Train to Busan

We've gotten a barrage of zombie movies ever since George A. Romero made it big with Night of the Living Dead. There's been those of varying qualities, certainly, but they incite thrills and entertainment regardless.

So where does Yeon Sang-ho's Train to Busan rank? It has a few elements found in recent zombie pictures (fast-moving creatures, survival of the fittest) but there's something else to it that makes it stand out. But what?

In the years since Night of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead, how does one present a subgenre of horror movies that's been -- excuse the pun -- beaten to death? But miraculously Yeon uses those expected tropes and revitalizes them. (Oh, and it's one of those zombie pictures so you've been warned.)

What Yeon does with Train to Busan is actually similar to what Edgar Wright did with Shaun of the Dead. (Come to think of it, that would make for a solid double feature.) It has attentive detail to the story's execution, using call backs effectively throughout its duration. (Certainly not something you'd find in pictures from Hollywood nowadays.)

Train to Busan could've easily followed the usual tropes associated with this type of picture but Yeon tries his damnedest not to do that. It doesn't always work some of the time but as a whole it stays consistent. It's true that a genre picture seldom works amongst a mixed audience but sometimes those few titles do stand out.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Humphrey Bogart Blogathon

Samantha of Musings of a Classic Film Addict and Diana of Sleepwalking in Hollywood have teamed up for a blogathon on Humphrey Bogart. Long story short, I chose to write (to the surprise of no one familiar with my approach) about his three Oscar-nominated performances. Those films in question are:

(1943, dir. Michael Curtiz)
Lost to Paul Lukas in Watch on the Rhine

(1951, dir. John Huston)
WON

(1954, dir. Edward Dmytryk)
Lost to Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront

(More after the jump!)

BOOK VS MOVIE: Fingersmith/The Handmaiden

There's always something dark lurking beneath composed demeanors. A warm smile can mask a cruel heart, Pure evil could be hiding behind the face of someone you trust.

It's worth mentioning that it's usually men that are cast in such a light. But who's to say those of the fairer sex have souls as pure as fresh-fallen snow? As we've seen with the likes of Gone Girl, they aren't all sugar, spice and everything nice. To quote Jane Austen's Persuasion, we none of us expect to be in smooth waters all our days.

Sarah Waters' Fingersmith follows such a woman, a petty thief coerced into becoming the maid for a wealthy heiress. What at first appears as a scheme to make off with the heiress' fortune slowly evolves into something much more deceptive in nature. (And if you're familiar with Waters' other work, you know what one thing will be expected.)

Updating the setting from Victorian Britain to 1930s Korea, Park Chan-wook's The Handmaiden stays mostly true to Waters' novel. But how Park depicts the women's bond makes it clear that a straight man is at the helm. (Haven't we learned anything from the behind the scenes drama of Blue is the Warmest Color?)

It's clear that Waters and Park have different perspectives for the same story (Waters more diabolical, Park more sensual) but which of the two works is better overall? Both are sympathetic towards the women's connection (especially considering the time periods they're set in) but only more so with just one, which is the victor of the two.

What's worth checking out?: The book.

Gentleman Jim

In the span of just a few years, Errol Flynn went from a complete unknown hailing from Australia to one of the biggest box-office draws in Hollywood. But after playing the swashbuckler who knows how many times, he wanted to show his audiences there was more to him.

One of the results was Raoul Walsh's Gentleman Jim where Flynn plays boxer James J. Corbett. Yes, he has the same amount of charisma he had for his collaborations with Olivia de Havilland but there's something more to Flynn's work here. (Could it actually be acting?)

Of course with this being a film about boxing, Gentleman Jim requires a lot of physicality from its leading man. And since he wanted realism, Flynn did his own stunts. Such exertion from him caused concern from leading lady Alexis Smith -- who was fully aware of Flynn's nights of debauchery -- but Flynn said thusly: "I'm only interested in this half. I don't care for the future." (Worth mentioning that Flynn had a minor heart attack during production.)

But as shown the previous year with They Died With Their Boots On, Walsh utilizes the talent within Flynn, something Michael Curtiz seldom tried to do with the leading man. It's no surprise that Flynn much preferred working with Walsh over Curtiz.

Gentleman Jim is a showcase for Flynn's talent, proving there was more to him than as the dashing leading man. It's almost a shame that Hollywood didn't give him more opportunities. But as least he got those few fleeting moments as a serious actor.

My Rating: ****

The Kirk Douglas 100th Birthday Blogathon

Olivia de Havilland isn't the only the only legendary actor still around to celebrate their 100th birthday this year. There's also a lad from New York named Issur Danielovitch turning triple digits today. You may know him better by his screen name: Kirk Douglas.

To celebrate, Karen over at Shadows and Satin is hosting a blogathon. Usually for posts like these, I cover (if there are any) the Oscar-nominated performances of said subject. (Douglas himself is a three-time nominee.) But considering it was nigh impossible for me to find a copy of Champion on DVD, I decided instead to focus on a single film from Douglas' extensive career. Which one, you may ask?

(1957, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

While it's the next (and last) collaboration between Douglas and Kubrick that's more well-known, that doesn't render Paths of Glory as a film no one should see. (For Christ's sake, Kubrick is in the director's chair; that alone should warrant some level of interest.)

(More after the jump!)

The Agnes Moorehead Blogathon

Crystal over at In the Good Old Days of Classic Hollywood is hosting another blogathon, this time about actress Agnes Moorehead. (Coincidentally, she was born on this day back in 1900.) For my contribution for it, I decided to write about (perhaps to the surprise of no one) her Oscar-nominated performances. Moorehead was nominated four times throughout her career but she was always the bridesmaid and never the bride. Anyway, the movies she was nominated for are:

(1942, dir. Orson Welles)
Lost to Teresa Wright in Mrs. Miniver

(1944, dir. Tay Garnett)
Lost to Ethel Barrymore in None but the Lonely Heart

(1948, dir. Jean Neglusco)
Lost to Claire Trevor in Key Largo

(1964, dir. Robert Aldrich)
Lost to Lila Kedrova in Zorba the Greek

More after the jump!

Mrs. Parkington

Nobody ever said that marriage was a solid institution. Indeed fiction often covers the supposed joys of matrimony, many times the bitter side of the union getting more of the spotlight. But more often than not, there aren't always bad days between spouses.

Tay Garnett's Mrs. Parkington focuses on such a stormy union, this one between the modest Susie (Greer Garson) and the temperamental Augustus (Walter Pidgeon). Told primarily through flashbacks, the film chronicles how she went from a maid in a boarding house to a society matron. (And after seeing how Augustus regularly behaves, it's an uphill battle for Susie.)

Similar to what Garnett would do two years later with The Postman Always Rings Twice, he shows with Mrs. Parkington the differences between the sexes. Susie is someone of humble means whereas Augustus will flaunt his wealth at any given opportunity. But over time Susie's influence rubs off onto her husband.

Being the third of their eight films together, Garson and Pidgeon unsurprisingly have strong chemistry. Also of note is Agnes Moorehead, who basically steals every scene she's in. Ah, the 1940s: where actresses were finally getting their due.

Mrs. Parkington overall is a familiar yarn of films from that era but the work from Garson, Pidgeon and Moorehead make it worth seeking out. (The two women being nominated for their performances also helps.) Because honestly, how often did actresses back then get roles that weren't reduced to the obligatory love interest?

My Rating: ****

Girlhood

There's only a small handful of coming-of-age films that revolve around girls. We've seen enough stories of boys discovering the sordid world around them and how their bodies are changing. Just because the film industry is a male-dominated one doesn't mean those are the only stories that should be churned out.

Céline Sciamma's Girlhood is one of several recent titles to have girls at the forefront. Admittedly it follows the familiar "good girl gone bad" storyline but Sciamma does something different with it. But what exactly?

Girlhood follows Marieme (Karidja Touré) as she tries to find some meaning in her young life. Sciamma offers a more realistic depiction of how teenage girls interact. (Take that, male screenwriters!) After all, everyone doesn't communicate with different people the same way.

As she showed with her previous film Tomboy, Sciamma provides an unbiased portrait of how the protagonist lives their life. It's one of various ups and downs, one of good days and bad. (But isn't that life in general?)

Girlhood proves that Sciamma certainly knows how to capture the coming-of-age story. It's not always the type of story that's clean-cut nor is it one that everyone captures easily. But as she showed with Tomboy and this, Sciamma shows that she can depict the woes of youth. (Beat that, John Hughes.)

My Rating: ****1/2

Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte

Following the success of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, Robert Aldrich and Bette Davis re-teamed two years later for Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte. (Joan Crawford was originally cast but was replaced by Olivia de Havilland.) But how does it compare to the more famous title?

Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte is more sinister than the earlier film in spots. But instead of Davis as the abuser, here she's the victim. (It is strange to see her in a more helpless situation.) However, her Charlotte Hollis has a shared trait with Jane Hudson: vainly grasping at days passed.

In fact, there are several connecting factors between Aldrich's two films besides their leading lady. Both What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte recruit actors whose careers may not have been what they once were. (Okay, Agnes Moorehead being the sole exception because of Bewitched.) Perhaps that started the trend of star-studded pictures the following decade?

Back to that aspect mentioned earlier. Both Charlotte and Jane try to reclaim the past while at the same time slowly lose their grip on reality. (While Jane wants to be in the spotlight once more, Charlotte yearns for the days before her lover was brutally murdered.) But life just throws many curveballs at both of them.

Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte shows that sometimes the best kind of horror doesn't always require blood, guts and gore to make it work. A little bit of gaslighting works just as well too. (Man, imagine how much more terrifying it would've been had Davis and de Havilland swapped roles?)

My Rating: ****1/2

Mustang

The world we're a part of has very rarely been kind to those of the supposed "fair sex". Women have been subjected to the likes of discrimination, harassment and violence for centuries. And men continually expect them to adhere to conformity without a second thought?

Deniz Gamze Ergüven's Mustang shows a rebellion amid the strict household the five sisters are trapped in. After displaying "promiscuous" behavior, they're quickly groomed to become suitable wives. But they're not going down without a fight.

Bear in mind that some of the sisters are being punished by proxy for two of their sisters' "disgraceful" behavior so most of the time they're wondering why they're being subjected to the same ordeal. But through the eyes of their guardians, this is just a way to teach them all a lesson.

Ergüven also shows with Mustang that sense of discovery within youth, how one begins to discover the world they're a part of. The girls learn (quite harshly) how important the concept of innocence (yes, in that regard) is in their society, something unfortunately quite common in patriarchies around the world. (When will we learn that a woman's purity isn't her defining characteristic?)

Mustang shows immense potential from Ergüven, proving the way of cinema's future is female. (You know it's true, admit it.) It (hopefully) won't be much longer before the pillars of patriarchy begin to crumble under their own poisonous ideals. (A bit far-fetched, maybe, but one can dream, can't they?)

My Rating: *****