The Constant Gardener (2005) (Fernando Meirelles)

The Constant Gardener is a sophisticated political thriller adapted from John Le Carre’s novel of the same name. It’s a thought-provoking look into the African situation that we’re guilty of trying to keep out of mind and out of sight. This conspiracy-thriller-cum-love-story follows a British diplomat in Kenya, Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) as he challenges all odds to find out why his wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz) was murdered on a dusty trail in East Africa.

The film starts with the end of Tessa’s journey, as her mutilated body is identified at a morgue in Kenya. The shock of his wife’s death and alleged infidelity with a black doctor sends Justin spiraling. Faced with a prima facie case of a crime of passion between 2 lovers, investigators back off from digging into Tessa’s work with impoverished Kenyans and her concern in a pharmaceutical company’s apparent humanitarian efforts.

Upon discovering illicit letters hidden away by Tessa, Justin is jolted into investigating the last few weeks prior to his wife’s death. Like a robot, Justin reprogrammes himself from a mild mannered diplomat to a resolute man, driven by anger and his increasing doubts about the circumstances of his wife’s murder that are being fed to him by his superiors. He embarks on a quest spanning Europe and back to the ends of the African continent.

Justin is increasingly uncomfortable with Tessa’s relationship with her confidant, Arnold Bluhm (Hubert Koundé), the black doctor with whom she shares her idealism and humanitarian efforts. This develops the suspense by showing us sequences that Justin wasn’t privy to. As the film leads Justin down the wrong paths, it also builds immediate empathy for the increasingly well-rounded character.

Justin’s odyssey for answers forces him to look through the eyes of Tessa. He continues what she had started with her fervent efforts to aid the indigent natives, to search out clues, overcome dead-ends and weed out the red herrings. It compels his change to a reckless and ingenuous man on the precipice of a breakdown from his increasing paranoia. The discovery phase of conspiracy and the players in the film urge the momentum to gallop through to Fiennes’s best performance this year (including his turn as a blind diplomat in The White Countess that is still being shown in cinemas sparingly).

Fiennes, although receiving fewer nominations than Weisz in various prestigious film awards (especially Weisz’s nomination for Best Supporting Actress in this year’s Oscars), overwhelms Weisz’s performance. His stark portrayal of a detached and pragmatic bureaucrat that becomes a driven and angry man in search of the truth is pitted against Weisz’s Tessa, a hothead radical who strikes out at the world’s injustices with wild abandon and indiscretions.

The metaphor of Justin’s hobby, gardening, is used to describe his delicate personality. A “world without weeds” as Tessa puts it, is his way of keeping things perfect and controlled in his world, something that Tessa’s report on pharmaceutical drug testing in Africa turns upside down.

It’s another feather in the cap for Focus Features and director, Fernando Meirelles after his sensational epic, City of God, which dealt with poverty and limiting environments that have stayed unseen from a bourgeois perspective. This film fits like a glove for his style of invoking sympathy and guilt for the surrounding that the characters have to immerse themselves in during their pursuit for truth.

The handheld style of shots put us straight into its colourful ambience and emotional state of its characters. Its fantastic cinematography in Kenya makes this one of the most arresting tourist-films this year as we are transported to lands many of us dare not find ourselves in. The visual palette represents the anarchy and bedlam in the northeastern regions of Africa. An inspired decision that heightens every nuance and emotion felt each time a sliver of information about Tessa’s death is released.

The soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias (again nominated at this year’s Oscars) is haunting and rapturous, ranging from the celebratory to the sombre. The rich and layered native music of the African region is scattered throughout scenes that supplements the film’s hard-hitting imagery.

The editing work is one of the finest I’ve seen (no wonder it was nominated for Best Editing at this year’s Oscars) as the story constantly switches from past to the present. Its grim portrayal of Tessa’s and Justin’s future in the opening scenes makes the rare moments of joyful bliss in Justin’s memories become a bittersweet experience as we question their commitment to each other and their eventual fate.

Was he now or was he ever Tessa’s one true love? Or perhaps, he is just a victim of a callous woman set in her wild ways after the whirlwind romance that they shared was prematurely hampered by the tedium of marriage. Besides the questions that run through our minds, the one true constant in the film is the love that Justin feels for Tessa throughout the meandering and disjointed narrative.

The enigmatic structure of the novel was kept as it exposes a riveting and unfiltered view of a man’s transformation into an avenging angel. Justin travels from country to country with a fake passport as he undertakes in cloak and dagger activities that result in him getting threatening messages left in his hotel room. Like a page out of James Ellroy and L.A. Confidential, Justin’s journey for truth is so banal that it ends up full of character. It’s operatic in style as passion and intrigue from its twists plays a pivotal part in the story. Characters are not as they appear to be, as through flashbacks and episodic revelations, we begin to inch closer to the truth.

The film’s thriller aspect, although well done is dwarfed by the story’s intrinsic need to reveal a greater truth than what happened to Tessa. It wants to show us a deeper and cutting view of life in Africa, one that we have heard about but never really wanted to know about. It wears its heart on its sleeve, as we need not question its motives of creating awareness in the region. The resonance of the story hits home with Meirelles’s sleight in creating an indomitable spirit within the Africans, while we are sucked into a maelstrom of unsettling actualities.

Its wildly determined efforts prod us to change and look at the smaller picture from a different point of view. It's a draconian, austere and verite document of greed and suffering. It’s not just an African problem but also a human problem that we face. The truths it discloses are retching, always dreary with no sign of optimism in the horizon.

The post-colonial depiction of life in Kenya is striking, even if depressing. Extracting the story from Le Carre’s reservoir of political and socio-economic musings needed this film to have a highly literate and derivative dialogue that refuses to yield to the average moviegoer. However, the nature of Meirelles’s direction takes its cue from easily discernable shots of dying Africans and ravenous men in suits coupled with the top-drawer performances by its cast, making it a highly involving film.

Bureaucracy and responsible corporate governance are put under a microscope, its indifference and tolerance for the necessary evils are seen as the first step to more heinous and atrocious acts. Such as the reprehensible drug companies ravaging on the humanity and the freedom of unsuspecting Africans by offering insultingly little or nothing at all to Africans, setting a meagre price on their lives to further their profits in more ‘civilised’ nations. The corporation’s perceived vested interest in the plight of AIDS-afflicted Kenyans is nothing more than a con to exploit them as cheap labour and more effective guinea pigs for their new drugs.

It leaves us with an eager and hopeful but rather weighty issue of whether this film featuring the bleak outlook of life in Africa, or perhaps life in general would reach out to our better angels. Or will this just be another film where a shameful and lurid reality is exploited to be observed by audiences in armchairs for entertainment?

Elegantly crafting a love story set in the contemporary world of global politics, Le Carre’s insights of the machinations of those involved could be construed as conjecture, although there is clearly a significant measure of reality in his concerns about the influence of multinational corporations and their capacity to wield their clout mercilessly among political circles.

Despite a specious storyline and absence of pretence, it still harks true to real-life humanitarian violations that have taken place in Africa. Pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer once administered a dangerous drug in Nigeria to obtain licensing for it after a ban in other continents when it was found that it caused arthritis. The results of the drug testing have yet to be released.

Unfortunately the film left me cold and cynical, with the realisation that there is no end in sight for the horrors faced in Africa. Has the reality of a dispensable human life finally put fiction to the sword?

The true gravitas of the situation, masked behind the lush Sahara, hits you in the final scenes of the film. It runs the full gamut of emotions as you’re taken for a ride through grief then anger, and finally sheer horror. Not since Hotel Rwanda has a film kept me so emotionally invested in the lives of the characters and its resounding message – if you can help one person, that's better than not doing anything at all.

Visit the ConstantGardenerTrust.org to improve living conditions in Kenya's slums.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) (Scott Derrickson)

Exorcism. It screams at us from the posters, the trailers and even when whispered to us. That word single-handedly propelled this film’s entire marketing campaign as it gave us flashbacks to William Friedkin’s 1973 masterpiece, The Exorcist. Not since then has anyone attempted a legitimate claim to reignite this contentious style of psychological horror rooted in theology and faith. Last year’s Exorcist: The Beginning fell short as it became a farce to the already abused legacy of Friedkin’s original.

Realising the unmilked potential that lies beneath the mysticism of spiritual possession and its appeal to sceptics and believers, movie executives have come up with The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is charged with negligent homicide after an unsuccessful exorcism on Emily Rose (Jennifer Carpenter) led to the 19-year-old’s death. His defense attorney, Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) is a career-driven, self-proclaimed agnostic who needs to play down the media hysteria over this case to secure a senior position in her law firm. As she delves further into the case, however, she starts to doubt her own beliefs and begins to fear what she never thought could exist. The film’s antagonist, Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott), is the religiously devout district attorney, adamant that mental illness was the sole reason for Emily’s erratic behaviour in the weeks leading to her death. He is also convinced that the cause of her demise was brought about by Father Moore’s role in discontinuing Emily’s medication.

Jennifer Carpenter, whose most notable role before this film was in White Chicks as a spoilt rich girl, gives the strongest performance of the cast as the naïve young college freshman attacked by malevolent forces. She later transforms into a frenetically possessed girl tortured by something nobody is able to comprehend. The 180-degree turnaround playing the film’s titular character has even earned her a compliment from her accomplished co-star, Linney, who calls her the “finest young actress that she's ever known” in publicity interviews given shortly after the film’s release in the United States.

Billed as the first “courtroom horror” film by its director, Scott Derrickson, it certainly provides an interesting take on religion, the judicial system and psychology. Derrickson’s storytelling is convoluted at points as it switches between the past (through flashbacks of Emily’s possession and eventual death) and the present courtroom conflict.

Due to its narrative nature, the film constantly finds itself in 2 minds. From the first impressions of its Oscar-nominated cast of Linney and Wilkinson, it’s easy to see that the movie wants the viewer to take it seriously. Throwing in dashes of current social commentary such as the legality of the Church’s doctrines as a plausible defense without bordering on religious persecution is aptly highlighted during the current climate of polemicising over the government’s role in religion. Unfortunately, it offers more questions than answers for these contemporary matters.

However, the version we saw in the trailers is the archetypal summer horror blockbuster that uses cheap shocks and clichéd scare tactics like cryptic clocks, loud screeching wails when cutting to ghoul-faced shots, and sourceless winds blowing doors wide open. Subplots, such as Father Moore’s and Erin’s own uninspired haunting by these evil spirits as they work on the case, are scattered throughout the film. Regrettably, the film falls into temptation by using such schtick to get its point across as the danger in combining 2 different genres together with 2 different pacing leads to a classic case of doing too much with too little time.

The failure to give more insight into the main characters also cheapens the roles as we never fully understand Erin’s own initial prejudice against spirituality or even Emily Rose’s religious convictions as she is dragged into becoming the new Joan of Arc.

A series of dichotomous motifs are presented in the film, such as Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Religion, Sceptics vs. Believers etc. Given the wealth of material in which the film could have chosen to make a stand, it manages to completely disregard them in its conclusion by short-changing itself and the viewers. In hoping to please everybody, it ends up satisfying no one.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose can’t be called a bad film by any means. In many aspects, it is a solid movie; with good acting throughout, and with enough restraint to prevent it from going over the top. Hardly reaching the pinnacles of The Exorcist, its “true story” label seems to have been stuck on to achieve some sense of credibility.

It is however, a welcome addition to a horror market that’s flooded with mediocre Japanese and Korean movies and predictable Hollywood fare. When not taken seriously, it will entertain you enough for the night but those hoping to be perplexed by its spiritual connotations will have to wait for a worthy successor to The Exorcist.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Boy Eats Girl (2005) (Stephen Bradley)

Part satire and part romantic-comedy, Boy Eats Girl should be looked upon as a homage to the classic 70s horror genre and not a poor effort at recreating the success of Shaun of the Dead. Hailing from Ireland, the movie takes plenty of liberties in its character’s settings and mannerisms. Not wholly European as you’d expect, but it works on most levels, just not so much on the humour however.

Nathan (David Leon) is the heartbroken teenager who accidentally kills himself after making the mistake of witnessing the love of his young teenage life, Jessica (Irish pop sensation Samantha Mumba) in a compromising situation with his school’s Lothario. Nathan’s mother (Deirdre O'Kane) finds his lifeless body in his room and remembers the handy book of resurrection spells that she’d found just days earlier in the bowels of the church that she works at.

As easily as you can say beginner’s luck, she manages to bring back her son and gets him ready for the next day of school. Nathan starts to feel the effects of his zombification when he starts to feel impervious to pain and feels hungry all the time. His 2 pals, Henry and Diggs (Laurence Kinlan and Tadhg Murphy) who, at times, seem even less shiftless than their dead friend, get worried when they see Nathan’s disenchantment with Jessica vanish.

At the school disco, resident slut and girlfriend of the toughest jock in school, Cheryl (Sara James) propositions Nathan. Not exactly willing to do Nathan’s bidding, she ditches him. Unfortunately for Nathan, the jock boyfriend follows him as he stumbles on to the rugby pitch. Normally, this would be a cakewalk for bully-kind everywhere but Nathan’s newfound undead ability of super-strength makes it easy for him to overpower the jock. He finally gives in to temptation and takes a couple of deadly chunks out of him. Nathan runs home and is given the bare bones of his worsening condition by his mother who promptly locks him in the garage as she finds a cure. Things start to get a whole lot worse for him after last night’s attack starts a chain reaction of killings, each spawning a more vicious version of Nathan’s condition.

The plot ‘borrows’ heavily from a handful of movies, especially the 1993 cult classic, "My Boyfriend’s Back" with virtually the same sub-plot of unrequited love between the unfortunate undead and his high-school sweetheart. As most will use "Shaun of the Dead" as a touchstone in understanding the film’s comedy/gore tandem, it’s intended use of black comedy and detached humour falls short.

The backyard splatter that comes from fending off ravenous classmates and neighbours is refreshing to see and is done well. The violence and the reactions of the harried survivors are always tongue-in-cheek, which is satisfying, as the zombie horde never comes close to being scary, just downright silly. The flaying of skin and removal of limbs is a requisite in any good romp through a town full of undead. However, the gore starts off perfunctory, not exactly a good sign when it takes almost half the movie to get there.

As the film progresses to its climax, a visible shift in priorities takes place. Suddenly, the story stops and a zombie free-for-all takes place, courtesy of a pimped out tractor and surge of adrenaline from the heroine. As the movie is a relatively short enterprise, clocking in at about 77 minutes (including credits), it almost makes up for the lack of spilled blood and guts when the horror aspect of the film finally kicks in.

Most satires take themselves too seriously at some point and Boy Eats Girl is no different. The romance between Nathan and Jessica felt too overdone in the beginning, leading to the most controversial scene in the movie that initially got it banned in its native Ireland. The attempted suicide scene was clumsy and awkward; not exactly an endorsement for depressed teenagers everywhere.

The film starts out slow, working out the set-up of the eventual suicide that triggers the rest of the plot, leaving just a third of the movie for bona fide zombie mayhem. Each transition is disjointed and rushed, especially the weak example of a deus ex machina during the last minutes of the film.

The 1-dimensional characters and unresolved storylines are indicative of the apathetic acting and lack of fleshed-out character development. Mumba does not show any signs of being a tough female character in the beginning, making a transformation into the movie’s heroine seem out of character. Leon’s Nathan seems too self-aware and confident to pull off being the angst-ridden chump who finds it hard to bring up his true feelings around Jessica.

From start to end, its campy throwback to nonsensical horror-comedy masks its inability to find its feet and its problematic attempts at satire. Suffering from a painfully short running time and an overly brisk pacing at the end, "Boy Eats Girl" does not fulfill the potential it has. What it does achieve is a quick and harmless way to spend just over an hour when bored.

Rating: 2 out of 5

An American Haunting (2005) (Courtney Solomon)

The Bell Witch is a legend based on true documents of the only case in US History where an entity caused the death of a man and a folklore that's still as strong today as it was back then. It's been the subject of various paranormal researchers and historians, some even swearing that they've seen the Bell Witch and her apparitions till this day.

An American Haunting encompasses 2 generations of families; although the Bell family in 1817 receives the most screen time than the contemporary portrayal that sets up the legend of the Bell Witch. With its predictable true story label slavishly tagged on to give it some smidgen of credibility. The family in the future, bookends the narration of the events that started the lore. It’s a tacky framing device that reeks of an anemic and frail script from creative abjection.

It's unfortunate that such a truly incredible and chilling tale of revenge, torture and evil has boiled down to what essentially is a PG weekend fright-flick intended to bring in young cineplexers as well as audiences willing to revel in a good ol' forgettable boogeyman story. Dousing us with Tennessee period atmosphere and commendable set designs, the heavy pretense bogs down its 2 most veteran thespians' talents with a tarnishing waft of self-importance.

Sissy Spacek and Donald Sutherland are John and Lucy Bell, in 1817 and proud parents of the marriageable Betsy Bell (Rachel Hurd-Wood) and the John Jr. (Thom Fell). They are the foci of the narrative, which constantly carries an air of portentous foreboding. Supporting characters include Richard Powell (James D'Arcy), suitor apparent to Betsy who solders onto the family as if he was already married to her.

The inconsistent characterisation of Sutherland's John Bell is a aching and sore point. To believe he was dishonest would be difficult due to his obvious endearment towards his family. His character goes through revolutions of character changes that's awkward and contrived to fit a scattered and disorganised screenplay that was trying to fit in as many documented 'accounts' of the Bells as possible. To his credit, the mileage of the film's many supernatural vivacities is bitterly shown on Sutherland's final diminutive state. Spacek plays an impassive role, the rangering the family as both her husband and daughter are slowly and cruelly abused. Second fiddle to Sutherland, she plays it the best she can with intense and covert glances of feeble moroseness.

The chemistry between the Richard and Betsy, non-existent as it is, still plays an important part in understanding the dynamics of those trapped in the house with a vengeful spirit. He is her sole comfort. Richard, who's also Betsy's teacher portrays an underlying pride in his intellect and belief in science. It's the first time his knowledge of the world has failed him, as he sees his betrothed, be thrown about like a rag doll as the spirit habitually targets and possesses her nightly. She's burdened with the brunt of the spirit's unexplained but undeniable fury.

There's a distinct lack of progress in the film. Running scare-gags include, creaking floorboards, unnatural convulsions and physical abuse by the 'affected' and now-you-see-it, now-you-don't visual devices. It becomes obvious halfway through the film that the director has no clue on how to sustain the tense moments that he begins to stage, usually with the help of a loud sound. All in all, its a sad attempt to imitate a similarly themed "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", which actually had depth and a deft touch beneath its well-worn exterior

Although much is said about the theories bandied about the Bell Witch's true intentions with the Bell family, no one has conclusively stated who and why the entity haunted them. Most of the theories are conjecture and flippant suppositions. And that’s the film's biggest flaw. It's final reveal is so aggravating anticlimactic and flimsy, it's not going to please or placate anyone who wanted something minutely plausible that's analogous with an actual horror story. It's not something that needed condescending social commentary.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Broken Flowers (2005) (Jim Jarmusch)

Broken Flowers is celebrated indie auteur Jim Jarmusch’s latest offering since last year’s collection of personal vignettes, Coffee and Cigarettes. As writer-director of his most commercial film to date, this offbeat dramedy promises to encompass everything we’ve come to expect from Jarmusch and his idiosyncratic views on growth, adult relationships and life.

Don Johnston (Bill Murray) is a jaded and aging Lothario residing in a quiet suburban neighbourhood with his girlfriend (Julie Delpy) during his retirement. Unfortunately for him, he receives a distinctively pink letter on the same day that his girlfriend leaves him. That letter alludes to a 19-year-old son who’s looking for him. Unsigned and with no discernable characteristics, the note leaves him to ponder which of the women he had slept with 20 years ago is the mother of his bastard son. His best friend, Winston (Jeffrey Wright) who moonlights as an amateur sleuth urges the ambivalent Don to track down the series of women scattered throughout the country to find out which of them sent the pink letter.

The 4 former flames are introduced chronologically as Don tracks them down, without any prior notice, in his rented car. The first of these is a single mum of a promiscuous teen aptly named Lolita (Alexis Dziena). The mother (Sharon Stone) is a lonely widow of a NASCAR driver who shows surprising appreciation for Don’s unexpected visit. Satisfied that she wasn’t the person he was looking for, he drives cross-country to visit the next woman on his list played by Frances Conroy (from Six Feet Under), She is a stark contrast to the previous woman, giving us a glimpse into the type of women that Don has had encounters with in the past. After a brief dinner with her and her husband, Don quickly moves on to the next flame as he starts losing hope.

Jessica Lange plays the penultimate person on the list compiled by Winston. As a successful animal communicator, her scenes provide some of the most awkward and amusing moments in the film such as her cat, Winston that manages to understand Lange’s character. As Don is left without answers once again, he hopelessly makes his way to meet the final woman, a biker chick (icy star of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch & the Wardrobe, Tilda Swinton). This encounter proves to be the most intriguing as unlike the rest of his ex-girlfriends, his break-up with her was acrimonious and he isn’t greeted as amiably as he hopes.

Each fascinating reunion offers up subtle hints to each relationship’s failure and the lives these women now lead. During these visits, Don keeps a watchful eye for details that could establish the link with the letter he received. Several red herrings are thrown in to keep a sense of mystery throughout the film, but the real hints come from the understated interactions that Don has with these women.

Masquerading as a film about finding somebody, it’s actually an exploration of one’s self and is very much a character study of a despondent Don Juan figure who has not made any attempt to reconnect to a life he once had. Don is a stoic and unflinching witness to his own life as he begins his search with quiet enthusiasm. Through the opening scenes, it’s quickly discernable that he is going through the motions in his life as we see him in his track suit in front of the television, oblivious and unfazed by his girlfriend leaving him. Realising his predicament, he tries to rewrite the last few decades of his life though a singular road trip down memory lane and finds out that he might just be the only person in his life that is still stuck in neutral.

With Bill Murray in mind, Jarmusch has created an extremely humane and sympathetic character that becomes more involving as the film goes on. Maximising Murray’s talents for minimising and underplaying his characters, Don’s reserved demeanour and unexpressive persona is excellently portrayed with remarkable restraint by the actor. He sports a deadpan countenance that looks like he has been nursing a perpetual hangover and only through the rare occasions of laconic inflection and brief expressions through his doleful eyes do we see the full scope of his melancholy.

Even as a character study, the film’s supporting characters are well-defined. Particularly, Winston played by the vastly underrated Jeffrey Wright who most notably played a gay New Yorker in the 80s closely connected to the AIDS epidemic of the time in HBO’s Angels in America. This time around, he is a first-generation Ethiopian immigrant who works 3 jobs and still pursues his passion and zest for detective work. The most important aspect of his character is that he is a staunch family man with a loving wife and 5 kids. It provides an interesting perspective for Don as his friendship with Winston is a constant reminder for him to see what could have been. Don looks to him to reflect his own inadequacies due to his wanton relationships with women.

Although the 4 women introduced are distinctive and have their own voices, the writing does tend to steer towards stereotypes. For example, Frances Conroy’s unhappy realtor seemingly stuck in a loveless marriage harks back to American Beauty or Tilda Swinton’s abrasive redneck character that ends up getting Don socked in the eye. Through Jarmusch’s episodic style of narrative, each encounter does not precede anything more than what’s on view and we are left with incomplete shards of characters that don’t transcend its clichés.

Although Jarmusch’s least strident film, it probably has the most anti-climatic ending in recent history, which should potentially infuriate or delight audiences. The ending rams home the film’s primary message of appreciating the journey more than the destination. In a person's life, opportunities arise to offer somebody a chance to find out and define who they are or who they want to be. Combining Bill Murray’s tremendous acting chops with a formidable female cast has demonstrated a masterstroke from its director and this is 1 of the better movies this year. Don’t leave the cinema too early as the credits offer a fantastic insight into the ending.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Hostel (2005) (Eli Roth)

Lions Gate Films, a Canadian based subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment, is getting quite the reputation of producing and distributing low-budget blockbusters for the North American audience as well as for the overseas market. Its knack of taking educated risks with controversial films has paid off handsomely. Most recently, Crash won Best Picture at the Oscars, adding to its many other accolades. Among some of Lions Gate’s other films are the Saw franchise. Reigniting audience’s craving for copious sanguinary fury, the film pushed boundaries in acceptable violence in even R-rated feature releases.

Now, a similarly themed film has been released in Hostel, a Quentin Tarantino signature film. The US$5 million production has gone on to make over US$60 million in its domestic box office (prior to DVD sales), while debuting at No. 1 in a crowded and heavily vied January period. To put its appeal into perspective, Hostel debuted at the top spot in the box office while out-earning both Chronicles of Narnia and King Kong. Both movies had a total budget that was 100 times the amount Hostel was made on.

The plot plays out like an urban legend told to ward off youths from succumbing to debauchery and misogyny. 3 young men travel to red-light districts in Europe with the simple intentions of anonymous sexcapades and rampant drug use. 2 of these men are obnoxious American fratboys and the other, an Icelandic lout named Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson) whose insufferable attitude towards the opposite sex pays off more often than not. They jump from brothel to nightclub sowing their wild oats. Their foray into decadence takes a turn for the worst when they get locked out of their hostel after a wild night in Amsterdam.

While finding a way to safe quarters, they happen upon a local who tells them of a hostel in Eastern Europe with the cheapest, easiest and most beautiful girls from all over the continent who go crazy for Americans. This promise land lies in Bratislava, Slovakia. En route, they meet a Dutch businessman (Jan Vlasák) who also regales them with stories about the girls and the assured depravity that abounds in Slovakia. Imagine a much more explicit version of Eurotrip without the comedy or the likable characters and you’ll be able to picture the film’s first act.

Sufficiently enticed they make their way to the hostel that houses their every fantasy. Just as soon as they are greeted with nudity, sex and alcohol, things start to go wrong when Oli disappears. Both Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson) are left dumbfounded by his abrupt departure as they are led to believe. As they solemnly party on their final night, they are separated and Paxton finds himself alone. He makes his way through town, alone and very far away from California.

After tracking down his date from the night before, he is led to a huge compound where he finds the Dutch businessman sewing up Josh’s torso. He’s then forcibly handcuffed to a chair and wakes up unconscious in a room. A hesitant man with a chainsaw stands over him and in a series of comedic errors, Paxton loses 2 fingers but gains his freedom from the room. As he makes his way out of the veritable abattoir while being chased by burly bodyguards, he slowly realises that he’s caught up in something more deviant and sinister than just murders. The compound is a business run by a charnel group of mobsters that’s catered to wealthy foreign tourists who participate in torture and snuff rituals with kidnapped victims.

Any film carrying Quentin Tarantino’s imprimatur is not to be taken lightly and not to be overlooked when it appears no less than 5 times in the credits. His recent and most mainstream films, Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 as well as earlier classics such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction redefined executions and torture situations for the modern audience. A stamp of approval from Tarantino demands overly wrought death scenes and plenty of cosmetic blood spurting from dangling limps. Although popular, they bear the nebulous distinction among some critics of popularising tasteless substance wrapped within stylised gloss.

However, the real mastermind of Hostel is writer-director, Eli Roth. His previous film, Cabin Fever was the highest earning horror movie of 2002. Roth’s penchant for horror and violence had Premiere Magazine calling him “the future of horror”. Slowly fulfilling that promise, Roth has followed up from his auspicious debut and has crafted Hostel into an unhinged showcase of gore and suspense that’s refreshing and actually quite scary. The matter-of-fact disemboweling and unflinching looks at newly made crevices in a human body is typical of the man. The graphic expulsion of fluids after the vivisecting and eviscerating of body parts is just part of his charm.

Roth unquestionably refuses to compromise as he finds unique and unapologetic ways to torture his characters while digging through their exterior shell (quite literally in some scenes) and into their inner psyche of fear and helplessness. It borders on Roth’s unstated objective of pushing boundaries and forcing a reaction from his audience when a scene reaches its gruesome payoff.

Quite possibly an indictment on humanity’s venal nature, we see dirty cops turning away from the ‘house of horrors’, locals leading unsuspecting backpackers into certain doom and most prominently, bored and wealthy men that relinquish both money and their conscience to act out their sadistic fantasies. Perhaps it also points to xenophobia and cultural elitism when we see Americanism in all its arrogance through the parochial and over-sexed mentality of the leads towards the locals in the opening act. Maybe that’s why they fetched the highest price?

Although not as much a psychological horror flick, the 1-dimensional and unlikable characters presented never fully let’s us root for them even when sweet retribution is expectedly dished out to the men that murdered without distinction. Sure, we feel suspense and a sense of empathy when the backpackers face impending agony but that’s because nobody should have to be tortured in the manner depicted.

There are 2 great cameos in the film in a space of 5 minutes. Both are masters of horror and both inspirations as well as fans of Roth. In the bar scene when Paxton finds his date, a hardly recognisable Quentin Tarantino sits in front of her. For Asian horror enthusiasts, Takashi Miike plays a caricature of himself – an ardent patron of the slaughterhouse, when Paxton first reaches the compound. Not quite overt, but both cameos pay tribute to Roth’s inspiration for the film’s concept.

While pushing censors to their limits is commendable on its own merits, Hostel manages to inject valid subtexts, albeit flawed and mishandled. It lives up to early expectation of being 1 of the most visceral experiences in cinema for the past few years. Its premise is frighteningly plausible, as paralleled in films like 8MM where exploitation of desperate human beings for the rich and willing is kept hidden away from society.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Joyeux Noël (2005) (Christian Carion)

There is nothing tinsel-cheery or laugh-out-loud funny about Merry Christmas, which is based on reports of a cease-fire on Christmas Eve of 1914 when World War I was being waged at the Western Front. Various German, French and British soldiers left their rifles in their trenches and franternised with each other in the spirit of Christmas. Unsubstantiated reports also document several other contingents of military personnel consorting with their foes during the Yuletide season. One of the more curious accounts of this truce even included references to a football match between these soldiers aside from the singing and mingling outside of their trenches where the fallen soldiers of the war still lay frozen and decayed.

Straight from writer-director Christian Carion’s own emotional attachment to World War I, which was cultivated as he had grown up in one of those German-occupied French territories where great battalions had met, this film pays homage to the soldiers and to their families that fought and experienced the ravages of the first Great War. It is also France’s official entry for the Foreign Language Film Oscar for 2006 when it opened domestically with 1 of the country’s best box-office openings in recent history.

Revolving around 7 main characters from different backgrounds and allegiances, the film makes these characters the representation of the soldiers of the nation that they hail from. Very much an ensemble cast, it consists of Diane Kruger, who plays a famous Danish soprano. She fights all odds to be in the frontlines with the one she loves, a German tenor (Benno Fürmann) who was called up when the war begun months ago. Rounding off the German camp is Lieutenant Horstmayer (Daniel Brühl), the man in-charge who’s rigid in his command of the trench. He’s an emblematic soldier who respects determination above all else. As most Christmas films demand, he becomes the character who goes through the biggest change as we discover his backstory and his ambivalence to the occupation of Paris.

Rounding of the rest of the main characters are the Scottish priest cum medic (Gary Lewis) who’s drafted along with the rest of his parish when war was declared; themerry christmas 2 company is led by Lieutenant Gordon (Alex Ferns). The French contingent includes Lieutenant Audebert, brilliantly portrayed by France’s leading actor, Guillaume Canet, and the Lieutenant’s orderly and the film’s main comic relief, Dany Boon.

The brainchild of Carion’s for almost 3 years after his debut success with The Girl from Paris, Merry Christmas manages to be as poignant in its description of camaraderie and love as it’s brutal in its dispiction of war’s effects in a soldier’s life and callous government officials who send young men with families off to war with no hesitation. This isn’t just a holiday movie that warms hearts to the sounds of the bagpipe or the soul-piercing allure of the opera, as the film doesn’t hold back in its criticisms of war and governments that participate in them. Throughout the movie, we see the injustice that soldiers are put through even by their superior officers. It’s made even more depressing when we see them finding solace and a momentary respite from the urgency of war in the company of their enemies.

Each element of Christmas is also represented through each of the nation that’s entrenched, seperated by a field of dead soldiers and a frozen mire of mud. Music is offered by the German camp through its opera singers, prayer and cheer is contributed by the Scots while the French extends their hand with, what else but, food, namely chocolates and champagne. An armistice is called as each commanding officer from the each ditch agrees to a 2-day cease-fire, agreeing that the war will not be won during Christmas. The gathering of the troops in no-man’s land where their dead lay and exploded shrapnel is scattered, doesn’t just end at the merriment of drinking as each soldier realises that they are no different from the adversaries they have been aiming at for months as they start exchanging addresses. The message is clear as we understand that the soldiers are fighting for something, not against something else.

Each character’s own insecurites about the war are revealed through conversations with one another as we find out that the tenor and soprano are at odds. The tenor feels obligated to stay with his regiment while she wants to run away with him to the Dutch border to start anew. We also see the French lieutenant’s anxiety about his pregnant wife and the Scottish priest’s struggles with his faith as his sees those around him fall with no mercy even from their superiors. Finally we see the ghosts of the past around them literally buried as graves are dug in unison for the fallen on Christmas morningmerry christmas 4

As aptly put by the Scots in the film, “The war can wait, but the war won’t wait for us”, the aftermath from the night’s festivities are cut short when the Germans’ paratoopers start dropping shells on enemy trenches. Fortunately, it’s a Christmas movie and we see each infantry unit taking turns in sheltering their respective nation’s targets in their own trench. However, this doesn’t end at the frontlines as each nation’s government and their superior officers discover this act through readings of personal letters. They label the events of the night as “high treason” among the troops and they deplore the lack of gravitas in the manner in which Christmas was celebrated. Each of the involved units is disbanded and each superior officer makes sure that there’s no love lost between troops as they are indoctrinated again on the subject of the evils of the enemy. The scene is similar to the movie’s opening when 3 boys of different nationalities recite the warcry of their nations in a classroom.

Guillaume Canet’s Audebert is the most sympathetic character in the entire film. When first introduced, he looks adoringly at his wife’s photograph just before leading his men into war. As he loses his wallet along with the photograph, he also loses his faith in the war and his drive for what he was fighting for. Wanting to know if he has a son or daughter, he finally manages to put his agony to rest through a favour from his German counterpart.

Although laced with ancillary moments of humour after the the film’s slow build-up to the frontlines, it borders on contrived and fantastical storytelling as the rapid change of heart and loathing for orders to stay vigilant are ignored. While it is a melodrama with a primary function to warm hearts during the holiday season, it’s also a war film which unfortunately pulls punches at the end to ensure a happy ending for most of its characters.

With French cinema serving up another movie set in the toils of war since last year’s A Very Long Engagement, and once again doing it superbly as the message it conveys will be clear for anyone from any country to recognise. This film will be a timeless addition to the holiday cinema fare. Even if the movie offends a few moviegoers who might see this as a grotesque misrepresentation of war, it does exactly the opposite as it pays tribute to the soldiers in 1914 that managed to carry out a miraculous act in that instance when sanity prevailed over the chaos of war.

Rating: 4 out of 5