I Saw the Devil (2010)

Directed by Jee-Woon Kim
Written by Hoon-jung Park
Starring Byung-hun Lee, Min-sik Choi, In-seo Kim and Yoon-seo Kim

A secret agent seeks revenge on the serial killer who killed his pregnant fiancee by capturing him, torturing him and releasing him, only to hunt him down and do it all over again.

Korean-revenge movies have got to be my favorite genre of movies. Not only do they have the satisfaction of American-revenge films, but they are also significantly more intricate and thought out. It's not just shoot-em-up action, like Hollywood's stories. They are designed to mess with your psyche.

"I Saw the Devil" is an intense, bloody, action-packed thrill ride. It brings the term "cat-and-mouse" to a whole other level. Two men hell bent on destroying each others lives with nothing to lose and no lines to cross.

Min-sik Choi ("Oldboy") is as brilliant as ever in his role has the ruthless serial killer. He commands every scene he is in and exceeds all expectations I had for him in this film. He is intimidating and irredeemably evil, yet his presence makes it next to impossible to look away.

This is easily one of the best movies I have ever seen. There is so much going on and so many twists and turns that it just grabbed me in the first minute and didn't let go until the credits were rolling. It is movies like this that keep me going with this movie-a-day challenge. These diamonds in the rough make watching all of those bad or painfully mediocre movies worth it. Just seeing one of these a month keeps me going.

My Rating: 9/10

Rubber (2010)

Written and Directed by Quentin Dupieux

Starring Stephen Spinella, Jack Plotnick, Wings Hauser and Roxane Mesquida

As film spectators watch, a killer car tire comes to life in a desert dump site. It soon discovers it's telekinetic ability to make small animals and people's heads explode. Going on a rampage, the people running the show soon find themselves in over their heads when things don't go exactly as they planned.

What I like about this movie is the meta mindset it establishes from the first line of dialogue. Some scenarios or decisions in movies are for simply no reason. So why can't an entire movie be made for no reason at all? The filmmakers made it for the hell of it and they didn't try to hide it.

As an employee of a movie theater, the commentary by the spectators was hilarious. There were situations and exchanges between some of them that is very true to real life movie goers. This made for hilarious moments.

What I didn't like about the movie is that it felt like a joke that lasted too long. Even at it's short 82 minute running time, it overstayed it's welcome by about 50 minutes. Had this been a short film (or at least shorter than it already is), it could have been much better.

The filmmakers knew exactly what this movie was-- a nonsensical absurdist comedy/horror movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously. It just could have been better and I mean that sincerely. It had potential and would have achieved that had it been half of it's running time.

My Rating: 5/10

Memories of Murder (2003)

Directed by Joon-ho Bong
Written by  Joon-ho Bong, Kwang-rim Kim and Sung-bo Shim
Starring Kang-ho Song, Sang-kyung Kim, Roe-ha Kim and Jae-ho Song

In 1986, in the province of Gyunggi, in South Korea, the countries first serial killer is on the loose. Having been deemed incompetent for the case, the rural towns two detectives find themselves being babysat by an investigator from Seoul. Their polar techniques cause them to bump heads and often create a stand-still in the case.

From the start, it was hard to tell if this was supposed to be a dark comedy or a drama with a lot of comedic relief. Regardless of the subject matter, it was easy to find humor in much of the movies first act. Whether that was intentional or accidental is unclear, but seeing as how the beginning of the films as dedicated to showing the incompetence of the towns Police Department, I would say it was intentional.

As time went on, it became increasingly dark. It was almost as if it had become a completely different movie. But it worked. It was a great display of the stress of finding a killer the longer an investigation goes on, thus providing some insight into why these men would go to any lengths to get answers.

The story is very intriguing. It's a similar story to other murder mystery movies, but the setting of South Korea in the 80s added for an unfamiliarity that kept it interesting even at it's dullest moments. The similarities made for an easy connection and the differences were an interesting study into the countries culture.

Director Joon-ho Bong ("The Host", "Snowpiercer") proves yet again that he has an extensive and diverse style that transcends genre. It is remarkable that he can make such a serious, realistic murder mystery such as this as well as a sci-fi, apocalyptic thriller like "Snowpiercer".

This is an engrossing film that will make you laugh your ass off and then have you hanging to the edge of your seat in a five minute span. It reminded me much of David Fincher's "Zodiac", in the sense that it was creepy, intense and humorous all at the same time. This is definitely one you should definitely check out.

My Rating: 8/10

True Story (2015)

Directed by Rupert Goold
Written by Rupert Goold and David Kajganich, based on the memoir of Michael Finkel
Starring Jonah Hill, James Franco, Felicity Jones and Robert John Burke

When disgraced New York Times reporter Michael Finkel meets accused killer Christian Longo - who has taken on Finkel's identity - his investigation morphs into a game of cat-and-mouse.

A gripping, real life court case that builds in intensity as the story moves along is overshadowed by the distracting combination of Jonah Hill and James Franco trying to be serious at the same time. I am a big supporter of Jonah Hill and his transition to becoming a dramatic actor, but I feel the casting was poorly executed for this film.

Every scene in which the two are by themselves or with other actors are suspenseful and filled with great performances. But when the two share screen time together, every facial expression feels like a lead up to the reveal that this entire thing was a prank, thus turning the direction of the story on a dime and turning it into a raunchy comedy.

Not pictured: Seth Rogen sitting just off frame behind James Franco.

The film was well intended and the story was strong enough to keep me interested. But I can't help but feel that casting the two of them opposite of each other was a good idea. Had it been Jonah Hill and another actor or James Franco and another actor, or even two completely different actors, this could have been a much stronger movie. I love the effort to keep Jonah Hill's career moving. James Franco doesn't need it. He's already been established as a dramatic actor. 

Other than the casting, this was a great story. I don't know how much of it was actually factual in the true story, but it definitely kept me interested. This movie is worth checking out. Just try not to laugh when they're on screen together.

My Rating: 6.5/10

Child 44 (2015)

Directed by Daniel Espinosa
Written by Richard Price, based on the novel by Tom Rob Smith
Starring Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace, Gary Oldman and Joel Kinnaman

A disgraced member of the military police investigates a series of nasty child murders during the Stalin-era Soviet Union. He finds their are many obstacles in his way due to the Soviet belief that there is no such thing as murder in a communist paradise.

Starting off strong, this movie wastes no time to get to the plot. With just enough character development in the beginning, the audience understands who exactly our protagonist, Leo Demidov, is and what he stands for.

At times, the plot is hard to follow and despite such a clear and concise prologue, many aspects of the story are missed in their delivery. There are times when I felt I knew exactly what was going on, only to find out I was completely wrong. And not because of an amazing plot twist.

There were other points in the story where I felt they used the setting of Soviet Russia as a scapegoat for many plot holes. The audience was just left to assume that every little thing that happened was due to the communist state.

"In Soviet Russia, Tom Hardys you!"

Though it's not without it's faults and it is certainly not the best movie I've seen even today, it is by no means a bad movie. It has a lot of great moments and honestly, I was quite intrigued throughout most of it. I just feel it could have been much more than it was. And perhaps it was, but was forced to be cut down by the studio.

My Rating: 6/10

The Dead Zone (1983)

Directed by David Cronenberg
Written by Jeffrey Boan, based on the novel by Stephen King
Starring Christopher Walken, Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom and Martin Sheen

At the peak of his life, a school teacher who is in love gets into a car accident after a perfect day. He wakes up from a coma five years later only to find he's lost his job and girlfriend. But he soon finds out that he has gained the ability to see the past, present and future of everyone he comes in physical contact with.

Yet another example of why Stephen King is the King of the horror/thriller genre, this movie grabs your attention early on and doesn't let go. Just when you think it's going to continue on the path it's on, it will take you off guard by taking a turn in another direction.

At first it seems as the entire movie will just be one long episode of "CSI". Although I was intrigues, I wasn't impressed with it. But before you know it, they solve the case and move on, turning into a soul searching film, asking the question, "if you know the future, should you change it?"

Oddly enough, this didn't feel like a Cronenberg film. Sure, it was one of his earliest movies, but it felt like it was made by entirely different director. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out it was his movie. It's interesting to look at the evolution of a director's style, and this was close to the beginning.

"The Dead Zone" is a dark, brooding film that remains timeless, even after thirty-two years. I have found that that seems to be a trademark of Stephen King. No matter what time period his books and movies take place in, you can always find some way to relate to the characters.

My Rating: 7/10

The Devil's Backbone (2001)

Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Written by Guillermo del Toro, Antonio Trashorras and Mavid Muñoz
Starring Fernando Tielve, Íñigo Garcés, Federico Luppi and Eduardo Noriega

After Carlos, a 12-year-old whose father has died in the Spanish Civil War, arrives at an ominous boy's orphanage, he discovers the school is haunted and has many dark secrets that he must uncover. Mainly the mystery of "the one who sighs", the ghost of a little boy who wanders the orphanage.

There are truly no horror films like those of Guillermo del Toro. He has such a way with storytelling, that he does not need jump scares and gore to keep you terrified. He does so with a subtlety and grace of the building tension, until the pot boils over.

Rather than having a monster or ghost the source of fear in his films, he uses them as the victims to the much more real villain of human cruelty. It is certainly a privilege to watch his stories unfold and this is no exception.

Being one of his earlier pictures, "The Devil's Backbone" fells as though it set the course for his career. It also becomes apparent that his style has not changed, not that it needs to. The themes of the innocence of children and their first experience with death has been prevalent throughout his career, and this is no different. It is one of the thing that makes him unique. 

He does not present death as something you should be afraid of. He presents it as the sad, inevitable finale of life that we must all accept. He finds a way to find the beauty and humanity of pain and present it with a sense of calm and solace. He continues to show why he is one of the more unique directors out there.

My Rating: 7/10

All Good Things (2010)

Directed by Andrew Jarecki
Written by Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling

Starring Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst, Frank Langella and Lilly Rabe
David Marks was suspected but never tried for killing his wife, Katie, who disappeared in 1982, but things occur in his life that bring suspicion of him back into the investigators attention.

Based on the true story of Robert Durst, the subject of the HBO docu-series "The Jinx", this film made it surprisingly easy to sympathize with the alleged murderer who may or may not have committed these crimes (He did.. he totally did). I have yet to watch the series, but I was taken aback at how humanized they made him seem.

Were it not based on a true story, this movie would have been easy to look over. It is one of the many films that gain notoriety on it's subject matter alone. There was nothing spectacular about anything, from acting to cinematography. It was all very blasé for having such an unbelievable, yet true inspiration.

Pictured: Ryan Gosling being blasé.

It could have been so much more, but perhaps given the time this film was made, certain facts about the case weren't available at the time. It's a good movie. I enjoyed watching it. But this is like "Gone Girl's" little sister filled with teenage angst. Though, I definitely want to watch "The Jinx" now.

My Rating: 6.5/10

Primal Fear (1996)

Directed by Gregory Hoblit
Written by Steve Shagan and Ann Biderman, based on the novel by William Diehl
Starring Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Edward Norton and John Mahoney

A controversial defense attorney takes on the case of a murder of an Archbishop allegedly committed by an alter boy, pro bono. After days of cross examination, new information comes forward that could hurt his case and causes him to question everything he believes about his morals, his career and the altar boy's story.

Overflowing with great performances, including the Oscar nominated role of Edward Norton, this film is a blood pumping thriller with many twists and turns. So many, in fact, that even though I had already knew how this film ended (from years of hearing about it from people who don't know the meaning of the word spoiler), I was still second guessing what I thought I already knew.

Edward Norton is remarkable in this movie. And unfortunately, there isn't much more I can say about it without giving key information away. Just take my word for it. It is an intense courtroom drama that will keep you at the edge of your seat.

Where other legal thrillers become slow and convoluted, this when excels at keeping it's pace and presenting the evidence of both sides in way that you're able to understand. As if you are the juror, every single bit of evidence makes sense. It feels like a real trial, making it that much more interesting.

My Rating: 7/10