Yelisey

Jagten is a very good movie, though it really lacks something to be called a masterpiece.

I'd like to start with the flaws, which are mostly connected with the artistic devices used. I'll try to list them: 1) the comparisons between animal hunt by man and man "hunt" by man, IMO, is rather trivial and not that appropriate, given that from the ancient times people primarily hunt to get food and clothing. Surely, with the passage of years this activity has gained some sporting interest to it, but how many hunters do rape or violate their animal victims? And in this film "hunt" stands for hounding and revenge - two primal and eternal human desires. It is clear that the story had to present some additional themes, but for me all of those scenes of hunting in the forest were of no special interest; 2) the other flaw is connected with the use (or rather misuse) of lighting - most of the action is simply shrouded in darkness. I can agree that in some of the scenes this trick works perfectly well (e.g., that key episode when Clara tells her educator about that ill-fated story), but overall it simply prevents from the adequate perception of the film; 3) also, I just didn't like that ending, it seemed quite unnecessary and pointless. Wiki says that Vinterberg had been looking for the right ending for quite a long time - well, now we can see the result.

Now, for the good sides. They surely include the acting and the great pace of the film - take at least the powerful segment where Lucas is taken to a police station and we see the life of his 14-year-old son in this rabid society of a small Danish town. But first and foremost, the film deserves praise for raising this urgent and difficult topic of pedophilia accusations. While watching Jagten (what an excellent-sounding word!) I was constantly thinking about possible outcomes of the same story in different societies. Somewhere in Pakistan Mikkelsen's character would have been simply killed by an angry mob, and the movie would have ended at the fifteenth minute. Or even at the burnt pavilions of a film set. Here in Russia a similar case is likely to be brought to the end and poor Lucas would've been imprisoned for at least 5 years. And in Jagten we can see the present day situation in Western Europe, where apparently the slightest suspicion in pedophilia can simply ruin a man's life. "Children do not lie, they simply do not" - and you just can't change it, even with hundreds of evidence of being not guilty at all. And then there follows a string of coward and accusatory glances of your friends and colleagues, which gradually turn into dead pets of yours and supermarket scum, who is ready to kill you at any time of day. And you're a lucky man if you end like Lukas does in Jagten. So, kudos once again to the Danish director for making the film built around such a complex topic.

In the end I only want to note that, despite its disturbing storyline and a number of gory moments, this picture of Vinterberg's does not seem to be pessimistic or depressing, it's quite far from the murkiness of, for example, such Hitchcock's masterpiece as "The Wrong Man". Mikkelsen's character here surely has a guardian angel rescuing him from all of the troubles. Such happy ends do rarely occur in our life, let us admit it fairly. Almost as rare as a new My Bloody Valentine album. To sum it up, the film is very good, but, damn, it REALLY could have been better.

Definitely not the worst film from the 90s, but it just seems that the one and primary goal of Tykwer was to fill his effort with as much artsiness and stylish camera-work as possible. Making a cohesive and believable plot was supposedly the last of his intentions. The characters in WS are too dumb and under-developed, delivering some brain-dead lines rarely heard in the dumbest horror flicks (as the one about "maybe it's better to live only 3 years", which was said by a character sitting near the 10-years old girl who had just died). Or another artsy moment of bewitching emptiness, when the blonde stopped on her way to the granny's funeral and started to urinate on the roadside with some grief on her face. Also, all these multiple coincidences in the end didn't make any good to the film.

Anyway, the setting is quite beautiful and it lends some charm to this lame story. Hence 2,5/5. At least.

I suppose it was a hasty step of mine to watch the final film of Jean Rollin, since I had watched only two of the auteur's films (Fascination and Requiem pour un vampire Requiem for a Vampire). Anyway, I was quite intrigued to check out his newer works and it seemed to be inevitable. In either event, I can say that Le masque de la Méduse is quite a unique film, with its own atmosphere and it really feels like the ultimate film of Rollin (somewhere in the middle of the film Rollin even appears by himself, reflecting on his past works). As for its structure, it is rather uneven, which can be one of the features of Rollin's films. With a myth of Meduse as a central point of the film, in its third part Le masque... turns into a erotic lesbian story. And quite picturesque and fascinating story it is, despite all of its irrelevance and out-of-placeness, which can be seen as another feature of Rollin's. That sequence was far more pleasant to watch than the one about the ugly Medusa, played by the director's wife (her only cinema appearance, by the way). However, the scenes with Le Collectionneur also added some points to my overall rating.

The black girl has a really beautiful and sexy body.

At times it's not that easy to give a film the appropriate rating, and so this was the case with Requiem pour un vampire. I don't even know whether it is an erotica film with some horror elements or a horror flick with some erotic scenes. Anyway, why should I care about it, since the watching of it was a really enchanting experience.

The plot is an absolute feast of bizarreness and I guess that it is one of the film's charms. In the opening scene we can see a car chase, in which two very young girls and their male friend are getting away and trying to shoot someone. Soon, the guy gets hurt and his "clowny" friends do nothing but kill him to death and then burn the car with gasoline! At this point I was almost sure that these girls were the vampires from the title, but to my absolute surprise they were not! The vampire line started a little bit later. And again, the cohesion of it didn't make any sense, but its picturesque images and overall hypnotic atmosphere lived down everything. I even enjoyed that cheesy moment with a bat doing the cunni. :D So I give it 3,5/5, my highest rating for vampire-themed films, as for now.

Quite a decent effort it is, but it rarely fully delivers. The leading girls are quite nice, but I cannot say that there is a lot of chemistry between them. There are a lot of moments when Flavia succumbs to Veronica's manipulation against her own will. They are really not well acted, and this is surely the director's mistake. Also, the idea not to show the adult's faces was OKish, but it was also realized not in a great way. As for the ending, I find it quite disappointing. I just can't believe that such harmless girl as Flavia will burn her friend and then will be happily staring at the fire burning. Even after all of the Veronica's deeds, that was a bit TOO MUCH.

An epitome of a nice long-forgotten filmie from the 1930s. Most of the cast and the crew also appeared in some of Hitchcock's flicks (especially in Sabotage), so be ready for some justified deja vu. Of course, you may find it very similar to Hitch's carefree yet gripping thrillers of that period, but it definitely has some charm of its own. The humour here still works, especially in the scenes with fake eyewitnesses. The cast is also solid, as is the script. I also enjoyed the amusing plan of Jennie's getting on a boat. The reason why I give it a 3/5 is that at times it lacks logic (as it always happens with thousands of thrillers) and the flying boat seems to be a paradise for criminals. And, of course, it'd have been a far well-known film that it is, if it was somehow connected with Alfie.

Available on YouTube and Archive.org.

A very intense psychological thriller, which could have received a higher rating from me, if not some of its drawbacks that somewhat belittle the overall impression. And the main of them is complete, at times even laughable silliness of the family members. E.g., why didn't the papa or the mama throw away that f***ing bottle of rat-poison, even after the death of their son? Were they so sure that their housemaid wouldn't use it again? What can I say, the father's actions in the second half were awfully and unbelievably idiotic, even if that gutlessness was undoubtedly intended by the director.

Having said that, I must repeat that it's a very good film that has some excellent cinematography plus even the children characters are quite amusing and natural, especially their sonny.

A highly recommended film, better than many of Hitch's follow-ups. Plus it has a story I can believe in, which is not that typical for the lion's share of his filmography. And who would expect such a disturbing and utterly thrilling ending from an early Hitch film that starts with a quite funny episode of a crowd demanding their money back because of outage?

I guess that the only drawback of the film is that Sidney and Homolka were miscast as a married couple, they look like a father and a daughter. Though, I cannot complain too much on their acting; furthermore, the supporting cast is quite solid.

The weakest Hitch I've seen so far. Everything seems to be so shallow in this one, from the start till the end. The actions and behaviour of Lina and Beaky with Johnny are hardly believable to be human. It seemed that one minute more and Lina would write on her forehead "Hello, I Am A Complete Cuckoo Trying Hard To Believe In Every Word Of My Adorable Hubby, Though Constantly Being Doubtful".

I guess it might be a typical average viewer-indulgent Hollywood flick from the 40s, even its "black" ending was rewritten because the viewers "would not believe that Cary Grant could be a murderer". What is left to say about traditionally weak and nauseating for Hitch's films romantic line, and the thrill which is almost absent here. A Hitch-and-miss affair.

In many points it can be unitentionally compared with the Coens' "Blood Simple.": both of them are brothers' directorial debuts, both are crime thrillers with noir elements, in the end, both have scenes with finger sadism. But "Bound" is more cruel and ruthless one, the characters doesn't show a bit of solace for their deeds; whether they shot the head of the mafia on whom you work, whether you kill your husband - the pistols fly shamelessly. The story is very enjoyable and keeps you in tension during the whole film. "Bound" is also visually impressive, it has good interieurs and fantastic camera work. The cast is the "everyone in its right place" case though most of the actors have never had such strong roles as in this one. Strange that it doesn't obtain its place in the lists of the 90's best movies. If it was released after "The Matrix", it would be undoubtedly regarded as a masterpiece of the genre.

In comparison with early Tourneur's horrors NotD is more entertaining, but it lacks deep penetration in the subject as it was with legends in "Cat People" or zombie ritual in "I Walked With a Zombie". All of those inclusions of runes and symbols are rather lightweight and uncovered and its connection with Stonehedge is also primitive. As for the demon, I don't think that spectators were frightened of him in the 50's, but now it looks extremely funny.

Anyway it's beautifully shot and has some good scenes. But if you're searching for a really interesting vintage horror with doubting Thomases, check out Dead of Night.

If this idiotic piece of turd is among the Argento's relatively high-rated items, then I can't imagine how bad are his subsequent works. Even in his 70's flicks (that weren't that great too, to put it mildly) he didn't care that much about acting and writing decent or (at least partially) logical scripts, but in Opera he simply spat on these "unnecessary" elements. "Picturesque" killings were the only goals to reach, you know. But unfortunately he had to somehow fill the ~100 min film format, hence a great bulk of absurdities, cretinous dialogues ("Are you scared?" - "A little. No, a lot!") and one of the most moronic final twists.

Just some gaping moments: 1) If the murderer planned his deeds so painstakingly, then why did he miss the baton-armed wardrobe mistress? 2) What a "clever" idea was to catch the murderer with these ravens flying around the hall! For the dubious price of finding the killa man you just have to scare the whole audience, thus giving the worst possible advert to the theatre. 3) The final "utterly unexpected" resurrection of the Maniac Inspector is beyond laughability. At least he should has taken the key with himself escaping from the burning room. Did you know that even Orion (the American film's distributor) wanted to cut this f**ked out ending, but our Italian master of crap stood his ground.

I don't want to bore you anymore, though I haven't mentioned some other great moments of this idiocy-fest like the scene featuring the Nicolodi's headeye shot.

If you are into trash horror Z-movies, then you'll enjoy it. If you're a newcomer to DA, then you'd better check his early works.