What have you watched recently? 3D!
Comments
-
Talk To Me (2022)
Australian horror that's caught alot of online buzz. Its about a mysterious ceramic model hand that can act as a conduit to see spirits (ghosts) and allow them to take possession of one's body.
A new twist on the ouija board trope, I kinda enjoyed this. Some creepy scenes, a straightforward plot and some decent scares. Nothing ground breaking and not the masterpiece some would have you believe this is nevertheless well worth a watch as we come towards spooky season.
7/10
0 -
I watched this last night. Completely agree with your summary. If I hadn't heard anything about it, and threw it on, I would have been impressed, and would have thought that was very decent. But with all the hype about it - "best horror ever" "brilliant ending", "scariest movie ever", I felt just a little disappointed when I finished it. Maybe my expectations were too high. It is entertaining, but nothing ground-breaking at all. I enjoyed Smile much more.
0 -
Another Round
A Danish film about four forty-something secondary school teachers who decide to drink a certain amount every day based on some pseudo-science. The idea is to lower their inhibitions and truly express themselves.
It is a black comedy but there's also a certain amount of satirising lay intellectuals (they refer to the idea as an experiment and start to write a research paper on it) and looking at mid-life crisis, particularly from a male point-of-view. Its also an insight into drinking culture and the mentality behind it.
Of course, the experiment goes wrong and each of the four subjects has a very different outcome. Its an entertaining film and brings up some interesting ideas. I'd certainly recommend it, especially if you're a big drinker.
3 -
Theater Camp
Very funny little mockumentary about a small children's theatre camp recently taken over by the incapacitated owners bro-ey son.
I'm not a musical theatre person, so I was afraid it would be a bit too self referential, but found myself being able to follow the in-jokes fairly easily. It does a great job of parodying the inherent silliness of it, while still clearly being made by people who love this world.
Past Lives
A very beautiful film about a Korean boy and girl who are best friends, and who are seperated through her families emigration to North America. The film charts their lives and later reconnection as adults.
I'm not sure if I loved this, or just really liked it. It's definitely stuck with me since I seen it and I think it's without a doubt one of the films of the year, that should be seen by anyone who likes talky, realistic romantic films in the vein of the Before trilogy, Lost in Translation and In the Mood for Love.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Dark City (1998)
How to ruin a film's central mystery and mood in one small action: simply add a voiceover explaining the whole contrivance in the very opening scene. Hollywood! Maybe I should have sought out the Director's Cut?
With a bevy of thematic, visual and structural similarities to The Matrix, coming out a mere year before that iconic behemoth only ensured Alex Proyas' film got quickly buried by the pop-culture gestalt. Though it would be overstating things to call this a forgotten classic mind you: by no means perfect even if one ignored the studio-mandated spoiler at the front, or indeed an overly melodramatic score when something subdued was needed. Or how the budget was stretched to breaking point by a finale asking for more spectacle than the CGI could deliver ... but this was a moody, evocative thriller with an appealing production design and commitment to its SciFi inflected noir aesthetic.
Admittedly that design had a strong sense of Proyas brazenly borrowing from sundry sources like Blade Runner or Brazil, and it's arguable whether it all entirely worked as an overall entity, but I can't deny the singular mystery and conceit was quite a fun idea; one that was teased out quite efficiently until the nature of the titular city was revealed. And when the shoe did drop, it was one of those reveals that felt in the spirit of the best flights of fantasy in being both obvious - yet dementedly logic-breaking. Something that only invited more questions sure, but also asked us to just go along with the idea.
It was also interesting to watch the camp icon Richard O'Brien play a relatively understated, quiet role - insofar as playing a corpse possessed by an inquisitive squid alien can be "understated". The unnerving chattering the Strangers would do with their teeth, combined with their funereal appearance in the city itself made them both threatening and creepy - more than their "natural" form below ground, all inexplicable leather and belts like knock-off Hellraisers. The rest of the cast were fine, if nothing special: Rufus Sewell's energy & appearance suggested this particular Chosen One mightn't be a hero after the credits rolled; William Hurt was perhaps the wrong side of "sleepy"; and nothing was asked of Jennifer Connolly except to look like Jennifer Connolly, looking wistful.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 10295
Absolutely watch the Director's Cut - like you I first saw the Theatrical Cut and was baffled at why you would take such an interesting idea and cut it off at the knees.
The biggest unstated influence on Dark City, for me, is the Mister X comics series - its theme is that an apparently-heroic protagonist strives endlessly (supported by some pseudo-magical drug of their own devising which negates the need for sleep) to undo the terrible effects on The City of the invention The Protagonist created, which was supposed to adjust the layout and configuration of the City on a nightly basis to ensure that the psychological needs of the population were met - but which instead somehow is almost immediately compromised by Unknown Entities to futher their Dodgy Agenda...
Now, Mister X was not necessarily a subtle series - but its strength was how it merged, on a narrative and visual level, German Expression and noir filmmaking techniques and tropes, fusing them into something new and interesting.
Dark City, for me, is like an attempt - not necessarily successful - to do something similar. It doesn't quite work, and the more I rewatch it the more I feel some Ingredient X is missing, but damn if I'm not glad that it exists as evidence that Proyas tried.
1 -
For some reason I thought Dark City was released after the Matrix because I seem to remember it was being compared to The Matrix, but Google says Dark City released first. Maybe it was a re-release after or the home video version release.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 10295
It didn't get a very wide release internationally to begin with, I don't think. I remember seeing The Matrix first, and then hearing about Dark City on some IRC channel.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Not only that, but I think, without checking, that The Matrix used some of the sets that were built for Dark City. All building into this sense of Dark City as this lost curio swallowed by The Matrix's success. I wonder did this contribute to Alex Proyas' rather testy relationship with the press, feeling like his older movie got ignored in favour of the slicker, sexier version.
GOsh when you describe it the way you just have, Mister X sounds like more than a passing resemblance to Dark City. Not sure I'll go back though and watch the Director's Cut; I didn't enjoy the film that much (on rewatch, as it happens) that I'd have another go around the block - but I can be damn sure excising the stupid voiceover would keep the mystery bubbling for much longer. Not that much either mind you, cos the supernatural / fantasy aspect is pretty definite by the end of the 1st act.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10295
I'd say I admire what Proyas was aiming for in Dark City, more than I necessarily think it succeeded. Aside from anything, despite neither Dark City not The Matrix having particularly exceptional actors at its core, the latter film made better use of its actors' talents. The nature of the conclusion to Dark City is also inherently less satisfying, in that it raises an enormous question about the world of the story which is not in any way addressed - purely so it can get a cool visual out of it. The Matrix might have had a somewhat unsatisfying "the story's not over"-style closing shot that was unnecessary in narrative terms, but at least it didn't just casually upend everything you has originally understood about the story's setting along the way...
1 -
Advertisement
-
Currently watching "The Beatles - Get Back" 3 part documentary.
2 episodes in - fascinating fly on the wall type documentary.
How did the others stick Yoko hanging around all the time....could never fathom what Lennon saw in her.
0 -
funny, one of my observations from watching it (and it is absolutely brilliant) was that she mostly kept out of the way and others seemed to get on quite well with her despite all the stories down the years of how much they hated her. There a nice scene of Yoko and Linda McCartney chatting to each other IIRC.
2 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
The Handmaiden (2016)
Sometimes I finish these kinds of films and feel like I'm not a proper cinephile for watching and thinking "uh, it's handsome I guess?". And it was a rather intricate thing, with some beautiful cinematography and positively crafty, cunning editing deployed for its various shoe drops. But, ehhhhh... I dunno. The characters weren't the kind of array of cartoons Thirst had on show, but there's just something that refuses to allow Park Chan-Wook's work to rattle my cages - even in an antagonistic way. It's not a coldness, just a sort of apathy. I think I may give up on this guy.
It is also, 100% the kind of film that if you watch it with your parents in the house, they'll absolutely walk in when the extremely graphic lesbian lovemaking is on screen. How you ever shoot scenes like that, with that little left to the imagination, without ... how shall I put it? Accidentally pleasuring the other person, is beyond me.
For sure. Does the Director's Cut address the moments of residual psychosis and potential Supervillain status the lead might attain? Cos that ending was very dramatic and a stunning visual - but yikes it asked a lot of questions about the potential motives of its "hero" in the future.
1 -
The Blues Brothers
This was a film I loved as a kid and one we used to watch a lot as a family.
I watched it again last night as my wife had never seen it. It was probably the first time I'd seen it in at least ten years...
And I can see why it was entertaining as a child but it has a fairly simple format. They sing a song, they piss some people off and there's a car chase, rinse and repeat and make it bigger every time.
I love the music and there's some funny dialogue but I remembered it as being laugh out loud funny as opposed to chuckling funny. With age, all the destructive elements seem like overkill. Its also quite surreal at times, e.g. the Penguin, the car jumps, the jilted ex, the light in the church.
I don't think its aged poorly. Its certainly fossilised in time. Its still fun. The car is cool. The Blues Brothers are cool. The music's great. The cameos are fun. Its just not as great as I remembered it being. Either I'm getting old and nostalgia doesn't stack up to reality or I now look for more in terms of story and character development.
FWIW, I never saw the second one and read the summary on Wikipedia. It sounds like they just wanted to make the same film but bigger. Don't think I've missed out by not seeing it.
0 -
Barry Lyndon
Every 5 years or so I crack Barry out for a watch. Its like a balm this film , a soothing balm. Its long and paced beautifully. It tips along unrushed taking its time like an auld lad on Inishboffin ambling across the island with a turf laden donkey. Its gorgeous looking. I had the pleasure of watching it projected onto a wall and this is probably the closest Ill ever get to seeing it on the big screen. The attention to detail in costume and set is only matched by another favourite of mine , Ridley Scotts , The Duelists. In most cases narration makes me cringe. Somehow the Narration in Barry Lyndon seamlessly blends and is completely on point.
Its funny how revisiting a film once time has passed and some more life has been lived allows other aspects to be appreciated.
This time round I was struck by how selfish and destructive Barry is. Technically Barry is the hero of the Story but this time I found myself rooting for the put upon Lord Bullingdon while rightfully duelling for his estate and mothers sanity. Great stuff I look forward to a few more rewatches before I'm 6 foot under.
4 -
It's a film that only gets better each time you watch it. I don't even cringe at Ryan O'Neal's terrible accent now.
As to the character of Redmond Barry, he's an absolute swine. 😄
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Sorcerer (1977)
Would any other movie these days have the audacity to stall its foundational, central premise 'til about the 50th minute? Not a chance. That was the runway entirely created by The Exorcist's success.
The tactility of this thing was amazing. A film suffocating with rain, sweat, dirt, rust and blood; entropy seeping out of every dilapidated thing - be it vehicle, building, or human. An effect that ran parallel with a commitment to authentic physical spaces, props and locations - exemplified by that astonishingly nerve-wracking bridge sequence. Torrential rain drowned bedraggled actors as they seemingly drove real vehicular behemoths across a rope bridge fit to snap. I both want to know, but also refuse to learn just how much of that stunt was real - cos every single second seemed genuine; the terror & soggy exhaustion on the faces of the actors a natural result of real peril. And knowing Friedkin's reputation, it probably was. It's trite to remark about how CGI can look so fake, yet watching the rope bridge sequence you see why. You simply cannot recreate real pain like that.
But it sure didn't start that way: as said, nearly half the film spent its time patiently showing us how the 4 doomed souls in those trucks found their way to the most miserable place on earth: a depressing slump of a village, grasping the crumbs of oil-based wealth as it was pulled from the ground and flown from the country. Though if there was any kind of screed against capitalism or post-colonial exploitation, it wasn't expressed in the Text. Friedkin often kept scenes silent and observational, letting the viewer come to their own conclusions about the nature of what passed for normalcy: how could a village be this moribund while literal riches were gushing from the ground only miles away? The only truly happy face we saw through the whole film was an indigenous tribesman; a man who stopped his day to run alongside trucks ready to blow, mocking them and playing chicken. Content & happy to laugh at these transient things, he seemed to know the score.
Yet when the engines did eventually start, the tension became absolutely unrelenting. This was up there with Uncut Gems in terms of twisting the screw and borderline abusing its audience. Maybe there's an argument we didn't need as much backstory shown as what we got - but perhaps that's only 'cos I'd have traded some of those vignettes for more sweaty close-ups of Roy Scheider as he carefully drove over roads literally crumbling beneath his wheels. And the aforementioned sense of physicality was a key ingredient in that tension because there wasn't, as far as I could see, a single fake-out or "special effect".
Everything appeared to be as we saw it: the trucks were real; the bridges and roads perilously genuine; and the many explosions both voluminous and terrifying; even the soundscape of the jungle felt invasive. And of the performances, they were all those whose authenticity must have come from the fact they were all genuinely exhausted, genuinely pushed to the edge of madness. We've heard the stories of William Friedkin's "unconventional" techniques before and if those tales from the French Connection & Exorcist were simple "behind the scenes" decisions - this was that arguable psychosis writ large on the screen, manifested as grand strategy.
That it failed at the box office would be a criminal shame, if not for the mild caveat that it came out in 1977 alongside Star Wars. If something's gotta beat you, it might as well be the film that changed Blockbuster cinema forever.
Post edited by pixelburp on1 -
Crimewave
Sam Raimi's follow up to the The Evil Dead, written by the Coen brothers. I can't say I'm a huge Raimi fan but this was a bit of fun. Very cartoonish and slapstick and just what you would expect from early Raimi/Coens. Very similar in tone to Raising Arizona or Hudsucker Proxy with some nice touches of horror Raimi brought in from Evil Dead.
65
From the writers of A Quiet Place, about a spaceman who crash lands on Earth 65 million years ago. High concept but disappointingly bland. Everything about this was played safe. Underused and uninteresting dinosaurs, boring 'redemptive storyline arc', muddled set pieces. It was only 90 minutes long so it didn't overstay its welcome and there wasn't a superhero in sight so it wasn't all bad.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Monsters (2010)
Having just watched The Creator, I finally got around to picking up Edwards' first feature; had heard plenty of compliments about its shoestring scope so seemed an apt time to check this out.
It was indeed a triumph of canny economics with its blockbuster FX on a shoestring budget - though the constant tease of Kaiju destruction got frustrating after a while; obviously the money only went so far but I think the concept needed some tactile sense of danger at some juncture. What FX we got though were often subtle but really arresting moments though; good examples of visual storytelling and world-building with minimal exposition. We learned through exposure, not instruction.
And while Edwards added a confident polish to the lensing of the whole thing, the actual story itself was a pretty threadbare road trip. It had the pulse of a short film stretched to feature-length, and centred around two spectacularly irritating main characters; obnoxious privileged drips who I kinda wished would get chomped by an alien squid after a while. And given the setting it was rather baffling they didn't structure the story around two Mexicans trying to exit the Infected Zone & escape into America - rather than the actual leads we got. The character's agency would have been cleaner, more relatable.
It wasn't quite "white saviour" level, but definitely ... I dunno, "white tourist"? I think the script was aiming for some mild political commentary, with the hat tipped when one of the two leads practically turned to the camera to wistfully talk about "looking at America from the outside" during a quiet moment as they cosplayed migrant, with a subsequent monologue a clunky commentary on the disconnect between Western suburban comfort and the desperation of those at the border. It's obviously a bee in Gareth Edwards' bonnet as The Creator also had a distinct theme of "hey, does America suck you guys?" clanging about.
And even then, it might have gotten away with that clunkiness had the two actors possessed a modicum of charisma or chemistry - both between themselves and in engaging the audience. Something made all the more baffling when one considers the two actors were romantic partners (later married) at the time.
1 -
'Gummo'
Yet another Harmony Korine teenage disaster movie, albeit not as devastating as 'Kids' or destructive as 'Ken Park'. But the people in 'Gummo' are depicted in equally appalling states, even if it's largely unbeknownst to them. Shot in Tennessee, but set in Ohio, the movie shows the poverty stricken lives of several people who go about their unconnected existence in "small town" Xenia after a tornado has ripped through it, although the tornado really has nothing further to do with the story (what little story there is). More a slice of life than a narrative construct like 'Kids', 'Gummo' is an odd fish. But if you've ever seen Korine interviewed, you'd know why. Worth a watch, but its loose nature may be a put off for some.
7/10
'Talk To Me'
A bunch of unbelievably annoying millennial and zoomer twits who think they crap ice mess around with an occult object that can allow them to commune with the dead resulting in the obvious. 'Talk To Me' isn't a bad way to spend 90 something minutes, but there are stretches where that 90 minutes feels much, much, longer. It's unfortunate that the film suffers from such incredibly unlikeable characters that it's difficult to give a damn about anyone on the screen. But there's plenty to like going on too and, over all, it's well done.
6/10
'Dredd'
Mega City One's most feared lawman has to tackle a ruthless crime boss in the Peach Trees Citi-Block, while giving rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson her on street assessment. While it certainly has its share of flaws, Alex Garland and Pete Travis' 'Dredd' is a far, far, superior effort on 2000A.D.'s most famous character than the 1995 attempt with Silvester Stallone. It's more streamlined and simple and resists the urge to go big and try to include the more grandiose elements of the comic. This aids the film immensely, even if it also harms it in minor ways too. For instance Mega City One looks nothing like the sprawling urban nightmare from the page and more like a slightly futuristic Cape Town, where it was filmed. But allowances can be made for budget limitations and once we're inside the Citi-Block the outside doesn't matter. Judge's costumes are also compromised, mainly for comfort purposes, I suppose. That big eagle Dredd wears on his shoulder ain't gonna work in real life. But once again it matters little. Casting wise, Karl Urban is great as Joe Dredd (the helmet stays on) and Olivia Thirlby is an inspired choice as psychic mutant Cassandra Anderson. Lena Heady pops in from 'Game of Thrones' and is a suitably nasty bitch in the shape of Ma Ma, the ex-prostitute drug lord that's been flooding the streets with a new narcotic called Slo-Mo.
All in all, well worth seeking out even if you know nothing of the character from the comic. It's a stand alone film that doesn't need any real foreknowledge to be enjoyable. Unfortunately, though, 'Dredd' was released around the same time as the Indonesian film, 'The Raid', which also featured high rise shenanigans and possibly dented Dredd's box office. But, just like 2000A.D., it failed to take off in America and only did modest business there, probably because Judge Dredd has always been a very British view of an American dystopia. Which is a shame because a sequel would be very welcome.
8/10
3 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 10295
I haven't watched Monsters since it originally came out, but remember having similar feelings about it. IIRC Edwards didn't write a full script or a full treatment for the characters, instead providing an outline and key events/information to be delivered and leaving the rest of it to the actors to improvise on the day.
Everything I've read about The Creator tells me that at this point I don't want to watch future Gareth Edwards efforts unless a much better writer than he is has written the screenplay. Impressive visuals only carry a film so far.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Chris Weitz co-wrote The Creator but it seemed like more Edwards than anything (not that Weitz's CV is especially stellar). I liked The Creator for at least being a Hollywood movie whose view on AI wasn't of it being inscrutable, or malevolent but broadly friendly - and that coexistence was entirely possible.
As to Monsters, telling me it was improvised now makes a tonne of sense about why it all felt so loose and aimless. Cos it was! Neither actor had any sort of charisma or wit to pull it off, and like I said their status just make the story a bit accidentally obnoxious.
1 -
A rewatch The Devil's Advocate (1997) on Blu Ray. Firstly, I can't believe it's 26 years since this came out and I watched in for the first time in the cinema. At the time I thought what I assume most people thought - it's not bad, but Pacino is OTT and Keanu is well, Keanu. A rewatch was surprisingly rewarding, and far better than I had expected it to be. Pacino's is great in this - yes he's OTT but given the character what else would you expect? And surprisingly, Keanu is not as bad as I remembered him being. There's some dated scenes for sure (the special effects at the balcony water feature etc.), but the scene where Keanu is about to walk to Pacino on the empty streets of NY is pretty cool. It's easy to nit pick some of the flaws of this movie, but overall, it was a rather enjoyable 2+hours. It won't be another 26 years before I rewatch.
A solid 7/10, maybe even a 7.5!
0 -
Some great quotes in that film.
- John Milton : There's this beautiful girl just fu@ked me forty ways from Sunday... we're done, she's walking to the bathroom, she's trying to walk, she turns... she looks... it's me. Not the Trojan army just fucked her. Little ol' me. She has this look on her face like: "How the hell did that happen?"
- John Milton : I'm the hand up Mona Lisa's skirt. I'm a surprise, Kevin. They don't see me coming: that's what you're missing.
1 -
Meant to put this in my earlier post on The Devil’s Advocate but forgot - there’s a scene where Keanu visits a wealthy property developer in his home…..and guess whose apartment they shoot it in? Donald Trump’s - I know this as I’ve seen it previously, it is incredibly garish, pretty much everything is gold. I wonder how deliberate that location selection was?
Post edited by ButtersSuki on0 -
Just watched Champions with Woody Harrelson, a warm good feeling film, not the usual Farrelly funny but has some funny moments and a cast that works well together
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Ran (1985)
Kurosawa dipped into Shakespeare once more with King Lear acting as the primary inspiration this time. And while I've warmed to this the more I've thought about it after the fact, just as a story-driven experience I'd rate this below how Throne of Blood or The Bad Sleep Well managed with their own interpretations of the Bard. It was another one of those slightly intangible responses where all the ingredients seemed to be there - and on an intellectual level I fully engaged with the film as a true technical marvel - but just something about the emotionality of it all left me indifferent. Maybe I should blame Shakespeare - not Kurosawa - cos if the structure of the story had flaws you could arguably put them at the feet of the playwright and not the director.
Regardless of my own emotional response to the story, this was one of Kurosawa's more visually striking epics: one where the use of colour was so vibrant and singular, everything felt painterly without dipping into excess; these were deft strokes by a master late in career, most strikingly used during those spectacular battle scenes (just to pause for a second to pour one out for the death of the "cast of thousands" epics), or a pivotal moment near the end that was punctuated with the kind of bright arterial spray we'd later see over & over in Tarantino films. And often all that deep saturation sat against vast landscapes of dark desolation. The volcanic plains of Japan - coupled with the near permanent appearance of the Lear stand-in as a haunted & skeletal figure - made the whole affair seem like it took place on some plain of hell; doomed men grasping over for brief moments of power in a world of ruins and ash. Smouldering castles of former "glory" left to mock an addled king as he struggled to comprehend the familial chaos he caused.
But within all that sat a script full of coincidences, sudden heel turns and that kind of declarative or expositional dialogue that could only have come from the era of Shakespeare; and while something like Throne of Blood's inspiration had a focused escalation as power slowly unraveled, here the wandering of Lear-Ichimonji seemed to be part of the structure of the film itself, with a slight sense of aimlessness in the whole thing that just stopped me short from being fully gripped by the otherwise solid tale. This kind of story has been scripted better - even if few looked half as good.
0 -
There's problems with all of Kurosawa's movies and 'Ran' is no exception. But it has the greatest scene in any of his films that I've seen. That dialogueless battle scene in the middle of the film is a thing of absolute beauty. I've watched it a ton of times and I'm always impressed.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34185
Hmmm. Now that you mention it, perhaps that's why I found it became such a chore after a while: cos after that battle scene it was quite the drop in acceleration and pace when it just became 'aul Lear'san wandering about aimlessly for an hour.
What an absolute masterclass in organised chaos that battle scene was; as I said I miss the days when War Movies actually necessitated a shít tonne of extras (or the Yugoslav army if you preferred) to film the battles & do them justice.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Come and See
One of those films that I've seen talked about a lot and it caught my eye.
Its intense viewing, even for a war film. I'd describe it as a war film told using lots of tropes from horror films.
Right from the off, there's a tense atmosphere. Those planes unsettle me just seeing and hearing them. I won't be able to stand near powerlines any time soon. At first, it seems like a fairly straightforward war film but then it starts getting surreal and I started to wonder how much is intentional or from the main character's (Flyora) point of view. As a young teen, I imagine he's struggling to process all that's going on.
The tone gradually shifts once the camp is abandoned. There seems to be some disconnect between the sound and the images at times and Florya finds ways to distract himself.
It doesn't get shocking until about 50 minutes in (and its just one quick shot that sets up a whole scene) when they make the trip to the island. I thought it was brilliantly done: build up the tension then release it brutally. By the time the film gets to the village, it starts getting very rushed and traumatic.
There's also the fact that you don't see the bad guys close up until well into the second half of the film. It has more impact, like in a horror film when the murderer is finally seen.
Towards the end, the depiction of the villains does stray into almost cartoonish levels but unfortunately I've read enough about the Second World War to know that its not exaggeration: Its very effective at showing the utter depravity and destruction of war.
The sound is hypnotic and some of the visuals are incredible in it, like the bullets racing across the sky, the fog or the old man on the island. Also the amount of close-ups of Flyora looking straight into his eyes, especially one towards the end where he looks over his shoulder with disgust, making you, the viewer, feel guilty for watching all he has been through.
The character development is great. The main character goes from a boy playing soldiers, to a recruit dismissed by his comrades, to a scarred witness, to a hardened soldier who's still frightened underneath, he regresses to a child among men in the climax before toughening up again and ending as a committed member of the defence forces.
Its not at all for the faint-hearted and I wouldn't say I enjoyed its content but it is an incredible film and certainly a cinematic experience. It drew an awful lot of different emotions from me and the final scene and montage summarises a lot of the complexities of war. Highly recommended.
1
