Epitaph is one of those films that can very easily disappoint you when you first watch it. Especially if you expect a Ringu type flick. True, it's beautiful visually, but the storytelling is so complex that it makes you feel that either the directors - and the writer- have lost control over their material, or that you're missing something crucial. Actually, the later is the key. Cause Epitaph is not just a creepy horror flick. It's a beautiful film about LOVE. Love through and beyond life and death. Love is the common theme that connects all those perplexed stories and scenes. Having that in mind, I decided to watch it again and I must say, this time I though I was watching a totally different movie. So, my suggestion to you is this. If you're looking for a clean K-horror flick with ghosts and all the classic Ringu themes, don't watch this one. You'll be very disappointed. However, if you're interested in something more that that, give Epitaph a chance. It may not be the best one out there, but it surely has quite a lot of things to tell you.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Day-Time Wife
(1939)
ABSOLUTELY NOT awful.
25 March 2011
Just 7 reviews on this one by the time I'm writing this, with a couple of them being very very negative.
Bla, bla, bla... 1939 was the best year in Hollywood history (since when? who said that?) ... bla, bla, bla...Tyrone Power is terrible... bla, bla, bla... they should have casted Cary Grant.
NONSENSE. The script is fairly good (as long as someone has seen a couple of 1930's films more than just "Holiday" and "Bringing Up Baby") and Tyrone Power is quite descent and very funny.
Furthermore, someone who has watched just a few of the dozens of romantic - screwball comedies of that era, would have known that there were MANY other male leads besides Cary Grant, actors who gave as wonderful performances as C.G. gave in some of his films. They would also know that even though Cary Grant was magnificent, he also had done some VERY BAD movies through the 30's.
Finally, a request for the IMDb stuff. It's terribly unfair for a movie to have on it's main page a 100 word review with the title "Simply awful!". Especially when this review gives absolutely no reasons on why the movie is "awful". The fact that 22/26 people who have read the review, DISAPPROVED it, speaks for itself.
Bla, bla, bla... 1939 was the best year in Hollywood history (since when? who said that?) ... bla, bla, bla...Tyrone Power is terrible... bla, bla, bla... they should have casted Cary Grant.
NONSENSE. The script is fairly good (as long as someone has seen a couple of 1930's films more than just "Holiday" and "Bringing Up Baby") and Tyrone Power is quite descent and very funny.
Furthermore, someone who has watched just a few of the dozens of romantic - screwball comedies of that era, would have known that there were MANY other male leads besides Cary Grant, actors who gave as wonderful performances as C.G. gave in some of his films. They would also know that even though Cary Grant was magnificent, he also had done some VERY BAD movies through the 30's.
Finally, a request for the IMDb stuff. It's terribly unfair for a movie to have on it's main page a 100 word review with the title "Simply awful!". Especially when this review gives absolutely no reasons on why the movie is "awful". The fact that 22/26 people who have read the review, DISAPPROVED it, speaks for itself.
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
It took 4 guys to write this crap ?
12 March 2009
I logged in just to see the overall rating of this farce. I can't believe viewers all over the world could have given it an average 7+ rating. This movie (especially the 2nd half) is totally, absolutely, completely stupid and pointless. I got nothing against good pointless action - disaster - post apocalyptic movies (only yesterday I watched Van Damme's Cyborg after almost 15 years, and I enjoyed it a lot). Unlike Cyborg however, this crap is supposed to be more than a plain post apocalyptic b-production. After all it carries the heritage of one of the most interesting movies of it's genre. As a matter of fact, it's worse than a b-movie, straight to video / cable TV production. Cause the effects may be slightly better, but the plot has NO RESPECT TO THE VIEWER'S INTELLECT. Dozens of stupid decisions from the characters,hundreds of clichés, dozens of unexplained twists, the infected have reason, etc...I don't have to mention all these once more. They've been analyzed on many posts and comments in here. All I want to say (and the reason why I write this comment is) that it's been quite a long time since a movie has annoyed me so much. It's screenplay is an insult to my logic, and my emotions as well.
Shame on those who wrote this crap and to those who read the script and decided to finance the project, so that I would waste 2 hours watching it.
It's a total disgrace to consider this crap as the sequel of 28 days later. It's more like a sequel to Dumb and Dumberer, or the tele-tubbies to me..
Shame on those who wrote this crap and to those who read the script and decided to finance the project, so that I would waste 2 hours watching it.
It's a total disgrace to consider this crap as the sequel of 28 days later. It's more like a sequel to Dumb and Dumberer, or the tele-tubbies to me..
Sylvia Scarlett
(1935)
A Great Disappointment
24 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, let me tell you I'm not a stranger to movies of the 30's. I love films of that era, I admire Katharine Hepburn and I truly consider Cary Grant as one of the greatest actors ever. These facts are the reasons why I was really interested in watching this movie, however these same facts don't give me the permission to excuse and admire every movie of the 30's I watch and find average (or in this case way below average!)
SPOILERS BELOW! Let's start from the script. What kind of a story is this? It seems to me that after the 3 leading characters are being introduced to us, the writers had absolutely no idea as to there the plot should turn to. So they try hard to write down whatever comes to their mind in a desperate effort to create a standard 80 minute long feature.
Some examples: 1) What is the reason why Sylvia cut her hair short and becomes Sylvester? Because her father tells her it is much easier for the authorities to trace an old man with a girl than if he was with a boy. So, what does she do? She cuts her hair...and every problem is solved, even if this means they are able to make it to another country with no papers of Sylvia as Sylvestro. A hair cut was enough.
2)How about Jimmy Monkley? He creates all the mess at the harbor just because he is carrying diamonds on his heels. As if there was a chance that when he opened his suitcase the diamonds would come out of his shoe. What about his second encounter with the Scarletts? He reveals them his secret takes out of his pocket a very large bundle of money and buys them out. And then, 5 minutes later, when they are in London, he is completely broke and so are they.
3) The affair between Henry Scarlett and Maudie. Without any clue, we suddenly watch Henry dreaming and yelling out Maudie's name as if he were her "beau", and when he wakes we suddenly realize by the way he is treating her, that he really is her boy. Completely ridiculous. We never saw not even one hint that something was going on between them until that dream sequence. And it is even more ridiculous considering the fact that Maude is slightly older than his daughter, who is a witness of all this the whole time.
4) Maude's disappearance. Maude didn't fit in the story. That was obvious. But making her disappear on a rainy night, without a further explanation on her whereabouts, is stupid.
5) Henry's death. Henry was a terribly written character. So as the plot evolved something had to be done with him. in order to give Scarlett the chance to end happily the story. So what do we do? We through him off a cliff, Scarlett mourns desperately (about 5 seconds) and 3 minutes later she is all full of nerve and joy chasing Cary Grant.
6) How about the Russian girl? We get convinced she loves desperately the painter, yet at the end of the movie she uses him only as an argument to persuade Jimmy on going to Paris. And how the hell did Sylvia come to the conclusion that she tried to kill herself by drowning? Did you notice anything I didn't? Just because she couldn't swim?
7)The painter (Michael Fane) is equally funny (in a bad way) as a character. He gave Sylvia his car cause he couldn't drive with a hurt finger? Lord have mercy! He loved the Russian girl, yet in 5 days he forgot her and came to be deeply in love with Sylvia dressed as a boy?
I could go on forever, but I've made my point. As I watched the movie more and more I had the idea that no one from the creative team really knew what they wanted to do. The characters are made from paper, their feelings and sentiments are completely absent (did Jimmy ever love Sylvia? One moment it seems so, 2 minutes later he runs away with the Russian girl), the dialogue is terrible (I recall the scene where Sylvester becomes Sylvia again and pays a visit to the painter and it gives me the creeps.) Never before have I seen such a terrible conversation. Remember guys, it's 1935 we're talking about, not 1925. The age of the movie is no excuse, 2 years later "The Awful Truth" would be filmed.. A final word about the direction. George Cukor has always been a great director, one of the best artists of his era. However, he also seems to be swept by the total stupidity of his material. At the final scene, the train stops exactly 1 second after the painter pulls the emergency break. And as if this weren't enough during this whole sequence, the outside background from the windows remains the same, as if no one from the crew ever noticed or cared for the fact that it was obvious the train was never moving.
I apologize for the size of the comment and I also apologize if some of you fellow lovers of the movies of the 30's find this comment embarrassing or disturbing..but this is truly my view on "Sylvia Scarlett". Thank you for your time.
SPOILERS BELOW! Let's start from the script. What kind of a story is this? It seems to me that after the 3 leading characters are being introduced to us, the writers had absolutely no idea as to there the plot should turn to. So they try hard to write down whatever comes to their mind in a desperate effort to create a standard 80 minute long feature.
Some examples: 1) What is the reason why Sylvia cut her hair short and becomes Sylvester? Because her father tells her it is much easier for the authorities to trace an old man with a girl than if he was with a boy. So, what does she do? She cuts her hair...and every problem is solved, even if this means they are able to make it to another country with no papers of Sylvia as Sylvestro. A hair cut was enough.
2)How about Jimmy Monkley? He creates all the mess at the harbor just because he is carrying diamonds on his heels. As if there was a chance that when he opened his suitcase the diamonds would come out of his shoe. What about his second encounter with the Scarletts? He reveals them his secret takes out of his pocket a very large bundle of money and buys them out. And then, 5 minutes later, when they are in London, he is completely broke and so are they.
3) The affair between Henry Scarlett and Maudie. Without any clue, we suddenly watch Henry dreaming and yelling out Maudie's name as if he were her "beau", and when he wakes we suddenly realize by the way he is treating her, that he really is her boy. Completely ridiculous. We never saw not even one hint that something was going on between them until that dream sequence. And it is even more ridiculous considering the fact that Maude is slightly older than his daughter, who is a witness of all this the whole time.
4) Maude's disappearance. Maude didn't fit in the story. That was obvious. But making her disappear on a rainy night, without a further explanation on her whereabouts, is stupid.
5) Henry's death. Henry was a terribly written character. So as the plot evolved something had to be done with him. in order to give Scarlett the chance to end happily the story. So what do we do? We through him off a cliff, Scarlett mourns desperately (about 5 seconds) and 3 minutes later she is all full of nerve and joy chasing Cary Grant.
6) How about the Russian girl? We get convinced she loves desperately the painter, yet at the end of the movie she uses him only as an argument to persuade Jimmy on going to Paris. And how the hell did Sylvia come to the conclusion that she tried to kill herself by drowning? Did you notice anything I didn't? Just because she couldn't swim?
7)The painter (Michael Fane) is equally funny (in a bad way) as a character. He gave Sylvia his car cause he couldn't drive with a hurt finger? Lord have mercy! He loved the Russian girl, yet in 5 days he forgot her and came to be deeply in love with Sylvia dressed as a boy?
I could go on forever, but I've made my point. As I watched the movie more and more I had the idea that no one from the creative team really knew what they wanted to do. The characters are made from paper, their feelings and sentiments are completely absent (did Jimmy ever love Sylvia? One moment it seems so, 2 minutes later he runs away with the Russian girl), the dialogue is terrible (I recall the scene where Sylvester becomes Sylvia again and pays a visit to the painter and it gives me the creeps.) Never before have I seen such a terrible conversation. Remember guys, it's 1935 we're talking about, not 1925. The age of the movie is no excuse, 2 years later "The Awful Truth" would be filmed.. A final word about the direction. George Cukor has always been a great director, one of the best artists of his era. However, he also seems to be swept by the total stupidity of his material. At the final scene, the train stops exactly 1 second after the painter pulls the emergency break. And as if this weren't enough during this whole sequence, the outside background from the windows remains the same, as if no one from the crew ever noticed or cared for the fact that it was obvious the train was never moving.
I apologize for the size of the comment and I also apologize if some of you fellow lovers of the movies of the 30's find this comment embarrassing or disturbing..but this is truly my view on "Sylvia Scarlett". Thank you for your time.
Nagisa Oshima's delusion of his own grandeur..
11 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
100 years of Japanese cinema ?...oh, this must be great! These were my first thoughts when I found this 55 minute long documentary on the evolution of Japanese film-making. Being quite fond of Japanese films for many years, I believed this was a great chance to remember classic masterpieces of the past, and most of all, learn about movies and directors I had never heard of. I was VERY WRONG.. Nagisa Oshima had no intention of making a true and honest documentary on the first 100 years of his country's cinema. All he was interested in was a chance to glorify himself and his work, presenting himself as the man who changed the whole system by breaking away from the major studios and starting making break-through, independent films. Almost half of the narration is in first person ("I thought this..I did that...") and equally long is the time spent on his own films.
How about the other great Japanese directors? Let's see.. Akira Kurosawa: 2 references (half a minute on "No regrets for our youth" and 2 seconds on "Rashomon"), Kenji Mizoguchi: 1 reference, 30 seconds, Yasujiro Ozu: never existed (only a photo of his is shown!), Masaki Kobayashi: never existed, Hiroshi Teshigahara: 1 reference, 4 seconds Not a single word is said on films like Ran, Ikiru, Tokyo Story, Woman in the dunes, Ugetsu Monogatari, Harakiri etc.. Mr.Osima probably believes that films of his own such as "Gishiki" and "Koshikei" or "Merry Christmas Mr.Lawrence" are worth to be mentioned extendedly in a documentary about Japanese film-making.
I am glad I watched this already having an idea on Japanese cinema, so I won't buy that crap. If this wasn't the case, I would be convinced that nothing really good was ever produced in Japan in the 50's, since all the directors were restrained by common themes and state limitations, a restraint which of course has ended upon the arrival of the one and only..Nagisa Oshima. Thankfully, this is not the case..
Mr. Oshima, if you think you are the greatest Japanese director..you are very much mistaken. If you also believe that all "Rashomon" has achieved, was to open Western audiences to Japanese films..let me tell you something..even if Kurosawa had not made a single other film, he would still the greatest of all. I wish you could have made a film like "Ugetsu Monogatari" or "Chikamatsu Monogatari"..but you haven't. What you are presenting here isn't a tribute to Japanese film history, it's just your filmography in disguise.
p.s. One year later, in 1995, Martin Scorsese released "A Personal Journey with M.S. Through American Movies". THIS IS WHAT A MOVIE HISTORY DOCUMENTARY SHOULD BE LIKE..
How about the other great Japanese directors? Let's see.. Akira Kurosawa: 2 references (half a minute on "No regrets for our youth" and 2 seconds on "Rashomon"), Kenji Mizoguchi: 1 reference, 30 seconds, Yasujiro Ozu: never existed (only a photo of his is shown!), Masaki Kobayashi: never existed, Hiroshi Teshigahara: 1 reference, 4 seconds Not a single word is said on films like Ran, Ikiru, Tokyo Story, Woman in the dunes, Ugetsu Monogatari, Harakiri etc.. Mr.Osima probably believes that films of his own such as "Gishiki" and "Koshikei" or "Merry Christmas Mr.Lawrence" are worth to be mentioned extendedly in a documentary about Japanese film-making.
I am glad I watched this already having an idea on Japanese cinema, so I won't buy that crap. If this wasn't the case, I would be convinced that nothing really good was ever produced in Japan in the 50's, since all the directors were restrained by common themes and state limitations, a restraint which of course has ended upon the arrival of the one and only..Nagisa Oshima. Thankfully, this is not the case..
Mr. Oshima, if you think you are the greatest Japanese director..you are very much mistaken. If you also believe that all "Rashomon" has achieved, was to open Western audiences to Japanese films..let me tell you something..even if Kurosawa had not made a single other film, he would still the greatest of all. I wish you could have made a film like "Ugetsu Monogatari" or "Chikamatsu Monogatari"..but you haven't. What you are presenting here isn't a tribute to Japanese film history, it's just your filmography in disguise.
p.s. One year later, in 1995, Martin Scorsese released "A Personal Journey with M.S. Through American Movies". THIS IS WHAT A MOVIE HISTORY DOCUMENTARY SHOULD BE LIKE..
Tell Your Friends