Reviews

On the surface this may seem like a typical samurai action flick but like Kurosawa and Kobyashi films there are many social implications beneath the surface.

The movie seems to revolve around the irony that while Gennosuke, the main character who is basically cast out of society in to the wild and forced to constantly fight for his survival like an animal, is actually the only character that tries to show any qualities above that of a beast.

Every other character from a group of bandits he encounters to the group of clansmen trying to exact revenge after Gennosuke killed their leader, to a man and his wife from a separate clan trying to steal gold to improve their clan status are either acting for revenge, power, or greed. The greed exists because most of the movie takes place around a mountain where gold has just been discovered and Gennosuke is befriended by a poor man hoping to find some for himself.

Throughout the movie there is constant backstabbing, deception, and generally brutal acts committed by a multitude of these characters. For instance the man from a separate clan living with his wife on a shack by the river are attacked by bandits in the woods trying to steal the gold they have already mined; they hold the wife hostage in demand for his booty but the man would rather give up his wife then part with his gold. Her saving grace is when Gennosuke shows up on the the scene and acts with the courage and compassion to save her life. The husband does come around a little later in the movie but in the end his rival clan plans to kill everyone on the mountain and save the gold for themselves threatening the couple, Gennosuke, and his persuers.

Gosha does a great job with his imagery, demonstrating a wild, dark world threatening to swallow humans whole. Throughout the film, which is almost all outdoors are scenes of men disappearing into woods or buried beneath shrubbery. In fact, it's quite reminiscent of another Japanese Classic, Rashamon. Some of the shots are virtually identical, ie the sun being concealed over the forest canopy or disappearing behind a mountain.

One of the best touches is towards the end when soldiers from the rival clan are planning to take the mountain, and kill anyone who knows about the gold. One of them sounds a battle horn to signal the approach, a battle horn made to sound conspicuously like some kind of strange animal call.

I bought this movie from Criterion thinking a film accepted by them couldn't lead me astray (only later did I learn Armgageddon and The Rock were part of their collection), and boy was I wrong.

This is really one of the most pointless films I've ever seen. It took a big risk trying with it's innovative non linear structure (ala Rashamon) and gambles like this are usually hit or miss; Rashamon was a hit, this was a miss.

The plot is quite similar to Rashamon in that it's told by four separate accounts of the same event, a murder of a prostitute by a soldier, a pimp and wife, a devious night club worker, and a punk kid who were all near the scene and interrogated as suspects. One of the chief problems though is it is missing characters who actually care or discuss what happened, making it hard for a viewer to relate to what he just saw.

In Rashamon the character's discussion at the beginning and end of the trial as it be validated the themes of that movie, not to mention the hollowed out building they sat in to avoid the rain was the chief visual metaphor of the film. There were constant cuts back to that structure throughout the length of the film.

The Grim Reaper really doesn't have that basis so the cinematography and editing just wander around aimlessly, and I use the word wander because the camera is quite free moving about in this film, apparently thats supposed to be one of the virtues of this film.

Overall the central problem of this film is that it's non linear structure and subjective accounts of the same event generally just don't work unless there are common themes and setting throughout or any way for the audience to relate to what just happened. Normally if a film tells a good linear story with beginning to end plot it doesn't have to be particularly meaningful; this film put itself at risk by trying to be innovative and suffered the consequence.

I don't usually review films but I saw one review that acted like this was just a movie about drugs ruining a famous person's life and I had to comment.

On the surface you can look at this as drug's and wild behavior ruining someone's life and my complaint of the movie was the drug stuff towards the end was a little too drawn out. But you really have to look at what drove Gia to do the drugs and then you see the beauty of the movie.

The shallowness of living life just as an image where her entire world is what people see from her at a glance. All the people surrounding her or just using her one way or another and the other models constantly bicker about each other.

The one character that really introduced her to modeling and took care of her dies while her contemporaries just pretend to care about death was really the begin of her downfall.

The movie is very unique in structure. It is littered with interviews of the characters in the film talking about Gia's character, not to mention the constant use of a flash taking over the entire, growing in spontaneaity as Gia's life becomes nothing but a photograph.

The beginning and ending shots were really what sealed the deal for me. They were essentially the same close up of makeup being applied to Gia's delicate curves. At the beginning you think she's alive but it turns out it was her corpse the whole time being prepared, really gives new meaning to the saying beauty is only skin deep huh?