It is by sheer coincidence that as I was looking for a picture to post for that particular film, I ran into a very interesting post at IrishFilmJournal.com which has a lengthy analysis of the film and which helped me understand the merits of a movie that I had found too shocking to truly value. After having read it I suppose I have come to a greater understanding of what Miike has done, though by nature of its content I can not say that I like the movie any more than previously stated. I will therefore leave my rating at 2 out of 5 for Visitor Q, though I highly recommend to anybody that dares watch this film, that they keep this article in mind because, if nothing else, it manages to provide a solid argument for the idea that this film is not disturbing for the sake of being disturbing and should not be readily dismissed as such.

In any case I end this particular post with the link to said blog and hope that may clarify matters for those viewers that opt to take a peep at this controversial film. If you do happen to watch it, please do send me a word to let me know, I am interested to discuss this a bit further.

Here is the link: IrishFilmJournal.com

-Fco.

Water Lilies
Director: Celine Sciamma
Genre: Drama
Year: 2007

How this movie ended up in my Netflix list, I have no idea. I think I might have gotten it confused with another movie that has Lilies in the title. Spider Lilies, maybe? I don’t know, the point is it ended up in my house and I had it there so I may as well watch it. Given that it was about synchronized swimmers…I really had to scratch my head and wonder exactly how I had this movie on my list. Then on top of that, the fact that it deals with the awkward relationships of really young adolescents…I was disturbed in a way that I had not been since I watched Thirteen.

I don’t know that I can say I would watch this movie again, but I can say that I am very glad I watched it, uncomfortable as I may have felt. Beneath it all, the sort of tabboo subject it deals with, this movie seems to have the sort of beauty that the book Lolita seemed to carry. Except the story is entirely different and it has been updated to reflect present days.

Essentially the story deals with three young teenagers, dealing with the issues of love and relationships and confused about what they want and how it is they want it. Needless to say sexuality is a pretty prominent issue in this movie and given their age it is particularly difficult to watch, at least for me (the father of two little girls). But I would be lying if I did not accept the fact that this is one of the most honest movies about adolescent relationships I have can remember seeing and though the film deals with only girls in the lead roles, the themes it touches upon are quite universal, enough that I think most everybody that watches this will be able to relate in one way or the other.

Very much an indie film, very much a foreign film, this is one that I would recommend only to the fans of those two aspects, but I would recommend it, perhaps not for purchase, but it is most definitely worth the watch, even if it has synchronized swimming….

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Sexual content, nudity, adult themes. French with English subtitles.

Rescue Dawn
Director: Werner Herzog
Genre: War/Drama/Biography/Action
Year: 2006

Given that it was Werner Herzog that shot the documentary dealing with this subject, it seems to make sense that he was the one that shot this film and the fact that he knew the material he was dealing with shows incredibly in this powerful movie about one of the great escapes of the Vietnam War.

Dieter Dengler wants to fly and he wants to fly so badly he is willing to join the military during a time of war to achieve his dream. Sadly, it is during his first mission into Laos, that his plane is shot down, an accident he survives mostly intact and which puts him in the precarious situation of being an enemy in a war that they have not officially entered. Eventually Dieter is captured and held hostage along with a handful of other men, in an encampment essentially in the middle of nowhere. This film deals with their improbable escape and the amazing situations Dieter had to rise over in order to get back to safety.

Incredibly well directed and acted, with a solid cast and a solid story, this movie is an instant classic and I am surprised it did not get more marketing than what I recall seeing for it. If you are a fan of war films or escape films, this one will be right up your alley. And armed with Herzog’s directing, Bale’s acting, this movie is a jewel. Not only that, the supporting cast does a tremendous job as well including, Jeremy Davies, as a prisoner (and who looked in this movie as sickly skinny as Bale did for The Machinist. It must be noted that Bale lost a lot of weight for this role as well) and believe it or not, Steve Zhan!

A buy, if not a must watch.

Rating: 5 out of 5
Notes: Some pretty messed up situations, war and violence, language and disturbing imagery.
Quote: Duane: You’re a strange bird, Dieter. A man tries to kill you and you want his job.

Bad Guy
Director: Ki-duk Kim
Genre: Drama
Year: 2001

Whatever you want to say about Ki-duk Kim, mainstream is something he simply isn’t, but he has covered a gamut of emotions in his films and always with interesting results. Some of his films, such as Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter…and Spring, and 3-Iron are outright beautiful. Others such as Time and The Isle are difficult to watch but incredibly interesting and captivating, and then, there are films like Samaritan Girl and this one which are pretty much disturbing, but grip you like a nasty car accident and keeps you nailed to your seat.

There is nothing normal about this film, but in a way, at its core…deep deep down, it really is a love story. Probably one of the most effed up love stories I have watched on film and I say that having seen Secretary.

As most love stories will, it starts with a kiss.

A man, obsessed with a young Korean woman he encounters by chance, decides to kiss her, without her consent, which leads to a scuffle with her boyfriend at the time and eventually a few members of the military, who put the beat down on the perpetrator quite violently. As a method of revenge, the man decides to ruin her life, a move that essentially lands her over her head in debt and forced to prostitute herself in order to pay it all off.

Soon enough she is drawing the attention of many, and many become obsessed, but it is the initial man who takes it the furthest, watching her from behind a two way mirror as she is forced to service her clientele. Yet, what seems to be mere perversion actually has a certain significance and in an odd case of what I could consider a Stockholm Syndrome scenario, the young woman begins to connect to this lifestyle that has been forced on her. And the way this movie unfolds, is violent, moving, disturbing, touching all at once in unbelievable fashion.

Here, you will see great character development and much like 3-Iron you deal with a mostly silent lead and with minimalistic dialogue. Hints of his other movies are seen throughout, something you will pick up if you are a fan. Definitely a watch if you have the stomach for it.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Nudity, sexuality, disturbing imagery, violence, adult situations…not recommended for the mainstream movie watcher at all.

Marebito
Director: Takashi Shimizu
Genre: Drama/Fantasy/Horror/Mystery
Year: 2004

I have been on an Asian film kick and not purposely, it seems that most of the ones I have been watching have been pretty disturbing. I do not mind disturbing, but I am going to have to change it up, because you can only take so much disturbing content before you just need a break. I think I may have gone into Netflix, added a movie and then gone one and clicked on recommendations of similar movies, because it seems that a handful of them, right in a row, left me with my mouth open and scratching my head. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but…I will probably have to go back to my Queue and change things around.

As far as disturbing goes, this one is no exception, directed by the man that created The Ring and The Grudge (the original, Japanese versions), dealing with a man named Masuoka who sees the world through the eyes of a lens. So involved in capturing everything through video had he seems to have lost touch with the world itself when he is forced to see it through his own eyes. On top of that, he is in an incomprehensible search for the terrifying, something that is piqued to greater extent after witnessing (and recording) a self-mutilation/suicide in the subway station.

Watching the footage over and over, Masuoka is determined to find out what it was that the suicidal man in the subway station saw that caught such a terrifying look in his eyes. And he will go to the greatest depths, literally and metaphorically, to find it.

This movie is one of the strangest journeys you will watch, watching how a man spirals out of control, as if he maybe had not done so already, and only worsening when he finds in the netherworld a naked young woman, whom he decides to take as a pet and who has an insatiable appetite for blood. All of it leading to the moment of truth which is a lot more messed up than you might have initially thought.

Surrealistic at times, violent, gruesome and psychologically engaging, this movie hits a lot of the right notes as far as a horror goes, but also seems to drag on far longer than it should. There is something about this movie that reminds me of another movie I saw when I was in High School, whose name escapes me, where a good fifteen minutes of the film was the main character merely walking around. This movie does the same thing, and while I understand the message and the mood that the director is trying to create, I definitely felt the length of it and at times grew frustrated. The movie has a slow start, with 30 minutes of set up before one really gets hooked into what is going on and then another thirty minutes of build up before the main story hits.

People with a short amount of patience will want to skip right past this movie, those of you that are a still interested, go into it knowing it is not a perfect movie, it does have its flaws on a story that does not hold water too well and acting which I felt was questionable. However there are some aspects in this movie worth exploring.

Rating: 3 out of 5
Notes: Violent, gory, disturbing, nudity…messed up all around. Recommended only to true Horror and Psychological Horror fans only.

Visitor Q
Director: Takashi Miike
Genre: Drama/Horror/Thriller/Comedy
Year: 2001

If you are familiar with the name Takashi Miike, then you already know this movie is going to be all sorts of screwed up. You would be correct. This movie took the wave of disturbing movies I had been watching and took me to the pinnacle, enough for me to go over to my Netflix and rearrange some things. Thankfully the entire time I had been watching these movies, I have also been going through the series Entourage, which gave me a well needed breather and very necessary laughs.

I do not even know where to start with this film, clearly a commentary on the extremes that ‘reality shows’ will go to in order to get your attention. This takes those extremes and goes to a whole new set of extremes, when a failed documentarian decides to turn the camera on his own, disastrously dysfunctional family and a stranger known only as the Visitor, who is welcomed into the house after continuously hitting the father on the head with a rock. Confused? Yeah, that is only the start.

The family dynamics here will have any normal person squimish, disgusted, nauseous and repulsed. I am not normal, by any stretch of the imagination and I was still shocked by it. Right off the bat I am going to say I recommend this movie to nobody and watch it only at your own risk, knowing that you are going to seem some pretty visually damaging things.

The father, as mentioned before is a failed documentarian, who is desperate enough to get his idea on TV that he…basically is willing to go to the extreme to land himself the desired attention. The beginning of the movie has him sleeping with his own daughter, if that says anything. But when that is not enough he turns the camera on his bullied son, who is abused by all his school mates and who in turn takes out his own angers and frustrations by beating up his mother. The mother is a drug addicted, woman who takes the abuse from every member of the family in stride, as long as her face is not damaged, broken and saddened she seeks refuge by prostituting herself and getting more money for drugs. And then there is the Visitor, who changes the dynamics and relationships in this family on their head…except that by turning them on its head he does not make them any more normal, even if one can say that…somehow, the effect is still positively felt, even if the outcome is the rape of a business woman, the killing of school children and the complete demoralization of the family’s mother.

I was left utterly speechless. I have seen commentary on violence such as Funny Games and taken it in stride, but this movie was unlike anything I have seen before and left me with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. There is not much that can be said is enjoyable about this film and its disturbing content is through the roof, so I find myself wondering how this film has gotten such high ratings. Clearly, I am missing something, even if I do understand what the director is trying to say, by going so over the top I feel like he over stretched himself. So much in fact that by the end it is actually comedic, the way Tarantino will take his ultraviolence and push it to the point where you are laughing when somebody gets their head chopped off. This movie does that and it is definitely a twisted effect.

So, I am looking at the IMDb rating of 7/10 and my own rating of 2/5 and I can not help but think that I must have missed something about this film. I am probably not clever enough to get it and I hesitate to have anybody else watch this in fear of retributions. So…I will just have to sit here and let it go, because I am not sure I am willing to try to sit through another viewing in hopes of finding the qualities I obviously missed the first time.

Rating: 2 out of 5
Notes: MESSED UP, and I say messed up only because I don’t want to use the F word. Stay away from this film unless, this is really what gets you your kicks. I warn that the above synopsis only touches on part of what happens in this movie and not all of it. It does get worse.
Quote: Kiyoshi Yamazaki: [as the bullies throw fireworks at the house] They’re here! Everyone, can you see this? Can you see this?
[taping with camera]
This is my home! My home! Did you see that? The big strong bullies are here!
[pans to Keiko]
This is my wife! She’s a lovely little wife! Dinner was delicious! This is…
[pans to the Visitor]
… I don’t know who this is, we’re not acquainted! Watch! It’s amazing, truly amazing! What a scene! It’s unbelievable!
[going back to the fireworks, panning to knife in floor]
My wife threw this knife! Everyone, here it is!
[filming the chaos]
How am I supposed to feel? I don’t know how a father should feel! But, I know my family is being destroyed! So, what do you think? How do we judge this wonderful bullying? I’m burning up! I just saw fireworks in my head! It’s hot, so hot!

The Girl on the Bridge
Director: Patrice Leconte
Genre: Drama/Romance/Comedy
Year: 1999

I am now very confused, because searching out this film in IMDb in order to find out when it was shot I found another film, released in 1951 which uses the picture of the actors from the movie released in 1999 as its cover. I am not exactly sure what is going on there. The title is exactly the same but the synopsis has some key differences. I think, at some point I am going to have to check out the 1951 version and figure out if the one I saw is a remake, or a variation, or a take of point, or…something.

For now, I will proceed having made it clear I am not sure what that other film is about. This one, however, is a wonderful and quirky and strangely erotic romance, between a couple of people that seem to be down on their luck, until they find themselves together and then the combination seems to be the winning formula. She, is a sex addicted, naive girl with a golden heart that is willing to believe everything that is placed before her and which unfortunately means she is used numerous times in her life. He is a knife thrower looking for an assistant to help him with his how. They run into each other at a bridge and one of them saves the other and while it may seem clear at first who is the suicide case and who is not…the body of this film explains that it is not quite that simple and also give a body to this relationship in a way that is charming to watch.

Yes, there are certain clichés in this film that may make this slightly predictable, but the character development, the black and white cinematography and the story as a whole is very much worth your time. Finely edited, deliciously shot, this film manages to put eroticism on the table without actually being erotic, if that makes sense! In the end it is a film about trust and fate and very much worth checking out!

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: I do not recall much sexuality, but they do deal with the theme throughout. Overall, however, it is a pretty tame film with a feel good vibe to it…even if its subjects are suicidal.

My name is Francisco Manzo and I approve this message.

Lost in Beijing
Director: Yu Li
Genre: Drama/Foreign
Year: 2007

Slightly chaotic, frenetic, ‘Bourne‘-style, hand held cinematography meets, ‘3-Iron‘ dramatics and the result is a slightly twisted but incredibly interesting movie about a man four people that end up forced into a binding contract with each other when a man rapes a woman (his employee), whose husband is determined to ‘get even’ by making some profit off the event. The fact that the victim woman, ends up pregnant only seems to add to the dilemma that the two couples find themselves in.

The solution seems simple, Boss pays for the pregnancy and adopts the child if it is his as well as giving the younger, victimized couple a share of money for their troubles. If, DNA on the other hand proves that the Boss is not the father, then, cash is taken for the crime committed against the employee and all the two couples go their separate ways. Contract is written, sealed in red ink with thumb prints and voila!

Problem is, things get complicated when money and human lives are at stake and this movie is no exception. With interesting twists and heart wrenching moments, this movie touches on the ugliness of humanity, the beauty…and the ironic too! It has subtitles, yes, but you can deal with that, this movie is very much worth it!

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Nudity and sexuality push this into the R rating area, the moments of violence bump it up a little more and then you have the adult content. Safe to say you should not let your kids watch this movie, even if they do not speak Chinese…er…Mandarin, I should say.

Fido
Director: Andrew Currie
Genre: Horror/Comedy/Drama/Romance
Year: 2006

Crap happened, zombies broke out, war ensued, humanity was pushed to the edge of extinction but then lightning struck, humans pulled their collective heads out of their respective arses and in a stroke of genius not only defeated the zombie horde, but also happened to find a way to control them and enslave them and make them the ultimate pet. So now you can have your zombie fetch your newspaper, water your lawn, do your vacuuming and so forth and so on.

Set in the fifties this movie has a layer of cheese and ‘campiness’ of the sort you would expect from shows like ‘Leave it to Beaver‘ and ‘Lassie‘ (except I have no actual idea if those shows are from the fifties and no inclination to go find out). Add to it the comedic element that you get from making a zombie a pet, the not so comedic potential enslavement of what could be an arguably sentient being, the drama of family dynamics, the thrill of an accidental act of gruesome violence and a twist on the idea of a romantic movie and you pretty much have this strangely likable movie. While it  may break a lot of zombie rules, and while it may not hit the funny bone quite as well as Shaun of the Dead, this one is definitely worth watching, if only for the fact that it is bound to have something that most everybody will like (except for your children, unless rotting corpses is on their list of “fun things I like to bring to show and tell”), and give you something to meaty to chew on while you are at it (I would like to say the pun is not intended, but it is, I had to think about it really hard to get to it too, so give me some credit).

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Lots of zombie, plenty of gore, adult situations and some sexual content. Not for kids. Or at least not for kids that you hope will grow up to be upstanding citizens of your community, anyway.
Quote: Bill Robinson: I’d say I’m a pretty darn good father. My father tried to eat me, I don’t remember trying to eat Timmy.
Helen Robinson: Bill, just because your father tried to eat you, does that mean we all have to be unhappy… forever?

Changeling
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Crime/Drama/Mystery
Year: 2008

Clint Eastwood’s latest release and lets be frank here, for an old man Eastwood works incredibly hard; Grand Turino is already being pimped out there and this movie just barely released. But in any case, the movie is still generally a good one. It deals with the true story of a woman who loses her child (he gets kidnapped, actually) while she is at work. The incompetent police department, at being entirely unable to find the kid, manages to scrounge up another run away and try to pass him off as the woman’s child.

Hilarity ensues.

Not really, this one is actually a pretty depressing, dramatic film, as you can probably gather from the synopsis. Unfortunately it is also slightly drawn out, it runs too long, and feels a bit predictable. Of course, the argument against that is: What can you do, this is what actually happened! And then I have no argument in return to that other than please make the movie shorter so it does not feel so damned long.

It does however have its good moments, some very interesting concepts, particularly when dealing with insane asylums and the manipulated, forced, unfair throwing of women into insane asylums. More so than the actual account of the movie, I found this rather fascinating. Unfortunately that is not the main body of the movie. There is some pretty good acting peppered through out and it is very well directed, so you take the good with the bad and if the concept appeals to you, then I encourage you to watch it. If it does not…then you are probably better off watching Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, which are superior films.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Notes: Some language, disturbing situations, and some violence. Not a child friendly film.
Quote: Christine Collins: I used to tell Walter, “Never start a fight… but always finish it.” I didn’t start this fight… but by god I’m going to finish it.

Paranoia 1.0
Director: Jeff Renfroe and Marteinn Thorsson
Genre: Horror/Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Year: 2004

This is sort of like the Matrix’s, underbudgeted, little brother and the still manage to pull of a rather impressive, twisted, but largely straight forward film. In fact, this movie is quite reminiscent of “A Detective Story“, directed by Shinichiro Watanabe and one of the animated shorts in The Animatrix, down to the stripped down, old school but somehow futuristic technology.

Essentially, a man receives an empty package and soon after his world begins to fall appart, things in his apartment building do not seem right and the packages keep coming, each time with nothing in them. It makes absolutely no sense to Simon, who is trying to come to grips with that as his life begins to spiral out of control in a way that he can not seem to help, making one wonder if the empty packages are truly empty.

Inventive in a twisted sort of way, this movie is up my alley but not most people. There is a certain noir to this and a bit of grittiness that I think will turn off a large chunk of the mainstream. Be prepared for a thriller that keeps you on the edge the same way the Matrix did, but do not count on the same visual effects. In fact most of the film relies  on very little C.G. making up for it with better acting on the part of Jeremy Sisto who plays the lead and some unique sets that will draw in the fans of movies like Delicatessen, Blade Runner and other movies in this particular vein. Though…let it be noted that the adult content has been bumped up quite a bit here.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Violence, language, disturbing imagery, nudity and a bit of S&M of sorts. Adults only for this one and open minded ones, at that.
Quote: Howard: The bad people can save you but they won’t. The good people wanna save you but they can’t.

-Fco.

Not sure how that works either, but I don’t really care. Let’s talk about books:

Title: The Beach
Author: Alex Garland
Category: Fiction - Adventure

I credit a small handful of authors for getting me back into reading. Neil Gaiman is one of them, Mark Z. Danielewski would be another and we could probably toss Chuck Palahniuk and Kurt Vonnegut into the mix for good measure, but Alex Garland is another definite. Before Neverwhere, before American Gods, before House of Leaves…I read The Beach.

I am having a difficult time remembering the specifics, but I was on a trip somewhere, maybe back to Wa. State to visit an old friend and I read an article on some magazine (again, details escape me, sue me, I am not a freakin’ elephant), regarding some new hot shot that had written a hell of a debut and the guy was younger than me. So I looked it up and bought it at the air port. I am a slow reader, so I can not brag that I had it read by the time I got off the plane, but I really wanted to! That counts for something.

The story is that of an British kid, fed up with what he feels is the over crowding of civilization, looking for that one thrilling experience that will separate him from the herd, the one story that will make his youth worthwhile. He finds said thrill in the form of a hand drawn map given to him by a man who calls himself Duffy Duck, a man who is found dead a day later in the seedy hotel in which Richard is staying. Richard being the British kid. The map? It is the promise of paradise on earth, a secret carefully guarded, a beach untouched by civilization rumored to be beyond beauty.

On a whim, Richard decides to believe it and take with him two neighboring French kids that are there in Thailand, for similar reasons. It of course helps that one of those French kids, is Francoise, who is both beautiful and unattainable (she is with Etienne, the other French kid). So they go, but on a drunken night, just before departure, Richard redraws the map for another group of kids, thinking nothing of it.

Richard, Francoise and Etienne find their beach…unfortunately things are not entirely perfect and when others begin to show up and the secret seems to be ruined, the stakes raise much higher than anybody could have imagined.

If I sound over excited about this book, that is because I am. It is difficult for me to contain myself when talking about it. I ended up reading everything else that had Garland’s name on it afterwards and I do not regret a single minute of it. I still recommend this book to most people I meet and I will recommend it to you. The Beach, go get it.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Title: Dracula
Author: Bram Stoker
Genre: Fiction - Horror

Bram Stoker’s classic, I do not know that you really need me to tell you what this is about, because anybody that has not heard of this book has most likely been living under a rock (my apologies to those of you that have not heard of this book, but really…get out a little). Vampires, horror, classic literature, I hardly need to say more. But I will because as is often the case with classics, it takes a bit of patience to sink your teeth into. Books, like film, have changed over time. The pacing is different, language is different, story arcs are different and that means adjustment from the part of the reader.

It took me three tries to actually get into this book. First it was recommended to me by my swim coach (Amy, not Jay, this is when I was still a tot), but the combination of a difficult read, with my lack of knowledge of the language had me giving up pretty early in. I tried again later in high school, but I was in that mentality where…I had better things to do, like going out on Friday nights and do nothing with groups of friends. So it was not until I got into the swing of reading and prior to Halloween last year that I finally picked it up. This time I was able to appreciate it for what it was and I do not have to say it was engrossing.

I also ought to comment on the edition that I got, which is actually called The Illustrated Dracula, which is the same story as pretty much any edition you get, but comes coupled with some illustrations by Jae Lee which are pretty damn amazing. Kinda like frosting on your cake. Really good frosting. So if pictures help keep you intruiged, then this version is for you. If you could care less about pictures, there are a lot of other editions that could save you a couple of bucks. Either way, the read is the same and it is a good one!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Title: The Master and Margarita
Author: Mikhail Bulgakov
Category: Fiction

I did not forget to review this book because it was not memorable. Quite the contrary, actually, which may sound a bit strange but it actually makes sense. This book was so different to my average read that I really had to digest it to better understand where I stood on it. A lot about this is unorthodox, starting with the fact that the book was actually banned in Russia for a good number of years, or the fact that neither The Master, nor Margarita, are really main characters in this story. In like fashion, this story unfolds in ways that are hard to predict and so for the longest time I had to wonder if I enjoyed the breaking of the mold or if it was throwing me off. I decided I liked it…a lot…but apparently forgot to let you guys know. So here it is now.

The devil came to Moscow, and he did not arrive alone. He, is a charming, gentleman with mismatched eyes, with a gift for trickery (no duh!) and a self-proclaimed master of Black Magic, who goes by the name of Woland. With him are a vodka-drinking, black cat who occasionally wears clothes and always walks on two legs named Behemoth; a ‘translator’ and former ‘choir-master’ who is dressed in near rags and a cracked pince-nez, wielding a certain charm of his own and named Koroviev (among other things); a red haired, stocky, fanged hitman named Azazel; and a beautifully witch with a tendency to walk around naked, named Hella. Needless to say, all sorts of hell (no pun intended) breaks loose when Satan lands in Moscow, often results that are as hilarious as they are troubling.

Add to the mix a writer that has given up on himself after writing a magnificent story about Pontious Pilate, a man who goes by the name of The Master, who in the passing of time won himself the heart of a woman named Margarita. When the work is destroyed and The Master is in the brink of insanity, Margarita is willing to risk it all to save him and his writing. But with the devil around, things are simply not that easy.

The fact that this book was banned points to the fact that the government did not like it. And from the on-set one can tell the author is taking cracks the Stalinist regime and social conditions of Russia during the 30’s. But there is much more to this book, which mixes politics, religion and entertainment, breaking every rule to bring us a very memorable, very entertaining, very clever book that everybody ought to own a copy of. Guaranteed to provoke thought and laughter, this is a book I will recommend to the avid reader, though perhaps not to the ones that like their stories more neatly packaged. There is nothing neat about this book.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Author: Hunter S. Thompson
Category: Fiction - Semi-auto-biographical?

If you have not yet read the book, you most likely have watched the Johnny Depp vehicle that bears the same name and which is largely very accurate to the book, bringing for your entertainment a twisted, drug enduced hallucination for you to either devour or reject. The book is the same, but better and more in depth, as most books tend to be when compared to the movies based off them. The feeling and the mood, will remain, however, unchanged and if you had a hard time watching, you will probably not enjoy the book either.

Vulgar, politically incorrect and all sorts of funny, Hunter S. Thompson describes his journey to Las Vegas to find the American Dream and while he is at it try to pay the bills, that is if he is able to keep himself alive after taking pretty much every drug known to man kind and after running into trouble with just about everybody he meets. Lucky for him, he has his good for nothing attorney at his side, who is just as much under the influence as our dear narrator is.

The trip, literally and figuratively, starts from the get-go and never, ever, lets up, providing with one of the most interesting, off the wall, reads I have had since Naked Lunch. It is a short read, so there you can say the investment of time is not going to be much and I can guarantee you that if you do not like the first five pages, you are not going to like the entire book. So grab it at the book store, sit down with it for fifteen minutes and if you do not like what you are reading…then don’t buy it. If you do, it only gets worse…much much worse, and you can only shake your head and smile about it.

“People, as your attorney, I advice you all to check this book out.”

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Title: Kafka on the Shore
Author: Haruki Murakami
Category: Fiction

Blending David Mitchell-esque story telling with a touch of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s magical realism for spice, Murakami writes an interesting story about a boy, self-named Kafka, who is running away from home, from all he knows and from an Oedipal prophecy made by his father, which basically says that young Kafka will kill his own father at the age of fifteen and sleep with both his mother and his sister, whom he has not seen since he was a toddler.

Determined not to carry out this curse, Kafka runs away with a pocketful of cash, a pocket knife, a backpack and a lot of determination, having no particular destiny in mind. It is a story presented to us in first person, which takes us through the journey as Kafka makes some interesting acquaintances and goes into hiding, first for one reason, then for another. That takes care of the odd chapters, meanwhile, a secondary story is brought up on the even chapters, which runs parallel to the first and which is written in third-person perspective, having to do with a senior named Nakata, with a mental disability, who is able to talk to cats and make fish fall out of the sky. The latter is trying to escape his father, possibly looking for his mother and sister, while the former is simply trying to find a cat, a duty that ends up leading him through an unexpected journey that begins to pull into its net complete, unsuspecting strangers. How the two are realated, Nakata and Kafka…well that is part of the fun in trying to figure it out.

Labeled by some critics as a ‘mind-bending, metaphysical story’, Kafka on the shore blends pop culture, music and some interesting theories to put together quite a good tale. Though I will have to say, at moments the characters are so full of…instinctual knowledge, that I found myself pulling back at times and remembering this was a story. It is interesting, it is very much worth the read, but in my humble opinion, it is not perfect, nevertheless, the puzzle itself is alternatively humorous, interesting and creepy enough, that the read never lets up until the end and while I found it difficult to truly relate to the characters, in its own detached way, the story is still a very good one.

Rating: 4 out of 5

And that, finally, brings me up to date in all my reading. Next up? Kafka…the real one. Obviously, reading a book with Kafka on the title made me itchy to go for something considered more classic…and that is proving to be an interesting experience. More on that later.

(alright, the code embedding was not working and I did not have the time to figure it out, so I will just provide the link, maybe switch it up later to the actual video, once I can be bothered)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=45079213

Fco.

• Director: Gus Van Sant
• Genre: Drama
• Year: 2007

While most people have praised Gus Van Sant for his more mainstream films like Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester, I personally gravitated more to his introspect, quieter film Elephant, which was as haunting as it was beautiful. Paranoid Park follows in the vein of the latter and not the former, which in my opinion is a good thing, but something which in most people’s opinion may be more difficult to enjoy.

Here, like in Elephant, GVS gives us a look into the mind of a teenage skateboarder who has been linked to a gruesome murder on the rail road tracks near Paranoid Park, a skateboard park in Portland. Told in broken segments, scrambled and out of sequence, we follow Alex as he narrates in an imperfect, compositional way, the events that have plagued his life in recent days.

Filled with long, dreamy shots, an abundance of slow motion and cinematographic quiet, GVS creates a portrait that is both troubling and peaceful alternatively. Once again–as he did in Elephant–it would seem that the director has called on a list of teenage non actors, which give the film a dose of realism, even if some of the secondary actors–Lauren McKinney, Jake Miller, I am looking in your direction–drop the ball a couple of times. While the actors certainly managed to taint the film with a few of their short comings, I can only point the finger at GVS, because they were things that could have been easily edited out or edited differently. Nevertheless, Alex, who is the main character as played by Gabe Nevins, strikes gold with his performance.

While this is not a perfect film, it is certainly a thought provoking journey into teenage angst, where numerous events collide to make, but sparing us the overly dramatic MTv crap. The way the film is narrated, like the way it is shot, adds to the mood of the feature and  it seems to deal with the teenage mind in a rather honest fashion, to the point where you actually feel like smacking a few of the kids in the back of the head, they feel so real. If you are of the independent mind, able to handle slower pacing in movies, then this is a film you will most definitely enjoy.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Rated R due to a couple of disturbing scenes, language and brief, adolescent sexual content.
Quote: Macy: They should be out now, dude.
Alex: What are you talkin’ about?
Macy: The war, Iraq, no? What do you think?
Alex: I really don’t care.

You will find this book under the Sci-Fi section and I have to be honest, as far as sci-fi books, this one is not much. I will give it props, considering that it was written in the sixties, it actually was pretty accurate in the way somethings would have worked in the future, but as far as this book being an entertaining sci-fi, Mistress falls short of the mark. That being said, it is very clear from the beginning that this book is intended to be far more than an ‘entertaining’ sci-fi book, focusing instead on politics, social commentary and libertarian ideals and that is where this book shines.

The setting is the Moon (or Luna, as they refer to it) a penal colony, where all of earth’s outcasts were once sent to serve their prisons. It was the perfect set up, as far as Earth was concerned, you got rid of your malignant entities pretty much for good, because once you spend a certain amount of time in the moon, your body becomes adjusted to the lower gravitational pull and you will eventually reach a point were coming back to earth is impossible. And as far as the prison in the Moon goes, it is also perfect. No need for cells, bars, walls, the prisoners were free to live as they wished, it is not like they could escape anywhere.

Time goes by and eventually the colony ceases to be a prison, more people begin to head out to Luna to make a living, the way pioneers did during the gold rush. It is a difficult lifestyle, but one that they seem to have streamlined without the aid of government or any true ruling, quite easily. The only darkside to this lifestyle, is the precense of the Warden and his troops, who remain in authority even though the colony is no longer penal. ‘Authority’ controls all the crucial aspects of society, dictating the prices of the produce they sell, the water they utilize, the air their breathe, etc. Needless to say, by the 2070’s certain citizens have had enough. It is not until Wyoming Knott, a beautiful blonde speaker, comes to speak in regards to revolution and independence that the wheels start actually turning.

Caught in the motion are Manny, a one armed tech man, in charge of Authority’s computer systems; Profesor Bernardo de la Paz, an eclectic, well respected old man and Mike (named after Mycroft Holmes, brother of Sherlock Holmes), a computer that has made so many ‘neural’ connections with other computers that it actually becomes sentient. And it is this ragged bunch, that come together and plot revolution, to gain a free Luna.

It is a cool and interesting concept, with very interesting ideas, however ideological and in for that aspect, this is very much a book worth reading. However, those of you that are looking for an entertaining read, will find this bland, at best. The plot moves painfully slow and dialogue is over abundant and on the verge of repetitive, to the point where if you have no interest in politics and the libertarian theories, then chances are you will not get to the end of this book. So….keep that in mind before picking this one up. There are some interesting theories in regards to society, the role of government and even marriage, but all of that may not amount to an interesting read, if what you are looking for is a thriller.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Notes: See the book cover I am showing up there? Do NOT buy that version of the book if you can help it at all. It is a cheap cover (not to mention poorly designed), flimsy, the paper is cheap to and overall I was quite dissatisfied with the quality of the book. I knew this when I bought it, but it was the only book they had available and I had already committed myself to reading it. So…yeah, try to find a better edition out there, this one sucked.

• Director: Michael Haneke
• Genre: Crime/Horror/Drama/Thriller
• Year: 1997

Chances are, if you put this film in your Netflix list, or rented it, or are watching it willingly, you probably knew what you were getting into. A horror film-slash-thriller about two young, bored, rich kids wanting to entertain themselves at the cost of an unsuspecting family. What you probably did not expect was to be made feel guilty for coming in with this mindset. How many films invite you to watch them and then give you a spanking for it? Not many, but that is exactly what Haneke achieved with this film, with a slight tweak of the rules that make the film not only unnerving and uncomfortable, but also technically questionable. It is the sort of film that in the end will stick with you long after you have ejected the DVD.

The synopsis has already been given and it really is not that much more complicated. A family returns from vacation with their young kid, to find themselves visited by friends of the neighbors, who soon enough make it known they are neither friends of the neighbors, nor are they stopping just to borrow some eggs. It would seem, that the two young antagonists, who look to be boys in their late teenage years, are simply looking to find themselves entertained by torturing others, but perhaps more importantly and more troublingly (is that a word?), they are looking to entertain us by actually breaking the fourth wall, something Paul does in a handful of occasions.

Now…it is my understanding that addressing the audience directly is something largely frowned upon, at least, that was the impression I have gotten over the years, and yet I think Haneke has done something very clever with it in this example. To the director’s credit, the mechanism is utilized seldom and with calculated effect. The result is an uncomfortable moment which begins to build guilt for your continued interest in a movie which becomes increasingly violent. The fact that the we are drawn into the moment as accomplices is quite rattling, personally making me flinch. In one instance, when Paul turns to the camera and gives us a small wink and a smirk, it becomes enough for me to recoil and think: Don’t you be making me part of your sick-ass games. And yet that is exactly what makes this film disturbing. It is not the violence itself, because in all honestly, there are thousands of films out there far more violent, more gory and visually more distasteful. So one can not say that the violence of this film is really what becomes so controversial, but rather that they antagonists snatch up the audience and force them to join in, whether willingly or not.

Much of the horror is left implied, not to say there are not some rather brutal moments, but that most of the punch this movie packs is either in the implications, the consequences or the escalating sense of dread that continues to build even after the two young men have finally decided to leave the home (not without having made a true mess of things). In that sense, I have to applaud this film for being so unflinchingly honest about what it is doing without gratuitous gore, but it still does bring up to the forefront, the ‘violence in the media’ question, which these last few years has become more and more prominent.

It took me a while to figure out what troubled me about this movie so much, was it the violence itself? No, not really, because as I stated, I have actually seen much much worse. Was it the breaking of the fourth wall? Initially I thought this was the case, but in the end and after much deliberation, I realized that what bothered me was not the breaking of the fourth wall itself, but rather the violating feeling one gets by being pulled in at such uncomfortable moments. In essence, this movie makes captives of the audience, asking you to side with the two young men, when there is absolutely nothing there to sympathize with. In fact, they have made a conscious effort to give us a very sterile background on Paul and Peter, granting us no information with which to sympathize. We can not say we can understand their motivation, because they may be abused children, or certifiably insane, or any other excuse. There is no cushion for comfort.

There are two versions of this film by the same director, the original (which is the one I saw) which was released in 1997 and the American version released in 2007, which is essentially, shot for shot the same movie, but made with actors you will recognize (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt). My understanding is that the only changes between the two movies was updating the movie to Americanize it and that is it. I chose to watch the original simply because by seeing non-familiar faces in the roles, I tend to buy the story much more convincingly. And in the case of the original release, the four main actors and the child actor, are so good, that it actually makes this movie much more painful to watch, particularly during heart breaking moments when we are forced to watch form a detached distance, the aftermath of Peter and Paul’s reckless actions.

Kudos to the directing and the acting and solid story telling. But be aware that, though this film may not visually be a gore fest, it does bring with it a tempest of riotous violence that it may provoke pressing the fast forward button which is ironic, given the effect of one of the scenes in this film towards the end, which make the audience feel as if they have been terribly cheated. I mean that in a good way, which may seem awkward, but in this film the utilization of this movie’s self awareness actually serves to drive the point that much more effectively. Ultimately, this film may sicken you or thrill you with its stark commentary on violence, but whether you like it or not, it will certainly give you something to talk about.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Violence, adult situations, graphic imagery and brief nudity. German with English subtitles. Also, it must be noted that the foreign version got significantly higher marks than the American version. I personally can not make comments on that, since I have not seen the American version myself, but you may want to know that before choosing which version to watch.
Quote: Georg: Why are you doing this to us?
Paul: Why not?

• Director: Martin Scorsese
• Genre: Biography/Drama
• Year: 2004

Not at all what I was expecting. Perhaps I heard the wrong people talking, or maybe I filtered out the information I heard and settled only in bits and pieces. However, due to high amounts of hype on a film that based on the trailer I really did not  feel like watching, I made the decision to put off watching it until later on in the future. I do that a lot, if there is a movie I am not too sure about and they hype it up, I tend to give it some time to cool before  I watch it to keep myself from hating on it too much. Part of my nature I suppose.

Quite frankly, I ended up forgetting all about the Aviator until I bought a small Scorsese box set which came with The Departed, The Aviator and Goodfellas. The deal I got at Costco was worth buying two good movies and getting the third as a freebie.

If I were forced to compare this film to another, for referential or recommendation purposes, I would probably compare it to A Beautiful Mind and essentially that is what this is, the biography of an eclectic man that ends up falling victim to his mental disorder but achieving a tremendous amount in the process. Both stories share the same concept, which to me is a turn off. Thankfully, the particulars of each movie are unique enough, different enough and interesting enough that you still do not feel like you are watching the same movie on a different setting.

Personally, I did not know much about Howard Hughes prior to watching this film and I have done no research on him after watching it, so off the bat I was not sure what to expect. The portrait that is presented by Scorsese is an interesting one, of a wealthy man obsessed with planes and movies and trying to do and create the best of both, an endeavor that eventually leads to his acquisition of TWA airlines and puts him in heated conpetition with Pan Am. It does not help that from the onset, Hughes is a terribly eccentric man, ambitions, driven and motivated, hindered only by his obsessive compulsive disorder and his depression.

It is an interesting movie, depicting the life of a very interesting man and Scorsese does a great job bringing the audience in to the movie and setting them in the era. Needless to say, the star studded cast delivers across the board with memorable performances starting with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes, Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn, Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner, and ending with the secondary roles played by John C. Rielly, Alec Baldwin and Ian Holm among others.

I have no complaints about this film, technically, visually and thematically it is interesting enough, though I still felt myself not quite being able to love this film. Perhaps it was the setting itself that I have a hard time getting into, maybe it is the subject of planes (which I like as much as the next guy but am not passionate about) or maybe it was the fact that it seems there are enough biographies out there already that in the end, good as it may be, this film still feels like one of a bunch. Whatever it is that was missing, it was not there to make it stand out as one would have liked and because of that, I think this film will end up living the same fate of A Beautiful Mind in my opinion, a good film to watch, but once is enough.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Nudity, language, some violence and a potent crash sequence.
Quote: Howard Hughes: I want ten chocolate chip cookies. Medium chips. None too close to the outside.