Written By: Jeffrey Lau and Wong Kar Wai Cinematography: Andrew Lau
Editor: Bei-Dak Cheong and Kit Wai Kai
Cast: Andy Lau, Maggie Cheung, Jacky Cheung, Alex Man, Ronald Wong
Mid-level gangster Wah falls in love with his beautiful cousin, but must also continue to protect his volatile partner-in-crime and friend, Fly.
Melodramatic as it has a bit of the story of the movie MEAN STREETS mixed with a crime thriller. MEAN STREETS Also dealt with a coming-of-age story and a romance that seemed clandestine yet forbidden. While also being involved in a crime syndicate of sorts with a hot-headed friend who seems to always get them both into hot water.
Just like Martin Scorsese, you can see director Wong Kar Wai’s Style breaking out. Yet a little stuck with a mainstream Story to get more of an audience to watch. The crime thriller elements will be exciting but the heart of the film Is more in the romance and it allows the lead to be tough and sensitive.
Watching this film is like watching an artist trying his skills in a more conventional Mainstream Movie. He certainly Raises the material higher than it deserves.
The film is definitely of its time period. The 1980’s represented mainly on the soundtrack as usual.
Wai Chooses a familiar American song TAKE MY BREATH AWAY and gives it new depth in a Cantonese version.
Like his later Films there is a love story thrown in that ends up being the film’s heart. Not to mention ensures an emotional investment. As after all within most stories, there is that element instead of focusing on the more violent side of life. Instead, he is interested in showing relationships and what drives them. To show where strength and honor lie.
The film is a cautionary tale on one end and nihilistic. It takes both main characters’ relationships seriously and gives them the same depth. Only one is physically intimate. The other one is loving but troublesome.
As he is more successful in romance and moves further. On the other end That is how deep into Trouble he And his little brother get into until It gets to the point of no return the third act has to do with proving oneself and machismo That is Almost like a reminder. This is supposed to be a gangster film
Directed By: John Frankenheimer Written By: J.P. Miller and Edward Anhalt Based on the Novel “A MATTER OF CONVICTION” By: Evan Hunter Cinematography: Lionel Lindon Editor: Eda Warren
Cast: Burt Lancaster, Shelly Winters, Telly Savalas, Dina Merrill, Edward Andrews, Vivian Nathan, Larry Gates, Pilar Seurat, Jody Fair, Stanley Kristien
A district attorney investigates the racially charged case of three teenagers accused of the murder of a blind Puerto Rican boy. He begins to discover that the facts in the case aren’t exactly as they seem to be.
This takes you back to an era where movies could still be police procedural episodes basically. Only with more star power and elongated with a more personal connection. To the central character. Here is Burt Lancaster. Not to mention directed by the legendary John Frankenheimer in his prime.
At least the film is based on a novel, an adaptation. So it’s not some run-of-the-mill story. That failed at being an episode of a court show that week.
Once upon a time they could build a whole film’s narrative around a crime story that seems pretty simple but gets complicated as it goes along. As the deeper Lancaster dives the more that is revealed that has quite a few twists and turns.
Showcasing the supposed dog-eat-dog nature of the slums and the racial unrest. Here between Italians, Irish, and Hispanics. While also managing to be a youth In Jeopardy movie.
The case in the film showcases the political implications that the case causes.
The film is an uneasy watch as it tries to be liberal in its politics. It still feels a bit racist and definitely stereotypical. At times it tries to throw back at both sides and show that no one is perfect and we all have our flaws. Does someone deserve to lose their life over it?
It also tries to save one of the Caucasian characters as an innocent. A good kid in bad surroundings. Most of the characters could be, they all just learned to adapt to survive. While the innocent victim gets trashed in court almost like he deserved it. It also doesn’t exactly answer all the questions the case presents.
Every character here is corrupt or criminal. It’s disturbing that the ones of color are the ones shown more thoroughly in that manner. Though get more screen time.
The subject matter is tawdry but handled in a clean way. As the film goes with what was expected at the time. So an audience can blame the times for the way this movie comes across. As a kind of historical artifact.
There was also the way the film felt. As one is watching it seems like the camera or film was speeding up. To make things happen or appear to happen faster.
Directed By: Jules Dassin Written By: Richard Brooks Story By: Robert Patterson Cinematography: William Daniels Editor: Edward Curtiss
Cast: Burt Lancaster, Hume Cronyn, Charles Bickford, Yvonne De Carlo, Ann Blyth, Ella Raines, Anita Colby, Sir. Lancelot, Jeff Corey, John Hoyt, Roman Bohnen
At overcrowded Westgate Penitentiary, where violence and fear are the norm and the warden has less power than guards and leading prisoners, the least contented prisoner is tough, single-minded Joe Collins. Most of all, Joe hates chief guard Captain Munsey, a petty dictator who glories in absolute power. After one infraction too many, Joe and his cell-mates are put on the dreaded drain pipe detail; prompting an escape scheme that has every chance of turning into a bloodbath.
This was certainly an eye-opener. It tries to live up to its title as it was definitely that way when it was made and might be considered light for today’s times, but shocking that it was made when it was.
One of the films where Burt Lancaster definitely seems mroe engaged and it lets him use his physicality more.
One of the more violent Black and white movies the type of film used makes it timeless. As it will always going to be the same. In prisons and for anyone watching the film.
No one is innocent but still don’t deserve the brutality that they endure. We see their pasts that got them stuck in prison, from time to time so we also get to know the characters along the way. The camaraderie that exists and how they bond. So that we get to care about them, their demise is all the more shocking And heartbreaking like a horror film.
Hume Cronyn as the main villain is absolutely brutal and scary. Though he also seems so finely tuned. Not a bloodthirsty psychopath. Not even is he physically intimidating. He’s more threatening and cerebral.
The strength of the film is that we are introduced to the characters mroe in the middle of something larger and as the film goes along it builds in intensity and pressure. Until the end where it finally blows in a well-orchestrated ending.
It’s Beautifully filmed you can constantly feel the claustrophobia in the prison more than in the cells. Just as the prisoners try to feel like they are still on the outside, busting themselves to pass the time Cronyn’s character wants to not only own and be in Charge with them but remind them where they are and keep them small.
It’s a film that is captivating but has a sadness hanging over it. It has a fluidity to it. So that it keeps moving even when it has its moments with the characters
Directed By Jules Dassin Written By: Joe Eisinger Based on the Novel By: Gerald Kersh Cinematography: Max Greene Editor: Nick Deamaggio & Sidney Stone
Cast: Richard Widmark, Gene Tierney, Google Withers, Herbert Lom, Mike Mazurki, Charles Farrell, Hugh Marlowe, Francis L. Sullivan, Stanislaus Zbysko, Ada Reeve
A small-time grifter and nightclub tout takes advantage of some fortuitous circumstances and tries to become a big-time player as a wrestling promoter.
The film ends up more of an ensemble than expected. As the main character at the center of it all. Though the secondary characters are added in and ends up feeling like so many gears going all at once at the same time.
So that it keeps the audience mesmerized and engaged. Watching how the narrative tightens and converges and affects one another like a chess match. They are feeding into one another as the stakes are raised and the challenges get more prominent.
The film is full of love stories and triangles with jealousy and revenge. None were quite sturdy except for one.
This is a thriller centered around a wrestling promotion. Showcasing the business and dramatics involved even back then. As we watch it all come apart. While men are all trying to be the alpha full of bravado and machismo.
Richard Widmark’s performance is filled with manic energy and intensity. Where his character goes through so much intensity. Though always with a Whiff of anger the untrustworthy glamorous bad boy who dresses up as a gangster though is truly a two-bit hood and hustler. Very wiry and athletic he overshadows everyone else in scenes with him. As you can tell he is always thinking and scheming. He has to line up the dominos of making a deal keeping all the parts moving just like in this film.
Keeping the production a well-oiled machine. Luckily Leaving it not all that predictable. While showcasing dynamic examples of shadows and light. Showcasing this tale as a film noir.
The film has an excitement in the filmmaking. That is assured yet takes its time. Leaving one surprised that the tale takes place in England. Seeing these descriptive old-time faces and tough guys that seem more New York City old school. Then they start talking and you realize where you are once you hear the accents.
Director Jules Dassin was in the middle of being blacklisted and the studio’s head Daryl Zanuck told him this might be the last film he ever made. This might be why this film is so strong as he seemed to put all his energy and vision into it.
Like so many classic films It’s partially in the grain. As there is a richness in there that is rare yet all-encompassing. Making it seem timeless yet feels nutritious. As we watch it grow.
The audience marvels at it. As it’s an example of the best that seems shared with us. A recipe that works better than expected or just right. Where the dialogue feels like lines of scripture. As these are stories to illuminate.
The film does offer a comeuppance. Even in all these dark stories and corners. Judgment and themes said simply that feed the shadows.
Written & Directed By: Nicholas Kazan Cinematography: Jean Yves Escoffier Editor: Susan Cruthcher and Jill Savitt
Cast: James Spader, Madchen Amick, Bess Armstrong, Larry Miller, Frederic Lehne, Kathleen York, William Shockley, Carl Sundstrom, Clyde Kusatsu
Ray is young, charming, successful, and the owner of a prosperous architecture company. However, he has recently gone through a very painful divorce. His friends try to cheer him up by showing him the positive sides of being single but for Ray marriage and stability are just too important. But when he meets Lena his gloom is quickly forgotten. She is beautiful, sensual, and mysterious and he is drawn to her like a moth to a candle. They marry quickly, have their first child and Ray lives in total bliss. But then strange incidents occur which shed some light on Lena’s background. Ray slowly realizes that he hardly knows anything about her at all. Who has he really married?
A movie that I have read about and cursed my oath many times but never drank the Kool-Aid to watch it.
Now watching g ti for the very first time it is very much of its time in the early 90’s as it feels like it has some holdovers from the 1980’s the wardrobe, score, and setups. The film seems to go for Glamour shots while trying to protest a certain reality
The one thing that shines above all else is that it’s rare to see James soarer mroe as the person being taken rather than the villain. Though this is Madchen Amick’s movie truly. As she is a femme fatale who truly plays her prey like a piano
The movie seems Buck convention as it feels like an earlier version of the recent release DEEP WATER directed by Adrian Lyne. where the lead wants to get to know his wife’s Past and the more he does it becomes an obsession once she lets him find out she openly Lies to him and he is so much in love he wants to believe it as it fulfills his fantasy about her and gets to stay with her. She is his fantasy and everything he wants and so desperately wants to believe even if it goes against his happiness ultimately or maybe this is all his fetish
The movie already hit his mental fragility with scenes at a circus in his dreams. Which feels like it’s trying to be too artistic.
Again Madchen Amick is the reason to see the movie overall coming off of Twin Peaks at the time. Her character is cold, sexy, smart, and calculating. With a chic wardrobe, she would be a screen legend in this role only the film fails to really support her or rise to her level.
The film at times tries to be sexy and erotic but only she truly is in the end. Even as the film tries to be sexual quite a few times.
James Spader is perfectly cast also as he is handsome but has something off-putting about him as the character. Who seems to overthink except when it comes to the things and people he should.
Though the character’s fascination as well as the film and audience is what is the battery of this film. This is a polished film but not one that is beautifully put together.
If you are a fan of movies you can see what is going to happen from the beginning. You just watch to see how it will happen and what exactly is the end goal. No matter what she can provide the receipts. Though a last-minute reveal that is never shown only talked about comes across as weak.
The ending feels right, but also feels a bit too complex and comes across as it thinks it’s smart too much. While simple it is also brief.
The film might have been stronger if we saw this whirlwind romance as romantic in the first place or too good to be true and then started to wonder if this Is a con or if is it all in his head.
The film also comes across as a little too wasp-ish. It’s absolutely whitewashed. As there is very little real passion. It just seems like everyone is going through the motions. No matter how much I wanted to like it. It feels a bit melodramatic and thrilling.
This neo-noir takes place mostly in the daytime. Leaves itself to be too transparent at times.
Directed By: Rory Kelly Written By: Duane Dell’Amico, Roger Hedden, Neal Jimenez, Joe Keenan, Rory Kelly and Michael Steinberg Cinematography: Andrzej Sekula Editor: David Moritz
Cast: Eric Stoltz, Meg Tilly, Craig Sheffer, Lewis Arquette, Todd Field, Parker Posey, Vanessa Angel, Susan Traylor, Dean Cameron, Thomas Gibson, Joey Lauren Adams, June Lockhart, Adrienne Shelly, Alexandra Hedison, Quentin Tarantino
Sarah, Joseph, and Frank are BFFs. Joseph and Sarah get married but the evening before she tells Frank with a kiss that it could’ve been him. Frank continues to have a thing for Sarah.
Six different writers wrote a scene each of this romantic comedy featuring the marriage and turbulent relationship of Joseph and Sarah, with Joseph’s best friend Frank trying hard to cope with letting the love of his life marry his best friend. An interesting experiment though it might also explain why it
Seems like a bit of a mess. That seems endless and single-focused. After a while it feels like small talk, about a lot of things said but nothing of any depth that can be called interesting. It might have worked better as a play.
A 1990’s relationship drama with some very little comedy thrown in. It seemed dated even when it came out. It feels like a dramatic episode of the television show FRIENDS.
The film involves a group of friends who are all married and/or in serious relationships and only seem to hang out with each other. They are still young and hip with no kids in sight.
So, of course, they have only one friend who is single and this film Explores all the different couplings in relationships. The one that gets the most attention is Meg Tilly who is usually a joy to see on screen. As she is rather obscure. Whose character is engaged to Eric Stoltz’s character. Who is kind of a ladies’ man whose best friend, played by Craig Sheffer with some Ill-advised facial hair and even worse hippie wardrobe is in love with Tilly’s character and she knows it.
She comes across as cruel because she knows yet every time he brings a date to their get-together. She interrogates and then insults them.
When she suspects her fiancé of cheating she sleeps with Sheffer’s character out of spite and when he thinks they have started a relationship she begins to feel bad and have feelings. When Eric finds out and informs her he didn’t cheat. So now the two guys are competing for her.
Imagine the Andrew McCarthy-Ally Sheedy-Judd Nelson love triangle from ST ELMO’S FIRE. Only if Nelson didn’t cheat and it was the main part of the movie, only more dramatic and you are on the same page as this film.
The film tries to be a broad comedy type of movie played subtly seriously. It comes across as a bunch of self-important characters. Who think they are cool but aren’t coming to grips with growing up and making it seem more dramatic and meaningful than it actually is.
It’s a shame as the film has a good cast and could have really been good under better circumstances.
Somehow here the direction just seems to drain all the fun and interest out of not only the scenes but the characters. The script seems fine if not indulgent and self-important.
One only wishes for a more skilled director. Who could have better handled the material and made the scenes a little more vivid and exciting. At least give it a kind of sense of humor about itself.
Maybe also allowing the film to be more of an ensemble and not focus so much on the leads and give the side characters more nuance and more to do. So the love triangle could have been more of a side caper or we see how it affects the dynamics of everyone in the group.
After a while though it seems Like every woman throws themselves at Stoktz’s character. This is easy to see when Sheffer’s Comes off more as creepy and he is the single available one. Who seems to mess up any chance he has with other women. While Stoltz’s Character is already married has nothing to lose. As he already has a wife. So he can talk to these women without seeming like he wants to bed them Or looking for something. Which in turn seems to make him a challenge for them
The only true noteworthy scene is the cameo by writer-director Quentin Tarantino giving a rant or his theory on how the movie TOP GUN is really a movie about a man’s struggle with his homosexuality. (This was before the internet introduced many people’s wild outlandish film and television theories)
In fact, that is one of the only reasons I watched it. The other is Eric Stoltz and Parker Posey, actors I am a huge fan of.
Directed By: Donald Petrie Written By: Sara Parriott and Josann McGibbon Cinematography: Tim Shurstedt Editor: Harry Keramidas
Cast: Harley Jane Kozak, Elizabeth McGovern, Bill Pullman, Brad Pitt, Ken Wahl, Larry Miller, Holland Taylor, Kim Walker, O-lan Jones, Mindy Sterling, Heather Morgan, Claire Stansfield
With a 15-year reunion coming up, Kathy has sexual fantasies of her high school sweetheart. She’s married, so she sends her BFF to check him out and report back. Things get complicated.
This is a film I remember seeing the commercials and trailers for all the time when it was coming out. It was also heavily featured in the movie magazines I was reading then. Though never enough to get me to watch it.
Even at the time, it seemed like a seat filler. A film the studios put out and find that is kind of disposable but has enough of a concept that if it’s a slow week. It might be number one at the box office that week or at least make its money back and place within the top 5. Hoping for longevity.
The cast was another reason that I was interested. The film was more marketed as a film for women to see. As it offered three hunks to choose from as love interests. Brad Pitt, Bill Pullman, and Ken Wahl. Though more based on the up-and-comer Brad Pitt. As he is also the only male character to have an extended scene with his shirt off.
This is an example of a 90’s female buddy comedy. Where the two leads work well together but one is so insufferable and selfish. Thought is made out to be a frustrated housewife who has fantasies of what could have been. Now these films are a dime a dozen when it comes to men having midlife crises. So I can’t complain too much.
Throughout the film, there are setups of misunderstandings that keep happening that keep the story going and give the characters reasons to keep running into one another. It tries to be slapstick but isn’t that funny or strong.
Not to mention for a movie that Runs on a sexual premise there isn’t that much. The few times that it is funny is in a birthing class that could ag e been bigger and longer and from Bill Pullman’s character. The scientist and middle-aged father and husband. Whose attempts to romance his wife are cute and a bit sad.
These are the roles Bill Pullman has a tendency to play in romantic comedies. Usually the boring yet dependable mate or The quirky suitor. This is disappointing considering he began his career in RUTHLESS PEOPLE as a dumb hunk helping with a blackmail scheme or his lovable loser in SIBLING RIVALRY.
Elizabeth McGovern is an actress who is rare to see On The big screen. So one would think she would be pickier with her roles and one can see why she would want to play this type of character at the time. Even though it doesn’t leave her with much to do comedy-wise. Whereas Harley Jane Kozak gets to do all the scheming, running around, and physical comedy. Even if her character becomes unlikeable.
Which is inductive if the problems of the film. The cast is way better than the material. They all deserve better. The film looks low budget in every manner, especially for a stupid film.
It’s Directed by Donald Petrie. Who can be hit or miss with films? At times he is gifted and makes a film that is memorable (MYSTIC PIZZA, MISS CONGENIALITY) or they come across as bad misfires like this (RICHIE RICH, HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS) though even those films have a gloss to them. This looks like an independent film that decided to get a studio behind it.
Ken Wahl at least gets to barely be in the movie but is the character who is talked about the most. By the end though it shows that he might be better off as a fantasy.
Written & Directed By: Ari Aster Cinematography: Pawel Pogorzelski Editor: Lucian Johnston
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Nathan Lane, Amy Ryan, Richard Kind, Patti Lupone, Parker Posey, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Zoe Lister Jones, Kylie Rogers, Denis Menochet, Hayley Squires, Bill Hader
Following the sudden death of his mother, a mild-mannered but anxiety-ridden man confronts his darkest fears as he embarks on an epic, Kafkaesque odyssey back home.
This review isn’t a total explanation, as there is no such thing, but what at least as an audience member I came away with.
The film and the director Ari Aster, Take a swing at the fences in subtle ways. In the same style as most of his previous films. Though here it is more in your have. Yet still shocking as it is taking place in surroundings you wouldn’t necessarily expect.
Though the film does have a voice. It’s tough to determine if the audience speaks Its language fully. Though after a while it does become blunt with only a thin layer hiding the weapon.
Though it feels like a film made more for the director to enjoy and decided to share with an audience. And becomes a Film That others believed in and a film that could only be made when one has the power to write their own check. Their big swing at a dream project almost.
The first 40 minutes stay fascinating that it could be its own adventure. After that, it seems to become a little more maddening. As it moves along it stays unpredictable and becomes a road movie.
Whenever it gets to the next setup In this odyssey. It’s just as off the wall but feels more weird domestically than anything though it never quite feels as dangerous instead it just feels creepy.
As in the beginning, the character is on a journey physically unexpected just as he ends up on. emotionally. The tone becomes Unflinching, Surreal and ends up becoming the Ultimate guilt trip. While exploring Intimacy and lack of it. While being Terrorized by Anxiety and exaggeration. As All That he sees is danger.
No one can ever truly be trusted. Even those nice to him never feel comfortable exactly. So that he and the film stay obscure and unhinged.
It explores how we all can be easily dismissive. Not to mention Generational trauma, Mental illness as a kind of entertainment.
The film becomes Episodically violent at times. That is A punishment or torture. That seems preferable to the emotional violence that the main character goes through. As well as supporting characters.
It seems mundane and skewed but keeps raising the stakes and then when it seems to calm down it becomes random Again and manages to shock. So it keeps building though for some in the audience it might feel like it is either showing off or they get used to the wackiness and shock and it’s hard to reach a level within again as it seems par for the course. It might have its reasons to back it up, but for some, it might still make little to no sense.
Can see why some might not like the film as it can be a chore or a challenge to sit through. Some might see it as brilliant others might actively hate it or some might appreciate it yet not think it was all that. This is one of those films where many will feel different and take it differently. Though it will keep them talking.
As this is a film billed as a comedy that is easy to come back to and try to dismantle, explore and examine.
Through his travels to his apartment and to the store across the street. Have some of the most creative action sequences on such a small scale.
SPOILER ALERT
How I saw it is that his Big balls represented pent-up animosity and feelings. Showing his father as a penis monster in the attic meaning that to his mother his Father was insignificant and just a dick. Him always being defensive to a degree is how Defense was the last shred of his self-esteem and self-respect. That his Mother’s issues and has filled him with fear of the outside world. As he has this fear he constantly doesn’t
Know what was real or not. Was it a fantasy of projection or was it as it was presented and experienced?
Some might say that the ending is Warped and that he did die during sex and everything after are fantasies or illusions of his dying mind. Kind of like people who have their theories about the ending of TAXI DRIVER.
Though it does in some weird way come off as a more disturbing version of DEFENDING YOUR LIFE mixed a bit with THE GAME.
Written & Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard Based on the short story “LA AUTOPISTA DEL SUR” By: Julio Cortazar Cinematography: Raoul Coutard Editor: Agnes Guillemot
Cast: Mireille Barc, Jean Yanne, Jean-Pierre Kalfon
A supposedly-idyllic weekend trip to the countryside turns into an endless nightmare of traffic jams, revolution, cannibalism, and murder as French bourgeois society starts to collapse under the weight of its own consumer preoccupations.
Throughout this film, we follow a truly unlikeable couple on an endless journey/trip. Who terrorize or are terrorized by all they come across. It gets a bit meta as they know they are in a film. They continually wander into different narratives, scenes, or stories.
They keep coming across more dead people throughout the road and it feels a bit post-apocalyptic at certain points.
The film is episodic that stays with the couple and their various interactions with others. It gets continually ridiculous. As it feels like a stylistic comedy with deeper ramifications with plenty of unexpected philosophy and what feels like satire.
Thought this would be one of his more divisive movies. Where it’s an experimental concoction, but this ends up becoming an almost film. As it was one of Jean-Luc Godard’s films I might actually like and dare I say almost enjoyed it completely.
Though his films fascinate me and keep me coming back to discover. As he or the films usually have something to say or present.
Either that or more commonly he and his films fit the case of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes. Where there is nothing really there, yet people pretend there is, which can be said of a lot of celebrated directors by many people.
One can admit to being more of a fan of Francois Truffaut’s films. His fellow film enthusiast, reviewer, and co-worker at the legendary film magazine Cahiers De Cinema.
Godard is a director I can truly call an auteur. As no matter what there is a discussion to be had at the end of his films and no one can call them simple. There is no other director like him though many have tried. one can see how he has inspired so many.
This film actually feels playful and fun despite the absurdity. As it is most and tends to turn in a dime at times. The first hour has so much craziness but keeps you engaged that when the second half comes along with that same craziness but it starts to feel like a philosophical lecture. Even if he leaves it to the audience to figure out or read into it.
As always this happens just when I was ready to accept and enjoy. He then pulls the rug under you.
Like the recent film TENET at times the soundtrack is louder than the dialogue. Thankfully there are subtitles throughout. Though if they were left out it would rise to the challenge the director seems to desire.
The opening scene is certainly erotic with just the power of words and suggestions.
The film Of course has the legendary amazing tracking shot of the endless traffic jam and what various cars and people are all doing during. While the main couple’s car tries to get along the way. Where there is violence and games It ends brilliantly.
Born in a regional city, a young girl named Ai is sent to a cult commune by her religious maniac mother and lives there for seven long years. After the cult is exposed by the police, Ai starts a new, normal life going to a regular middle school, but can’t find a place to fit in normal society. Ai drops out to continue finding her path in life, first living with a rock-bottom delinquent family, then moving on to be part of a middle-class family, all along trying to find her place in this world. The only person who understands Ai is Ryota, another drop-out and cast-off from society. Ryota finds his path in a shady world of delinquents while Ai ends up working in the sex industry. Two teens’ purity gets swallowed up by the urban jungle of a big regional city. A black comedy depicting the lives of modern youth and their struggles in a place where there is no way out.
This is a film best to go into blind though even if you know the plot it still isn’t the easiest to explain.
The cast is mostly newcomers to the screen who come off expertly, but also excel in raw talent on screen and seem untrained. Even though Lead Actress Sairi Ito goes through it all on screen and deserves special Acclaim.
This is the third film by the writer/ director Eiji Uchida and I can definitely say that his films are original and you never know quite what to expect and that mystery makes the films exciting. Not to mention showing a bravery that has been missing from cinema In a while definitely not the most mainstream but so Indie and aiming more for a cult audience that it makes his films admirable no matter how controversial for some they might be.
As they focus on Characters more on the fringe of society and so far In Their own way has been films they are coming of age stories no matter what the ages of the characters
A film Mainly about the loneliness of youth so that they find camaraderie and family wherever they Can.Though as they try to support one another the film shows that the only way for them to grow and find their own paths is truly as individuals. They might meet someone who helps them align and who ultimately they end up with but first must go through many things alone
Throughout though many adults seem to mean well. As major influences they either screw up the kids more through actions, abandonment, or both. As we see even their peers sabotage them through jealousy
Some have compared this film to the epic film LOVE EXPOSURE by Director Sion Sono and it has that same kind of off-kilter feel that feels a bit fetishistic at times. That film had more than enough time to fulfill its story being 5 hours long (but truly never felt that long) not to mention that film was fully devoted to exploring fetishes and the characters who live that lifestyle. Here we get snippets of it.
Here though the stories stop for certain characters at times that feel like fragments you get the general idea, Throughout. In that other film, there is an innocence there the entire film tries to be a romance. Ultimately this one feels a bit more tawdry though with a love story
They are both coming-of-age stories though this one has its own rhythm that if you can get along with the best this film will be worthwhile if not it will just stay strange to you
The film is very composed, especially in its shots and bright colors. That almost makes the film feel illustrated at times.
It has a slightly diverse cast and nothing is ever said of their origins, though is clearly noticeable and a bit mysterious.
The film shows that Love can be like a cult as it is mainly two of you at the center but you must get to know and hang around each other’s friends and families even if you have nothing in common with them and become sort of the crew, a kind of second or third family. You take on Each other’s characteristics slowly and interests. How they Make sacrifices and little donations of time and money.
Cut To The Chase 