~PL~

I remember going to the movies every Friday night, with one of my friends. We both brought twenty bucks and paid our tickets...but we had ten bucks left after paying them, and these bucks were going straight in the "Insert Coins" hole of the House of The Dead 2 arcade. Every week during months...I've probably spent more than 100 bucks playing that game at the arcades. And then, I was the owner of a Playstation 2 and I had never heard about House of The Dead 3 being released...So, when I learned it, I decided to get rid of my PS2 (and my now-so-boring Vice City game) and to buy an XBOX...and the light gun that makes it so fun. Though the game was discontinued, I made sure to get my hand on a copy of it. And, on House of The Dead 3, you can unlock the whole House of the Dead 2 game. Now, at my home, comfortably, I close the lights, grab my gun and blow zombies to gory chunky bits. I can enjoy what I would describe as "the most arcade-ish game you'll see".

Now, more precisely, for House of The Dead 2, I'd say it's the best of the bunch. The graphics are not up to systems on the market today (XBOX in particular)...they're not smooth, pixels are big...but it gives the game even more qualities: it still feels like a game, it doesn't try to be realistic, it is funny as hell (the two heroes in this game are really cheesy...so is the dialog), it has basic but great lighting effects (that I'm also sure can be bad for the eyes or give bigger than usual chances for epilepsy), the gore is SO amazing...on a single head, there are about four or five different spots that can be shot and blown off. It really makes every killing different and varied, as you'll be amazed by how mutilated the next zombie you'll kill will be. The game also moves so fast, it keeps a very intense and dynamic pace, jumping from a horde of zombies to kill to the next. Plus, the bosses are fun and the training mode is a delight. There are also five levels of difficulty, which contribute to the re-playability. This game is short, though. But in this case, it's better that way. Think about this game as a B-movie you love and you want to sit through quite often, because it's fun. It's a game that you have to play several times...every time you'll sit through this interactive arcade movie with non-stop action, as we could call it, you'll have as much fun as you had in the beginning. Really great game, play two players, with light guns (or at least it would be better) and enjoy the roller-coaster of zombie butchering that House of The Dead 2 has to offer. This is a video game...video games have become so structured and have dull complex stories nowadays...And between the action sequences you'll get in a game, you'll have to fill up or follow an uninteresting story...rent a well written movie or book instead...House of The Dead 2 has no pretention, and offers only pure zombie carnage action while laughing at the concept of "story" in a video game...

Great game...simple, but incredible. Might not please to those who prefer conquest games, or that absolutely never want to reduce themselves to turning off their brain to zero and enjoying a nutty but honest fun.

House of the Dead 2 is a real good, short experience of gaming to play more than once a day. But beware...it gives headaches, because it really is intense...enjoy

9.5 out of ten

It's funny to learn Tarantino's earlier life (in a video store, for example) when we consider that this man did one of AFI's top 100 movies, Pulp Fiction, somehow, I think it does give great hope to young film makers that dream of having their passion as their job. His story is interesting, nonetheless, if you learn how he got Reservoir Dogs done and then Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, and then...Kill Bill.

Tarantino does something very special here...he does everything a film maker could ever dream of: a movie for himself, a movie he does cherish as much as some people will do in a couple of years, when Kill Bill is going to be a cult classic. A movie in which he pays homage to Oriental cinema, while Lucio Fulci fans will be totally pleased to see guts being spilled and people being sliced and diced in very bloody fashion. Also, Tarantino does punctuate the film with his own style, which has become a landmark in American cinema. Here we get many things that differentiate Kill Bill from an conventional institutional film; the chronology, which is, as usual in a Tarantino movie, like a puzzle in which all the short stories finally fit well together, there is also the very appreciated presence of an amazing anime sequence in the middle of the film, the fact that some scenes are in black and white, and not always to symbolize flashbacks (maybe in the case of Kill Bill Vol.1 it was only to avoid an NC-17 rating though, but I'll talk about that later), and, to top it all, we got way too much blood and gore for a typical American film, which Kill Bill Vol.1 definitely isn't.

Now, it really is evident that Tarantino did watch many Japanese movies. The animated part in his film is just as great and has the same crazily Japanese feel to it than "Akira", for example. The animation is done quite beautifully, much better than any manga, but still keeps a very Oriental aspect. Also, the combat scenes, especially at the end, keep the spirit and slow pace of classic Japanese cinema (think of Kurosawa or Kobayashi). Yeah, aside from all that crazy gore and limbs that fly all over the room, the honour-oriented aspect of the sword fights and the choregraphy just help to make of Kill Bill Vol.1 a true homage to Samurai films. Yes, it is an American film, yes, that's also something you'll feel while watching it, but it is not common at all, and it really makes an interesting mix of genres which I think only the Tarantino blender could put back together to obtain something very interesting. Yes, it did bother me a little at first to see that the fight against the 88 men in the restaurant was suddenly turning to black and white. Yes, the violence impact was mostly gone because of that, but really, with the grainy picture and the sound changing too, for a moment, I really thought I was watching a better version of "Shogun Assassin" with better camera angles and much, much more blood. And, then, right after that comes a fight which is shown only in shadowgraph...wonderful.

Kill Bill Vol.1 (and probably the whole film) does not really suffer from its very thin storyline, which is stylistically exploited to its maximum. Yes, it's just a plain story of revenge, but remember that Tarantino is behind it. And, by the way, another movie last year had pretty much the same storyline and was considered by many (which include myself) as an excellent film; "Gangs of New York". These two films exploit one of the oldest subgenres ever: the revenge flick. Scorsese's film had an amazingly delivered historical background to it, but Tarantino's has something hard to describe. One thing is sure, though, substance is not the main attraction here. But who cares? This film expresses the fundamental joys of cinema from someone who truly had fun making his baby. And it does make a great homage to Oriental movies , and it SURE delivers lots of entertainment.

Tarantino's directing is, as always, pretty good, while improvement has been made here; his three previous films were shot like (as he said himself) "good old boring television" but punctuated with some great shots and a pretty interesting knowledge in directing. But in Kill Bill Vol.1, Tarantino keeps his good old habits, but adds some new things to his direction. The black and white scenes are part of that, as well as some very dynamical camera procedures. I would say Kill Bill Vol.1, for right now (because I haven't seen Vol.2!) is not Tarantino's best film. But for the direction, it's the most original, and probably the best, though his style did fit better in his other movies.

The actors are all great. Uma Thurman is pretty good as the protagonist, but David Carradine, which we don't really see in the first volume, was frightening in his parts. Also, Lucy Liu does a great job as O-Ren Ishi, a professional assassin with a very dark past. All the others are very good too.

The soundtrack is brilliant, really. That's a Tarantino trademark too. The music is just perfect for the film, bringing incredible energy to the colourful and beautiful images which are delivered in a splendid and versatile photography. Tarantino uses different colour textures and image grain for the different scenes, as well as the sound. Yes, those things are apparent, which is something many people might dislike, but trust me, it does add a lot to the style and and value of this film.

So, overall, as a first volume, this was good, very good. Sure, it is not as good as "Reservoir Dogs" or "Pulp Fiction", but it does have bite, and a lot of it. And, to be honest, I'll be impatiently waiting for the second volume to be released.

8.5/10

Pier Paolo Pasolini is a man that I consider as a fascinating director. "Salò: The 120 Days of Sodom" (Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma) was his last film. His most noticeable works include "Porcile" and "The Gospel According To St.Matthew. Well, I would like to be clearer on this point, and I'll say that the word "noticeable" here is a synonym of "best". On the other hand, though, I would say that Salò is truly his most talked-about film, if you thought I meant that by noticed. The film is good, but I really preferred the two mentionned above, artistically and intellectually speaking. But Salò has its qualities, even though some of us might consider them as flaws.

Salò is based on the Marquis de Sade's novel, entitled "Les 120 journees de Sodome". The book (of course, it was written way before the fascist period in Italy!) doesn't talk about fascism, and the main common point between the film and the book is the main concept. The film shows the horrors inflicted to a bunch of young and beautiful people that were selected by four sadistic (what a funny use of the word!) fascists that are only willing to quench their own brutal sexual and violent thirsts. They are taken to a villa where the are submitted to the worst humiliations, which include being raped whenever the four masters feel the desire to have sex, eating feces, and later on being brutally tortured and killed.

This film is recognized for being one of the sickest of all times, one of the most disgusting also. Well, the "shocking content" mostly consists of constant nudity of young adults, many rapes, excrement-eating, scalping, tongue mutilation, and eye gouging. There are also pretty nasty stories told by a lady whose role in the villa is to tell sick stories that have for goal to turn on the four masters. I saw movies that were more disgusting than that, sincerely. The context and the cruelty surrounding many acts of violence and humiliation in this film are probably the main reason why it shocked so many people. The sexuality is never explicit (in the way that you never see a penetration graphically), the killings are pretty well done (the scalping especially) but there are very few of them and they are brief. I would say that "Caligula" is way more graphic and shocking than "Salò" (but less effective though).

Pasolini's directing is beautiful. He made a mistake in one scene, changing the angle of the camera of less than 30 degrees between two shots. Except for that, he's fascinating...he's obsessed with showing symmetrical images...all the time. This technique somehow communicates the "discipline" and the supposedly high "straightness" of the fascists pretended to have. Also, the camera often has a pretty wide vision, and we don't often really get close to any character. With such coldness, Pasolini was criticized a lot. People didn't know if it was really a statement against fascism or just a good reason to show horrible things...Personnally, knowing a couple of things about Pasolini's life, I didn't doubt one moment about his intentions. Yes, he had socialist tendencies, yes, he was a homosexual (which fascists hated) and yes, he was against fascism, and it is clear when you see the film. People who only watch American films and are used to explicit messages in films will not understand that, but this film plundges us into cruelty we could have really compared to the nazis', and that's how it delivers its message. Maybe too subtle for some, but sometimes, I think it's better this way...just like in most American movies...an example: American History X talks about racism..."Racism is bad" is almost written on the walls...it's very sanctimonious, it's really not subtle...but there are movies where they only show horrible things the way they really are, without really giving a judgement in an explicit way...I think it even works better. I am a bit tired of moralizers, to be honest.

The acting is very good. Also, I got the French Limited DVD of this film...that's the best edition, trust me! The audio tracks are in french (which Pasolini considered should have been the original language of this film, because it was the Marquis de Sade's and also the original Italian track. The one in french is amazing, really. There are also lots of extras, this is really a must-have. The actors, especially the four fascists, are extremely cold and creepy...Pasolini did a good job directing them.

Overall, the film takes a very neutral approach to the horrors it displays, but that's effective. Sure, this is not a perfect movie, it has pretty slow moments and it is not that well structured, but it achieves its goal, which is to make a statement against fascism.

8/10