When a homeless boy living at the youth shelter run by a Buddhist monastery turns up dead, the Abbot recruits Father Ananda, a former policeman, to find out why. He discovers that all is not well at this urban monastery in the heart of Bangkok. Together with his dogged assistant, an orphaned boy named Jak, Father Ananda uncovers a startling series of clues that eventually exposes the motivation behind the crime and leads him to the murderer.
El M (au) wrote: very awesome... so what do I watch next?
Ben S (de) wrote: One of the most underrated movies of all time. It's a twisted, dark comedy that has Seth Rogan's best performance, and very strong direction by Jody Hill. Story and gag wise, it's beyond bizarre. Ronnie is a sick man, but also completely lovable, and we can't but help cheer him on while he tries to accomplish what ever sick delusions come into his head. Though his character is repulsive, his lovability is undeniable a la the "Seth Rogan" charm. The film has date rape, tiny dicks, and bursts of ruthless violence, but they all serve a greater purpose in helping us delve into the world Ronnie himself has created, and the world that we (americans) have allowed ourselves to be subjected to. The fact that a vast majority of the film takes place in a shopping mall helps the spectator make tons of social critiques about consumption, love, idealization, and why we might think that a serial flasher might be one of the biggest deals in the entire fuckin world. The soundtrack is killer, and the cinematic references in this movie are endless, most notably of all, Taxi Driver. The movie may be pitch black, but there is a heavy heart at it's core that grabs you, shakes you, and doesn't let go despite the repulsivness happening on screen. Just watch it. You'll either love it, or you'll hate it, but I can guarantee you there isn't much else like it.
Wut S (br) wrote: Remarkably deep and dark. A psychological retrospect obsessive with antithesis--even in its own structure.Rarely a film hybridizing such desolate subjects (amnesia, necrophilia, autopsy, death) could depict refined emotions, complex human relations, and moreover impersonating philosophical optimism. While not technically virtuosic as Tsukamoto's previous landmarks, Vital accomplishes by advertize the director's ability to present a more conventional, non-industrial approach to his filmic arsenal. The usual perception of Tsukamoto is that of a director who emphasizes symbolisms through the counter-narratives; however, Vital does not shy away from continuity. Think of it like Memento or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind--it's not linear with temporal shifts, but the discontinuities suture into one comprehensive whole.The film proves that not only Tsukamoto could craft his films with experimental ballsiness, he could also deliver in a straightforward fashion as well.Often Tsukamoto utilizes machinery and social psychology to illustrate the structure of human emotions and behaviors; however, for Vital, Tsukamoto adopts sentimentalism, inner growth, and wisdom, though he made sure Vital's not too conventional by opting a unique combination of morbid concepts.
Grayson D (gb) wrote: Murphy has been in a lot of very bad films and this is down there with the worst them.
Sylvester K (gb) wrote: Emily Watson delivered an Oscar worthy performance in this disturbing love story between a psychologically troubled yet deeply religious young woman and her husband who was paralyzed in an accident at work. This is the first of von Trier's golden heart trilogy and by far the best. The film was shot in a semi-dogme style, the plot was broke down into chapters, a technique he would later use for his other films. Rod Stewart's songs were played throughout the transitions of the segments. I loved the acting, I thought both Watson and Skarsgard deserved Oscar. The story was beautiful yet huanting, really made me think about what is love. It has a good message and a semi-happy ending, it's truly a masterpiece.
Yuval S (br) wrote: Robin Williams delivers one of his best career performances in a profound, poetic film.
Aaron H (nl) wrote: Bad 80's movie, but I liked it back in the day. All in all, there really isn't any reason to see this movie. It's not funny, it's not scarey, it doesn't have a lot of action. it's just a run of the mill, boring old flick.
Lillian G (ru) wrote: Trippy. Great Mystery Science Theater 3000 material. However, I did begin to see some of the Buddhist lessons in the story, only because I learned a little about Buddhism previously.
Lionel J (it) wrote: The atmosphere is very good, not to mention the songs are great and the OST is nice.
Scott A (ca) wrote: I actually really liked this movie, despite the girl that promised to see it with me totally blowing me off that day...so it must be pretty good right?Kutcher and Murphy are great together and it really shows the evolution of a relationship.