Tag: movie

  • All Aboard the Z Train! – Train to Busan Review

    All Aboard the Z Train! – Train to Busan Review

    With Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite racking up Oscar accolades and bringing renewed attention to Korean cinema, it felt like the perfect time to watch another film that I’ve had my eye on. Like a good horror movie, Train to Busan explains its premise just enough for us to jump right into the story; an absentee father promises to bring his daughter to see her mother in Busan for her birthday, but not everything is as it seems. Tension begins to ramp up as a sickly woman flings herself onto the train just as it’s about to depart, only to be followed by a swarm of zombies rushing the train platform.

    Like Parasite and Snowpiercer, Train to Busan delves deep into the struggles of class and politics while also telling a thrilling tale. In fact, the similarities between the two most popular train-based Korean films to break into the international market are hard to ignore. Both take place on a train and use the convenient separation of the train cars to both physically and metaphorically distance the characters from one another while taking full advantage of the limited space to create an unnerving sense of claustrophobia.

    In terms of the zombies themselves, Train to Busan decides to take the World War Z approach of fast, mindless, and twisted undead who trample over one another in a mass of flesh and rapid hunger. This helps keep the characters and the audience on edge, but the world-building isn’t as internally consistent as it could have been. As the protagonist struggles to understand the situation, I also had a hard time stitching together clues to figure out the origin of the outbreak or even the terms on which the plot was progressing forward. For example, there is a scene that involves soldiers falling out of helicopters, only to rise as zombies a moment later and attack nearby civilians that left me wondering if the whole incident was an accident or a direct attack by weaponized zombies.

    As the story and train get moving, plot points slowly fall into place and become a lot easier to predict. The occupants of the train are widdled down to a small cast of plucky survivors, including a baseball player, a cheerleader, a pregnant woman, and her husband, and a narcissistic COO of some corporation. Although they fit neatly into archetypal horror movie roles, each brings a personality and charm to the film that helps keep it from being just another zombie gorefest.

    Where the story diverts from horror tropes, however, also happens to be the film’s weakest point. For a movie that otherwise left little room for sentimentality, I was surprised at the sharp left turn towards the end of the film that plays more like a Korean day-time drama than an apocalyptic horror flick. It suffices to say that Train to Busan desperately wants to tear at your heartstrings, almost to a melodramatic degree. The dragged out ending with borderline nonsensical character decisions and goofy sentimental moments only helped sour what would have otherwise been an outstanding film.

    All that being said, the good aspects of Train to Busan are hard to ignore despite its obvious flaws. It’s a zombie flick with a fun premise, interesting characters, and a great sense of pacing that only falters towards the end, long after you’ve stopped caring about the plot. If you’re a zombie/horror fan or want to explore some of what Korean films have to offer, this would be a hard title not to recommend.

    Train to Busan is currently streaming on Netflix.

  • 1917 – Movie Review: The Best Movie from Last Year

    1917 – Movie Review: The Best Movie from Last Year

    (Universal Pictures)

    I’m a sucker for a well-executed gimmick, especially films meant to look like they’re filmed in one long shot. Children of Men and Birdman both come to mind as great examples of this style, but rarely have I seen an artistic gimmick so perfectly match its story as with Sam Mendes’ latest creation, 1917. To call it a gimmick is actually a disservice to the emotional weight that it carries in terms of getting the audience intimately familiar with what the characters are experiencing.

    Besides the opening scene, which is meant to introduce the single-shot idea as well as the main characters and the relatively simple plot, most of the movie takes place in tight, restrained environments that put the camera directly in the midst of the action. The film does an amazing job of capturing your attention and not getting too caught up in its own brilliance to tell a good story. That is to say, the film’s gimmick is in service to the story, not the other way around (I’m looking at you, Hardcore Henry).

    To be frank, I was surprised to like 1917 as much as I did. I knew exactly what to expect going in, yet found myself in awe of the technical marvel unraveling before my eyes rather than trying to catch every hidden cut out of boredom. For a story that is almost entirely “spoiled” in the synopsis of the film, Sam Mendes shows that excellent writing, likable characters, and believable conflict are more important to a good story than subverting the audience’s expectations.

    1917 takes very little time in cluing the audience in on just how awful it was being a soldier in the First World War. Although the “good guys” win in the end, the stakes rapidly escalate as our protagonists slog through trenches and into bunkers, facing death at every turn. With the introduction of every new character, you begin to wonder just how much the protagonists can trust them and where their motives truly lay, even those in British uniforms. The tension ramps up to a grand crescendo that both fills you with joy and also rips your heart out from your chest and makes you stare at it. War is hell, alright?

    Is this the most important war movie of all time? That’s not for me to say, especially given that I rarely watch war movies outside of the star variety, but I can say that it is easily the best movie I’ve seen so far this year and I’m excited to see it again. Will I be as caught up in the commotion and forget that I’m watching a movie or will the cracks start to show when I’m not spending half of the movie watching over the character’s shoulders for potential threats? That’s hard to say too. What isn’t hard to say, however, is that you owe it to yourself to see 1917 in theaters.

  • Joker – Review: A Film About Everything And Nothing

    Joker – Review: A Film About Everything And Nothing

    (Joker – Warner Bros.)

    SPOILER WARNING

    If you haven’t seen Joker yet, there are potential spoilers ahead.

    To tell you the truth, I almost didn’t want to see this movie. With all of the media attention that Joker got prior to its release, I was already tired of the discourse by the time October 4th rolled around. Thankfully, good friends of mine invited my girlfriend and me out to see the film in addition to going to our favorite Mexican restaurant, so needless to say, I was sold.

    It seems like Joker is already a lot of things to a lot of people. For some, it’s a clumsy origin story of a psychotic killer clown from the director that brought you The Hangover 3. For others, it’s a tragedy of how a man with serious mental illness is driven to violence and villainy by a city that neither cares about his wellbeing nor acknowledges his humanity. As for myself, I’m having a hard time coming up with a concise explanation of how I felt given how much was going on during the film. Ultimately, I wasn’t as impressed with Joker as I would have liked, but Joaquin’s performance was nearly worth the price of admission alone and it managed to gain my seal of approval after a solid third act.

    Despite acting as an homage to both Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, Joker falls short of its inspiration in more ways than one. The idea that it deserved the supposed eight-minute standing ovation Joker got during its initial screening is silly at best, but that being said, it succeeds in exactly what it was meant to do and kept me on the edge of my seat throughout. What might be more interesting, however, is how the film played with my expectations and left me questioning a lot of the assumptions I had made about it beforehand.

    I would be remiss to continue without mentioning that the acting, casting, costumes, set design, and photography for Joker was fantastic. The dark, comic book-inspired 1980s setting helped ground the otherwise comical character firmly in reality. Although it manages a much darker tone than most comic book stories, Joker isn’t without its own laughs sprinkled throughout the otherwise tense and dramatic film.

    It’s hard to say exactly what I expected out of Joker besides a grittier, more realistic take on the Joker’s origin story. Instead of a vat of acid, Arthur Fleck falls into the realization that not everything about his life is as it seems, which combined with severe mental illness, transforms him into the criminal clown that we all know and… love?

    What I wasn’t expecting, however, was just how much time we would end up spending with Arthur Fleck as opposed to his evil alter-ego. Most of the scenes from the trailer show up in the film but reveal something very interesting about Warner Bros. marketing: the trailers want you to believe that the Joker will appear in the film and cause havoc. However, the film shows a different side of the character as Joaquin triumphantly stomps down a flight of stairs only to interrupted by shouting policemen, causing him to skitter away with all of the grace of a looney tune. The Joker we see just doesn’t match up with the genius criminal we’re made to believe he is. In fact, I would say that this Joker feels a lot more like Arthur Fleck playing the Joker than him coming into his own as the Clown Prince proper.

    Once again, spoilers ahead.

    One of my primary issues with the film relates directly to a major plot point. After Arthur Fleck murders three wall street suits on the subway, Thomas Wayne, who is running for Mayor in the film, vaguely compares the downtrodden of Gotham to clowns, which ignites political upheaval as protesters don plastic clown masks and riot. Although the film starts off by establishing the trash strike going on in Gotham, it takes a generous leap of logic to suggest that heaps of trash in the streets, a crappy mayoral candidate, and the random slaying of three businessmen would start a political movement. This shakey connection only helps to muddy the overall message of the film. The riot scenes in Joker felt more like progressive political anti-establishment sentiment filtered through the lens of an aging filmmaker who didn’t really get what all the kids marching on Wall Street were up to years ago but really admired their gumption.

    The twist of fate at the end of the movie where, despite announcing that he was not affiliated with the political riots going on at the time, the Joker is saved from police custody by the protesters rioting in the streets caught me off guard and left me with a lot of questions. Do the protesters recognize Arthur from the television broadcast that was happening simultaneously to the riots? If they do, I can see how killing Robert DeNiro’s character could be taken as a strike again Gotham’s 1%, but I find the the whole connection difficult to believe. Is the ramming of the police vehicle just a random act of violence that happens to result in a crowd forming around a man who was just in a car crash?

    Talking about twists, I wish Joker’s big reveal that his relationship with his girlfriend from the first act was all in head was executed less clumsily. Instead of recognizing the “strange” scenes for what they were, I chalked it up to bad film making rather than an unreliable narrator. Once the idea that what appears on the screen may not be what is actually happening was introduced, things started to make a lot more sense. I’d go so far as to say that the movie should have played with that a bit more. For example, my issues with Joker being retrieved from the police car as a symbolic figure for revolution could be easily explained by the theory that the character we see in “Joker” isn’t Joker himself, but instead Arthur Fleck playing the character from time to time, drifting in and out of his more sinister persona.

    What if we never see Arthur fully become the Joker in this film?

    I don’t know what it says about Joker that I’m having more fun speculating about how it could all make sense given some pretty specific hypothetical fan theories, but hear me out. What if we never see Arthur fully become the Joker in this film? What if, like Fight Club’s unreliable narrator, we only get to see one side of the story? What if Arthur Fleck is to Joker as “The Narrator” is to Tyler Durdan? That might explain how Arthur, a frail, pathetic man transforms into a genius criminal capable of bringing Gotham to its knees. Or, you could believe the fan theory that the director has at least directly mentioned, that Arthur isn’t actually the Joker but a proto-version of the character that inspires the one we know and love. I’d feel cheated if that was the case, given how much marketing went into hyping us up to see the Crown Prince of Crime.

    Unfortunately, this movie doesn’t give me any reason to believe that Arthur would be capable of the kind of mental and physical gymnastics that Joker is most known for. Every event that the populace of Gotham attributes to the Joker is actually caused by Arthur accidentally causing havoc as he flails about, barely managing to stay standing half the time. The slayings that set off the initial protests aren’t some sinister plot to sow seeds of unrest among the people of Gotham. The riots at the end of the film aren’t caused by an insane clown mastermind; they happen because Arthur hides from the cops on a busy subway train. If the goal of this origin story was to subvert our expectations that Joker’s most valuable asset was his intellect, then job well done.

    With all of that in mind, I’m still glad that they tried something different this time around. I was definitely not expecting the approach to the character that they decided on, but it undoubtedly provides a fresh and intriguing look at one of America’s most beloved and feared supervillains. Top it all off with an outstanding performance from the leading actor and you have a movie that’s hard to ignore despite its sometimes sloppy execution.