One Missed Call (2003)

- Chakushin ari
A restrained Miike, 18 August 2006

In Takashi Miike's One Missed Call, there's really very little new ground covered. If I've seen one Asian film that revolves around a pale-skinned, long black-haired female ghost, I feel as if I've seen a dozen. Whether One Missed Call is derivative of other Asian horror films or whether it's the other way around, I don't know (or really care). The similarities, though, are undeniable. But it hardly matters when it comes to enjoying the movie. Miike has put together an entertaining and at times frightening tale of a young girl seeking retribution for her death. It's far less bloody and over-the-top than most of Miike's other films, but for the most part, it works. Miike is much more restrained and relies on very subtle moments to create unease in the viewer. One of the best examples is the "ghost in the cupboard" scene. It's a simple moment without a lot of fanfare, but it's very effective in generating the desired response. Other highlights of the film include the death scene at the television studio and the search through the abandoned hospital. These moments help Miike's film standout from the crowded field of similarly themed J-horror films.

Whether the plots of these J-horror ghost stories appeal to you or not, as usual, it's difficult to deny the level of artistry and technical brilliance that goes into these films. One Missed Call is no exception. Thanks to some interesting cinematography and lighting, the film has a "look" that helps create an atmosphere of dread. The special effects, both visual and sound, are well done. The acting is good. Both of the leads, Kou Shibasaki and Shin'ichi Tsutsumi, are more than adequate. And Miike's direction expertly creates the desired tension. Overall, it's the kind of well-made Asian horror film that I've come to expect.

But One Missed Call isn't without its faults. Beyond the "been there, done that" aspects of the plot, the film's pacing could have been better. While the first and third acts are enjoyable, the middle portion of the One Missed Call tends to drag a bit. Some of the investigation scenes into what's behind the mystery put a halt to what is an otherwise well paced film. A little judicious editing might have helped the film flow better. One Missed Call also includes a number of plot points that are never adequately resolved. For example, why was the mother's dead body in the abandoned hospital? And could the ending have been more confusing? I admit that I'm completely at a loss to explain the films finale. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but don't ask me what it all meant. Maybe a second viewing is necessary to resolve some of these issues.

7/10

Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005) (TV)

- Ti piace Hitchcock?
I can't help but feel a bit disappointed, 17 August 2006

Maybe I get myself too worked up over a new Argento release because, once again, I'm somewhat disappointed. I wasn't expecting a return to the grand old days of Deep Red or Tenebre. I would have been satisfied with something along the lines of Sleepless. What I got with Do You Like Hitchcock? was something just barely above average. Yeah, I know, it's a TV movie. So what? Mediocre is mediocre. While there are some enjoyable moments in the film and instances where flashes of the old Argento shine through, these aspects of Do You Like Hitchcock? are offset by some equally unenjoyable, uninspired moments in the film.

The concept of a film that pays homage to Hitchcock is an interesting idea. For the most part, Argento and co-scriptwriter Franco Ferrini do an acceptable job of setting up tense and thrilling moments that would have made Hitchcock proud. The first kill scene is classic Argento. You know what's coming, but Argento drags it out and builds the tension until it's almost unbearable. Again, it's a classic Argento moment. Unfortunately, there are places where Do You Like Hitchcock? drags. Despite Argento's best efforts, the scene where the protagonist is trying to make a getaway on his moped in the rain goes on and on far too long. You know the character is in no real danger at this point in the film, yet Argento seems to insist on dragging out this non-suspenseful sequence with no payoff. It's a real low point in the movie.

The film's main Hitchcock inspirations are Rear Window and Strangers on a Train. And while Argento successfully plays the Strangers on a Train plot aspects, the Rear Window bits felt more like Argento paying homage to Brian De Palma paying homage to Hitchcock. The final scenes in Do You Like Hitchcock? have much more in common with De Palma's Body Double than they do Hitchcock's Rear Window.

Argento's films are known for their "look". Bright, vivid colors dominate much of Argento's earlier, more successful work. And there are moments in Do You Like Hitchcock? where you can see the Argento "look". The night scenes feature a variety of colors and interesting angles and are a throwback to Argento's previous films. There is one scene in particular of a red staircase with a purple handrail and unique lighting that could have been from Suspiria. But the daytime scenes are just the opposite. In comparison with the nighttime scenes, those shot in the day are downright pedestrian. They look as if anyone with a camera could have filmed these scenes.

There are a lot of aspects (acting, special effects, score, etc.) that I haven't even touched on, but I'll end this here anyway. Overall, I'm glad to have gotten the chance to see Do You Like Hitchcock? And while I was reasonably entertained throughout, I can't help but feel disappointed. Those hoping for a return to Argento's glory days will most likely feel the same disappointment.

6/10

The Saint: Vendetta for the Saint (1969) (TV)

It's good, but I expected a little more, 15 August 2006

For what it is, Vendetta for the Saint is a reasonably entertaining movie with a decent plot that kept me interested throughout. If you're a fan of the television show The Saint, you should enjoy this movie, because Vendetta for the Saint isn't really a movie at all. It's actually a double length two-parter that's been combined into one single entity. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I enjoy The Saint. But I expected a little more from something marketed as a movie. I expected more in the way of set design, special effects, and the overall feel of the movie. However, I should point out at least one area where Vendetta for the Saint excels – locations. The location shots of Palermo (at least I think it really was Palermo – it looked how I imagine Palermo looking) are breathtaking and beautiful.

Overall, if you're fan of The Saint, you should enjoy Vendetta for the Saint. But if you want something that goes beyond The Saint, you might be disappointed.

6/10

Charlie Chan in the Secret Service (1944)

An average Chan - and I'm being generous calling it that, 13 August 2006


I've been a Charlie Chan fan as long as I remember. Some of my earliest memories involve watching Chan late at night on television. But Charlie Chan in the Secret Service doesn't work for me the way most Chan films do. Sure, it has its moments (like introducing Birmingham Brown), but there are too many problems I have with the movie for me to call it anything other than average.

What are the problems with Charlie Chan in the Secret Service? Glad you asked. Two areas where I have real issues with the movie are the means of murder and the padding. First, Charlie Chan in the Secret Service features a couple of fairly elaborate murder weapons that would have taken some time to set up. But the killer was just a guest in the house. So when did the murderer get inside and re-do the electrical wiring to be able to commit murder? Second, Charlie Chan in the Secret Service has a runtime of only 63 minutes. But if you were to take out the numerous instances of padding, you might end up with a movie less than 45 minutes in length. The most egregious example is the scene where Chan leaves the Secret Service building. We see Chan walk down the hall, through the doorway, down the steps, wait for a cab, get in the cab, ride to his destination, exit the cab, and finally get inside the house. Alone, these scenes take a good two or more minutes and add absolutely nothing to the film other than stretching its runtime.

I realize that most of the Monogram Chan films can't compare with what came before. But Charlie Chan in the Secret Service is weak even by Monogram standards.

5/10

Creature with the Blue Hand (1967)

- Die blaue Hand
Very enjoyable krimi, 13 August 2006

I'm still relatively new to these krimis, but I rate Creature with the Blue Hand as one of the best I've seen so far. It's the story of man named Dave Emerson (Klaus Kinski) who has been committed to an asylum for murdering his family's gardener. Dave escapes and makes his way home (which is conveniently located a stones throw from the asylum) and attempts to convince anyone who will listen that he's innocent. But it's difficult for his family and Scotland Yard to believe Dave as the bodies begin to pile-up?

There's certainly plenty to enjoy in Creature with the Blue Hand – a crazy twin brother, a devilishly sinister medieval glove with retractable spikes, secret passageways, a mad doctor, and enough suspense to keep most fans happy. Creature with the Blue Hand is successful in creating that one ingredient necessary for a film of this type – atmosphere. The film has a nice pace to it and never seems to drag. The acting is hit or miss at best. Kinski gives a nice, restrained performance. The sets are amazing and far exceed the film's obviously limited budget. Even though the film is set in modern times, the sets would have been perfect for a period piece.

The DVD I watched also features an American cut of the film, re-titled The Bloody Dead. This version contains 15 or so minutes of added gore scenes filmed some 20 years after the original movie was made. I haven't watched it yet and, based on everything I've read, I probably never will.

7/10

Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein (1972)

- Drácula contra Frankenstein
At least it has a decent Bruno Nicolai score, 12 August 2006

Because this is Franco, giving a plot rundown is something of a futile challenge, but I'll do my best to hit some of the highlights. Dr. Frankenstein arrives in some unnamed village to work in a supposedly abandoned castle. The castle actually isn't so abandoned as it's really the home of Dracula and his vampire servants. It's not long before Dr. Frankenstein revives his creation. Dr. Frankenstein puts his monster and Dracula to work kidnapping local women for his experiments. Why? I have no idea, but he straps them to a table and does his thing. But Dracula being Dracula is sucking the life out of some of the locals. It's up to Dr. Seward and the local gypsies/werewolves to put a stop to Frankenstein and Dracula.

During the first few moments of Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein, I was having trouble believing that this was a Franco film. The opening shots of the castle with Bruno Nicolai's score are well done and, for the lack of anything better, un-Franco-like. But this impression only lasted a few moments as Franco quickly shifts from the imposing and foreboding castle to a shot of a random dog on a random staircase. That's Franco for you.

Compared with some of the other Franco films I've seen, Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein isn't too bad. Don't misunderstand, it's not very good, but if you've seen something like Franco's Oasis of the Zombies, this movie is a winner. You get a lot of what you expect from Franco – suspect acting, poor make-up effects, and shaky camera work. One thing that really bothered me, though, is that Franco can't seem to decide what time period his film is set. While some characters drive cars, Dr. Seward gets around in a horse and buggy. And even though Dr. Frankenstein has a large collection of machines that require electricity, there's not a light bulb to be found anywhere. Things like this just bug me. . In the end, I can't in good conscious recommend Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein to anyone other than the most die-hard of Franco completists.

3/10

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

It could have been so much better, 12 August 2006

Thomas Crown (Steve McQueen) is a wealthy man. Wealthy – yes. Satisfied with life – no. He needs some excitement in his life. He needs a challenge. Crown concocts a plan to rob a local Boston bank. He hires five men who know nothing of each other to carry out his scheme. Things go just as Crown planned – Crown has the money, no one was caught, and the police are completely baffled. The perfect crime! But Crown wasn't counting on the ruthless, hard-nosed insurance investigator (Faye Dunaway) sent to find the daring bank robbers. And Crown certainly wasn't expecting the insurance investigator to be so beautiful.

The Thomas Crown Affair starts off with a bang. The film opens with an intelligent, well-planned, and cleverly written bank heist. Unfortunately, the bank heist only takes 20 minutes of the film's runtime. The 60s were full of these ingenious crime/caper/heist films and had the remainder of The Thomas Crown Affair lived-up to the promise of the first act, it might have been one of the better examples of the crime/caper/heist film ever made. But things fall apart shortly after Dunaway makes her appearance. She's neither very believable in her role nor do she and McQueen have any on screen chemistry. I will admit that the first meeting between McQueen and Dunaway was interesting, but their cat and mouse game soon gets very tiring. Their scenes together feel forced and unnatural. Many of the reviews on The Thomas Crown Affair highlight "the chess scene" and go so far as to call it "sexy". If by "sexy" they mean too long, too drawn out, and too dull, then I guess it's "sexy".

Director Norman Jewison seems intent on using every single ridiculous camera trick at his disposal. Split-screens, gel lenses, and psychedelic colors are only a few examples of what Jewison has up his sleeve. Here's an idea – just tell your story. The camera tricks do nothing but help to destroy whatever flow and pacing the film might have had. A few of these techniques is okay, too many becomes distracting.

Other than the opening 20 minute heist scene, the only other real highlight is the film's final twist as Crown pulls the wool over the eyes of the insurance investigator. It's a nice ending for The Thomas Crown Affair and helps to make up for some of what came before. And fortunately for us, it's a signal that we will no longer be subjected to the terrible on screen pairing of McQueen and Dunaway.

6/10