Recently in Suspense pg.3 Category

Directed by Oxide Pang Chun. Starring: Race Wong, Rosanne Wong, Anson Leung, Michelle Mee. Foreign language film with English subtitles. Synopsis: Psycho thriller/suspense about a young girl, interested in photography and art, who becomes obsessed with pictures of death. Her new passion for taking photos of dead and dying animals and humans leads her into the hands of a real life snuff film.

I really have no idea why I picked up this film, I'm not normally a big foreign language film guy, I think you lose something with the subtitles (Passion of the Christ excepted) , but I am glad I got this one. Set in Hong Kong, its the story of a young woman who is obviously feeling insecure about herself and her life. Jin (Race Wong) is very into art and photography, but very early on we learn that she feels neglected by her traveling businesswoman mother (Michelle Mee) as well as some disturbing things that happened to her as a little girl.

Jin has a girlfriend, yes that kind of girlfriend, named Jas (played, somewhat surprisingly, by Race Wong's real life sister, Rosanne Wong) who may be just a little bit stifling of Jin, although she obviously cares deeply for her. The only other person seemingly close to Jin is a pursuing suitor named Anson (Anson Leung) who has taken a shine to Jin, much to the displeasure of Jas.

The big moment of the film comes early on when Jin sees a corpse laying on the street right after a automobile accident. Shocked at the sight, she is nevertheless compelled to photograph it, and, soon she is obsessively photographing other accidents, dead/dying animals, and drawing  a blood stained figure in her art class when diepicting the bloodless live nude girl who is the subject.

Jin progressively slips further into this obsession with death, becoming reckless with her own mortality (there is a neat scene where she is swinging carefree from the front side of the bannister on a porch on top of a high rise building to the dismay of Jas), and going to the point of splashing Anson with red paint on their date in order to simulate a bloody corpse. Where does it all lead? Well, lets just say that Jin is not the only one who shares a fascination with death and she finds herself in a real life snuff film setting.

This movie is beautifully filmed and nice to watch. Its clear that the pace and visuals of this foreign film are very different in style from an American film. I didn't say better or worse, just different. But, visually interesting and easy to follow. You feel that Jin is attracted to death, blood, and gore not only because she has issues, but because she sees it as beautiful and artistic. The relationship between Jin and Jas is played in such a way as that you can feel their love and attraction (especially from Jas), but there are exactly zero titillating scenes or implications of physical intimacy. Whether this is a stylistic choice, or due to the actresses being sisters in real life, it works because you believe the relationship, which is important for the story.

The themes involved: murder, torture, homosexuality, killing for sexual gratification, etc., are about as intense as you get, but there is nothing tasteless in the film, or played just for cheap thrills or gore.

Without question, something is lost in the fact that you cannot understand what the actors are saying, and subtitles cannot portray everything in translation fit nicely on your screen. But, its good enough where you soon do not even realize you are essentially reading a movie.

The conclusion of the film leaves a lot to interpretation and probably could have been handled better, but, again, that may be unfair coming from an Americanized movie fan who is used to things being wrapped up, one way or another, in almost every film. This is something to make you think and, if you don't mind pushing the envelope a little (o.k., a lot) in your entertainment, you just might like this film quite a bit.   

Directed by Iain Softley. Starring Kate Hudson, Gena Rowlands, Peter Sarsgaard, John Hurt, Joy Bryant. Drama/Thriller/Horror Synopsis: A suspense laden thriller about a young hospice care nurse who goes to work on a plantation in a rural Louisiana town, where she begins to think that the invalid man she is taking care of might be a victim of his eccentric wife.

Now, this is one that just kind of takes your breath away. Awesome story, well directed, beautifully shot, great soundtrack, and outstanding actors. Other than that, nothing much to write home about. The film starts with us being introduced to Caroline (Kate Hudson), an idealistic young hospice nurse who is disillusioned at the uncaring nature of her profession in the big city and answers an ad to become a live-in caregiver at a antebellum plantation home in a rural parrish.

The matron of the home, Violet Devereaux (Gena Rowlands Gloria) seems reluctant and somewhat cool to Caroline at first, but is persuaded because of Caroline's diligence and the recommendation of family lawyer Luke (Peter Sarsgaard) to give her the job. Caroline accepts, much to the surprise of her roommate and best friend Jill (Joy Bryant) and assumes the major responsibility for the care of Ben Devereaux (John Hurt The Elephant Man), an invalid who cannot speak.

Caroline senses immediately that things are a little out of the ordinary at the Devereaux home, what with their being no mirrors anywhere in the huge place and her increasing realization that Violet is a believer in the back waters superstitions associated with voodoo. And, to top it off, there is a room in the house that Caroline is told not to enter, it cannot even be opened with the skeleton key, which opens all other rooms. Well, Caroline, just like any of us, is curious about that room and the secrets it holds.

As she gets to know Ben, Caroline cannot help but feel that he is trying to communicate with her, and that what he is trying to communicate is a fear...and that fear is of his wife. Caroline initially attributes this to the fact that Ben, as violet obviously does, believes in the superstitions and that is the cause of his inexplicable inability to speak. We see her steep herself in voodoo lore and beliefs, in order to convince Ben that she can "rid" him of the demons that he believes spook him. Of course, she comes to the conclusion along the way that Violet really does mean Ben harm, and resolves to get him away from her. She shares her concerns with Luke, and we have a suspenseful drama that will keep you hooked to the very end and, I promise, surprise you with the outcome.

Now, readers of this blog will know that I never spoil a flick when I talk about it here (unless, of course, I just feel like it)  and I won't do that here. Lets just say that the great majority of folks-say, about 90%-won't figure this one out until it hits us in the face in the last five minutes of the movie. The great thing is, we are not even sure that it is a movie where we have to figure it out until the end. 

Suffice it to say, everyone in this movie, at the end, is not who they appeared to be. And, yes, the movie is consistent so when you go back to watch it again, the director and script played by the rules: no holes, you had the chance to see what was coming, the answer was there the whole time, no paradoxes. In other words, wonderful.  

The film is fast paced, with no wasted scenes or characters. It captures a flavor of New Orleans and Louisiana that any one who has been there will be able to appreciate. What makes this movie stand out, of course, like all movies that stand out, is the script and the acting. There are really only 5 main characters, and even within that, Joy Bryant's Jill is not onscreen very much, although she plays an important part in the story, particularly the ending. The minor characters, especially in the flashback scene to the lynching of the voodoo practicing servant couple that spawned the lengends, are spooky and supberb.

But, with any film that is so character driven, there is even more pressure on the leads and Hudson and Rowlands both deliver big time. We see almost the entire film through the eyes of Hudson's character, so it is vital that we like and empathize with her, and we do. Its apparent that she has prodigious talent. Gena Rowlands is one of those actors who everyone knows is good, and we wonder why we don't see more of her. (I know what some of you are saying: Hollywood doesn't have many good roles for females over 35. You're right, of course, but don't get me started)  She has a performance for the ages in this one, just as good-although a much different type of role-as the role she is most known for in Gloria. She is majestic, spooky, evil, conniving, vulenrable, and definitely attractive in middle age in this role. She puts it all together.

Not to short change the boys, Sarsgaard and Hurt are awesome as well, its just that the two female leads are the ones driving this train. Sarsgaard is starting to have the "Malcolm McDowell" effect on me. That is, whenever I see his name as a character in  a movie, I just know that his character, if not the whole flick, is going to be...different. And usually pretty good. You just know the whole time that there is something that just doesn't quite fit with this nice young lawyer who seems to just have one client...but, as I said earlier, its not what you think it might be. Or, if you're sharper than me (no great accomplishment) maybe it is what you think it is.

John Hurt deserves special mention, certainly no surprise given his body of work. It is amazing that an actor can have the effect and communicate the feelings of the character so well without speaking. I think some of you, after you watch the movie, will be amazed when you realize he has no dialogue. I mean, you will know he doesn't, it just won't feel that way because he does such a good job.

And, as if a good movie wasn't enough, there are awesome special features on the DVD. You will see behind the scenes footage, deleted scenes, plus shorts with Hurt, Hudson, and Rowlands dealing with some aspect of voodoo, legend, history and one personal real life ghost story. Further, there are two very informative segments on voodoo and the plantation life in antebellum Louisiana. I love this kind of stuff and I bet you will, too.

Same goes for the movie.   

Starring: Dennis Hopper, Kelly Brook, Raffaello Degruttola, Susie Amy, Ashley Walters, Morvin Christie, Hipplyte Girardot, Peter Capaldi, Julienne Davis. Suspense/Drama. 

Synopsis: Nine people are abducted and placed in a house by an unknown man who promises 5 million dollars to the one who will leave the house alive.  The nine people face, struggle with, and are ultimately defeated by  their inability to overcome their differences and by the selfish fight for food and survival.

Some people might consider this a poor(er) man's Saw 2, but it does seem from the information that this was in production back in '03, even before the original Saw. Its always interesting to me to see the natural progression or deterioration of the human condition when people are placed in intense and life threatening situations with others that they do not know. I'm not smart enough to psycho analyze it overall, but it seems to me that its is going to be really good or really, really bad. Simplistic, yes, but I think a fair description of what we expect to see, we just don't know which.

In House of 9, we quickly anticipate that it is all going to hell in a handbasket pretty quickly. The start of the movie deals with a couple of the abductions, but it is important in this type of story to really go overboard with your suspension of disbelief, because we have to believe that several adult people are abducted, almost simultaneously, with not one of them having a clue why or really how...yet they all manage to land in this super secure house at the same time. Well, o.k. Once you get by that, it is possible to enhoy the story...to a degree.

Surprisingly, House of 9 deals very little with any real attempt at escape from the house, the nine heroes are told by a mysterious voice that they are effective participants in game, with the winner walking out with a cool 5 million dollars. (One wonders, since the film is set in Britain, why the offer wasn't for pounds, but if its 5 mil, I guess you don't worry about stuff like that). There is no direction or hint from the Voice as to whether or not they are expected to kill one another, or whether they will encounter some pitfalls from the Voice himself. Immediately, we sense that the Voice might just be counting on the inevitable mistrust, envy, and narrow mindedness that comes in any crowd of humans. We soon see that he is right, which might just be why he picked these people in the first place.

Now, you might think that a gRoup of people containing a priest (Dennis Hopper Hoosiers) and a cop (Degruttola) would not lack for for unquestioned leadership, but you would be very wrong. In fact, only one of the gorup seems to pay the priest the type of respect you might think he'd deserve, former dancer Lea (Kelly Brook). The primary reason that anyone follows the cop's lead is that he has a gun. Ahhh, maybe a hint that the deck has been stacked a little. The angry young aspiring rap artist (Ashley Walters) sure thinks so, as well as the ankle bracelet wearing ex-con Shona (Morvin Christie). The former tennis star (Susie Amy)  makes it real clear that she is not going to lift one finger to help do anything and seems most intent on polishing off the liquor that has been graciously provided by the Voice. The May-December couple (Peter Capaldi, Julienne Davis) seem more concerned with their descent from their previous lofty financial status. Well, that's about it for any interesting subplots, to the extent that you find that interesting.

There is a scarce supply of food provided for the nine members at first, so rationing becomes the name of the game, but, once they start dying, the portions substantially increase.  The deaths come in the three of the four major categories: accidental, suicide (or was it?), and old fashioned murder. Frankly, there is not much sense to it, which was the point, in my opinion. When you get right down to it, how much sense does it make to kill another person?

The acting is uneven, Hopper fans, like myself, will be disappointed. First, he needed to decide whether he was an American priest in the U.K. or an American actor playing an Irish priest. Either would have been fine, but the accent shifts back and forth between the two for most of the movie. Second, the priest thing just didn't work.  Most of the  characters really were not given a chance to develop. The most interesting was Morvin Christie's Shona, the only character who was most evidently not one-dimensional.  Capaldi's Max is the most enigmatic and psychopathic, and its always good to have at least one of those. Kelly Brook's Lea is the most empathic, and its a toss up in my book for most irritating character between Walters Al-B and Susie Amy's Claire.

The ending is both predictable and unpredictable. Predictable because you just know there is going to be a twist and the "winner" will probably only get fool's gold, so to speak, but when that comes, it is a fairly fresh take on the lust for money. Its not thoroughly explained, but it is sufficiently shown so as to let us draw our own conclusions, which I like. I won't play spoiler here, but the one who does walk out with the dough is one you wouldn't have initially thought...unless, of course, you've seen enough movies (say more than three) to realize that there is almost always a formula, and in this type of movie the formulaic ending just all but tells you that it will be one of the "meek" characters. 

You might see this in your video store or online as a horror, but it is most certainly not a horror movie, nor does it pretend to be(except maybe on the DVD cover). I don't think there is quite enough depth in the script for it to qualify as a psychological thriller, after all, we would need to know something about these characters other than their names and occupations in order to get into their psyche, wouldn't we? Its a suspense/drama, and an average one at best. But, you could do a lot worse and, if you watch movies on a regular basis, you most definitely have.

Directed by Lucky McKee.Starring Patricia Clarkson, Agnes Bruckner, Rachel Nichols, Bruce Campbell. Horror/Drama. Synopsis:A troubled young girl is sent to a boarding school that is located next to some woods that harbor old and supernatural secrets.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I was primarily interested in picking it up because it had Patricia Clarkson (The Dead Pool, The Green Mile)  who is an actress that I like but have not seen in many leading roles. I also like horror, which this film was billed as, though I don't know if that is really the best fit for it as it is mostly a drama with tinges of mystery and some horror, with a dose of pure camp and references/homage to the sub genre of "girls in boarding school/prison" theme which specializes in pure titillation. But, The Woods does not go all the way with any of these themes. 

The plot of the film concerns a troubled teen girl named Heather (Agnes Bruckner) who has some issues, including pyromania, an inattentive mother, and the voices she hears. As such, mom and Dad (Bruce Campbell) elect to place her in a remote, yet supposedly elite, boarding school.

Well, Heather, not to mention the viewers, immediately sense that something is not quite right with this school and its Gothic setting next to some foreboding woods. And that does not even take into account the faculty, a group of women who are courteous without emotion and, well, strange. Chief among those is the headmistress, Ms. Traverse (Clarkson). Right from the beginning, Heather seems to be a square peg in a round hole here, befriending only a couple of other misfits in the school, where the girls all seem to bunk down in the same room. And, of course, whenever a protagonist goes into a new school against his/her will in cinema, you know there will be a chief tormentor and, true to form, there is here. Her name is Samantha (Rachel Nichols G.I. Joe: Rise Of Cobra) and she has a strong dislike, in addition to an implied attraction, for Heather from the start, leading to a couple pf physical altercations.

But, the story does not really follow or develop that plot line, as Heather stays in the school and realizes that her parents will not come get her, other strange things happen, chiefly the disappearance of some of the students, which is troubling because no one seems to be overly concerned.

At this point, Heather begins to learn the history of the school and the dark legends of the neighboring woods, with tales shrouded in a belief in witchcraft.

For me, the first part of the film, though relatively slow moving, is the more interesting and better scripted. When things start to pick up in the second part of the movie with regard to pace, it becomes kind of jumbled and harder to follow the plot. Having said that, I can't say that it is an uninteresting film. It is certainly not scary or the kind of movie that will keep you on edge or surprise you, but you can be entertained.

I knew nothing of Bruckner prior to seeing this flick, but I was impressed with her work here as she needs to carry the story, being in almost every scene, and she does. I think Heather needs to be a head strong girl without coming across as a bad girl and Bruckner does this and there is actually some depth and different layers to her character, something you can't count on with a film that is walking the thin line of being a campy pseudo horror flick.

Patricia Clarkson didn't seem to have much to do except be the creepy, foreboding presence that flits in and out of the film until the end, when the whole truth comes out. She does this well and it's a very different type of role for her.

My chief criticism of the acting would be that this story is set in the '60's and, other than some scenes with the girls listening to a transistor radio, you really don't get the sense that this is supposed to be happening 40 years ago. These come across like Generation Y girls in school uniforms to me. But, that could be more of a criticism of the script or direction and, honestly, there are no glaring anachronisms that I saw and I'm not sure how important that is to the film, just something I wanted to share.

After all, witchcraft is timeless, isn't it?  

Directed by Ron Howard. Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian Mckellen, Alfred Molina, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany. Drama/Mystery/Suspense.Synopsis: A suspense thriller based on the best selling novel of the same name. An American professor who is an expert in ancient symbols is drawn into the investigation of a murder while visiting Paris, where he teams up with a young French woman who is related to the victim.  They are drawn into a far reaching and dangerous web of hidden agendas and secret societies that soon have them searching for the Holy Grail and potentially revealing a secret that has been kept for two thousand years and, if revealed, would shake the very core of Christianity. 

I treated myself to this one over a Holiday weekend on the big screen a while back. First, let me get a few things out of the way. I have not read the book. I've heard people who have say that the film is not as good as the book. I figure I've seen about two dozen films in my life based on novels that I've read, and the next one that I think is actually better than the book will be the first. So, if you have read the book, you are not going to get any comparison to the book from here.

Next, I have no interest in the "controversy" of this movie, and feel it to be a little silly on all parts. This film is clearly fiction, based on a real life theory (Hidden messages in Da Vinci's Last Supper) that has been kicked around for a while, but is itself a bit on the silly side and, in my opinion, viewing this movie should not, in any way, bring up any serious questions of faith or interpretation of historical theology, nor is it in any rational way a slam on Christianity or the Catholic Church.

 Yes, I am a Christian and believe in Christ. No, I do not believe Jesus was married nor am I aware of any credible historical evidence that would point to that, which does not mean there is none. No, I don't buy the Da Vinci theory, seeing as how the famous rendition was painted over a thousand years after the Last Supper, incorrectly shows the men dining at a table (history teaches us that, at that time, the accepted way to dine would be laying down) , and the popular  image of Jesus is not even close to the only, brief, physical description of him in the New Testament.

Now that all of those disclaimers are out of the way, here is what I thought about the movie.

Pretty  good.

Nothing to write home about, but a good popcorn/summer/big budget flick. The story line is intricate and, I think, presupposes some historical knowledge to be fully appreciated, but, when I think about it, almost any movie dealing with history or its interpretation does. It is a long movie, but starts off quickly and Howard does a fair job of keeping us "guessing" until the end as to the identity of some of the unknown players as well as the underlying theme of the film. I say 'fair" because, people like me who have not read one word of the novel have probably heard and read so much about it from other sources, that it is hard to imagine someone being taken totally by surprise as to the plot.

As for the plot, as I alluded to earlier, since its based on a theory interpreting some historical facts and conspiracy theories that I, personally, don't buy, its hard for me to say its a great script or plot, however, judging it from a purely movie standpoint, it does do its job of keeping you intrigued throughout and there are several plot twists along the way. The movie is long and, though it drags in a couple of places, is never dull. 

The acting , overall, is very good. Tom Hanks (Big) and Audrey Tatou are the lead characters and, though neither steals the show so to speak, they are both good  and believable in their roles. I saw Hanks as a long haired academician in this movie with ease, just as I have previously seen and believed him as a dying homosexual attorney, a lovable mentally challenged savant, and a broken down, boozing ex-baseball player, among other things. The mark of a great actor.

I am not familiar with Tatou's previous work but she acquits herself well here. I know some may say there was little "chemistry" between the two leads, but, to me, when this is said with regard to a lead actor and actress, the real thing that is being said is some kind of romantic attraction. Thankfully, we are spared this in the film as it would have seriously detracted from the main plot and was unnecessary. There are some of us who still believe it is possible for a man and a woman to be involved in things together in life without having to go to bed.

The two actors that really stand out are Ian Mckellen  and Paul Bettany. Bettany's character Silas, is so over the top that it took a lot of energy and passion for us to believe and buy his maniacal actions. We do, and its because of Bettany.

Also strengthening an impressive cast are Alfred Molina (The Hoax) as the Bishop and Jean Reno (The Pink Panther) as the lead detective hell bent on capturing Tom Hanks (Robert Langon) as if he is the worst criminal in history. When you see the film, you will understand why he thinks this way, though you might not agree.

Some of the videography is stunning. I especially loved the flashbacks to ancient Rome and the way in which the history was told. Howard deserves special praise for this, and it is hard to imagine a more visually pleasing movie in terms of matching the majesty of the story to what you seen on screen.

I will especially be interested to get this on DVD, since there is absolutely no excuse for the special features to be anything less than outstanding and fascinating. So, although I generally wait for things to come out on DVD, going to the movies still has a place for me, but it has to be more of an event, either in the film or things surrounding it.