* Birth (Glazer, 2004) 8.5
The Uninvited (Guard Brothers, 2009) 2.5
spoilers
Bleergghh. Bleeeergghh. That's the sound of me feeling physically ill while I watched this endlessly irritating, endlessly imbecilic movie. I'm usually very forgiving towards remakes, but just thinking about the artistry of A Tale of Two Sisters compared to this laughably cliched and awkward and visionless remake did make me want to puke. Throughout, I squirmed in my seat, groaned audibly, slapped my palm against my forehead, and broke into a drool of imitated braindeadedness, without fear of disrupting the movie-goers around me, mocking the film left and right.
That said, it does offer its own interesting spin on the big twist of the original. Its version of events is much more mean-spirited and psychologically subversive than Two Sisters', and actually gives the film some thematic cause for being such a sexed-up, teeny-bopper, American make-over of the more sober, adult Korean film. While that film dealt with budding biology through the mind of a main protagonist struggling to achieve a sort of adulthood and maturity, this remake consistently peddles and presents sex and sexuality with the attitude of a giggling school girl, through the eyes of a main protagonist wanting to cling to a childhood purity threatened by a wanton and whorish new stepmother. When the remake's secret is let out of the bag and the film reveals its message as some sort of variation on the old covenant "Get some nookie or let's go kooky," then it just all makes sense the film sexifies teen-star Emily Browning to such an extent it seems only possible in her dreams. Might there be some implicit critique made by the film, that all the overwrought CW shows and grotesque tween celebrity scene and Emily Browning in two-pieces are nightmare manifestations of the repressed psyche of bourgeoisie American youth? That if all teeny-boppers are as vapid as what this film hawks to them, then all youths in question are as subject to delusion and possible psychosis as the flittery, ill-"educated" young woman of this picture? Nah. There's much too much audience-protagonist identification throughout, instead of much-needed meta-irony.
The Killers (Siodmak, 1946) 6.5
The Dunwich Horror (Haller, 1970) 5
aka Gidget Goes Date-Rape... For, Like, a Whole Week Straight. The serious issue that is date-rape aside, Daniel Haller's Sandra Dee-starring early 70s psychedalia horror-flick The Dunwich Horror is weird and amusing enough to make me appreciate it on some level. Likely the level that can imagine going whole hog with a really strung-out chick one smoky Woodstock night on the dewy green as Canned Heat played in the background. Poor Sandra Dee. This film is not good to her, or any of its women characters in general.
The film is not good, persay, but I for one appreciated its stylistic pretention. It's an example of a director, Haller, who was previously an art designer and now taking a turn as director. It is readily apparent: he has a great eye, a very lofty sense of style, and generally a great "art designer" sense of directing - but he can't quite get us to take it all seriously when he has to put his artsiness in the context of a story, and when no restraint is shown in cinematography so conceptualized it just seems made for a trip-out instead of a serious film. If this movie were made with the intelligent design behind Flaming Creatures or a Guy Maddin film, Haller would've been a genius. But in reality, this is just a very silly horror movie.
Die, Monster, Die! (Haller, 1975) 4Snow Angels (Gordon Green, 2008) 7
Young and Innocent (Hitchcock, 1937) 6.5
Kung Fu Panda (Osborne, 2008) 5
* Little Otik (Svankmajer, 2000) 7
* Happy Feet (Miller, 2006) 9
The Haunted Strangler (Day, 1948) 5.5
The Beast Must Die (Annett, 1974) 4
* Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock, 1951) 7.5
Strangers on a Train is the first Hitchcock in a long time that I've come away feeling a bit underwhelmed (although, of course, it's not as if I have been watching what I assume are his least interesting works). It is surely an excellent piece of filmmaking, but I feel Shadow of a Doubt is a much more poignant picture about deviant personality lashing out against certain uglinesses of pompous normalcy. Strangers certainly has a lot of visual wit and biting undercurrents, but I think it is finally a case of Hitchcock's rigorous constructions and narrative tightness piling too thickly and overcoming subtextual insight. Even the much-touted merry-go-round finale seemed less "evocative imagery" than just a plot device (even though it is, of course, to some degree, visual evocation - I'd be fooling myself if I thought "Let's set the climactic fight on a merry-go-round!" was completely arbitary or completely a thin gimmick).
* School of Rock (Linklater, 2003) 6
* Dead-Alive (aka Braindead) (Jackson, 1992) 8.5
Dust Devil (Stanley, 1992) 4
The Saddest Music in the World (Maddin, 2003) 7
My first Guy Maddin flick. Maddin uncannily recreates the "silent film" look, and it's not just for cute aesthetic experimentation. The use of the silent movie look mixed with his non-sanitized characters, sensibility, and really wacky and inspired story really works with its theme on the irresponsible mixing-and-matching of emotionality (sadness and nostalgia and sociological representations) with the petty, insensitive, bawdy drama and business the main characters take part in. But on the con side, I also found Maddin's filmmaking generally rather ostentatious and indelicate. While his images are often striking and delicate, his editing and conceptualization is a bit flashy and frenetic. The film should have milked the competition and musical sequences more. Instead it was too plot-driven and a bit overly jokey.
Valkyrie (Singer, 2008) 5
The Crazies (Romero, 1973) 6.5
Paranoid Park (Van Sant, 2007) 8
* Disturbia (Caruso, 2007) 4
* Enchanted (Lima, 2007) 4.5
