Previous Entry Share Next Entry
toomuchpressure wrote in takashi_miike
Hi everyone, just joined this community but Miike's been my favorite director for the past 3 years now. Anyway, I saw Imprint last week and am surprised no one's said anything about it yet.

I thought it was god-awful. Which is a first for me when it comes to Miike's work. Up until now, the biggest criticism of anything i've seen by him has been, "well that wasn't quite as amazing as most of the rest," but Imprint really left me cold. I don't know if it was the horrible acting or the need to have everyone speaking in english or the ludicrous rubber fetuses (feti?) or what, but the only thing this film managed to do well is make me squirm during the torture scene. Aside from that, though, i've actually been discouraging people from renting this at the video store where i work, and i'm usually a huge Miike booster.

So, uh...what's everybody else's take?

  • 1
you obviously haven't seen "andromedia". :)

but yeah, i haven't seen "imprint," i have it on good authority that it's fantastic, though, and i really can't wait to see it.

I keep hearing aboot that movie. What makes it so awful?

it's a kids' movie, more or less. it stars members of some teen pop band from japan, and it's just really, really lame and corny. there's a really bad, randomly placed music number, and the movie itself is just plain bad. the plot is ridiculous, a girl dies and her father makes an A.I. construct of her ("a... i... ai") by copying her brain to a disc or some crap. i can't remember the exact details, i'm guessing it was so retarded my brain is trying to suppress the memory. anyway, some evil doers want to steal it, and her boyfriend or something is running around the whole movie with a laptop with her on the screen. there's a villain that speaks in english, and a loud female computer voice translating it into japanese, and you can't fucking hear what he' saying in english, and there aren't any subtitles for his character... it's unbelievable, i found it to be practically unwatchable, although i somehow stuck with it until the end. i guess it's worth a look just so you can say you gave it a fair shot, but i'd suggest watching it with other people, which might make it funny in a way. i watched it alone, and it just pissed me the fuck off, in an "i waited 3 days to get this from netflix?!" sort of way.

i also wasn't a big fan of "izo", "family", or "osaka tough guys", but "andromedia" is really in a class all its own. and a really crappy, inane class, at that.

osaka tough guys had a funny beginning, but then wanned in the middle and I couldnt watch anymore of it.

yeah, to me, it was just completely forgettable. in fact, i hardly remember the plot, except for the huge, man-woman thing that is randomly chasing that one guy, which was kind of funny.
i'm not sure if it was "osaka tough guys", but i seem to remember a rape scene in a night club that was portrayed in a comedic way, which i think is pretty inexcusable, having known women who've been through that. this is coming from someone who thought "visitor q" was brilliant, even.

andromedia still remains in the original plastic along with a few other movies in my collection I have yet to see.

yeah, I totally disagree with you.

The only thing I didnt like about it was the Draco guy, the other stuff, fucking awesome.

And the fetuses were fucked up.

I cant compare miike movies to each other, because although miike does have a certain style each piece is each its own entity.

If you want to compare it to something, compare it to the OTHER masters of horror episodes.

Yeah, I agree with you. I thought "Imprint" was pretty good, except for Billy Drago's terrible acting.

And I've only seen 1 other Masters of Horror episode, which was "Jenifer." I can't even compare "Imprint" to "Jenifer" because "Jenifer" was just that bad.

oh god, "jenifer" was fantastic, i thought. there's a penis eating scene, for crying out loud!

I don't know, I thought the whole thing was kind of corny. But then, I've never been a big fan of Argento.

yeah, argento is definitely not for everyone. most all of his movies definitely have an air of corniness to them, some more than others, and i can see why people generally seem to either love his work, or loathe it.

a lot of the episodes were on a level of "ok" while some were just really bad.

if I had a top 3 masters of horror, it would be

1. Imprint(This was really screwy)
2. Dreams at a Witch House(This was entertaining and full of surprises)
3. Deer Woman (this was hilarious)

i love "dreams at the witch house." stuart gordon is the master of lovecraft adaptations.

i think the only episode i've seen so far that i just really disliked, was "chocolate." god, mick garris is a hack... he's directed shitty stephen king miniseries, and THAT makes him a "master of horror?"

I think he's a producer, so he can throw in his chips

I'll only agree with the Master of Lovecraft adaptations on the basis that he's one of the only people to do a lot of Lovecraft adaptations. For horror movies I love his films, but they are far from anything that could be deemed an acceptable representation of Lovecraft's work.

Ironically (maybe) I found Dreams in the Witch House to be his most faithful attempt at bringing an HP Lovecraft story to film. While I did like the movie I think it's my least favorite of his films. Hm, I guess I do enjoy that he takes liberties with the original work, even if it always ends up far from the mark. :D

I cant compare miike movies to each other, because although miike does have a certain style each piece is each its own entity.

Agreed, I would like to see someone compare Bird People to Visitor Q.

can you compare visitor q to anything?

Midnight Eye more or less agrees with you:
"Technically, Imprint is very accomplished. Toyomichi Kurita's cinematography is top-shelf, belying his history in both the US and Japanese film worlds. Filled with good lighting, camera and framing choices it makes for a strongly atmospheric piece. This carries over to the art direction, production and costume designs, too, all of which are of first-rate craftsmanship. And that is what makes Takashi Miike's Imprint all the more disappointing due to weak scripting, bad performances, and a deflation that comes from it ultimately being a shaggy-dog story. I did wonder while watching this whether just keeping the story in Japanese with Japanese actors would have helped. My suspicion is that it would have helped the performances, but the narrative problems were there from the beginning, which I feel ultimately compromises it.

There is one thing to keep in mind about Imprint and your taste in horror. Since so much of horror fandom does arise out of the splatter and gore thrills, Imprint most likely will work for you. The torture is twisted and while I have some issues with it being too lovingly photographed (almost like Nobuyoshi Araki photographs), it will make you wince. The shots of countless bloody fetuses will also deliver the gore-goods for many fans. In the end, this thrill and chill is what many people want from their horror-story be damned. If that sounds about right for you, then Imprint will deliver. I'll take better storytelling please."

Personally I thought Imprint was a nice way to spend an hour. It's definately not my favorite Miike film but I can think of countless other horror movies I've wasted time watching. This was enjoyable for me.

  • 1

Log in