Review of "Taste of Cherry", "Layer Cake", and "Feast"
Ta'm e guilass [Taste of Cherry] (1997)
IMDB Link
When a movie is hailed as one of the best and has huge critical acclaim, and it happens to be from your own country, then one feels an immense pride towards it.
But what happens when you don’t like it yourself? I almost feel guilty for not liking “Taste of Cherry”.
It does have a peculiar plot. The protagonist is driving through mountain areas of Iran, looking for young guys for an unspecified job with promise of lots of money. Yes, if you are like me, the thing that pops into your mind is, “Gay sex?”. But apparently Director Agha Abbasy is looking at bigger issues than anal sex.
See, the guy wants to commit suicide. And he is looking for a guy to him the next day, see if he is dead, and if he is, to just pour sand on him. And that’s the main meat of the money. It is an interesting subject, the topic of suicide, not at the perspective of a typical, TV Drama, but at a more general way. The suicide is not related to any specific problem, as the guy never explains what his problem is, but the conflict between Voluntary Death and Involuntary Life.
There are a few brilliant moments, but ultimately, the director asks too much of me. I admit, my attention span is not the best out there, so when we see long shots of the main character driving through nothingness, I did get tired.
Oh yeah, before I wrap this fantastic, award-winning review up, let me mention the end (don’t worry, it doesn’t exactly spoil anything). Once the movie fades to black, the director shows us the movie, behind the scenes for a few minutes. Not the technical part, only the weather has changed from dust and nothingness, to a beautiful spring. And the characters are laughing and talking. For some reason, I found this an excellent move. It is like the director is telling us, “Listen, guys, I don’t want to manipulate your emotions. This is a movie.”. I found that very respectful.
3/5
Layer Cake (2005)
IMDB Link
One of the worst things to happen to the British Film Industry was Guy Ritchie and his flash, gangster movies. Although, let’s be honest, if that didn’t happen, then nothing would have come out of the British Film Industry, given that I can’t think of one non-gangster movie.
I want to like British gangster movies, because I like movies about criminals and I like movies about people getting shot, so I don’t see why I should have a problem with it. Well, I do know why. British gangster movies are a constant attempt to be cool. Whether it’s in the character’s attitudes, the way they talk, or worst of all, the directional techniques. Gimmicky camera angles, flashing text, random editing, all an attempt for the director to flap his cock in front of our collective faces.
Then why did I give Layer Cake a chance? Daniel Craig. I find him a fascinating character, and I’d say an underrated actor, but he’s starring in James Bond, and I guess you can’t put underrated and James Bond casting choice in the same thought.
And I have to say that he almost carried the movie by himself. He plays a smart drug-dealer. Not power-hungry, not greedy, not cowardly, not too tough, just a perfect combination of a quiet, businessman, who is trying to do a good job, save up some money, and move on. As a character, he stays unique to the genre, never turning into a flash gimmick.
The whole movie almost works perfectly. The director shows constraints at a lot of scenes, staying away from flashy camera techniques.
Still, it constantly follows Guy Ritchie, and that’s where it fails. While Daniel Craig’s character is great, the characters around him are usually just typical British gangster characters. And in typical genre fashion, there are way too many plots, unnecessary twists, and unneeded anecdotes.
If the director held his ground, and made a solid, straight movie, this could have been one of the best of its genre.
Well, it still is, if we compare it to the rest of the Guy Ritchie and Guy Ritchie-clones of the last few years, but that’s not saying much.
Actually, again, in retrospect, I'll say it is a good movie, even with its faults.
4/5
Feast (2005)
IMDB Link
I should have loved this movie. It would seem like my sort of horror movie.
The IMDB plot summary says, “Patrons locked inside of a bar are forced to fight monsters.”, and amazingly, this is actually the full plot, not just the summary. I usually love these no-nonsense, no-bullshit plot settings. Just get a bunch of people in a closed place, have some zombies/monsters/creatures outside, and let people die one by one in gruesome manners.
So, why doesn’t it work for me? It goes the horror-comedy route, but in a very obvious, and almost mockingly, tongue-in-cheek way. You know how in horror movies, you sometimes watch a scene and go, “Man, I wish that stupid kid would die.”, yet you know he wouldn’t. Well, in Feast, when you do say that, the kid does die. It is like the director has taken every predictable horror convention, and does the exact opposite of what you would expect.
Still, it is not as good as it may seem. There is an arrogance about it, there is no love for the material. It feels like the film-makers are laughing at the genre, and you can’t make a genre film without any love for it. This incompatibility with the genre is shown by its gory. Yes, it is gory, but not in the fun way. There are usually two gores in horror. The serious, disgusting gore that makes you feel like you are watching an Al-Qaeda beheading video (which is obviously staged by the CIA, you fucking assholes!), or the more over the top gore, that is just for kicks. In Feast, it feels like neither, because the director doesn’t know how to do gore. He seems to follow the guidelines, like, he cuts off someone’s head, and blood sprays everywhere. But with the flashy camerawork, the gore has no joy in it.
Actually, this is all hard to explain, so fuck it.
3/5