“Oldboy” – 2003 Dir. Chan-woon Park

With Min-sik Choi, Hye-jeong Kang, Byeong-ok Kim and Ji-tae Yu

“Even though I’m no more than a monster – don’t I, too, have the right to live?”

    So most other pretentious film snobs that I know have always sworn by “Oldboy”; saying that it’s awesome, or great, or “the ultimate fuck job”. I was a little late to the party on this movie, having flirted with the movie a many a time in my Netflix Instant queue. Needless to say, I manned up and started it one night, and to my dismay it’s dubbed in English. Peace out “Oldboy” on Netflix Instant.

So then, all of a sudden there is a much ado about “Oldboy” being remade. Spike Lee signed on, which I thought was kind of sad. Then Josh Brolin signed on to play the oldboy. And of course Warner Brothers (who are producing the remake) have been seriously courting Christian Bale to play the villain. Seems to me, that this could be one of the greatest remakes of all time. Kiss the baby, “The Departed”.

    ”Oldboy” is one twisted sister of one man’s journey to find the truth. Dae-su Oh (Min-sik Choi) is locked up for 15 years in a hotel room without any answers, or much human contact. The room has a bed, a bathroom and a television. He’s watched under close video surveillance, so when he breaks a picture frame to use the glass to slit his wrists, he’s able to be saved. That’s right – they keep him alive.

Dae-su is then given freedom after 15 years of solitude and is told that he has five days to figure out why he’s been imprisoned or his daughter will be killed. Dae-su embarks on a long and strange trip with Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) a young chef who crosses paths with Dae-su.

To talk anymore about the plot of this film, would be even more confusing than watching the film and trying to fit all the pieces together. This film is graphic in the full sense of the word. Graphic violence, graphic adult situations, graphic nudity, and most of all, a graphic “fuckjob”.

The direction of this film is extremely taut and incredibly honed. It’s nothing less than a fluid movement that never seems forced, stale or over-the-top. There are very few directors that are truly visionary: Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick, Stanley Kubrick, David Fincher (okay, I suppose I could keep going – but you get the picture). Chan-wook Park has this visionary direction, granted I’ve only seen one of his films, but isn’t that all it should take?

This film takes us on a path of destruction and torment. It’s an incredible looking glass that we view this story from, only understanding what Dae-su understands, and we become the ultimate voyeurs, watching his most private and intimate moments where we try and put the pieces together with him.

The villain of the film is great. He is the embodiment of everything a great cinematic villain should be; he’s mysterious, evil, commands power and above all, shows a flickering hope of human emotions. To my very warped and skewed views I think that in order to be a great villain, you’re good enough to be a James Bond villain. Which, he most certainly is.

I couldn’t help but notice the villain is direct homage to Christian Bale’s turn as Patrick Bateman, the slickback, the style, being filmed showering and working out like Bateman – it makes me think that Bale might not take on the role because of that or; he could completely make the role his own, and put his own trademark on it, which I’m sure is exactly what will happen.

    I know I have a tendency to “historically overrate” movies, but I tend to write about films that give me an urgency to write about them, unless the movie is so bad, I relish the moment where I can sit down at this machine and spew my bile into it. Anyways, this is a great film, and if I could, I would seriously kick myself in the ass for allowing it to evade me for so long.

Rating: 9.5/10


Criterion Collection: “Wings of Desire” – 1987 Dir. Wim Wenders

With Bruno Ganz, Solveig Dommartin, Otto Sander and Peter Falk

Spine #490

To smoke, and have coffee – and if you do it together, it’s fantastic.” – Peter Falk (as himself)

    Have you ever longed for something? To Touch something? Touch someone? Feel something? Feel someone? Those are the inner feelings of an angel, Damiel, who watches over the streets of Berlin in Wim Wenders’ masterpiece of human emotion “Wings of Desire”.

Bruno Ganz gives an incredibly touching and profound performance as the conflicted angel Damiel, who watches from above the city of Berlin (before the Wall was taken down). He glides around the city undetected, spending time in libraries, listening to peoples thoughts, dreams, fears, and aspirations. He’s undetected by everyone, except for children. Thought the film never explains the fact that children can be attuned to an angel’s presence, it has to be because they embody innocence.

    Damiel begins to follow a French circus performer Marion (Solveig Dommartin) who pines for the exact same thing Damiel does. She wants to be loved, to be touched by a loving hand – she longs for it. Damiel silently struggles with his deep love for Marion, so much so his angel companion Cassiel (Otto Sander) begins to worry about him because Damiel confesses his wanting to take, “a leap of faith”.

Aside from children being able to detect the presence of an angel, only one other person can. He’s an American actor who flew to Germany to film a movie, and he just so happens to be a “fallen angel” himself. That American actor is Peter Falk, who plays himself.

If this film doesn’t sound like an interesting film already, let me throw on a few more layers of complexity. First, this is a three language film containing of German (how the angels talk, and the thoughts they hear of the people down below), French (the inner thoughts of Marion) and in English whenever Peter Falk is on the screen.

    Peter Falk, who just passed away recently, is an incredibly underrated actor. He will always be best known as Detective Colombo, the character he played on television for over forty years. I think Peter Falk is second only to Jack Lemmon as an actor who serves to facets: the first being a great comedic actor who’s timing is impeccable and secondly for being a great dramatic actor who is able to disappear inside of the character, even when he plays himself.

This film is shot in black and white, and in the first person whenever Damiel takes the narrative of the film, we see what he sees (and how he sees it), whenever the narrative is shifted to Marion or Peter Falk, the film pops into beautiful cinematic colors, showing us that humans live a freer, and more beautiful life than the angels do. Though I think that Wenders begs the question of who serves a greater purpose: angels or humans?

This film is also Wenders’ metaphor for how the German people want to come together and tear down the Berlin Wall and reunite the nation. Wenders says in the Blu-Ray supplements that while he wrote the film, and while they were shooting the film, no one thought that the Berlin Wall would ever come down (it fell two years after the film’s release in 1989).

    Needless to say, this film has a whole hell of a lot going on, and not once does Wenders lose focus, and allow this film to become misguided or pretentious. “Wings of Desire” is a truly beautiful and inspirational film, and can be viewed either two ways, one as a touching love story that shows us that God cannot even interfere with true love, and the second view of the film would be a cry for world peace.

Even though this film is incredibly heavy, and was remade as the atrocious “City of Angels” with Nic Cage and Meg Ryan (that also incredibly changes the entire plot and structure of the film), I cannot recommend this film high enough. This is truly a great film that is criminally under seen.

Rating: 10/10

Criterion Collection: “Days of Heaven” – 1978 Dir. Terrence Malick

With Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Linda Manz and Sam Shephard

Criterion Collection #409

“Days of Heaven” has a simple plot (which one could argue that all of Malick’s films) but his visionary images sets his films apart as being very unique and richly organic. Bill (Richard Gere) accidentally kills his foreman at the factory he works at in Chicago. Bill flees with his little sister Linda (Linda Manz) and his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams) along the railroads of the Midwest until they reach Texas where an ill landowner (Sam Shephard who’s character is not given a name) hire the trio as seasonal help for the upcoming harvest.

    Where the plot thickens is Bill and Abby pretend to be brother and sister (hey, it takes place in 1917) and Bill hatches a plan for Abby to marry the ill landowner. She does marry him, but then he’s not as sick as he seems. Naturally Abby and the Farmer develop feelings for one another as Bill watches from the grain fields.


    I firmly believe that this film is where Malick discovered how he could fuse a narrative in with the beauty and awe of nature. As Richard Gere says in the Supplements, the final film was something completely different than the film he shot. Most of the scenes of dialogue were removed, and what was inserted were shots of the wind blowing the field, turkeys running through grass and close ups of locust. It’s truly extraordinary.

    The cast of the film is rather odd in its own right. Richard Gere, who was fresh off the theater circuit and had not made many feature films, brings an aggressive filled conman who’s edge is softened by his urbanely polished clothing and his looks. Gere gives one of the best performances of his career and shows that he can be a very powerful and effective dramatic actor.

    Sam Shephard, who was known as a playwright prior to his acting, was convinced by Terrence Malick to step in front of the camera. Even on repeat viewings, the character of the Farmer is incredibly sympathetic and victimized by Gere’s plan. But there is an excellent interview in the disc’s Supplements with Shepard where he gives his take on the Farmer, and how he views him as a man who’s filled with jealousy from the first moment he sees Brooke Adams, and how he’s a very rich man who knows nothing but loneliness and solitude and is very desperate to fill the void in his life.


    Speak the truth Pulitzer Prize winning Sam Shepard.

    The acting in this film is terrific, but what makes this film great and a must see is the imagery that Malick puts in front of you. When I watch a Malick film, I feel very rooted, and it’s as if I’m watching a painter paint. It’s very methodical and moving.

    The house, which sits alone on a small incline where Farmer lives, is such a powerful asset of the film. It’s as important as the Bate’s house in “Psycho”. It’s incredibly haunting and its presence on screen is demanding of your attention. It’s the one image that I think of when this film comes across my mind.


    The blu-ray disc that Criterion put out of this film is fantastic, though the Supplements may be slightly thin. There is a commentary track of four members of the original crew that is incredibly insightful and gives you many stories behind the scenes of the film. There are two video interviews with camera operator John Bailey and cinematographer Haskell Wexler (who replaced the original DP who had other obligations).

The highlight of the extras are an audio interview by Gere that’s queued up to footage of the film. Gere is very straightforward about his working relationship with Malick, and how he felt about his methods and the final product of the film. It’s very honest and very fascinating.

    Sam Shephard gives a video interview where he goes into the mythology of Malick’s film, and how he preserves the film, and his thoughts behind much of the imagery and the characters. Sam Shepard is nobody’s fool.

    The Criterion Collection gives “Days of Heaven” an incredible film transfer. Mind you, it won’t pop out like “TRON Legacy” or “The Social Network”, but don’t forget, this film is from 1978 and wasn’t shot digitally. This film was a part of an epic movement in film, and it may not be Malick’s best film, or my favorite of his, but it sure is spectacular.

Rating: 10/10