Thirst: A Vampire Priest's Journey Into Self-Discovery

So a while back in May, I had the extreme good fortune to witness a Blockbuster shutting down. Not that seeing a place where rental movies are sold is anything awesome really. To tell you the truth I kind of wish there were a few more left around, but I guess that's what Redboxes and libraries are for (I mean really, any rental under $2 is frickin bomb, I don't care who you are). No no, the reason that Blockbuster shutting down is awesome is because I got about ten movies for $10.

Sad? Maybe. But can you smell the savings through the screen? I know I can!

I went back three times. Ironically, though, then summer started off with a bang and I never got the chance to watch any of them because...well actually I'm sure I had plenty of chances to watch them, but I kind of forgot about them. Oops.

But anyway, since recently budgeting my funtimes (it's a word) money, I've been diving right into these puppies and finding a whole bunch of interesting films that I completely forgot I had.

Number one today was a movie called Thirst (Bakjwi in original Korean).

Fun fact: They edited something out of this poster cuz it was too suggestive apparently

Directed by Chan-wook Park, master of the messed up and responsible for fascinating skin-crawlingly disturbing movies such as Oldboy and Lady Vengeance. Let it be known, he makes no exception for Thirst.

Thirst follows the story of a priest getting turned into a vampire. Father Sang-hyeon is a really nice guy, playing the recorder for dying people, working in a hospital, trying to help people. But he is made sad by how many people he can't help. So what does he do? He volunteers to be a medical experiment, testing a vaccine against a disease called EV. Side effects of the disease are skin blisters, fingernails fallin off, and vomiting blood (can you say FUN?). So the vaccine they're testing doesn't end up working and he ends up gettin a blood transfusion and then dies.

OR DOES HE?

He's not quite dead...

Sang-hyeon soon finds out that the blood donated to him was laced with vampire blood, making him not only immortal but a new creature. He starts to question his religion and his celibacy after meeting Tae-ju, the wife of a man he healed. After being invited over to Tae-ju's home (which she shares with her mother-in-law as well as her husband), there are some heavy graphic shenanigans between she and Sang-hyeon. Faced with new ethical questions after not only breaking his vow of celibacy, but also drinking human blood and committing various murders, the movie becomes almost more about the morality of being a vampire than the actual usual horror story.

Doesn't get much more classic than stories about human nature does it?

Much in the same vein as films like Let Me In, Thirst seems to focus more on questioning the humanity of vampires. Since they are technically inhuman and practically immortal, how does this change the nature of their being? Sang-hyeon goes from being a genuinely nice person to an adulterer and even a murderer, trying to find out how to survive without hurting people at first, and then slowly giving into his animalistic tendencies. As Tae-ju asks at one point "Is it a sin for a fox to kill a hen?", and the film really seems to play with that idea. Since they need blood to survive, is it really immoral to be killing these awful people around them if it keeps them alive themselves?

Perhaps the only thing that bugged me in this movie (and, really, most of Chan-wook Park's movies, if I'm being honest) is the awful squealing, selfish girl who ends up being Sang-hyeon's love interest. I don't know if it's the language barrier or her attitude in general, but she ends up being a rather selfish and sociopathic person who does nothing but cause trouble.

Don't look so innocent, you know you screwed shit up.

A very thought-provoking movie that studies human nature, morality, and sacrifice. Also it's South Korean, which (if you happened to see my entry on foreign horror) happens to be one of my favorite nationalities for foreign movies. Check it out!

6 outa 10 stars.

What Oscars?

So I feel like I owe you all at least a half-assed attempt at an Oscar-related post, but uh...I feel like I should clarify something. For the people that checked back on here to see news of Oscar glory, I apologize to you, my loyal readers. Aaaand, here it comes....

I did not watch the Oscars.

Stop looking at me like that Oscar!

Ok...there. I said it. Now, in explaining why I missed out on the Oscars, I'm gonna ask you all a question:

If you were so obsessed with movies that you actually had seen like half of the movies that they were rooting for in the Oscars, don't you think you'd rather be watching an awesome movie than some dumb award show?

Precisely.

So what was I doing the night of the Oscars, you ask?



I mean, REALLY, how often is Aladdin on TV!?

Plus, I knew The Artist was going to win everything anyway. The only thing I'm a little disappointed about is Octavia Spencer's win on Best Supporting actress instead of either Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs or Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids. Here's some reminders of these performances if you missed them:

Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs:


Octavia Spencer in The Help:


And who could forget Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids? Freakin' hilarious man:


Until next time my buckaroos!

Well...

I told you to see The Artist, you fools!

The Chroni-WHAT-cles of--...oh, just Chronicle, my bad.

So, dear readers (yes, all twelve of you), it has been brought to my attention that perhaps my ratings are a bit uniform seeing as how they are based on a five-star system. To make things a little more interesting (and a little more accurate) I'm going to amp up the full star count to ten. How d'ya like them apples?

But! Movin right along...

This week's movie was brought to the good people of Philadelphia through the Pearl Theatre right near North Philly's own Temple University. I had forgotten what it was like to be surrounded by masses of people two years younger than me carrying books and looking at illegal copies of something obscure like "Arial's Two Fins: Femininism in The Little Mermaid" (anyone else have to read that? No? Guess that's what I get for writing a senior paper on The Swan Princess...).

The myth. The legend. The Pearl.

Well in any case, I ended up seeing Chronicle, which ended up being pretty darn cool. After seeing the trailers for weeks I was kind of wondering how they could do long shots if the entire thing was filmed by a handheld camera a la Cloverfield. In fact, the cinematography was about 50% of why this film was really cool. The other 50% was a conglomeration of the characters and how they deal with having (wait for it...) super powers.

So Chronicle starts off with Matt and Andrew(I confess, I missed the first ten minutes of the movie cuz I couldn't find the theatre, oops). Matt (Alex Russell) is the stereotypical normal teenager, trying to party and go out and meet people and such, but he is hampered by his antisocial cousin, Andrew (Dane DeHaan). Now, it's not all Andrew's fault. His mom's got some kind of extremely painful condition and they can never pay for her pain meds because his dad is an old fireman collecting on some injury insurance money (Dad's also an alcoholic. Go figure.). Therefore, Andrew is really sensitive to bullying, having to deal with it at home all the time. But, lucky for him, after a crappy evening at a night club with Matt, he's approached by Steve (Michael B. Jordan), jock and nice guy extraordinaire.

And they're the three best friends that anyone could have.

Steve and Matt found something in the middle of a field and make Andrew come with them so he can film it. Long story short (I'll spare you the details, cuz it's a pretty cool scene), they end up getting crazy mental powers which enable them to move objects with their minds.

Typical of a super hero-esque plot, these guys end up being tested on how to manage their powers wisely. Some better than others. If you get what I mean. I'll leave it there.

Spoiler alert.

Probably the coolest thing about Chronicle is the liberties that they allow themselves to take with the camera work. Since the characters can move objects with their minds, and since Andrew is, from the beginning, obsessed with recording everything, the camera follows them around. But it's not always in someone's hand. The camera is floated at ceiling level, at skyscraper level, in the sky, in a closeup, and countless other kinds of shots that would require a crane or a helicopter but are simply done by the power of Andrew's mind.

No way you could film this without super powers.

They found a way to break outside of the tripoddy Paranormal Activity kinds of shots and broaden the horizons. I think that was one of the coolest things that I found about this movie. That and its ever-changing perspective. Even though the camera is by and large operated by Andrew, there are also other cameras recording at the same time he is for a few scenes, allowing the perspective to switch back and forth without compromising the handheld camera angle. Towards the end, as tensions rise and things heat up, the different perspectives get even more interesting.

Another cool thing about this movie was the kind of fusion of genres that it seemed to master. Teen movie, superhero movie, handheld movie. Really, a smart triple play of all the hot genres right now, but it tweaked each of them in such a way that they didn't get old fast. In fact the movie could be interpreted as any number of things. A fake documentary about how a superhero (and supervillain...?) have come to be, a lesson about bullying and the dangers of extreme power, a story about the valors of being a decent human being, or even just an amateur sci-fi thriller.

All in all, very cool movie. I hope they don't ruin it with a sequel.

Six out of ten. (See that? That's my new scoring method. I know you're shocked. It'll be okay.)

Albert or Alba?: Review of Albert Nobbs

Last time I went to an indie movie (The Artist, ahem, ahem) I saw the preview for Albert Nobbs and was immediately intrigued. First of all, period drama is one of my favorite genres (see Sense and Sensibility, Emma, the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, and the BBC series Downton Abbey. You won't be disappointed.) and I was really intrigued to see one set in Ireland, a country which is usually overlooked. But let's not, of course, also overlook the fact that the film is centered around Glenn Close as playing Albert Nobbs himself.

The man(?) himself

Yes, children. But don't misunderstand, either. Glenn Close isn't merely playing a pants role, where the audience is supposed to overlook the fact that the man on screen is in fact a woman (see Mary Martin in 1960's Peter Pan). Rather, the movie investigates the "what-if" scenario of a woman passing as a man in late 19th century Dublin.

When the movie begins, Albert Nobbs is a waiter at a high-end hotel in the middle of Dublin. He is an odd man, but not overly so. He is quiet, courteous, and obliging but seems somewhat clueless as to his own humanity. The first time the audience sees him speak is only about matters of money, and he seems somewhat isolated from the rest of the staff. As the movie moves on, it becomes wrapped up in how lives like Albert's may have indeed happened and the possibility of him reconciling his secret with the joys of a somewhat normal life.

Honestly, this film was fascinating. Albert Nobbs is a character with a brilliant sort of androgyny that doesn't make you think of him as a woman in drag, but nor does it allow you to fully embrace the character as a man. This seems to be a direct result of Albert himself not really knowing (or seeming to care, other than of course being found out) whether he is acting as either sex. In fact, the circumstances surrounding Albert's initial choice make it so that he almost chooses the androgyny of being neither male nor female. Whereas being a woman was extremely dangerous (especially if you were alone), being a man was safe in any number of ways.

In fact, I would argue that this film is almost equally about the hardships of the lower class in the 19th century as it is about the complexities of gender-bending. Both characters masquerading as men (yes I said both, keep your eyes open for the second one!) only come about doing it as a result of their lower class situations. Mr. Page (I guess the jig is up) becomes a man as a result of losing the ability to have children and Albert (SPOILER ALERT) becomes a man after first being gang raped and then needing money.

The other two main characters, Helen (Mia Wasikowska) and Joe (Aaron Johnson), also seem to be direct victims of their class. Being basically deprived of most comforts, they seem to reach out to each other without really caring what the consequences are (and boy oh boy are there consequences).

What do you mean "kiss"?

I haven’t seen such a unique movie in a while, and for that reason I would recommend seeing it. Also, if for nothing else, please see it for Janet McTeer’s portrayal of Hubert Page, which is one of the most brilliant performances I have ever seen on screen (in fact, I would even go as far as to say that she outshines Glenn Close’s Albert Nobbs).

Four outa five.

Also, the music in this is to die for. Check out the theme song, sung by Sinead O'Conner and the trailer:

The Artist: Just...See It.

So before 2012 started up, my good ole friend Josh came to visit (publicity plug, you should check out his NYC blog: http://krigman.blogspot.com/) and we went to see The Artist! I'd been hearing things for weeks about this film and I was ready to find it highly enjoyable, but I was never expecting what I got to watch.

Totally buying this poster.

Have you ever been so psyched that you feel like you can feel your blood flowing? You get really still, listen your hardest, and don't move your eyes in anticipation. And then some indescribable awesomeness comes at you fast and you try to hold onto it for as long as humanly possible before it melts away into less intense, enjoyable familiarity.

I rarely get this feeling anymore. Maybe I'm a jaded, unemployed twenty-something or maybe I just haven't been able to see real, true beauty for a while, but The Artist gave me some silver lining.

The Artist is made by movie people and it shows. This film gave me what I imagine sports people feel when their team wins the Superbowl. You've been waiting and waiting and waiting for some incredible display of awesomeness and THERE IT IS!! WOOO!!! OH MY GOOODDD!!!!

This is a movie theatre probably.

But ok, backing up and calming down, for those of you who have no idea what this movie is, The Artist is a piece of sincere romantic poetry for the lost art of silent film. The entire film is done in the style of a silent film from the 1920s (yes, close your gaping jaw, the movie has only a musical soundtrack with virtually no other sound...AND IT'S AWESOME! Sorry, calming down...). The story starts in 1927 with George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a debonair movie star at the top of his game, accidentally helping virtual nobody Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) launch her career in Hollywood. Despite having obvious chemistry (the sequence of their reshoots is adorable), George and Peppy part ways after their only film together. Peppy’s career gets bigger as her roles move from being an extra to being listed in the credits. George’s life moves on as usual, despite he and his wife having obvious problems, and his career is as good as ever.

Ready, set, publicity stunt!

Then comes the advent of sound. Ignoring the “fad”, George sets out to create his own movie in the traditional silent style while Peppy stars in a new sound film called “Beauty Spot”. While there is nothing wrong with George’s film, Peppy’s movie leaves his in the dust, and while her career takes off, his is left a shambles. The remainder of the story is largely about George finding where he fits in the world of new cinema, following Peppy’s success on a parallel story line which (frequently) crosses with George’s own.

Womp womp.

The acting is fantastic! I had never really considered how different acting could be without sound. Of course anyone could spot the difference between the over-the-top antics of real silent films from the 1920s and the understated drama of being able to hear even the slightest sigh in typical cinema today. However, seeing modern actors without their voices was really fascinating. Additionally, I had also never seriously considered how culturally androgynous people are in silent films. Without being able to hear accents (George and Peppy are French! Represent that.), people at once become more relatable.

Stylistically, the film is so loyal to following a silent film mold that sometimes you catch yourself thinking “What the heck is John Goodman doing in the 20s?!”

Seriously, share your time travel secrets with me, John Goodman.

The actors glow in the luminous gray scale at the beginning and, as George’s fortunes decline, the tones flatten to reflect his misfortune. The soundtrack, as well, is impeccably well suited to the 1920s era. But despite The Artist’s lack of color and sound (haters, I will not be taking you seriously) it is far from boring. Hazanavicius takes countless liberties in playing with modern angles and even playfully adding sound into dream sequences and the like that the screen is mesmerizing. They pay just enough homage to the classics of the past while taking advantage of modern technology that the film ends up being both nostalgic and innovative. A love song to a lost film genre, Michel Hazanavicius upcycles a film style long considered obsolete.

12,000 outa 5 bitches. Go see this movie.

Oh my God, even the preview is amazing. Did you get that I liked this movie? No?

Hugo: Not Just a Story About a Creepy Robot

Ah, home for the holidays. Nothing like spending one awesome day with your entire family and then collapsing into that whole "well...what do we do now?" period after Christmas and before New Year's Day. What did my family do, you ask? One guess.

Hint: it begins with an 'M'...

In my family, my mother, youngest brother, and I have a tendency to go to the movies when we don't know what to do with ourselves. It's like the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious of actions, if you will; the something to do when you have nothing to do at all. So our family-friendly trio opted to go see Hugo for this year's round of post-Christmas dead time.

Judging from what I had of the preview I was mostly going on the ideas of "this looks really pretty" and "omigod this is a kid's movie directed by Scorsese!" Admittedly, I was a little skeptical about how good it would be as the well-known director's first attempt at a different audience, but I was pleasantly surprised at the end result.

The film begins with the story of a young boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a Parisian train station. As we learn early-on, Hugo's father died in a museum fire and he was left to his uncle to help keep the clocks of the station in working order. But Hugo's uncle has since disappeared and he continues to work the clocks in order to keep himself off the radar of the bumbling station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). After getting caught stealing parts from the booth of a toymaker (Ben Kingsley) the boy's cherished notebook, filled with pictures of parts for an automaton that he and his father were repairing, is taken away from him. Hugo is extremely distraught, even following the old man back to his house to try and get it back. In an attempt to win back this notebook, he befriends the toymaker's foster daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). Armed with a taste for adventure from her many books, Isabelle urges him to embark with her on an adventure to fix Hugo's broken "automaton" (robot, to you and I). During this journey, they find out a message that the automaton's been hiding, and with it Papa George's secret past.

Beautiful cinematography: ready, set, go!

Without giving too much away (or at least trying not to..), what they find out is strongly attached to the early history of film itself, making the film largely a love letter to cinema. Showcasing clips from early films such as Train Entering a Station, The Kiss, The Great Train Robbery, and A Trip to the Moon, Scorsese takes a young audience's attention and directs it to a subject that most children do not learn until they are college-bound. This movie sneakily incorporates a good deal of film history into a children's adventure plot, which of course makes crazy cinephiles like me absolutely delighted. It manages to capture the majority of film's modest beginnings without seeming like it's going off on a tangent, and thus keeps the mystery of the plot intact while teaching history.

In terms of the feel of the movie, I've got to say, it's beautifully shot. Everything is in crystal-clear high definition and the lighting in every shot is gorgeous. Each frame could be placed on a wall as art. The movie is also shot somewhat idealistically and romantically, reflecting in itself glamorous films of the 20s, and giving a nod to Oscar glam in the end scene.

What's the Great Depression?

That being said, perhaps the reflexive nature of the film is a bit much for a children's movie. Everything was just slightly heavier than most kid's movies are, which is a somewhat common mistake that directors make, in my own humble opinion (anyone else hate The Polar Express? Bleh.). For example, while I would say that all of the acting was very well done by the young actors Butterfield and Moretz (who I love. Please see Let Me In), there was a certain maturity to it that left them seeming a little unrealistic to some degree. Although that was probably on purpose (I imagine most children that live in train stations by themselves are slightly more mature than their peers), I had a hard time viewing them as regular children, and thus had trouble empathizing a little. Hugo has some moments that seem overly sentimental, which I feel is a little weird for a boy. Perhaps I'm being picky, but I should also admit that I have a low tolerance for sap (unless it's hilariously overdone. As in every Lifetime movie I've ever seen) and I have two extremely non-emotional little brothers who seem to foil Hugo.

Another qualm that I certainly have with the film is the creepy robot kid. In the days of such movies as Child's Play, I, Robot, and Surrogates, I was waiting for the damn thing to come alive and kill people for the entire movie. Also he keeps on staring at Hugo in, like, every scene. Dear Martin Scorsese: Why in God's name would you place a message from a poor boy's dead father in such a freakin' creepy "automaton"? Yeesh...

After a string of murders the children regretted ever fixing the damaged robot.

But besides Creepy Robot Child, the movie is actually quite a pleasure to watch. For those of you with a passion for film without much knowledge of how it came to be, I certainly hope that you will check this out and that it will pique your interest in learning the history of film (as I'm sure Sir Scorsese planned...sneaky man...).

Touche Scorsese, and well done.

Four outa five stars.

PS Sacha Baron Cohen is the funniest person in this movie. If for no other reason, see it to see his performance.

Also, here's the preview in case you need more persuasion to see how pretty it is.