Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Director:  Georges Franju

I didn’t expect this film to be a horror movie classic, but as it turns out, it is. I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, save for the fact that it’s one of those movies that you have to “see before you die”. I put off watching it because I thought it would be a boring film, but as I began to watch it, I was transfixed by the beauty in the imagery and the fact that it was going down horror movie territory, something totally unexpected for me. 

The story is all about a surgeon who is trying to give his daughter a new face. You see, she was in a terrible car accident and her face was horribly disfigured. Her father, the surgeon, concocts a way to give her a new face. Unfortunately, it involves ripping the face off somebody else! Will this procedure work? Will somebody stop the mad doctor? How far should science go to prove a point? 

First off, this film was beautifully shot. It took advantage, as many European films do of Europe’s beautiful architecture and natural landscapes. A director doesn’t need millions of dollars to make his movie look good, he simply has to have an eye for beautiful locations and the talent to shoot them well. This is what happens with Franju’s Eyes Without a Face, it simply looks amazing because Franju shot in these beautiful locations, this, if you ask me, elevates the material from its B movie roots and takes it into art house territory. Still, at heart, this is you’re a-typical mad doctor on the loose movie, there’s more than a passing resemblance with films like Frankenstein (1931) or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yes, this is a film is about a mad doctor, going above and beyond to make his theories come true, to make his experiments work. 

The film is most famous for its surgical operation scene, which I imagine must have been quite the show stopper back in the day. Reportedly, people passed out during that sequence. I do remember as I watched the film, I suddenly felt I was watching “the scene”. You know how when you’re watching classic films and see a famous sequence for the first time and you realize you are in the presence of greatness…that’s how I felt with that scene. It’s an art film mixed with a horror film, loved that about this one. 

After watching Eyes Without a Face I realized where Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In (2011) comes from. Almodovar’s film is extremely similar in premise and visuals so obviously this film was a major influence. The only thing is that Almodovar’s film dives a bit deeper into themes, while Franju’s film is simplistic in nature and almost kind of void of any themes. The film shocks, has an interesting premise and looks amazing, but what is it trying to say? What is its ultimate purpose? It seems to me like Franju’s film only manages to shock and titillate and that it does in a beautiful way, but it doesn’t go beyond that. So in that sense, it’s an exercise in style over matter, poetic/surreal imagery over depth or story. I’m sure back in 1960 this film must’ve shocked audiences, I’m sure it will be considered tame by today’s horror enthusiasts. Still, this is a beautiful looking horror film, a true classic of the genre. Definitely worth a watch! 

Rating: 5 out of 5

Angel-A (2005)

Angel - A (2005)  

             

Director/Writer: Luc Besson

Cast: Jamel Debouzze, Rie Rasmussen

Luc Bessson’s films have always had this strong visual sense to them, he likes to load them with amazing shots, an abundance of color and detail. But one of the things that I’ve also noticed about his films is that he cares a lot about emotion, he likes to make us feel, to appreciate each other, to enjoy life. He likes to make us remember that love overpowers anything. Remember how in The Fifth Element (1997) the final element in the equation was true love? Besson likes to show through his films that love is what makes life worthwhile, which is something I enjoy about his films. Angel-A is no exception, it’s yet another film emphasizing love for others and for oneself. The thing about Angel-A is that the first few minutes lead you to believe that this is going to be just another by the numbers film about a guy who owes money to some gangsters, but if you keep watching, you’ll soon realize that that’s just the kick off point for something far more profound and touching.

Angel-A is all about a hustler named Andre. He owes around 50 thousand dollars to various unsavory dudes out on the streets and they have all decided to come collecting at the same time. So Andre has a couple of henchmen after him looking to punch his lights out. When he sees no exit to it all, he decides to jump of a bridge. Before he does that, he looks up at the sky and asks God why he’s never answered any of his cries for help. Andre doesn’t know it, but God has listened this time. And he’s sent one of his angels to help, her name is Angela.

The premise for Angel-A (2005) is not a new one; that of an Angel being sent down from heaven to help a human who is in a particularly nasty situation. One example that comes to mind is The Heavenly Kid (1985), a film about a guy who’s got to earn his place in heaven by helping somebody on earth. The idea of an Angel falling in love for the person they are supposed to be helping has also been done before in films like Date with an Angel (1987), Always (1989), City of Angels (1998), and one of my all time favorite movies about angels: Wings of Desire (1987). But Angel-A is a different kind of angel movie. Angela is far from perfect, she’s no goodie little two shoes. She smokes cigarettes, kicks whoever’s ass she has to kick and fucks like there’s no tomorrow. Some movies play with the idea of a god sent Angel with more respect then others, this one is a loosey goosey version of an Angel. But besides that, she’s here to help Andre find his path and learn to love others and himself. Will she achieve her mission? Will Andre ever set his life on the right track?

A couple of things made this one a keeper for me. Number one is that it’s actually an unpredictable film; you think it’s going to play out one way and it goes another. I also enjoyed the fact that the film was in black and white. As an illustrator of black and white comic books, I enjoy the black and white aesthetic very much, I think it offers its own visual flare, it’s own uniqueness. Luc Besson exploits this black and white look of the film very much, the sets, the illumination, everything is done to exploit the black and white nature of the film. I loved that Paris is one of the main characters in the film. There are a few films in which the city becomes a character. Films like Taxi Driver (1976), Hirsohima Mon Amour (1959) and Lost in Translation (2003) are examples of films in which the city becomes an integral part to the films look and feel and Angel-A is one of these films. Besson chose some beautiful, iconic locations to set his film in and it just makes the movie that much more splendorous. I mean, Paris at night, there’s no way you’re not going to love that.

Then we have the final element that truly got me and it was this films heart. Besson’s films tend to be all about people truly feeling for each other, making connections in the middle of dire straits. Besson’s films are all about humans helping each other, especially when they are hitting rock bottom.  Besson’s Leon: The Professional (1994) was all about Mathilda, an orphaned 12 year old girl finding an unlikely savior in the form of Leon, a hitman. Leon accepts her into his life, even though Mathilda obviously disrupts it. On Angel-A, it is Andre who begs God for a savior and gets it in the form of Angela, the sexy as hell, six foot, chain smoking Angel. The dynamics between Andre and Angela are fantastic. The contrast between a little guy and a six foot, sexy Angel makes for an interesting visual. Jamel Debouzze (Andre) and Rie Rasmussen (Angela) have great chemistry together, I bought their unlikely romance, they manage to stir some real emotions into their performances. There’s this amazing scene that really got to me in which Angela is showing Andre all about learning to love oneself, it literally brought tears to my eyes. It’s not every day a movie can do that to me. And it’s a testament to Debouzze and Rasmussen as actors and a testament to Besson’s talents as a filmmaker who knows how to nail emotions and a beautiful looking movie home.

Rating: 4 out of 5     

                                                    

The Illusionist (2010)

The Illusionist (2010)

Director: Sylvain Chomet

Sylvain Chomet is a very special animator that all lovers of traditional hand drawn animation should be exposed to. His style is so unique, it’s a true delight to watch. The first time I was exposed to his work was while organizing a short film festival. I was looking for some of the best short films ever made and upon my research I stumbled upon a 25 minute animated short film entitled The Old Lady and the Pigeons (1997). This short film won many awards when it was released and it’s not without merit, the short film is a wonder of animation, beautiful, grotesque and nightmarish at the same time! And this is a short film about an old lady who goes to the park every day to feed pigeons! Search it out on you tube, you won’t be disappointed! So anyways, the short film was a hit on my short film festival, people clapped and cheered at it. So of course, I searched for Chomet’s other films. I had to see this wonderful animator’s whole body of work.

This is how I came upon The Triplets of Bellville (2003). I wasn’t expecting to get my mind blown by a film about a grandmother who trains her grandson to become a world class cyclist, but there I was entranced by the awesome mix of visuals and sound. The thing about Chomet’s films is that the unique visual style of his drawings will keep your eyes glued, but so will the sounds and the absence of dialog. To Chomet, actions speak louder than words. We get sounds, we get music, but when someone speaks, it won’t be often, and usually it will sound like a language you might know, but it will more than likely be a muffled sound sounding like language, meant to transmit an idea, an emotion. Kind of like when Charlie Chaplin speaks gibberish in Modern Times (1936)? Or how he speaks "German" in The Great Dictator (1940)? You swear Chaplin's speaking in a known language, but he’s actually speaking gibberish? Like that. This is how language works in a Chomet film, which makes for an amazingly unique audio visual experience. I was very impressed by The Triplets of Bellville, which is why I was delighted to discover he had one more film in his animated repertoire: The Illusionist (2010), the film I’ll be talking about today.

The Illusionist tells the tale of an aging Illusionist who is on the verge of becoming passé, his act has become old hat, replaced by young rock and roll groups. So he decides to travel the country, searching for new venues that will appreciate his particular talent. So he travels to Edinburgh where he finds a variety of venues that give him a job, but basically, he’s a lonely guy living from gig to gig. On one of his venues, he meets this young woman whom he immediately befriends. She is extremely poor, so he decides to buy her a pair of shoes. She immediately becomes attached to the Illusionist and decides to become his traveling companion. He on the other hands becomes her protector and provider, so they become friends. But questions immediately arise, she’s a young woman, and he’s an older fellow. What are his intentions with her? Is he merely interesting in helping the girl? Is he in love with her? Is she in love with him? Is it a platonic thing? Is he just a Good Samaritan?

The Triplets of Bellville (2003) was such an exhilarating experience, a nonstop barrage of amazement, such a tour de force of animation that of course my expectations for The Illusionist were extremely high. And while The Illusionist does deliver in many ways, mostly with its visuals and over all ambiance and feeling…sadly it fails to deliver a film with substance to it. It feels like it could have worked better as a short film rather than a 90 minute film. The story is just too thin, not enough happens, to justify a full length picture. But putting aside my desires for a slightly more complex story, there’s still a lot to be enjoyed here. I mean, Chomet manages to capture Edinburgh, he makes it magical. He does something with its localization that not a lot of movies can do: it makes you want to live there. This has happened to me with some Hayao Miyazaki films, like Ponyo (2008), were I felt like I living in that little town by the sea. Well, the same thing happened to me with The Illusionist (2010). It made me want to live in this easy going, magical looking city. But yeah, that’s about all this film has to offer, the beautiful art work and animation, which I still enjoyed to the max. I mean, any love of traditional hand drawn animation will have a feast here. 

Ultimately, this is a film to be enjoyed from a purely visual perspective, it’s meant to be enjoyed simply as a visual treat, because there’s not a lot of mental stimulation, not a lot of meat with the potatoes. Sure the film does address certain themes, like when do we become obsolete? Should we adapt to the changing times? What is platonic love? But it’s all touched upon lightly, this film is more about absorbing visuals, feelings, emotions and the beautiful artistry with which the visuals were brought to life. But if I was to recommend a Sylvain Chomet film, one that would really blow you away, it would be The Triplets of Bellville (2003), it’s the superior of the two. Chomet went on to direct live action films as well, but I’ve yet to dive into those. Last words on The Illusionist (2010), it’s purely style over substance, but oh what style!

Rating: 4 out of 5   

Oasis of the Zombies (1982)

Title: Oasis of the Zombies (1982)

Director: Jesus Franco

Review:

There are a couple of zombie movies out there that are complete bore fests in which very little happens in the way of action or suspense. It seems to me that filmmakers who do these types of films make them  to make some quick cash, so they can move on to something else they want to do. The trick to making money with these types of movies is to make the cheapest possible zombie movie you can and I mean really cheap, all talk, no action, no gore, and very little in the way of make-up effects work, this way you spend very little in making your film and have a better chance at making back your budget. Then, the second part of the plot involves making the masses believe they are going to see a zombie fest, the greatest zombie film ever made. This is usually achieved by getting a really cool poster for your shitty film and by cutting a trailer that shows only the zombie scenes. Normally what we end up with in this type of situation is a really crappy film, but a cool as hell poster. Most of the time, the poster is better than the film. Then sit back and wait for the ka-shing!, if all goes well, you’ll have made your money back because once you’ve managed to get your audience in the theater seats, they have already paid the ticket; their money is yours! The most notable example of this type of sleazy filmmaking would be the Nazi zombie film Zombie Lake (1981) and the film I’ll be talking about today: Oasis of the Zombies (1982), which consequently is also a Nazi zombie film; barely anyways.

This film concerns a rich kid named Robert whose father is killed in Africa after he reveals the location of a treasure to some greedy bastard. When Robert reads into his father’s diary he discovers that his father actually knew the location of a gold treasure worth six million dollars, a treasure that used to belong to the Germans, but they all died in a firefight defending the gold, so know the gold is supposedly still buried somewhere in an Oasis in the middle of the African desert. So Robert decides that taking his friends with him on an expedition to find the gold will be a great idea! So much for mourning the death of your father! So anyways, these kids take off for Africa to get the gold, unfortunately for them, Nazi zombies are protecting the gold! Will they find the gold, or will they instead find themselves?

Here’s a question I often times ask myself when watching a film like Oasis of the Zombies, when filmmakers make a movie like this one, do they know they are making an extremely boring movie? Are they even aware of it? Are they making a boring film on purpose? Or do they think they are actually making an entertaining flick? Thing is that this movie actually has an interesting premise and back story to it, but it somehow still manages to deviate into an extremely boring movie. For example, the movie starts out with these two hot chicks stopping at the titular Oasis to refresh themselves, and since the camera focuses very sleazily on their bee-hinds, you get to thinking cool, we’re gonna get some hot lesbo action. This isn’t a chavanistic thought on my part, I only come to this conclusion because this is a Jesus Franco film, and Lesbo action is one of the elements his films are known for. So anyhow, you figure these two chicks are gonna get naked and THEN get eaten by zombies. A very similar scene happens in Zombie Lake as well, and since the same filmmakers are involved in this film I thought they’d go with the same ‘modus operandi’, but no, we only get a pair of zombie hands emerging from the sand and attacking the girls. Worst part is the whole attack happens off camera! So right there and then we know, this movie is shying away from showing us the goods in more ways than one, no naked chicks and on top of that, no zombies.

This flick was seriously trying to cut back on costs in another way: the zombies only come out at night for some reason that’s never mentioned in the film. But I’ll tell you the reason:  they only come out at night because it’s an effective way for the filmmakers to hide a lot of the cheap make up effects or even better, it’s an effective way to hide the fact that there’s no make up effects whatsoever! For some shots they simply show ominous looking shadows walking about! Wow, so I’m no Jesus Franco expert, but this must not be his best film. There’s huge gaping plot holes on this one, for example: fine, there’s a lost cache of gold somewhere in the dessert and the Nazi’s who it used to belong to are now zombies…who guard the gold…for what purpose? This is the same question I asked myself when watching John Carpenter’s The Fog (1980). Fine, the ghosts are hiding in the fog, but what do they want the gold for? What exactly are they planning on buying from the afterlife? Same question I got about these Nazi zombies! And why did they turn into zombies? It’s as if Franco simply wants us to take for granted the whole Nazi  Zombie premise, because it’s a sub-genre, and Nazi zombies simply are? Come on, that’s some lazy writing right there, if there was even any writing involved, which by the looks of things I seriously doubt.

Funny thing about this poster for Oasis of the Zombies, there are no tanks, no graveyards, and no zombies shooting guns in this movie! At all! 

It doesn’t surprise me that this ultra cheap-o zombie movie was such a bore, it was written and directed by Jesus Franco, the same guy who wrote Zombie Lake, the most boring zombie flick I’ve ever seen.  I guess I knew going in the kind of film I was getting myself into, and I was absolutely right. I’m still going to watch some Jesus Franco films, Vampyros Lesbos (1971) looks good, and I’m sure Franco has some more good ones in his roster,  but Oasis of the Zombies was a complete disappointment. It does have a couple of cool shots of zombies walking in the dessert dunes, and some of the zombies are cool looking, but these few scenes do not save the film from what it is: a complete waste of time. I gave it the benefit of the doubt and it failed to surprise, shock, or entertain, three things a zombie film should always aim to do. My advice is skip this one, you’ll be doing yourself a favor. 

Rating: 1 out of 5

Delicatessen (1991)

Title: Delicatessen (1991)

Directors: Marc Caro, Jean Pierre Jeunet

Cast: Dominique Pinon, Marie Laure Dougnac

Review:

Jean Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro are two French directors who started out both of their careers working together, jointly directing films. They started out directing a short film called The Bunker of the Last Gunshots (1981), which coincidently same as Delicatessen, was also a post apocalyptic film! But it was Delicatessen that marked the first time the creative duo collaborated on a full length feature film. They then worked together on what is undoubtedly considered their masterpiece, The City of Lost Children (1995), an amazing film that I keep getting lost in over and over again. Highly urge anyone who hasn’t seen it to give it a try, trust me, if you like layered and visually rich films, you won’t regret it. As it often happens with explosively creative duos like this one, Jeunet and Caro ended up parting ways, each going off to make their own films. Of the two, Jean Pierre Jeunet has been the one with the more prolific cinematic career. Jeunet went on to direct Alien Resurrection (1997), Amelie (2001), A Very Long Engagement (2004) and most recently Mic Macs (2009); while Caro has only directed a science fiction film called Dante 0.1 (2008) which in my opinion was a visually interesting film, but ultimately, a let down. Even though Caro hasn’t directed as many films, he’s always kept busy in one way or another working as artistic director on various films, including Gaspar Noe’s Enter the Void (2009). I really enjoyed the two films these directors collaborated on and Delicatessen’s where it all began. This film is so unique, I think it's one of the few "art house" post apocalyptic films ever made! 

Delicatessen tells the tale of Louison, a handyman/ex circus clown that’s looking for a job. Things are pretty bad in this post-apocalyptic world ravaged by war. People are living in extreme poverty, barely able to eat at the end of the day. The film centers on the tenants of an apartment building which has a butcher shop on the ground floor. The landlord is also the owner of the delicatessen. Every now and again, he sells meat to his tenants in exchange for grain. But he doesn’t have meat to sell all the time; meat is a rare commodity during these difficult times. When Louison notices the “help wanted” on the Delicatessens window, he decides to take the job. Louison asks what happened to the previous handyman, but all they tell him is that one day he mysteriously disappeared. What really happened to the previous maintenance man?

So there are various reasons why I love the films that Jeunet and Caro directed together. They have this look and feel to them, such attention is paid to the mood that the visuals are to evoke, ultimately, I guess it’s Caro’s touch in art direction that makes these films such a wonder to look at. If you don’t believe me, just check out the films opening credits, they immediately let you know you are in for a specially crafted film. Delicatessen is a film filled with visual gags and lots of dark humor. It has some slapstick in it as well, executed by the comedic talents of frequent Jeunet and Caro collaborator, the great Dominique Pinon. A scene that shows us just how creative these guys can be is one in which every tenant in the building is going about their daily business at the same beat, in unison, in synchronicity with the love making of one of the couples in the apartment. It’s a hilarious scene! So even though this is a dark film, it is brilliantly mixed with comedic situations and visual gags galore, which is something that distinguishes Jeunet and Caro’s films. Originally, the first film that Jeunet and Caro wanted to make was The City of Lost Children, but since their careers where just getting started, they didn’t have the clout to get the funding necessary to make their dream project. The budget needed to bring The City of Lost Children to life was too high and so they had to settle for making a smaller (yet still profitable) film which ended up being Delicatessen. But you wouldn’t know this is a smaller budget film by looking at Delicatessen; the film looks just as good as anything the duo ever directed. It was thanks to the critical success of Delicatessen, they finally got the money they needed for what is in my opinion still their grand masterpiece: The City of Lost Children.  

Delicatessen's post apocalyptic wasteland

Delicatessen speaks about war, and famine and how difficult it is for “the people” to survive when their governments make it so difficult for them to live, essentially turning the world into a ‘dog eat dog world’. In the film, the characters resort to cannibalism to survive, they eat each other in order to make it, the symbolisms aren’t that hard to grasp. I’m sure a lot of you out there can sympathize with this idea, things being as difficult as they are in the world right now, some countries aren’t calling this a recession, some countries are calling this a depression. Like the great depression of the 1930’s, unemployment skyrockets, people get desperate, crime rises. In Delicatessen, Louison realizes that desperate times can make humans act in evil ways when he says “Nobody is entirely evil, it’s the circumstances that make them evil, or they don’t know they are doing evil” Which is a very true sentiment. The other day I was walking to the movie theater (to see The Avengers!) and this desperate looking individual asked me and my friends for some money to buy something at Burger King; we kept walking because the guy looked like he could try and actually mug us, I mean the guy had this “I'll kill you” look on his face! Point is, I remember telling my friend the exact same thing that this film is trying to express. “There are situations in life that can make us do evil things” I said. I also told her how maybe that man isn’t naturally an evil person, but his need for money might make him attack us. Hunger, drug addiction, poverty, these are things that can make any man attack another; which is what this film is trying to illustrate with its cannibalism theme. Sadly, such is the world we are living in.

But there is of course hope in the middle of the sadness. In Delicatessen Louison falls in love with one of the tenants, and so as Willy Wonka would say “a good deed shines in a dark world”. Yes my friends, at heart, Delicatessen is actually a romantic and at times even poetic film. Delicatessen has a positive message after all. Love conquers all evil. The world might be turning into a desperate place, but Louison and his new love play to the beat of their own drum, they dance to the rhythm of their own music. I also enjoyed how the film sometimes focuses on these two kids who emulate Louison and Julie in their ways. In this sense, the film is also trying to tell us that hope lies in future generations, and what we teach them, so in the end, Delicatessen is not as dark a film as it seems. Highly recommended!

Rating: 5 out of 5