Filmaker Quotes #3

“In any society, the artist has a responsibility. His effectiveness is certainly limited and a painter or writer cannot change the world, but they can keep an essential margin of non-conformity alive. Thanks to them the powerful can never affirm that everyone agrees with their acts. That small difference is important.”

-Luis Bunuel

Biruma No Tategoto (The Burmese Harp) (1956)

Kon Ichikawa gets the Criterion treatment as two of his most popular films in the western world, The Burmese Harp and Fires On The Plain, get widespread release through the prolific distributorship. This means that you will finally have that flawlessly remastered DVD you always wanted at the cost of being able to impress hipster friends with that bootleg PAL copy you've had for years. Such is the yin and yang of having superior tastes in everything.

The Burmese Harp is an anti-war movie. Not really, people just like to say that. It is more of a humanistic drama that takes place in the wake of a war, making it seem inherently anit-war. In the same way Bergman approaches existential dilemmas through the middle ages in The Seventh Seal, so does Ichikawa approach spirituality and morality through World War II.

Ichikawa's mouthpiece is Mizushima, a soldier in a worn down regiment plodding through the jungles of Burma. Their musically inclined Commander encourages them to sing to keep spirits up. Mizushima has taught himself to play the harp on an instrument he picked up along the way. Eventually, the troupe comes to find out that the war has ended several days earlier and begrudgingly surrenders.

Mizushima is asked to go on a mission to convince another platoon to do the same. However, this other group of soldiers would rather die fighting and Mizushima gets caught in the crossfire. When he doesn't return his comrades take him for dead. Mizushima, however, has been taken in by Buddhist monks. He dresses as a monk for protection and heads out to find his unit (who have been transfered to the Mudon POW camp, some 200 miles south). The carnage that Mizushima sees along the way deeply affects him as his fellow troops hold out on the belief that he may still be alive. Mizushima's journey of spiritual enlightenment causes an internal conflict of whether he can leave the dead of Burma behind for his home in Japan.

It is strange to think of this film as being a war film as their is only one battle scene and it takes place after the war has effectively ended. On the other hand, it is hard to see it as an anti-war film because Ichikawa paints his themes in broad strokes that, while subtly hinting at the pointlessness of war, are more general in scope.

Indeed, like many great directors, Ichikawa takes a period piece and makes it timelessly relevant. World War II, while hard to believe, acts as a stage for more important things. The journey of Mizushima stares death, cruelty and human suffering in the face and asks why? Mizushima's gradual transformation takes place over his own physical and spiritual tribulations on the course of his journey. His quest to find his friends becomes an internal quest to know why the world must suffer so greatly.

While attacking deep-seeded human issues the film never loses a certain sense of sentimentality, almost to a fault according to some. It does have a certain theatrical aspect and some almost sappy moments. However, most of this is not hollow in its purpose. If the viewer looks closely enough they will see the message coming through. The English soldiers putting down arms and singing with the Japanese demonstrates both sides sense of loss and need for healing. The Japanese platoon's synchronized movement in nearly every situation seems campy at points, but hints at the group mentality of practicality that they follow whilst Mizushima remains on a solely individual journey.

And the film speaks on this idea as well. How the group, the general population, stresses practicality. For Mizushima's troupe it is the practicality of surrendering with the chance to return home and rebuild Japan. For the soldiers who refuse to surrender, even if that decision means death, it is the practicality of dying honorably. Initially, Mizushima cannot see much point in the latter. He knows that their deaths are now meaningless. However, the practical concerns of surviving for the better of his country begin to lose meaning too. As he wander the Burmese country side he sees scores of other pointless deaths. He knows that even when the war was winnable the deaths still meant little. As he finds personal mementos on soldier's bodies he begins to envision the scope of destruction and the network of lives that are deeply affected by it.

Thus begins Mizushima's struggle. His love for his fellow soldiers and homesickness propel him to seek out the POW camp, to possibly return to Japan one day. The things he sees make him realize that their is no answer for the world's pain, only an opportunity to mitigate it. He believes he can stay on in Burma and somehow help in the spiritual healing of the people there. The film has a poignant ending where the viewer finally sees what Mizushima's choice is and why he made it.


Ichikawa treats a difficult subject with utmost humanity. The film toes a line between sentiment and reality, but does so in a way that perfectly demonstrates that our world needs both. The healing is just as real as the suffering. The characters remain real people with their own faults. Their individuality exposes a number of choices that we can makes when put against the harshness of the world.

Ichikawa also captures all of this brilliantly from a technical standpoint. He moves from quick, frentic cuts and pacing to slow, long takes that capture the essence of the scene, drawing the viewer in. He also makes great use of pulled back, wide shots showing the natural beauty of Burma contrasted to the carnage around it, to show the individual lost in a big and uncertain world. On the other hand, he gets the camera close into the individual's face. Showing the wear eyes, the hard-lined faces and the glimmer of hope. Ichikawa moves about brilliantly from scene to scene taking each one as a microcosm to represent the whole of his objective.

This Criterion edition of The Burmese Harp benefits from the typical remastering and cleaning of the original film, but also features improved translation, interview features with Ichikawa (amongst others) and a 21 page booklet with an essay by critic Chuck Stephens (infinitely better than the one you just read).

Hopefully the wider release of Ichikawa's films will give him the kind of popular acclaim Kurosawa and Mizoguchi enjoy from the western world. The Burmese Harp remains one of the most moving unconventional war films, but hopefully it won't remain one of the more under appreciated.

Colour Me Kubrick (2005)

Colour Me Kubrick is a story of the desire to be famous and a tongue-in-cheek satire of society's obsession with celebrity.

The story is told via John Malkovich via Alan Conway via Stanley Kubrick. Alan Conway was a lifelong con-man with any number of personalities who garnered some fame during the shooting of Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, for impersonating the director in order to swindle hapless dolts hoping to become famous. Kubrick, who was known for being a recluse and having very few interviews or even public photos, was a perfect target for Conway. And in reality, Conway's target wasn't Kubrick at all but the people who were shocked to be in the presence of the legendary director. Conway had never actually seen any of Kubrick's films nor did he know anything about Kubrick at all. He would start conversations and clumsily and within no context to the conversation mention that he was Stanley Kubrick, offer work on one of his films, then take the person for all they were worth, whether it be free drinks, chunks of money, or some good old fashioned butt sex (oh yeah, he also had an ancient Greek type love of pederasty).

The interesting thing about Conway is that he rarely swindled anyone out of substantial amounts of actual cash. More often, he would simply get people to buy him little things to sustain his lifestyle. It was more the idea of being famous, of having people paw over oneself that Conway was interested in.

While these scams were relegated mainly to the dim-witted londoners in Conway's circle, the real director himself had his image hurt when Conway's hoaxing gained notoriety. Far removed from the real Kubrick, Conway's taste for young men confused many people about the real Kubrick's sexuality. While Conway was merely in it for small gains, his victims were usually seriously hurt or in some cases ruined. More than anything, it was their egos and reputation that took the hardest blow. When Kubrick and the police attempted to criminally charge Conway, no one who had been duped by him was willing to testify out of sheer embarrassment.

If you have heard anything about this film at all, it probably has something to do with John Malkovich's performance. Indeed, it is a staggering work. Their were some liberties taken with the Conway character, including his dress and demeanor, but Malkovich certainly did his homework. While watching tapes and interviews of the impostor, Malkovich says he was surprised by Conway's lack of acting ability and how he would confuse accents during the same conversation. Malkovich is certainly a far superior actor than Conway ever was. Lucky for Conway, most people were just in awe to be around "Stanley Kubrick" and didn't dare to call him out (though their is a great scene where a cinephile catches Conway between Kubrick and Kramer).

Each scene in the film is completely anchored by Malkovich. He slides effortlessly in and out of character and accents, some as ridiculous as his wardrobe. Malkovich is simply stunning and hilarious. He delivers a myriad of all the personalities within Conway without giving us any idea of who Conway really is. Does Conway even know who he himself really is? No one can really be sure that he had any real emotions outside of his desire to be surrounded by celebrities and people who were willing to give him something for nothing.

The only small problem is that outside of Jim Davidson (as two-bit stage performer, Lee Pratt) their aren't any other real solid performances. Not so much because the actors were bad, but because they didn't get any real treatment as characters which keeps the audience from developing any kind of real sympathy or emotion towards anyone in the movie. However, this may be intentional, a way of telling us not to be so naive in the face of apparent stardom. Conversely, the film is all about Conway and Malkovich's enthralling performance and the other actors are not meant to be deep or sympathetic individually, but rather a collective idea of what people will risk for fame or the chance to know a celebrity. They are not multi-faceted, but the shallow representation of society's fascination and obsession with celebrity. That being said, Malkovich's performance makes or breaks the movie. In my opinion (which is always right) it makes it, and very funny to boot. However, if something about his preening and effeminate character (which the creators admit is more flamboyant than the real Conway's character) somehow turns you off, then you will be in for a very long hour and a half. Within the first five minutes you will probably know if you should exchange your tickets for Wild Hogs.

Now onto the technical side. The story itself, while being linear in structure, often comes off as repetitive. It is based off of short episodes with Alan Conway duping one or more poor schmucks, rinse, repeat. The problem with this is that it doesn't seem like the film is going anywhere and could make some viewers restless. Also, it scratches the surface of fame addiction, but never really gives it a full treatment. Right before the vignette where Conway latches onto pseudo-celebrity Lee Pratt and finally gets caught, forcing him to pull off his biggest scam yet, I was felt like it was dragging. In fact, I didn't see the ending coming at all, but when it abruptly arrived it was welcome.

Many of the crew formerly worked with Kubrick giving the film an air of the auteur himself. Most notable, is Brian Cook (Kubrick's Assistant Director for many films) who makes his directorial debut with this one. Technically, the movie is solid, especially with the score. Their are some hilarious/surreal moments where use of classical compositions from 2001 juxtapose the depravity of Conway's act. The style of directing, use of sound and cinematography are all well done in their own regard, but also work as a kind of homage or farewell to the great director.

For anyone who is known to fluff Stanley Kubrick to no end (e.g. Me), this movie will be a real treat. It works independently of its ties to Kubrick as an interesting if not thoroughly developed look into the obsession of celebrity, but it is almost certain that anyone with a knowledge of the director will appreciate it much further. While it lacked it some regards, it is a genuinely laugh out loud movie based on clever dialogue and great acting, not just fart jokes and teens copulating with pastries. This type of film is getting harder to find and I recommend all you Kubrick lovers to search it out.

13 (Tzameti) (2005)

Gela Babluani's first film is a stark, neo-noir thriller. Just kidding, but that's what every other review has said in a nutshell. I guess the noir tag isn't too far off. There are detectives (though they aren't that instrumental to the plot), it is in black and white, and it is extremely tense. I guess the stark tag comes from the black and white film, which is the cliche way to describe such a film with serious themes.

Now, some of you may be thinking, 'Didn't this come out awhile ago?' Yes it did, but it just came out on DVD and the release in theaters was minimal at best, so shut up. No one reads this stupid blog anyway, so fuck it.*

13 is written and directed by Gela Babluani and stars his younger brother George. They are the sons of famed Georgian (that would be the country) director Temur Babluani (I don't know who that is either).

Anyway, the story starts with Sebastien (Babluani the younger) working as a laborer in a small coastal city of France. We see that his family is living in near poverty and that they depend heavily on Sebastien's wages. Apparently, they are Georgian immigrants, but I would never have known if I hadn't read up on it. Sebastien is working for a morphine addicted criminal who is quickly running out of money. While working on the hole in his roof, Sebastien hears his employer talking about going to Paris to get in on another score where he is hoping to bring home a substantial sum of money. Days later, the employer overdoses leaving his mistress penniless and unable to pay Sebastien for any of his work. By fortuitous chance Sebastien finds the letter containing the ticket to Paris with instructions. Down on his luck and unable to bring himself to tell his family that he wouldn't be paid, he takes the ticket and goes to find his fortune in Paris (think Antioni's, The Passenger).

Little to his knowledge, Sebastien has a determined detective on his trail, as his former employer was under surveillance. Through clever means unbeknownst to Sebastien, he avoids the police and makes it to his destination none the wiser.

Sebastien's youthful naivety and innocence is abounding. He has had a fresh hair cut and wearing his best (and probably only) pair of dress shoes. Once he meets his sponsors though, things go beyond his control. Circumstances dictate that Sebastien now has no choice but to take the dead man's place as his sponsors stand to lose money and credibility if not. He is only referred to by his number for the game, 13.

The game to be played is similar to Russian Roulette, except that it involves several guns at once. The players stand in a circle, put a bullet in their pistol, spin the cylinder, and fire (think, The Deerhunter). They all stand to make a lot of money or lose their lives. Black and white. Sebastien wants to run, but he is trapped and surely dead if he refuses to play.

What follows is an extremely intense film, unrecommended for those with high blood pressure or pussies in general. Some say it is a commentary on the free market economy, supposedly showing what people will do to earn a quick buck or make ends meet. However, the protagonist actually tries to back out once he discovers what he must do. The other players are either junkies addicted to the adrenaline or have some sick fixation with the game and money. The free market economy comparison is tenuous at best, and at worst, stupid.

Babluani himself said it was a movie about violence. He relates to the violence that he saw in revolutionary Georgia and puts it into a different context. Much as Sebastien is an unwilling participant to this game, Babluani was probably in a similar dilemma growing up in war-torn Georgia. Their is also speculation that this type of twisted gambling actually takes place, as evidenced by interviews and film commentary. Babluani simply took the idea and ran with it, expanding the concept of a taut and depraved 'game' into a look at the effect of violence on the pysche, intertwined with his own experiences as a Georgian immigrant in France.

The result is one of the best freshman film efforts this renowned critic has ever seen. Tzameti has its flaws, sure, but it more than makes up for them in other aspects. The most common complaint was that the premise couldn't support a feature length film.

It is true that not much really happens in this movie in terms of actions and time. Their are a few events and a few consequences. However, each act has so much weight behind it that the consequences of it are rarely anything but dire. Sebastien's original choice leads sets off a domino effect that snowballs until he is no longer in control, much like how Babluani purposefully directs the action. The viewer may want to turn away or take a breather, but we are forced to join Sebastien's terrible journey. Perhaps even harder to imagine are the few minutes between each round where the thinning group of players are calming their nerves through drug and drink, trying not to think that their life could end in the next half-hour.

The idea of circularity plays a large theme in this film. The barrel of the gun. The circle they stand in while playing the game. It could be taken to mean any number of things, but the circularity of violence is a clear thematic expression made in this film. The Russian Roulette circle expresses it on a topical level, but the deeper circle of depravity and wont of care for human life is evident. Higher stakes, more money, more bullets, everything spirals downward until one man is standing and it begins again. The camera swivels around the inside of the circle. We see a frame with a player's arm extended, cut off at the wrist, another arm is coming from the other side of the frame holding a gun pointed right at the player's head. It gives the impression that he is killing himself, which, he essentially is by taking part in this game. But, what happens when the player is there by mere circumstance?

These and other questions are all at play in 13 (Tzameti). While the film examines deeper issues, it remains at heart a thriller. Anyone who said it was predictable is a really bad liar. Babluani builds tension so effectively that the release isn't even important. It is one of the best thrillers in recent memory, original and daring, yet also stands out as example of directorial brilliance. Babluani made a remarkable first film and I will eagerly await to see what he comes up with next.

[DVD Features: Interviews with cast and crew, an interview with a man who claims to have taken part in the games depicted in the film and a hilarious short film (that is, if you enjoy watching old ladies shoot themselves in the face)]


*Editor's Note: This article was started in March and only recently finished, so the comment that the DVD was just released is no longer valid. However, we stand by the fact that no one reads this stupid fucking blog anyway

Upcoming releases: March 2007

The shit-tastic end of Feb. is almost over, and luckily enough a few decent films are on the horizon for March. Here's what looks interesting to me (i.e. what is best):

March 2nd:


Black Snake Moan: Samuel L. Jackson with gold fronts tying up Christina Ricci with a metal chain for being a sexual deviant? I'm there. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462200/trailers

Zodiac: Fincher's (Seven, Fight Club) newest outing. Features Jake Gyllenhal with impressive side-burns hunting down a guy who kills people with some basis in the Zodiac (yeah, I hate those astrology people too). Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443706/trailers

March 9th:


300: The adaptation of Frank Miller's (Sin City) graphic novel loosely (being generous there) based on the battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans defended a mountain pass against an army of Persians. Full of gore and fantasy elements, fan-boys have been blogging for months. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/trailers

The Host: A gory Korean movie about a mutated sea-monster with serious anti-American overtones? I'm there. Catch it before the American remake or you'll miss all the pejorative commentary against our fine country. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468492/trailers

Nomad: It's nice! Fans of Borat will probably not laugh as hard at this latest offering from Kazahkstan. The biggest epic to come out of Central Asia (40 mil. budget) was picked up by the Weinstien brothers, touched up and had its release date pushed back. Now, the Kazahkstanis are ready to take over the world. The story revolves around a young boy who is destined to unite 18th Century Kazahkstan (and I thought the Russians still owned them at that point). Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374089/trailers

March 16th:


The Wind That Shakes the Barley: The most recent winner of the prestigious Palme d'Or at Cannes is about two Irish brothers living in the turbulence of the early 20th century. The film looks at the brutality of both the IRA and the Black and Tans, specifically in the rift that it causes between the two brothers. Caused some controversy with whiney English people for its alleged anti-Britain message (guess that's what happens when you slaughter a ton of people). This is easily my pick for movie of the month and possibly of an early 2007. Notice the release date. Directed by Ken Loach. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460989/trailers

March 23rd:

Not so much going on here. Guy Pearce in a thriller, girls in Tehran trying to go to a soccer match, and Adam Sandler looking like Bob Dylan in a drama with Don Cheadle.

March 30th:

Two decent looking comedies this week including Blades of Glory and Live Free or Die.

Blades of Glory will test how much more Will Ferrell can get away with being Will Ferrell (a lot I'm guessing) and also co-stars that annoying douche from Napolean Dynamite (i.e. the movie that people quote, but don't watch). Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445934/trailers

Live Free or Die is penned by two Seinfeld writing alums with an apparently hilarious performance from Paul Schneider. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432318/trailers


Rescue Dawn: Another big release for this month. A soldier who is taken prisoner in Laos during the Vietnam war bands with other soldiers to escape. So, why is it a big deal? It's directed by Wener Herzog and stars Christian Bale. Expect pretentious hipsters such as myself to be aplenty at theaters on opening day. Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462504/

Leben der Anderen, Das (The Lives of Others) (2006)

The freshman effort of writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (say that fast five times) is a familiar story: Boy joins the GDR stasi (East Germany and the seceret police for those who are illiterate), falls in love with spying on people and torturing capitalists, becomes a professor, gets assigned an important field job years later, begins to feel sorry for his assignment, turns in their favor, and ultimately has to decide what side he is on. A tale as old as time. More generally, it is about decisions, consequences, trust, and privacy.

We first meet Captain Weisler (Ulrich Muhe) as a professor. In a chilling opening scene, he shows his students the best way to obtain information from someone who doesn't want to give it. He plays back a tape of himself asking a suspect the same question over and over for hours without sleep, food, or water. When a student says that this is cruel he puts a mark next to his name on the attendance sheet. Thus, we are introduced to Captain Weisler, a badass socialist spying machine with no love or allegiance to anyone but the GDR.

We also meet Minister Hempf (Thomas Thieme), who is quite suspicious of playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch). Dreyman writes loyal socialist plays about the joys of factory work and love of state, but Hempf has a sneaking suspicion about his values (not really, he just wants to bone his girlfriend). Anton Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur), a former peer of Wiesler who has since been elevated to lieutenant, is asked to find something on Dreyman. As you may have guessed, he goes to Wiesler to lead the surviellance.

It turns out that Dreyman really is as neutral as he seems to be, much to the discontent of his revolutionary, box-shaped emo-glasses wearing friends. Hempf pushes for something which Dreyman can be detained for and luck comes their way when the death of a friend inspires Dreyman to write an anti-GDR article for a West German periodical.

What follows is a thriller of sorts, tense in some parts and apathetic in others. The movie's strength lies in its writing and acting.

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck has a great script here; original, well thought out, witty, and unpredictable. The cast of characters is rich and the story intriguing. We have a story from the past with direct ties to the future given the dissolution of personal freedoms in our own country.

*WARNING: Irrational and pansy like complaining about a pet peeve follows*

However, allow me to vent for a moment. The story itself stands alone without reference to the Patriot Act. It explores the psyches of others, exposes to the world a little known secret of the stasi, and asks us who we trust amongst other things. Even still, I have seen several reviews that do nothing but compare it to our current situation and praise it for its social relevancy. Except...it's a German film by a German director! Maybe it is in reponse to the deterioration of freedom throughout the world in general or I'm not paying enough attention to Germany's own situation (which I've never been accused of), but this seems myopic or at best an intrasigent interpretation of this film. Maybe American reviewers are just pompous enough to apply the themes and morals of every movie to American life or maybe I shouldn't be watching movies as if they existed in their own universe. Either way, that annoyed me, but I digress.

*End of girl like bitching*

The acting is solid all around and led by Ulrich Muhe as Captain Weisler. He is ice-cold, almost robotic as his former self and convincingly passionate and compelled in the person he becomes. And because the character is a silent man, Muhe expresses most of these emotions simply through his eyes and subtle facial gestures. The rest of the group portrays a non-vocal air of despair and fear of persection under the stasi, marked by outbursts of hopelessness. Ulrich Tukur is also thoroughly unctious and sleazy as Lt. Grubitz.

The directing however, was almost non-existent. The use of color, mise en scene, angles, or architecture (or anything else for that matter) is just not there. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck keeps it subtle, but in doing so shows no sign of being an auteur. His style doesn't grip you because it is nonexistent. If he continues to film this way his work will be hard to pick out from any other average director.

Also, he failed when it came time to pull intense emotions from his actors. The coldness of the characters reflected their situation and deperation, but when things come to a head the transition is awkward and the lack of emotion leaves one devoid of the sympathy that Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck is asking from us.

Which brings this to my biggest complaint here. The plot twists, but the movie doesn't keep up. The actors don't change when they need to or do so with no transition. Wiesler's change of heart is almost instant, which is somewhat unexplainable considering how much time is spent showing us what a hardass he is.

The movie gets more intense and the directing stays the same, the pacing does not become more frentic, and what could be an extremely tense thriller doesn't live up to that billing.

In that same ilk, the movie pushes for the serious themes that I mentioned before and ends with a glopping heap of sentimentality. After a solid lead up, the end dissapoints. It wasn't predictable, that's not it. It just didn't fit in with the rest of the movie and took on a much more saccharine disposition than the somber tone throughout. Even though their is some tragedy near the end (hey, European films usually have at least one main character die), it is unfeeling because of lack of character development and is overshadowed by the sugary plot twist that finishes the film. Corny is another good word to describe it.

Overall, it is a very strong movie. It has an interesting and engrossing plot, introspective dialogue and a great ensemble cast (Martina Gedeck is begrudgingly convincing as Dreyer's drug and fame addicted girlfriend). It also uses music well in setting the scene and referencing the plot. The unfortunate turn that it takes and the lack of directorial ingenuity/risk doesn't kill The Lives of Others outright, it just keeps it from being great.

I would reccomend it (it will probably will get a broader release with the Oscar nomination), especially with the slew of crap that is being released last week and this week. The hype from Telluride and the Oscar nod are a bit unfounded in my opinion, but they do show the American cinema's love of sugary, airtight finales.

Filmmaker Quotes #2: Glauber Rocha

"We know-since we made these sad, ugly films, these screaming, desperate films where reason does not always prevail-that this hunger will not be cured by moderate governmental reforms and that the cloak of technicolor cannot hide, but aggravates, its tumors."

-Glauber Rocha from the essay, "An Esthetic of Hunger." 1965

From the Archives #1: Marked For Death (1990)

Last week I watched the trinity of epic late 80's/early 90's action films- Commando, Marked For Death, and Roadhouse -and it was clear that one of them was a cut above the rest...

...While Commando had an impecable death count in both quantity and method (impaling people on pipes, breaking necks, scalping people with loose saw blades, etc.) and several classic one-liners ("Let off some steam, Bennet")...

...And while Roadhouse starred Patrick Swayze as a bouncer with a NYU degree in philosophy, features gratuitous sex and Swayze ass-shots, and also has amazing dialogue ("Pain don't hurt")...

...Marked For Death just ranks higher on the testorterone filled skull-crushing scale. The acting is just bad enough that it is unintentionally funny, likewise for the clothing. It tries in no way to establish any kind of reasonable plot or explain the many holes in said plot. It suffers from nearly all of the bad action cliches, but makes up for it in sheer violence and bloodletting.

Any of Seagal's first four, three-word-titled movies (Above the Law, Out For Justice, Hard to Kill) follow a similar structure and ethos. Seagal tries to reform in some way, someone he loves gets hurt/kidnapped, and he proceeds to kill, maim, break bones. and scowl for an hour.

It's a toss up, really, but Marked For Death is my personal favorite. Something about Jamaican Voodoo gangs who smoke crack with highschool kids after school one minute, and the next shoot up a crowded bar with machine guns appeals to me.

It also features Steven Seagal in his prime. Orange with fake tan, somewhat overweight, but still spry, and still enjoying himself. It was his third movie and arguably his peak. He had perfected his glaring at this point and did a thoroughly manly job by looking completely pissed off for the entire movie.

And the action! At any given time someone is shooting a gun or people are fighting. Seagal stabs people in their livers, breaks at least 3 people's arms (all in different ways), shoots women in the face, and throws several people face first through glass (amongst other things). This is not to mention all the various bystanders and random gang members/cops who are killed. Then the movie concludes with Steaven Seagal fighting the twin brother of the Rastafarian gangleader who he killed just minutes before: finsihing him off by tearing out his eyes, breaking his back, and then throwing him down an elevator shaft where he is impaled on the ground floor. Seagal walks out of the building grimaces at the camera, cut, roll credits (Don't worry, I didn't ruining anything for you. It is almost impossibly better than it sounds). The best part is that their isn't a single close fight in the film, not even the last one. Steven Seagal gets punched a total of two times but he manages to kill dozens of people and permanently maims countless others.

The directing is fast-paced, cliche with action shots, and utterly dependent on using slow-motion every time Steven Seagal breaks someone's face. The editing is choppy, the cinematography basic. However, they never fail to catch the violence and never turn away from gore or crippling, and the light is always half-shadowed to enhance the irritated, almost disgusted look on Seagal's face. The music, while synthesized and repetitive, has a strange decadal transition quality to it (Somewhere between bad late 80's synth pop and bad early 90's techno) .

The extreme campyness only makes the graphic violence that much more obscene, and vice versa. It's a delicate yin and yang between awkward acting and colon-crushing, unremorseful violence and destruction. And Marked For Death walks that line expertly.

Simply put, this isn't a movie for pussies.

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100114/trailers