[Review] - Evil Dead Rise (2023)

‘Evil Dead Rise’ is the latest installment in the long running ‘Evil Dead’ franchise. Gone is Bruce Campbell and in his place a close knit family led by a recently divorced mother (Alyssa Sutherland). After a violent earthquake rocks their rundown apartment, the kids stumble on the infamous book of the dead buried beneath the parking complex. Simple curiosity leads to disaster as the kids unwittingly unleash hell on earth. Soon after, the matriarch of the family becomes possessed by the deadites and once again, it’s spam in an apartment block.

‘Rise’ faithfully adheres to the tried and true ‘Evil Dead’ formula albeit with one major change. It transplants the action from a musty run down cabin in the remote forest to a deteriorating apartment block in downtown LA. The change of setting is somewhat appreciated. But unfortunately, ‘Rise’ does suffer from some of the same issues that plagued the 2013 remake.

Whereas the tone of the original trilogy was one of manic absurdity, ‘Rise’ is much more concerned with simply playing up the shock and awe factor by way of over the top gore. By comparison, Sam Raimi’s original films could be best described as anarchist as they played up an almost ‘Three Stooges’ style of physical comedy with gore in place of custard pies. Tonally speaking, ‘Rise’ is much more comparable to the sadistic nature of the 2013 remake. Although, to its credit, it does show a little more restraint. 

One of the most interesting things about the original ‘Evil Dead’ was how it presented the world surrounding it. The forest itself was a character in itself as it grew as equally deranged as those who were possessed by the deadites. By transplanting it to a rundown apartment, some of that feel is lost in the process as the apartment block has very little character. The residents that live within are all merely cannon fodder. As such, the apartment block itself isn’t exactly memorable.

That tangible quality of the world gone crazy is somewhat missing in ‘Rise.’ For instance, in the original ‘Evil Dead’, you have that surrealist moments such as the one where Ash reaches into a mirror only for it to turn into a puddle of water. It's surrealist flourishes like that which I could have done more with in ‘Rise.’

It does have some appeal. It’s nasty and grotesque in a way that should appeal to most hardcore of horror fans. The performances from all involved are very strong. Especially Alyssa Sutherland who once possessed gleefully hams it up to 11. It hits all the beats you expect from an ‘Evil Dead’ film. It’s incredibly slick in terms of production quality, but that may also be to its detriment. Another charm of the original film was its low budget punk rock nature. It was a film made by a group of ragtag friends for no money which only helped to lend to its absurdist charms. 

Much the same problem that plagued the 2013 remake, once you apply a slick studio budget, it does wind up stripping it a little of its modest charms. It’s a little like watching a garage band sell out to the corporate machine. As an ‘Evil Dead’ film? ‘Rise’ never quite lives up to the wild anarchic spirit of the original Raimi films from which it borrows. As a mindless gore fest? It's perfectly serviceable and adequate.

------------------------------

Rating: 3 out of 5

-Daniel M

Read More

[Review] Cocaine Bear (2023)

 

Taking its absurd premise from an actual true story. Which in Hollywood speak means completely made up. The true story goes that in 1985, a convicted drug smuggler was found dead after a failed parachute jump. The working theory has it that he was on-board a plane which contained hundreds of pounds of smuggled cocaine.  

Paranoid that the feds were on their tail, the smuggler threw some of the stash from the plane. The smuggler was found dead in Knoxville with roughly $15 million dollars of cocaine strapped to him and that was that. Four months later, a black bear was found dead in the nearby woods. The cause of death was determined to be an overdose of Cocaine.

‘Cocaine Bear’ takes that setup and simply asks “what if the bear didn’t die and went on a murderous cocaine-filled rampage instead?” Meanwhile, unwillingly caught in the path of the bear is a collective of human prey. 

Among this random group of rag tags are the hired gangsters looking to retrieve the bags of cocaine for their boss (Ray Liotta), a detective hot on their heels, the quirky park ranger, a group of wayward teens who like causing mischief by way of random stabbings and a mother (Keri Russell) who is searching for her rebellious daughter. Not to mention the raging, frothing at the mouth black bear looking for her next hit.

When the trailer for ‘Cocaine Bear’ dropped late last year, it was powered by the sounds of White Lines (Don’t Do It) by Melle Mel. The trailer itself was absurdly hilarious and promised a fun throwback to the likes of the great B-films made by Roger Corman. The question is, does the film actually deliver on that promise? The answer is yes and no. If anything, it actually winds up feeling much more in the vein of 80’s Spielberg as it becomes more about the “family” element.

Tonally speaking, it is a bit all over the place. For gorehounds, there is plenty of gore to be had. It plays up its hard R-rating by delivering an abundance of spilled intestines, dismembered limbs and the likes. All of which are mostly played for laughs. It proudly plays up the horror-comedy angle and that’s all well and good. Less intriguing were its human characters.

Outside of Ray Liotta’s chiseled hard-boiled mob boss, I’m hard pressed to remember anything about the rest of them. That’s a shame considering the film spends a large chunk of its first 40 minutes establishing them. The problem is they’re all mostly bland cannon fodder. The reality is we’re all here to see the antics of the strung out Bear itself leaving the human characters to feel like a distraction.

Director Elizabeth Banks pulls a lot of cues from the likes of Sam Raimi and The Coen Brothers. It proudly wears its influences on its sleeves and never apologizes for it. The park ranger alone feels like a character ripped directly out of ‘Fargo’ with her quirky Southern accent.

I won’t deny that I got a few laughs from it, mostly with the CG Bear itself. The animators clearly had a lot of fun mimicking the behaviors of taking Cocaine and transplanting it into a black bear. But it mostly suffers from the same problem that ‘Snakes on a Plane’ had, where the premise and title alone were absurd genius but the movie itself was just rather flat.

Much like many of those direct-to-VHS horror films of the 80’s, it’s another case of the end product being unable to live up to the somewhat genius marketing fuelling it. It’s not without its charms and audiences will most likely have a good time with it, but for myself? I guess I wanted it to be more Roger Corman and less 80’s Amblin.

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - M3GAN (2023)

The killer doll has been a long-standing tradition in horror spanning all the way back to the 1920s with ‘The Great Gabbo.’ As time has progressed, so too has the technology powering the dolls. If you look back at the 1989 film ‘Child’s Play,’ it was most notable for its effective use of mechanical puppetry to convey a true sense of personality. Times change and technology advances alongside, but the core concept remains the same. There’s just something inherently creepy about the lifeless eyes of a doll and the imaginary bonds that a child can make with an inanimate object that makes for good horror material.

At this point, the killer doll story is well-worn territory and I’m convinced there is very little anyone could do with it to truly surprise me. Therefore, it goes without saying that ‘M3GAN’ does little to bring anything fresh to this premise. That's not to say its without its charms though.

After losing her parents in a fatal car crash, young Cady (Violet McGaw) is sent to live with her Aunt Gemma (Alison Williams). Gemma also works as a roboticist for a high-tech toy company and is in charge of a highly advanced prototype code named M3GAN (Model 3 Generative Android). A life size doll powered by a sophisticated A.I. learning computer designed specifically to assist in caretaking duties.

Being a workaholic, Gemma struggles with her newfound role as acting mother to her niece. Meanwhile, after a faulty test, management scraps the M3GAN project, leading Gemma to give the doll to her niece. The doll imprints on Cady and the two form an inseparable bond. But as we’ve seen countless times over, it doesn’t take long until the doll goes from being an innocent best friend to violently overprotective.

‘M3GAN’ is the direct product of what happens when you take David from ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and cross him with Chucky from ‘Child’s Play.’ It touches on all the usual satirical points you'd expect from this type of film. The themes of consumerism, over-dependence on technology and fears of Artificial Intelligence gone awry are all explored. Its satire is sharp enough, but still pretty well-worn. You can roadmap the entire movie just by looking at the trailer alone.

Funnily enough, it wasn’t long ago that we had the 2019 ‘Child’s Play’ remake, which also shared similar ideas thematically speaking. In fact, I would say ‘M3GAN’ plays almost as a carbon copy of said remake, only with a feminine twist. I was in the minority who liked the ‘Child’s Play’ remake so it was a little jarring to see something that feels like a beat-for-beat copy so soon after. ‘M3GAN’ also feels like it could have been right at home as an episode of ‘Black Mirror,’ which I guess is only fitting when you consider the 1950’s ‘Twilight Zone’ episode ‘Living Doll,’ which a number of these stories owe a massive debt of gratitude.

It’s never particularly scary. The filmmakers are entirely aware. Thankfully though, it restrains itself from becoming annoyingly meta. Much has already been said regarding the meme-inducing moment of M3GAN learning a Tik Tok type of dance that was heavily featured in the trailer alone. It is indeed one of the notable highlights of the film. One could argue that there is nothing scarier than a rogue AI learning anything from the void of intellect that is Tik Tok .

Having said all of this, I could have done with a tad more in the way of genuine horror. Unfortunately, it does suffer from the PG-13 rating in terms of gore. There are points throughout where it feels like it became the victim of re-shoots. I could have done with just a little more of the red stuff had they let it have more of an edge. However, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they used a physical animatronic doll for certain sequences. The filmmakers do well to utilize a nice blend of a real actor, CG and physical puppetry, which winds up looking more convincing than not. Also, Jenna Davis does exceptionally well at capturing the cold, clinical HAL 9000-like voice in feminine form.

It’s always nice to see a studio take a chance on a low to mid-budget horror movie. I’m certain that if ‘M3GAN’ does well at the box office then we will see sequels to follow. Hell, given it was produced by Universal studios, perhaps one day we'll see a 'Chucky vs. M3GAN' if popular enough.

‘M3GAN’ is not terrible by any means, rather it’s just an incredibly run-of-the-mill nuts and bolts horror film. It’s the very definition of a B-movie. The material is well-worn as it goes in every direction you expect it to go. But still, I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t at least enjoyable. Just don’t expect fresh water to be drawn from the well.

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Clerks III (2022)

Despite his many attempts to break into the mainstream, writer and director Kevin Smith has always worked best when he keeps his films small and personal. Maybe that’s why it pains me so much to say that ‘Clerks III’ is an astounding mess of a film. What should be his most personal film to date is actually a muddled mess of ideas that never fully pay off.

Thirteen years after the events of ‘Clerks II’, we find our listless slacker heroes, Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson), still working the counter at the Quick Stop convenience store. They’re older, greyer and more wrinkled, but the store itself looks like it’s been preserved in a time capsule straight out of 1994. The conversations, too, remain the same as the boys continue aimlessly dissecting pop-culture over the counter. After a casual bout of verbal sparring with Elias (Trevor Fehrmann), Randal collapses, suffering a near fatal heart attack mirroring Kevin Smith’s real life tragic near death experience from a few years back.

Having survived the operating table, Randal comes to a grim realization of just how little he has done with his life and begins to fret about whether he even had a life worth saving. He laments that all he has done with his life is sit around and watch movies. Dante casually remarks that he always thought that Randal could make a good movie. This sets off a light bulb in Randal’s head and becomes the impetus for him to make his very own movie recounting his life story working at the Quick Stop.

‘Clerks III’ spends most of its time having Dante and Randal remake ‘Clerks’ within the film. This is not necessarily new ground for Kevin Smith. This premise alone instantly recalls his ill-fated box office disappointment ‘Zack and Miri Make a Porno.’ Which itself was a riff on the excellent making-of ‘Clerks’ documentary, ‘The Snowball Effect.’ 

Much like ‘T2 Trainspotting’ from a few years back, ‘Clerks III’ relies heavily on playing into nostalgia. It is a film that is very much concerned with reliving Smith’s former glory days. Whereas ‘T2 Trainspotting’ had a certain bittersweet lament as it examined its own heavy sense of nostalgia through a critical lens. ‘Clerks III’ plays its nostalgia mostly for warmth and fondness. That would have been fine had the movie been funny, which, sadly, it isn’t.

Most of the second act is spent watching Dante and Randal as they go about making their own version of ‘Clerks’. These scenes go on for far too long and feel like constant reminders that the audience should be watching the actual ‘Clerks’ instead. It was cute at first to revisit the now aged faces that made up the small cast of the original movie, but it all wears thin very quickly as it never provides any greater insight.

It also further highlights one of the many problems with ‘Clerks III’ as nothing in this film seems to go anywhere. Dante’s old flame, Veronica (Marilyn Ghigliotti), shows up for a scene that could have hit the cutting room floor and wouldn't have been missed. As for Dante’s wife, Becky (Rosario Dawson), it seems that Smith went to the school of 'Alien 3' as it is revealed in the opening act that she died in a car crash straight after the events of ‘Clerks II.’ 

This becomes the thrust of Dante’s dilemma, as he struggles to deal with the untimely loss of both his wife and unborn child. Dawson does show up briefly in ghostly form, allowing for Dante and Becky to share a couple of what should be touching scenes on paper. Sadly, O’Halloran’s lack of range lets these scenes down as they border on being unintentionally comedic.

‘Clerks III’ struggles to find a good balance between sentiment and unfiltered blue comedy. Considering where this film goes in its final act, I should have been sobbing like a baby given the fate of Dante. Sure, it's a bold choice but it's completely unearned. Worse still, it all felt emotionally manipulative. The film struggles to find its footing dramatically speaking, but an even greater sin it commits is that it’s seemingly terrified of offending anyone. What made the original ‘Clerks’ memorable was its irreverence..

It was a film about blue-collar schlubs having lewd, crude and unfiltered conversations in an effort to kill time at a monotonous job. ‘Clerks’ was made by a kid in his twenties who didn’t know any better. Because of this, that unfiltered raw voice was what made it a staple of its generation. That unharnessed voice was what made ‘Clerks’ doggedly funny and refreshingly honest.

‘Clerks III’ brings nothing new to the table, further confirming that Smith is completely out of touch with these characters. The truth is, he is no longer that same guy he used to be. He’s older and far more sentimental, but he’s still trying to write for characters that he won't allow to grow up. As is evident by Dante's reset, it's almost like Smith is afraid to allow these characters to change with the times. Much the same problem he had writing for the slackers of ‘Zack and Miri’; it feels dishonest in its voice. Most notably with Randal.

As much as I’ve enjoyed Jeff Anderson’s portrayal of Randal in the past, the character is only as strong as Smith’s writing allows him to be. Even Anderson will himself confess to not being much of an actor. Despite the claim that this is a film about Randal getting his shit together, it never lets us get to know him any better. That is a real shame, as there is that beautiful moment in 'Clerks II' where he drops the armor and reveals a hint of vulnerability at the threat of losing Dante to Florida. Oh, what could have been if Smith had built on top of that?

Burdened with the same mullet that he has had since 1994, the script never allows Randal to grow as a person. Nor does he come into his own as the director of the film within the film. Despite the life-threatening ordeal he endured, he’s still the same one-note cynical asshole that he always was.

There are no new memorable conversations to speak of. Instead, the humor relies on a bunch of meta jokes and callbacks that only super-fans will get. I can take only so much of Smith’s prodding before I tire of it. All it did was confirm that Kevin has become that annoying, out-of-touch Uncle who constantly pokes you and reminds you how funny he used to be.

When ‘Clerks III’ was first announced, I had a lot of trepidation about revisiting these characters for the third time. ‘Clerks II’ did a great job of taking the angry young men and plunging them head first into adulthood as they became the masters of their destiny. I didn’t believe much more needed to be said about Dante and Randal. But I was still willing to give ‘Clerks III’ a shot, hoping it would be a return to form for Smith.

Instead, it’s every bit as bad as I feared and then some. The drama doesn’t work. The comedy is just lame and desperate. Its message regarding the nature of life and death is incredibly tone deaf. Worse still, it regresses these characters as it throws most of the progress made from the previous installment out the window.

Its visuals are flat and uninspired. Granted, Smith has never been the most dynamic of visual storytellers, but he wasn’t this bad in the past. Everything looks overlit and flat. It does feel like he has regressed in every possible way. And as for that ending? It is one of the most self-defeatist things I’ve seen on screen all year. So much so that it made me question whether or not Smith is still suffering from post-coronary depression.

The trouble with ‘Clerks III’ is that it feels like it has something it wants to say but never figures it out. It has death and nostalgia weighing heavily on the mind, but it’s almost like Smith is too afraid to confront that side of himself. Instead, he relies on lame callbacks and half-baked melodrama instead of facing and working through his fears on camera.

In trade interviews, Smith said that he wanted this film to help inspire people to take charge of their life. I can’t say I felt inspired; instead, I just felt a bitter sting of emptiness as the film ends on a dour note of loss and regret. I get that this is a personal story for Smith, given his near brush with death a few years back, but he survived that ordeal to live another day. He not only survived, but he also did exceptionally well changing his lifestyle for the better. So why is he so obsessed with having his characters succumb to a lifetime of failure? 

‘Clerks III’ is a muddled mess of ideas that never really come together in any meaningful way. It’s more in love with the idea of being a shrine to Smith’s past than finding what he wants to say regarding death and nostalgia. If I want to relive the past, I’ll stick to re-watching the original and far superior ‘Clerks’ instead.

-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - My Ten Favourite Films of 2022

10.) Jackass Forever

(Dir: Jeff Tremaine)

Even in their 50’s, these guys are still doing this shit and guess what? It’s still unapologetically funny as all hell. If you’re a fan of the ‘Jackass’ crew, then you’ll understand that the real charm of this crew is not the insanity of their antics, rather it's the sweet brotherly love they share for one another.

There is something utterly endearing about this ragtag group of misfits that is hard to deny.  For as much pain as they’ll put one another through, it’s all done with absolute love. And when I say pain, believe me, even in their 50’s, these guys are still willing to put themselves through the most unimaginable shit for our amusement.

Especially testicular pain. And you thought the scenes of testicle mutilation in Lars Von Trier’s ‘Anti Christ’ were fucked up beyond belief? Just wait until you see ‘Jackass Forever’ and the length of pain Danger Ehren goes through, testing the vitality of an abdominal guard. Mind you, this is all played for laughs and somehow it works! God help me, it’s lowbrow and crass to the core, but it’s still fucking hilarious to me! They say with age comes wisdom. May wisdom never come to these guys.

9.) RRR

(Dir: S.S. Rajamouli)

In a time where I feel a lot of films are becoming increasingly too bloated for their own good, along comes an epic like ‘RRR’ to remind me how you can get the most out of every last minute put on screen. At an epic 187 minutes, I was never bored or left to check my watch, as every minute feels completely earned in this film.

‘RRR’ is a tale about two legendary revolutionaries and their journey away from home before they started fighting for their country in the 1920s. In a word? Epic. Epic as all fuck. Featuring some of the craziest choreographed fights filmed this side of ‘The Raid’, a metric ton of romance and an abundance of humor; it crafts an age-old tale of right versus wrong, legend and friendship. Well worth the 187 minute investment.   

8.) Licorice Pizza

(Dir: P.T Anderson)

The simple charm of P.T Anderson’s ‘Licorice Pizza’ is that it’s a film where everyone is pretending to be an adult. The film is full of children who yearn to be treated as adults as they desperately try to act grown up. Meanwhile, the adults are children only pretending to be grown up. Basically confirming that everyone is just as lost as one another. That’s kind of comforting to this 30-something lost soul. ‘Licorice Pizza’ is all about that universal theme of trying to find one's place in the universe, telling an age-old story of finding love and self-discovery in California’s San Fernando Valley during the 70’s. 

7.) The Northman

(Dir: Robert Eggers)

‘The Northman’ is best described as an action film filled with thrilling and suspenseful moments.  It is also a gritty revenge tale filled with unsettling moments that will have viewers on the edge of their seats or perhaps even tensed up.  The action here is brutal, dark, gritty and violent.  Amleth decides revenge should be slow and toys with those who wronged him first, leading to many big reveals and showdowns along the way.

An epic film with a straightforward story and effective use of Norse mythology. Its intense rituals, powerful imagery, guttural and pounding music and display of culture in its authentic setting makes for an entertaining and memorable experience. Stunning scenery, brutal and bloody fight scenes and great acting performances, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

6.) Rageaholic

(Dir: Yoshiki Takahashi)

A lone, hard-boiled grizzled detective is pushed to the limits as he is faced with an all-too overbearing polite and fascist society. At first glance, you can’t help but notice the similarities to 'Demolition Man' in regards to the basic plot, but what really occupies ‘Rageaholic’s’ angry heart is a seething contempt for the overbearing politeness of Japanese society. First time Director Yoshiki Takahashi does well to satire a culture that is built on conformity and priority to the group over the individual. 'Rageaholic' is a gleefully violent, darkly hilarious and scathing satire. 

5.) Vortex

(Dir: Gaspar Noe)

‘Vortex’ is a surprisingly sober affair from enfant terrible, Gaspar Noe. At least in terms of style and presentation, that is to say. There are no wild drug-addled camera tricks on display. Just a simple story of an elderly couple in their final days as they succumb to dementia. Despite the lack of that distinct Noe visual style, don’t be confused into thinking that he has lost his ability to provoke. Vortex is still a deeply affecting film as it showcases the true horrors of facing death. It’s not the fear of losing one's body, rather it’s the fear of losing the mind and the memories that come attached.

It’s remarkably haunting and incredibly effective. In some ways, it’s Noe’s most mature film to date and perhaps his most personal given his own parents' experiences with dementia. Much like everything else Noe has done before, it’s a divisive film, but for those willing to take the journey, it’s a deeply moving and haunting film that will stick with you.

4.) The Menu

(Dir: Mark Mylod)

Have you ever found yourself as perplexed by foodie culture as I am? I’m talking about the types of people who photograph their meals for recognition or status on social media without ever really savoring the meal itself. If you’re as perplexed by this culture as I am, then 'The Menu' is probably going to be right up your alley. 'The Menu' is a deliciously wry skewering of foodie culture, social class and the excesses of entitlement.

It is a horror comedy that tells the story of a bunch of rich, obnoxious and fairly unlikable social elites who have been invited to eat at an exclusive high-class restaurant on a remote island where the chef has prepared a lavish menu, complete with some shocking surprises. I appreciated the claustrophobic nature of its setting. Ralph Fiennes delivers in spades as the deeply unhinged masterchef. Even though the satire isn’t always the most subtle, I still thoroughly enjoyed the film and its many jabs at those who take the service industry for granted. 

3.) The Whale

(Dir: Darren Aronofsky)

Winning the prize for the most divisive film of the year, 'The Whale' is a deeply affecting film that tells the tale of a 600 pound recluse in his last days of life as he attempts to reconcile with his estranged daughter. I guess audiences will either fall into the camp of being entirely moved by this or enraged by it as they label it misery porn. Myself? I fall into the former camp. I was incredibly moved by its humanity.

Brendan Fraser’s Charlie is a beacon of light in a tide of misery. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about 'The Whale' is that, as compassionate as Charlie is at heart, he unfortunately can’t show himself that same compassion. But that is the nature of depression for which I applaud this film for so openly elevating to the forefront. Fraser deserves the praise he has received for this role and it is perhaps Aronofsky’s most humane film since 2009’s 'The Wrestler'. It’s by no means an easy film to digest as it is refreshingly honest with its cracked mirror reflection, but it is an important and incredibly moving film that finds what it is to be human…even if you are trapped in a 600 pound shell. 

2.) Decision to Leave

(Dir: Park Chan-Wook)

Park Chan-Wook returns with a slightly different beat. This time out he gives us a Neo-Noir Romance. It's a slight change of pace for Park but I enjoyed the more low-key nature of this quite a bit. Tang Wei and Park Hae-ill are both incredible in this film. I found it to be an incredibly mesmerizing romantic murder mystery with an ending that lingered on my mind for days on end. It’s an intricate and emotional game of cat and mouse right up until the very end. While not quite as visceral as his earlier work, it is far more mature in its craftsmanship. For my money, it’s one of Park’s best works to date. 

1.) Beavis and Butt-head Do The Universe

(Dir: Albert Calleros and John Rice)

It’s kind of fitting that we started this list with Jackass Forever and ended it with Beavis and Butt-head. Just as I will never tire of the Jackass crew, the same could be said for Beavis and Butt-head. Between this and the equally hilarious new season that aired on Paramount Plus, it was actually a terrific year for the dynamic idiot duo.

Initially, I wasn’t sure whether ‘Do The Universe’ could live up to the excellent ‘Do America.’ But lo and behold, it’s not only a terrific sequel, but also the sharpest satire of the year. Transporting the boys from the 90’s into modern day via Time Travel was a stroke of brilliance which gave way to some hilarious moments. 

Be it the boys learning they can now pay for Nachos via phone or learning about the ills of white privilege on campus. Not to mention the surprisingly touching yet equally hilarious scene where Beavis pours his heart out to Siri as if she were a real person. And then you also have the addition of Smart Beavis and Butthead. Droll, very droll.

The world around them may have changed, but sadly, some things remain the same as Mike Judge and company continue to skewer the absurdities of society. At a time of increasing tension and unease, it’s good to have these guys back in form to remind us that it’s okay to laugh at the stupidity surrounding us.

Honorable Mentions -

- Smile (Dir: Parker Finn)
- Triangle of Sadness (Dir: Ruben Ostlund)
- Everything Everwhere All At Once (Dir: Daniels)
- X (Dir: Ti West)
- Belle (Dir: Mamoru Hosoda)
- Hustle (Dir: Jeremiah Zagar)
- Funny Pages  (Dir: Owen Kline)

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Crackers (1998)

The Christmas season is once again upon us. A time for giving. A time for good cheer. A time for celebrating. A time for stuffing yourself with too much food and beer. It’s also that time of year when the family gets together to enjoy the company of one another. For some families out there, this may be bliss. But for most? Well, it’s usually an exercise in misery. Depending on the fragility of the family in question, of course. Christmas cards tend to opt for the image of the harmonious smiling family sitting by the Christmas tree in peace and harmony. Thank crap for the movies where we can at least get a slice of exaggeration regarding what Christmas is truly like for most of us.

Sure, the dysfunctional Christmas family get-together in film isn’t a new concept. I’m sure that we’ve all seen National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation countless times. But it’s rare to see an Australian slice of Christmas family dysfunction presented on film. Back in 1998, there was one such film that attempted to fill this niche. A relatively low-budget and raucous slice of Australian comedy known as Crackers.

Upon release, it was burdened with a lousy poster that did little to sell the movie. The poster contained a simple image of a ragtag family in front of a red background. Not exactly the most striking of poster images. The title of the film wasn’t exactly a stand-out either. But given my family's love for Christmas Vacation and the many comparisons made by the positive trade reviews, it resulted in a family trip to the cinema to see this slice of Australian Christmas.

I remember it vividly. We were the only four in the cinema at the time. I guess the underwhelming poster did little to spark interest in the majority. Maybe it was a case of bad marketing? Most Australian films tend to have terrible marketing as is. Despite a lackluster poster, the film hidden underneath was anything but rubbish.  I feel it’s an overlooked Australian gem just waiting to be rediscovered.

Crackers tells the tale of the Dredge family as they indulge in the misery of one another's company during the Christmas break. The film is told through the eyes of only child Joey (Daniel Kellie) as he struggles to come to terms with his mother dating again after the tragic loss of his father in an aircraft accident. Not coping with the loss of his father, Joey has developed a bit of a death wish as he keeps chucking himself off of school roofs in a desperate plea for help.

Realizing that they both need a break, his mother, Hilary (Susan Lyons), arranges for them to spend Christmas at her parents' house. Making matters worse, she’s also invited her new boyfriend, Bruno (Peter Rowsthorn), and his angry teenage son, Angus, by whom Joey is constantly antagonized.

The film wastes no time in setting up the stakes. The family packs the car and embarks when the first misfortunes strike. During the car ride, Joey is called a “dickhead” and beaten on by Angus, while the family station wagon is almost totaled in a head-on collision. If there was ever a foreshadow of the chaos to come.

Upon arrival, they’re treated to a meal that consists of charred grilled burnt sausages, lousy-looking potato salad, plenty of white bread covered with thick slabs of butter and a bottle or two of beer to go with it. Angry blow flies swarm about the table as the mean old cuss of a grandfather, Jack (Terry Hill), attempts to kill them with fly spray. Nothing has ever screamed Australian Christmas more so than this.

The stern and stubborn Jack quickly turns his attention to Bruno. Bruno and Jack couldn’t be more different if they tried. Bruno, a fashion photographer from the city, and Jack, a stubborn blue-collar worker from the ‘burbs. Worlds collide as Jack belittles Bruno’s manhood. Tensions further escalate with the arrival of Jack’s estranged father, Albert (Warren Mitchell), an old scoundrel Glaswegian fresh out of prison. With the house packed to the rafters, young Joey is forced into the tool-shed to sleep alongside Albert.

Much like Christmas Vacation before it, the film plays as a loose series of sketches during the days leading up to Christmas. Everyone in the family has their own drama of sorts. Jack still harbors a grudge against his cheating father for abandoning him and his mother when he was a kid. Bruno tries to make an impression on Jack but fails miserably at every turn. Aunt Dotty (Valerie Bader) is a frumpy, lonely woman whose best years are fading away. The grandmother, Violet (Maggie King), is ever-so cheerful and tries to keep the family together but is utterly oblivious to the fracturing seams.

Meanwhile, Joey is confronted with the devastating reality of Bruno potentially becoming his new stepfather as he learns that his mother is pregnant. As Joey navigates through the trials and tribulations of dysfunction, he finds solace in his kinship with Albert. Eventually, a through line develops as the pair strike up a deal to fix up an old weathered sailboat to give as a Christmas gift to Jack.

The comedy is mainly situational, but Director David Swann does well to keep escalating without ever going overboard. The jokes come quickly as it moves from day to day in the build to Christmas. As Murphy’s Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong. For what’s Christmas without the occasional fistfight at the local pub, mince pies spiked with dope or even the family dog being accidentally burnt to a crisp on the good old Aussie barbie?

It’s difficult not to compare Crackers to another popular 90’s Australian comedy, The Castle. Both films play a large chunk of their comedy at the expense of the quirks of the modern suburban Australian family. But whereas the Kerrigan family is a rather sweet-natured family with only a hint of dysfunction bubbling underneath, the Dredge family straight up wears its dysfunction on its sleeves for all to see. But for anyone who has endured the chaos of such a family, it’s still remarkably relatable, even if it is incredibly broad in stereotype.

How many times have we all heard that same story of the Christmas from hell spent with the dreaded in-laws recounted by our married friends? Or those days spent with family members you may not always like but have to love anyway? Or those dreaded Christmas lunch conversations where your elders judge your every decision through a thin lens of discontent and disappointment? Or worse still, the dreaded conversations where they compare you to someone else in the extended family as if you could never live up to their preferred golden child? We’ve all heard these stories time and time again. We’ve all undoubtedly lived these moments time and time again.

This is where Crackers scores many of its laughs for me, as it dials these situations up to 11. The big laugh-out-loud set pieces aside, the little cringe moments, such as Jack’s not-so-subtle critiques towards Bruno’s perceived lack of manhood, make Crackers excel the most in its relatability.

But even amidst this chaos, the film never forgets to remind us that the ties which shackle us together are what truly makes the Christmas spirit meaningful. As doomed as this family seemingly is on the surface, underneath still pumps a sincere beating heart as this gaggle of geese eventually learns the true meaning of Christmas through tragedy.

As such, it always baffled me why this film never caught on with a mainstream audience. Even here in Australia, it seems to be mostly forgotten. Maybe it was just too Australian for its own good? Perhaps it was a victim of a terrible marketing campaign? With a delightful ensemble cast of misfits, I would have thought this would have more legs than it did. Whatever the reason, it’s a shame it never got the attention it deserved.

Growing up Australian meant I couldn’t always relate to that picturesque White Christmas that American films love to showcase. But I could more than relate to the sting of a Dry Summer Christmas with a smoking barbecue out the back. Sure, perhaps it’s not the greatest film this country has ever produced, but it certainly has its charms that many Australians could easily relate to. In the tradition of the great Australian comedy, Crackers piles misery on top of self-deprecation but also manages to find a good heart underneath. In that sense, it’s very larrikin in spirit.


- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Violent Night (2022)

Take a cup of Die Hard, a tablespoon of Home Alone, a little drop of Bad Santa and even just a dash of the 1994 comedy Greedy; pour all of these into a script writing blender, turn it to max and what do you get? You get Violent Night. With a list of ingredients this good, you might expect a new Christmas classic in the making. Unfortunately though, that’s not entirely the case here, as a fun premise is ultimately let down by a lacking screenplay.

The film follows Jolly Saint Nick (David Harbour) as he goes about his Christmas Eve duties. However, he’s anything but jolly rather he’s a jaded, embittered drunk who has just about had enough of the job. As he sits at a bar sinking his misery with a cold one, he laments that the magic is entirely gone from Christmas. Replaced by consumerism as everyone just wants more and more without truly appreciating what they have. 

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, a wealthy family is enjoying the misery of one another's company. That is until a team of elite mercenaries, led by a Christmas-hating mastermind who goes by the codename Scrooge (John Leguizamo), invade the estate looking to steal a hefty 300 million dollars located in a massive vault on the premises.

Little do they know that Santa also just happens to have arrived on the premises. Unfortunately for Santa, he finds himself stuck unwillingly in the night from hell as his reindeer flee in fear. Armed with only his bare fists, Santa transforms into John McClane as he takes on the team of mercenaries in a bloody game of cat and mouse.

On paper, there is a lot going for Violent Night that, in the right hands, could have been elevated into a true Christmas classic. But as it is, it kind of just labors in the middle of the road. David Harbour does well enough to carry the film on his back as the completely jaded and worn out Santa, but he is let down by a screenplay that never quite elevates into anything truly remarkable.

At the beginning of the film, we see a montage of Santa going from house to house in his drunken stooper, growing increasingly frustrated by the lack of Christmas spirit as an overabundance of Amazon packages claim real estate under each Christmas tree. One can’t help but be reminded of Billy Bob Thornton’s Bad Santa in these opening scenes and one could be fooled into thinking it might deliver something close to that jaded masterpiece. But sadly, that’s about as far as the film ever goes with the satire.

As he roams the estate silently taking on the mercenaries, he finds himself earning the trust of the plucky young Trudy (Leah Brady), who is still young enough to believe in Santa. The two bond as the night goes on, leading the film to find a gushy heart instead of going all the way with the initial jaded premise. 

 

Even Bad Santa, with its alcohol and vomit-stained jadedness, still managed to find a delicate balance between obscenely crude and raw beating heart. Sadly, Violent Night opts for one over the other, with somewhat disappointing results. Leah Brady and David Harbour play well off one another, but it just never elevates to anything truly remarkable or noteworthy. It just feels like it’s going through the motions. It never dares to take any real risks with the material opting to play it incredibly safe all around. For a film that wants to have a razor sharp edge, it’s remarkably toothless.

From the offset, the film establishes the wealthy family as a bunch of kiss ass snobs. They could almost be cut from the same loins as the McTeague family of the 1994 comedy Greedy. They kiss the ass of the wealthy Matriarch (Beverly D’Angelo) in the hope that she will impart the family fortune to one of them. Now that sounds like a deviously fun setup for which a better screenplay could have had some fun with. But sadly, the screenplay does absolutely nothing with any of this giving everyone nothing to do but to sit around and wait as Santa kills the bad guys. 

 

John Leguizamo has fun hamming it up as the leader of the mercenaries. But he, too, isn’t given anything major to work with other than sneering it up to the max. It just further drives home that the major problem with this film is the blandness of the screenplay itself. It merely provides lip service instead of ever daring to take a real risk.

But it’s not all bad though. As the title suggests, Violent Night does indeed deliver plenty of violence. If there is one thing the film does well, it’s the violence. Coming from Dead Snow, Director Tommy Wirkola has plenty of experience with setting up physical gags using gore to full comedic effect.

There are some inspired gags in this film that made me wince. At one point, the film goes full Home Alone as Trudy sets up a couple of booby traps of her own. But unlike Home Alone, we see the full effect of what happens when a nail pierces the skin. There is no denying the effectiveness of the physical gags in the film and Tommy Wirkola does very well staging some impressive sight gags.

With a better screenplay, Violent Night may have truly elevated into a jaded Christmas classic. The elements are all there for something better as a whole, but the film never manages to bring it all home. I applaud the attempt and while there are things I like about the film, namely David Harbour and John Leguizimo, unfortunately, I never got the feeling that I would ever want to revisit this on an annual basis. 

 

To me, the mark of an enduring Christmas classic is its replay value. They’re the ones you want to revisit every year again and again during the festive season. Sadly, Violent Night is just entirely middle of the road. It could have and should have been more but is let down by an all too formulaic screenplay that lacks the razor sharp edge it desperately needed to really drive it home.

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Rageaholic (2022)

 
Rageaholic marks the directorial debut of Yoshiki Takahashi. His most known former credit would be as the screenwriter of Sion Sono’s Cold Fish - a grizzly tale of murder between fish breeders which was actually based on a rather famous true crime story. With Rageaholic, Yoshiki trades in the intimate and claustrophobic tale of  murderous fish store owners in favour of something a little more ambitious in scope.

A lone hard boiled renegade detective (Yota Kawase) makes the grave mistake of letting his anger get the better of him as he inadvertently kills one of the main perpetrators in a hostage situation. As punishment, Fukama is sent to a medical facility in New York in order to rehabilitate his anger issues. Three years later, upon release, he returns to his small hometown of Fujimi in Japan, where he soon discovers that the town he once knew has changed rather drastically in his absence. As it turns out, a local Community Watch Dog group has taken advantage of Fukama’s mistake and used it to seize control of the neighborhood from the local police force.

With new found power going straight to their head, the Community Watch Dogs, led by a gleefully insane patriarch, seek to eradicate the so-called ‘dregs of society.’ At first, Fukama attempts to fit in and keep the peace as he resumes his role in the force. However, he is clearly perturbed by the overbearing surveillance state that has become Fujimi. In his former life, he sat on the fringes of what is considered legally and morally correct.
 

His former circle of friends consisted of the local strippers, bar flies and such types. But in this newly reformed Fujimi, Fukama can’t even light a cigarette in his own apartment without being chastised for it. The once thriving nightlife of the local bars is now dead and buried as loud speakers constantly blast overbearing messages of safety in a nauseatingly cheerful voice. The town is decorated with brightly colored yet entirely sinister propaganda posters reminding citizens of the watchful eye always looking over them. The world he once knew has gravely changed as his former circle of friends have been pushed to the outskirts of the city and forced to live in poverty.

At the outset, you could almost regard the film as something of a Japanese Demolition Man. The premise definitely rings familiar as Fukama is your typical grizzled hard-boiled cop pitted in a dystopian environment to which he clearly doesn’t belong. But on further thought, the film is a little bit more than just that. In fact, it’s actually a scathing satire aimed at the overly conformist nature of modern Japanese society.

An all too familiar and sad story in Japanese culture is the scrutiny of which anyone comes under if they even so much as display unsavory means publicly. For example, pop stars are treated as almost gods in Japanese pop culture. But if they put one foot out of line by the smallest of means, be it through recreational drug use or even just parading around a sexual liaison, they are almost instantly banished from the public eye without so much as a chance of redemption. This all feeds back into a strong sense of civic duty and conformity that is ingrained within Japanese culture.

Fukama and his friends are very much the outcasts of society. They live in the shadows. They live alternative lifestyles. They are the type of individuals which most in Japan would presumably just like to sweep under the rug and pretend they don't exist. In the eyes of the fascist Community Watch Dogs, they are nothing more than “the maggots of Japan.”

On the other hand, the Community Watch Dogs are the remnants of a very traditional Japan. They’re completely set in the old ways; unwilling to budge, sexist to the core and all too willing to violently punish anyone who steps out of line. Naturally, there is only so much of this that Fukama can take before he breaks and resorts to his old violent ways, leading to a remarkably entertaining and bloody climax.

Yota Kawase does very well here as Fukama. He’s an entirely likable and sympathetic Everyman. He’s far from perfect. At his core, he too is a product of traditional Japan and its savage ways. In some ways, he is no better than the fascists in charge, but unlike them, he still has some sense of right and wrong. Unlike them, he still has a strong sense of humanity at his core.

First time Director Yoshiki Takahashi shows a good sense of pacing. He does well to get to the meat of the bones at a brisk 100 minutes. Something I applaud him for, as most modern filmmakers seem to have lost all meaning of the word “pacing.” The film never drags and does very well to make its point without overstaying its welcome.

For a low budget film, it’s very well shot. It manages to find a good mid-ground between modern neon gloss and 70’s hard boiled grit without feeling overproduced. That being said, the low budget does occasionally rear its head. Especially during the violent climax, as it resorts to a mixture of both practical and CGi effects. Understandably so given the low budget. I can forgive the use of CGi blood, but some of the effects work did leave a little to be desired at times. Thankfully, it’s not all bad as the climax does work more than it doesn’t. There was one gag involving a fractured fist that was truly inspired and had me laughing with relish.

More than not though, Rageaholic serves as a very strong and all around well made satire. At its core, it has a genuine sense of boiling frustration regarding both the economic and social state of modern Japan. Much like Cold Fish before it, the social commentary is very strong and entirely condemning. Thankfully though, it never becomes too didactic with its viewpoint as it remembers to be entertaining first and foremost. All in all, Rageaholic is gleefully violent, darkly comedic and scathingly satirical as a whole.

- Daniel M 

 

-- Rageaholic is currently screening in Japan. There is still no word of an International Release as of this date. --

Read More

[Review] - Last Night In Soho

A young, pretty and naive country girl heads to the big city with aspirations of becoming the overnight success story she always dreamed of. Only to be confronted by a barrage of perverted predators looking to feed on hot young flesh in return. Tell me if you haven't heard that story before? It’s an age old riff that we usually see play out under the neon-lights of a Hollywood backdrop. However, ‘Last Night In Soho’ transports this age-old story to the swingin’ psychedelic 60’s Soho in London.

Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is an aspiring young fashion designer who moves to Soho as she enters University for her first semester. Having grown up under the loving eye of her grandmother, she has developed a deep love for 60s Brit-Pop culture. However, this makes her stick out like a sore thumb amongst her more trendy dorm-mates leaving her as a target of ridicule. Seeking solace away from her catty roommates, she finds a cheap apartment for rent under the watchful eye of an edlerly landlord (Diana Rigg).

As Eloise’s head hits the pillow, she finds herself dreaming of Soho in the 60s. She dreams of a woman named Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy); a strikingly beautiful doe-eyed blonde and also an aspiring singer. Sandie finds herself being charmed by a debonair named Jack (Matt Smith). It all seems too good to be true and with good reason as we quickly discover that Jack is not all he seems.

Eloise’s dreams then become nightmares as she watches Sandie descend into the sordid world of prostitution at the hands of Jack and his buddies. Meanwhile, Eloise’s own life turns to hell as the ghosts of the past seemingly cross over from dream-world into reality as they haunt her day-to-day life.

The 60’s is an era that certainly has an ever-lasting appeal. 60’s fashion comes in and out of style regularly amongst hipsters. Bands like Oasis still riff on The Beatles to this day. It was a time of sexual liberation and changing social attitudes. A time of emerging rock-and-roll. But it was also a time that had its own fair share of seediness boiling beneath the surface. Not unlike the world we live in today if you consider the likes of the ‘Me-Too’ movement. As times change, some things remain the same and that’s ultimately what is revealed at the heart of this dark parallel story.

Right from the outset, Thomasin McKenzie does well to portray Eloise as an old-soul stuck in a time period she doesn’t fit into. She lives in her own bubble, dancing around her room to Brit-Pop tunes. She has her own unique brand of oddball fashion as she is first introduced wearing a dress made from old newspapers. It’s all very clearly 60’s inspired. All of which makes her the perfect fish out of water upon entering the big smoke.

As she continuously enters the dream world of Sandie, she becomes more and more consumed by the glamour of nostalgia. She becomes more and more enraptured by the seemingly glamorous life of Sandie. So much so that she goes on to try and recreate Sandie’s physical appearance in a vain attempt to embody her.

One of the more striking visual highlights of the film is when Eloise first steps back into the past and finds herself bombarded by the bright garish lights of a cinema-marquee promoting ‘Sean Connery in Thunderball.’ Another sequence of note is an incredible dance number where the perspectives of Sandie and Eloise change constantly mid dance. It's very well executed as a whole. Alongside the gorgeous cinematography by Chung Hoon-Choo is a dazzling 60’s soundtrack to help build the mood. It really goes out of its way to capture the glamour of its time period.

But it also highlights the stark contrast between 60s Soho and the more dingy and worn-down present day Soho. For not only are the ghosts of the past haunting Eloise, they’re also still haunting the city landscape in general. It evokes much the same love-note feeling as Tarantino’s ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’ as it transports you back in time perfectly recreating an idealistic version of former ‘Soho’.

Being a Horror film though, it doesn’t take long for the glam to be stripped away exposing the real horrors lurking beneath. It’s here where Wright really excels. While this technically isn’t his first foray into the horror genre, it is most certainly a more straight laced horror film than anything he has made before. ‘Soho’ clearly takes its influences from the Argento school of Horror. Obviously, the Argento comparisons can’t help but be made given the visual flair ‘Soho’ has about it. Thankfully though, it still manages to find its own voice along the way.

As the time periods merge, the story further twists and turns. If there is maybe one critique to be had, it’s that it does get a little too familiar in the back-end and doesn’t entirely break new mould. But as a coming-of-age story meets psychedelic horror piece, it does pay off well enough in the end.

It doesn’t always make complete sense in the logic department. Though being a film of such high concept means it can get away with that from time to time. After all, this is a film that is more concerned about the theme than it is a cohesive logical narrative. In that department, the theme rings loud and clear. Even if that theme is maybe a little played out at times. Still, under the confident hand of Edgar Wright and company, ‘Soho’ makes for a most effective and stylish piece of psychedelic horror-cinema all around.


-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - Cold Fish (Or An Examination of Societal Pressures In A Conformist Society)

Have you ever felt downtrodden? Have you ever felt past your prime? Have you ever felt so disrespected and overlooked that it makes you boil with anger deep inside? Have you ever felt so powerless to actually let that anger out in any healthy fashion? Have you ever felt that deep resentment fester until it reached its boiling point? Welcome to the world of Nobuyuki Shamoto (Mitsuru Fukikoshi) in the Japanese film, Cold Fish.

Our first impressions of Shamoto are that of a meek, mild mannered and mostly unmotivated owner of a store specializing in rare tropical fish. A widower who has recently remarried, although his daughter deeply resents both him and his new bride. His new bride also doesn’t seem to think much of him as it seems to be a marriage born out of financial security rather than true love.

Deep down in his heart, all Shamoto wants is that loving harmonious family unit. The type of perfect model family you might glimpse in a photo frame at your local store. While visiting his favorite pastime, the local planetarium, he frequently dreams of such a perfect family moment. He envisions his new wife and daughter by his side enjoying his company and laughing together. In reality though, what he really has is a completely dysfunctional family that is bordering on the edge of self-destruction.

One night while out with her boyfriend, his daughter Mitsuko is caught shoplifting. The store owner summons Shamoto and his wife down to the store in order to deal with his daughter. Enter Yukio Murata (Denden), a regular patron of the store and fellow rare tropical fish store owner. He persuades the store owner to drop the pending charges against Mitsuko and invites the family back to his own store.

Back at his store, Murata convinces Shamoto to allow Mitsuko to not only come and work for him but also to live with him. For it turns out that Murata has taken in a range of young girls with the aim of giving them work as in-store models/saleswomen of sorts. The old adage of “sex sells” is alive and well here as they flaunt their young feminine bodies around the store in skimpy outfits.

Shamoto is taken aback at first but then sees it as an opportunity to get his daughter out of the house and a chance to get some private time with his new bride. He agrees to this also based on Mitsuko’s enthusiasm at the offer at hand. Eventually the two store owners go into business with one another in more ways than one as Shamoto quickly learns of the darker side of Murata’s day-to-day operations. That Murata is quite literally killing the competition.

Sion Sono’s film Cold Fish is loosely based on a true murder story in which a dog breeder and his wife killed at least four clients in what would become known as the Saitama Dog Lover Murders. The film uses this as a loose basis in order to study both a dysfunctional Japanese family unit and to also examine the harsh realities of Japanese society in a microcosm.

Screenwriter Yoshiki Takahashi has altered the scenario from being about Dog Breeders to Tropical Fish Suppliers for reasons of removing the potential hassle of dealing with numerous dogs on set. Another reason for the change, as stated by Takahashi, was due to his willingness to examine these characters' actions through the lens of the aftermath of the bubble economy that Japan experienced during the 80s. Which resulted in the financial growth of many Tropical Fish Stores at that time.

This directly plays into the stark contrast between Murata and Shamoto. As aforementioned, Shamoto is largely unambitious and set in his ways. His store does well enough to keep the lights on but it's clear he has no real aspirations for personal or even financial growth. He’s more than happy not to disrupt the flow of things.

Meanwhile Murata is the total opposite. A man driven by greed and excess. He openly flaunts his worth with exquisite vehicles such as the Red Ferrari he drives. His wife screams that of a ‘Trophy Wife’. His store is twice the size and caters to more foot traffic than that of Shamoto's store in thanks to his shrewd business tactics. Murata is very much a ‘moriagaru’ type. Boisterous to the core and completely in your face. He relishes in the power and fortune he has accumulated and will gladly curb stomp anyone who stands in his way. Take his first shared private moment with Shamoto’s wife where he forces himself upon her and seemingly rapes her without regard. It's clear given his stature in life that he feels completely above the law.

The female roles in this film are certainly a factor that has raised a few eyebrows as some have labeled the film as being misogynistic. Sex and violence is a huge factor in this film and the two main women largely serve both sides of the coin. One side being the pure victim and the other side representing the instigator. I would argue though that the film offers a harsh critique of the modern expectations of the female role in Japanese society more so than it does any sort of actual reinforcement.

Shamoto’s new bride Taeko (Megumi Kagurazaka) looks to be approaching her early 30s. It seems entirely obvious that her marriage to Shamoto is one born out of convenience rather than anything approaching love.

There is a saying in Japan that if a woman is not married by the time she is 25 then she is a “Christmas Cake.” A rather sexist slur comparing women to pastries that can’t be sold past the date of December 25th. This is a rather harsh societal pressure placed upon Japanese women as they either marry young or else be considered of little to no value.

Based on this societal pressure, it seems obvious that her marriage to Shamoto is a total sham born out of convenience as she yearns for her former days of hedonism. We see this as she pushes Shamoto aside any time he makes a pass at her. It’s clear she has no real desire for the man and perhaps for good reason considering the shell he hides himself in. Therefore, she plays the role of the good obedient domesticated wife while burying her resentment at the life she has settled for. As noted, she is also very much the perpetual victim as she finds herself thoroughly abused by the men in her life.

His daughter Mitsuko has a rebellious fiery spirit about her. Lost and confused after the death of her mother, she deeply resents her father and his new choice of bride. She certainly isn't shy in expressing this as she lays her boot into her step-mothers stomach. With Shamoto’s complete withdrawal, she has no real male role model in her life to look up to. If her own father has no self-respect then why should she have any for him in return? Hence her attraction to Murata’s boisterously overflowing self confidence.

Then we come to Murata’s wife Aiko (Asuka Kurosawa), who is perhaps the most fascinating female character in the movie. Aiko is not only fully aware of her husband's crimes but is also completely complicit in them. She completely owns her psychopathic tendencies and relishes in them if not more than her husband does his own.

She is completely and utterly damaged goods as she is more than willing to use her sexuality to seduce her victims before delivering the final blow. As for her feelings regarding her husband, it’s hard to say if she has any real respect or even love for him, or if she is just stringing him along too as she seems to do with everyone else she comes into contact with.

At one point, she makes a pass at Shamoto and tries to pressure him into replacing Murata entirely as her new lover and partner in crime. If she were to be compared to an animal, she’d be best compared to a black widow. She’ll make love to you, but will also eat you alive the moment you no longer serve her any benefit. Unlike Taeko, she's anything but the obedient or domesticated housewife. Instead, she completely owns her true nature and has entirely freed herself from the aforementioned societal pressures.

As for Shamoto, he serves mostly as a conduit for the audience to observe the mayhem surrounding him. His progression is not dissimilar to that of Dustin Hoffman’s character in Straw Dogs. As he becomes more and more entangled into the sordid world of Murata’s killings, he finds his own morality being severely tested. The Murata’s methods of killing usually involve a digestive form of poison. Once their victim is dead, they take their bodies out to a shack in the remote countryside and hack the bodies to pieces before burning the pieces and scattering the ashes in the nearby river. Make no mistake about it, it’s not at all shy in presenting its gore as the film highlights just how messy it is to hack a body to pieces. You could almost say it’s as if the Coen brothers directed a Japanese serial killer movie.

Shamoto is initially sickened by the lack of humanity on display as he plays witness to the Murata’s hacking their victims to pieces with glee. But eventually he starts to grow indifferent as the bodies pile up. Still, he plays the weak subservient assistant to Murata just hoping to survive another day.

Murata eventually tires of Shamoto’s weak willed nature and finally lays the harsh truth on him. He berates Shamoto, belittling his manhood by calling out his failures as a husband and father. He goads and taunts Shamoto as he lays the truth on him about his weak willed nature and his inability to solve the problems he has faced throughout life. Before finally revealing the truth that he fucked Taeko.

At first, it’s obvious to see the mechanical point of this scene as it serves Shamoto’s final breaking point at the hands of Murata. But on another level, one could maybe argue that this speech is potentially a scathing indictment of the passive nature of Japanese society in general.

I can only speak as a foreigner looking in from the outside here and perhaps I’m wrong in my assessment. But based on my own experiences of studying some Japanese culture, I have come to learn that the nature of this culture is very passive in general. To my understanding, it is a tendency for Japanese people to avoid confrontation wherever they can as politeness is key to a functional society. Murata is the polar opposite of this though. He’s not shy in voicing his complete and utter disdain for Shamoto or those around him.

Shamoto may as well represent your common Japanese man or woman. He’s entirely passive and almost afraid to step out of line. Whereas Murata has fully embraced his psychopathic tendencies and has entirely freed himself from all of the bullshit that comes with society. Or to quote Yoshiki Takahashi; “Murata is the missing link between the old strong and fearless Japanese army-type in contrast to the quiet-reserved type of character you see these days.”

In Japan, there is a saying that people wear three faces; the face you show to the public, the face you show to your inner circle and the face that is your true face. To an extent, the Shamoto's abide to this as they hide their true feelings even from one another. While the Murata's mostly wear their true emotions out on their sleeves. Murata himself is almost a complete rejection of this notion. I say almost because he is still wearing the one mask posing as a respectable businessman for the public eye. But outside of his little secret, he is very much a ‘what you see is what you get’ type of man. Thus this speech winds up feeling like it could be more so an indictment of passive Japanese society as a whole. But I can’t say for sure being a foreigner and all.

Shamoto eventually breaks under the pressure of this goading and develops a new found backbone. He rushes back to the store and grabs his daughter by the hair dragging her kicking and screaming to the car. He drives back home where he orders his wife to prepare a final meal of sorts. They eat as a family unit although the tension in the air is palpable. Mitsuko is called outside by her boyfriend but is intervened by Shamoto as he lays his boot into the boyfriend before knocking his daughter unconscious dragging her limp body back inside.

He then confronts his wife about her and Murata. Before his wife even gets a chance to explain herself, he beats her to the ground and lays on top of her demanding the truth. In this moment, the truth is finally revealed as to just how much she loathes him and his daughter. If this charade of a family unit wasn’t already fractured, it’s now completely obliterated. This leads to Shamoto forcibly raping her making her yet again the passive victim. Gone is the weak spineless little boy and in his place is an assertive albeit completely broken man. Maybe, just maybe if he had been a little more assertive in the first place then all of this could have been avoided.

Cold Fish serves as much more than just a true-murder film. It is both an intense study of the dysfunctional family unit and a seemingly scathing indictment of the harsh realities that come hand-in-hand with societal pressures in a mostly conformist society. Sion Sono has said about it that he wanted to depict “a sense of total hopelessness” that he felt was lacking in Japanese cinema. To a large extent, I believe he and his screenwriter Yoshiki Takahashi have achieved just that and a little bit more.

But outside of the barbaric and prevailing sense of nihilism that the film is soaked in, what still really fascinates me to this day is its seemingly harsh critique of societal pressures in general. One thing is for certain though, regardless of gender, no one comes out of this film for the better. There is a prevailing nihilism about all of its characters in general that I quite appreciate.

Sure, Shamoto eventually grows a backbone of sorts, but it comes at the cost of his own sanity. Meanwhile, Mitsuko doesn’t really seem to learn anything as even in her fathers death she still shows him nothing but disrespect and contempt.

All Shamoto ever wanted was the perfect model family. And in the end, he got nothing. Leading to his final words; “life is pain.” Sometimes, it truly is just a sick, sad, cruel little world we live in with no reason or rhyme.


-Daniel M

Read More