Enter the Void

        **** out of ****

      If you thought that Gasper Noe’s “Irreversible” was an assault on the senses and the stomach, then you haven’t seen anything yet, or at least, you haven’t until you’ve seen his latest. “Enter the Void” is indeed a film, but it goes beyond the definition of one and delivers something along the lines of a drug gearing towards the cinematic. You absorb it, snort it, taste it, feel it; you can take Noe’s film in however you please. It’s not for a good amount of movie-goers, but those who feel at home with ambitious epics such as “2001: A Space Odyssey” should understand what kind of experience the director was trying to create here.

  When a film is released – a film unlike anything we have ever seen before – we tend to react in different ways. A lot of the time, ambitious films, such as this one, are dismissed as being pretentious. There are indeed limits to what you can do with a movie, but when you become apathetic of these limits, you can make something truly different. This film will be hated by many. I was on the edge about it myself for a lot of the time. And then, I recalled Stanley Kubrick’s “2001”, the film I mentioned above, and I recognized that film is a visual medium. New images can tell new stories; and we need that. If someone doesn’t just go completely nuts or over-the-top insane once in a while, then we’ll be bored. So instead of complaining about the repetition and sickly feeling that comes with “Enter the Void”, I think we should all consider cherishing its existence. It isn’t pleasant, but it is philosophical and consistently interesting; it might as well be Noe’s own little way of delivering a safe, two-hour-and-forty-minutes acid trip.

            Tokyo drug dealer Oscar (Nathanial Brown) tries to provide for his sister, Linda (Paz de la Huerta), a stripper, and himself. He doesn’t necessarily live a happy life; as he has his friends, fellow dealers, and also his enemies. One day, while delivering drugs to a costumer, he is set up; cheated, lied to. The costumer has turned Oscar in to the police by force, and once our hero realizes this, he bolts for the bathroom, where he fails to dispose of the drugs that he has on him, and as a result of not being punished for his dealings, is shot dead by the Tokyo authorities.

      After Oscar dies in his first life, his second existence begins. Most of the rest of the film follows the philosophy of life-after-death stated in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which Oscar was reading in the beginning of the film (one of his friends has lent it to him). As the book says, Oscar is given the ability to float over Tokyo. This allows him to look over the lives of others, and in particular, he chooses to look after his sister.

          It is implied that Oscar is searching for reincarnation. He probably is; even though Gaspar Noe himself claims that this is not a very spiritual film, in which reincarnation is not within the big picture. Noe actually claims that the entire film is a dream, but I believe that, by the way he ends it and the way he presents the film as a whole, we’re supposed to think for ourselves; as that is how the best of films work. We don’t need to be spoon-fed a directorial vision, do we? I would hope not.

       Oscar also recalls his troubled past, his pact with his sister (to never leave her side), the death of their parents, and the separation of the two siblings. Finally, we see how the two reunited once again. Then, the film begins to consistently loop; repeating itself as it will. I’m sure this is a part of the experience, and you know what; it means something, so it’s all good. Repetition is when a film or a story repeats itself to the point of annoyance. This is not your typical example when it comes to the definition of the word.

   “Enter the Void” is a beautiful mess; perhaps the most beautiful one ever made. It refuses to tell its story like most films do, and it refuses to conform stylistically as well. The story that it tells is an often tragic, often epic, always ambitious one. Some might not feel what I felt while watching it. There is an emotional investment to be made in the film, if you allow yourself to do so. However, I know others who believe this is a great film, so thank goodness for not being alone.

Part of the "DMT Sequence".

        But will the film find its audience? Someday, I believe it shall. The critics are divided enough for it to be a cult classic whenever it does get more recognition for its style and its uniqueness. I could indeed see it being a successful Midnight Movie, given how “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”, another “drug film”, was met with a similar fate. Noe’s film is highlighted by its visual flare; the city of Tokyo given a dark atmosphere, but also laden with bright, flashing lights. And the film CARES about such lights; so much, in fact, that you could even call the experience nauseating. Noe employs several interesting, different cinematic techniques to give his film its look; and he even uses some special effects, but he puts them to good use. In the end, the film is a perfect example of a cinematic acid trip. It’s an experience, not a movie; and it may be hard to swallow, but looking into it, I was fascinated.

               There are reasons why you might want to stay away from “Enter the Void”, but there are also reasons why I’d recommend at least checking it out. It blends elements from both a good trip and a bad trip for its hallucinogenic quality. I appreciate the film, and I believe it’s a modern masterpiece. However, if you are offended by graphic sexuality, drug use, profanity, or violence; then you may want to stay away. Also, if you’re an epileptic; this is the equivalent of hell. But you’ll know that from the opening credits sequence, which is one of the best I’ve seen. Gaspar Noe has finally made his masterpiece; found his film. And it’s pretty damn trippy.

Win Win

     *** out of ****
 

  “Win Win” is a nice, gentle drama; and I needed that on this particular movie night. It isn’t loud, it isn’t insulting, and it’s actually pretty good at what it does. I suppose I was drawn to it by its cast, but I got out of it much more than just a few performances. I actually invested quite a bit into it. Basically, it takes a perfectly normal story full of perfectly normal people, and engages us through both sympathy and the performances alone. There is a lot that I liked here; enough to make the film a winner. It isn’t great, but it’s better told than most dramas I’ve seen this year, and for that, I think it deserves an audience.

       The film is about a sport, and that sport is wrestling. I’m not big into sports in general, although when a film about them is well-made, and it had better be for me to enjoy it, I warm up to it pretty easily. Such examples include “Rocky” and “The Wrestler”; and un-examples include “The Blind Side”, AKA one of the most overrated “Best Picture Nominations” ever to exist, and pretty much all the “Rocky” sequels. However, “Win Win” has plenty going for it; one of those things its attitude alone, which is a better, more positive one than most PG/PG-13 films out on the market today. I bring the ol’ ratings up because this film is rated R, and while I’m at it, I might as well assure parents that this film is, by no means, inappropriate to show to anyone over at least eleven or twelve. It’s entertaining and well-written, with enough charm to help me forgive it of its little imperfections. I wouldn’t call it innocent, but it doesn’t earn its R-rating; which all-together proves once again that the MPAA cannot be trusted when it comes to deciding who gets to see what.

        Back to the film, the story revolves around attorney Mike (Paul Giamatti) who is trying so desperately to support his wife (Amy Ryan) and kids financially. To keep his personal-self on track, he’s a coach for a local High School wrestling team; one that is terribly unsuccessful, but for Mike to believe in the mere possibility of success is enough.

  However, Mike is allowed a second chance at success for his team when troubled teen Kyle (Alex Shaffer) shows up on one of his business client’s doorstep claiming to be the older man’s grandson. As it turns out, Kyle once wrestled, but had some trouble and was kicked off the team. Now, he too is given another shot; and he becomes the star athlete of Mike’s team. This makes both characters very happy; and soon, Mike’s family, who takes Kyle in, begins to take a liking to the young man as well. However, Kyle’s even-more-troubled junkie mother could be waiting just around the corner, and when she finally comes into the film’s narrative, things get complicated.

 But how could a film NOT be complicated? This is still a Hollywood film, right? Or at least I believe it is. Of course, it’s not the highest budget of high budget films, but it has a good cast, and that’s enough for me to believe that it was made by filmmakers with semi-large wallets. The writer and director was Tom McCarthy, who also wrote and directed “The Station Agent” as well as “The Visitor”. His films have been praised, and you know what; they deserve it. This is his third feature as a writer-and-director (he co-wrote the Pixar masterpiece “Up”, believe it or not), and it’s a surprisingly good third film. It’s easy to recommend; not a “must-see movie”, per se, but I enjoyed watching it, and the cast really makes it work. Giamatti brings his usual humor to the table, while Alex Shaffer impresses as a new-comer, mostly chosen for his wrestling over his acting; making it even more impressive that he actually works in his role.

        Jeffrey Tambor and Bobby Cannavale also co-star as fellow coaches of Giamatti’s character, and they are both delightful actors in funny, equally delightful roles. The film isn’t a performance piece centering on more than one performance, but I do believe that without the actors involved, it would not have been the same. I was never bored; never tired of the clichés that were admittedly present. The characters are likable, the tone is just right, and there’s never anyting truly “annoying” when it comes to the flaws. This is a smart drama driven by story, characters, and yes, even drama. It’s a rare film for sure. I didn’t love it; but I didn’t want to. To like a film such as this one might as well be enough. And if you go in, and happen to love it; then good for you, because I enjoyed myself too and probably as much as you did. I just find it as hard to love this film as I do to hate it. I mean, how can you hate a film that has a smile on its face pretty much throughout? The answer: you can’t. I can’t say that “Win Win” is incredibly deep, but at least it goes somewhere. And that was good enough for me.

Trust

      *** out of ****

       I’m usually against films as one-sided about a situation as “Trust”; a film that lacks as much depth as it already has. The film was directed by David Schwimmer, who is a regular on the television sitcom “Friends”, and went from that to his directorial debut, “Run Fat Boy Run”. With this film, he has made something different, and perhaps something better. But his first feature was a comedy, and “Trust” is a drama. I cannot compare the two without drawing a few blanks. However, this is a film that should put Schwimmer on the map as a talent, not so much for uniqueness in the way of directorial style, but more-so in the way of, say, storytelling. I don’t believe that “Trust” is perfect. But nor is it typical weekend entertainment, and in that sense, it’s better than it should be.

            The film begins by showing us an honest, happy American family. Will (Clive Owen) and Lynn (Catherine Keener) are the parents, and they have three children; one quite young, one heading off to college, and the most important one is Annie (Liana Liberato), who is going into High School. It doesn’t seem as if she is having much problems adapting to this environment; she even has a few friends. However, when her birthday comes up and dad gives her a new computer, life gets a whole lot worse.

        Annie starts an on-going Internet chat with a user who calls himself Charlie. He claims to be a young man, somewhat accomplished in life with sports and school, and he clearly takes a liking to Annie. They can talk, virtually, for hours. Of course, they’ve never met; but they can still send pictures. Annie has no objection to these things; she wants Charlie, and he wants her. They agree to meet one day in the mall, and this is when Annie learns a deadly secret about Charlie; that he is not who he claims to be.

       In an instant, Charlie, who is really a thirty year old man, seduces Annie to coming back with him to a motel, where he rapes her. For the better or for the worse, we don’t see the crime being committed; but the good thing about the film is that in spite of this, it doesn’t go soft on its subjects. Mom and Dad find out, deal with the grief, and hire a therapist to try to talk some sense into their daughter, who still thinks that Charlie is a good man, in spite of his pedophilia.

         The film takes us through all these big reveals and realizations as if it were a process; and in some ways, it is. The rape isn’t the worst of the film’s events; the aftermath may be even worse. You watch the film go on, and see the characters continue to break, and you can’t enjoy it; but that’s not the point. “Trust” is deep and intriguing; true, realistic, and dramatic. It was thought-provoking, interesting, and I’d definitely recommend it to those who are adventurous. The film speaks the truth; these things do happen, every day, and they go unnoticed most of the time. The film allows us to witness such horror; and deal with it.

       Some might love it and some might hate it. I must admit, it does have one very fatal flaw; I found it to be very melodramatic and forced in some scenes. It was daring, but not as daring as it (probably) could have been. But then again, it doesn’t need to sacrifice its R-rating for anything; nor does it need to hide what it’s all about. I took a step back and saw what Schwimmer was trying to do, and it was something good. There was some pretty solid direction going on here, although nothing too stylish or distinctive, but what the hell; it worked. There are also some fantastic performances from Owen and Keener, and especially Liberato as a normal, vulnerable, confused teenage girl.

     I think we’ve all met characters like the ones here; and that’s part of the charm, if you could call it that. I have seen bad dramas, and I have seen taut ones, such as this one. For what it was, I accepted it, and looked at it in different ways. It doesn’t go very deep into the mind of its villainous pedophile (Charlie), but I didn’t expect such an approach either. However, such thoughts might have made it great. Oh, well; I guess I’ll just have to take it as it is. And so should you. For no matter how much you try to deny it, “Trust” is full of facts and deception. I liked the film, and admired it greatly; I just wish I had felt a bit more. But you can’t always get what you want, and hey; I can’t complain. “Trust” gave me what I wanted; a solid film. That is what it is, and that is why it is recommended; end of story.

Pulse (2006)

   * out of ****

      “Pulse”, also known as “Kairo”, was a nice, creepy Japanese horror film that made its U.S. debut in 2005 and has since garnered somewhat of a cult following. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a good movie, and it got some solid praise, but the fans love it the most and boy do they know it. I also assume that they will be the first out of many to be pissed off when it comes to the film’s American remake, which is about as bad as every other recent J-horror remake. It has no soul, no scares, no atmosphere, with characters and dialogue written as if they were spewed right out of The Asylum; and I’ll assume you know who I’m talking about. This film is very, very bad.

      So bad that, in fact, I could barely stand it. While I happily floated in the intelligent, suspenseful depths of the original “Pulse”, this remake is too stupid to really enjoy. It takes a good premise – the one from the original – but this time, it adds in characters as thin as paper, and scares that are nothing short of wit-less. The problem is that there are many horror movie clichés, and well-made genre pictures can work their way around them, but this is a great example of a movie that is not well-made, and therefore, it cannot achieve any of what it intends to.

        But then again, I suppose it might entertain the stupid teenagers that think they understand the genre, and therefore go to see the film because they think it’s going to be loaded with insanely creepy CGI visuals, and they would be right. Now, the story involves, if you recall, a virus spread through electronic devices and the internet. It allows ghosts, ghouls, SPIRITS, if you may, access to the world of the living. It is there that they feed off our very souls, hoping to cast the entire Earth in their own dark shadow.

   But we must have characters; oh yes, we must. Mattie (Kristen Bell) is just one, out of far too many (of these “characters”). She is a student, studying to be, if I remember, a…shrink? Yeah, I think that was it. We learn that Mattie’s boyfriend has killed himself for whatever reason, although that reason (oh yes, that reason) shall be revealed later in the film, and I would spoil it for you, but that would go “against the rules”. Anyways, regarding the character of the boyfriend, he is first seen wandering a dark library (horrible idea, but just in my opinion, you know) in the film’s opening scenes, and then, out of the blue (or out of the darkness, whichever you prefer), he is assaulted by a library-dwelling ghostie that pops out at him and yells “boo!”

        It would appear that he was down with some sort of sickness, and this is precisely why he might have hung himself by a computer cable. However, as these movies go, this just wasn’t the END of these suicides; it becomes an every-day thing, and a threat to the characters and their mental states. This is where we’re supposed to find out that the ghosts have some sort of evil scheme planned out; and I already mentioned what it was.

      The idea that the original “Pulse” brought to the cinematic screen was a good one. I admire how the Japanese value technology and intend their horror films, involving technologies, to be, should I say, cautionary tales? If not, then it’s just going to show how easily a ghost can find its way from its world to ours with just the click of a button. One of the film’s gimmicks is the quote that the ghosts send to the people via computer: Do you want to see a ghost? It’s a dumb gimmick, really, it is; but it got the attention of some, and hey; that works for the film’s benefit, doesn’t it?

     The actors are emotionless. The tension is frightless. The story is senseless. What more can I tell you? “Pulse”, the remake, is dull, derivative, and stupid enough for one to despise every moment within it. It does, like most remakes, make me want to revisit the original; and that is something that I might do very soon. But for now, I’d see it; and I’d avoid this lame, repulsive, intellectually insulting piece of trash. Take my word for it; it’s that bad.

Ironclad

   ** out of ****

     The expected historical inaccuracies aside, most medieval films tend to be, in my opinion, just plain boring. It’s as if nobody wants to come in and spice up the genre a bit by adding in CHARACTERS or an engaging PLOT, or maybe even stunning CINEMATOGRAPHY. By all means, I know it’s the filmmaker’s job to make their film look as grim as possible, but it is not, however, their duty to script the production in such a ludicrous and unappealing matter.

       So now we’ve got a new medieval flick called “Ironclad”, which has a promising cast, premise, and time period to spare; and alas, it’s not much different than the others of its kind, wasting potential at every chance it gets, and boring us to tears just as often. I mean, the thing is two hours long; at least give us something to be interested in. There was no reason for me to engage, while at the same time, there was nothing for me to just despise. This is so maddening that I can’t be in favor of the film, but by no means can I be against it either. Of course, it may just be my personal disappointment with most films set in this era that led me to dislike the newest entry, but then again, from the looks of the general critical consensus, I am not alone; and I’m proud of that.

      King John (Paul Giamatti) breaks his word of peace and causes both uproar and rebellion amongst his former followers and enemies. The barons who basically forced the King into signing a sort of peace treaty, the Magna Carta, get their just desserts when the King and his men rebel and brutally slaughter all who humiliated the great man.

       The film chronicles a group of warriors, led by Albany (Brian Cox), whom attempt to defend their castle against the King and his men. They fight a good battle, but if you know how the real-life events ended, then you (might) know how the film does too.

 But then again, maybe not; given how there are some serious historical inaccuracies going on here. I’m fine with these inaccuracies at times, but sometimes they’re just plain distracting, especially when the film tries to be more than it actually is. Of course, King John won the battle in reality and took siege of the castle; while in the film, let’s just say, things end a little differently.

  However, the real problem I had with “Ironclad” was the way it markets and stylizes itself. While it is indeed a historical film, it’s crafted like a Lucio Fulci film; soaked in bloodshed, gore, and stuff for those who appreciate the combination of the two. So basically, it’s a gore flick; and a decent one, which is saying more than it should, considering I can’t really call the film “stupid” can I? It was made for a certain audience, one that could forgive it of its little flaws, and I wasn’t in there with those people, which is a shame. It was hard to enjoy the film; it had little going for it. The characters were weak, and the story was told in a boring, convoluted way. The film looks nice, with some dazzling cinematography, but the film is more interested in its bloody battles than in its characters, which is a shame, because there was a chance – oh, there was a chance – that I may have liked the film if it had some depth. Otherwise, my final complaint is that Giamatti isn’t well-used as his character; one which he was never meant to portray. I like Giamatti when he can be cynical and over-the-top, and sometimes lovable, rather than restrained. And there’s nothing worse than an unrestrained actor in a restrained role; found within an unrestrained movie, now is there?