Mermaid in a Manhole

Courtesy of avistaz.com

Ever since my very first venture into the Japanese splatter film genre, I have been wanting to see this film.  Imagine my surprise when I went to a horror convention last week, and actually got to purchase my own copy!

I’ve had this film in my possession for about a week now, and today I finally got to sit down and watch it.  I was quite surprised by what I was to see.

The film’s cinematography is done in a way that induces thoughts of soap operas.  You know, that “overly polished, but attempting to look like real life” style.  It is quite a change from the typical “movie” style that the opening credits are done in.  I’ll have to give it another watch to see how I really feel about that.

The plot of Guinea Pig’s fourth installment, Mermaid in a Manhole, is that a lonely man, simply called The Artist, has recently lost his wife and is seeking inspiration for his paintings.  His secret place is a sewer which used to be a lush river, whose banks he used to hang out on during his childhood.  One day, his beloved pet/animal friend is dead and he frantically seeks to use it (I’m not sure what the animal was, by the way… it looked too big for a rat, but too mangy for much else) as artistic inspiration, when he encounters a mermaid.  He becomes enthralled and obsessed with said mermaid, and decides to take her home – you see, she has some sort of funky flesh-eating infection, and he believes he can cure it.  Also, by taking her home with him, he can just sit and paint her all day.

Mermaid in a Manhole is a very quiet film.  I mean that in a couple ways – first, while there is a lot of dialogue in parts, in most parts, there is silence with only the environmental sounds as the backdrop to the scenes.  It’s quite nice, and adds to the realism that the film was going for.  The cast is very small, which also aids to the quiet of the film.  In fact, you don’t really see more than those four characters until the end.

Now, with the above stated, I have to say that the amount of over-acting in this film is astounding.  Most of the over-acting comes from The Artist (Shigerui Saiki).   The man can overdo it with the best of them.  The nosy neighbor does her fair share, as well.  The Mermaid (Mari Somei) and The Artist appear to communicate telepathically – actually, The Mermaid appears to do all of her communicating telepathically and hams up her voice-overs just as well as the other two.  In fact, I think the only one who doesn’t ham it up in this is the boyfriend/husband/brother (their relationship is unclear) of the nosy neighbor – and this is possibly because he has so few lines.

Though Mermaid in a Manhole is included in the Japanese splatter library of film, it’s really not as gory or disgusting as you would think.  Sure, it’s not for the weak-stomached, what with its bleeding/worm spewing flesh eating mermaid virus, or the pus paint in seven colors.  But, I certainly have seen much worse.

If you want something that is extremely cheesy and fairly entertaining, with subtitles, I would recommend it.  It’s certainly not a bad film, but it definitely isn’t good.

9 Songs

Courtesy of flickr.com

I opted for the more…”family friendly” version of this poster.

The very first time I heard about 9 Songs (when it was released in the British cinema, back in… sometime around 2005), I was intrigued.  Of course, at the time, I didn’t know very much about it, other than it was about an American student and an Englishman who meet at a concert, followed by footage from a number of concerts.

I’m not going to lie, I was mostly excited due to the list of bands from which the footage was provided.

As time went on, I forgot about the film’s existence – having never made it to the theatre to see it – until I saw an episode of Indie Sex which happened to mention it.  There, I learned that it was an “experimental film” done by Michael Winterbottom (of 24 Hour Party People fame) where he would proceed to make a film utilizing the sexualities of two actors.

This information caused me to read more about this film, and see what critics and regular moviegoers (like myself) had to say.  The results were fairly unanimous – trite, plotless, pretentious, pornography.

I had my mind pretty much made up – I would skip this one and figured that the masses were correct.  As such, the film was shoved into the back of my mind, never to be thought of again… until today.

The lovely Netflix mentioned to me that it had newly added 9 Songs to its list of “Instant Watch” movies.  As such, I figured, why not?

The first, pre-opening credits, bits of film were enough to put me off the entire things, but I stuck it out.

The film opens with two different shots of the same airplane, flying over a vast snow covered landscape, all the while a voice-over is occurring.  Close up of the young man in the plane, quick cut to a sex scene, and cue the opening credits.

What a way to start a film.  It got me thinking, “What have I gotten myself into?”

This film tried entirely too hard to be a masterful work of art – with its minimalist sets and lighting, handheld camera, extreme close-ups, and lengthy static shots.  However, what the film majorly lacked was a story, and as a result proved to be very dull and lifeless.

I wondered throughout, who are these two people that are constantly having coitus on my screen? Where did they come from?  How did they meet?  How did this start?  Do they ever have any sort of conversation?

I found myself eagerly awaiting the “9th song” just so that I would know the film was over.

This film was chock full of shot-after-shot-after-shot of sex.  Concert footage (probably taken from concert dvds) with sex interspersed.  Two seconds of dialogue, either following sex, or with sex immediately following.  It seemed as if the entire film took place in a bed.

The times that this couple were actually having a conversation was laughable – with dialogue such as:

“Do you think I look like a boy?”

“Yes, that’s why I like you”

“Boy…” (said while posing in front of a mirror) “Girl…” (also said while posing)

I am inclined to agree with the others – this film was nothing other than Winterbottom attempting to get his rocks off.

This was a major snoozefest, for sure.

‘Inglourious Basterds’

Courtesy of iwatchstuff.com

This was a great film weekend for me, in that I got to see three extremely different movies.  The first being Tarantino’s newest installment into his collection, Inglourious Basterds [sic].

This (much like all of his films) is very much a Tarantino film.  I feel that that should be something that is known first and foremost.  Therefore, if you don’t like Tarantino, you probably won’t like this movie.

‘Inglourious Basterds’ is set in 1940′s Nazis-invaded France.  In addition to the film telling you that it is in France, the setting itself is very French.  The film opens with “Chapter One” (much like how ‘Kill Bill’ was done in chapters, ‘Basterds’ is as well) and a shot of the beautiful French countryside.

It is here that we immediately meet Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet) and his three lovely daughters.  It is also here that we realize that, unlike most American-made films set in different countries, the characters aren’t going to be speaking English (I don’t know about you, but I think that Mr. Tarantino deserves a “bravo!” for that, alone.) – therefore, if you don’t like to read subtitles, don’t see this film.

As quickly as we are introduced to our surroundings and first characters, we are introduced the film’s villain – Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz).  Nicknamed “The Jew Hunter”, he works as a detective for the SS and terrorizes both Jews in hiding as well as the people who hide them.  But remember, this is a Tarantino film, so if you expect to outright hate Landa, you are mistaken.

When Col. Landa initially comes on screen, the dialogue begins in French for a good 15 -20 minutes (maybe?) and then effortlessly (and slyly) switches to English.  The audience may be under the impression that it is done to appease us, however it is nicely written into the script as a ploy put on by the very clever Col. Landa.

It is also in this chapter that we first meet the film’s main antagonist, Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) – a Jewish woman whose family is killed by Landa and his men.

Before I move on to the next chapter, I would like to time-out and discuss dialogue.  As a fan of Tarantino’s work, I don’t mind his very manic manner of speaking nor that it carries over into the way that his characters speak.  After all, whenever I’m watching one of his films, it gives me an opportunity to see what goes on in his head (I’m a psych major, what can I say?  I like that stuff).  This film, while dialogue heavy, is a very toned down and not anywhere near as manic as Tarantino’s typical dialogue.  I don’t know if it was because of the subject matter, the foreign languages, or the fact that doing it in chapters gave the film more focus – but, it is done quite well.

I also want to note that I have read countless reviews that have complained about this film being “advertised as action when it’s not”.  I would like to address that, as well.  I think of action in a number of ways – there are your “summer Hollywood blockbusters” which are chock full of explosions and are very loud; there are your horror/slasher movies which are chock full of teenagers running around and getting hacked to bits; and there are your films with a lot of verbal action.  To me, this was an action film, but the characters sparred verbally rather than physically.  You can’t build the kind of tension that this film did without well-written dialogue.  I don’t know about everyone else, but Landa’s speech about he being a hawk and the Jews being the rats, and the way he toyed with LaPadite was some of the best on-screen tension I’ve experienced in a while.

Moving right along to “Chapter 2″ which introduces us to “The Basterds” – a regime of angry Jewish (mostly American) soldiers who  are on a mission to kill Nazis and are led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt).  Lt. Raine is a southern, quick-tongued, witty man with a goal.  The Basterds at the forefront are Sgt. Donny Donowitz (“The Bear Jew” played by Eli Roth), Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger), and Private Omar Ulmer (Omar Doom).  Together, they strike fear into the Nazis – particularly “The Bear Jew” who is known for beating Nazis soldiers to death with a baseball bat.

If you’ll recall from the trailer, Lt. Raine wants “100 Nazis scalps” from each of his eight men.  Tarantino doesn’t spare us the opportunity to see the men collect the scalps.  I suppose most people saw this as gory – I wasn’t one of them.  But, if stuff like this bothers you – don’t see this film.

Chapter two gives you your usual Tarantino – dorky, “tough guy” characters that you love to watch and laugh at.  A highlight being after The Bear Jew bashes in a skull, and runs around screaming as if he just hit a home-run in an actual baseball stadium.

“Chapter three” reintroduces us to Shosanna years after her family’s demise.  She now owns and runs a movie theatre that she’s inherited from an aunt (I’ve read reviews that said it’s never explained how she comes to own the movie theatre, but I thought it was very obviously explained several times… oh well.) where she screens German propaganda films.  One night, while changing the marquee, a German soldier/hero named Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) becomes enamored with her and seeks her out everywhere she goes.  As a result of his fondness, she meets Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) and his French mistress/translator, Francesca Mondino (Julie Dreyfus) and they choose her theatre to do a private screening of their latest propaganda film (which also stars Zoller).

This chapter also puts Shosanna and Landa back together when he comes to meet with her in order to discuss the security measures that will be taken for the screening at  her theatre.  It is in this scene, again, that tension and suspense are built – this time, simply by having Landa order her a glass of milk to go with her strudel.

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 I won’t discuss at great depth, as they involve scheming and revenge getting at their finest.  You will simply have to see the film to find out what else happens.

This film was Tarantino at his finest, and possibly even his most focused.  This is easily one of his best films, in my opinion.  I would highly recommend it (except for… you know, if you fall into the above categories that I told to not see this film).