6 Reviews: Madeo (Mother), Go and more!
Memories of Murder (2003):
9/10
Bong Joon-ho’s breakout film based on South Korea’s first serial killer (his killings took place between 1986 and 1991) and the pursuit to hunt him down is reminiscent of, and superior to, David Fincher’s Zodiac. Or rather, Zodiac is reminiscent of Memories of Murder since this came 5 years prior. It is hard not to compare the two. Both involve an exhausting and feudal search for someone terrorizing a population and both feel equally hopeless. What makes Bong Joon-ho’s film superior, despite both being successful, are the structure and flow. Once Zodiac reaches a certain point it drags and tread, making the end almost welcome. Memories of Murder knows how to linger beautifully and its length is never felt.
One of the detectives, Park Doo-man is a local detective of the Gyeonggi Province whereas Detective Seo Tae-yoon was sent from Seoul. Each has different methods. Doo-man is not used to crimes of anywhere near this magnitude, and uses the methods he knows how which involve beatings and evidence tampering. The film shows the conflict that arises between to different people working together without pushing it to the forefront. The film wisely backs away from the clichés that could have come from this and keeps it relevant but not essential. It is the ways each of them change that matters more. Bong Joon-ho is a master first and foremost at balancing humor and drama. This is a disturbing film and the humor only arrives in the most bizarre and effect of ways which only adds to the haunting nature of the film. The primary example of this is a chase sequence that takes place about half way through. He loves filming action either in tracking long shots or stationary long shots that highlight the awkwardness of a situation.
Mother (2010)
7.7/10
Bong Joon-ho’s latest film is a unique mix of genres and tones ( the director’s trademark) culminating in a tale of sacrifice, denial and unyielding maternal devotion. Kim Hye-ja, giving one of the best performances of the year thus far is ruthless in her efforts to discover who framed her mentally slow son for murder. She is protective and naïve and unwilling to face the truth, making her predicament that much more conflicting. The end is heartbreaking and ironically triumphant. Bong Joon-ho creates his own distinct but easily recognizable world that is all the more impressive because it presents reality in a new and substantial way. This film continues to emphasize this aspect of the director’s viewpoint. It is not impossible to tell where the film is going but in fact it makes the film and its destination that much more successful. Part psychological thriller, part drama, part black comedy, Mother continues to establish Bong Joon-ho as one of cinemas’ leading auteurs.
Go (1999)
3/10
Go is a film populated with uninteresting characters and forced wit. It very clearly wants to be a pop-culture ridden representation of the young generation but fails to produce even one relevant moment. Directed by Doug Liman who has always tried too hard, the film depicts a single night from three different perspectives. The first, featuring Sarah Polley manages to be the most interesting if only for her presence and that of Timothy Olyphant. She plays Ronna who needs money for her rent. So she spends the night setting up a drug deal. The second story is about the adventures of four men in Las Vegas and the third concerns two gay television actors and their efforts get off of a possession charge. The second story is insufferable and actually hard to sit through. The first story manages to be mildly interesting and the third story has moments that never culminate into anything that feels like it is worth the time. The fact that Go feels the need to repeatedly represent through the medium the experience of being on ecstasy for the hell of it really shows the priorities of this overrated wannabe film far too desperate to be relevant.
The Wild Bunch (1968):
3.2/10
Reviewing a film like The Wild Bunch is difficult because it is so universally acclaimed. To start out, the reasons for its importance remain valid. The film took the glossed over violence in the Western (and film in general) and opened it up, exposing the brutality of the genre. The revolutionary frenetic editing and slow motion heightens the terror overwhelming the audience with the overarching sense of mass violence. The first 15 minutes and the last 15 minutes of The Wild Bunch are brilliant through and through. Everything in between is hogwash; a meandering mess of scenes that fail to develop any character despite hints of potential dynamics. It also fails to build on or even represent any of the themes within the Western in an interesting way outside of its relentless establishment of camaraderie.
To say that none of the characters were in any way sympathetic is redundant. Peckinpah means to challenge who we align ourselves with and who, through the script, we are forced to side with through the chosen perception. Thus, to say I care about nobody is redundant since Peckinpah seems okay with that. The more challenging aspect would be to make us care despite knowing and seeing how vile the characters are but the film fails to do that as well. It would be an understatement to describe most of this film as a chore to watch. Outside of the spurts of genius, this failed to engage in any way shape or form.
Woman of the Year (1942)
5.5/10
This first Hepburn-Tracy effort directed by George Stevens is the most conflicting film I have seen in quite some time. It has a strong script and Stevens as director knows how to subtly extract humor using the camera. Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are on fire together in my new favorite pairing of theirs’ (Having also seen them in Without Love, Adam’s Rib, and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner). Their chemistry in this beats Hepburn and Grant at their best and any other duo you can name. The tension, humor and energy they omit when together are just as palpable and fresh now as it was almost 70 years later. In its first hour in particular, this was on its way to being one of my new favorite films. Unfortunately the film and its dated look at gender reversal negate much of the film’s wonderful qualities.
Instead of looking at gender reversal in a relevant and exploratory fashion, the film clearly sees it as merely problematic. The marriage of Tess and Sam definitely has problems; big ones. However, Tess is simply too busy for her husband due to a very extreme schedule being a diplomat’s daughter and the most respected female reporter in the country. Hers is an extreme case that would be problematic whether Tess was male or female. The film seems to use Tess as a textbook example of what happens when a female gets any sort of power; apparently chaos. The film refuses to acknowledge the specificity of the case. Tess also does some pretty awful things in the second half which weaken the film greatly and make it hard to sympathize with her character. The original ending to the film had a compromise taking place. The housewives were so intimidated by Hepburn that they were unsatisfied with a compromise; they wanted more. The end of the film is the clincher. While the breakfast making sequence certainly displays Hepburn’s comedic abilities, it is also a sort of embarrassment. She is in the kitchen, stumbling over ingredients, begging Sam to allow her to give up her job to be with him. Everything she has worked for she will give u in a second making a complete 180 degree turn from her character in the beginning. The end is ambiguous but hints at an end to any authority Tess might have once had. As much as the film was enjoyable, I cannot get behind a message as convoluted and foolish as that.
Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1996): 6.9/10
This Island Earth (1955): 1.5/10
Mystery Science Theater 3000 is genius in concept. This was my first experience of the franchise despite knowing of it for many years. The scenes that bring the characters outside of the theater and their wisecracks are painful broad humor with no sense of itself. However, when they are in the theater watching a terrible film they make observations that put an amusing spin on relationships that heighten the enjoyment of the awful film we are seeing. Overall this was a really enjoyable romp which is unfortunately intermittent with an unfunny framing story. Favorite moments included “Normal view”, the tubes, Joe and more. Hopefully I will check out more of this show at some point.
Horrorphile
Go I enjoyed at the movies when it came out, but I agree with you that it's the first story that is most interesting, and the other two pale in comparison. I actually found the ecstasy scene in the supermarket pretty funny.
I love Swingers, it's one of my favourite movies, but Go certainly didn't have the wit and irony of Jon Favreau's script.
I didn't expect your low praise of The Wild Bunch! So the spurts of genius weren't enough to save the movie from a bollocking, huh? I saw the director's cut at the cinemas a few years ago (having only seen a pan-and-scan VHS copy and on television prior), and it was great. Yes, the characters are obnoxious, and not a lot happens in between, but it's the restlessness and the quiet desperation that provides the movie with its dragging anchor. It's a movie experience, sound and fury, a macho pyre. It's much like a Dario Argento movie, less about the story and more about the film fabric; the mood and texture.
This Island Earth didn't even warrant a paragraph! LOL
Cinema Enthusiast
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
I wish I had liked The Wild Bunch more. I get what you are saying about it and I can definitely see that. I really like when films focus less on the plot and more on the mood but the particular mood it was going for was just not something that appealed to me either on a level of personal interest or even from a remotely objective point of view. Oh well!
Horrorphile
I assume you've seen the Leone westerns ...
Cinema Enthusiast
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
Horrorphile