Yudono-sanroku noroi mura (1984) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1 Review
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Somehow Badly Confused
hae134008 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
About one hundred and eighty years ago, a bonze of the Mikoku temple, named Yukai, had felt in love with a girl named Shino. But then the other bonzes of the temple forced him to be mummified, and Shino committed suicide. And now, the president of a famous food company, Awaji, and a bonze of the Mikoku temple call a university lecturer, Taki, for the consultation of the excavation of the Yukai and other mummified bonzes. But soon Awaji is murdered in a locked bathroom. And there are mummified human hands over the body. And then Taki begins to privately investigate the way the murderer takes his-or-her action in the room which has only small ventilating window and the meaning of the mysterious hands... This film is based upon the award-won novel by Masao Yamamura. Its story itself is a little complex because it has two and badly disconnected historical backgrounds. And to make matters worse, the leading character, Taki, who is meaninglessly non-stop-talker and has inadequately comedic tendency, is somehow popular among female characters. And this kind of male character is never popular among Japanese audiences, and partly therefore this film itself seems to be unpopular in Japan. (Incidentally, Taki in the novel is a man who is over-eating, over-drinking, and crazy about quizzes, and therefore is much more inadequately comedian-like than he is in the film.) But the most problematic part of the film seems to be the very identity of the murderer.



cWARNINGcMAJOR SPOILER(S)cWARNINGcMAJOR SPOILER(S)c

In the last part of the film, the early-teen daughter of Awaji confesses to Taki that she and her younger brother killed their father because he was one of the bad men who raped their grandmother and aunt; the girl had taken the mother's hypnotic in the father's drink, and then her brother entered the problematic room through the ventilating window, and killed the father. (After all, the little boy was the only person who can go through the window.) And the girl set up his alibi in the upper room. Well...this seems to be logically possible. But it is too artificial and/or fictional to be naturally acceptable and/or believable. Although it is difficult to say child(ren) never kills his-or-her parent(s), it is much more difficult to believe a early-teen girl and her little brother conspiratorially do murder their father not only in the logically planned way but also at the house where not a few people gather. And there is another problem about the case. Although the most parts of the film almost meaningfully stresses the mummified hands, the girl confesses she found them by chance and therefore used them casually. Just who can accept this irresponsible joke? Indeed this confused film has not a few unnecessary and/or meaningless elements and therefore becomes much more confused.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed