La Notte (1961)

  'La Notte' (The Night) is a 1961 Italian film directed by Michaelangelo Antonioni. It stars Jeanne Moreau ('Jules and Jim'), Marcello Mastroianni ('8 1/2') and Monica Vitti ('L'Avventura'). It's the second in Antonioni's trilogy of modernity and its discontents, proceeding 'L'Avventura', and preceding 'L'Eclisse'.

  Giovanni (Mastroianni) and Lidea (Moreau) are a married couple going through problems with their relationship in Milan, Italy. Giovanni is a well-known author. They visit their friend Tommaso, who is dying in a hospital bed. They celebrate the release of Giovanni's new book with champagne, knowing that this is one of the last times they will see each other. Giovanni meets an ill patient in the corridor, and starts uncontrollably kissing her. He tells Lidea about this, but she says she doesn't mind. After a book signing Lidea wanders around Milan, past street fights and rocket launchers. They eventually arrive at a party, where Giovanni is introduced to Valentina (Vitti). During the night, their faint love grows even more distant.

  Michaelangelo Antonioni is not to everyone's taste. When I saw 'Red Desert' and 'L'Eclisse', I didn't understand the hype behind him. After watching 'L'Avventura', 'Il Grido' and 'The Passenger', I feel like I understand his style and approach to movies. He is a great film-maker, but shouldn't be compared to Fellini and Bergman.

  His films are character studies into failing relationships, while examining the human condition. His films never have happy endings, whether it's suicide, a divorce or imprisonment. Antonioni's outlook on life, is a dim and depressing one, but it makes for some intriguing movies. 'La Notte' is no different from his other works, but is a highlight of his Italian films.

  The cast is as good as it can get. Antonioni's muse, Vitti, is on form and gives another fine performance. Moreau, who has worked with Malle, Welles and Truffaut, plays the part of Lidea fantastically. She is ideal for the part. Mastroianni has been amazing in everything he has been in, and is Italy's most loved actor. He brings a distinct character to every role he plays. It is an phenomenal cast, that bring the characters to life.

  The story is slow, and takes it's time to tell. All the usual Antonioni auteur trademarks are included (as mentioned above), but used to full force. Venanzo, Antonioni's cinematographer, embraces his style, making 'La Notte' as visually impressive as 'Il Grido'. The slick camera movements combined with the perfectly composited shots, create a stunning film. Every single frame is a feast for the eyes, which is a great achievement.

  The story is far more captivating than some of his other works, resulting in an emotional final scene. This is still Antonioni, so don't start watching expecting to be entertained as his pessimistic view on relationships is still present in this film. To enjoy it the most just sit back, relax and let the film take you on a journey.

TO CONCLUDE
One of Antonioni's best works. A captivating film that shows the beauty of Italy.

SCORE
79

Days of 36 (1972)

  'Days of 36' (Meres tou '36) is a 1972 Greek film directed by Theo Angelopoulos.

  In 1936 Greece, a trade unionist is shot in broad day light at a rally. Sofianos, a police informer, has been jailed for the assassination. While in prison, Sofianos takes hostage a Conservative politician. The government has to decide whether to kill Sofianos or not. If they give into his demands for freedom, they will lose enough votes to lose the next election.

  The second film in the Theo Angelopoulos Collection Vol 1, is far slower than the first film 'Reconstruction'. Whereas 'Reconstruction' focuses on a detestable husband and wife characters, 'Days of 36' centres around a group of politicians. They are mediocre protagonists, that you don't root for or against. I wasn't on the side of Sofianos, but neither on the side of the politicians, so when events occur, I do not know who to sympathize with. The characters have many flaws, and is therefore a problematic factor that is consistent throughout the film.

  This is a 30 minute film, told over two hours. Most of the runtime is taken watching people walk from one place to another. Things happen ridiculously slowly. I know it's his style, but the story needs more action.

  The cinematography is a major step up from his first film, using colour to full force. Despite the film's 'do nothing' approach, the film is luscious to watch, so the 1 hour 45 minutes is not tedious whatsoever. The film may have one event happening every ten minutes, but the camera movements and the flat landscape hypnotise you into forgetting this. The camera tends to be medium to long-shot for the entirety, with sunlight casting long shadows on the dry floor. It's a wonderful style, but makes it hard to recognize the characters. This got pretty bad in places, resulting in an end where (SPOILER 1).

  Angelopoulos's films are entirely different from anything else in cinema. The closest is Hou Hsiao-Hsien, as both adore long takes and long shots, as well as having a section of their filmographies dedicated to films about their country's history. This film is a historical snapshot into 1930s Greece, at a time before the Metaxas dictatorship. If I knew more about Greek history, this would have been far more fascinating. As I don't, it's a film purely to look at.

TO CONCLUDE
Painfully slow, but nice to look at. It's fairly interesting as it tells a part of history that is forgotten by the masses.

SCORE
68

SPOILER 1 (highlight)--> I didn't recognise the three men shot in the last scene<--

Of Time and the City (2008)

  'Of Time and the City' is a 2008 British documentary directed and narrated by Terence Davies.

  Davies documents Liverpool from when he was born in 1945 to when he left in 1973. Liverpool was known as "one of the worst slums in Europe", with small brick houses, vandalised shops, and a very poor living quality. Davies then bashes the Monarchy for spending so much on the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and not helping his city. Despite the poor living conditions, there was a sense of community, showing days out to the beach, local fairs, street parties and everyone having a jolly good old time (this is Britain after all). This is not a film specifically about the city, but about Terence Davies experience during that time and how he remembers it. Deterioration plagues the city, but he remembers fondly of it. He explains how he despised the pope, the impulses of adolescence, and the escape to the cinema to watch films like 'Victim' and 'Singing in the Rain'. The final 15 minutes examines Liverpool in the present day. The place he once loved, has disappeared and now seems alienating. The sense of community has vanished, the tower-blocks have gone and the city is no longer in depression.

  It doesn't feel like a documentary, but a passionate insight into a forgotten past. The film covers a large variety of topics, from religion, to war, to the monarchy. Davies uses archive and contemporary footage combined with music, narration, autobiographical reminiscence, funny wit and even literary quotations.

"You meet your destiny on the road you take to avoid it"
Carl Jung

  The film is interesting in places, like the footage of soldiers going to war while the song 'He Ain't Heavy, He's my Brother' plays over it. The film does suffer from feeling like an extra long segment from 'The One Show'. It drags at the beginning and the end, but has a satisfying middle third.

TO CONCLUDE
A peaceful and heartfelt work, to a city filled with 20th century history.

SCORE
72

Why Don't You Play in Hell? (2013)

  'Why Don't You Play in Hell?' (Jigoku de naze warui) is a 2013 Japanese film directed by Sion Sono.

  Michiko appeared in a toothpaste commercial when she was a child, but her father, Muto, is in charge of a Yakuza clan. When the rival Yakuza clan arrived at his house to kill Muto, his wife, Shizue, massacred them all with a kitchen knife. She is sent to prison for ten years. Skip ahead ten years and the wife is being released from prison. She wants to see her daughter Michiko starring in a film, so Muto hires a passerby, Koji, who knows nothing about films, to direct. He then hires a group of amateur film-makers, which call themselves the Fuck-Bombers, to be in charge. To kill two birds with one stone, they organize the bloody battle between the Yakuza clans to be on the same day, and film it. The rival Yakuza clan is fronted by Ikegami, who has a crush on Michiko.

  I was over the moon when I got the chance to see this film, as Sion Sono is one of the greatest directors that is still making films. I have seen nine of his films after watching 'Love Exposure', one of the greatest films of the 21st Century. I did this a while ago, so it's been some time since I have seen any of his films. None of his films reach the greatness of 'Love Exposure', but 'Why Don't You Play in Hell?' comes the closest.

  Sono wrote the script for this 15 years ago. The story is confusing at first, but makes sense as the film continues. The story is completely absurd, filled with crazy characters and ridiculous events which would never happen in real life, but that is why it is so glorious. At the begining there are three main storylines, the Michiko and Koji, the Yakuza and the Fuck Bombers, which eventually intertwine with each other. My favourite is the Fuck Bombers storyline, purely for how insane it is. The film opens when the Fuck bombers are filming two people throwing eggs at each other, when they see a fight happening across the street, which they then film. When the story skips forward ten years, those characters are wearing the exact same clothes, and act completely the same. Every character in the film is iconic in their own unique ways.

  The inevitable battle scene at the end is the craziest and bloodiest I have ever seen, with body parts flying everywhere and a thick layer of blood on the floor. Sono has made some gory films, but this is the goriest one yet. The last few minutes are unexpectedly emotional when (SPOILER 1). I have never seen a Yakuza film, but after watching 'Why Don't You Play in Hell?' I definitely intend to. Mafia films tend to be Scorsese biopics, but Yakuza films are more action-based and focus on rival clans.

  The film does have deeper underlying meaning. Sono is making a statement about Hollywood making films purely for the money, as all the characters are prepared to die, to make one masterpiece. The passion has evaporated from most Hollywood films, so it's great to see it is still in effect here.

  Everything that make Sono films different from anyone else's is all here. All of his auteur trademarks (Teenagers yelling, lots of blood) with his usual mixture of J-pop and classical music. This a must-see Sono film that is very accessible and, therefore, a good place to start watching his films.

TO CONCLUDE
Sono at his most insane. This film is brilliant and had me smiling throughout. Funny, bloody and completely preposterous.

SCORE
92

SPOILER 1 (highlight)--> The leader of the fuck bombers see all of his friends die. He imagines they are at the premier of the film, and everyone is clapping them.<--

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

  'Last Year at Marienbad' (L'annee derniere a Marienbad) is a 1961 French film directed by Alain Resnais and written by fellow French New Wave director Alain Robbe-Grillet.

  A woman (A) travels through a Baroque mansion when she meets a man. She has a love affair with the man (X), as her husband (M) gets jealous. X tells A that they have met previously last year at Marienbad, but A cannot remember.

  It took me a second viewing to understand 'Last Year at Marienbad'. While researching about Resnais's cinematographer Sacha Vierny, I came across a book describing the many different theories behind this film. What I first dismissed as pretentious twaddle, is actually one of the most mind bogglingly bizarre films I have seen. After watching it twice, the film still confuses me. There is a lot more to this film than the three line synopsis in the paragraph above... Let me try and explain.

  One of the reasons why this film is so tough to decipher, is that there is no confirmed present. Whether the conversations or story is happening in the past, present or future is never confirmed. There is no way to seperate reality from fiction. Who says any of the film is real? One of the most believable theories is that the whole film is a dream, occurring in A's head, but believing that would be boring, wouldn't it? So there is no established time or reality, but atleast we know the characters are real... Well, they might not be either. One theory states only A is alive, M is not as masculine as portrayed on screen, and X is her subconscious. Another one says the film is occurring in M's mind after (SPOILER 1). (SPOILER 2). My favourite theory is that the characters are a part of a recurring film. The photographs in the drawer represent the amount of times the film has repeated. X is trying to break free of this repeating cycle, so he tries to escape with A. During the final scene, the camera (SPOILER 3). The last theory is a much simpler one and that is (SPOILER 4). It's quite easy to prefer one theory to the other, but the truth is, there is no true story. Alain Resnais and writer Alain Robbe-Grillet have no intention of a correct narrative and leaves the choice to the spectator. 'Last Year at Marienbad' is the most ambiguous film I have seen. The film could have a deep psychological storyline, or a simple one depending on what the spectator wants to believe.

  Sacha Vierny, the film's cinematographer which I am currently writing an assignment about, shoots 'Last Year at Marienbad', quite beautifully. The endless corridors, matched with the intricate interior designs is something to be seen to be believed. The style Vierny creates has inspired music videos (To the End-Blur), to films ('The Draughtsman's Contract'), but the most notable imitator is 'The Shining' which also has long corridors, gliding steadicam shots and many interpretations.

  On a psychological and visual level, this film is about as good as it gets. But is the film watchable? The film doesn't return the viewer with any answers, and it is possible to just gaze through the film, without taking any notice of what is going on. The characters stare into space and talk nonsense for much of the running time, and none of the characters are likeable at all. Despite this, 'Last Year at Marienbad' is a landmark in the French New Wave, and is instantly recognisable from any frame.

TO CONCLUDE
A film everyone has a different opinion about. It has Visual perfection, and a storyline that can be interpreted in many different ways.

SCORE
78

SPOILER 1 (highlight)-->He kills her<--
SPOILER 2 (highlight)--> consumed with guilt, he is unable to realize what he has done<--
SPOILER 3 (highlight)--> shows A and X walking off screen. The camera has no where to go, and thus turns to M on the staircase. They have escaped the clutches of Marienbad <--
SPOILER 4 (highlight)--> She is dead, and the events in the film is how she remembers them. She is lying on the floor as M has shot her, and her last few memories are flashing before her eyes<--

My American Uncle (1980)

  'My American Uncle' (Mon oncle d'Amerique) is a 1980 French film directed by Alain Resnais.

  The story revolves around three characters. Jean is a bourgeois politician, Janine is a actress and Rene (Gerard Depardieu) is a manager at a textile company. The film flashes back to their past, where it shows the births and childhoods of the three individuals. Jean was born on an island, where he was looked after by his father and grandfather. His childhood consisted of eating crabs, digging a hole and reading adventure books in a tree. Janine lived in a flat for her childhood, with communist parents and the need to rebel against them. Rene was born on a farm, to a strict family with strict rules that had low expectations of him. Throughout the film, the separate storylines of the now fully grown three protagonists occasionally meet.

  Resnais is one of the greatest French New Wave directors, and is mostly ignored over Godard or Truffaut. His films feature advanced plots, scattered narratives and amazing scripts, and things are no different with 'My American Uncle'.

  Equally focusing the story on three main characters is a technique I have not seen in cinema before. The film opens with French philosopher Henri Laborit talking to the camera. The narration does not stop throughout the film, so in a way, he is the fourth protagonist. His theories towards human instinct and survival are intriguing, but also cinematic. As he narrates, sporadic flashbacks and flash-forwards occur on screen, corresponding to his ideas and philosophies. White rats help to demonstrate this, and are used as test subjects. The film compares the rat's reactions when being shocked to the character's actions in the film. Laborit is telling us that we may not have as much freedom as we may think, and our actions are instinctive and nurtured from birth. Throughout the film, he talks about many philosophical subjects such as the subconscious and biological behaviour (among others).

  The three characters are portrayed well by the three main characters. This is the most serious performance I have seen Depardieu act, but I feel Roger Pierre gives a more iconic performance. No matter how they act, this film is Resnais's. The fast paced editing, the quick French talking, the complex plot structure and the brilliant script, all seem to be Resnais trademarks.

  There are distressing scenes, thought-provoking scenes, and memorizing scenes but I feel like I didn't get as much out of it as other critics have. This is definitely one to watch again.

TO CONCLUDE
A good and philosophical way to spend two hours. Resnais's directing is on top form.

SCORE
77

Lady Snowblood 2: Love Song of Vengeance (1974)

  'Lady Snowblood 2: Love Song of Vengeance' (Shura-yuki-hime: Urami Renga) is a 1974 Japanese film directed by Toshiya Fujita. It is the sequel to the 1973 film 'Lady Snowblood: Blizzard from the Netherworld'.

  Somehow, Yuki (Meiko Kaji)survives the events of the first film, and massacres several policemen on a beach. She gets arrested and sentenced to death. On her way to the noose, she gets saved by Seishiro, head of the secret police. She is hired as an assassin to obtain a note from a criminal, Ransui. Once in his house, Ransui explains that the note proves the corruption of the secret police. Yuki switches sides, and is now helping to try and get the note to the press.

  Where has the tale of vengeance gone? Without the yearning for revenge, it is basically any other samurai or martial arts film. This is the main problem of the film. The events of the first film are forgotten, and there is no explanation of how she survived. Watching the two films, I have discovered that Yuki is invincible. She seems to have been shot about ten times throughout the two films.

  I thought the first Lady Snowblood was a great film, but this adds nothing to the story. No character development, nothing furthering the overall plot, nothing new or interesting to show us. 'Lady Snowblood 2: Love Song of Vengeance' is the definition of a unnecessary and pointless sequel. It hurts me to say that, as the director is the same, it's taken from the same manga, and Meiko Kaji is still the protagonist. Even the cinematographer has changed to Tatsuo Suzuki, who shot most of Shuji Tereyama's films and 'Funeral Parade of Roses'. But everything is considerably worse... Even the sword-fighting feels flimsy. I guess it is the story which lets everything down the most. The beginning attempted nothing to resolve the ending of the first film, and the ending of this film wasn't powerful enough. What is the point of all the bloodshed, over a single piece of paper, which they didn't even use in the end?

  Sequels in the last few years have been better than the originals ('The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' and 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'), but back then the expectations were lower, and they made a sequel purely for the money, with little attention to the film. They should have left the first one alone. This whole review has brought back memories of the horrendous 'Battle Royale II' the sequel to one of my favourite films, so I must stop, before I cry a bit.

TO CONCLUDE
Adds nothing to the story. The definition of half-assed. The best thing was that the runtime was less than 90 minutes.

SCORE
47