Tale Of Two Sisters (2003) / Uninvited (2009)

Let's look at two movies this time. A Korean horror film and the US remake. There has been some good American remakes and some shitty ones. I think Grudge was fine while Shutter lost anything that made the original Thai version great. Anyway, this time they did fairly good job.

Both films are about a girl (Soo-Mi or Su-mi, I don't know which one is right, I've seen both spellings, in the Korean version and Anna in the US version) who loses her already sick mother. Her death is different in the two movies. In the US version she dies in an accident apparently caused by Anna and the Koreans go for the suicide by hanging. But in both versions the girl ends up in a mental institution. For guilt or for sadness, it doesn't matter, she's just cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Both movies start when she gets to go home from the hospital and can't wait to see her best friend and sister rolled in to one. Theeen the biggest differences start. I'll just say it here, in Uninvited the nurse who their dad hires to take care of their mom is also his lover. But the Korean version isn't so clear. It shows the woman sleeping in their home but at the end I think Soo-mi just made it all up. The nurse is just their fathers colleague and friend. I think...

In both versions the father is and asshole (more so in the US version). Soo-mi/Anna has serious mental problems and the dad is like "Stop that! Don't be so weird.". And that's before the dad realized Soo-mi/Anna thinks that her sister (Soo-Yeon/Alex) is still alive (Oops.. Spoilers..). So yeah, the sister who she had been talking to all through the movie is dead. And again the reasons differ. Alex died in the same accident as their mother, a fire explosion like it matters, and Soo-Yeon died after finding her dead mother hanging in a closet which then fell on her and suffocated her, which is infinitely more interesting and gruesome. And by the way, that's the big Twist in the US version. Anna thought that Alex killed their nurse stepmother but she did it herself. Because... I don't know. She hated the nurse 'cause she had an affair with their dad when their mom was sick. It's stupid.

After it's revealed that Soo-Yeon is dead there's still third of the movie to go. The twist in this version is, like I said before, that almost eveything she thought the nurse was doing she did herself. I guess she hated the nurse because she ignored Soo-mis suffocating sister. I really recommend you watching it youself because I might not even be right about all this. There's some weird shit that I can't seem to place anywhere. Like their fathers friends, a couple that comes to dinner. I think the man saying he doesn't remember the things the nurse is talking about is just because it's not the nurse sitting at the table. It's Soo-mi although the audience sees her at that point as the nurse (there's similar scenes with the nurse and later we see the same things only with Soo-mi). The woman having somekind of a panic attack or an epileptic seizure or something is never explained that well. Then there's fact that Soo-Yeons being abused by someone, but fuck if I know who. That's sometimes the problem with foreign movies. Different culture makes it sometimes really hard to get certain things. You just don't notice something that has meaning in other coutries but not in yours. But if you do some research on "teh interwebs" sometimes you find things you'd never notice.

Tale Of Two Sisters has some nice nods to the original story that it's based on which you can read here.

It's surprising that I'm actually recommending not only to see the original version (well duh, If Asians do something well it's horror) but also the remake. There were some really stupid things but mostly it's a decent remake and worth to watch especially if you've seen the Korean version.

Grotesque (Gurotesuku) (2009)

I love Japanese (or Asian in general) horror movies. They have a way to freak me out with their eerie ambiance, lots and lots of hair, cell phones, creepy children and elevators.

This movie on the other hand isn't like that. This movie is from the other end of the spectrum with lots of blood, severed things and violence (for once I saw the unrated version, yay!).

It tells a story of a couple who just has started dating. Aaaand then the creepy, creepy doctor abducts them very much in the fashion of Hostel (to which this is compared to) and Human Centipede (which I would say is more similar to this). Hostel had the physical and mental abuse down but Grotesque actually goes on and ups Hostel with sexual abuse.

The killer doctor's motivation isn't that clear although there's a speech from the girl (I don't think they ever tell the characters first names. Though IMDb says her name is Aki but I'll just call her The Girl) at the end. She says she pities him because his mother is a whore and that he has a condition which makes him smell really bad but not notice it himself. And that it's probably the reason why he is so lonely and then retaliates to random people. He gets mad and kills her but she just called he's mother a stinking whore so...

What makes Grotesque different from Hostel is the other possible motivation of the killer. He says he's very rich and is just bored and through his victims will to live he can feel excitement. But it's questionable if he's lying because first he cuts of various body parts (finger necklace, lovely) then he treats their wounds and tells them he's gonna let them go and give himself to the police because he had he's excitement. But then when the couple is almost healed he starts torturing them again. He wants more excitement and THEN he's gonna let them go. Well, It ends badly. The good doctor slits the boys stomach open, ties the other end of his intestine to a hook and makes him walk to a pair of scissors (and he cheers the boy the whole way). He is the supposed to cut himself loose from his own bowel and continue to the girl and free her. Which he can't do. Then we get the speech and the doctor beheads the girl whose head then bites him. That's Japan for ya...

At the end we see the doctor scattering their ashes and going for another girl. So nothing is changed. And I think that makes him a liar liar pants-a-flame..

Only thing is... I don't think it's supposed to be that deep. There really isn't that much of a plot. It's just supposed to shock with it bloody abuse (and the severed nipples, don't forget about the severed nipples). The make-up effects are amazing (like always in Asian horror). Didn't like the CG-blood at the end but it was hardly palpable.

I'm always set for gore. Especially if it's from Japan.

Grotesque on IMDb

Brüno (2009)

Yeah, a talking penis and the word "TAINT" flashing on the screen... That's about what I expected from this movie. I don't find nudity that funny or offensive at all so I'm probably not the target audience for this movie. I liked it for totally different reasons.

I love Sacha Baron Cohens absolute dedication to his characters. He doesn't bail out and break character even if he is in real danger (= a metal chair flying inches away of his head or making fun of real life dangerous people). He's rude, offensive and shameless and it's funny. And the peoples reactions are HILARIOUS. Seeing the rednecks first get confused and then angry (after seeing two men getting it on in a cage fight ring) almost made me pee my pants. And saying to a minister who (allegedly) makes gay people straight, that he's got amazing blow job lips, is so fucking hilarious to me.

When you are this kind of comedian (or a satirist) you can't be scared to go all the way and spare no-one (hence the autism joke). I actually would go as far as to compare him to Lenny Bruce. In a sense that their comedy has the same function, to shock the people to remember the issue. Both of them offended a whole lot of people but they also speak to the people in their own language, meaning they don't twist the words to confuse people (like politicians or religious people). 

Baron Cohen also has a way to make horrible stereotypes actually likable and sympathetic. And they still are horrible stereotypes.  That's why I think he's a perfect choice to play Freddie Mercury. People underestimate (like I always do even if I know better) his talent because of all the offensive crap he does. And I've actually decided not to hate The Dictator in advance. We'll see.

Also he made Elton John not only say but to sing the words "anal bleaching". And four out of the six guest stars he had in the song have done The Simpsons (and so has Baron Cohen) so I wasn't a bit surprised to see them there. But Harrison Fords "Fuck off!"-guest appearance was a surprise especially after reading that it was the only cameo where the celebrity was in on the joke. Weird.

If you liked Borat you'll like this movie. Simple as that. The movies have almost identical plots and the characters are similar one note-y stereotypes. And if it weren't Sacha Baron Cohen it wouldn't work.

Hostel III

Oh, Eli... Why didn't you direct this movie too? I really liked the first two movies. Scott Spiegell is a writer (a fairly good one = Evil Dead 2) not a director. We really didn't need a straight-to-video (or DVD, I'm old dammit!) sequel.

This time the movie takes place in the old US of A (instead of somewhere in Europe). In Vegas to be exact. I kind of can see why (with all the empty space in the desert and crap) but really? Like we haven't seen that before a million times. Everybody knows there's shady things going on in Vegas (and what happens in Vegas blah blah blah...)

I actually liked that the actors again aren't huge names (for example there's the dude who played the son in Nip/Tuck). Still I would have preferred them to be total unknowns. The fantasy is better when you don't have to think "Yeah, like Brad Pitt is really going to die!" And to my surprise they were decent actors (like the first two movies).

The plot is worn as shit. Guys go to Vegas to have a bachelor party. Wooo...  They get sold to the hunting club and as it turns out, one of them is a member. You know the one that.. umm.. the rich asshole one. He's supposed to kill his best friend but fails miserably. I loved his moronic motivation. He wanted the girl his buddy was going to marry next week (or like he put it: "When it comes to pussy, I have no friends." Great right?) The place gets blown up, looks like the hero went with the building and that the asshole got away. But SURPRISE!!! Last thing we see is the soon to be married couple killing the asshole. Nice (No sarcasm.)

I didn't hate this movie as much as it may seem but it wasn't as good as the previous ones. And the second one wasn't even as good as the first. This movie felt the slowest of the bunch. I was almost screaming to my TV "Stop stalling and go get killed! We came to see severed limbs and eyeballs hanging on cheeks!" I don't know if the version I saw was some mutilated version or if this movie for some reason wanted to do less graphic killing scenes (If so, might I ask what the fuck? You're selling people to be killed. For entertainment. You can't do the killing behind the corner. I wanted to see the most graphic killing so far.)

So yeah, it isn't the most horrible movie but if you want to see nice graphic violence I would stick to the first one. It had nice make-up effects (from which about half had been replaced with kind of crappy CGI in this movie) and the pacing was better.

I was ready to rip a new asshole to Eli Roth but he got spared this time. Maybe there's still hope for the future of horror and gore.

Prime Time Special: The Twilight Zone

I'm going to talk mostly about the '85 version but mention the original 60's version in comparison (the 2002 second re-make worked on it's own fine but I don't really count it as a Twilight Zone series.) I like all of them (though I haven't watched all of the originals yet) but the '85 version is my favorite. Why? The original is great but the 60's had this weird vibe that somehow always sticks out to me. 80's had it too but it's more familiar being born around that time.

So... Serling was already dead at this time and the re-make didn't have his touch on it. I may get a lot of shit for saying this but I don't think it mattered. I think they still captured what Serling was going for in the original series not only by doing couple of straight re-makes and sequels but capturing Serling in their own episodes. Which were great... for one and  a half seasons.

Let's talk about cancelling series. This is sadly one of the horrible examples what can happen to a wonderful show when it's cancelled. The first season is one of the most imaginative things I have ever seen. Every show had a moral at the end and it left you wondering what you would have done in a similar situation. Then things turn to shit when you're cancelled. You can do one of 5 things. 1. Think a great way to end the series. Tie the loose ends and give a conclusion to everything. Perfect. 2. Leave things open and for the audience to decide. Can work in some cases. 3. Don't think and just end. Not Good. 4. Be oblivious and just be cancelled in the middle. No time to do anything. 5. Say "Fuck it!" and do whatever you like. This hardly ever works. Twilight Zone apparently chose the last option because the last season is preposterous. The morals are gone and replacing them are demons and morons. I liked the slight paranormal or science-fictiony edge on most of the series. Not straight out fairy tales.

Still this series leaves a happy feeling after I watched it. Probably just because the first season is SO good.

It's hard to choose favorite episodes but I'll try. The episode that most sticks out to me is "Children's Zoo". The writers captured so wonderfully the thought that every child has probably had sometimes: "What if I could take my parents somewhere and switch them to better ones?" Another very similar one is "The Uncle Devil Show". Children in the the 80's being the first generation raised by television, parents not paying attention and a tv-show that can make all yours dreams come true. "Her Pilgrim Soul" and "A Message From Charity". Again, two very similar shows. First one has a woman who appears in a computer hologram and after realising that she is a soul of a woman who lived in the 20's, the scientist founds out that he is a reincarnation of her husband. The woman died in childbirth at a young age and came back to live a full but sped up life with her greatest love. (Romantic as hell!) The second one has a teenage boy in the 80's and a girl in puritan times who both suffer from a bacterial disease that somehow allows them to see with each others eyes.

There are more great episodes but I can't list every one if them. Those are the ones that always come to mind first.

Maybe I sometime talk about the other versions in depth but this time I think I just leave it at that.

Ooh, also watch the 1983 Twilight Zone movie. That's great too.

Man Of A Thousand Faces (1957)

"On August 27, 1930, the entire motion picture industry suspended work to pay tribute to the memory of one of its great actors. This is his story."

A day before the world truly lost one of its finest artists. Lon Chaney (best known for portraying The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Phantom of the Opera) was not only an actor but one of the first true make-up artists. And because of his amazing make-up skills he got the nickname "man with the thousand faces." He created the most horrifying movie monsters of all time but always gave them personality and vulnerability. He understood what it was to be different.

I'm a huge fan of biopics and this is one of the best. At first I was apprehensive about it because it was made so long ago. Mostly because you didn't have many sources to find out things about somebody. And apparently Chaney made it difficult for the audience to know the real person under all those characters, even saying that "between pictures, there is no Lon Chaney."

The film makers did take some creative license in the movie which is fine, for example Amadeus was a great movie and it had almost nothing to do with the real events. Although I think at least one thing should have been left like it was in real life. I didn't like how they portrayed Chaneys first wife. Or rather her reaction to Chaneys deaf-mute parents. In the movie Chaney didn't tell his wife about his parents before they were married, she freaks out and can't accept them. She even starts suspecting that their unborn baby might be deaf and starts doubting if she wants to have him. In real life his wife did know about the parents and had met them several times before they were married. The accuracy of the baby thing I don't know, like I said earlier, Chaneys personal life was vague at best. In any case, the baby wasn't deaf and Lon jr. became as famous as his father portraying, what else, movie monsters.

James Cagney (most known for his gangster roles in the 30's and 40's) was truly wonderful portraying Chaney. He really got the vulnerability of him. Every actor, I think, was great.

The movie ends with Chaney bedridden and his family around him. He tells his son to get his make-up kit (which he carried around all the time) and writes "jr." to the bag which carries his name. He says his goodbyes and dies.

Chaney died August 26, 1930, of complications of lung cancer. He was 47.

We should remember Chaney because with his grotesque but sweet characters he taught us understanding and acceptance. And what is more important than accepting people for who they are?

Man Of A Thousand Faces on IMDb

Twilight Saga

I only watched the Twilight crap-o-rama.. Uh.. I mean Saga.. because I wanted to understand what was the big deal. There has been vampire movies since the beginning (a whole lot better ones might I add) but these movies for some reason made a huge impact on the younger generation. I'm 25 so I'm not into the movies just because there's boys without their shirts on. I also need great characters, an interesting story and all that crap.

So, there's this girl without the burden of personality who bitches and moans about everything she encounters. Then she just spontaneously falls in love with this pale, sparkly dude with even less personality than her. Then there's this other shirtless dude who she doesn't like but she likes to give an impression that she does.

You see, it's idiotic.

My biggest problem with the movies is the lack of motivation of the characters. If Bella smells so good to vampires why didn't Edward just eat her, that's what vampires do! But oooh no, the vampires are "vegetarians" and eat just animals. And sparkle... Okay, okay, it was surprisingly downplayed the whole sparkling thing. I think it was only in one of the movies (as of now when Breaking dawn part 1 is the newest movie). I also don't like the reason why the dogs and the vampires hate each other. So one of the vampires killed one of the werewolves eons ago. Again, that's what they're supposed to do, kinda. Why do they even compete about the territories? They don't eat the same food so there's no reason why they couldn't live in the same space.

My next problem is the characters. The two leads are the most boring characters in all of the movies. Especially Bella is as boring as a wallpaper and I'm really having difficulties understanding why there is almost a war because of her. I don't understand why the writer (be that Stephenie Meyer or the movies writers) made the secondary characters outshine the leads. The other Cullen family members are much more interesting than the emo couple. They have good back stories (so does Edward but it wasn't that interesting or complicated) and I was actually wishing that the movies were only about them. No Bella, no doggies, just the family with their stories.. Wait.. There is a movie like that. Interview with the vampire. Yeah, that's what it should have been like, that was a great movie.

On the technical note... I'm a practical effect kinda gal so I usually hate the CGI effects and prefer hand made make-up effects or really subtle CGI if there's no way of doing it practically. The werewolf CGI was horrible. HEY ASSHOLES!!! WHEN PEOPLE CAN SEE IT'S CGI THEN YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT! Less than ten years ago we we're in a place where CGI was so subtle that you didn't always notice it. What the fuck happened? If I wanna watch some stupid CGI vomit I turn to Pixar.

And the editing... Apparently all the movie editors have ADD nowadays. They don't stay with the same shot more than 2 seconds. Really, you're seriously trying to give me a seizure with your flash editing?

The cliffhangers piss me off. It's okay for a TV-series to have cliffhangers like this because the next episode is only a week away, not a fucking year. And everybody with a brain cell knows what's gonna happen anyway so STOP IT! I'm guessing (because I don't know and it's happened before) that Breaking dawn was supposed to be one movie but they couldn't stop rambling about stupid shit and they split it in two.

One more thing.. The religious paralleling. It's so obvious but ms. Meyer apparently said she didn't notice the Mormon teachings slipping into her works. I call bullshit on that. I don't understand what a Mormon is doing writing books about vampires anyway.

I can't nitpick every single annoying detail or I would sit here the rest of my life. Better leave these movies alone and let them disappear from the growing minds like so many other teen phenomenons.