Reviews

Generally a good, amospheric and well directed film, the film, it must be said, borrows a little TOO liberally from Katsuhiro Otomos 1980 graphic novel "Domu". The director cites it as an influence, but when you lift ENITRE SCENES from Otomos material - right down to the camera angles - it veers dangerously towards being an outright adaptation rather than just being "inspired". Nothing wrong with that, providing you call it for what it is. But I'll leave that to Otomo's legal team.

This film is the most shrewd and insightful film about puberty I have ever seen - and one of the best films I have ever seen period. It follows a group of Aarhus schoolchildren from the age of 13-15 in 1958-60. The film notices all the small details, the internal power struggles and the growing sexuality of young teens. Much like Heavenly Creatures the film shows the "wonders" of growing up as both beautiful and frightful at the same time. Anyone regardless of nationality can recognise the conflicts and small dramas depicted here. After seeing it I felt as if Malmros had had a crystal ball and looked into the youth of everyone on the planet. Despite the fact that it is filmed in a hyper realistic, almost documentary, style, Malmros manages to fill add dramatic effects through music and background effects to effectively heighten the drama. The last ten minutes of the film builds up tension to the (completely unpredictable, but inevitable) climax and the striking power of the movie's ending sticks with you for hours after the film is over. I truly hope some distributor picks this up for a DVD release internationally - it is too big a masterpiece to be hidden away in Denmark (check out the external reviews if you want more proof)

Normally the name of screenwriter Kim Fupz Aakesonon a Danish film is enough to make my blood freeze. His proletaristic, mind-numbing dialog (mostly consisting of ummmm.... f****... errr s***) is enough to drive me up the wall, and the terribly dull "everyday" (as if people died in car crashes or went insane were everyday things) stories were tiresome. So my expectations for this film were low. Yet I was to be surprised: Director Jacob Thuesen has turned the "everyday" story on it's head, and created a searing critique of the welfare state, the middle class, and society's (particularly the legal system) increasing dependence on experts, and their influence on people's lives.

Troels Lyby is amazing as the father accused of incest, and for once Aakeson's dialogue is fascinating and sharp. For a Danish film it is impressively edited and filmed, and the visual style (especially the unconventional character introductions) is fittingly cold and edgy. The only problem with this film is that it goes on for about ten minutes too long, and the fact that Sofie Graabøl is simply too tried and tested in this sort of film to be anything else than tiresome.

Overall, a greatly underrated movie. I might actually look forward to Aakeson's next film.

After years of waiting, anticipating, and quite a lot of "what happened to that Otomo Katsuhiro guy?" - talk, Otomo finally finishes his long (it has been ten years in production) awaited film. The film is a traditional mad scientist story about the son of inventor Eddie steam that tries to stop is fathers invention destroying Victorian London. As mentioned before, the film has been in production for ten years, and unfortunately it shows. During the first half-hour the computer generated shots are so crude it becomes almost laughable, and the editing and pacing is choppy. Fortunately, after the rough start the film finds it's pace, and it delivers some incredible set-pieces (well, one 90 minute long set-piece really) with a fascinating mix of cell animation and 3d shots, of which the latter, as mentioned, are somewhat dated, though that is quickly forgotten in the action. What is lacking from Otomo's earlier films is the deep plot and characterization. The main points of the story are the usual mad-scientist babble about science corrupting humans, and some typical Otomo rubbish about the evils of capitalism which make the film seem like something from the mid-eighties. Perhaps Otomo has decided to listen to his critics (who accuse him of cramming too much plot into his films) and make something simple, or perhaps (more likely) he has simply decided to make a film for the younger audience. 10-12 year olds will definitely like this film, while older viewers will marvel at the animation while weeping inside at how computer animation is overtaking cell animation. I wouldn't worry about Otomo though - he could make great films no matter what media he works with. Let's just hope he doesn't take ten years making his next film...

At times films of the same genre tend to be very similar in both style and substance. In the case of Nordkraft director Ole Christian Madsen at times crosses the border between being inspired and copying. Visually, the film bears a striking resemblance to "Requiem For a Dream" (another film abut drug abuse) and at times the soundtrack even sounds identical. This at times makes the film come a bit too close to being a copy, which is a shame, as it is a fine film about a number of people caught in the drug underworld. The film depicts the way a number of people try to escape the drugs and the environment, but realize how hard it is to turn your back on a world you have lived in for so long. The movie follows three stories, all well acted, but one of the stories concerning a young girl and her relationship with her pusher boyfriend, is a bit shallow. The other two stories (concerning a junkie trying to quit to get his girlfriend back, and a former drug-runner trying to start a new life) dominate the film. Generally a good film, and visually one of the best Danish films in years, even though Madsen could have leaned a bit less on the previous films in the genre.

Thomas Vinterberg has finally reemerged from the disaster that was "It's all about love", and with help from compatriot Lars Von Trier he has delivered a hugely original and entertaining film. The story evolves around Dick - a small town loser who feels confident by holding a gun. Seeing this, he creates a group "the Dandies" of fellow gun-fanatics. Violent as it may seem, the point of the group is pacifism - to obsess with guns, but NOT TO USE THEM. Yet when ex-criminal Sebastian joins the group tensions emerge, and Dicks ego and his gun-obsession becomes a deadly cocktail. The story is absolutely outrageous, but Vinterberg, realizing this, gives the film a warped, almost giddy, feel. This actually complements Von Trier's screenplay better than the latter's ultra-realistic style, and prevents the film from becoming moralizing. The only real drawback of the story is the slow start and the dialog, which at times has difficulty hiding the fact that it has, in fact, been translated from Danish into English. Nevertheless, a strong comeback for Vinterberg - let's hope he can do some more serious stuff as well.

There are some films (such as Citizen Kane and Shawshank redemption) that are largely overlooked on release only to be praised as masterpieces years later. Then there are some films that are praised as classics simply because the style or subject matter was relevant at when it was made. The third man was recently rated the greatest British film ever made (and one of the top ten best films ever made in the world). While I normally love seeing classic movies, after seeing The third man I felt a nagging sense of disappointment. The cinematography, acting, lighting and music are all brilliant, but we have seen better examples throughout the years. The movie has an original plot when all is revealed, but the first half of the film is simply a traditional mystery story. The final hide-and-seek chase in the end is truly well done, but it's effectiveness is undermined by the fact that Lime is at this stage depicted as a truly unsympathetic character. He is too evil for us to have sympathy with him, and he is too scared to be a frightening villain in the scene. I felt some sense of "What's the point" throughout the story. there is a nice story about ethics and duty, but the entire development happens in the last fifteen minutes, and seems rushed. Ultimately therefore, I found the film good, but dated and not timeless as there were few elements in this film that haven't been utilized to greater effect before and since. 8/10

This latest Harry potter film is the first (and last) film to be directed by Mexican Alfonso Cuaron. He is also the films most striking (but by no means greatest) flaw. Being his big chance to break into Hollywood (and feeling the need to break out of Columbus' shadow) he overdoes the directing of this film so dramatically that you at times feel you are watching the world's mos expensive student film. One minute into the film he brings in the Dogma 95 -style hand-held camera. And throughout the film he sticks in shrunken heads (yes Alfonso, we know you are from Central America, but you ARE aware that this takes place in Britain aren't you?). THREE times we are treated to swooping shots of birds flying though the air, leaves falling off the trees etc. Like Potter himself, it felt like Cuaron was an eager adolescent trying to show off what he could do. On top of that, the architecture of Hogwarts itself was filled with freudian symbolism. Sure. In an adult movie this would be great - Cuaron should do more of those. But this is completely out of tone with the rest of the Harry Potter universe. A good (professionalistic) director knows his genre and sticks to it. This felt a bit like the Tom and Jerry episodes from the 70's where they ruined it with all kinds of modernistic, artsy-fartsy details. For all his technical show-offing, Cuaron fails to ever bring genuine suspense to the story. He simply makes it a bit more depressing and feels satisfied with that.

While there is a new director, it is striking that they didn't see fit to replace the screenwriter Steve Kloves. His truly uninspiring, and unimaginative paint-by-numbers adaptation of the books worked acceptably in the first films, since the books were almost like screenplays themselves. Yet in this film he leaves out the most important points in the story - and misses some perfect opportunities to add depth to the storytelling with the flashbacks, and dreams abundant in the books. And the humor and self-irony that characterized the books is completely absent here. One glimpse of imagination, and the only truly outstanding feat of the movie, is the cinematography. Micheal Seresin does his best to make up with visual style where the story lacks. Unfortunately, this is not enough. Sad, since this could have been the most creative and deep of the films. Instead it just seems like a less fun version of the same thing.

It's not rare that a bad film becomes a hit at the box office because of a popular director. That a downright awful film gets a cult following because of it's director (or screenwriter), however, is more rare. What made so many people crazy about this film, apart from loyalty to "annoy-the-establishment" Oliver Stone is beyond me. It's not funny. At all. In fact, the parts that were supposed to be "funny" made me even more angry than the "provoking" parts of his other movies (the deleted scene with the courtroom was so sadistic it made me want to see Stone and Tarrantino's heads on plates - and i usually like Tarrantino's films). It's not suspenseful either, since you're hoping the main characters get killed through the entire movie. Finally it's not original -it's been done a million times before. So basically i just felt sick and angry. And who goes to the movies to get angry and sick? Stone is trying to rant about the hypocrisy of modern media while making a total gorefest for millions of moviegoers to see. Now who's hypocritical? Stone should stay away from satire and stick with the serious stuff - it's provoking enough.