Karate Kid pt II: sequel that kicks....summer 86!

Ah.....the summer of 84......I remember it very fondly for one particular reason. My mother took me to see "The Karate Kid" at the local twin cinemas. I was instantly smitten with the characters of Miyagi-san and Daniel-san.....come on......who wouldn't want to learn the secrets of Miyagi-do karate, smite the evil bully at the tournament, and go home with the beautiful girl? The crane kick in the end may be a little silly now a days...but if you tell me you didn't get chills the first time you saw it......I say you are a LIAR!!! Truth be told.....this film did not need a sequel, but Hollywood smelled the franchise opportunity and a couple of years later we had part II.

John Avildsen (of Rocky fame) returns to direct as does Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita. Instead of rehashing the plot of the first installment, (a mistake they made for the shit-tacular part III)
they wisely built upon the surrogate father son relationship established with Daniel and Miyagi. LaRusso's story took center stage earlier......but here he is just offering support to his best friend and teacher as they travel to Okinawa (filmed in Oahu Hawaii) to deal with a death in the Miyagi family, lost love, and a 45 year old feud between former best friends that has only grown more venomous over time.

Culture is a key force of this film as Daniel-san must cope with being in an unfamiliar land away from the burbs of L.A. He does not understand the Okinawan concept of honor or the consequences of insulting it........but quickly gets a crash course after meeting Chozen. You see....the top Karate student in Okinawa (played by the ever smiling Yuji Okumoto) is a bully who might beat him up.....but might also kill him if provoked to that point. Like in "Rocky" you know there's going to be a fight in the end and KKII constantly teases you with that promise.
When it happens it's a duel to the death.......and you'd never guess that Daniel-san pulls a new Miyagi technique out of his ass when the crane fails him.

"Live or die man!!????"

An exotic location........exotic love interest (the beautiful Tamlyn Tomita) and fantastic villains (props to Danny Kamekona as gravelly voiced Sato) make KKII a very worthy follow up to a beloved film. It's not better.........but it is great none the less. Too bad they didn't leave well enough alone and sweep the leg of the guy who asked "now how about part III?"

Tron Legacy Comic-Con '09 Trailer, and My Shat Pants.

Tron.

First off, here's the trailer for the original. I'm just going to take one from YouTube since this isn't where I want to spend the bulk of my time with this post. Scoff all you want, but I still love the effects and the whole look of the film. It's trippy and bizarre, and there's really nothing else like it.





If you were born in the 90's, I could possibly forgive you for never seeing the original. But if you're around 20 or so and you still haven't seen it, well....I guess I don't like you very much. Sorry.

This year's San Diego Comic-Con made my night a little more special; the long-awaited sequel to the 1982 sci-fi masterpiece(You say it's dated? I don't like you either) is shortly on its way, and we have the concept teaser trailer for your viewing pleasure. Behold:

Kick ass, I know.

I feel I have to apologize for the image quality. Disney is mother-and-cub-like protective of IP, and it's hard as hell to get HD video of this trailer without being a major website. But I think it does the job as it is, and also you should stop complaining.

Thank You, Project Greenlight - Feast II: Sloppy Seconds (2008)

Holy shit, this was a fun one. I'm not even sure where to start. If you've seen the original Feast, you'll be happy to know that some of the characters return, as the film opens shortly after the first one ended. The incidentals in the set-up don't really need to be explained. It's about a group of people surrounded by monsters, just trying to survive. The characters are introduced, blood starts flying, and my giddy laughter begins shortly thereafter. Make no mistake, this movie is a bloody, shitty mess. It's no Cannibal Holocaust, but what really is? Instead, Feast II is way, way, way over-the-top with its gore. You won't ever find yourself believing what you're seeing, but some of the shit that happens is hilariously gross. Honestly, I wouldn't have it any other way.




A lot of times in horror movies, there's the token asshole. But in Feast II, pretty much everyone is an asshole, so it's more like a totem pole of douchery. At some point, each character vies for the top spot on the pole, and that's really what this movie is about. The monsters themselves look pretty stupid, really. They all look like a bunch of dudes in suits, so if you're hoping for some bad-ass practical monster effects, you'll be leaving disappointed. There's one prolonged scene of dissection and puking with a gigantic eyeball inside a stomach which was fucking awesome, but other than that, the creature effects weren't too great. But again, as in the original, Feast II is all about the characters and what kind of ridiculously fucked up situations they can be put in. And believe me, as far as fucked up situations go, there are some doosies to behold here. Imagine a midget wrestler and a catapault. I'll say no more.




Another thing I absolutely love about this series is its willingness to be totally self-aware. For instance, one of the greatest examples of intentional plot contrivances is as follows: the aforementioned midget wrestler and his brother(also a midget wrestler) opened up the only key-making business in the town. So, naturally, once the plot gets going, everyone decides they need to get into the jail. If you didn't already know, jails are always the safest place to be in a horror movie. If you're ever being hunted by super-horny monstrosities with genitalia the size of sausage links(the big ones), you'll thank me. Anyways, the group's thought process leads to the midget brothers producing a key to open the front door of the police station. Oh, I almost forgot to mention the meth-addict hobo who's been holed-up in the locked-down station by himself since just about the beginning of the film. Right on.

No, it's ok, really. This is why most infant actors are twins.

But enough about meth-addicted hobos. Here's what you really want to know: "Is there any face-fucking?" Sadly, no, but a monster does fuck a cat, so you at least have that much. There was one instance where I really hoped one of the girls was going to get the super sausage, but alas, it didn't work out. I think they saved it for the 3rd movie, which is already out on DVD. Speaking of Feast III, I have to be honest by saying I absolutely have to see it. Before I watched Feast II, I vowed that I wouldn't watch the 3rd one, because it came out only 4 months after this one. Ordinarily I'd stick to my word, but I just can't imagine how John Gulager could up the ridiculousness ante without making it suck a lot of ass. If he pulls it off, I will be in a great amount of debt to him. In any event, lightning struck twice with the Feast series, and while it's not one of those old-fashioned "scary" horror movies, it offers a veritable cornucopia of gore, laughs and gross-outs. What more do you want from a B-movie horror flick? Nothing, that's what.

Oh, yea. Hot, naked biker chicks. They're in here, too.

Over the River and Into Deep Shit - Grimm (2003)

All I knew about Grimm was that it was an "absurdist, darkly comic" re-imagining of Hansel and Gretel. But now, I can tell you that it's about two siblings, Jacob and Marie, who are abandoned by their parents in the woods. Their lovely patriarch leaves them with nothing except a note telling them to hike it all the way to Spain to live with their uncle. For the 5 minutes their parents are in the film, it's obvious they're a couple of asses. My one question, however, is why two 20-somethings are still living with their parents in the middle of nowhere, especially since they're hated by them. Maybe it's because they're Dutch. Probably not, but who knows.

No, you don't have any idea what happens next. Trust me.

This is one of those times when not knowing anything about a film really pays off. The story starts off simply, but takes turns you'd never expect. Bizarrely enough, this is also my only gripe with Grimm, and it's because a major plot point sort of just....happens. There's no explanation that I can find, and it's actually more strange than annoying since it's so glaring that I feel like I missed something. Maybe I did. For a reason my brain can't figure out, after Jacob and Marie find their way to Spain, Marie disappears when Jacob goes to get some food. He comes back to a note with an address written on it, so he heads off to find Marie. When he gets to the address, he finds Marie is "married" to some Spanish dude who lives in a very, very nice villa. And I only know that because he calls Marie his wife. What the fuck? Did I pass out with my drool-encrusted mouth agape for half an hour? I'm pretty sure I didn't, but one can never be sure of such a thing.

There's definitely some interesting morality going on here, though. Jacob and Marie don't have too big a problem killing, even if it is by accident. Off the top of my head, I put their body count at 4, if you don't include animals. Grimm isn't a violent or bloody film, by any means, and I'm glad it was done the way it was. It alternates between being mildly amusing, deadly serious, oddly sweet and laugh-out-loud funny. And maybe it's just me, but there were a few scenes where....well, I don't do that shit with my sister. Nothing gross takes place - but again, maybe it's because they're Dutch(I'm not picking on you guys, by the way) - but there might be some kind of cultural barrier I'm not aware of when it comes to siblings. To be vague, there are just some embraces and looks that go on for a little longer than they would have if I was Jacob. But hey, Jacob and Marie could be one of those uber-close brother-sister types that have nothing twisted going on inside their heads. I still wouldn't take a bath with my sister.

Anyways, I think we should move on. I haven't seen anything else by the writer and director, Alex van Warmerdam, but I'm going to give the rest of his catalogue a look-see at some point. The way he merged comedy and drama was impressive, and he made the most out of a simple premise. The two leads were great as well, and they really looked and behaved like close family(too close? Wait, we're past that). I should also mention how good the music was. It took me by surprise, but then again, I didn't even know the film took place in modern times. That might have clued me in. Another interesting aspect was that the leads had to speak both Dutch and Spanish, and they did so without sounding out of place or strained. It seemed natural to someone who speaks neither language, so I guess you'll have to take that observation for what it is. All I know for sure is that your average American has enough trouble speaking and writing English, so Spanish is usually out of the question. And Dutch? Good luck with that.

If only every stranger I met was this charitable...

I went into Grimm looking for a dark fairy tale. I'd say I got what I wanted, but not in the form I expected. I don't know much about the original save for the whole bread crumb thing, but van Warmerdam did an excellent job of twisting his own unique perspective and imagination around an already-beloved story. I'm not going to post the trailer since it shows some things I don't want you to see until you sit down and watch whole film. You'll have to find it for yourself if you simply don't have any self-control, but I'd recommend finding the DVD instead.

New JeeJa Yanin trailer - Raging Phoenix

For those of you who don't know the name JeeJa Yanin, she's the star of the film right below this post. Chocolate was her film debut, and Raging Phoenix is apparently her follow-up to that great bit of bad-assery. So brace yourselves for some more knee-to-face-then-face-into-wooden-crate-then-pass-out happening sometime this year.

Chocolate (2008) AKA Rain Chan

If Barry Levinson's "Rain Man" had a massive orgy of unprotected sex with the entire Jackie Chan film library..........9 months later.........you would get "Chocolate." It breaks down like this......Thai gangster Zin falls for Yakuza member Masashi, but Zin is already spoken for by gang overlord #8. #8 is pissed when he discovers the affair..... treats Zin like #2. then promptly shoots off his own toe because that's what Thai gangsters do when they're mad. Fearing for her life, Zin tells Masashi to go back to Japan and that they are never to see each other again lest they incur the wrath of #8 and his transexual minions. Fair enough, but I'm not really sure why Masashi couldn't just use his mob influence to get both of them out of the country. Maybe Yakuza and Thai are not supposed to mix it up due to some traditional bullshit. It doesn't matter.........the important thing is that Masashi leaves Thailand and unknowingly........a pregnant Zin.

Zin gives birth to Zen. Zen is an autistic savant, only instead of being good with complex mathematics, she can watch and replicate (with deadly efficiency) the movements of martial artists she sees in movies and training next door at a kick boxing school. This comes in handy after Zin is stricken with cancer and cannot afford her treatments. When Zen's adopted brother Moom comes across a list of people who owe Zin gangster backpay, they visit each one to get them to pay up.....or get beat up. It's not too bad a story as far as this kind of crap goes, but once Zen unleashes her fury on the bad guys, you will be treated to a display of fight choreography and stuntwork that rivals any American action film. That's really no surprise because these are the same filmmakers and stunt teams that vaulted Tony Jaa to stardom in "Ong Bak." If you have seen that flick, you know that this team does stuff on film that is TRULY death defying and the climactic duel with #8 does not disappoint.

Bodies are fighting and dropping from several stories, sliding under tables, and contorting into positions that would give a yoga master fits. I'd be curious to find out how many people were severely injured during the making of "Chocolate." They make all the chaos look easy and I'm sure it's anything but. Why no American big budget or independent studio has attempted to make an action movie like this baffles me. I guess we can't have Brad Pitt jumping off a building for insurance purposes, but isn't there anybody on our home soil with a little parkour, or stuntman ability to at least compete and put on a good show for us homers???? For now I guess we'll just have to admire the amazing efforts from afar.

Overall a dizzying, dazzling, beat em up that gets my highest recommend. The only low mark is the title. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but I could never figure out why the hell the movie is called "Chocolate." No matter......I'll gladly have another piece.

Hey, it was the '70s - Saturn 3 (1980)

Well, Saturn 3 might have been released in 1980, but it was definitely filmed in the '70s. The movie mostly takes place inside a space station on Saturn that, given the opportunity, Willy Wonka would have probably made an exact replica of. At times, it's pretty psychedelic, man. But there's also an interesting parallel between this movie and Moon; intrusion upon isolation takes place in both films. The difference between them is that in Saturn 3, the intrusion is wholly unwanted. I think I'll make this review my tribute to Farrah Fawcett, since her death was upstaged by Hurricane Michael. I hope you enjoy it, dear Farrah.

Besides Fawcett, Saturn 3 also boasts a cast featuring Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel, which, obviously, only helps the film. Everyone does a great job. But if I were to take away one thing from this film, it would be the realization that some good ideas were abound, but everything was stuck firmly in the decade it was made. The music was overbearing, some of the plot points were contrived, and a crucial scene towards the end made shit for sense. All that being said, I still enjoyed my time with the film, and I'd rank it as average among its peers. Something interesting to note, however, is some similarities to later films. Harvey Keitel has an implant, or port, if you will, in the back of his head that allows him to download information directly from his brain. He also walks around with blue pills, espousing their awesomeness. Hmm, what does that remind you of? And towards the end of the film, there's a definite Terminator-esque chase scene. Seeing that Saturn 3 pre-dates both of those films, I'll let you decide about that what you will.

The story goes something like this: a space station on Saturn has been behind on its quota of whatever the hell its doing, so the powers that be have sent aid in the form of Harvey Keitel in order to increase the station's output. Within the first 10 minutes, however, Keitel is made out to be some kind of bad guy. Why, I'm not sure. He's shown blatently killing a fellow astronaut, and then he seemingly takes his place aboard the vessel heading for Saturn. I never understood why that happened, or who exactly Keitel was supposed to be. Obviously, he wasn't the intended help for Douglas and Fawcett, but his real identity is never made clear. Whatever, I guess. So he arrives on the space station and begins to build a robot to help Douglas and Fawcett around the station. Almost immediately, the robot starts showing signs of independant, sentient behavior. He forcefully picks up Fawcett and shows resilience by not conforming to everything Keitel orders of him. I think you know where the story is heading at this point.

Yep. The robot and Harvey Keitel merge and form a super-sentient mix of human and artificial intelligence. How or why this happens is left up to interpretation. Either that, or they were too lazy to actually come up with an answer. Be that as it may, the robot starts attacking Douglas and Fawcett, and it's up to them to make an escape or die trying. Telling you all this about the robot might be considered a spoiler, but I really don't think Saturn 3 was built around narrative suspense. It's more of a pulpy brand of sci-fi with some nifty ideas about space exploration that never get developed at all. But hey, Farrah dons her birthday suit, so it's not all downhill.

The overall result is pretty much what I would expect from the director of Singin' in the Rain, Charade and Bedazzled. Sci-fi is not Stanley Donen's calling, and as such, it suffers from a cardinal sin for movies in this particular genre: dating itself. For the most part, the special effects are fine, but it's not a film about special effects. The whole story takes place in a static environment, and the setting is firmly rooted in the decade it was made. And while it's true that other films by, say, Robert Wise may also look a bit dated now, Saturn 3 doesn't really have any redeeming qualities that transcends its own making. But even after beguiling it that much, it still did its job. It never bored me. So take that statement as you will; Saturn 3 won't go down, in my mind, as a Sci-Fi classic, but it held my attention(laughter and all) throughout. There's certainly worse I could do with an hour-and-a-half of my time.

There is an outfit early on in this trailer that Farrah Fawcett absolutely NEVER wears during the actual movie. I think you'll know which one I'm talking about.

Going Down the Rabbit Hole - Moon (2009)

Isolation and fear, when used correctly, can create some of the most haunting scenarios ever put to film. John Carpenter's The Thing, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Steven Soderbergh's Solaris(it's more centered around human drama than Tarkovski's version), and even Barry Levinson's Sphere all come to mind. When there's nowhere to run to, what are you going to do? Moon touches on this theme; Sam Bell(Sam Rockwell) is a 1-man crew scheduled to run an energy mining operation on the moon for 3 years. I'd call that sufficiently isolated, which is the commonality Moon shares with The Thing and The Shining. But where it differs is in the area of fear. The kind of fear on display here is partly that of the unknown, and partly that of yourself. How can you trust your own mind for a grossly extended period of time in a foreign and desolate landscape? I think these are the central themes at the beginning of the film, and they expand from there. To talk more in-depth about plot points would be criminal for this kind of story, so vagaries are all you're going to get.


This is also, hands-down, Sam Rockwell's best performance. He had some of the same stunned desperation in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, but that level is kept throughout all 97 minutes of Moon. Nothing really goes right for Sam the whole time we're watching him, and some of that fear I talked about earlier lies in the fact that nothing good can ultimately come of the situation he's in. Something might be able to be salvaged, but that's about it. Add to his isolation a wife and newborn daughter back on Earth and one could understand how difficult a mission like Sam's would be to handle. The scope and meaning of Sam's predicament drastically changes at a certain point in the film, but alas, as it usually goes with me, that's all I can say. I can't break my own spoiler law, for fear of self-punishment.

Nobody to play with.

So what else can I talk about, then? Location is everything, and much like the atmosphere in The Thing, it's a character in-and-of itself in Moon. It acts as a constant, lifeless enemy, bearing down on Sam until his contract is up, which is 2 weeks away when the film opens. Apparently, a lot of the outside shots were done with models, but I had no clue. The only thing I took away from his surroundings was a striking, bleak loneliness. You might say to yourself, "Just wait out the 2 weeks; if I had to, I could do it." Maybe, but when your mind goes, it could be 2 minutes and it wouldn't make any difference. Regardless, the situation changes when an outside force is made known to Sam after he accidentally crashes his rover into a piece of machinery. From that point on, the story goes off in a different direction, and all I can say is that the door is opened for a whole range of emotions and thoughts you probably weren't expecting.

Cool for a vacation. Not for 3 years.

The short version: I love the story. An original, dark, realistic tale of hard Sci-Fi doesn't come around very often these days, and the way it was handled places Duncan Jones on my list of directors to watch for. He nailed everything possible with Moon, and it's one of those films that gets better with every successive viewing. I've only seen it once, but I know that I'll learn and uncover things I didn't notice before every time I watch it. That's the mark of a great storyteller, and I hope he takes the genre forward by reigning it back in. By that, I mean making Sci-Fi like it used to be. Robert Wise, Stanley Kubrick, Byron Haskin, and hell, even George Lucas before he became an ass all created great works. Science Fiction was all about the people, and it used the genre as a backdrop. Jones understands this, and it's why Moon deserves every praise I give it.

Not Fit For Sci-Fi - Immortal (2004)

I feel I have to clarify my title right away: I don't mean sci-fi the genre; I mean Sci-Fi the cable channel. There's a big difference between this movie and the kind of third-rate crap that channel pumps out. How many movies about Megalodons do we need? How 'bout that barn burner The Poseidon Adventure starring Rutger Hauer, Adam Baldwin and Steve Guttenberg? See, that's exactly what Immortal is not. It's obviously low-budget, but I think the filmmakers used what they had available to them as best they could, and the final product is pretty damn cool. To me, that's a defining characteristic of any good sci-fi film: coolness. Of course, I'm not saying that style trumps all. Not by a long shot. But for this genre, it goes a long way to bridge any gap that may arise between a film's merits and its shortcomings. That may sound a bit weird, and I'll elaborate further. But in a nutshell, Immortal is worth looking at for its unique visual design and cool characters, even if the story doesn't do everything it's supposed to.

In fact, I'll get the story out of the way first. It's not that great. The potential was there, but for whatever reason(I have my guesses: budget and time constraints), its lack of cohesion is painfully obvious. The film centers around the Egyptian god Horus and his human host, played by Thomas Kretschmann. For an unknown reason, Horus is sentenced to death by the rest of the gods, and he has a week to do whatever he wants, I guess. It's not clear why the gods would let a death row inmate roam around freely, but, as I said, the story isn't this film's strong point. So Horus inhabits a human body and bends the host to his will. Again, for some reason, Horus wants to find a certain girl. The only reason I can surmise after watching it was that Horus just wanted to fuck. Alright, but why her? It doesn't make a lot of sense, honestly. Another thing I should mention - and this really only matters in terms of coolness - but in the future, society is mixed with genetically engineered humans and aliens. Like I said, though, not a whole hell of a lot is explained, so forgive me if I'm a little sparse on the details. About ten seconds of it reminded me of Blade Runner. Anyways, some shit happens and then Horus goes back to face his sentencing. Sorry, I won't spoil any more of the movie.

Here, you see the Egyptian god, Horus, come through with his female captive/lover, and Horus' human host, Nikopol.

But who plays Horus, you ask? Well, cgi does. That's the thing about Immortal. It's a mix between live-action and full cgi. For example, in one scene you'll be watching two actual people acting in a real environment, and in the next scene, the environment and everyone in it is entirely cgi. Then the film will mix the two together. Sometimes you can't tell the difference(the fully cgi bartender looks awesome), but other times it's a little jarring when the effects don't quite convince the way they should. Sometimes it looks great, but then the animations and overall quality of a lot of the humanoid character models are noticeably low-budget. But overall, I think it gives off a really interesting and futuristic vibe, which is obviously crutial for a sci-fi movie set in the future.

Another aspect of Immortal that I loved were the characters. Almost every single one was interesting to look at, even if their motivations or goals weren't very clear. The best character would have to be a genetically engineered shark who basically works as a bounty hunter for the government. His name is.........wait for it............Hammerhead. I'll let you guess his species of shark. But he really is a bad-ass character, if under-used. For some reason, Hammerhead consists of fully practical effects, while Horus is cgi. Both are central to the story, which, again, makes the effects a mixed bag. The girl Horus lusts after is another main character, and she's played by an actual woman(Linda Hardy). She's not human, and as far as the doctor who examines her can determine, her organs place her at about 3 months old. But she's a grown woman, so the story tries to add depth to her character by using her mysterious past as a part of the narrative. The problem, again, centers around me not knowing what the fuck was going on.

Hammerhead. Fucking cool.

I will say that from scene-to-scene, I understood what was happening. The problem was with the overall cohesion of the narrative. The over-arching story made absolutely no sense. Apparently, in the near future there is an Egyptian pyramid free-floating in the sky, and no-one knows why. They try to investigate for a moment, but nothing really comes of it, and its presence remains a mystery. But that mystery also extends to the entire point of the film. The ending, just like the rest of it, is bizarre and not explained. No, I'm still not going to go into a lot of detail, because I do think Immortal is worth at least a rental. I hate this cliche, but it's really not for everyone. If you want to see across-the-board amazing effects, this won't do the job. If you want a satisfying narrative, this won't do the job. But if you want an original take on traditional myths and a cool cast of characters, Immortal is my prescription to your pain.

Oh, and if you're interested in a little bit of movie trivia, the director of Immortal, Enki Bilal, was a demon illustrator on the 1983 Michael Mann movie, The Keep. We've talked about this movie before, so I just thought I'd throw that out there for the more discerning readers. As for Immortal, I'd give it a try, if only to see an experiment that almost fired on all cylinders, but a couple of them blew out before they were supposed to. But that's okay to me. In this case, it was the thought that counted.

The Ending That Wasn't There - Vinyan (2008)

I really hate when this happens. Vinyan runs 96 minutes, and 90 minutes of it are absolutely fantastic. Then the last 6 minutes tanks the whole thing. Not since High Tension have I been so pissed at a movie's ending. It's almost like the director knew he was going to piss everyone off, and reveled in it. And coming from Fabrice Du Welz, the helmer of Calvaire, Vinyan is a dissapointment. Calvaire is a bizarre, fucked up French horror film that really doesn't pull any punches. And 99% of the time, Vinyan doesn't, either. But that last 1% is a bitch.

The story is about a couple who lost their child in the tsunami of '04, I believe. It's been 6 months since it happened, and they're still coping with the loss. By chance, Jeanne(Emmanuelle Beart) sees a video about impoverished children, and she thinks she sees her son amongst them. So she and her husband, Paul(Rufus Sewell), set out to see if their son is alive. The tricky part is where they think he is - in Burma. So they pay a shady character to take them to Burma, and things happen from there on.


The first thing I want to talk about is the acting. Sewell is great, and I really wish he would do more films of substance, or at least of a higher profile. I just want to see him more often, because I think he's a really good actor. Regardless, he pulls off a nuanced, realistic performance that's matched by Beart every step of the way. These are real people in real situations, and melodrama or over-acting never rears its ugly head.

But this fact only makes me more angry, because I think a good ending was very possible, but the scriptwriter or whoever decided to confuse and annoy the audience by inserting an ending that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can't give any specifics, obviously, but rest assured your rage will boil over once this movie is over.


It's a damn shame, really, because like I said, the rest of Vinyan is top-notch. It's a very atmospheric film, and it keeps a consistent mood of dread and uncertainty throughout. It's firmly set in reality, and Sewell and Beart sell the shit out of it. Their emotions ring true in every sense, and there's nothing to do but take the journey with them. But again, the ending tanks it. For every scene of parental pain and anguish, the last few minutes add a lifetime of bullshit and contrived circumstance. Believe me, I don't want this to be reality, but it is. I so loved this film, but when everything is said and done, Fabrice really let me down.

I guess it's up to you whether or not 99% of a great film is better than nothing. For me, there's nothing worse than a sour-tasting ending, for the obvious reason. It's the last thing you see; if it sucks, it diminishes the whole experience. Such is the ending of Vinyan, and i'll forever weep for what could have been. Oh well, I guess. Nothing I've said up to this point can diminish how good most of the film was, so I guess you could call that a small victory. But in the end, I'll only ever think of how much better the film would have been if the last 6 minutes lived up to the previous 90. It's up to you whether or not that sounds like a worthy use of an hour-and-a-half. Personally, I'd say it was, since so much of it was captivating and worthwhile. But man...way to crap all over a great achievement.