shot sequences, while others had shaky-cam-itis. It wasn't perfect, to be sure, but it definitely holds its own with its New French Extreme contemporaries and is deserving of more praise than critics have given it.


Entertainment value: Medium-High. I was on the edge of my seat for a good deal of the movie, and I was emotionally invested in some of the characters. Then again, with the violence of this film, it is not for everyone.
Scare value: High. Dead bodies, squealing pigs guarding cages, murder galore...
Realistic?: Medium. It honestly really could happen. Pretty easily.
Violence/Gore: Extreme. More blood and guts than a slaughterhouse. Fantastic special effects.
Sex: Medium. Sex in the beginning (not too graphic but there is female nudity.)
This movie is for: Those interested in the New French Extreme, slasher movie fans.
Films like it: Martyrs, in style. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, in story.


IMDB Entry for Frontier(s)
Trailer

Kamikaze Girls

Kamikaze Girls
Language: Japanese with English Subtitles

Brief Synopsis: Momoko is a girl obsessed with Japanese Lolita fashions, especially Roccoco fashions from 1700's France. She lives with her father and grandmother in a small town in the middle of nowhere and is generally considered the odd one out. She travels to Tokyo (a LONG trip) to get new outfits all the time, and sells her father's rip-off Versace items to make money to do so. Enter Ichigo, a Yanki punk who decides to befriend Momoko. Things will never be the same...

My Take: After the twisted female relationship in Baise Moi, I needed a sisterhood movie that didn't leave me feeling sick. Thankfully, I LOVED Kamikaze Girls. It's quirky, it's funny, and at it's core, it's actually really sweet. The friendship between Momoko and Ichigo is so unusual, and both girls are really unique characters. Momoko's fashion sense and need for perfection are opposite of Ichigo, who is rough and rumble and ready to go. Each girl learns something from the other, and there are rarely any dull moments. There is even a hysterical animated sequence about the origins of Ichigo's gang leader.

The climax of the film is ridiculous and wonderful. I was laughing and cheering the girls on and having a great time.

Entertainment value: High. I had so much fun watching this movie.
Scare value: Very Low. Not a scary movie.
Realistic?: Low-Medium. I mean, everything in the film technically COULD happen but it's all very unlikely and out there.
Violence/Gore: Low-Medium. One major fight scene and it's not really too graphic.
Sex:Very Low. Other than some spoken sex joke humor, it's totally chaste.
This movie is for:Anyone who wants a good laugh, those looking for a good girl power movie, anime fans.
Films like it: FLCL the anime, sort of. I can't think of anything similar with female protagonists like this. The closest I've got is the all male Attack the Gas Station. Similar humor.


IMDB Entry for Kamikaze Girls
Trailer

Baise-Moi

Baise-Moi

Language: French with English Subtitles

Brief Synopsis: Two young women who have both lost their connection with society team up and go on a spree of sex and violence. Manu (Raffaëla Anderson) has an abusive older brother and after being gang-raped, kills him when he calls her a slut for "enjoying the rape." Nadine (Karen Lancaume) sees her only friend get shot because of drug dealing, and she also has less-than-kind clients in her work as a sometime prostitute. The two meet while on the run at a train station and begin killing, at first for money and then for revenge; going after the rich and men.

My Take: Baise-Moi, which translates literally into "Fuck Me", is somewhat akin to Thelma & Louise on steroids, paired with the violence of Natural Born Killers. The sex in the film is not simulated, and the two lead actresses are former porn stars. The murders are frequent and often without real motive. Yes, Manu was raped, but she doesn't go after the men that raped her. Instead she kills at random, from men she picks up for casual sex to a woman on the street at the ATM to a whole club full of people. Nadine, for her part, is reluctant at first, and it seems like Manu is the aggressor in most of the situations.

This is no revenge story. These women are killing simply for the sake of killing, for the rush it gives them. They are equal to their male counterparts in cinema in this, and I found myself comparing their glee more than once to Otis in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Perhaps what's most interesting in the film is the juxtaposition of sex and violence. Different people will be more offended by differing things, and I think there are a lot of questions one can ask in regards to this. The sex is extremely explicit, but so is the violence. The film has been banned or heavily cut in a number of countries, including it's home, France. The cuts made are usually in regards to the sex, not the violence. This raises the question: even though sex is a natural part of life, and murder is not, why does society allow for explicit scenes of violence to be allowed in theaters and not scenes of explicit sex?

Is Baise-Moi worth sitting through? Maybe. It really made me think about a number of things, including the fact that I have never seen two females in such roles before. The acting is actually quite good, though the cinematography is distracting and the soundtrack makes almost no sense in regards to what's happening on screen. I'm glad I watched it once, but I have no plans to ever watch the film again.

Entertainment value: Medium. Intriguing and often engaging but the murders and sex scenes become repetitive; the lack of plot can also cause the film to drag. However, at a mere hour and seventeen minutes, it's an easy length to enjoy.
Scare value: Low. Violent and tense in places but never "scary."
Realistic?: Medium-High. There are definitely repercussions to the killing spree.
Violence/Gore: High. Quite the body count, lots of close-ups of gunshot wounds. One particularly nasty death by stiletto-heels.
Sex: Extremely High. NONE of the sex is simulated, penetration is shown, and there are graphic scenes of oral sex.
This movie is for: Those interested in gender studies/gender relations, serial killer movie fans, fans of the new New French Extremity film movement.
Films like it: Thelma & Louise (sort of), Natural Born Killers, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Man Bites Dog

IMDB Entry on Baise-Moi
(Note: IMDB translates it as "Rape Me", but the filmmakers have denounced this title as incorrect.)
Trailer

Two Shorts: Aftermath and Cutting Moments

Two Short Films to Make You Ill:
Aftermath & Cutting Moments


Languages: English for Cutting Moments, Aftermath has no dialogue

Brief Synopsis - Aftermath: The viewer is shown around a morgue during a typical shift, with variations on several autopsies. There is no dialogue, and really no background music other than what plays in one of the technician's headphones. Several corpses are dissected, cleaned out, and stitched back up, and it becomes apparent that one of the morticians is not like the others. After every has gone home he picks his favorite corpse and sets to work.

Brief Synopsis - Cutting Moments: The portion of Cutting Moments I am reviewing is often referred to by the collection's title, for clarification. The short "Cutting Moments" is about a woman, Sarah, who is completely subservient to her husband. The two have almost nothing left between them, despite Sarah's attempts to get her husband's attention. He begins paying more sexual attention toward their son and she does something drastic to try and get him to finally recognize her.

My Take: I saw both of these films because I was referred through various gorehound websites. I enjoy a good, gory film and I like movies that try and unnerve me. Both of these short films managed to do so, though in very different ways. With short run times (Aftermath is 30 minutes, Cutting Moments is 28), you don't have to fully invest yourself in the time for a feature-length film. This is a good thing, because I'm not entirely sure if I would want to watch two hours of either of these films.

The special effects in Aftermath are astonishing. Having watched real autopsy videos (and having been in a morgue as the granddaughter of a mortician), everything looks absolutely dead-on (pardon the term.) You can almost smell the formaldehyde as the morticians are making their incisions. It is in this dedication to realism that Aftermath is disturbing. The rise and climax of the short film, which involves massive bodily mutilation, necrophilia, and some of the best dog food you can get, didn't bother me as much as simply how real the initial autopsies looked. There are a few really spectacular shots, including one side-shot of the cadaver being bounced around that made me a little uneasy. Aftermath is an interesting look into some avant-garde film making, and perhaps a good test of a person's stomach, but little else.

The special effects in Cutting Moments are also fantastic. Everything in Aftermath is very gritty with lots of filters and specific lighting, however, whereas Cutting Moments has a low-budget, shot-on camcorder feel that makes it a little more unsettling. The first bit of the film drags a good bit more than Aftermath's initial sequences, but once it builds up, it certainly delivers. The scissor scene is brutal, and I was impressed with the film's ability to make me a little queasy. The finale felt forced and over-done, but at that point I had already lost interest. Everything past Sarah and her "transformation" seemed pointless. This, as well, in an interesting view into a different sort of film making, a good starter film for people who want to get into more disturbing cinema, but overall it's not as good as I had hoped it would be.

Entertainment value: Very Low for both. These are not popcorn flicks.
Scare value: Medium. Corpses and mutilation are both creepy subjects.
Realistic?: Low-Medium for Cutting Edge- there is no way a person wouldn't go into shock from what happens. Disturbingly High for Aftermath.
Violence/Gore: Very High. These are very gory films.
Sex: High. Nudity in both films, necrophilia in Aftermath, hinted pedophilia in Cutting Moments as well as genital and mammary mutilation.
This movie is for: Gorehounds, and gorehounds only.
Films like it: The Japanese Guinea Pig films come to mind the most strongly. Really any gore cinema, be it Japanese guro, Italian fake snuff, or even the Saw franchise.

IMDB Entry on Aftermath
IMDB Entry on Cutting Moments

-No trailers for these because, to my knowledge, there are not trailers for either film. Both films are available in their entirety online.

The Wild Hunt

The Wild Hunt


Language: English.

Brief Synopsis: In the forests of Canada, a large group of LARPers (Live Action Role-Players) gather to play out medieval games. One of the attendees is a girl named Lyn (Tiio Horn), who just dumped her non-roleplaying boyfriend Erik (Ricky Mabe) to come out into the game. She is accompanied by Bjorn (Mark A. Krupa), Erik's elder brother. Erik decides to try and win Lyn back by coming up to the forest, and while he initially refuses to join in on the festivities, he is forced to do so. What starts as an attempt to rekindle their romance in turn creates a ripple effect throughout the games that will change everything.

My Take: I absolutely adored this movie. Krupa is hysterical and terribly fun to watch as the "Viking" Bjorn, for a start. A scene in which he goes berserker on a row of gas tanks at the gas station had me in stitches. He rarely breaks character and behaves as Bjorn the regular guy, and instead is almost always Bjorn, King of the Vikings.

Mabe does well enough as Erik, though the character is sort of a jerk. He rejects the constraints of the game from the get-go, constantly insulting the people around him. My only real complaint as far as characters go is that of Lyn. Horn plays her as brooding and depressed; she comes off as self-centered and shallow. I felt myself wondering why Erik and his foe, the Shaman Murtagh (A fantastic Trevor Hayes) were fighting over her at all.

The movie is incredibly well shot, especially for the shoestring budget it was done with. The costuming is wonderful and the world of the LARP is fully realized yet easy enough for the non-LARPer to grasp. There are characters enough for the viewer to love at least one of them; I had a soft spot for Bjorn, to be sure.

My favorite thing about this film was the way that it worked its way up to the climax. Starting as almost comedic, the seriousness of the situation began to become realized in slow bits. Little hints at the possibility of the madness to come were scattered about, but a sense of security that this was all "just a game" was present as well. It reminded me a bit of Takashi Miike's Audition in this sense, though The Wild Hunt was far more entertaining during the slow build of tension. I never once felt bored by the character development or storyline, and by the time everything came to a giant, clashing climax, my eyes were glued to the screen and my heart was pounding.

A note: Make sure you watch the film through the very last scene. I would have been devastated had I not seen the last few minutes. The way the film is cut you may think it is over, but make sure you watch until the credits roll.

Entertainment value: High. I had a lot of fun through the first 3/4s of the film and was on the edge of my seat for the last 1/4th.
Scare value: Low. A little bit of the Wild Hunt is unnerving; the scares are more thrilling than frightening.
Realistic?: Medium. It could happen, theoretically.
Violence/Gore: High. There are several cringe-worthy moments of extreme gore.
Sex: Low-Medium. There are several scenes of characters kissing but not much else. There is one attempted rape but it is not graphic.
This movie is for: Anyone who has ever roleplayed, anyone who has ever wanted to live in a different time or place. Honestly, I think a great majority of people would enjoy the film if they can get past the violence toward the end.
Films like it: I can't think of any. There have been other films that featured LARPing but almost all have been pure comedy.

IMDB Entry on The Wild Hunt
Trailer

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon


Language: English.

Brief Synopsis: In a world where Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, and Jason Voorhees are real serial killers, Leslie Vernon is a man seeking to make a name for himself. As the self-proclaimed "next incarnation" of these killers, he makes supernatural serial killing his living. He is followed along by a grad-school camera crew as they attempt to make a documentary on him. He takes them through step-by-step in the process, including meeting his retired serial killer friend, Eugene, and his wife Jamie. Leslie goes over the tricks of the trade and terms of the trade, such as making subtle appearances to get people paranoid, and the importance of an Ahab, or overly good opposition. (Usually a doctor of some sort, in this case played by Mr. Krueger himself, Robert Englund.) From planning to bloody finale, he teaches viewers and onscreen journalists alike about what it means to be evil.

My Take: Having recently seen both Man Bites Dog (the original slasher-mockumentary) and How to Be a Serial Killer (a more modern bent), I was curious as to where Behind the Mask would fit. The French Man Bites Dog is brutally dark, the sort of humor that takes a pretty warped soul to appreciate. It also focuses on true-to-life serial killing. How to Be a Serial Killer is less bleak but equally in the realm of the more realistic; both men are more similar to Ted Bundy than Michael Myers.

Keeping itself from getting too dark or too serious, Behind the Mask is just lots and lots of fun. The first two thirds of the movie are shot documentary style, but the "shaky cam" never feels annoying or intrusive. The last portion of the film is shot in a more traditional manner, and the transition works.

The character of Leslie is about as charismatic as can be. He idolizes the aforementioned boogeymen and has a good friend/mentor who may be one of them. (No one online's entirely pinned it down, but I vote that he was Michael Myers, as his wife is the "survivor" of his killings and her name is Jamie.) There is a reference to Leatherface (Eugene has to visit a friend in Texas to help him "refresh his game"), and the two refer to Ted Bundy's serial killings as "a mess in a sorority house" and call him an "amateur."

I laughed a lot during this movie. It's dark humor, to be sure, but it's not as terribly grim as Man Bites Dog or as forced as How to Be a Serial Killer. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both of those movies as well, this just felt easier to watch, and much more entertaining.

Entertainment value: High. I laughed, I jumped, and I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Scare value: Medium. Towards the end, there are a few jump scenes. You know they're coming but they're still there.
Realistic?: Low. Not really.
Violence/Gore: Low-Medium. Surprisingly low for what this is. Other than one particularly gruesome kill, everything is minimal in blood/guts/gore.
Sex: Medium. Typical teenage slasher movie sex with gratuitous boobies.
This movie is for: Slasher fans, Horror fans, anyone with a slightly dark sense of humor.
Films like it: The aforementioned Man Bites Dog, How to Be a Serial Killer, though it also has some similarity to the Scream movies.


IMDB Entry on Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Trailer

Melancholia

Melancholia


Language: English.

Brief Synopsis: A film with two acts. Act one is the wedding reception of younger sister Justine (Kirsten Dunst), planned by her seemingly overbearing elder sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg.) Throughout the course of the night, Justine has several emotional meltdowns that eventually end in the party being a disaster. The second act has Justine living with Claire and her family. Claire's husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland), is an astronomer and he talks about the oncoming planet Melancholia, which should come near Earth but miss it. At this point Justine is in a severe state of depression and Claire must help her survive it. The relationships of all of the characters become more and more strained as Melancholia nears Earth, and it looks like the two planets will collide.

My Take: This was my attempt to watch another Von Triers film, after my lack of excitement over Antichrist. Melancholia had more characters to it, and a number of them were actors that I liked. (Including Justine's husband, played by Swedish hunk Alexander Skarsgard.)

Gainsbourg, Dunst, and Sutherland are all absolutely phenomenal. As side characters, Alexander Skarsgard, his father Stellan Skarsgard, John Hurt, Udo Kier, and a devastatingly cruel Charlotte Rampling are all amazing as well. The acting in this film is what drives it, even more than the stellar beauty of each shot.

Von Trier has a reputation for artsy, good-looking films, and Melancholia does not disappoint on that front. As with Antichrist, most of the shots are so beautiful they could be paintings, and the music that goes with them is perfect. The opening sequence is gorgeous, detailing some of the drama to come when Melancholia gets close. The planet itself is breathtaking, a turquoise orb of doom that also spells out peace for at least one character.

The movie itself is supposed to be about depression and the devastating numbing effect it has on a person. As such, it is almost impossible to like Justine in the first half of the film, but in the second half you begin to understand her plight. She suffers so greatly from her sadness that she is unable to eat (all food tastes like ash) and she cannot will the strength to step into the bathtub.

As the complete opposite of her character She, I loved Gainsbourg's Claire. She was a loving, caring mother archetype, which was nice to see in an otherwise misogynistic film. (I'm sensing a trend here, Von Trier.) Beyond even Gainsbourg and Dunst's stellar performances, however, it was Sutherland that stole the show, and he was absolutely captivating in every scene.

It's hard to explain Melancholia without giving away plot devices and spoilers. The first half of the movie is dreadfully slow and if you're anything like me, you will want to slap Dunst's veil right off of her pretty little head. (Seriously. Turning down sex from Alexander Skarsgard is a sin, good woman!) The second act is better thought out, less infuriating, and much prettier.

I think the film is worth seeing if you know anyone who suffers from depression, suffer from depression yourself, or are perhaps a fan of psychology. The average movie-viewer will find it either utterly pretentious or really, really boring. Those who are looking into the film for a scientific/astronomical aspect should be ready to be disappointed, as a great deal of the film is more science fiction than science fact.

After having a chance to think about Melancholia (it takes some time to digest), I really sort of liked it. The first half was infuriating, but it was worth it for the second hour, which gave me an insight into an unusual family in the path of inevitable destruction.


Entertainment value: Low-Medium. Act One is sloooooow, Act Two is only marginally more fast-paced. At least in Act Two you care a bit.
Scare value: Very low. Nothing really terribly frightening, though there is definitely a sense of impending doom.
Realistic?: Very Low. Notsomuch.
Violence/Gore: Low. None that I can remember really. A character dies but there is no gore whatsoever.
Sex: Medium. Kirsten Dunst quite naked several times, a scene of possible masturbation, clothed sex seen from a distance.
This movie is for: Those with depression, those who know someone with depression, psychology fans, Von Trier fans, those who appreciate art cinema.
Films like it: [u]Antichrist[/u], in a way, though this was far better.

IMDB Entry on Melancholia
Trailer

Antichrist

Antichrist


Language: English.

Brief Synopsis: A husband and wife (only ever referred to as He and She) lose their infant son in an accident and deal with the subsequent grief by going to their cabin, Eden, where she had spent the previous summer with her sun working on a thesis about gynocide. During their time there, He sees a great many disturbing things, and learns of his wife's belief that all women are inherently evil.

My Take: I did my best to leave the spoilers out of the synopsis, because there are some very interesting ones. Removing some of the shock value would render this movie almost pointless, because I believe that Lars Von Trier, the director, was aiming to shock and horrify.

I found the film to be incredibly misogynistic. She is a terrible, terrible human being, and by halfway through the film I wanted to scream at He to run as fast as he could from that evil woman. The sex scenes are tender, though I was quite glad when I found out the shower scene used stand-ins, as it shows actual penetration and I wasn't entirely comfortable with the idea of seeing Willem Dafoe, He's actor, in that manner.

It should be noted that the film is absolutely beautiful. Every scene is like a painting, though some are even more beautiful than others. The scene where they make love beneath the tree (shown in the movie poster) is gorgeous in a thousand different ways. Another positive aspect of the movie is the acting, which is fantastic. Dafoe is brilliant as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg is stunning as She, though I did want to smack her upside her head in most scenes.

I don't think Antichrist is for most people. It's violent, disturbing, sexually graphic, and about as bleak as a movie can get. It sort of made me loathe myself for being a woman (though the very ending offered a little hope). It's a movie that makes you think, but I certainly could have done without Von Trier's pretentious airs. The entire movie feels a bit like a chore, and by the time you're done with it, you wonder if you could have gotten the point by reading an in-depth summary and looking at some stills.

Entertainment value: Low. Short of the Three Beggars showing up and the last ten minutes or so, I was bored out of my skull.
Scare value: Low-Medium. There are definitely some uncomfortable bits, and I know this is stupid, but the Chaos Reigns fox scared the bejesus out of me.
Realistic?: Aside from certain flights of fancy in regards to the Three Beggars and the hands beneath the tree, I would say the film is somewhat realistic. I don't think it is meant to be taken as realism though, and is instead a sort of parable. The special effects are extremely realistic.
Violence/Gore: Two major bits of animal gore and two bits of violence to genitalia. I couldn't look at scissors without squirming for days.
Sex: Graphic penetrative sex in the beginning, followed by lots of masturbation and sex thereafter. LOTS AND LOTS OF SEX, and most of it you don't really want to see.
This movie is for: Gender studies majors, Von Trier fans.
Films like it: Apparently Von Trier's other movies, as this was my first.

IMDB Entry on Antichrist
Trailer

Dogtooth

Dogtooth/Kynodontas


Language: Greek with English subtitles.

Brief Synopsis: In a beautiful home in rural Greece, a family lives in complete seclusion. The father is the only one allowed to leave the property, which is fenced in on all sides by a massive wall. The mother and three children; older sister, boy, and younger sister, are basically held captive to his will. The entire world of the family is controlled by the father (and to some extents the mother). The children are in their late teens, and father decides that Boy needs sexual release so he brings in a co-worker, Christina, to have sex with Boy on a regular basis. Her outside influence begins to change the family dynamic and there is a downward spiral toward catastrophe.

My Take: I have never seen anything like Dogtooth. It is beautiful, funny, disturbing, and strange. Father is a convincing villain, Mother is his support but also completely submissive to him, and the children each have their own unique personalities. The mother records vocabulary tapes for words that the children might encounter explaining things outside their home. She changes the meanings so that the children do not entertain ideas of leaving. "Sea" becomes a large chair in their living room, "zombie" becomes a little yellow flower, etc.

There is so much to this film that it honestly warrants multiple viewings. It is definitely not for the squeamish, as there is enough sex and violence to make even the more hardened film-watcher cringe. The relationships between the characters are what fuel the film for more than three-fourths of it's run-time. Christina's outside influence, in particular on Elder Sister, is fascinating. She uses the girl's naivety to her advantage, exploiting her in several ways. Boy doesn't seem to understand sex, he simply does it, and Younger Sister is always looking for ways to show up her two siblings.

The presence of another "brother" that lives outside of the home presents a worry for the children, that they might be forced out of their oddly idyllic home for misbehaving or failing at one of their father's many tests. The children are also given stickers for winning at these contests, and they often invent contests of their own. It gives an interesting view into what such a confined life might be like; a world without television, internet, phone use, or even newspapers.

The film does have a bit of a slow pace, and the only major drawback I can see is that it can be extremely confusing in places. The family do things that are never explained, and there are a number of questions left unanswered. How does Father coerce Christina into having sex with Boy in the first place? Was there ever actually an Older Brother? Does Bruce die?

This is certainly a film that will lead to a lot of discussion, and I for one, loved it.


Entertainment value: Medium. It's a bit slow in places but it's definitely fascinating.
Scare value: Low. There are definitely some uncomfortable or unnerving parts but nothing is genuinely scary.
Realistic?: That's entirely up for discussion. Since so little detail is given in the film, it can be hard to determine. However, it was based on an actual case in Greece where a man kept his daughter isolated for almost thirty years, so it IS possible.
Violence/Gore: Medium-high. The violence is sparse, but when it happens it's graphic. One disembowelment, one gash to an arm, lots of hitting, and the ending bit is rather awful for anyone who has phobias regarding teeth.
Sex: Extremely High. Nudity, graphic sex, graphic cunnilingus, and at least one display of what is probably genuine sex on camera abound.
This movie is for: Anyone with a slightly warped sense of humor, fans of psychology/sociology.
Films like it: I genuinely can't think of anything like it, though there is apparently a Mexican film with a similar storyline, called Castle of Purity/El castillo de la pureza. The Virgin Suicides also expounds upon similar themes of parental control.

IMDB Entry on Dogtooth
Trailer

Going to Start Reviewing Again!

After a long break from this, I've decided to start reviewing films on this blog again. Below is a list of movies I'm considering for review, please let me know if there are any that pique your interest in the comments! I have seen all of these and don't mind watching them again for reviews sake.


-Man Bites Dog
-Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
-An American Crime
-Pan's Labyrinth
-What to do in case of fire
-District B13
-Tokyo Gore Police
-Scorpion 3: Beast Stable
-Lady Snowblood
-Angel:A


If there's something else you'd like me to review, please just leave me a comment!

City of Lost Children

City of Lost Children/La Cité Des Enfants Perdus


Language: French with English subtitles.

Brief Synopsis: An evil scientist, Krank, cannot dream. He and his evil henchmen kidnap children in an attempt to steal their dreams. One (Ron Perlman) searches for his little brother, Denree, who has been kidnapped by Krank's henchmen. Along the way he enlists the help of Miette, a young girl, and other children in the bizarre and dark City of Lost Children.

My Take: I love this film. It's very strange, and unfortunately the cinematography is a bit dated now, but it's still a beautiful and wonderful sort of fairy tale for adults. It's sort of Pan's Labyrinth 1.0, if you will.

Miette, the heroine of the film, is engaging and extremely enjoyable to watch. She is the sort of girl I would have aspired to be as a youth, the kind of girl that takes care of herself and still manages to look good doing it.

One thing I found fascinating about this film is that Ron Perlman doesn't speak a lick of French, though he was able to muddle through his lines for the film. I think it works because his character, One, is a bit on the slow side. He's a side-show strongman, regaled for his physical strength and not his wits. Miette is most certainly the brains of the operation.

Krank and his minions are creepy, and the world they inhabit is equally so. Everything has a surreal, dream-like quality to it that's almost reminiscent of Tim Burton's early works, or, perhaps more appropriately, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It is absolutely beautiful to watch even now, with some of the special effects being a bit dated. The film is an art piece in and of itself, without even the wonderful story and tremendous acting.

I hold a special place in my heart for dark fairytales, and this film fits the bill perfectly. While it is a bit too dark and violent for young children, it is most certainly fit for teens and adults who haven't lost the child inside of them.


Entertainment value: High. The story is fantastic, it's stunning to watch, and it's hard to take your eyes off of young Miette.
Scare value: Low-Medium. A few parts with Krank and the mad scientist brain thing are less than comforting.
Realistic?: Extremely low. This is a fantasy and it makes no bones about it.
Violence/Gore: Medium. I don't remember anything in particular that was horrifically violent, but there is certainly enough violence to warrant an "R" rating.
Sex: Low. One is hit on at a bar, and that's about the extent of it.
This movie is for: Anyone who is willing to watch a foreign film. Seriously, I recommend it that highly.
Films like it: Pan's Labyrinth, Dark City

IMDB Entry on City of Lost Children
Trailer

Peacock

Peacock


My basic synopsis: John Skillpa (Cillian Murphy) leads a fairly normal life in the small town of Peacock. He eats his breakfast, he goes to work, he comes home and goes to bed. What's not so normal is that he changes personalities entirely in the morning and evening into "Emma". When a train accident exposes Emma to the town of Peacock, it can only spell trouble for his small piece of normality.

My thoughts/my take: Cillian Murphy is brilliant as John/Emma Skillpa. He makes an extremely believable woman, and as John, he has an amazingly broken sort of persona that makes him at once a sad character and one you can't quite like. He reminded me very strongly of Norman Bates in Psycho, and since he was also a crossdresser with multiple personalities, I suppose the shoe fits.

The movie is confusing; sometimes John is actually in control while he's dressed as Emma and vice-versa. What's more, certain background points are alluded to but never explained, such as John's abuse by his mother and his relationship with Maggie (Ellen Page), a young mother who prostitutes for extra money now and again.

The performances make this movie, to be sure. The plot is meandering and confusing, the shots are good but not anything that wowed me. Cillian Murphy steals the show, particularly as Emma, but the supporting cast are all phenomenal as well. Susan Sarandon's nosy neighbor is very real-feeling, and Ellen Page's Maggie is extremely flawed, though surprisingly real as well. (No Juno crack wit here; Maggie is a dredge of society, a young mother with no ambition other than to get the hell out of Peacock.)

Maggie is the biggest plot device, with her young son and her rough life. The relationship between John/Emma and Maggie is the main focus of the film, but it just doesn't quite fit. While I would recommend this film to actors for a study on playing two characters at once as well as mental instability, otherwise I found it depressing and lackluster.

Entertainment value: Low-Medium. It's not a particularly happy movie and it's slow.
Scare value: None, lol, unless seeing Scarecrow from Batman in a dress scares you.
Realistic?: Fairly. The characters are all very real, living and breathing sorts. Which makes most of them also rather unlikable.
Violence/Gore: None.
Sex: There are mentions of it and one scene that references something pretty awful, but no actual sex is to be seen.
This movie is for: Die-hard Cillian Murphy fans, acting students.
Films like it: Psycho, sort of. I genuinely can't think of anything else that's close.

IMDB Entry on Peacock
Trailer

The Road

The Road


I'm not entirely sure where to start with my review of The Road. To call it depressing in a way I haven't seen since Requiem for a Dream might be the best bet; even that doesn't quite do it justice. If ever there was a movie that made you just want to curl up in a ball under the blankets and try to think about puppies, this would probably be it. Afterward, I wanted Prozac and a hug.

Mind you, I am a fan of Japanese guro flicks. I love a little depravity. What is so shocking about The Road isn't any sort of depravity, really. It's actually rather tame as far as violence goes. (I was expecting a LOT worse from the description of the book my boyfriend gave me.) What violence there was, it was very realistic, and it was generally over before you even knew what was happening.

A summary of the basic plot: The world has ended, and all that's left is a barren, desolate wasteland. It's also insanely cold, and all of the animals in the world are dead and gone. It's never explained why civilization as we know it collapsed, just that it did, the world is getting colder and colder, and the best bet is to "Head South." That's just what our dynamic duo of father and son is doing, following "the road" southward, toward the ocean and then further yet. Along the way they encounter other travelers and cannibals.

We never get the names of our characters either. They are The Man, The Boy, and The Man's Wife. While this is a fascinating idea in literature, it doesn't quite work as well in the movie, since it's fairly common for movie characters to never really give their names.

On the plus side of things, this movie is very, very well acted. Viggo Mortensen as The Man is convincing, he's also wonderfully fallible and human. He makes decisions and says things that make him slightly less likable than your average hero, and I appreciate that in a movie. I like my protagonists as flawed as possible. The Boy, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, is surprisingly good. While I'm not entirely sure of his chemistry with Viggo, he delivers his lines with a lot of charged emotion behind them, when he asks The Man if they are the "good guys", he really sounds as if he means it, as if it's the most important question in the world.

The most interesting character, for me, was The Man's Wife. We only see her in flashbacks, and she's played by the stunning Charlize Theron. She wears little makeup, has ratty hair, and baggy clothes, and it makes her look like a former beauty queen who has seen better years, which the character may very well be. Her performance is haunting, and when she tells her husband that "her heart was ripped out when he (the Boy) was born", it literally gave me chills.

Is this a good popcorn movie? God no. Is it a beautiful, in a morbid sort of way? Yes. Is it worth seeing? Depends on your tastes and your ability to recover from movies that are depressing. I don't recommend watching it alone for sure, and if you thought No Country for Old Men was too bleak (it was written by the same author, Cormac McCarthy), then I don't recommend it at all.

I'm glad that I saw it as a film fan, but it's definitely not for the average moviegoer.

Entertainment value: Low. It's a bit slow in places, and it's about two people walking... no explosions and gunfights here.
Scare value: Scary isn't really the right word. It's definitely haunting, and the scene in the house with the cellar is actually pretty scary. (I won't spoil it, but it's pretty nasty.)
Realistic?: Since we don't know what caused the apocalypse, it's actually pretty realistic. Everyone is absolutely filthy, which I thought was a good bit of realism. Viggo's nails look like he just dug himself out of Buffalo Bill's well. Seriously. I wanted to give them all a bar of soap and a bucket.
Violence/Gore: Low-Medium. Other than said cellar scene... not a lot.
Sex: Other than the word "rape", mentioned once, absolutely none.
This movie is for: Fans of Cormac McCarthy, apocalypse movie fans, absolute film fanatics. Not really anyone else.
Films like it: I don't think I've ever seen anything else this desperately bleak. Not even Requiem for a Dream, and that's pretty damn bleak. It's different from most other post-apocalyptic films, and I honestly think the closest thing would be the first half of I Am Legend, possibly Omega Man.

IMDB Entry on The Road
Trailer

Bronson

Bronson


I think the only way to even begin to review this film is to give a brief overview of the man that inspired it. Charles Bronson, born Michael Gordon Peterson, is an Englishman with a penchant for violence and a love of causing trouble for prison workers. After a brief stint as a bare-knuckle boxer, he was imprisoned for the first time at age 22. He has been in and out of prison ever since, and has written several books on his imprisonment. He has also written a book on staying physically fit in tight spaces (like a prison cell!). His Wikipedia entry is here.

The film follows the life of Mr. Charlie Bronson, although loosely and with a fair bit of artistic license. The most amazing part of the film is the performance of the title actor, Tom Hardy. He looks like Bronson, he talks like Bronson, and he delivers some of the fiercest monologues I've heard this side of Patton. One particular scene has him on stage, telling the story of his imprisonment, wearing the cartoonish makeup of a woman on one side of his face and his own lack of makeup/hair/etc on the other. He spins back and forth as if in conversation, and at the end turns to face the audience, the split-face showing. It's a fantastic moment in the film, and one to surely be noted.

For being one of Britain's most violent criminals, Charlie actually doesn't do much violence. Sure, he beats the living hell out of quite a few prison guards, but there's about as much blood in this movie as your average Bond flick. Definitely less death. The movie is shot in a surreal, art house style, with narration by Bronson and a barely linear time line. Colors are very bright, stylized, and the high contrast almost puts in mind the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece on the criminal mind, A Clockwork Orange.

Overall, I liked Bronson. It's a bit slow in parts, and the actual film quality is rather low (though about average for British film and television, from what I've seen.) I would recommend reading up on the real man before seeing the film though, as it can be quite confusing in parts, and it's not hard to get lost.


Entertainment value: Medium. Certain scenes are absolutely amazing, but there are definite lulls in-between.
Scare value: Very low. There are a few tense scenes but nothing actually scary.
Realistic?: Medium-high. Since it's based on a real man, yes. The art style? Definitely not.
Violence/Gore: Medium. Lots and lots of bare-knuckle brawls, including one fabulous one with fully armored riot police and a completely nude Bronson.
Sex: ...Sex isn't the right word. Full frontal male nudity? LOTS. Actual sex? Little to none. You will become very well acquainted with Mr. Bronson's bait and tackle within short order.
This movie is for: Film geeks in general, crime buffs, people easily amused by naked men fighting prison guards
Films like it: I can't think of a single one!

IMDB Entry on Bronson
Trailer

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

Alright, here we go, my first review! I chose The Poughkeepsie Tapes because a good friend of mine was curious as to my thoughts on it. Here we go:



The Poughkeepsie Tapes


Until my boyfriend asked me to watch this film with him, I had never even heard of it. He said it was sort of like The Blair Witch Project in that it was a fake documentary, or most of District 9. Due to my flagrant love of both serial killer cinema and movies that try to transcend the fact that they are in fact just films, I agreed to watch.

There isn't much in the way of plot that can be explained without giving away spoilers. Basically, a serial killer has kept tapes of his crimes (240 hours worth!) and federal employees discover these tapes and try to figure out the causes and reasons behind his murderous work. The entire film watches like a documentary, with "interviews" of family members of victims, FBI agents, and the like.

The film is gritty and extremely unsettling, and for the average viewer, rather frightening. There are a number of jump scenes. (One scene in particular, with a Venetian plague doctor's mask, even got me.) The best bits are clips from the actual "tapes" themselves, footage of the serial killer at his worst, usually shot from a tripod or in the hands of the killer himself.

Due to it's disturbing content, this is not a movie for everyone. For the psychological thriller or horror fan, however, I feel it is a definite must-watch. It takes the pseudo-documentary genre to new heights, delivering genuine scares and an overall feeling of unease that most films can't quite deliver. Unlike most other films that present themselves as "real", there isn't much in the way of shaky camera movement, so motion-sickness isn't a problem like it is in films like Blair Witch.

Personally, I loved this movie. I felt that it was shocking without beating you over the head. The camera work was eerie, the special effects were spot-on, and the acting was very believable. As stated earlier, the scene with the Venetian mask made me nearly need new pants, and several of the murder/torture sequences made me feel squeamish. (I am not a squeamish individual. I watch real emergency room shows while eating lunch. This movie is one of the few that have made me ever feel quite so uneasy.)

Entertainment value: Low-medium. This is not your typical popcorn flick. Also NOT a date movie, unless your date is Ted Bundy.
Scare value: Medium. Definitely creepy, but not scare-your-pants-off horror. Will definitely make you think about keeping a baseball bat under your bed.
Realistic?: Medium-high. The killer in the movie is based off of a number of real killers, and none of the kills are particularly over-the-top.
Violence/Gore: Very high. The special effects are amazing, the entire movie looks as real as it claims to be. Not for the faint of heart.
Sex: Low. There might be a spot of nudity, but I genuinely don't remember.
This movie is for: Psych majors, horror buffs, and sickos. It's funny how often I've seen these three coincide...
Films like it: Nothing is EXACTLY like this film, but the closest entry would have to be the 1970's Italian flick Cannibal Holocaust. Also similar are Ghostwatch, Quarantine, and The Blair Witch Project, if only in style.

IMDB Entry on The Poughkeepsie Tapes
Trailer

Who is this Dani, and what does she mean by doing the movies?!

I am Dani, a 22 year old former film student and current film aficionado with a penchant for sarcasm and a bizarre love of potty humor. This blog came about because I can rarely find decent reviews on the movies that I want to watch, and so I figured I'd help other people from having that problem!

I watch a wide range of films, though if you're expecting to find reviews of the major blockbusters here, you're in for a disappointment. I prefer foreign, independent, and cult films above all others, and my favorite genre is horror. (Especially sweet, delicious foreign horror.) Not only will I review the films for their story, cinematography, acting, and the like, but I'll give you a decent summary of the movie's appeal to various sorts. (For example, I'll warn you if it's ridiculously gory, and a number of these will be.)

This will be a bit of an experiment as well, since I've never done anything like this. I'm curious to see if anyone even gives a damn about what I think. We'll just have to see, won't we? If there's any movies you want me to review, please reply here or send me a shout at lizardqueend AT hotmail DOT com!