——Ichi the Killer——

(A)

Man, o man. When Harry and I got to the end of watching the Isle we just kind of turned and looked at each other, and said, “Man, after that everything else disturbing will just pale in comparison.” I haven’t show Ichi the Killer to him yet, but I definitely think that even if Ichi the Killer doesn’t take that top spot away from the Isle, you can spend a damn long time arguing it does. This is easily one of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen, and I recommend almost no one actually watch this. If you like that sort of thing though, there is lots here to enjoy (I use the word loosely, of course).

This movie by Takashi Miike is based on a manga, which makes some of the violence and gore a little over the top (making that the only reason why the Isle could possibly be more disturbing than this). Ichi is a disturbed killer who has been brainwashed into thinking that he was bullied as a youth and that a mob boss and his gang were those bullies. He has utterly no empathy for those he kills. On the other side of the coin is the main character, Kakihara, whose cheeks are cut up in a hideous grin, making him look not unlike the Joker (a comparison taken further by his clothes, which are usually purple and green). Kakihara is a sadist who is possibly more fucked up than Ichi, since he tortures other human beings and mutilates himself entirely of free will. The vast majority of the fucked up scenes in the movie belong to him.

What’s weird (and great) about this movie is that it isn’t just a straight up gore-fest. Miike’s direction is superb and the plot is constructed in an almost spiral type manner, turning the movie into a really interesting mystery story. Also, Miike brings a certain humor to the whole thing that makes all of the violence bearable (and in a way, more disturbing) as you’ll find yourself laughing in the weirdest places. If you can stomach it, I totally recommend you see this movie.

PS. This movie also might be interesting to watch for those who enjoyed the House of Blue Leaves fight in Kill Bill Volume 1, as you can definitely tell Tarantino watched Ichi before making it. One guy gets his face slashed up like Kakihara and the arterial spraying, while in other movies, definitely takes its cue from this one.

——50 First Dates——

(B)

This is a very funny and charming movie that would have been really great had those making decided to tone down the classic Sandler gross out humor, which feels oddly out of place in this movie and is almost never funny. It’s as if they are just trying too hard and living in the past. The production company is called Happy Madison, there is a scene where Rob Schnider’s family hits golf balls like Happy Gilmore, and there are a whole bunch of 80’s tunes that were used in the Wedding Singer cut and pasted into this movie while only given a reggae makeover. Stop it all already. They should have just stuck with a straight out romantic comedy, which is the one part of the movie that works extremely well.

Sandler and Barrymore (anyone who’s seen the Wedding Singer knows this) have perfect onscreen chemistry together, and their scenes together are just perfect. Every so often that mood is ruined though by a cheap joke, which is about the equivalent of a middle schooler making stupid jokes every five minutes or so to keep himself entertained. What you end up with is a fairly good movie that isn’t quite as good as the Wedding Singer, but still recommended to anyone who liked the Wedding Singer.

——La Strada——

(A-)

I don’t know as I was in the best mood when I watched this, but I’ll try to review it anyway. This was an entertaining movie that wasn’t always great in every moment, but in which a really powerful emotional response develops over the course of watching it. This is definitely the movie that bridged the Italian neo-realism to Fellini’s developing carnival-esq style, and really if you were to take out the circus and the general whimsy that follows the movie around, this movie isn’t really that far removed from Umberto D. Very good.

——The Bird People in China——

(B+)

I was surprised to find out that this was also directed by Takashi Miike (Ichi, Dead or Alive), since this is a much more subdued and straight forward film than most of his other work. The plot follows a Japanese businessman and a yakuza that travel to a remote part of China to check into a reported Jade vein in the mountains (the yakuza is owed money). The first half of the movie is a pretty hilarious road movie where personalities clash both in their dealings with each other and with the sentient culture. When they finally get to where they are going the plot slows down a little bit, unfortunately, but a really interesting and personal plot develops where they discover a really remarkable culture and a girl who’s grandfather taught her how to fly using paper wings. That second half of the plot wasn’t quite as interesting for me, but the whole movie is really cool and worth seeing.

——Glengarry Glen Ross——

(B)

I tend to have a problem with movies based on plays, and this film is no exception. The problem is that the dialog tends to get overly wordy and the action takes on a static feeling that feels very restricted because the original plot was meant merely for the stage. Despite some great acting, this movie has those problems in spades. The David Mamet dialog just did nothing for me, and I was really hoping the action would break out of its little box, but it never did. Definitely not my favorite movie.

——Band of Outsiders——

(B+)

Even though this movie is probably more traditional in style than Godard’s earlier Breathless, I didn’t quite like this movie as much as Breathless. That probably has mostly to do with the fact that the main characters aren’t very likable. Arthur forces his way to the forefront of the film and just comes off as an asshole that likes to take and take from people, leaving you to wonder what the hell Odile sees in him, especially after (I assume) she was going out with the more likable Franz, who seems to be always pushed out of the way by both Odile and Arthur. The other problem seems to me to be the fact that the sum of the parts seems greater than the whole. There are plenty of great scenes and moments in the film, while the overall story is just B-movie trash. Which might just be Godard’s whole point. His overall idea of cinema in this film seems to be this montage of sequences and ideas connected together to make a whole of its own, a rejection of Hollywood genre films while rejoicing in them at the same time. I’m not to sure about this movie. I’ll have to see it again.