Mystery Train

(image source)

Jim Jarmusch's Mystery Train (1989) consists of three storylines that have two things in common: all of the characters end up in the same cheap hotel and Elvis Presley is present in some form in each one. The first segment (Far From Yokohama) deals with two Japanese tourists who have come to Memphis to visit the home of Elvis Presley. The second one (A Ghost) is about a foreigner stuck in the city due to flight problems - and she eventually spends time with an incredibly talkative woman. The last segment (Lost in Space) focuses on a fascinating triangle dynamic between three guys who are in deep trouble.

Even though these segments are heavily interconnected their quality varies surprisingly lot. While the first segment offers a pitch-perfect piece of deadpan comedy the other two are only amusing at best. The Japanese couple of Far From Yokohama form such a great chemistry not only between the characters but also between the two performances that overshadows the rest of the film. Even though it is notably the "driest" part of the film in terms of direction the other two segments can not possibly rival it because Jarmusch's lack of exaggeration sometimes diminishes the impact of the comedy. Luckily none of the segments is bad, but there is a troubling inconsistency in quality that distracted me a little.

Jarmusch's form isn't exactly minimal because it uses a variety of techniques - especially in cinematography - but instead I would call it "calm". It lets the screenplay unfold at its own pace and the subtle humor is never pointed at. Most of the camera movement is subtle because it is done so slowly and smoothly that the viewer doesn't easily notice it - apart from a few scenes where the movement is obvious from the editing patterns. The soundtrack of the film is almost the complete opposition with its neverending charm and energy delivered by Presley, Orbison and other similar musicians. It's at least a fascinating and functional contrast so it doesn't hinder the film.

Mystery Train is a disappointing film in its own way: after a brilliant beginning the comedy falls a bit flat and even when Jarmusch gives the film more energy afterwards it never fully recovers. Nevertheless it is a rather funny and well executed film.

Score: 7 out of 10

Evangelion 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance

Evangelion 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance (2009) is the second part of a movie series that attemps to retell the story of Hideaki Anno's Neon Genesis Evangelion - a TV show that I utterly love and praise way more than anything else. Even though the first film was a rather uninventive remake of the first 6 episodes of the original show with brand new animation, the second film takes a significantly different direction to make the new films quite different from the original show.

Essentially Evangelion is about a group of teenagers saving the world in their giant robots from creatures called the "Angels" while mysterious old men smugly conspire for something much bigger. As interesting and mysterious as the plot sounds, it's only the framework for the grand psychological and philosophical issues which are also filtered through religious imagery.

Where this film seriously differs from the original show is its inclusion of a totally new character who - despite appearing as far less complex than the original cast - twists the storyline a lot via her chaotic (and badass) involvement. The already-familiar characters seem to evolve in slightly different paths this time, but I'm not sure if it is going to have an impact in the end since there are still 2 movies to be released. All in all, the writing is nearly as complex as in the original series (which is the ultimate masterpiece of cinema and TV in my opinion) and the film brings new interesting aspects to the characters and the world around them.

Anno's form is still top notch after 15 years. The editing is phenomenal throughout the film and the compositions are breathtaking. The vast budget is well used for gorgeous animation that only enhances the already rich cinematic experience. Shiro Sagisu's soundtrack might be a bit weird in comparison to the TV show because it includes some of his music from other shows and it is a bit more guitar-driven on a few occasions. Despite its different nature it is still quite awesome.

Hideaki Anno proves he is still at the top of his own game despite not doing anything for years prior to the earlier film. No matter how you look at the film, you can't find any flaws at all. It's a clear-cut diamond.

Score: 10 out of 10

Sonatine

Takeshi Kitano's Sonatine (1993) is clearly the film that defines Kitano's trademark style: deadpan humor presented through a calm and peculiar form. As a mob war escalates a group of yakuza decide to go into hiding in Okinawa.

The premise sounds like something that could be used for a lot of suspense and action, but Kitano does not take that route. Instead he explores the way the gangsters spend time hilariously at the beach, which is interrupted by bloody violence sparsely. Kitano's humor is bright and truly funny this time. Solid characterization and the relaxed setting allow it to bloom to new heights. Even though a few themes do unify the film the focus is on comedy and rough violence.

The form is a bit exceptional too. The absolutely gorgeous photography, the calmly moving camera and calm editing patterns make the audience forget the passing of time - it's really easy to get into the film's world because of that. Joe Hisaishi's beautiful score is both haunting and relaxing at the same time - it works well as a cathartic device as well. There are a few moments in which Kitano's approach is quite awkward. For example there is one pivotal action scene that is handled in a dry way despite its slightly dramatic potential. I guess Kitano intended it to be blunt, but it has an effect which is too alienating.

Sonatine is an all-around solid film that is the best choice if you want to be introduced to Kitano's filmography.

Score: 8 out of 10

Special Write-up: LOST

This "review" is spoiler-free until the point I add the actual spoiler warning.

ABC's TV show Lost began airing in 2004. My first glimpse of the show was in 2005 when its pilot was aired on Finnish TV for the first time. Its premise was interesting enough for me: a bunch of castaways being stuck on a mysterious island that kept revealing new secrets all the time. I found interesting characters and the flashbacks to their background stories made the show a particularly rich experience. Lost caught me at a time when I had just got into movies more seriously - even though back then I was a helpless newbie.

I became a hardcore fan of the show almost instantly. I bought the DVD boxes and rewatched the episodes countless times. I was initially intrigued by the mysteries and I spent time a lot of time reading theories and giving my own input to them in a fan community. I admired the show blindly for the first three seasons, but my exploration of cinema eventually opened my eyes. At some point during the first half of the 4th season I realised that the series' writing was rather faulty. After the wonderfully character-centric first season that teased us with mysteries, the second and third seasons had an unforgivable amount of filler episodes, frozen character development and more ridiculous mysteries. But then I thought it was too late to stop so I just kept watching the show and I actually found interesting nuances and details that made me gradually more interested in the show again. The 4th season was a solid effort and I found out that I truly cared about the characters instead of the mysteries - the latter became irrelevant for me.

And that is how I ended up with the opinion I have in regards to the debate whether Lost is character-driven or plot-driven. I have become to hold the plot and mysteries merely as the framework for the characters and themes because the complicated story doesn't work on its own. There are tons of inconsistencies in writing and relying on simple "wow" factor of the mysteries is just cold and dull. And Lost did reward my patience with it because it gradually became better and better. Apart from the messy time travel section of the 5th season it only improved all the time. The series finale was not a disappointment either - it was probably the best 2 hours American TV has ever offered.

Yes, there are plotlines that go nowhere or were treated badly. Yes, there are useless mysteries that were never even addressed afterwards. Yes, most of the characters are rather one-dimensional, but they are still rather fascinating even after 6 seasons (a few of them are utterly terrible though, such as Sayid). And yes, there are only a handful unified themes in the show and some of the motifs remain unused despite repeated use. I don't know what exactly it is among these flaws that makes the show so intriguing - I guess this show is extremely holistic then.

The direction in general is rather messy. The shaky and "edgy" camerawork is dominant in the show and sometimes it is used well, but there are so many times it failed in a miserable way. There are a few notable exceptions when the camera is strictly under control and the results are glorious - the finale is a prime example. The same thing goes for editing as well - there are times when it is terribly random and distracting, but it isn't thoroughly bad. What the show always got right was its set and location design that were simply stunning.

Michael Giacchino's score deserves its own paragraph. Even though it is too sentimental, blatant, heavy-handed and schmaltzy it still works so well. There are times when it is misused or used way too much, but in overall the music keeps the form together. The suspenseful compositions have lesser effect when they are used for pretty much every scene to emphasize a superficially dramatic reveal that is obvious way before we even see it. However, haunting tracks like Life and Death (and the different arrangements of it) prove that Giacchino's score is at its best when it tries to affect your emotions deeply.

From now on there will be spoilers. SPOILER WARNING!

What will I remember about Lost? It will be the characters. You might say that one will naturally develop an emotional bond with the characters after 120 hours, but it's still amazing how the characters are so fascinating and lovable despite the actual character development being so minimal. The show's most tortured characters, Locke and Ben, were the most thoroughly explored characters in the end. Their search for redemption and clarity formed the heart of the show. Then there were great surprises in the last season, surprises which opened the characters for me.

Jack was the character the writers utterly lost after his admirable usage in the first season. However in the last two seasons they created such a clear and affectionate phase of character development as he began to carry the weight of his guilt in different ways. His actions became more and more awesome as the show went on and the logical conclusion was to become the new Jacob - even if it was a brief role that ended with his heroic sacrifice that brought tears to my eyes.

Then there was the comic relief in the form of Hurley and Miles. While Hurley was the lovable genre-savvy character who also had his own drama, Miles was the guy to make cynical remarks that worked surprisingly well on their own. Richard was a mysterious figure for a long time, but once we found about his past he became a tragic character that was even more interesting in the end. Sun & Jin mostly dealt with their own relationship and yet their sweet reunions managed to be touching - and their cruel demise was one of the most heartbreaking moments in the entire show. There was also a bunch of side characters like Frank "forget me for a few episodes" Lapidus that were rather random and useless in the end (or killed off spontaneously like Ilana, that was an epic failure).

The series finale proved me wrong when I thought it couldn't possibly be an emotionally satisfying ending to a show that dragged me along for years. The ultimate moments of redemption and happiness made the show worth watching as the writers showed us just how much they respected and loved the characters as well. And I found it truly incredible that the flash sideways timeline was a sort of an afterlife the main characters had created for themselves - it gave the show a life-affirming tone that enforced the message of "moving on" as Christian Shephard put it. It reminded us fans of the fact that there is a life outside of Lost to which we should return to eventually. I hope I can do that by completing this review. I grew up with the show and even with all of its flaws I can't avoid the fact how much I love it.

Lost (2004-2010): 6 out of 10

The series finale 'The End': 10 out of 10

Inglourious Basterds

(image source)

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Inglourious Basterds (2009), is a rather confusing film when compared to the director's earlier output. Rewriting world history completely is not the peculiar thing, it's Tarantino's restrained and occassionally unfunny approach that is rather distracting. Apart from the juvenile gags and offbeat soundtrack you wouldn't necessarily realise this to be a film from the director who brought us Pulp Fiction.

The idea of a bunch of Americans slaying Hitler might sound like a great premise for a Tarantino film, but it surprisingly falls flat. Apart from Hans Landa, the characters are quite one-dimensional. Now this wouldn't really be a problem since Tarantino usually handles them well, but none of them really get to shine in this film since they aren't really funny. Luckily Landa has a lot of screentime to make the film enjoyable - and the cast is good enough to make the film solid.

The form is distracting because, well, it isn't heavy-handedly present like in the director's earlier films. The more "restrained" and conventional approach would be fine if Tarantino was serious - he's not. This clinical approach makes the film awkward on many occasions because the jokes fall flat without Tarantino's tongue-in-cheek camerawork and editing. Using Morricone's compositions is a weird idea for a film set in the 40's and the result is a bit puzzling. While it works once in a while, the soundtrack as a whole is not convincing. Now add a few totally random/sloppy cuts and you have a form that doesn't exactly serve the film's purpose.

Inglourious Basterds could have been yet another success for Tarantino, but the execution stumbles a little. However, Christoph Waltz' towering performance almost single-handedly redeems the film.

Score: 6 out of 10

Kill Bill (Volumes 1 and 2)

(image source)

Quentin Tarantino's two-part action masterpiece Kill Bill (2003 & 2004) is probably one of the most famous cinematic efforst of the noughties. It is a wild story of a woman taking revenge on a group of assassins who put her into coma and took her baby. Whereas the first film is an outrageous, tongue-in-cheek combination of Japanese pop cultural references, the sequel mixes that pattern with spaghetti westerns and somewhat serious drama.

The plot itself is rather simple as the main character, The Bride, eliminates each assassin one by one before going after Bill, the biggest bad guy of them all. The films are ridiculously full of references to other films and cultures. The weird mixture of yakuza, samurai myth and God knows what else can be found in the Crazy 88's, a group of sword-wielding gangsters The Bride slaughters in a famous action scene. The epic setpieces are entertaining on their own and this one in particular is one of the finest achievements of the genre. And the best part is the climax of the whole setpiece: an elegant duel in a Japanese garden covered in snow. There is also an entirely animated sequence for the origin story of one of the assassins, O-Ren Ishii, which fits surprisingly well into the film.

The sequel is a bit rougher in tone although it manages to be funny at the same time. Although occasionally it is indeed a bit confusing as the balance between actual drama and silly entertainment does not work smoothly. However it's not a drastic hindrance when the film still features great action scenes (none of them rival the Crazy 88's sequence, though) and an interesting flashback storyline.

The form is a triumph in both parts. Tarantino's slick use of music is refined here - although the 2nd Volume pales a bit in comparison to the 1st one. That does not mean it is bad at all. The editing switches between intensive/kinetic and relaxed to create a funnily "charistmatic" tone at all times. Charismatic in the way that it makes the film easily entertaining and never lets the viewer fall into boredom.

Above all, Kill Bill is top quality entertainment that never pretends to be anything else - even I was easily sucked into its violent and simple-minded world.

Scores:

Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003): 10 out of 10

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004): 8 out of 10

(image source)

A Country Doctor

Koji Yamamura's experimental animated short film A Country Doctor (2007) is an adaptation of Franz Kafka's short story of the same name. Adapting Kafka is often problematic because it is nigh impossible to portray the peculiarities of Kafka's prose onscreen. Yamamura succeeds quite well by using weird techniques like distorting the characters throughout the film and the art design is sketchy and creepy. The absurd and delusional story is certainly interesting, but in the end the short film is not superb. It's "only" very good.

Score: 8 out of 10

PS: It's uploaded on YouTube in three parts.