Only Lovers Left Alive
I saw this at Stockholm Film festival and it was my 6th film, out of eight in total.
I can easily say that was the best film I saw during the festival and one of the best films I have seen all year. It hit every button for me and from the beginning, with the intertitles, it plastered a smile on my face…. Don’t misunderstand my meaning, it is not a comedy, it is a drama, but i felt joy of seeing what was shown to me.
Everything is great, the acting, the music, the filming, you name it. But this is a piece of art, rejoicing in the flight of time and the constantly changing cultural expression of the times, as well as a story about love and life. The script along with Jim Jarmusch’s directing and music gives the film a mood that doesn’t leave you after you’ve left the cinema. I felt that I wanted to see more, but knew as well that the world shown to me in the film, would not be the same.
This film is for the lovers of film, but also art in general, who feels comfortable to be carried away to a different world. And rather than seeing huge emotions play out, be put in the indifference of time. Here and now does not matter.
Thor: The Dark World, A review
I saw Thor yesteraday. In 3D (not necessary). It was cool and entertaining, and somewhat annoying. Here is stuff i liked and did not like:
Ok, so I like Thor better than any avenger, and this movie lets us experience a large amount of Thor in action. A lot is going on, I tell you. Which is nice. He can kick ass. So if you want to see Thor in action, this is the movie for you.
Asgard: A lot of it = Nice, though it feels a bit Star Wars episode 1-like =not nice. (Is it because of Natalie Portman maybe?)
Loki gets to play around a bit and that is super fun. He is the best character and the film makers knows this. And it is not only Loki that is the comic relief which is good, because a movie like Thor needs more than him. The comedic element is sometimes too “in your face” which is annoying, so be prepared for some unevenness of tempo because of it.
Bad: Jane Foster is not kicking ass. She is a damsel in distress most of the time: Bad! there was so much potential for her to have an action filled role, but nooo. Running around or slapping faces does not count. Bad Marvel! And, the emotional depth of this film is also very short. It is actually too easy to get disconnected. Please, more emotions! There is crazy horrible and wonderful things going on, let the characters react!
And who wrote this? If you are a fan of convenient turns in the plot, here you have them on a golden plate. I always wonder how the writers can consider the things that are happening as plausible. No, please make some things a bit more difficult. There is plenty of stuff that you can cut out instead. And please, give us a more interesting villain! You can do better, and smarter. We have seen it!
Good: Expecting a shirtless scene à la the first film? You will not be disappointed. Anyway, Thor looks better in this than ever… Just sayin’.
End credit scene: totally worth the wait. Do not run, sit still.
Thor: The dark world gets 3 out of 5 bananas.
Stoker: Pros and Cons.
I watched Stoker recently and this is my list of pros and cons:
- Pro: The cimematography is wonderful. Con: The beautiful cinematography makes the film feel constructed.
- Pro: The Constructed feeling of the cinematography and the direction makes the theme of the film more bearable. Con: The theme of the film is difficult to relate to and feels a bit foreign.
- Pro: The theme of the film is current with predatory and incestuous vibes that is a theme recently treated to a large degree in both films and tv-shows. Con: The film can be considered too artsy for being in tune with current mainstream.
- Pro: The film is very artistically and skillfully directed which makes the film an absolute treasure in the thriller genre. Con: The pacing is slower than most films and the climax is not as extreme as expected.
- Pro: The high tension is built up by the skillful actors. Con: The film is very detailed…
- Pro: The contrasts and suspense are built upon symbolism and detailed expression. Con: This gem of a film might be too “difficult” for most and you have to be in the right mood for it.
- Pro: Matthew Goode is gorgeous!
Perks of Being a Wallflower
I belong to the sceptics. I have to admit to that. Whenever movies are hyped in the way that this one has been, I tend to not wanting to see them or being bored by them. So when I found myself with a copy of ‘Perks’, I had a feeling that I’d turn it off in the middle. It was not the case.
The film is aimed at teenagers and young adults and it is, in a sense, the ultimate film in the genre. It is actually filled with clichés, treated in a lot of films about maladjusted teenagers in high school. The best thing with this film is the theme of mental illness, and that is what makes this film interesting and moving. The rest is rather generic, though well acted and directed.
In all, I din’t think that Perks of Being a Wallflower deserves the hype, but it was entertaining and moving.
Why did I write this review? I have no idea.
But watch it. I cried.
A couple of weeks ago, me and my dad went to see Skyfall. He is terrific company in the theatre, though somewhat embarrassing, laughing loudly during the action sequences… The copy was digital (boring…) and the theatre waaaay too big.
Have been thinking of writing this review a few times, but I decided to watch the other films with Craig as Bond and I can say,without a doubt, that Skyfall is my favourite one.
I have to say that by any standard, Skyfall is one of the most beautiful movies of the year. The cinematogtaphy caused me, at times, to get goosebumps. The coloring and the conciousness of the director to emphasise the visuals and the almost overwhelming focus on colors and contrast made this film amazingly striking and intruding.
I have to say, after seing the other two movies, that the script for Skyfall is the best. The dialogue is better and more believeable; the story is better; the pacing is way better and the carachters are all more interesting, especially the villain.
Silva, played by the wonderful man that is Javier Bardem, is truly terrifying. His presence and his determination permeates the entire ambience of the film and he is the one villain in the “Craig trilogy” that has felt true and really threatening. His superiority is overwhelming and forces Bond to use his brain.
About the rest of the cast, all of them are doing well, especially Craig who has developed his expression of Bond considerably since Casino Royale. Judi Dench is bringing it too as a pushed M. The rest of the cast have relatively small parts, which I adore since it is a movie about Silva-M-Bond. The story is therefore focused and even though the film is long, maybe too long, the filmmakers keep the interest in the story alive. The concequence? The film is never boring and the running time of 143 minutes is easy to get through in a comfy chair.
In the end, what makes Skyfall the best Bond film? The direction. Composed by Sam Mendes, the film is thought through, interesting and beautiful. The film is beautifully put together as a modern action movie with a hint of the Bond that we are used to from the past.
Any drawbacks? Well a few, but most of them comes with the concept of James Bond. Clichés and overdramatic scenes comes with it and makes Bond what Bond is, but do I have to like it? No, I prefer some Bourne any day of the week…. (Oh, and the sound is strangely mixed, so be prepared to use your hearing at the best of your ability at times and cover your ears at others.)
Women: Oui, non? Peut-être: http://bechdeltest.com/view/3632/skyfall/
Skyfall: 4.5/5 (Movie Night, for sure! Where’s the biggest screen?)
Quantum of Solace: 2/5 (Uhh! I am so bored! What was that one about again?)
Casino Royale: 3.5/5 (Bond! Which is the good one? With Craig in the water?)
The only thing I got out of watching ‘New Year’s Eve’ was an urge to get a new dress.
I just saw ‘Stardust’. I’ve had it on my computer waiting for a good moment to watch it. So, now after a weekend packed with writing on my research proposal, I figured; why not?
My first thought when I saw the list of the cast was: Whooow! How can this happen? Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Sienna Miller and so on and so on, I couldn’t fathom WHY all of those would be in a movie like this. Now I do understand.
The script is very well written, not a boring second. The pacing is wonderful and the story is intriguing. The world sucks you in and the characters are well played. But the best, is the direction. Each moment is believable and the tone of the film, as a fairytale adventure is never lost.
Of course, it is not the best film ever produced, but it is very entertaining and engaging. Good for a fall night, when you want to get lost in a dream.
Btw. This movie is worth watching, just because of Ricky Gervais. And Robert De Niro in a dress. And Ian McKellen’s voice. (I can go on for a while… I won’t)
Review of ‘Magic Mike’.
Chain of reactions: Interest- boredom- embarrassment- giggles- frustration- dozing off- giggles- “How long is this movie?”- giggles- boooring- “Was that it?”.
Soderbergh, you can do better. And lay off the sepia filter. It worked for ‘Traffic’ but illustrating hot climate can be done otherwise.
I’ve been putting off seeing this film for a very long time, even though I really wanted to see it. Already when I saw the trailer I knew that ‘Like Crazy’ would be an emotionally straining thing for me to see. So, I’ve been putting it off, but finally saw it a few days ago. It has since permeated my thoughts and been present with me, stirring up emotions that I thought were forgotten.
The story is about two young people in an American collage, he, Jacob played by Anton Yelchin, is American. She, Anna played by Felicity Jones, is British. They know from the start that they will have to move away from each other, but they can’t help but throw themselves in to a passionate relationship. We then get to follow their fight for their love and the changes in emotions that they experience.
The biggest strength of the film is that it is shot in a beautiful way. The raw and very unpolished way it is shot, almost without steady cam and the lighting that feels very natural gives the film a genuine feeling. The acting, is also very natural, and it is easy to notice that they have had a lot of freedom and have been improvising. The acting is, though, a bit shaky at times, probably because the lack of direction but at times, the actors are shining like stars.
The dialogue is very credible, but the story, on the other hand is less credible. There are moments in the film that I really feel are genuine and they fit in perfectly, but other have a constructed feel to them. The consequence is that some of their actions seem unmotivated.
Even though the film has its flaws, I watched it with a constant physical pain because of the emotional strain that it brought me. It brought up memories and emotions from some of my past relationships and I really could relate to the events and the emotions that this film portrays. The mix of big events and tiny moments that defines relationships were in it, but also the unreal expectations and the disappointment. For me, ‘Like Crazy’ will stay a film that I’ll go back to and remind myself of my past, both the happy times and the mistakes I’ve made.
The film is for me worth to see for everyone, especially young adults, and it deserves a sober mind and a rainy day.
Going to see this film, I felt like that I needed to be in the right state of mind. Therefore, I decided (and forced my friend) to see it in a cinema that is smaller and provides an environment that encourages thought. Instead of popcorn, I had a large, organic, fair-trade latte. No sugar. You might wonder why this is important to note, but it is and I’ll come back to it later.
The trailers were nice (a french film and more artsy partsy things), but the audience was talking and didn’t notice them. When the film started, I was happy to see that it was a 35mm copy but realized quickly that we’d gotten seats too far back. But in the end, it all set the mood for a very enjoyable experience.
I really love to see films in the cinema when people are laughing at different things. And this film was like that. I heard laughs and chuckles from all over the theatre at different times and I sat there with a grin all over my face most of the time. Why? Wes Anderson’s vision is very different from the ‘standard’. One notice quickly that he is very interested in fiction and the unreal. The situations that the two protagonists find themselves in are often very bizarre and the supporting characters are drawn up like caricatures. Sometimes, Anderson even make a point of it being unreal through the usage of strange special effects and sets. The film gets a rather dreamlike feeling through through these odd elements.
As a fan of Wes Anderson’s previous work, I felt at home. His characteristic way of presenting families and places brings back memories of at least a couple of his past films. The story line is also presented in a way that a fan of Anderson’s work will recognize, this time in the shape of an old man setting up the premisses of the story. Even though many of the elements of the film already has been used in his previous films, he succeeds in making it feel fresh and new. The dreamlike feel to the story and the perspective that is a child’s, make this film very interesting, funny and exhilarating.
Even though Moonrise Kingdom is the work of the director, one have to mention the cast, especially the children. The awkward acting of the kids have great effect on the dreamlike atmosphere as well as the stiff, exaggerated acting of the adult cast.
Waking up from this dreamlike experience, too far back in the theatre, I felt relaxed. Even though the film was unpredictable, loud and intense at times, I felt relaxed. It was like visiting a place you once knew. Everything is what it used to be, but the change makes it a new place to visit.
The coffee? Well, If you like organic, fair-trade lattes… You might like this film too.
Les femmes? Oui/
Oldies but Goldies #1: Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
Grosse Pointe Blank (seriously, the title. what kind of title is that?). 1997. John Cusack and Minnie Driver.
Seriously, if you haven’t seen this one, you’re in for a treat! In my opinion, it is a classic and it should get much more cred than it does. It is a story about a professional killer that goes home to where he grew up, both to finish a job and to attend his High-School reunion. The story is strange… Why is it a good film?
- The script is amazingly well written! It is seldom that Hollywood manage to create something that is as funny and that incorporates the action sequences as seamlessly. Great work! A fun plot+ great dialogue= WIN!
- Acting. I know, I know. John Cusack and Minnie Driver as the lead actors… It is too much 1990’s to be tolerated, but they make me long for this type of acting and actors in Hollywood nowadays. They bring charm to characters that normally would seem dull and their chemistry is prefect!
- The soundtrack. The Clash, The Cure, Violent Femmes, The Beat, Queen, Guns N’ Roses, The Specials, Pixies. The list goes on and on. Better soundtrack is difficult to find and the music just fits in perfectly to the story and its surroundings.
Well. A list of a few things that I find is great with Grosse Pointe Blank. See it with a friend or two and if you happen to have a beer in your hand, all the better. It is a riot.
Any suggestions for ObG?
Where can I smoke?
Short review of film: Probably one of the strangest films ever made. But it’s bloody brilliant!
The Bourne Legacy Trailer. Well, this gets me going. Renner+ Bourne. unf.
I’m watching American Psycho again, and I’d forgotten what a complete psycho Bateman actually is….