Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

1/5

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a traumatic, searing film. It is brutal and unsparing. It delivers hit after unfortunate hit, for our story's protagonists and for our own sense of hope and joy. The movie is bleak and dreary, violent and sadistic. It manages to be viscerally intense without being visually graphic. It hits you with ideas and horrors that you wish you will never imagine again. It reminded me of I Stand Alone, but without much to say, kind of like Audition. It is haunting, to be sure, but not in a meaningful way. I abhor violence in movies for violence's sake. It is an assault on my eyes and my mind, so it should serve some function or be overcome by an equal and opposite force. That is not the case with this movie, and so I am left a victim of the film.

I was not particularly impressed with the cinematography. The director is trying too hard to be artistic and has forgotten that movies are supposed to flow. The acting, which for all I know might be categorically stellar in a vacuum, is absolutely ridiculous in the context of the events that take place in this film. I have no real-world comparison by which I can judge their performances. Also, not that I really cared, but there are some pretty gigantic plot holes that are simply not addressed (ones that are crucial to the progression of the story). All in all, I have no idea to whom I might recommend this film. I feel like doing so would make me a masochist.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310775/

Possession (2002)

2/5

Possession is a film adaptation of a book that is likely superior in every way. The plot focuses on two English literature historians, Roland Michell (Eckhart) and Maud Bailey (Paltrow), who both research Victorian-era poets: Michell knows Randolph Henry Ash (Northam) and Bailey knows Christabel LaMotte (Ehle). As the two uncover a heretofore secret, hidden love affair from the past, they discover the emergence of their own love for each other. Yes, the storyline sounds more than a little cheesy, but it reminded me--in a good way--of Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. (Unfortunately, it never even came close to being as good as that movie.) All the storytelling elements were there to make this a truly compelling story, but the rest of the filmmaking was not. The acting oscillated between flat and harsh. The written dialogue was unconvincing and stilted. Most of the shots were plain Jane boring. A few times LaBute surprised me with some clever juxtaposition of scenes or imagery, but I left the movie unimpressed. (It doesn't help that it ends on a ridiculously laughable action/chase/fight scene.) Trust me when I say that Possession is a movie not worth seeing. If the plot sounds interesting, I would suggest you try reading the book instead.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256276/

28 Days Later (2002)

3/5

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later effectively merges the zombie horror movie with the post-apocalyptic survival movie. There are scenes that make you jump and feel sick. But there are also scenes that make you think and allow for thoughtful discussion afterwards. While I think there are movies that tackle both issues better and with more sophistication, this is still a successful endeavor. And it is refreshing to see director Danny Boyle consistently changing the types of projects he takes on with ease, from Trainspotting and Millions to Sunshine and 28 Days Later.

Technically, the movie is a bit mixed. While the cinematography is striking (nearly every shot is set up to be visually appealing), there are little to no establishing shots. For me, it hurt the movie--it couldn't sustain tension as I never knew how close the zombies were. This is also tied in with the editing, which was too rapid-fire for me to tell what was going on. It worked much better in this movie, though, than more traditional action movies like Batman Begins. Despite these problems, the movie used a novel, extremely effective visual style, mixing digital video with Super 8 and 35mm film. Several parts were shot at really high shutter speed, which turned normally blurry movement into crisp but choppy movement. It gives the zombies a disturbing and disorienting quality. And it makes rain look amazing. In my opinion, this style was the most successful and memorable part of the movie.

My biggest complaint is that that movie introduces a cagey scientific explanation for the zombie epidemic: a virus. The problem is that it hints at reality and plausibility, but doesn't come close to satisfying the intellectual curiosity it invited. I don't buy a virus taking over a human in 20 seconds, or jumping species without any mutation time, or degrading mental capacities to inhuman instincts. I am fine with a zombie movie that leaves the mystery of the "zombie" alone, but if it provides an explanation, it better be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Otherwise it just seems incomplete, like a good idea that they didn't bother thinking all the way through. Still, the movie is pretty awesome for a variety of reasons, so I wouldn't dismiss it or tell you not to watch it. It's not hard to recommend, as long as you know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

Irreversible (2002)

3/5

Despite its title, Irreversible is told entirely in reverse. A violent act of revenge preceded by a vicious rape and the events that led up to it. This movie is not for the faint of heart because it is unflinching in its documentation of said brutalities. It is a disquieting tale of things that happen beyond our control and it reaches us because we feel so helpless. We realize that it could be us, no matter how different our lives are, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Its realistic depiction is aided by single-takes. Its use of music effectively ratchets up the tension and speeds up your pulse. I love a scene near the end, where the two people who become tangled up in violence and rape are instead entwined in each other; evil is replaced by love.

But there is so much to hate about this movie. From beginning to pretentious, baffling, experimental end, the camera rotates and swirls around to a fever pitch. Your stomach literally churns; I could not imagine seeing this in a theater, especially not an IMAX. The camerawork feels like a gimmick to physically make you as sick as the disturbing events do at a mental level later on. There was a decidedly unnecessary and gratuitous amount of nudity, sex, and violence in this movie; some of it was essential, but as a whole it became almost exploitative, as if its extensive presence had the sole purpose of shocking the audience.

I don't think the reverse chronology worked for this movie. Much like 21 Grams, it diluted the emotional build-up and climax and the film lost a lot of its overall impact. One of the main character's shift in demeanor, when told backwards, almost feels like a devolution; you like him much less. And the end extends for far too long. The problem with most movies that go backwards is that you never really reach a point where it makes sense to stop. Normal movies reach a climax and then tie up loose ends, but where do you go once you've told the start of a story? The intro is almost never as compelling as the finale, and it isn't in this movie either. Some of the dialogue that would have worked in a normal chronology seems contrived and forced when told backwards (about events being decided beforehand and having no control over them, for example). The backwards time line did have one good aspect, however. You saw the act committed first, and then you see all the parts of the story in which one different word, one different action, one different choice could have prevented all this. It becomes so much more painful.

Despite my rating, I cannot make a blanket recommendation of this movie to anyone. You have to know what to expect and have to be ready to take it all in. It is hard to digest, but not without merit.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0290673/

The Pianist (2002)

4/5

The Pianist follows the real-life survival tale of concert pianist and Polish Jew Szpilman in Warsaw during World War II. It evokes an almost flawless sense of time and place. What starts as a family trying to maintain normalcy in trying circumstances gradually transforms into a desperate fight for survival as they realize the gravity and extent of the situation. The atmosphere was riveting and captivating. The movie held your attention because you had no idea what might happen next; people could get murdered in the blink of an eye, for any reason or lack thereof. There are many horrifying scenes that stay in the memory: a wheelchair-bound man who cannot get up to salute the Germans, a woman who asks a simple question, and a man about to be killed when the officer runs out of bullets. One of these moments reminded me of Rear Window. Watching, we are stricken with guilt because of both our own morbid curiosity and our inability to help out. The editing and advancement of the plot were exceptionally naturalistic. The music, although not as prolific as I thought it would be in a movie named The Pianist, was quite good when it appeared.

The cinematography was slightly above average, but nothing worth noting. At 140 minutes, it overstayed its welcome. It felt even longer because of the dense nature of the material being presented. The acting was not bad, but I felt it was a bit over-hyped. And Adrien Brody's nose is simply too big. Overall, it's not really my cup of tea, but it's an exceptional movie of one man's survival against brutality and malice.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0253474/

Road to Perdition (2002)

5/5

From start to finish, every frame of this film is jaw-dropping in its beauty. You will be stunned by the cinematography, which relegates the powerful script and precise acting to the back of your mind. Even so, it contains scenes of heart-stopping suspense to rival even Hitchcock's greatest works. It also manages to achieve a certain poignancy through Tom Hanks's quiet and restrained interactions with his son and equally quiet and restrained interactions with his father-figure (Paul Newman in a stellar performance, one of the best of his entire career).

The emotional impact of the film becomes somewhat muted due to its obligatory sense of fatalism, in the same vein as the film noirs of the 1940's. To me, the movie's cold, distant mood fits the piece exceptionally well. The terse manner in which the characters speak is also similar to noir, although the dialogue itself is vastly different (where those movies were flashy, Road to Perdition is earthy). Quite simply, it says all that needs to be said and nothing more.

Sam Mendes directs Road to Perdition with the same subtlety and artistic insight found in American Beauty, but the flourishes are more spectacular: A silent, slow-motion massacre in the rain that resembles a dance more closely than a murder, followed by the words "I'm glad it's you." A long take tracking Hanks as he shoots a man in his bathtub, the bright red blood on the white tile sharply contrasting with the pervading dark grey tones. You will remember these scenes; this movie is unforgettable.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0257044/