(Antti-Jussi Annila, 2008)
In 1595, in the wake of a territorial war, a group of Swedish and Russian soldiers departs on a mission to mark out the newly agreed borderline between their respective lands. Their journey takes them through vast and largely uncharted swamplands, where they discover a mysterious village and an alien-looking building (the "sauna" of the title) of unknown origin and purpose.
In terms of its imagery and atmosphere, this film is a real beauty. The "sauna" is reminiscent of the monolith in 2001. As a physical object, it's little more than a large rectangular block. Yet it stands at a time and place where it simply ought not to be, and for that reason resonates with an utterly sinister and other-worldly presence.
At times, the story wanders a little aimlessly, and the motivations of the characters are hard to decipher; but there's an intelligent metaphysical mystery at the heart of the film that is worth pondering over even after the credits roll. I can't pretend to know exactly what was supposed to be going on during the film's final moments (and even if I did, I wouldn't necessarily want to spoil the ending by discussing it here) but what I will say is that I haven't seen anything quite like it before, and the imagery was stunning.
Showing posts with label S. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S. Show all posts
21 February 2008
21 August 2007
Saw III
(Darren Lynn Bousman, 2006)
I wasn't hoping for much, especially in the wake of the frankly irritating Saw II, but this is actually the best of the series so far. Of course, the story is a bunch of bollocks. But it's twist-laden gore-filled torture-horror, and if that's what you're looking for then that's what you'll get, so the fact that the story is a bunch of bollocks is really beside the point. I like the fact that there are still some bunch of bollocks horror franchises kicking around. I was a big fan of the Elm Street films when I was younger. That was a bunch of bollocks too. But I liked watching Freddie being witty while slicing people up, and I was always willing to sit through another installment. It's good to have a contemporary horror franchise such as Saw taking up the reigns and pumping out sequels. (Final Destination is another current franchise that does its job well - it's a bunch of bollocks plotwise, but it ticks the "gore" and "clever twist" boxes with a sufficient degree of competence to keep me watching).
I wasn't hoping for much, especially in the wake of the frankly irritating Saw II, but this is actually the best of the series so far. Of course, the story is a bunch of bollocks. But it's twist-laden gore-filled torture-horror, and if that's what you're looking for then that's what you'll get, so the fact that the story is a bunch of bollocks is really beside the point. I like the fact that there are still some bunch of bollocks horror franchises kicking around. I was a big fan of the Elm Street films when I was younger. That was a bunch of bollocks too. But I liked watching Freddie being witty while slicing people up, and I was always willing to sit through another installment. It's good to have a contemporary horror franchise such as Saw taking up the reigns and pumping out sequels. (Final Destination is another current franchise that does its job well - it's a bunch of bollocks plotwise, but it ticks the "gore" and "clever twist" boxes with a sufficient degree of competence to keep me watching).
20 August 2007
La Science Des Rêves (aka The Science of Sleep)
(Michel Gondry, 2006)
As I watched this film, I felt convinced that it was supposed to be about a man (or possibly two aspects of the same man) struggling to recognise and resolve a metaphysical conundrum concerning perception, reality, and his own personal identity (or, perhaps, identities!). By the end, however, I realised that I must be wrong. The man turns out to be more or less unaware of the existence of the conundrum, which itself remains unexplored and unresolved by the film. What remains is a despressing and pointless story charting the social ineptitude and confusion of a man with some kind of mental illness. The effects of the illness are interestingly illustrated, but rather than being a source of insight (and drama), they are simply a means by which the viewer ends up sharing the man's confusion.
As I watched this film, I felt convinced that it was supposed to be about a man (or possibly two aspects of the same man) struggling to recognise and resolve a metaphysical conundrum concerning perception, reality, and his own personal identity (or, perhaps, identities!). By the end, however, I realised that I must be wrong. The man turns out to be more or less unaware of the existence of the conundrum, which itself remains unexplored and unresolved by the film. What remains is a despressing and pointless story charting the social ineptitude and confusion of a man with some kind of mental illness. The effects of the illness are interestingly illustrated, but rather than being a source of insight (and drama), they are simply a means by which the viewer ends up sharing the man's confusion.
A Scanner Darkly
(Richard Linklater, 2006)
My experience of watching this film was very true to my experience of reading Philip K Dick books (even though I haven't read this particular story): it's basically interesting, but slightly old-fashioned, it fails to cash out the potential of its own ideas, and it somehow feels lacking in pace and resolution. The animation helps to convey the phenomenology of drug-taking, and thankfully saves the viewer from what would otherwise have been a bunch of actors making lame efforts at pretending to be muntered (think: The Breakfast Club spliff scene). But Linklater already showed us this visual style (with a much better story, and to much greater effect) in Waking Life.
My experience of watching this film was very true to my experience of reading Philip K Dick books (even though I haven't read this particular story): it's basically interesting, but slightly old-fashioned, it fails to cash out the potential of its own ideas, and it somehow feels lacking in pace and resolution. The animation helps to convey the phenomenology of drug-taking, and thankfully saves the viewer from what would otherwise have been a bunch of actors making lame efforts at pretending to be muntered (think: The Breakfast Club spliff scene). But Linklater already showed us this visual style (with a much better story, and to much greater effect) in Waking Life.
20 November 2006
Splinter
(Kai Maurer, 2005)
Ever wanted to know what happens when science fiction is written by someone who knows nothing about science and nothing about fiction? Well, here’s your chance. The speculative psychological theorising on which the plot of this film depends is at best naïve, and at worst utterly incoherent. The script is cringe-worthily awful, and the plot itself culminates in the single most atrociously offensive story-telling cliché known to humanity: the principal character wakes up at the end to find that it was all a dream (well, near enough: she actually wakes up to discover that she had fainted near the beginning of the film, and that the rest of the ‘story’ was a fiction created by her unconscious mind and captured on a thought-monitoring device). This is risible shit of the highest possible order.
Splinter @ IMDb
Ever wanted to know what happens when science fiction is written by someone who knows nothing about science and nothing about fiction? Well, here’s your chance. The speculative psychological theorising on which the plot of this film depends is at best naïve, and at worst utterly incoherent. The script is cringe-worthily awful, and the plot itself culminates in the single most atrociously offensive story-telling cliché known to humanity: the principal character wakes up at the end to find that it was all a dream (well, near enough: she actually wakes up to discover that she had fainted near the beginning of the film, and that the rest of the ‘story’ was a fiction created by her unconscious mind and captured on a thought-monitoring device). This is risible shit of the highest possible order.
Splinter @ IMDb
24 October 2006
Saw II
(Darren Lynn Bousman, 2005)
The basic story idea underlying this film isn’t bad. The problem is the way in which the idea is executed. For a start, the direction is awful. Two things stand out in particular. One is the use of intentionally over-shaky hand-held camera shots in an obvious attempt to pull the viewer ‘into the action’. This serves only to draw attention to the camerawork itself, and therefore has the complete opposite of the desired effect, detracting from the perceived ‘reality’ of the images on screen. The other is the overuse of rapid-fire jump cuts, punctuated by electrical-sounding snaps and pops, in an obvious attempt to inject a sense of frenetic panic into scenes of horror. Again, the effect of this is to draw attention towards the film’s style and away from its content. And horror is clearly a matter of content, not style. Either a scene is horrific (because it contains something horrific happening to someone), or it isn’t. No amount of pop-video-style film- and sound-editing is going make the difference.
The film’s biggest problem, however, is the incredible number of ridiculously implausible twists and turns required in order to grind out the storyline from beginning to end.* As I said, the basic idea of the film is not bad, so it’s a shame that by the time the final twist eventually arrives, the viewer’s patience has long since been eroded.
Saw II @ IMDb (UK)
* (I’m adding this as a footnote since it assumes knowledge of the film and contains major spoilers. Consider yourself warned.)
On the most charitable interpretation I feel capable of mustering, the implausibility of the plot can be reduced to the following two things:
(1) When the police arrive at Jigsaw’s lair and are presented with the ‘game’ that they have two hours to resolve, they make no attempt to conduct a systematic search of the premises, despite the fact that they have very little information to go on and appear to be occupying a building that is packed to the rafters with potentially clue-laden drawings, plans, designs, tools, machinery, drawers, shelves, containers, etc. Other than standing around idly, the only steps taken to discover information consist in interacting with Jigsaw himself and calling out a tardy tech team to trace the CCTV feed. Had a more thorough search been conducted, one obvious focus of attention would have been the safe that turns out to be crucial to Jigsaw’s entire scheme. “But who’s to say they’d have located the safe?” As the end of the film makes clear, it’s in a prominent position, unhidden from view. “But who’s to say they’d have considered opening the safe?” Safes are pieces of equipment typically used by people to lock away important or precious items—if any part of Jigsaw’s lair is worth searching, surely this is it. “But who’s to say they’d have been able to open the safe?” Well, even allowing that safe-cracking personnel / equipment could not have been dispatched within the two hour time-frame (and let’s face it, the tech team take their sweet fucking time), surely this is a generous window of opportunity to be exploited by a team of physically strong men situated in a building that appears to be packed to the rafters with all manner of industrial-strength engineering equipment.
(2) Jigsaw’s plan involves waiting until Eric (Donnie Wahlberg) gets desperate enough to fall back on his evil cop tactics: extracting information through violence. When this happens, Jigsaw intends to take a bit of a beating, and then feign a concession of defeat, at which point he will offer to take Eric to the location where his son is held. Since it is crucial to the plan that no other cops accompany them to this location, Jigsaw must convince Eric that they are to go alone. Here’s roughly how it transpires:
- Tell me where my son is or I’ll shoot you.
- Ok, you win, I’ll take you to him. Nobody else, though, just me and you.
- Seems reasonable. Let’s go!
What more obvious sign of a set-up could there be than the fact that a man who, at one moment, claims to be utterly surrendering to your authority, suddenly starts imposing fresh conditions only a few seconds later? Here’s how the scene should have played out:
- Tell me where my son is or I’ll shoot you.
- Ok, you win, I’ll take you to him. Nobody else, though, just me and you.
- Fuck that, I’m bringing a massive amount of heavily armed backup (for example, a handful of those SWAT guys that are currently standing around idly in the background, blatantly failing to search the place for clues).
- No, no, it’s got to be just the two of us.
- Look, mate, it’s obvious that this is just another ruse of yours. Either you take me and my massive amount of heavily armed backup right now, or I’ll shoot you.
- Damn, my cunning plan is foiled either way!
The basic story idea underlying this film isn’t bad. The problem is the way in which the idea is executed. For a start, the direction is awful. Two things stand out in particular. One is the use of intentionally over-shaky hand-held camera shots in an obvious attempt to pull the viewer ‘into the action’. This serves only to draw attention to the camerawork itself, and therefore has the complete opposite of the desired effect, detracting from the perceived ‘reality’ of the images on screen. The other is the overuse of rapid-fire jump cuts, punctuated by electrical-sounding snaps and pops, in an obvious attempt to inject a sense of frenetic panic into scenes of horror. Again, the effect of this is to draw attention towards the film’s style and away from its content. And horror is clearly a matter of content, not style. Either a scene is horrific (because it contains something horrific happening to someone), or it isn’t. No amount of pop-video-style film- and sound-editing is going make the difference.
The film’s biggest problem, however, is the incredible number of ridiculously implausible twists and turns required in order to grind out the storyline from beginning to end.* As I said, the basic idea of the film is not bad, so it’s a shame that by the time the final twist eventually arrives, the viewer’s patience has long since been eroded.
Saw II @ IMDb (UK)
* (I’m adding this as a footnote since it assumes knowledge of the film and contains major spoilers. Consider yourself warned.)
On the most charitable interpretation I feel capable of mustering, the implausibility of the plot can be reduced to the following two things:
(1) When the police arrive at Jigsaw’s lair and are presented with the ‘game’ that they have two hours to resolve, they make no attempt to conduct a systematic search of the premises, despite the fact that they have very little information to go on and appear to be occupying a building that is packed to the rafters with potentially clue-laden drawings, plans, designs, tools, machinery, drawers, shelves, containers, etc. Other than standing around idly, the only steps taken to discover information consist in interacting with Jigsaw himself and calling out a tardy tech team to trace the CCTV feed. Had a more thorough search been conducted, one obvious focus of attention would have been the safe that turns out to be crucial to Jigsaw’s entire scheme. “But who’s to say they’d have located the safe?” As the end of the film makes clear, it’s in a prominent position, unhidden from view. “But who’s to say they’d have considered opening the safe?” Safes are pieces of equipment typically used by people to lock away important or precious items—if any part of Jigsaw’s lair is worth searching, surely this is it. “But who’s to say they’d have been able to open the safe?” Well, even allowing that safe-cracking personnel / equipment could not have been dispatched within the two hour time-frame (and let’s face it, the tech team take their sweet fucking time), surely this is a generous window of opportunity to be exploited by a team of physically strong men situated in a building that appears to be packed to the rafters with all manner of industrial-strength engineering equipment.
(2) Jigsaw’s plan involves waiting until Eric (Donnie Wahlberg) gets desperate enough to fall back on his evil cop tactics: extracting information through violence. When this happens, Jigsaw intends to take a bit of a beating, and then feign a concession of defeat, at which point he will offer to take Eric to the location where his son is held. Since it is crucial to the plan that no other cops accompany them to this location, Jigsaw must convince Eric that they are to go alone. Here’s roughly how it transpires:
- Tell me where my son is or I’ll shoot you.
- Ok, you win, I’ll take you to him. Nobody else, though, just me and you.
- Seems reasonable. Let’s go!
What more obvious sign of a set-up could there be than the fact that a man who, at one moment, claims to be utterly surrendering to your authority, suddenly starts imposing fresh conditions only a few seconds later? Here’s how the scene should have played out:
- Tell me where my son is or I’ll shoot you.
- Ok, you win, I’ll take you to him. Nobody else, though, just me and you.
- Fuck that, I’m bringing a massive amount of heavily armed backup (for example, a handful of those SWAT guys that are currently standing around idly in the background, blatantly failing to search the place for clues).
- No, no, it’s got to be just the two of us.
- Look, mate, it’s obvious that this is just another ruse of yours. Either you take me and my massive amount of heavily armed backup right now, or I’ll shoot you.
- Damn, my cunning plan is foiled either way!
19 October 2006
Save the Green Planet!
(Joon-Hwan Jang, 2003)
An artful South Korean blend of cop-drama, torture-horror and bizarre slapstick comedy (which, let’s face it, doesn’t sound like an easy combination to pull off). Although the story develops along more or less predictable lines (and is slightly overlong at a running time of almost 2 hours), this is more than compensated for by the charismatic lead performances, and some highly energetic and imaginative direction, which throws up a constant variety of unusual and unexpected images. I don’t know why Jang hasn’t directed anything since this feature-length debut, but if he does, I’ll be watching.
Save the Green Planet! @ IMDb (UK)
An artful South Korean blend of cop-drama, torture-horror and bizarre slapstick comedy (which, let’s face it, doesn’t sound like an easy combination to pull off). Although the story develops along more or less predictable lines (and is slightly overlong at a running time of almost 2 hours), this is more than compensated for by the charismatic lead performances, and some highly energetic and imaginative direction, which throws up a constant variety of unusual and unexpected images. I don’t know why Jang hasn’t directed anything since this feature-length debut, but if he does, I’ll be watching.
Save the Green Planet! @ IMDb (UK)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)