.png)
“The Hottie and the Nottie”
Directed by Tom Putnam
PREFACE: I was never able to pick up a copy of “Oldboy” this week, so that review will be pushed back for a while until I can get my hands on one. But for now, here is a UFC for a different movie…
“The Hottie and the Nottie.” Ever hear of it before? No? Well, actually, it came out in theaters, and about a hundred of them. It somehow amazed me that this film was not only playing at one theater near me in the slumps of South Jersey, but played at THREE of them. So if it is released in a hundred theaters and somehow appears in South Jersey three times, it must have been a shitty movie, correct?
The cast of “The Hottie and the Nottie” is the following: Christine Lakin, Adam Kulbersh, Johann Urb, The Greg Wilson (no, that’s his real stage name), Joel David Moore, and Paris Hilton. I understand if you don’t know the names of any of them but the last one, but that name alone is a reason to stay away from “The Hottie and the Nottie.”
But I didn’t. I’m not one of the very few people who went to go see this in the movies (according to the Houston Chronicle, an average of twenty-eight people went to go see this movie opening weekend per theater) but I am one of the few people that dished out an hour and a half of their time to take the time and watch the movie. I wasn’t going to call it shitty without actually watching the movie now, and who knows? Maybe I might like it. Maybe hell might freeze over and maybe I might name “The Hottie and the Nottie” my favorite movie of 2008. Maybe hell might freeze over double and maybe I might name it my favorite movie of all time.
Yeah, no way in hell that was going to happen.
If you don’t already know the story of “The Hottie and the Nottie” by now just by reading the title, you really are as stupid as you look. But if you are, then I shall tell it to you… not because you are stupid, because you just have to tell the plot of a film before you review it. Don’t you know the film critic’s rule book by now?
For years, Nate Cooper (Joel David Moore, who starred in last year’s “Hatchet” and this year’s very terrible “Spiral”) has had bad luck with every single thing in his life, but nothing can be as bad as his luck with women. It is not because he is bad with them, but because they just aren’t the love of his life. Ever since the first grade, the only girl he has ever loved was Cristabelle Abbott. (Paris Hilton) After he finally gets tired of being single all of his life and hoping to find her, he seeks her to be his one and only love. 
Unfortunately, there is a catch. Cristabelle has an ugly and hideous roommate, who was her same ugly and hideous friend from the first grade. June Phigg (Christine Lakin) is a toe-infected, mole-faced, heavy-drinking woman who also just wants one thing in life – a man that will take care of her and love her for the rest of her life. Cristabelle knows this and for that she gives up dating any man until June finds herself a man in her life.
So you know what this means, right? So I don’t have to say it? This movie is just as much, if not more, misogynistic than last year’s “Good Luck Chuck.” Here is a girl who just wants the best for her friend, and here comes a guy that is willing to find her a man just so he can get some alone time with the girl that he likes, not even caring whether or not that this girl will like the man that he sets her up with. He even tries to pay someone to go out with her, and once the toe nail starts flying, you can expect her reaction to it.
But that isn’t even the worst part about Nate. Nate isn’t just all for himself, but he just doesn’t deserve Cristabelle period. Aside from the fact that this Sasquatch-looking motherfucker doesn’t really stand next to her too right, the two are very different from each other. Let’s face it, Paris Hilton, no matter how slutty, is one of the hottest girls to ever live. And Nate, well, he looks like he got off a circus train and is willing to suck dick for some food. It would also be nice if Moore could bring some talent to his role, but I guess that would be asking for just a little bit too much.
As much as you don’t want to, you can’t help but feel sorry for Lakin’s character. Oh, of course, you just want to laugh when you see a bunch of hair fall off of her head, but you feel bad for Lakin herself. A pretty girl like that doesn’t deserve to be in a movie where she is portrayed as an ugly one. Even in some scenes, her make-up looks so fake that you can actually see the pretty in her. Christ, these guys can’t even do UGLY right…
And yeah, you probably don’t believe a single part of this sentence, but Paris Hilton isn’t the worst part of the movie. Hell, I don’t even want to admit this, but she is the BEST part of this movie. I know that you didn’t believe me, but if you have the balls, just watch the film. There is a scene where you can find over twenty things wrong. The scene involves midget mimes, Lakin’s makeup, and a guy who comes out of nowhere fifty minutes into the film. Out of those twenty things, not one of them is Hilton. I’m surprised too, believe me.
“The Hottie and the Nottie” is probably the worst film that will be released this year, but it will be nowhere to be found on my worst films of 2008 post at the end of the year. This is because I’m not going to put any film on my list that you will find on everyone else’s worst of on mine. This will also include “Meet the Spartans,” “Witless Protection,” and “10,000 BC.” But believe it that “The Hottie and the Nottie” is the worst film that I’ve seen this year, and believe it when I say that you don’t need to waste your time and money to find out.
“Batoru rowaiaru” (“Battle Royale”)
Directed by Kinji Fukasaku
“Battle Royale” is seriously one of the most insane movies ever. Not because of the violence, or because that the characters are so young, but because it is just fucking awesome.
Okay, think about it.
You and forty-one other kids are thrown on an abandoned island with no one but the government and your classmates. You’re given a bag, which, inside, has a weapon. The objective of the game is to be the last kid standing and kill the rest. One of the kids on the island is a bully and when you check your bag, you got a nice machete. His weapon? Numchucks.
Believe me, you have a field day.
Now think of it if I was on that island with ten celebrities – Dan Fogler, Dane Cook, Lindsay Lohan, Ryan Seacrest, Ashton Kutcher, a Penguin from “Happy Feet,” Bob Saget, Carlos Mencia, Jason Friedberg, and Aaron Seltzer.
I probably wouldn’t kill them, but I would perform “torture-porn” acts on them.
Dan Fogler – make him run around the island until he passes out.
Dane Cook – make him swim in bullshit.
Lindsay Lohan – it’s too late. Andy Dick fed her cocaine. 
Ryan Seacrest – call the talent police to escort him off the island.
Ashton Kutcher – lock him up in a cellar and let Justin Timberlake sing to him.
Penguin from “Happy Feet” – cut off of his feet and see if they heal himself. Then make him dance.
Bob Saget – same as the Penguin.
Carlos Mencia – well isn’t it obvious? Call the immigration. (See Carlos, I can make unfunny racist jokes too.)
Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer – use your imagination.
Anyway…
Like I said above, “Battle Royale” is a pretty damn fine movie. It’s one that many haven’t seen, but it is one that many have to see. Unfortunately, no one wanted to distribute it in the United States, so instead, you have to import a copy or get it off of NetFlix (the region one copy). I’m sure that many of you guys have actually seen the film though. Last year, WWE Films made an unofficial remake of “Battle Royale” called “The Condemned.”
In the near future, Japan will be a mess. Many people won’t have jobs and kids won’t go to school anymore. Japan passes the Battle Royale Act. One class is randomly selected to participate in the game. Forty-two kids are thrown on an island and are given a bag of supplies and one weapon. One kid must become the winner of the game by killing all of the other kids. The Last Man Standing will be given three days to get rid of everyone on the island, or else, the kids will all blow up with the chain on their necks.
It is that simple.
Some people will be surprised to find out that the film actually has some subplots hidden in the film. There are forty-two kids, and when two are killed within the twenty minute mark, we watch these forty kids try and kill one another. Or do they? Some of the kids fight to survive by killing the others, whereas some of the kids try to get off the island without fighting. The simple plot becomes that complex within seconds.
“Battle Royale” never lets go of the action. It is bloody, furious, mad, cynical, violent, and all of the most entertaining. Remember that movie that I first reviewed for my UFC article? The message in that film was that violence was meant to be feared and not to be entertaining. The filmmakers of “Battle Royale” disagree. Within moments, the game begins with a fat kid shooting a girl in the throat with an arrow. Even before that, a soldier shoots two kids.
But none of us should forget the fact that this is fake. The point of the movie IS to be entertained. Violence can be entertaining only if there is no point. The Battle Royale Act is so absurd that you begin questioning why it was created in the beginning. To watch these kids fight for something so stupid is pure entertainment. Believe me, I saw plenty of fights that were over stupid shit. Ever see a kid beat another kid up because he lost struck out? Yeah, I did.
And sure, there is a fine line when absurdity becomes serious. While this film was being made, the Columbine Massacre was taking place. The two kids involved in the deaths of thirteen and the dozens of injured were bullied by their classmates. For no reason other than being bullied, they brought enough guns and bullets to shut down the entire school. Columbine is considered to be the reason why “Battle Royale” is so remembered, but I say that is absurd. Columbine is supposed to be taken seriously because it actually happened. “Battle Royale” never did. And more than likely never will.
The biggest problem with “Battle Royale” is its happy ending. The film never constitutes to be a happy film. I won’t spoil the film for you, but if you think that there will be one winner, you are sadly mistaken. That being said, not all forty are winners either. I’ll let you watch it before I should allow you to judge the ending for yourself.
“Battle Royale” doesn’t really deserve not being shown here in the United States. By now, you would figure that everyone who witnessed the events of Columbine or had friends or family hurt in the tragic Virginia Tech shoot-out that they would have moved on by now and lived their life starting with today. It’s not a serious topic that “Battle Royale” is usually brought up in, but it’s understandable why it isn’t normally viewed here.
Only you can decide…
Next time on UFC: I’ll be taking a three week break to get things situated around the house, but after those three weeks, I will be revisiting not one, but TWO similar films that take on the subject of revenge – Park Chan-Wook’s “Oldboy” and Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill Vol. 1.”
“Freddy Got Fingered”
Directed by Tom Green
[November 2000: Conference Room – Tom Green, Man #1, and Man #2 are sitting at a table.]
Man #1: Hey Tom.
Man #2: Hey Tom.
Tom Green: Hello Man #1, Man #2.
Man #1: Tom, I just can’t BELIEVE the success from your last movie. What was it called again?
Tom Green: Oh, THAT one. Umm… something like “Trippy Road Trip.”
Man #1: Ah, yes. THAT one.
Man #2: It has made like sixty-six million. Nice job.
Tom Green: Yep it was all my work.
Man #1: Really? What do you mean?
Tom Green: Oh well let’s face it. People only CAME to the movie to see me, ya know? I’m the hottest piece of ass around. I’m so smart that Drew Barrymore decided to date me.
Man #1: Have you gotten a tap at that yet?
Tom Green: Nope, nope, not yet, just… waiting for the right moment. She’s the kind of person with the… you know.
Man #2: Oh, abstinence.
Tom Green: Yeah, that’s the word. I was thinking of abortion.
Man #1: Have you snorted any powder off of her chest yet?
Tom Green: Nah, she’s about three years clean.
Man #1: REALLY!?
Tom Green: Yeah…. NAH I’m just joshing you. Actually, after the god-awful “Charlie’s Angels,” she went back to that stuff.
Man #2: Ah, fuck was that movie awful.
Tom Green: Fucking a jaws that was. Every time she asks me if I liked it, I lie and say yes. It makes me want to do a line.
Man #1: Don’t blame you, sir. Anyway, what can we do for you today?
Tom Green: Okay. Well after the GREAT SUCCESS of “Trippy Road Trip,” I decided that we should create a movie where it was just… ME.
Man #1: You mean like “The Tom Green Movie?”
Tom Green: Yes, but instead of a movie that was just me, it would be me doing some crazy stuff.
Man #2: Really? Like what?
Man #1: Yeah, try and sell the idea to us.
Tom Green: Okay. Well, I really want to say a lot of fucks. Honest to god, I want to say fuck.
Man #1: Yeah, yeah, I get it. Keep going. 
Tom Green: I know a lot of people who can draw too. I want to be able to draw some great pictures. I mean, even Anne Frank could draw.
Man #2: It doesn’t take a retard to do that.
Tom Green: I know, that’s why I’m so good.
Man #1: So what would it be about?
Tom Green: Okay, so it would start as me being the badass I am and skating through a mall. You know, a really BIG mall. A security guard would chase me through and I would later not crash into anything. Because you know, I’m so cool right?
Man #1: Aw that’s so awesome! What would be your character’s name?
Tom Green: I decided to name my character Tom Green.
Man #2: But you can’t do that.
Man #1: Yeah.
Tom Green: Why the hell not? I thought everyone appreciates my name.
Man #1: Oh, they do, but you don’t want to name your character Tom Green. That’s like calling us by our real names.
Man #2: Yeah, we can’t have that.
Tom Green: Okay fine. We’ll call my character Gord, because Gord is like an American name.
Man #2: EVERYONE has their child named Gord nowadays. That’s perfect!
Tom Green: Aw hell yes.
Man #2: Go on with your thoughts.
Man #1: I’m excited to where this is going to take us.
Tom Green: So I am supposed to take this bus to Los Angeles so I can become a fantastic animator like Spike Lee but my mom and dad, that will be played by a Christian mom and a drunk like Rip Torn, buy me a LeBaron, and then I get into a whole argument with my retarded younger brother that I have a LeBaron and he doesn’t.
Man #1: This is fascinating.
Man #2: Truly original.
Man #1: We should get Rip Torn!
Man #2: Ah I know. He hasn’t had a hit film since…
Man #1: “Cross Creek.”
Man #2: Yeah.
Tom Green: This one will definitely be the one to top that film.
Man #1: Ah, it sure will. Christ just the sound of it makes me want to whip out my penis.
Tom Green: Oh, speaking of penis, while I’m driving my LeBaron, I ride by a horse with a red rocket-
Man #1: Hold the fucking phone. What is a red rocket?
Tom Green: Scientists call it an erection, but I call it a red rocket.
Man #2: Ah, I know what an erection is.
Man #1: You do?
Man #2: Yeah, that’s what was going on when we voted for Al Gore.
Man #1: That was called a selection, ar-tard.
Man #2: My bad, dick-poop.
Tom Green: So anyway, I see his red rocket and I immediately stop the car, run onto the farm where his red rocket is held, and I begin to stroke that red rocket.
Man #1: Yeah, stroke that election.
Man #2: Erection.
Man #1: Oh my bad.
Tom Green: So after he spunks, I go back to the car and work at a cheese sandwich factory, where I play with the sausage.
Man #1: They have sausage at a cheese sandwich factory?
Tom Green: Not until now.
Man #2: You’re the smartest man ALIVE!
Tom Green: Ah, yes I am. Anyway, I meet the guy who I’m supposed to pitch my ideas to but then he tells me to get inside of the animals. You remember on “Trippy Road Trip” when I stuck that mouse inside of my mouth and let it sit in there?
Man #1: Yeah, of course.
Man #2: It was classic.
Tom Green: Yeah, well here is the best part. Instead of sticking an animal in my mouth, I actually get INSIDE of an animal.
Man #2: How the hell do you do that? 
Tom Green: With a knife, you silly puss.
Man #1: Yeah, you silly puss.
Tom Green: Doesn’t it sound like a masterpiece?
Man #2: Aw hell yeah.
Tom Green: So, while I’m on my adventures to becoming a star, I see a kid get hurt during every scene he’s in, my friend, played by the talented Harland Williams, breaks his leg and I actually DRINK his blood. And then here is the best part – while I’m at the hospital swinging a baby around on its umbilical cord, I meet a cripple that likes to give blowjobs and get her legs whipped by bamboo.
Man #1: That’s kinky.
Man #2: Yeah, I wish my wife would do that shit.
Man #1: Is that what Drew does to you?
Tom Green: Nah, I don’t let her touch my left and right.
Man #2: My wife doesn’t like to touch my left and right.
Man #1: I only touch my left and right when it is acceptable.
Man #2: It is ALWAYS acceptable to touch your left and right.
Tom Green: Yeah, just ask Rip Torn’s character. Later in the film, once I get tired of his shit, I say that he fingers my little brother.
Man #1: NOT UH!
Man #2: Tell us more.
Tom Green: Well, he really doesn’t, but I figure that the audience loves some incest and taboo.
Man #2: Rednecks do.
Tom Green: Then they will fall in love with this film.
Man #2: Oh, we already do.
Man #1: Yeah.
Tom Green: So do we got a deal?
Man #2: Aw, you know we can’t turn you down.
Tom Green: I know, I’m motherfucking Tom Green. I’m amazing.
Man #1: Oh I know. So before you leave, tell me, what will your character be like?
Tom Green: Like all of my characters – amazingly smart.
Man #2: Of course.
Man #1: Like book smart or street smart?
Tom Green: Both.
Man #2: That’s sweet.
Man #1: I never saw that coming.
Man #2: I want to see you sing a song in the movie though.
Tom Green: Like in “Trippy Road Trip?”
Man #2: Yeah, just like it.
Man #1: Just as good too.
Man #2: Make it a Billboard hit.
Tom Green: Actually I wrote something of my own if you want to hear it.
Man #2: Really? Yeah we would love to hear it. Flip it for us.
Tom Green: Okay…
Daddy would you like some sausage?
Daddy would you like some sausages?
Man #1: That’s fucking boss dude.
Man #2: Do you come up with these ideas by yourself?
Tom Green: Yeah, can’t you tell?
Man #2: Dude you’re amazing.
Tom Green: Oh, I know.
Man #1: Aww shit, I got to go. Guy Ritchie wants to make “Snatch 2.” Gahh…
Man #2: Dude, “Snatch 1” sucked anyway. Why would they want to make a “Snatch 2?”
Man #1: Beats me.
Man #2: I heard he’s getting married to Madonna. Maybe they should make a movie together.
Man #1: YEAH! And it could be a remake of some Italian film.
Man #2: Dude that movie would be fucking great.
Man #1: I’d pay to see it.
Man #2: I’d pay to see it TWENTY times.
Man #1: ME TOO!
Tom Green: How many times would you pay to see MY movie?
Man #1 & #2: TWENTY-ONE!
Tom Green: I thought so.
These guys think you are all idiots.
Whenever there is a good film like “Snatch,” you fucking pay for it with a “Swept Away” or “Freddy Got Fingered.”
Want to prove them wrong?
Show these dimwitted cocksuckers that you are smarter than what they make you out to be.
Next time on UFC: Everyone else has seen it and it is banned in the U.S. - "Battle Royale"
“Welcome to the Dollhouse”
Directed by Todd Solondz
No matter it seems to (un)impress me, but the days where I was younger just wasn’t has great as what some people consider they were to be. I’m sure I’ll look back at my days and say that I regret not doing this or that, but for now, I’m still saying the my younger years (from age 8 to age 12) just wasn’t as fun as what the media portrays childhood to be like.
It’s obvious that director Todd Solondz didn’t like his childhood to much either. His film “Welcome to the Dollhouse,” starring a very young and still very ugly Heather Matarazzo (and yes, to this day, she still looks like a very large pile of cat-turds), is an interesting look into the life of a seventh grade girl struck between love, bullying, popularity, and being noticed.
It is time where I shall say that Heather Matarazzo’s character, Dawn Wiener, is the most accurate portrayal of a seventh grade girl that I think I have ever seen. She did a better job than the girls in my fucking seventh grade class did. Dawn is relatable, confused, frightened, ugly, fat, and weak. She is the girls with the cooties. She is who we fear and she fears us.
“Welcome to the Dollhouse” tells the tale about Dawn Wiener. No one likes her at school. EVERYONE picks on her. One boy (Brandon Sexton III) will threaten to beat her friend’s ass and rape her after school ends after each and every school day. Wiener goes home and spends time with her mom and dad, (Angela Pietroopinto and Bill Buell) who never realize that she is there, her bratty younger sister, (Daria Kalinia) who gets ALL of the attention, and her wannabe rock-star brother, (Matthew Faber) who is in a band with the hottest, horniest, and best singer in the school. (Eric Mabius)
The film, without any real plot, goes to show the day in the life of Dawn Wiener. But what some people don’t understand that while watching the film is that we are seeing the film through the eyes of a seventh grade girl. I’ll never forget the time being in the seventh grade when I heard girls about their fears of being raped and being alone. It is obvious that everyone has those types of fears, but being at the tender age of 12, Dawn Wiener has heard of these fears, but just doesn’t know how to react to them as much as some adults do.
That being said, “Welcome to the Dollhouse” probably never happened. Yeah, I know it is a movie, so it never actually happened. But the film is being seen through the eyes of young Matarazzo. She is confused with love, lonely, and wants to be noticed and liked. This may not be the tale of a real-life person, but instead a fabricated tale created by the mind of a young girl.
Many people haven’t seen Terry Gilliam’s “Tideland.” In some instances, I don’t blame them. Before the film starts, Terry Gilliam hops on screen and says that you have to remind yourself that we’re watching the film from a little girl’s point-of-view. The entire flick is imaginative. Though that film is a fantasy and this film COULD happen, it’s being seen through the eyes of two characters that are very alike. Matarazzo’s character isn’t imaginative. She just hates her life. She thinks no one pays attention to her. She thinks she’s fat. She thinks that no one likes her. She thinks someone wants to rape her. It’s her fear – being rejected.
Then again, after all, isn’t that all of our fears in some way or another?
“Welcome to the Dollhouse” never actually spoke volumes back during its release date. It took a while for people to take notice of the film and the director himself. Since then, the film has become a cult hit. The cast has gotten new roles, most notably Mabius’s character in the American sitcom “Ugly Betty” (does anyone even watch that show anymore?) and Heather Matarazzo in “Hostel II.” Yes, the scene where she gets tortured is the best scene in the movie, but it’s not really that hard since the movie sucked. 
Like “Hostel II,” her character is very unlikeable here. Automatically, we hate her. We don’t even know her yet and just by looking at her from a picture it is already just too easy to despise her. She will be the girl at school that you just want to slap the shit out of for being there. There are instances in the film where she wants to do it to herself, but not because everyone hates her, but because she hates herself.
There is a scene where she asks Mabius’s character if he would like to join her “Special People” club. She doesn’t know what the meaning of special people is and she thinks that special people means… well… people who think they’re special. But then he informs her it means retarded, and that her club is for retards. She runs away thinking that she is a retard and hates herself for it. She calls her only friend a fag because she never knew what it meant.
The term “Welcome to the Dollhouse” is not supposed to be a happy term. We consider a “dollhouse” to be perfect and clean. It turns out that this dollhouse is more of a figurative phrase for hell. Everything here is a symbol of hell. The characters are hell, the setting is hell (it takes place in my home-state of New Jersey, I’ll have you know), and just thinking about the movie is hell. But I’ll have you know that “Welcome to the Dollhouse” is the best movie to take place in hell.
Fuck you, “Wristcutters.”
On the next UFC: I’m taking a break for something that I’m going to call “Movie Review Cleanup” for all of my sites and Hardcore Film Maniac blog, but when I return in two weeks, be prepared to see an analyzer analyze a movie that shouldn’t be analyzed in the first place, Tom Green’s masterpiece “Freddy Got Fingered.”
“Ichi the Killer”
Directed by Takashi Miike
The story of Takashi Miike is not a happy one. In fact, it’s much wilder than one can possibly imagine. You know the world of Japan that we see everyday, on shows like “Ninja Warrior,” “Channel 6 News,” and “Jackass?” Well, us bastards in the United States has no idea. In the REAL Japan, there are people with shoes that have blades on them, the Yakuza run ramped and carry guns without firing them, and people have these really weird masochistic sexual fantasies… oh, and people stick pins in their ears.
I was introduced to the world of Takashi Miike after watching “Audition” for the first time last year. Many have said that it is the most disturbing movie in the world of the Japanese, but I think I can still give that award to Miike’s “Master of Horror: Imprint” episode. Aside from “Audition,” many of Miike’s fans consider that his film, “Ichi the Killer,” is his masterpiece. They also claim that this Miike is the better Miike, compared to his children films like “The Great Yokai War.” (Why in the fucking fucks fuck do people actually hate that movie?)
Now I’m not the biggest Miike fan, but I have enough movie intelligence in my body to know whether or not if his films are quality. Aside from “Audition,” my favorite film of his is “Izo,” one that is more artsy than his other films are. I haven’t seen much other those five films that I listed before, but I do have “Visitor Q,” “Gozu,” the “Dead or Alive” films, and “Bodyguard Kiba” on my Netflix queue. I can’t tell you how disturbing these films are without seeing them, but I can tell you how disturbing “Ichi the Killer” is after watching it for the second time in two years…
Okay, so picture yourself sitting in a barber’s chair. You are about to get your haircut for your date with your girlfriend, and you’re about to propose to her later that night. The barber comes up to you, begins to give you a quick trim, and takes out his little blade and purposely cuts off your ear. You begin crying and blood is dripping down your body. Then you freeze and you realize that what you just seen was a hallucination. Then you go on about your day like you should.
THAT is what “Ichi the Killer” was to me.
“Ichi the Killer” is the single most overrated film that I have encountered in my travels. Not only is it the most boring of the two (three if you REALLY just HAVE to call both “Funny Games” film as two separate films), but it is the most tiring, the most confusing, and the most whiny film that I have ever seen. It reeks of misogyny and useless torture. But most of all, “Ichi the Killer” can’t play nice in order to be appreciated. It is only remembered for its useless torture. Everything else is forgotten about.
Kakihara (Tadanobu Asano) is a sadomasochistic (look it up if you don’t know what it means) Yakuza. After his boss is murdered, a group of men break into his room and still three-hundred million yen. After investigating a little bit, he finds a rival Yakuza member and tortures him… but when he finds out that he got the wrong guy, he apologizes. By saying sorry, he cuts off some of his tounge…
Okay, I don’t know what freaky shit you Japanese guys do over there, but in the United States, it just doesn’t work like THAT. When I accused someone of stealing one of my markers back in grade school, my teacher made me give the kid a cookie. It meant that I was sorry and I wanted to make it up. So why couldn’t this Kakihara guy just give the other Yakuza a goddamn cookie?
Anyways…
The actual guy who tipped Kakihara off was a retired cop by the name Jiji. (Shinya Tsukamoto) It turns out that Jiji actually has been controlling these events by using a mysterious man by the name of Ichi. (Nao Omari) Ichi is a deeply confused and cowardly man who keeps flashing back to a moment in his time where he is watching a woman get raped. By allowing Ichi to go after these Yakuza men, it allows the streets to be safer. It is Ichi that killed Kakihara’s boss, so when Kakihara finds this out, he decides that Ichi better say his prayers soon.
All I have to say about this plot is that it is as complicated as a plot can get. There are elements used in the film that you will have to watch time and time after again just to figure out that they aren’t really important to the actual story. For those who don’t know what a subplot is, it is a little literary element that doesn’t get mixed up into the actual plot. Many films have mixed both a plot and it’s subplot in quite wisely. Within the last few years, “V For Vendetta” and “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” used subplots quite well.
It’s a shame that I will have to say that “Ichi the Killer” doesn’t really add onto that list. Whenever the subplot mixes in with the actual plot, the audience will finally pick everything up after the fifth or sixth watch. The subplot in “Ichi the Killer” is mixed into the plot. Jiji is realizing that Ichi doesn’t want to do what he does anymore, and he sets Ichi up with Kakihara’s lady friend. (Alien Sun) The worst part is that what Ichi does in the end later affects the main plot, which gets the entire film jumbled up into a big mess.
I’ll admit, the first time that I watched “Ichi the Killer,” which was in the summer of last year, I enjoyed it. It was nowhere near my favorite film of Miike’s, but I was at awe with the torture sequences. For those of you who haven’t seen “Ichi the Killer,” I’ll keep the torture sequences secret, since they are the best part of the film.
But there is a fine line between USEFUL violence and USELESS violence, and the fact that I won’t keep secret is that the scenes are as useless as useless can get. I know Miike loves to torture his audience by torturing his characters. Hell, many will claim that it is why everyone loves “Audition.” With the exception of one torture scene, all of the other ones could have been easily cut out from this film. Sure, they’re fun to watch, but so is the entire film of “Saw.” Or what about “Funny Games”…
The only person that I really can’t put any blame on is Tadanobu Asano. Given his script, he puts on one of the most daring and frightening performances seen in any film. No matter how many times you watch “Ichi the Killer” you can never get over the fact how complicated and complex his character is. On one hand, Kakihara wants to get Ichi back for killing his boss, but then you have the fact that he wants to feel that affect of death himself. He is caught between these two dilemmas and can’t figure out which one he wants more. For the rest of the actors, though, can’t get a break, especially Nao Omari. His character of Ichi is such a fucking nuisance that you’re just WAITING for Kakihara to kill him.
After watching “Ichi the Killer,” I have come to the conclusion that Miike is not an auteur, but rather a pervert. There are a few scenes in “Ichi” where there are kinky uses of sexual fantasies. Some of these are rather graphic thoughts and the rest are actual graphic acts of sex. But think what kind of a man would THINK of something like this… would it be an auteur, a pervert, or just a sick freak?
THINK about what that says about YOU.
Next week on UFC: Being a kid sucks, but nothing sucks more than not being liked. I take a look at Todd Solondz’s cult-classic “Welcome to the Dollhouse,” starring a rather young Christina Vidal and *YUCK* Heather Matarazzo.
Welcome everyone to my first edition of a little weekly thing I'm starting to do called UFC: Ultimate Film Champion. The basis of this column is, of course, to watch some fine movies. Many know that I am a reviewer, but many don't know is how I like to analyze films more than I like to criticize them. So, I have a list of films at home that many tell me that are brilliant and I analyze them. No one recommended "Funny Games" to me... it just came from the blue sky as I watched the remake in theaters. These columns will be always longer than a traditional review, be a little bit more objective, and will give away many spoilers. In addition to all of that, I will be discussing the film's themes and ideas. The column will come out every Monday, but it's out early this week because I'm tired and will have almost no time to post it tomorrow. So thanks for reading and I hope you like what you find.
“Funny Games” (1997 and 2008)
Both directed by Michael Haneke
Please note that before you read ANY further that there will be tons and tons of spoilers. It’s nothing that I really can help while writing an essay for this movie, because I got enough points to bring up that I know I’ll give away the ending. Also, please realize I’m reviewing TWO movies – “Funny Games” from 1997… and “Funny Games” from 2008. The films have almost everything in common – the second film is a shot-by-shot remake, which means that EVERYTHING is the same. Think of Gus Van Sant’s abomination of “Psycho.”
After being a film critic for about twenty-some months or so, I have realized three things since arriving to the world of movie blogging and bullshitting…
1. Everyone on the outside-looking-in hates you. They will disagree with you because instead of watching “Norbit,” a film that made one-hundred million, you watch a film like “Zodiac” that only made thirty-three million. You know better than to trust teenagers when they say that they know movies… well most of them at least (excluding me, of course).
2. The public wants to see you humiliated. Not because it would make a good laugh (but you can always take the good laugh into account), but because they simply disagree with you. If you’re not on the bandwagon with the general public, then you are considered an outsider. You are considered as a fucking idiot. And I don’t care WHAT you say, “The Bourne Ultimatum” isn’t nearly as good as the first two were.
3. I didn’t have a third reason, other than having to repeat number two again.
Everyone has a filmmaker that they consider to be a great. Jerry loves Brian De Palma, Kelsey loves Wes Craven, and Royce loves Joss Wheldon. I think of many directors being great – Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Kevin Smith, Steven Spielberg, and Robert Rodriguez are a few of them. And dare you talk shit about any of them in front of me, I will be sticking the nearest thing that is twenty inches straight up your cornshooter.
There are some, though, that lead some of the biggest followings from such a small group of people. Takishi Miike, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and Werner Herzog lead a small but very dedicated fan group. I couldn’t call myself fans of all of the three, but I enjoy some of their films. It takes guts to call yourself a fan of these guys. You ask a college kid if they saw the latest Spielberg movie and they’ll say yes. You ask the same college kid if they saw Takishi Miike’s latest movie, they’ll look at you like you have twenty penises.
But dare you talk negative about them…
Along with that pair is a little known Australian director called Michael Haneke. I never heard of him before watching the film, and only saw a few minutes of “Cache” and didn’t know enough to know who he was. After searching around the internet for a little bit, I have come to notice that there are some die-hard Haneke fans. What else did I come to find out? Most of them consider “Funny Games” to be their favorite film of his.
For those of you unaware of what “Funny Games” is about, a wealthy family (in the Austrian version played by Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Muhe, and Stefan Clapczynski and in the American version played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and Devon Gearhart) travel to their vacation home, where they plan to do what most rich families do – play golf, fish out in their very open lake, and socialize with other rich people. Everything seems to be normal… until two men dressed in white outfits (in the Austrian version played by Arno Frisch and Frank Giering and in the American version played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbit) intrude their home, break the father’s leg, and force them to play a game in which they will be dead in twelve hours.
First off, I don’t know much about Haneke to analyze him, but the way that I see him after “Funny Games,” he HATES everything that is popular. Never jumps on the bandwagon and hates everything that everyone else likes. “Funny Games” is, without a doubt, the movie that will show you how much Michael Haneke hates clichés in movies. Yes clichés. You know, the 555 shit on the phone numbers and final girls. Some will say it is skewering clichés, but it’s not even THAT. Michael Haneke made a film where there is not a single cliché to be found. It’s not to make fun of clichés, but it is to ignore every single cliché in general and make a film that relies on something other than clichés – giving the audience the complete opposite of what they are expecting.
Although the point can’t be ignored that this was never Haneke’s true intention of “Funny Games,” it leads you to question his actual methods of the film. On the remake’s official website lies an essay from Haneke himself (it’s on there, you just have to keep clicking for it). He argues about how violence is portrayed in the media. He says that within these past few years, the audience as changed the way the media portrays violence. Torture-porn, a phrase coined by David Edelstein once “Hostel” was released back in January 2006, wasn’t known of back when “Funny Games” was originally released in 1997. He says, and I quote, “The complete change of interchangeability of content devoid of all reality ensures that everything that is portrayed will be utterly fictitious, giving the audience a pleasant sense of security.”
Do you get that you little teenaged boppers? The things that you see in “Hostel” and “Turistas?” They aren’t real. Do you actually think that anyone pours blood onto their boobs and sticks a cheese-grater up their genitalia? No. Now let’s continue…
Later on in the article, Haneke asks, and I quote once again, “… how can we make the audience aware of their role in the loss of reality? How can the viewer be transformed from the media victim to potential participant?” This is explained by the scenes where one of the two killers occasionally looks into the camera, smiles, winks, or talks to you, or called in the movie business “breaking the fourth wall.” In "Funny Games,” when the killers break the fourth wall, it make the viewer feel like that they are right there with the killers. Only one of the two in both films actually know that they are in the movie, so to speak, so both of the same characters look at you, smile, tell you to place bets, and join along with the fun. They’re putting on the show FOR YOU.
Many people have a problem with the film’s climax. In this scene, the mother reaches for the shotgun and takes out one of the killers. The one, that realizes that he is a movie, grabs a remote and rewinds it back to the scene. Now, when she goes for the shotgun, he pulls it back from her and shoots the husband. What this is trying to show is that in most of these movies, the whole deal where a hero against two villains tries to fight their way back and win the battle happens too many times. It becomes literally predictable and nowadays whenever you see it, you finally understand how unrealistic the film you’re watching is. By rewinding it, Haneke fooled with your emotions, your thoughts, and you.
At the end, Haneke makes notice that those heroic films are complete bullshit. If you pull a gun out at a family in their home, they will surrender and you are free to do whatever you want as long as you leave them alone. In film, it doesn’t work out like that. You are usually occupied with someone who is so dimwitted where you would be surprised that they could fire a gun. The killers from both movies point out the film’s message to the viewers the way it should be pointed out – what you see in the movies aren’t real, but what is real you will never see in the movies.
Have you ever seen a film where you want to root for the villains instead of the heroes? I’m not talking about anti-heroes, but rather I’m talking about plain old villains, the ones back in the days that were always dressed up in black. By sticking us with these two rather unlikely villains, he shows us that everyone can be a villain, and it could be people that you least expect it. The villains here are two villains, dressed in white, that are rather polite but very demanding.
Within these past few years, directors have made villains look tough and over-the-top. Whether you are Jigsaw, a rehash of Michael Myers or Leatherface, or the killers from “Hostel,” if you can kill someone, you are the scariest thing around. If you’re walking around with blood on your shoes, you are considered to be the villain. But by these two villains acting polite, you can see that by saying please and thank you, it frightens you and the victims in the film, which makes you uneasy and shakey.
One of the killers says at the last moment that “the family was in reality, but the hero is in fiction.” But the other killer forms a rebuttal and says that if the fiction is real, because by watching it on film, it’s just as real as what we see in the media. I think that most that are reading this article are too old to figure out that the boogeyman isn’t real, but I also think that nowadays the boogeyman is considered to be an icon in the media. Those bastards in the media have figured out that the boogeyman is our deepest fear, so they have tried to come up with a logical reason as to why we fear him so much. By stalking teenaged girls, stacking bodies after bodies in garages, and haunting your dreams, there is a different kind of boogeyman that we now fear – the boogeyman of the media.
Of course, everyone has a different view of what is the boogeyman. Some will say Michael Myers is the ultimate boogeyman, while others will disagree and say that Freddy Kruger is. Remember at the beginning of the article when I was talking about how people will jump on top of you for disagreeing with you? Well, followers of Haneke will agree that the ultimate boogeymen are these two killers.
I’ve been going on about this for years now. Horror villains just aren’t scary anymore. What can you get from a killer like Jigsaw? A mess, of course. The real kinds of terror are the things that you read in the news. You know the stories that read how three people are found dead and one is missing? That’s the real horror. To call the villains in “Funny Games” horror villains is like calling Dane Cook a comedian, but what about calling them realistic? In both films, the villains keep calm of the situation throughout the entire movie. Once the family comes to their demise is when we can finally see the true horror of what goes on in the world, and these villains are the ultimate boogeymen.
“Funny Games” is disturbing, insecure, and frightening. It’s anything BUT funny.
NEXT WEEK ON UFC: The folks over on MySpace have spoken. I will re-watch a film that is usually called Takishi Miike’s best film. I would say otherwise (the award would go to “Audition” in my personal opinion), but maybe my thoughts would change after this watch. Next week – “Ichi the Killer.”
