MovieChat Forums > Akumu tantei (2007) Discussion > The Bigger Mistake

The Bigger Mistake

posted 14 years ago by conedust
5 replies | jump to latest

I can deal with bad acting in a horror film. The two leads (Keiko Kirishima as Detective Hitomi and Ryuhei Matsuda as dream guy Kyoichi) were uniformly terrible, but I eventually accepted their stilted lack of affect as an aspect of the film's style - an unfortunate aspect, perhaps, but not a wholly fatal flaw. And everything/everyone else was good enough get me through the rough spots.

As a genre fan, I had a bigger problem with THE GUY. Director Shinya Tsukamoto did a wonderful job as the human version of the villain character, but his effects team created these STUNNING, Thing-quality props & makeups for The Guy's nightmare-monster incarnations -- and he barely let us see them! A shaky, blurry, three-frame glimpse here and there, but that's it. I felt cheated I tell you, robbed! Especially upon watching Tsukamoto's production documentary and seeing just how goddam great (and inventive and terrifying and lovingly detailed) the creature effects really were.

The bucher-headed thing that chases Masanobu Ando's Detective Wakamiya down the street is AMAZING. The flayed and staring monstrosity that threatens Hitomi and Kyoichi in the climactic battle is even better. Can't understand why a director would order the creation of such splendid work and then let it go so utterly to waste. A goddam shame is what it is...

You must have been so afraid, Cassie... Then you saw a cop.

[–] pfnuesel 14 years ago

I think that things that are not shown or just for a glimpse are much more effective, i.e. in this case more terrifying.

[–] troika19 14 years ago

Agreed.

Those short glimpses creeped the hell out of me.

[–] ChanceX74 14 years ago

I think people have just become spoiled by the whole in-your-face approach. I remember when Alien was so effective more for what it avoided showing, although I do find it humorous that the OP would use the phrase "Thing-quality props" while, if I recall correctly, The Thing generally used the same "shaky, blurry, three-frame glimpse here and there" approach throughout most of the film.

[–] HeX-Omen 13 years ago

"if I recall correctly, The Thing generally used the same "shaky, blurry, three-frame glimpse here and there" approach throughout most of the film."

If you're referring to Carpenter's version, then no. The movie showed you more than it hid! Still awesome.

[–] conedust 13 years ago

yeah, no way. carpenter was clearly head over heels in love with the monster effects & props that rob bottin created for his remake of the thing, and he spent a TON of screen time carefully and clearly documenting them. carpenter's film is almost precisely the opposite of nightmare detective in this respect. in my opinion, the thing wouldn't have been anywhere near so effective (and wouldn't be anywhere near so fondly remembered) if all we'd seen of the titular monster were "shaky, blurry, three-frame glimpses here and there."

a good prosthetic effect or monster is a work of art, plain and simple. a huge amount of time, skill, inspiration and sweat goes into the creation of such things, and to the extent that the work is first rate, it deserves to be taken seriously, deserves at least to be present in the film for which it was created. the director has to follow his vision and be true to the film he wants to create, and i don't fault tsukamoto on this level, but it's still hugely disappointing to see such beautiful work go so entirely to waste.

people always use alien to defend the "less-is-more" approach, but it's not the best comparison here. that film was basically a single long, slow reveal - a striptease, if you will - and we eventually saw every stage in the monter's development very clearly. again, it would have been a terrible shame if we had never really been permitted to see the monster at all.

You must have been so afraid, Cassie... Then you saw a cop.