I may have seen this before? But it’s been probably three decades. And I’ve seen a bunch of Fassbinder’s later movies, of course, but this feels pretty unique.
This is extremely nouvelle vague, but… later?
OK, at the start here I thought this movie was absolutely amazing. But there’s a lot of scenes that… well, they’re just not that fascinating.
I do love the cinematography and the sets and everything, but it’s just hard to pay attention after a while.
Love is Colder than Death. Rainer Werner Fassbinder. 1969.
Wow, this Vietnam vet is having a flashback… in 1968!1!
I’m not sure whether this is racist or not.
Poor rat.
Goke was a unique and brilliant movie, but… this isn’t Goke.
I mean, on a scale of cheap monster/horror movies from the 60s, this is pretty good. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have some bits to work with, but not a lot. It’s pretty good? But it’s not all that special.
After the sheer brilliant insanity of Goke, Body Snatcher From Hell, my expectations for this movie are unreasonably high.
But the first scene here is brilliant, so perhaps this is going to be another masterpiece.
OK, this isn’t Goke. I mean, it’s pretty good, but it’s… a pretty normal ghost story? It’s well made and it nice and tense…
Love the eye liner and mascara.
OK, they’re not really even trying with the special effects.
OK, I’ve just kinda lost interest now. This started off like some explosive 60s thing, and then it turned into a kinda scary ghost story, but not… it’s kinda plodding now? It’s just hard to stay interested.
This is the director’s second (and final) movie. I guess that makes sense — it’s brimming with ideas that could have really worked, and occasionally does. But like at random.
(And then he went to TV.)
Love the eye liner and mascara.
OK, this film isn’t “good” good, but there’s a number of fascinating scenes. So:
Wow. I’m amazed and riveted. This may be the best start to a movie ever.
Hajime Satô never got to direct anything after this, so I’m assuming it keeps this up!
I love how they’re using the odd lenses as a feature here — the odd distortions at the edges are perfect.
Oh, now I know what this reminds me of! It’s like Liquid Sky, only a decade (and a bit more) earlier!
This is so Liquid Sky! I wonder whether they’d seen this movie when they made that.
Man this is brilliant. If I had a midnight drive in movie, I’d put this on (on a triple bill with Night of the Living Dead and Liquid Sky) every night. OK, there are scenes that aren’t perfect… but… I was totally riveted. And it’s so interesting and odd, and incredibly well made. I love everything about this, so:
This is a straight up sf movie? This is not what I expected from Criterion — they usually eschew genre movies (I mean, unless they’re really … big…).
Is there gonna be a twist and then it’s gonna be all existential and stuff?
I paused a bit and read the DVD insert text. This was made by the Shochiku studio, one of the oldest and staidest studios in Japan (Ozu etc), but they made four genre movies in 1967 and 1968, and that’s what this box set is about: They’re of interest because they’re contextually odd?
But I’m enjoying these designs.
So much work have gone into these sets!
*prtrtrt*
I appreciate that they didn’t do space all black and stuff.
It’s a Moon bath!
Moon showers!
That’s how I want my bathroom to look like.
This guy is the worst! I mean, worst lip/sound sync. I don’t think he’s actually speaking Japanese?
It took a long time before we got to the monster!
I’m enjoying this movie. It’s got a kinda relaxed storytelling pace… nothing is all that dramatic, but there’s always something happening.
See?
But I can also see why this wasn’t the start of a mega-franchise like Godzilla. Sure, it’s a cool monster that destroys Tokyo, but it doesn’t seem to have the potential for a fun mythology like Godzilla had.
Well, OK, I don’t think you can say that this is a “good movie”, but there’s something about all these awkward oddball scenes that appeal to me. I mean, I understand why this isn’t a well-loved cult movie. But still:
