Koroshiya Ichi (Ichi the Killer): Movie Review
By maiden disaster | Posted in • MoviesQuentin Tarantino: “I admit using a dash of Ichi in Kill Bill” (©Japattack, August 28th, 2003)
First, we watched the completely uncut and uncensored version.
Ichi the Killer is a movie based on the manga ‘Ichi’. Essentially, it’s a movie about revenge. However, as the film progresses, it seems to become less about revenge and more about pure masochism, sadism, and gore. I would venture to say that some of the younger monkeys may not enjoy this quite so much, it packs a punch that the weak stomached may not be able to handle. I found it to be one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.
The Boss of the Anjo gang is missing, and with him all the gang’s money. Kakihara (Tadanobu Asano) sets out to find him, believing (although told otherwise) that he isn’t dead. While at first it seems like he’s so eager to find him because of the fact that he’s boss (and supposedly has all the money,) it turns out that Kakihara is actually looking for him for one reason. He enjoys the extreme and brutal beatings that the sadist Boss Anjo would inflict on him, and had been for some time. After terrorizing members of rival gangs on the grounds of suspicion, Kakihara finally comes to believe the actual source of Boss Anjo’s dissapearance is a guy named Ichi.
Ichi (Nao Omori - whom I might add got his start in acting in a tv commercial for Suntory Whisky in 1996…. mmm…whisky..) is a man with a troubled past. At least what he thinks is a troubled past. In his mind, he remembers watching the brutal rape of a schoolmate. In reality, it never happened and he’s being controlled by a hypnotist (whom he also lives with) named Jijii (Shinya Tsukamoto). The hypnotist makes him think that he has witnessed such a horrific event, so that he can use Ichi to kill. He shows him similarities between the people he wants dead and the non-existant boys who ‘tortured’ him as a youth, therefore giving Ichi reason to kill them. Not to mention his schizophrenia… Pretty sneaky, eh?
Director Takashi Miike is famous for pushing the limits, and this movie is no different. Here’s some of the gore you can expect; rooms full of bodies so mangled the blood appears to be dripping like rain from the ceiling. Slicing of tongues. Brutal beatings. Pouring of boiling oil. I’ll leave the extra-special stuff for you to see yourself. These listed are some of the more tame moments. Now, you may be thinking, ‘I can’t watch this movie. Gore makes me projectile vomit all over my parents with the force of a thousand hurricanes!’ Think Evil Dead. Comical gore. Not side splitting rolling on the floor comical, but in Ichi enough that it makes you feel bad to be laughing at some moments. Kind of tongue-in-cheek humor. After all, what’s funnier than slicing off your own tongue to prove a point and then talking to your buddy who’s just called you on your cell phone? Classic. Or when a man from the clan dons a pair of fake dog ears and sniffs at a woman’s crotch to find a sex-obsessed man, then tracks him by smell and takes him back to torture him? Genius.
In Japanese with English subtitles, it takes a little while to get used to reading the text at the bottom of the screen and at the same time paying attention to the myriad of images. (Luckily, I’ve been watching a lot of Initial D lately… not the horrid Tokyopop version, but the original Japanese.) Subtitles are usually a problem for someone like me, one who has the attention span of a fruit fly. These were very clearly done, easily readable, and the movie being in the original language prevented it from becoming a overdubbed nightmare.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I love horror movies anyway, but this was something special. For plot, I’d give Ichi the Killer 4 1/2 out of 5 monkeys (I wish the pasts of the characters were developed a little more,) and for gore 5 out of 5.
Ichi the Killer, Horror
Director - Takashi Miike
Ichi - Nao Omori
Kakihara - Tadanobu Asano
Jijii - Shinya Tsukamoto
Karen - Alien Sun (Pauline Suen Kai-Kwan)
http://www.ichithekiller.net/
Other movies by Takashi Miike
Meg Ryan, while not the standard definition of a comic, truly shines in comedic roles. The When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, or You’ve Got Mails were where she flourished. The Doors, When a Man Loves a Woman or City of Angels were decent enough but she wasn’t wholly believable. The success of those films can be largely attributed to co-stars like Andy Garcia or Nicholas Cage, seasoned dramatic actors, or to a controversial director such as Oliver Stone. Moviegoers don’t want to see her sad, or in pain. They want the feistiness and spunk that has become her trademark. When she’s veered from this incredibly profitable course, the results have made many cringe (Proof of Life anyone?). She has talent, but the range that she is shooting for just isn’t there.
Conversely, the following actor has the range and depth, but when you’ve made your name thanks to the innate ability to talk out of your buttocks; any dramatic possibilities seem to fall by the wayside. The actor in question would be none other than Jim Carrey. Few are interested in seeing him “angry,” or doing an “important” film. No, they want Ace Ventura: Pet Detective or The Mask. Not many have seen Carrey’s turn in the 1992 television movie Doing Time on Maple Drive. It’s a pity really since he was quite good portraying the alcoholic son. However, I’ll bet most have seen his blockbuster hits Liar, Liar or Bruce Almighty. These films made millions and solidified Carrey’s selling power. Man on the Moon might have been one of his finest performances (an ironic turn since he was portraying Andy Kaufman, a man who seemed content with a career making people laugh -or in some cases scratch their heads in confusion-). Even with Milos Forman at the helm, it didn’t generate renewed admiration for Carrey, and was carelessly lobbed alongside dreary ego trips like The Majestic. 
More recently Adam Sandler tried to wow us with Punch Drunk Love, but when you’re the man behind Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison we’re not going to pay $7.00 to have you make us think. Yes, Robin Williams can go from Death to Smoochy to One Hour Photo, but let’s face it, he’s Robin Williams. Where there’s a Moscow on the Hudson or a Popeye, there is a Good Will Hunting or an Awakenings. It would seem that when it comes to Mr. Williams we forgive him anything (much as we forgave Sean Connery for being the only Russian sea captain with a Scottish brogue in The Hunt for Red October). Mr. Sandler is not granted such leeway; we want him to stay on his neatly laid course. To be sure it is as if the actor is some sort of investment we’ve made. We’re putting in our money, and in return we demand certain things. If you’re funny, stay funny. In many ways we feel betrayed when they don’t deliver, and our wrath can leave a hole in the pocketbooks of many studios. 
Someone once said that there is a place for everything and everything in its place. The same can be held true for Hollywood. Certain actors have a certain place, and they just seem to belong in their allotted slot. We have the “critically acclaimed” dramatic actors and the “loveable” comedic actors. When they try to swap these roles, the results are less than stellar, and only marginally viewable. The rubber-faced funnyman just can’t be the self-destructive alcoholic. The same is true for the strange Oscar -winning beauty who just doesn’t fly as the vain newswoman dealing with the news of her imminent demise (oh, and that was supposed to be a heartwarming comedy no less.). Yes, it’s wrong to pigeonhole a person into a certain role. Yes, maybe they (the actors) should be allowed to expand their horizons as thespians, but at whose expense? Most actors don’t foot the bill for this professional gambling. There are countless unknowns that could have made some of these missteps magnificent, instead of just an unfortunate hiccup in an already successful actor’s resume.
Empire Strikes Back this movie isn’t. Fortunately, we don’t have to wait very long for its conclusion though, so I’m still holding out hope. While the first Matrix wowed me and knocked my socks off, this sequel felt mostly tired and at times almost tedious. Many of the effects we’ve seen before, and while they are done better and with more flair, they just don’t excite me like they did in 1999. In fact, there are times in the new film where the effects, though amazing, are still obviously CG which is disappointing as effects that are done right should be transparent. The Matrix was a rehash of many different familiar science fiction elements pieced together carefully so as to create something of a work of art. Reloaded on the other hand seemed to borrow much, perhaps too much, from the first film and didn’t have enough plot elements to back it up. All of this combined with sitting in line outside in the cold (stupid theatre) for two hours only to be let into in a very warm theatre filled with too many people as they oversold the tickets was a bit much and having less than optimal seats. But at least we got to see a few other things, like three people in different parts of the audience watching The Matrix on laptops and the girls directly in front of us brought a small portable television to see who was continuing on in American Idol.
Normally, I’m on the pulse of movies coming out, but when the first movie came out I had largely been ignoring movies and film news. So to say the least, Matrix came to me as a big surprise. And I’m not the only one, as it was the sleeper hit of the year. They didn’t bother to advertise it in advance; instead they let the word on the street get around to advertise it. You may have noticed they have done something similar this time around as well. And I thought it was going to be a movie about math, like Pi!
figure out is why half of the plot in this movie seemed to regurgitate that of the first one. It seemed like they spent an awful lot of time beating us over the head with a stick reminding us why we are here and what we are doing. Sledgehammer of Plot… Audience… BBAAAMM! Thank you, but we know all this because we saw the first movie a million times already. How about a few more pages of actual story and a few less pages of fight scenes that don’t really go anywhere?
effects of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Cool World. Two completely different leagues. For an example of this, look at the “bully fight” scene, which was very entertaining to watch, but when you examine Neo’s body, face and his coat, they have a plasticy look giving themselves away as effects. The coat shouldn’t be shining in the light, it is pitch black from what we’ve seen earlier in the film. But during the fight, many times do we see live action Neo turn into CG Neo and then back again. It is distracting and distressing… Distressing in the sense that with the kind of money they put into making this film, it still seems like they could get the CG done a little better. 90% is a million miles away from 100%. I did however like the car chase sequence for the most part (though much of the fighting on the truck was obvious green screen and intermittent CG as well as the agent jumping from car to car). The shot coordination, framing and sense of speed were all there though and gave urgency to the moment. It has to be said however that many of these fight scenes last too long, seem to exist for the sole reason of being eye candy, and add absolutely nothing to the epic story that this trilogy is supposed to encompass.
Matrix unleashed on me a few years ago. It is a summer blockbuster, and I can’t fault it for not being perfect as most blockbusters have their flaws so I’ll cut it a little slack. You may also find the ending a little annoying as it just ends without any real resolution. At least Empire Strikes Back ended in such a way that they resolved much of what needed to be resolved while really hooking you for the conclusion with a great cliffhanger ending. Sadly, I think most fans of the first film will be at least a little disappointed but it is still an entertaining 2 hours 18 minutes of film and worth a look. If you aren’t feeling up to it, go see X-Men 2: X-Men United. It was a great flick and a welcome opening to what I hope to be a fun blockbuster summer.
Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 5 Monkeys. It was entertaining, but it has to try a lot harder to be as good as the first one. A would be homerun, but bungled enough to keep the ball deep inside the park… I’m sure it is all a setup to something greater in the sequel, but as a standalone piece of work, well… It doesn’t, really.
IMDb Listings:
