The movie is executed generally quite well. It really nails "creepy" in a very constructive way. The acting is quite good, and the build-up of the plot is certainly worth the wait -- though you need to be at least 45 minutes in before you realize you're watching a horror film.
Unfortunately, the most controversial part of the movie, the gruesome and sadistic climax near the end, almost ruins the entire work. The movie was excellently executing a psychological terror/horror flick. And even with implied blood and gore, and a little look here and there, it still worked. It's this narrow balance between the implicitness of psychological terror and explicitness of physical violence that provides great tension in these kinds of stories. Hitchcock's "Psycho" worked so well because it didn't have to show you everything and wallow in it.
But that's precisely where this movie comes apart, because suddenly Miike seems compelled to show you everything and wallow in it. And with that, the movie's psychological terror gets lost. In a scene that could have made the movie twice as powerful by cutting the scene to a tenth of its length, we're suddenly watching a different movie made by a different director with different purposes for a different audience. I felt like how an action flick junkie must feel when the director insists on shoehorning a love scene in the plot just to appeal to the non-core audience of the film.
And with that, Miike scored big points with squeamish teenagers wanting to hold hands -- and lost massive points with me... and with what he had spent the prior 90 minutes delicately building. As a result, the climax is a cowardly cop-out for a movie that had no need for its brief but bizarre moment of self-indulgent excesses.
It's all not a total loss, however. There's enough redeeming parts of the film that make it still worth watching. But this is one movie where the Directors Cut should really be just that: more cut, and less "more". At least when it comes to the film reel. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because it seems all of the talk about this film is based more on its worst scene than on the other redeeming 105 minutes.
Unfortunately, the most controversial part of the movie, the gruesome and sadistic climax near the end, almost ruins the entire work. The movie was excellently executing a psychological terror/horror flick. And even with implied blood and gore, and a little look here and there, it still worked. It's this narrow balance between the implicitness of psychological terror and explicitness of physical violence that provides great tension in these kinds of stories. Hitchcock's "Psycho" worked so well because it didn't have to show you everything and wallow in it.
But that's precisely where this movie comes apart, because suddenly Miike seems compelled to show you everything and wallow in it. And with that, the movie's psychological terror gets lost. In a scene that could have made the movie twice as powerful by cutting the scene to a tenth of its length, we're suddenly watching a different movie made by a different director with different purposes for a different audience. I felt like how an action flick junkie must feel when the director insists on shoehorning a love scene in the plot just to appeal to the non-core audience of the film.
And with that, Miike scored big points with squeamish teenagers wanting to hold hands -- and lost massive points with me... and with what he had spent the prior 90 minutes delicately building. As a result, the climax is a cowardly cop-out for a movie that had no need for its brief but bizarre moment of self-indulgent excesses.
It's all not a total loss, however. There's enough redeeming parts of the film that make it still worth watching. But this is one movie where the Directors Cut should really be just that: more cut, and less "more". At least when it comes to the film reel. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because it seems all of the talk about this film is based more on its worst scene than on the other redeeming 105 minutes.