Long and slow, but if one is in the mood, it's worth it. Great cinematography, just a beautiful movie, top notch stuff. Acting is excellent as well and every character is well portrayed. Intresting and intriguing story that feels real. Sex is a part of the story and the sex scenes are graphic but it's far from everything what the film is about. It's about a group of young and passionate nationalists during an occupation in times of war. This film is beautiful and well made.
Reviews
106 Reviews
Franklyn
(2008)
A hidden gem sort off...
12 September 2021
At least for anyone that's into abstract and a little different movies, with dark fantasy themes.
It's very hard to pinpoint this film into a genre. I believe they had a very hard time to market it because of this. I would say that most of all, it's a noir thriller with a unique fantasy concept. It's not a sci-fi really, I don't think so anyway. It's also not a drama or action but it has all those elements in it anyway. Very stylish movie also, with a futuristic goth theme.
On the bluray disc there was an interview with the director and writer of the film, he said that he first came up with the ending and wrote the story backwards from there. It's also his first and last movie (so far). The film really had a kind of a indie feel but still looks like it was expensive to make also, I don't believe they made that money back even nearly because I never really heard or seen this movie anywhere anyway and came across it completely on random and bought it cheap.
The story was definitely a cool idea. Didn't work 100% though, and the film definitely have weak points but I think those doesn't destroy the things that actually is good either. There is many good things here I believe, both in the cinematography and the stylish look of the dream world and the action scenes, the acting is good too and the revealing of different troubled characters are somewhat interesting.
One thing tabout this movie that some seem to think is this films weakest point, is that the plot is hard to follow. I think it's hard to follow for a reason, the movie wants you to question what's going on, and I guess there should be a feeling of reward at the end if you get it and connect the pieces. Well, I got it. Still not sure if it holds up completely because of that. It's not a masterpiece. Still, I liked how unique it still felt in many ways. And as a whole it worked somewhat, I guess.
The story is told in a very very disjointed way. It takes place within two worlds. One sort of psychotic dream world, called Meanwhile City. The other one in contemporary London.
In Meanwhile City there is thousands of religions and everyone is a fanatic, it's law that you have to believe in a religion of any sort, you have to choose one, even if your group worship a explanation pamphlet to a washingmachine. Meanwhile City is runed by a powerful ministry that has some sorts law enforcers that are called priests. In this City we follow the only atheist in the city (played decently by Ryan Phillip who did his own stunts apparently), he's sort of vigilante, free agent, detective, that has the ministry after him and has a personal vendetta against someone called The Individual, because The Individual killed a young girl that he failed to save. He's angry about that.
In the normal world. We follow a mentally ill suicidal young women (brilliantly played by Eva Green) who's in therapy and has a dysfunctional relationship with her wealthy mother. We also follow a religious father that searches for his lost son, who escaped a mental hospital. And we follow a young man that has a love problem and envision a girl that he dates in his mind (also played by Eva Green for some reason but an other more joyful character here).
In the end we understand how these two worlds connects. And it is sort of an intresting psychological concept... but not really that much either. Didn't feel that super believable, I guess. And it all becomes a bit redundant and pointless, to me at least. Franklyn was the name of the street the last scene took place in, if I'm not wrong.
Overall, it was sort of intresting film and it is unique with a unique style. Definitely get points for the effort from me, at least. Not sure I would recommend it though. I would not call this a bad film at least, not at all.
I don't know if this movie have any fan base at all, however small? I never heard any buss about it anyway. It seems like a film that could have some devoters at least.
It's very hard to pinpoint this film into a genre. I believe they had a very hard time to market it because of this. I would say that most of all, it's a noir thriller with a unique fantasy concept. It's not a sci-fi really, I don't think so anyway. It's also not a drama or action but it has all those elements in it anyway. Very stylish movie also, with a futuristic goth theme.
On the bluray disc there was an interview with the director and writer of the film, he said that he first came up with the ending and wrote the story backwards from there. It's also his first and last movie (so far). The film really had a kind of a indie feel but still looks like it was expensive to make also, I don't believe they made that money back even nearly because I never really heard or seen this movie anywhere anyway and came across it completely on random and bought it cheap.
The story was definitely a cool idea. Didn't work 100% though, and the film definitely have weak points but I think those doesn't destroy the things that actually is good either. There is many good things here I believe, both in the cinematography and the stylish look of the dream world and the action scenes, the acting is good too and the revealing of different troubled characters are somewhat interesting.
One thing tabout this movie that some seem to think is this films weakest point, is that the plot is hard to follow. I think it's hard to follow for a reason, the movie wants you to question what's going on, and I guess there should be a feeling of reward at the end if you get it and connect the pieces. Well, I got it. Still not sure if it holds up completely because of that. It's not a masterpiece. Still, I liked how unique it still felt in many ways. And as a whole it worked somewhat, I guess.
The story is told in a very very disjointed way. It takes place within two worlds. One sort of psychotic dream world, called Meanwhile City. The other one in contemporary London.
In Meanwhile City there is thousands of religions and everyone is a fanatic, it's law that you have to believe in a religion of any sort, you have to choose one, even if your group worship a explanation pamphlet to a washingmachine. Meanwhile City is runed by a powerful ministry that has some sorts law enforcers that are called priests. In this City we follow the only atheist in the city (played decently by Ryan Phillip who did his own stunts apparently), he's sort of vigilante, free agent, detective, that has the ministry after him and has a personal vendetta against someone called The Individual, because The Individual killed a young girl that he failed to save. He's angry about that.
In the normal world. We follow a mentally ill suicidal young women (brilliantly played by Eva Green) who's in therapy and has a dysfunctional relationship with her wealthy mother. We also follow a religious father that searches for his lost son, who escaped a mental hospital. And we follow a young man that has a love problem and envision a girl that he dates in his mind (also played by Eva Green for some reason but an other more joyful character here).
In the end we understand how these two worlds connects. And it is sort of an intresting psychological concept... but not really that much either. Didn't feel that super believable, I guess. And it all becomes a bit redundant and pointless, to me at least. Franklyn was the name of the street the last scene took place in, if I'm not wrong.
Overall, it was sort of intresting film and it is unique with a unique style. Definitely get points for the effort from me, at least. Not sure I would recommend it though. I would not call this a bad film at least, not at all.
I don't know if this movie have any fan base at all, however small? I never heard any buss about it anyway. It seems like a film that could have some devoters at least.
Persona
(1966)
Luckily not as abstract as I had anticipated
8 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I expected one of those very abstract and heavy films, that is extremely pretentious and super hard to understand. And I actually dreaded to watch this for quite some time. Still, I had made up my mind to do so. Then, I was a little surprised over the simplicity in the story.
Beside the opening, where a bunch of random and different images are shown, the movie is kind of clear storywise. You can interpret the first 3-4 minuts in many diffent ways probably, I think it's just there to set a mood. The images are somewhat disturbing and the main character of the story is a very disturbed person. That's about it, I think, because this is a psychological character study of sorts, that takes an abstract approach. It's about a certain person's inner mind.
Do you have to be an intellectual to understand or enjoy this film? I don't think so. To understand it, you only need to pay attention to the dialogue. That is not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of attention span, patience and if the subject interests you, beacuse we humans rarely pay attention to things that doesn't interest us, at least not when we don't have to.
So, if a person enjoy this movie or not, has nothing to do with their intelligence, it's more based upon their preference, taste and personality. That's all. It's perfectly fine not to appreciate or enjoy a film like this, it doesn't mean you're dumb or unsophisticated in any way what so ever. It's just a matter of taste. Because we people have different taste, unregarding to what sort of intelligence we might posses. This is fact.
So, what type of person would enjoy this? Well, first of it would be someone interested in psychology and emotional and mental suffering. It would probably be an somewhat melancholy person and also a sensitive person. And someone who enjoys slow pace, dialogue heavy and black and white films that makes you contemplate the behavior of the characters. Definitely, a person that doesn't crave action.
Now, if you ask me, that is not a matter of intelligence. It's simply more a matter of taste or even mood. A highly intelligent and "sophisticated" person, could prefer a action movie to this film, or a cigi adventure or a classical horror. I strongly believe this. If someone thinks of themselves as more intelligent, just because they enjoyed or "got" this film, while someone else didn't. That would actually be more a sign of an extremely stupid person, someone very egocentric, with a delusional high self view of themselves. In other words: an idiot.
Someone told me that this film is extremely abstract. So, I sat down to watch it when I could put my full attention to it, I was in the best mood possible for a film like this. I do enjoy artsy film of this sort, to a degree, sometimes but I actually prefer a action film. But, I decided to watch this when I was in the mood for it and with my best intentions. The outcome was that I expected something far less straight forward then what I saw.
My interpretation (spiolers maybe):
This film is about a person that suffers mentally, simple as that. It's purely a psychological based film. It's also just about one person. There never is "two women," there is always just one. That's my interpretation anyway, could be wrong off course.
It's about this woman actress, who is an ambivalent person that almost has two personalities. One very cold side, that holds up a fake facade of emotions to the world, a completely fake persona, that doesn't do or say anything from the heart, everything is an act and a lie. A person that can't even find love for her own child, only distaste and whom despises everything and sees the world as dark, empty and completely meaningless. The other person, or the other side of her personality, is the opposite, she's caring, compassionate, loving and strives to find great meaning in life. Or maybe this is who she wish she could be.
What I think this film is about, is that some people are very complex and can feel opposite things about something at the same time and this creates a conflict in the consciousness in that person and can make them mentally ill, almost a split personality. I even think a lot of people could relate on some level. If you can't, perhaps this movie isn't for you. Doesn't mean you're stupid, just that you're mentally stable and this film is just not your taste.
It's okey to have different tastes. Sometimes it seems that some people seem to link different tastes to higher or lower intelligences. If you ask me, that is kind of stupid and show no awareness of the human psyche or intelligence at all actually. It's perfectly fine to have different tastes in things and movies too. And your taste says nothing about your smartness level, only about your personality.
Which actually is what this film "Persona" is about. Personality.
I liked this film a lot and can appreciate its intent. The acting and cinematography I also enjoyed. So, I guess this is my taste. But then I also know, that had I watched this film, when I wasn't in the mood for it, if I just wanted to be entertained by some cool action (which I most usually do when I'm watching a film) I would probably not have enjoyed it as much or perhaps not at all. But, then again, I did enjoy it. I guess I have a broad taste actually. Mostly because I usually have nothing better to do then watch movies and I do need some variety from time to time.
Beside the opening, where a bunch of random and different images are shown, the movie is kind of clear storywise. You can interpret the first 3-4 minuts in many diffent ways probably, I think it's just there to set a mood. The images are somewhat disturbing and the main character of the story is a very disturbed person. That's about it, I think, because this is a psychological character study of sorts, that takes an abstract approach. It's about a certain person's inner mind.
Do you have to be an intellectual to understand or enjoy this film? I don't think so. To understand it, you only need to pay attention to the dialogue. That is not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of attention span, patience and if the subject interests you, beacuse we humans rarely pay attention to things that doesn't interest us, at least not when we don't have to.
So, if a person enjoy this movie or not, has nothing to do with their intelligence, it's more based upon their preference, taste and personality. That's all. It's perfectly fine not to appreciate or enjoy a film like this, it doesn't mean you're dumb or unsophisticated in any way what so ever. It's just a matter of taste. Because we people have different taste, unregarding to what sort of intelligence we might posses. This is fact.
So, what type of person would enjoy this? Well, first of it would be someone interested in psychology and emotional and mental suffering. It would probably be an somewhat melancholy person and also a sensitive person. And someone who enjoys slow pace, dialogue heavy and black and white films that makes you contemplate the behavior of the characters. Definitely, a person that doesn't crave action.
Now, if you ask me, that is not a matter of intelligence. It's simply more a matter of taste or even mood. A highly intelligent and "sophisticated" person, could prefer a action movie to this film, or a cigi adventure or a classical horror. I strongly believe this. If someone thinks of themselves as more intelligent, just because they enjoyed or "got" this film, while someone else didn't. That would actually be more a sign of an extremely stupid person, someone very egocentric, with a delusional high self view of themselves. In other words: an idiot.
Someone told me that this film is extremely abstract. So, I sat down to watch it when I could put my full attention to it, I was in the best mood possible for a film like this. I do enjoy artsy film of this sort, to a degree, sometimes but I actually prefer a action film. But, I decided to watch this when I was in the mood for it and with my best intentions. The outcome was that I expected something far less straight forward then what I saw.
My interpretation (spiolers maybe):
This film is about a person that suffers mentally, simple as that. It's purely a psychological based film. It's also just about one person. There never is "two women," there is always just one. That's my interpretation anyway, could be wrong off course.
It's about this woman actress, who is an ambivalent person that almost has two personalities. One very cold side, that holds up a fake facade of emotions to the world, a completely fake persona, that doesn't do or say anything from the heart, everything is an act and a lie. A person that can't even find love for her own child, only distaste and whom despises everything and sees the world as dark, empty and completely meaningless. The other person, or the other side of her personality, is the opposite, she's caring, compassionate, loving and strives to find great meaning in life. Or maybe this is who she wish she could be.
What I think this film is about, is that some people are very complex and can feel opposite things about something at the same time and this creates a conflict in the consciousness in that person and can make them mentally ill, almost a split personality. I even think a lot of people could relate on some level. If you can't, perhaps this movie isn't for you. Doesn't mean you're stupid, just that you're mentally stable and this film is just not your taste.
It's okey to have different tastes. Sometimes it seems that some people seem to link different tastes to higher or lower intelligences. If you ask me, that is kind of stupid and show no awareness of the human psyche or intelligence at all actually. It's perfectly fine to have different tastes in things and movies too. And your taste says nothing about your smartness level, only about your personality.
Which actually is what this film "Persona" is about. Personality.
I liked this film a lot and can appreciate its intent. The acting and cinematography I also enjoyed. So, I guess this is my taste. But then I also know, that had I watched this film, when I wasn't in the mood for it, if I just wanted to be entertained by some cool action (which I most usually do when I'm watching a film) I would probably not have enjoyed it as much or perhaps not at all. But, then again, I did enjoy it. I guess I have a broad taste actually. Mostly because I usually have nothing better to do then watch movies and I do need some variety from time to time.
Babel
(I) (2006)
Nice film, well made....
7 September 2021
But... pretty much all the characters were so unbelievably stupid and made such strange and poor decisions. I guess you're suppose to feel sympathy for them but all I could do was wonder what could ever make them do so stupid and unnecessary things.
Other then that, it was a well made film. I also like how it connected stories from all over the world, it was cool, a fine idea. It was a lot like the movie Crash. I don't know which one came first.
Other then that, it was a well made film. I also like how it connected stories from all over the world, it was cool, a fine idea. It was a lot like the movie Crash. I don't know which one came first.
Greenberg
(2010)
I kind of liked it
4 September 2021
As far from a Superhero movie you can get. Which off course sounds boring and it kind off is too.
Roger Greenberg, is the guy you get a glimpse into what his existence could be like in this movie, played very well by Ben Stiller. Although Stiller doesn't do that much acting vice, but I guess what he does suits the role, so it works well enough. Grete Gerwig was good too.
Roger, he's kind of boring guy, most of the time, that keeps his emotions deep down, a bit neurotic and eccentric but also humble in his own way. A guy with a lot of problems that still has managed to get buy somehow in a sort of sheltered life. Not a bad person. Not a moron nor a genius either. Just a kind of regular guy whit issues, that never really got anywhere in life. People like him definitely exist in real life.
This movie reminded of Sideways, although Sideways is funnier. This movie has comedy in it but not so obvious comedy, it's more of a certain taste of a dimmed-down lowkey comedy. It's actually more kind of a depressing movie actually but with a sweet touch also. It doesn't follow the classical Hollywood rout but still do so to a degree as well, with more of a quality of real life then the usual Hollywood rom-com (if you can call it that?) in the sense that it is simple more mondane. Which I guess isn't really suitable for a movie, since there is nothing more boring then the mondane and movies are suppose to entertain. Right?
If you ever felt that life doesn't always turn out as you plan, in the way that some dreams just seem to be doomed to die. Or if you felt that relationships with other people can be complicated, with the reason that people don't understand each other or even themselves fully, although they mean well. Then, you might get something out of this movie actually. Just maybe though...
Slow paced and not much going on at all, besides some awkward, slightly depressing and slightly funny dialogue.
Still, it has something recognizable to regular real life of common people. In a certain area of the world that is I suppose, I'm not from L. A myself or even America, but I think what this movie portrays is also also universal to a degree. Did I mention I liked it?
Roger Greenberg, is the guy you get a glimpse into what his existence could be like in this movie, played very well by Ben Stiller. Although Stiller doesn't do that much acting vice, but I guess what he does suits the role, so it works well enough. Grete Gerwig was good too.
Roger, he's kind of boring guy, most of the time, that keeps his emotions deep down, a bit neurotic and eccentric but also humble in his own way. A guy with a lot of problems that still has managed to get buy somehow in a sort of sheltered life. Not a bad person. Not a moron nor a genius either. Just a kind of regular guy whit issues, that never really got anywhere in life. People like him definitely exist in real life.
This movie reminded of Sideways, although Sideways is funnier. This movie has comedy in it but not so obvious comedy, it's more of a certain taste of a dimmed-down lowkey comedy. It's actually more kind of a depressing movie actually but with a sweet touch also. It doesn't follow the classical Hollywood rout but still do so to a degree as well, with more of a quality of real life then the usual Hollywood rom-com (if you can call it that?) in the sense that it is simple more mondane. Which I guess isn't really suitable for a movie, since there is nothing more boring then the mondane and movies are suppose to entertain. Right?
If you ever felt that life doesn't always turn out as you plan, in the way that some dreams just seem to be doomed to die. Or if you felt that relationships with other people can be complicated, with the reason that people don't understand each other or even themselves fully, although they mean well. Then, you might get something out of this movie actually. Just maybe though...
Slow paced and not much going on at all, besides some awkward, slightly depressing and slightly funny dialogue.
Still, it has something recognizable to regular real life of common people. In a certain area of the world that is I suppose, I'm not from L. A myself or even America, but I think what this movie portrays is also also universal to a degree. Did I mention I liked it?
Cop Land
(1997)
Solid cop movie
14 August 2021
What a cast. Good script too. And Stallone's best performance since Rocky, you actually get surprised when you understand he really can act, I found his character here to be tottaly real and belivable. Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel and Ray Liotta, they always work, these guys are doing their thing, playing parts they were born to play. Who I found also surprisingly good, was Robert Patrick, probably because you expect him to be the emotionless T-1000, here his on the contrary, a very emotional/angry guy. This film boils with a masculine energy. The plot also seems belivable. It's a drama with some action. It's a very good film actually, I think.
Striking Distance
(1993)
Standard Bruce Willis flick
14 August 2021
How many times have Bruce played this role? Probably at least 90% of his career. Why? Because he's good at it. This movie is not a perfect masterpiece and doesn't really have anything that would make it stand out in time, but still a very decent movie, I think. It has a murder mystery, it has some suspense, it has some drama, it has some romance and it has some action. It definitely have some weak points too. But hey, everything can't be perfect all the time.
The Favourite
(2018)
Brilliant! Hilarious!
14 August 2021
And beautiful locations, sets and cinematography. Good acting as well, I really liked all of the 3 women leads. Crazy and very character driven plot, about the lifestyle for some women in the royal home of the queen of England in the 1700s (I think that's the time period?). Not sure if this film holds steady to any real particular historical events, doesn't really matter, that's not what it's about at all anyway. It's about people and relationships people have to each other. It's very funny, all though the comedy here, is very unique, because it isn't potrayed at all as it's trying to be funny, still it is. Probably because it rings true somewhere, even if it's totally insane, it's relatable, I'm not sure but I think that is why the humour works. I had a good time with this film. It's beautiful too. Very very well done. Some very talented craftsmanship's is going on here. And the score is outstanding.
Planet Terror
(2007)
Can a movie be more entertaining?
3 August 2021
Are you not entertained? If you're not by this movie... Somthing is wrong with you, seriously... just kidding.
But this is actually a really well made movie that knows exactly what it is and doesn't skip a beat, it comes together beautifully. It could easily been horribly bad or just passable but something about it makes it truly great instead, it stands out. It has that special something. Everything about it is great. Pure art and pure fun.
But this is actually a really well made movie that knows exactly what it is and doesn't skip a beat, it comes together beautifully. It could easily been horribly bad or just passable but something about it makes it truly great instead, it stands out. It has that special something. Everything about it is great. Pure art and pure fun.
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
Ahh... No... Not really
2 August 2021
I really liked 28 Days Later, awesome movie and definitely one of the best low budget zombie movies I've seen, definitely. This one, the sequel, started out very well, I liked the opening segment and it made me excited for what was to come. Then the movie makes some really stupid choices that just doesn't make sense at all. A real missed opportunity here. I'm not a script writer but I could come up with at least 20 other ways they could have done it to make this story much more intresting and believable. Nothing wrong with the actors though, there are some good actors in here that gives solid performances and there is also some scenes that are entertaining enough. It's not a completely terrible film. But to me, it was just such a disappointment to see the potential here for something far greater. They had all the ingredients, just didn't mix them well. I think.
Solomon Kane
(2009)
I mean... It's decent
2 August 2021
I think James Purefoy fitts the role as the evil guy turned good anti-hero type and this film has a cool dark-fantasy vibe and looks pretty nice with some nice looking fight scenes. The premise of the story is alright as well, strong on the christian theme but I kind of liked it. Then, it falls flat here and there. At the end of it all, it sums up to becoming this predictable drawn out battle that looks just like out of a video game. I feel this movie is a little bit of a missed opportunity and they should have worked more on delivering an even more intresting plot, they should have tried harder to give something unique with this picture, beacuse it deserves it and had good potential for it. Although, it's not horrible, it's a decent watch. If you're into fantasy and/or sword movies, you should see it, definitely.
Blindspotting
(2018)
Refreshing!
30 July 2021
This was a very nice surprise. Kind of watched this on a random. I think it took me about 15 minutes when I started to really feel this movie. This is some real stuff, it portrays life in these kind of neighborhoods in an authentic way. The characters feels very real as well. A little bit woke but in a good way. It balances realism, drama and comedy in a very refreshing way, that I assume is very hard to pull off because very few films can do it. Splendid acting as well, not only by the two main characters but by everyone involved. Good chemistry between the actors makes it feel even more real. Nice pacing too. It's entertaining but also goes deep. Very well done. Reminded me a little bit off Friday but this film is more of a drama, while Friday is pure comedy, even if Friday also has a very real and authentic vibe too, as this film. Anyway, this film Blindspotting, was amazing. Thumbs all the way upp for this film! Masterpiece and an instant classic! Really good name too when you understand what it means - Blindspotting. Awesome movie.
Red Beard
(1965)
Fantastic. One of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen.
23 July 2021
Only nock one point of because it is a bit long, very slow-paced and highly dialogue heavy, so can get just a little boring. But there is a action scene actually, that is very good and fitting to the story as well. The story is very humane and has many layers, it's about real life, that is both tragic and horrific but also there is signs of hope and optimism. The film also brings up social status in society and healing trough medecin in a medieval era. It's also one of the absolut best mentor stories I've seen being told, perhaps the best. Extremely good acting as well. I think this is Kurosaw's second greatest film, after Seven Samurai, then Rashomon is third. Not to forget about Ran, which is an absolute masterpiece off course. I don't believe he ever did something to being close to a bad movie, in his whole career, to be honest. Apparently an eccentric guy, talanted film maker though.
The Lighthouse
(I) (2019)
Loved it!
14 July 2021
I was not such big of a fan of The Witch, to be honest, it was alright but didn't blow me away or anything. This film did. Absolutely gorgeous cinematography. And insanely good acting on an other level. I think these are the things most can agree on but this film seems to be dividing people on the story.
Personally, I found the story to be just great. Very character driven, claustrophobic and intense but also revealing to the human psyche. Now, this is a heavy film to watch and should definitely not be watched if someone feels to be entertained in some lighthearted way. No, you almost have to be in a certain mood I think, to invest yourself in it completely, you can't just half watch it, then you miss it.
Now, what is it about? Well, I guess it's up for interpretation. To me it was about isolation and pride. What isolation can do to a man, drive him mad, beacuse it deprives him of some basic human needs and it also at the same time reveals him to himself. And it was also about two lost men, that deeply feel like complete failures and losers but are trying to hide this behind a mask of pride, both in their own way. They both have no clue on how to sort themselves out or how to even communicate, they only manage to communicate somewhat when they're drunk but the alcohol also brings out their inner demons.
Why I think the storytelling was done so greatly, is because it tells this story with accuracy all though with a artistic perception and even if it also goes to the extremes. On top of that, it was a nice tale of sealife and a throwback to another time. Even if this movie was abstract in some ways, it felt real to me. It shows that horror doesn't have to be about supernatural demons, ghost or flesheating zombies, nor some psychotic serial killer (not saying movies like that are bad in anyway no no). Sometimes the horror is just simply life itself and what we have within us, in our own psyche. Scary stuff.
Personally, I found the story to be just great. Very character driven, claustrophobic and intense but also revealing to the human psyche. Now, this is a heavy film to watch and should definitely not be watched if someone feels to be entertained in some lighthearted way. No, you almost have to be in a certain mood I think, to invest yourself in it completely, you can't just half watch it, then you miss it.
Now, what is it about? Well, I guess it's up for interpretation. To me it was about isolation and pride. What isolation can do to a man, drive him mad, beacuse it deprives him of some basic human needs and it also at the same time reveals him to himself. And it was also about two lost men, that deeply feel like complete failures and losers but are trying to hide this behind a mask of pride, both in their own way. They both have no clue on how to sort themselves out or how to even communicate, they only manage to communicate somewhat when they're drunk but the alcohol also brings out their inner demons.
Why I think the storytelling was done so greatly, is because it tells this story with accuracy all though with a artistic perception and even if it also goes to the extremes. On top of that, it was a nice tale of sealife and a throwback to another time. Even if this movie was abstract in some ways, it felt real to me. It shows that horror doesn't have to be about supernatural demons, ghost or flesheating zombies, nor some psychotic serial killer (not saying movies like that are bad in anyway no no). Sometimes the horror is just simply life itself and what we have within us, in our own psyche. Scary stuff.
Hellraiser
(1987)
Interesting...
12 July 2021
I know there is a strong fan base to this cult movie. Many sequels were made also, which I probably won't see, this one is enough. I've heard of this movie many times for years and seen pictures of Mr. Pinhead so often I estimated him a some sort of cult icon, which I guess he is. I definitely thought he would be the lead character of this movie, he is not. This movie was actually made the year of my birth. Haven't gotten around to see in until now.
What can I say about it? Did I like it? Not sure if I I did, I did not outright dislike it. It's a low budget horror from the 80s. So what can you expect? The story has some deeper mysteries to it but the narrative moves fast and does not dwell on explaining any lore. Maybe there is in the book? Written by the screenwriter and director Clive Barker. Perhaps I will get around to reading it some time. I don't really know if I could say that this is a spectacular good movie but it's definitely a unique one. The story is both simple and complex at the same time and there is elements to it that's not to be found in any other film, I think.
The horrific supernatural things that happens in this movie, do not make much sense to why they are happening. So it will either spike the viewer's imagination or it will just seem dumb and messy. Depending on the viewer. It's a gory film, with weird ghastly looking creatures. I myself don't find imagery like the ones in this film that much frightening, beacuse it's so obviously not real, though it is entertaining and looks kind of cool. It's well made I think and art direction is very good. Especially with the Cenobites.
Yes, the Cenobites. Reading about this movie online, I understand it's mostly them all the fuss is about. They look like they jumped right of the front cover of a heavy metal album. If you're familiar with the manga/anime Bersek, you can easily see where Kentaro Miura got insperation for the God Hand. They do not appear that much in the film and it's not really explained what they are all about. You understand they live in some sort of other dimension linked to "ours" and that they like to torture people who are unfortunate to summon them with a certain puzzle cube. They also speak of how they also like to give pleasure, I did not see much pleasure to be given though... They say they're both demons and angels but it's not clear if they come from hell, there are some allegory to christianity within the film though.
Beside the horror, the film has some other themes. Mainly adultery, with forbidden and hidden lust. Maybe the Cenobites simply are the demons that punishes sinners of adultery? Or maybe it's about the shame and pain of lusting for something/someone you can't have? Maybe it's about something else. Maybe it's really not about anything. I don't know. As I said, nothing is really explained in the film. So, I guess it's up for artistic interpretation, if one like.
First when I saw this film, I would have given it a 6 at best. But afterwards, when I spent some time from it, it still stayed in my mind. I usually forget bad films, so this has something more, it's definitely not garbage. It also grew on me I noticed, for now I'll give it a 7/10. But I might give it a higher score after watching it again. It's a strange movie and not with the greatest plot in the world by no means but it has something about it that makes it special also. I will watch it again to investigate further. I would only recommend this film to people who really like supernatural gory horror, like Evil Dead, or Return of the Living Dead, for example.
What can I say about it? Did I like it? Not sure if I I did, I did not outright dislike it. It's a low budget horror from the 80s. So what can you expect? The story has some deeper mysteries to it but the narrative moves fast and does not dwell on explaining any lore. Maybe there is in the book? Written by the screenwriter and director Clive Barker. Perhaps I will get around to reading it some time. I don't really know if I could say that this is a spectacular good movie but it's definitely a unique one. The story is both simple and complex at the same time and there is elements to it that's not to be found in any other film, I think.
The horrific supernatural things that happens in this movie, do not make much sense to why they are happening. So it will either spike the viewer's imagination or it will just seem dumb and messy. Depending on the viewer. It's a gory film, with weird ghastly looking creatures. I myself don't find imagery like the ones in this film that much frightening, beacuse it's so obviously not real, though it is entertaining and looks kind of cool. It's well made I think and art direction is very good. Especially with the Cenobites.
Yes, the Cenobites. Reading about this movie online, I understand it's mostly them all the fuss is about. They look like they jumped right of the front cover of a heavy metal album. If you're familiar with the manga/anime Bersek, you can easily see where Kentaro Miura got insperation for the God Hand. They do not appear that much in the film and it's not really explained what they are all about. You understand they live in some sort of other dimension linked to "ours" and that they like to torture people who are unfortunate to summon them with a certain puzzle cube. They also speak of how they also like to give pleasure, I did not see much pleasure to be given though... They say they're both demons and angels but it's not clear if they come from hell, there are some allegory to christianity within the film though.
Beside the horror, the film has some other themes. Mainly adultery, with forbidden and hidden lust. Maybe the Cenobites simply are the demons that punishes sinners of adultery? Or maybe it's about the shame and pain of lusting for something/someone you can't have? Maybe it's about something else. Maybe it's really not about anything. I don't know. As I said, nothing is really explained in the film. So, I guess it's up for artistic interpretation, if one like.
First when I saw this film, I would have given it a 6 at best. But afterwards, when I spent some time from it, it still stayed in my mind. I usually forget bad films, so this has something more, it's definitely not garbage. It also grew on me I noticed, for now I'll give it a 7/10. But I might give it a higher score after watching it again. It's a strange movie and not with the greatest plot in the world by no means but it has something about it that makes it special also. I will watch it again to investigate further. I would only recommend this film to people who really like supernatural gory horror, like Evil Dead, or Return of the Living Dead, for example.
The Imitation Game
(2014)
Very good film... but.
18 April 2021
As some reviews all ready have very thoroughly explained, this movie takes HUGE liberties when it comes to altering the true story. Personally, I don't really understand why. Allan Turing was still a mathematical genius, a hero and a very intresting person, well worthy to have his story told, without them also changing history so much. I don't understand, what's so wrong about the truth? Also, they dumbed down to movie plenty, I think. At least once they could have given some sort of explanation on how the machine actually works. Other than that, it was still a good film and I enjoyed it, much credit to Cumberbatch performance but it was also a nice picture in many other aspect and an interesting story to be told. And an important story to be told also. I just got a bit dissapointed when I looked up some actual facts afterwards and understood that much of the story for the film had been altered or completely made up. Still, in its essence, I believe it still holds true in many ways.
The House That Jack Built
(2018)
Hilarious!
17 April 2021
I've haven't seen all Von Trier films, but more then half. I have to assume that this movie is his most comedic effort, it definitely is within those I've seen of his so far anyway. Also, Matt Dillion completely makes this movie. This is a movie the academy wouldn't touch, not even with a very long stick, still Dillon's performances is truly Oscar worthy, he was perfect in this role, he was Jack, no one could have done it better. Funny, to be honest, I always thought of him as a very bad actor, terrible even, but he really shows here that he's grown into becoming much more rounded trough the years, there is much more depth and character to him.
Now, if you watch this movie with a serious mindset and take it completely serious, it's just an awful film, a horrible horrible film. You might wonder: Why would someone make such madness and call it entertainment? Or even art? It has no real point, or has it? Well, if so, it's very vague. You might think: Is it a character study? Art hous? Or just a horror film? Is he making some sort of political message? Or perhaps religious? No, not really any of those, I myself believe anyway.
To me, this is comedy. Yes, call me sick. But this is brilliant comedy. Very very very extremely dark comedy, but still comedy. It's just an crazy and absurdly macabre ride and Matt Dillion is insanely funny. No, the subject is no laughing matter, far from it. Still, this movie becomes weirdly funny. I have no idea how Lars Von Trier pulled that of. No, it's not the best movie ever, far from it, or even Trier's best, but it's a weird but good movie, I think anyway. Never seen anything like it really. Now, on the other hand, there is very few people, that I would even consider to recommend this to.
Now, if you watch this movie with a serious mindset and take it completely serious, it's just an awful film, a horrible horrible film. You might wonder: Why would someone make such madness and call it entertainment? Or even art? It has no real point, or has it? Well, if so, it's very vague. You might think: Is it a character study? Art hous? Or just a horror film? Is he making some sort of political message? Or perhaps religious? No, not really any of those, I myself believe anyway.
To me, this is comedy. Yes, call me sick. But this is brilliant comedy. Very very very extremely dark comedy, but still comedy. It's just an crazy and absurdly macabre ride and Matt Dillion is insanely funny. No, the subject is no laughing matter, far from it. Still, this movie becomes weirdly funny. I have no idea how Lars Von Trier pulled that of. No, it's not the best movie ever, far from it, or even Trier's best, but it's a weird but good movie, I think anyway. Never seen anything like it really. Now, on the other hand, there is very few people, that I would even consider to recommend this to.
Two Days in Paris
(2007)
Rom-com in reverse
10 April 2021
I appreciate that this film is doing the opposite of what all other rom-com movies does. It's actually about a couple having petty issues, that is completely destroying their relationship, instead of the approach of "love conquers all." Which actually makes this film surprisingly realistic, for being a rom-com.
But, I found the Adam Goldberg character so annoying I barely couldn't bare it. Also, this movie had some narration here and there, which I found strange and very unnecessary. Also, it was not that funny, perhaps one or two somewhat funny scenes. It's an okey watch for what it is though.
But, I found the Adam Goldberg character so annoying I barely couldn't bare it. Also, this movie had some narration here and there, which I found strange and very unnecessary. Also, it was not that funny, perhaps one or two somewhat funny scenes. It's an okey watch for what it is though.
Dogville
(2003)
If you take everything away, what do you have?
10 April 2021
Here Trier rely only on the story and the actors. Everything else is bared down to its minimum. Which fits perfectly, since he tries to show the naked truth of what people are.
Now, it is a bit extreme. And I hope the film isn't saying this always is the truth. But to deny that people can be like this, completely selfish and purely hypocritical. Then you're one of those going trough life with your eyes firmly shut. Especially if you think that you yourself, never could be like this.
Movies like this are some of the absolute best. It's not a movie aimed to entertain. It's art, trying to tell a deep truth of the human psyche and nature. Although, these attempts can be pretentious, boring and pointless. Because we watch movies to be entertained. Yet, when it works, it works. And I'm glad movies like these are made.
And Nicole Kidman is excellent.
Now, it is a bit extreme. And I hope the film isn't saying this always is the truth. But to deny that people can be like this, completely selfish and purely hypocritical. Then you're one of those going trough life with your eyes firmly shut. Especially if you think that you yourself, never could be like this.
Movies like this are some of the absolute best. It's not a movie aimed to entertain. It's art, trying to tell a deep truth of the human psyche and nature. Although, these attempts can be pretentious, boring and pointless. Because we watch movies to be entertained. Yet, when it works, it works. And I'm glad movies like these are made.
And Nicole Kidman is excellent.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. II
(2013)
The tabu of sex
10 April 2021
Sex is tabu, something shameful. At the same time we praise it and obbses over it. It's all most want to talk about, and do talk about, yet there is so much *hush hush* about it at the same time. We love it and we fear it. It's both extacy and it's also pain. It's such a double edge sword. Yet, in reality, it's one of the most common and fundamental parts of human nature and what we are. It's actually mondane. Still, we make such a big fuss over it.
I think Trier tries to tackle this ambivalent complexities we have about sex, also the fact that we humans function sexually in very different ways, in this very long two part film. Personally, I think he did a good job. I do understand if many hate it though and I wouldn't blame them.
And I would like to add, if you enjoy this movie. I would recommend the directors cut version.
I think Trier tries to tackle this ambivalent complexities we have about sex, also the fact that we humans function sexually in very different ways, in this very long two part film. Personally, I think he did a good job. I do understand if many hate it though and I wouldn't blame them.
And I would like to add, if you enjoy this movie. I would recommend the directors cut version.
Behind the Candelabra
(2013)
Not a movie that everyone will be able to handle.
10 April 2021
Liberace was way before my time, and even if I've heard the name before, I knew nothing about him, not even that he was a piano player. Definitely not that he was on of the first mega pop stars, before the term pop star was even invented. Nor that he was as gay as you can be and that he managed to hide this from the public through out his life.
Micheal Douglas does a performance here that is none other the Oscar worthy. Portraying Liberace as a man more gay than gayness itself, a flaming queen. And a man completely in love with himself. Obsessed over material excess. And addicted to be having sex with young men.
The film is about the relationship between Liberace and one of these young men, named Scott Thorson (Matt Damon). Scott Thorson, the very man that later wrote the book this film is based upon. Was perhaps the one Liberace was closest to, of all his lovers. They're were practically a married couple without being married. And their relationship was a secret to the public.
There are no real sex scenes in this movie but heavily implied. This movie is not for someone who can't handle a bit of "gay stuff" because it's absolutely everywhere. Some would probably even see it as a horrifying freak show. Even gay men will cringe I would assume, since it's sex between a much older man with a much younger one, which can be both morally and tastefully questionable. And the relationship is also besides that, in many other ways, all other then normal. Actually, this movie is above everything else, a story about people living extraordinarily different lives, from the normal.
It's very hard to believe that Liberace was able to pass as straight to the public, back then. Because, it's hard to be more gay then he was, I even watched some real clips of him after seeing this movie. But in those days, people were much more unaware, I have to assume. His career would have been over if it got out, so he had to hide it. He even wrote a autobiography were he changed the male names of all his lovers to female ones.
It's a fascinating story, and really funny too, or at least this movie is very funny. But not really a comedy, it just is funny. While the story is actually very real and shockingly intimate to these peoples life. And it's definitely not only about a gay people being gay. It's a bit of a character study on both Liberace and Scott Thorson.
Liberace was a narcissist and extremely superficially minded. A person who can't get enough out of life and with the position to get all he wants. But to me, it also seemed like he was a loving man, even if he was more in love with himself than anyone or anything else, he still cared for people, he was never out to hurt anyone, he just wanted all the fun out of life for himself. He worshiped himself. That's at least how he is portrayed here, a person full of life, a person that enjoys life, while at the same time being an complete superficial narcissist. Scott Thorson is a much more sadder character, that has no real talant and rely solely on his looks, a person that's probably very empty inside.
If you have the stomach for it, this is a very good movie. And Douglas performance is just fantastic. Very brave performance also, it has to be mentioned, from both Douglas and Damon. To be honest, I found this movie hilarious, but I don't even know if it was meant to be that. It's actually a kind of dramatic story but I was laughing myself to tears instead. On top of that, it's both a fascinating and interesting true life story. And a very intimat view into these people strange life. But you should know what you're getting into before watching it. It's very gay.
Micheal Douglas does a performance here that is none other the Oscar worthy. Portraying Liberace as a man more gay than gayness itself, a flaming queen. And a man completely in love with himself. Obsessed over material excess. And addicted to be having sex with young men.
The film is about the relationship between Liberace and one of these young men, named Scott Thorson (Matt Damon). Scott Thorson, the very man that later wrote the book this film is based upon. Was perhaps the one Liberace was closest to, of all his lovers. They're were practically a married couple without being married. And their relationship was a secret to the public.
There are no real sex scenes in this movie but heavily implied. This movie is not for someone who can't handle a bit of "gay stuff" because it's absolutely everywhere. Some would probably even see it as a horrifying freak show. Even gay men will cringe I would assume, since it's sex between a much older man with a much younger one, which can be both morally and tastefully questionable. And the relationship is also besides that, in many other ways, all other then normal. Actually, this movie is above everything else, a story about people living extraordinarily different lives, from the normal.
It's very hard to believe that Liberace was able to pass as straight to the public, back then. Because, it's hard to be more gay then he was, I even watched some real clips of him after seeing this movie. But in those days, people were much more unaware, I have to assume. His career would have been over if it got out, so he had to hide it. He even wrote a autobiography were he changed the male names of all his lovers to female ones.
It's a fascinating story, and really funny too, or at least this movie is very funny. But not really a comedy, it just is funny. While the story is actually very real and shockingly intimate to these peoples life. And it's definitely not only about a gay people being gay. It's a bit of a character study on both Liberace and Scott Thorson.
Liberace was a narcissist and extremely superficially minded. A person who can't get enough out of life and with the position to get all he wants. But to me, it also seemed like he was a loving man, even if he was more in love with himself than anyone or anything else, he still cared for people, he was never out to hurt anyone, he just wanted all the fun out of life for himself. He worshiped himself. That's at least how he is portrayed here, a person full of life, a person that enjoys life, while at the same time being an complete superficial narcissist. Scott Thorson is a much more sadder character, that has no real talant and rely solely on his looks, a person that's probably very empty inside.
If you have the stomach for it, this is a very good movie. And Douglas performance is just fantastic. Very brave performance also, it has to be mentioned, from both Douglas and Damon. To be honest, I found this movie hilarious, but I don't even know if it was meant to be that. It's actually a kind of dramatic story but I was laughing myself to tears instead. On top of that, it's both a fascinating and interesting true life story. And a very intimat view into these people strange life. But you should know what you're getting into before watching it. It's very gay.
Highlander
(1986)
Perhaps one of the most ridiculous movies out there...
6 April 2021
But man, is it good. Christopher Lambert is a God among men, perhaps the greatest actor to ever live. No, but seriously, watching Highlander, which actually seemed to have a decent production for its time, you wonder how Lambert could have been casted to play a Scotch man, or how he could have been casted for anything in his life, but at the same time you think; how could he not?
This movie has one of the most random fantasy plots out there, and in the 80s, all fantasy movies were wacky as hell. Still, it's purlry awesome. The sword fights are no Kill Bill, far from it actually, but entertaining as hell still. And this movie also has the best movie villain ever!
This is a must see for anyone that's into 80s and 90s movies.
This movie has one of the most random fantasy plots out there, and in the 80s, all fantasy movies were wacky as hell. Still, it's purlry awesome. The sword fights are no Kill Bill, far from it actually, but entertaining as hell still. And this movie also has the best movie villain ever!
This is a must see for anyone that's into 80s and 90s movies.
Blue Jasmine
(2013)
Jeseees, Blanchett... What a power hous performance, must say.
6 April 2021
You ever want to follow someone's descent from the top to the bottom, like a fly om the wall? If yes, this movie is excellent. And Cate Blanchetts performance is unbelievable. It's like a train wreck, you're horrified but you can't look away, nor deny to yourself that you're actually enjoying it on some level.
Say what you will about Woody Allan, and you can say a lot, but he's a good screen writer. But mostly, this is Blanchetts movie. She owns it and makes it what it is. Her performance feels so real it's almost scary. Poor Jasmine will definitely stay in your mind a couple of days after watching this.
Say what you will about Woody Allan, and you can say a lot, but he's a good screen writer. But mostly, this is Blanchetts movie. She owns it and makes it what it is. Her performance feels so real it's almost scary. Poor Jasmine will definitely stay in your mind a couple of days after watching this.
The Name of the Rose
(1986)
Intresting idea but doesn't really hold up.
3 April 2021
This movie is about a jedi and his padawan, traveling to a remot place to find very important scriptures hidden by the siths.
No, just kidding, it's actually a gothic murder mystery, that takes place in a remote 1300 century catholic monastery in Italy, yet off course everyone speaks english though. Filled with ugly old men that all seem half mad as well.
The concept of this film is great and Sean Connery fits the role very well. It's just that the story has many weak points, also the movie gets too long and starts to drag and the dialogue is not as intresting as it wants to be. It's an alright watch. Just not as good as one (me) would want it to be. It's a decent watch but not much more than that.
No, just kidding, it's actually a gothic murder mystery, that takes place in a remote 1300 century catholic monastery in Italy, yet off course everyone speaks english though. Filled with ugly old men that all seem half mad as well.
The concept of this film is great and Sean Connery fits the role very well. It's just that the story has many weak points, also the movie gets too long and starts to drag and the dialogue is not as intresting as it wants to be. It's an alright watch. Just not as good as one (me) would want it to be. It's a decent watch but not much more than that.
Tell Your Friends