Reviews

In the war between the Pope and an invading German army, in the 1520s. Only a young brave captain in the Pope's army, Giovanni de Medici, is able to withstand and repel the Germans with his quickmoving cavalry. But times are changing and there is a new weapon on the battlefield; artillery.

For so much soldiers, many in full armor, with swords, with halberds and maces. Cavalry with horses. Infantry and artillery. The costume department and budget must have been huge. But for all that gleaming metal, I have never seen so little action. Basically there is none, and the most intense (action-wise) scenes are when De Medici shouts profanities (which happens surprisingly often). Many other scenes include walking (armies moving) or people standing. Either armies looking at each other (but they won't fight) or people standing in doors looking in rooms. I think the last bit is an attempt to picture political intrigues, but I never really could connect them with the supposed war. Oh, and there was some scenes with a women complaining about cloth.

In short, it was boring. Especially since with all that armor, I expected some medieval action. There wasn't.

Valleby school is set to participate in the Hammarabi competition, a competition in knowledge and cooperation. The prize: The ancient book of Hammarabi. But the book is stolen, with Lasse and Maja in the room. Maja, her first day in school, becomes the prime suspect.

Actually a quite decent children crime/mystery. I also get that this is supposed to be an origin story, telling the story of how Lasse and Maja met, also giving the characters some space to evolve. But both Lasse and Maja, compared to the books are completely out of character and heavily stereotyped. Lasse is a coward brainiac with no friends. Maja, an athletic adventurer, not above breaking and entering, and quite frankly often pretty dumb. Not at all how I perceive them in the books. And it feels so unnecessary, and annoyed me quite a lot. Which is unfortunate as the story is good, and worthy of a LasseMaja mystery.

Kids might not pick up on that, and enjoy it.

This is a brilliant drama, based on a great idea and well crafted and acted. Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman stars as father and daughter. Father Anthony is starting to be affected by dementia and daughter Anne is a worried and caring daughter, having ger father move in with her.

The drama is not shown from Anthonys viewpoint, but instead is shown from his experience. Episodes and events repeat themselves, the chronological order of scenes thrown into disarray. Sets, enviroments and furniture blends into each other making it hard to tell them apart. This makes the plot hard to follow and understand. And that's exactly the point.

This is not a plot-driven drama. Both beginning and end is fuzzy. There is no solution or conclusion. The movie is entirely about the experience. And by chopping up, repeating and changing the order of events, we get to share Anthony's confusion. Add to that the fact that sometimes Anne and her husband is played by different actors, strangers to both Anthony and us, the feeling is emphasized. It's confusing. It's sad and harrowing. It's brilliant.

Jawan is a very charming action with a humorous twist.

A terrorist, aided by several women warriors, with a social conscience are running free in corrupt India. He hijacks a commuter train with demands that spread wealth among Indias poor and so on. He gains the popular favor, but making no friends in the corrupt elite. And police is closing in.

And there is a history too. A lost father, a maryred mother is also making their mark on the present from the past.

No it's not realistic. But it is a lot of fun. Superb characters brought to life by talented actors. A lot of relationships to get mixed up in. A good deal of spectacular action-scenes, with and without guns. Choreographed to last detail and with a lot of special effects. Despite a runtime of about 3 hrs, it never feels long. And lastly, a little odd but fun for a non-Indian viewer, the dance scenes!

Highly recommended.

This is a feel-good movie through and through. And one of the better ones at that.

Mrs. Harris works as a cleaning lady in peoples homes. What's more she also functions as a de facto counselor to many of them, offering sound advice. In short, she is an important person in the society. One day she sees a Dior dress at a client and is mesmerized. When a little money comes her way, she decides that she too shall have one. And where better to get one than in Paris?

It is a sweet, charming and sometimes a bit quirky story. Lesley Manville excels as the charming lady, with a strong supporting cast. There are few setbacks for Harris, and no real suspense at all. It is a sweet trip, and a few charming characters (and of course, one "enemy" - but she is no real threat). Nothing outrageosly fun but there is a smile all the way. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

Clare finds herself trapped in a penal colony and at the mercy of a cruel English Lieutenant. She is supposed to be set free, having served her time, but the Lieutenant doesn't want to lose his beautiful Nightingale. This ends with the murder of Clare's husband and baby, and rape of Clare. The Lieutenant then leaves on a long trek to secure a promotion. Filled with grief and holy vengeance she enlists a local Aboriginan guide, Billy, to track and hunt down the Lieutenant.

This is a raw, violent and sometimes very unsettling story. Clare and Billy represent the lowest on the social ladder, a lone woman and an Aborigian, in a racist and oppressive society. There is a deep mistrust both between them and the rest of the society. It's unsettling, sometimes even nauseating, to see how people were mistreated. But it's also brave and important to tell this story like that, so that history is not forgotten.

Sometimes though, I find that the movie becomes a bit one dimensional and single minded. Especially with the always evil and throughout rotten Lieutenant. He is the devil himself. Clare (understandably) is filled up with vengeance. It got a bit too much at times Perhaps the story would have benefitted of more depth and complexity in the characters.

Adventures in Babysitting is a typical late eighties comedy. Family friendly, fun and an easy watch.

Babysitter Chris boring evening turns into an adventure when she takes the kids she is supposed to sit into the city to rescue a friend that ran away from home. It starts with a flat tire, that she can't afford to replace, and leads to them being chased by (not too scary) gangsters. And of course they need to get home before the kids parents do.

It's not hilarious, but it's always funny and not too cheesy (as many of these movies tend to be). And the kids don't do anything way too stupid (as kids in other movies always seem to do). As an example of these 80's comedies, it's a good one.

An added film buff bonus nowadays are the cast. There are a lot of later stars in early roles. Elizabeth Shue is good in the lead. Anthony Rapp (much later of Star Trek fame) is one of the kids. And watch out for Vincent D'Onofrio in an odd role (among other notable actors).

The movie tells the story of the real life commandant of Aushwitz, Rudolf Höss and his family. He lives with his wife, Hedwig, and their children, right beside the concentration camp. The contrast couldn't be bigger, the horrors if the camp and the garden paradise of the Höss family.

It is a brave movie as it doesn't openly condemn the atrocities Höss commited. The criticism is more subtle, and in a way much more effective. Director Glazer instead uses key scenes and subtle sound to show the bizarre world and horror. For example, a lot of the time you can here faint sounds from the camp, screams, gunfire, brutal orders. Just as the Höss family must have heard them. The contrast and juxtaposition to the family sunbathing in the garden are deeply disturbing. Another example is when Hedwig tries on a fur stolen from one of the prisoners, keeping it for her own. She finds a lipstick in one of the pockets, and goes on to try and keep even that. That makes it so intimate, extremely revolting and disturbing.

It is also important, it rises the question of who can do what in collaboration of horror. It happened once, can it happen again?

Nothing really special with the western story, a posse hunting some robbers, a personal vendetta between two rivals. It plays out like many other westerns, with the mandatory duel between the main characters in the end. No real surprises anywhere. A bit on the violent side, it doesn't shy away from showing blood, but nothing too disturbing.

But what a cast! So fun to see Steve Buscemi, Dermot Mulroney, Keith David, John C McGinley and Mickey Rourke, among others, in a western. Most of them between or before more noteable work but very much recognizeable. A lot of the entertainment came from seeing these actors.

A crime-thriller, regarded as one of the best in the genre in Sweden, really has it's ups and downs.

Lets start with the ups. It starts out pretty slow. It follows Martin Beck and Einar Rönn who gets called to a gruesome murder. The victim, a fellow high ranking police. Leads are few but Beck and Rönn is slowly untangling the web. The victim has a high number of complaints of police brutality. Could the murderer be someone he wronged, or someone from within the police, covering up their tracks? Beck and Rönn is picking at all the strands, and it's slow going. And it is very effective, the suspense builds up toward what one expects to be a great climax. Added to that the realistic theme (shots and cinematography) along with Beck and Rönn being on duty for more than a day (Rönn actually falls asleep during an interview) makes this movie something else, majes it stand out in a genre full of movies.

Then it completely derails. What should be the climax with a lone gunman on the top of an innercity house shooting, terrorizing both police and society turns into a farce. The police os so unbelievingly and astonishingly (and repeatedly) incompetent it turns into an unwilling comedy (think police school but with some characters actually being hurt). And then it ends, leaving me feeling extremely disappointed. All suspense is gone, and no real revelation or closure of the murder is given either. Not at all what I expect of a "masterpiece".

This was an experience. I'm not sure of what really, as this is no easy movie. I didn't love it, but it was intruiging and certainly not just another movie. If you want to see something different, this might interest you. But Do NOT watch it together with anyone you are totally comfortable to watch weird and provoking themes. Do not watch it with your kids our parents. Really, don't. The safest thing to say is that this is a controversial movie. The trailers I have seen doesn't really give the right feel for the film as it is much more adult, dark and provoking than the trailers.

The story follows Bella Baxter, a Frankenstein-ish creation of the brilliant but disturbed surgeon God-win. Bella, with a childs mind, literally, is extremely naive. Growing up, well mentally, but in a grown-up body she is confronted by some of the darker sides of human desire and society. There is a lot, really much, of sex. However, it is not erotic. The movie has a very different take on dealing with sex. It also lifts the theme of privilige and poverty and inequality. There are some fun momemts when Bella with sincere naiveity reacts outside social convention. But it is not a comedy.

The production values are fantastic. A good cast, great acting (Stone won an Oscar) but foremost a fantastic set and visual concept. Not easy to decipher, but there are hints in the visuals to the story.

But thought-provoking, peculiar and different as it might be, it isn't really entertaining. It is new, someting else, a piece of fresh air in the sometimes stagnant movie-stream, but not really engaging. Perhaps the story is a bit too far out of social convention. Perhaps the story is too thin at all, large portions seemed to be just a string of scenes contending with each other to be the most provoking (many times in a sexial way). The why of it, and more than the obvious motives of characters are left unexplored...

Jeanne Dielman... was recently named Greatest Movie of all time by Sight & Sound (in a poll of more than 1600 people that knows movies). So for a movie afficionado this is a must see.

Be prepared that this will be a different experience. Running at over 3 hrs this is an extremely slow movie. It is about the title character Jeanne Dilman, a widow with a teenage son and her everyday life. Mostly cooking, eating the food and then doing the dishes. Cleaning the apartment. And a bit prostitution (rarely shown) for extra money. Going to the post-office. One of the more dramatic scenes is when Jeanne discovers there isn't enough potatoes when she prepares dinner. Other scenes include: Doing the dishes (a scene lasting about 3 minutes), sitting in an armchair (also about 3 minutes)... and so on. So when they say Slow cinema they really mean Slow.

The camera is extremely static, it doesn't change even if Jeanne or her son is talking with their backs to the camera, or walks out of frame. I don't think I saw one pan at all. Most cuts are just done when they literally need to move the camera to another room. Most scenes are long, lasting several minutes. It is a movie so different from most everything you have seen. It is interesting in a technical way, I'll give it that. Perhaps it is also a way to emphasize the mindset of Jeanne and her life, slow and boxed in. I'll also admit is brave to make a movie so different. For this the movie has received great praise.

But for me it lacks one of the most important part of a movie. An interesting, engaging narrative. Simply put; a story. As it is it almost becomes a fictional documentary, even if there is a small development after about 100 minutes and actually ends with a bit of surprise. I get that a select few, most probably with some sort of connection with film making or academic studies of film, will find it interesting. But the broader audience will most probably find it dull. Mind numbingly so.

So, best film ever? Not by a longshot.

Becker, advertised as a comedy thriller, is a enterprising Swedish movie set in a small rural town where Becker tries to rule the local criminal world. But now two new outsiders tries to move in and take over.

As usual, everything starts well for Becker but slowly everything deteriorates around him. His black market workers doesn't complete the school renovation, his underlings start to work for (are forced to) the outsiders, even his most trusted friend Stefan. His own (legal) furniture shop is threatened. And suddenly a woman turns up and leaves a girl, what is supposed to be his daughter. Soon his very survival seem unsure, so Becker has to do something.

I liked the idea and premise of the movie. If done well, these low budget, story driven comedies set in rural towns can be excellent (see Slim Susie (Smala Sussie på svenska) for a good example). But Becker tries to do too much, and be sublime about it at the same time. There is no character that is really able to deliver a fun dialog or some witty remarks (Becker tries to sometimes but fails). There is not really any good physical comedy, as the movie then would not be the thriller it also tries to be. There is very little action at all.

What there is is a lot of subplots. The polish workers and the school. The contract for the ice rink and the politicians, his kid, Stefan and his wife and I may forget a few. All of which are introduced, sometimes alluded to but never really explored or resolved. So when the main plot ends, and Becker gets rid of his competition, the movie just ends with stating that Becker is at the top of the world. Not a word about of how they took care of Stefan, his best friend and co-worker, that died. Not a word about how Stefan's wife reacted. Not a word about how Becker and his daughters wife resolved their issues. And the rink is totally forgotten. So, the movie tries to do very much, but in doing that, it never really does anything. It would have been so much better to concentrate on one subplot and really do that. And choose genre. Is it a comedy, or a thriller?

Again... an example of how to do it. Watch Smala Sussie.

Based upon the real events of Phillipe Petit's tight rope walking betweem the Twin Towers, this is a beautifully told film of how Phillipe conceived, planned and executed the feat, or "the coup" as he called it. Even though, based upon the real events and therefore not any real room for surprises, the film has it's thrills and suspense. Also, the character Phillipe maintains that he is an artiste and that the coup is an artistic event. These values is incorporated into the movie. Phillipe, or rather Jospeh Gordon-Levitt in charachter as Phillipe, narrates the entire movie giving the story more depth and background, while also adding a subtle but warm humor. To enhance the story uses some CGI. This is beautifully done, sometimes subtle as when they play with the colours in Phillipe's reminiscence, or when the tightrope appears from thin air in Phillipe's mind. Other times it is evident, as in Philippe's walk between the two towers. In all, the makers of this movie uses the entire range of tools it has in terms of making a movie. From how the script is structured and the story told, to the use of special effects and CGI. I should also mention the cast, spearheaded by Gordon-Levitt. I think their acting is really good, giving heart and soul to the characters.

All in all, this is a movie i recommend. It is surprising how they can fill this rather straight forward story with wrinkles and turns that make it both suspenseful and fun.

An almost literal movie about the life of Jesus, according to the gospel of Matthew. With Pasolini not imprinting his own feeling or beliefs into the story it is very honest, with a authenticity to it that many other movies about Jesus lack.

In black and white, filmed in a rural area in Italy, the setting add to the stark and sometimes grim feeling of the movie. Pasolini supposedly used many local amateurs in the movie, even casting the student Enrique Irazoqui as Christ. However, he is perfectly cast, and delivers a striking presence (albeit being a human one). Pasolini's (and his crew) work in setting, casting, directing and filming the movie is impressive. The movie is agreat example what you can do withot needing a big budget or lot of effects. A good script and knowing how to tell it with a camera is enough. Aspiring movie makers might want to take notes.

However, as film entertainment goes, this is perhaps not the movie to watch for fun. Not the movie to watch when tired or wanting to relax. But there are other values in this moive, pick your moment and company.

A suspenseful thriller without fast paced CGI (although it did win the Academy Award for special effects - the effects are used in a totally different way). Instead the story is driven by dialog and the hints of hidden agendas (and there are a few of them).

It is slow paced, taking its time to make you think. The questions that the character asks of another are many times also directed to the audience. There is time to think about both ethical and philosphical questions, especially in reference to new technology, but also how we live and treat each other. What it means to be sentinent, and to be human.

You don't need to think about it if you don't want to, the suspense and story is good enough to carry itself, but it is that extra dimension that gives the movie an edge.

The acting and directing is very good, without anyone standing out. The entire (but small) ensemble is very good (I must admit that I didn't recognize Isaac with his beard), and director Garland knows how to make his points. He has also put in a lot of references, both to other (many of them with a similar topic) movies and history (especially in reference to technology). It is telling that the character often quote pieces that is associated with the development of the atomic bomb.

Recommended, especially if you want a movie that you can continue to think about even after the end credits.

This was included as bonus material on a disc with A Farewell to Arms. Never heard of it before, but when I had watched both the classic A Farewell to Arms, it is The Fatal Glass of Bear that I will remember.

W.C. Fields stars in this short set in the dark and cold wilderness of Canada. And he is brilliant. He delivers quirky lines ("I'll just go out and milk the elk...") with a deadpan seriousness that makes it impossible not to laugh. Or when he, for the umpteenth time, says ("It is not fit for man or beast to be out this night") and get splashed with snow in the face each time. Simple, but effective comedy.

It is a rare combination of slapstick, dialog driven farce, and detail (check out his sled-dogs) jokes. It is hard to put a label on it, but it works.

If you stumble across it, watch it!

Well, it is ok, but there are many other classic movies out there that are better, more entertaining classics out there (comparative in age is Metropolis, King Kong, Imitation of Life and so on).

The problem with A Fareweel to Arms is its failure to really lure me in to the story, to engage me. It is a slow story, some nice scenes with good settings and camera technique, but the story-telling is slow. However, a movie doesn't need to be fast paced to be entertaining, but if not the pace is keeping the interest up, the movie needs to be telling a catching story with characters I really connect to.

Sadly, the story focuses too much on the romance between the characters Catherine and Frederick, and not the issue of morality, humanity and war (supposedly hemingway was furious with this). The other thing is that I couldn't really sympathize with either of the main characters. They make choices that doesn't really put them in the best light. Frederick, a ambulance driver more interested in ladies than in his patients, deserts to be with Catherine that has left the country as well (leaving her post as a nurse). And it is not until later that he learns that Catherine is pregnant with his child (which could have been a moral dilemma to build upon, stay and do your duty or assume your responsibility as a parent). And the connection and chemistry between Fredrick and Catherine is not the best either. The passion doesn't seem to be there, and in a romance heavy movie, that is not good.

Still, it is not bad, worth seeing once. But had it been made this year (and not based upon a Hemingway novel), it would have been quickly forgotten.

Tina is not like everyone else. She know it herself and it has haunted her her entire life. First, she is burly, has pronounced brows and teeth. She has considered herself ugly all her life. Secondly, she can smell if anyone feels shame, is deceitful or likewise. Something that is very helpful in her job as a customs officer. She lives in a small cabin far out in the woods, and feel most at home in nature.

One day at work she meets Vore. Vore is mysterious. Powerful and full of secrets, but he also look similar to Tina, maybe he has more answers to Tina's life than she does. At the same time Tina get to help the polive in following up a bust she made in customs, a dark secret hidden behind closed door in the middle of the city.

Both events will lead to Tina reavluating her whole existence.

The movie is dark, not so much that it builds upon old lore but set in modern day society, but it reveals such evil among us. Both supernatural contained in the film but also such evil that exist in society today. It is a bold movie, a story daring to touch and handle such topics as child pornography, and it might not always end up with the answers you wish for. But that also makes it an uncomfortable watch, it is hard to really connect to the protagonists. The movie makes a point of the difference between Tina and Vore and us, both physically and mentally. That makes it hard to identify or even sympathize with either one of them. And the movie is filmed in a rough way, some cuts and camera movement seem unpolished, something that reinforces the uneasy feeling.

On the other hand, if you want a movie that is different, perhaps not so much with surprises but with a new kind of story, this is interesting. There are twists and some unexepected developments. This movie tells a story that you definitely won't see in mainstream cinema. It has been praised at several film festivals, most notably Cannes.

I really wanted to like it, wanted that it should live up to it's hype. The acting is really good, I like a movie that dares to take a step outside the normal comfort zone. But I did have too much of a problem connecting to, feeling for the characters, and therefore wasn't able to engage fully into the movie that a good movie makes you do.

It handles topics so it is impossible to call it entertaining. It raises questions, but the supernatural setting sets it apart from real world so they doesn't really stay with me. I don't regret seeing it, not at all, but it isn't one of those movies you remember...

One of the most peculiar documentaries I have ever seen. But also one of the most brave, telling and therefore important (not-)movie I have ever seen. Jafar Panahi, internationally acclaimed director, is sentenced to jail (6 years) and forbidden to make movies (20 years) by the oppressive Iranian government. He sits at home awaiting his appeal, unable to do what he wants, making movies. However, the ban didn't mention appearing on camera, so he sets up the camera and films his day in his appartment.

Considering this, you shouldn't expect much action. Actually nothing much happen at all. Panahi speaks with his lawyer on the phone about his case, he describes his next movie (which have been stopped by authorities) to a friend and discusses the day he and his family got arrested with a janitor. The dialogs got both a subtle humor and immense weight, just because they are describing real events, his own personal history.

And it is in that context this is such a brave and important movie. The drama (and subtle action) is in the point that we are _not_ watching his next movie. It is evidence and testament of the oppressive ban on a filmmaker, who just want to make films about people in Iran. It is a protest, pushing the limits of the ban. Panahi takes a huge risk doing this, which is why he mostly does this in his own appartment (but please take note of the final remark of the janitor, begging him bot to go outside and being seen with the camera, knowing in full what might happen then).

It is as a statement, describing the ban without ever showing it, that this is exteemely important. You won't be much entertained (although I didn't find it boring), but you need to see this, especially if you live in a democratic country thinking free speech can be taken for granted.

The idea is really good, and I bet that the actors had a really fun time. Because I don't think they really took care of the idea - it ended up feeling like some weird kind of frat party movie. The humor is almost only drug- or sexrelated, which gets old really quick (and probably makes it so that half of the viewers wil hate this and half love it with few in between).

But it does has its moments, it isn't really boring. And it is a good idea. Just wished they would have made more of it.

6/10

A strong movie, with strong performances, set within the space race era. I say set within, because this is not the story of how USA finally managed to send a human into space. This is the story of how three black women managed to stand up for themselves and fight for their rights (which they shouldn't have to fight for).

It is inspirational to see how these women fight and succeed in a time when prejudice against both black and women was everywhere. I am not saying that everyone was racists or regarded women as less than equal, but the system was. And how those women managed to fight and prevail in the system, hence changing it for the better.

The movie in itself, how the story is told, is pretty ordinary. It follows the classic path with steps forward and backwards for the the three protagonists. It is the story itself, the history in it, and the strength in the characters that make the movie really good.

But it also depressing and frustration experience. Frustrating that these woman had to fight for something that they honestly shouldn't have to fight for. Frustrating to know how many others that have had to fight the system, perhaps in an losing effort. How much both individuals and socitey both lost because of it. And depressing that many people seem to still hold those beliefs.

Then it is important that stories like these are told.

Shaun of the dead is a classic that have aged well. Not too dependent on effects, it feels like it could have been made last year (instead of 15 years ago). One of the first movies of what has now almost turned into an genre (World war Z, I am Legend and son on) it still has a unique and what still feels like a fresh perspective on the zombie apocalypse. Instead of being scary, Simon Peggs Shaun intends to do so well, but it never works out as he wants it to, often with quit fun implications. He and his friend Ed, not the brightest men around, try to rescue Shaun's (ex-)girlfriend and mother, evacuating them from their homes to take refuge in the Winchester pub. And if you can't outrun the zombies, you need to fight them. And if you can't fight them, you migt as well try to blend in...

It is a good idea, a fun story, with quite a lot of good scenes and moments with a lot of laughs. However, a few of the characters are just too much. They are too ignorant, too stupid, just too much. I think of Ed and Shaun's mother Barbara. By exaggerating the characters they go from fun to annoying. And that ruins quite a few scenes unfortunately. It would have been better if the would have managed to balance the characters traits better.