WOW! Kudos to the director writer (auteur?), a one Raz Rinnekangas, for now providing what for me has instantly shot up into the top of my own personal list of so boring, pointless, why was it made, worst ever list, as being possibly (yep) one of worst, boring films I have now ever seen (even over all those fifties black and white quickie horror / sci-fi / monster throwaways etc).
So, why spend time here to 'review'? Well, besides to share = WARN, also gotta salvage something out of the time invested in this tedium to 'n' th degree watch!
For this is a pity as its premise seemed quite promising: that architects would have a conscience as to what their brainchilds spring upon their user / occupiers: and which is especially so for out in Finland where it is otherwise inordinately proud of its architectural greats (Alvar Aalto is mentioned, although it's French Le Corbusier who is most referenced), yet its older wooden buildings / architecture seem to be valued much as in the Chinese approach to i.e. not at all, in wishing to eradicate the existence of any remaining examples of earlier abodes. As, similarly to, for example in UK, post-second world war slum property clearance for shiny new high rise blocks of flats, giving concomitant rise to a sense of not only history but, more essentially, proletarian (lower - working) class shared community spirit destruction: its initial scenes seem to promise a visual record of 'before and after', opening with some (indeterminate, about some lost girl love?) black and white archive garden footage, and soon onto what seemed to only be, photoshopped like, stills of featureless, characterless, soulless modern (sixties / seventies?) blocks of flats (no reference to where they might really be and of)
Instead, throughout this thoroughly turgid take, it's mostly just two talking heads pontificating on their in hindsight 'architectural imposition' guilt: two interminable scenes in particular, one inside over a shared meal, another outside over a smoke, are merely shot from one protagonist face to the other, are just for the two - eponymous Theo (Hannu-Pekka Bjorkman) and his erstwhile architecture office partner (?) Vincent (Ville Virtanen) - to deliver their stultifyingly tedious lines the director has written for them. So, now be warned: NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS FILM.*
Thus it would seem this is far more of a theatrical production to more rightly belong there on stage in a theatre, not on a cinema screen. Although, admittedly, interspersing this tete-a-tete tedium a few countryside scenes are beautifully colour shot (one from a distance as boring hero, Theo (:-), cycles - similarly seemingly interminably, on and on and on to no discernable reason to show), along with similarly interspersed (to keep you awake?) autumn colours tree shots It seems to be all (very!) sub Terence Malick's latter portentous piffle, but thereby, far (far!) worse.
Then, besides the two interminably spouting guys, there is also a maid cast (Elsa Salonen, I believe?) - but for her, now completely mute! She doesn't utter a word: (presumably director Raz merely thought some estrogen eye enticement was needed to leaven the tedium) - or rather, again, merely interspersed into the tedious duologues, several times, lastly pensively staring at the camera as if to shout out to us audience 'What the bloody hell do I need to be in this for?', since throughout I could discern absolutely no reason whatsoever for her appearance! Similarly so, the only other female character# - Inkeri (Niina Koponen) - is also shown completely mute - well, in any case, with absolutely no lines afforded to her character, either. Apparently it seems (obviously?) director/writer R.R. must consider female input into the architectural world completely superfluous, other than as plot devices for the guys' (architects) foibles e.g. the latter as some sexual plaything to be subsequently betrayed by Vincent's Stateside perfidy - or some sort I possibly discerned from his latterly interminable utterings. #Ah, sorry, not quite: still one other female DOES turn up; as, it would seem (perhaps?) as Theo's muse / fantasised after missing Miss? - who can tell, because - oh, surprise, surprise, shock - she's also has absolutely no lines / nothing to say other than enigmatically smile, á la Mona Lisa-style! So, gI suppose this is perhaps deliberate.
For then, there's also a - contractually bound from shared funding? - German board house keeper cum gardener (Boris Konezcny) who amongst sharing apparent unconnected (thereby quite pointless?) philosophical musings with the eponymous Theo, serenades his late wife - (therefore, note: no need to cast and show this female character, either: clever, that, Raz) - with his cello renditions in the garden, whilst gazing wistfully up through those autumnal tree leaves shots. (I think Nietzsche might have been mentioned: but I'm NOT gonna watch it again to check!)
And all this is even more enervating as a gallingly repetitive to irritating eight note piano refrain seems to permanently permeate the soundtrack, too (and, what, composer Pascal Gaigne won an award for, too ...?! See IMDB further info here.)
SO: since this was not only directed but also scripted by (auteur?) R. R., then the full responsibility for boring the heck out of foisting this onto an audience, does surely lie with; ah, BUT wait: of course, I must fairly admit I watched this to comprehend through the English subtitling so I may have missed something of incisive substance on the whole shebang: as, like, perhaps of the titular Theo's house: which ...
* NOW, WARNING, PLOT SPOILER coming ALERT ...
still, we never see other than, even that, in what looked a rather (inept) amateur drawn floor-plan rendition only (so we were even cheated there!): but, if not, then this otherwise truly is one of those offerings that rivals the proverbial watching paint dry (or, perhaps here, those Autumn leaves drop!)
* Personal aside: y'know in my Finnish cinematic oeuvre exploration I oft find it absolutely amazing at what out and out inanities can oft seem passed off onto Finnish audiences!
So, why spend time here to 'review'? Well, besides to share = WARN, also gotta salvage something out of the time invested in this tedium to 'n' th degree watch!
For this is a pity as its premise seemed quite promising: that architects would have a conscience as to what their brainchilds spring upon their user / occupiers: and which is especially so for out in Finland where it is otherwise inordinately proud of its architectural greats (Alvar Aalto is mentioned, although it's French Le Corbusier who is most referenced), yet its older wooden buildings / architecture seem to be valued much as in the Chinese approach to i.e. not at all, in wishing to eradicate the existence of any remaining examples of earlier abodes. As, similarly to, for example in UK, post-second world war slum property clearance for shiny new high rise blocks of flats, giving concomitant rise to a sense of not only history but, more essentially, proletarian (lower - working) class shared community spirit destruction: its initial scenes seem to promise a visual record of 'before and after', opening with some (indeterminate, about some lost girl love?) black and white archive garden footage, and soon onto what seemed to only be, photoshopped like, stills of featureless, characterless, soulless modern (sixties / seventies?) blocks of flats (no reference to where they might really be and of)
Instead, throughout this thoroughly turgid take, it's mostly just two talking heads pontificating on their in hindsight 'architectural imposition' guilt: two interminable scenes in particular, one inside over a shared meal, another outside over a smoke, are merely shot from one protagonist face to the other, are just for the two - eponymous Theo (Hannu-Pekka Bjorkman) and his erstwhile architecture office partner (?) Vincent (Ville Virtanen) - to deliver their stultifyingly tedious lines the director has written for them. So, now be warned: NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS FILM.*
Thus it would seem this is far more of a theatrical production to more rightly belong there on stage in a theatre, not on a cinema screen. Although, admittedly, interspersing this tete-a-tete tedium a few countryside scenes are beautifully colour shot (one from a distance as boring hero, Theo (:-), cycles - similarly seemingly interminably, on and on and on to no discernable reason to show), along with similarly interspersed (to keep you awake?) autumn colours tree shots It seems to be all (very!) sub Terence Malick's latter portentous piffle, but thereby, far (far!) worse.
Then, besides the two interminably spouting guys, there is also a maid cast (Elsa Salonen, I believe?) - but for her, now completely mute! She doesn't utter a word: (presumably director Raz merely thought some estrogen eye enticement was needed to leaven the tedium) - or rather, again, merely interspersed into the tedious duologues, several times, lastly pensively staring at the camera as if to shout out to us audience 'What the bloody hell do I need to be in this for?', since throughout I could discern absolutely no reason whatsoever for her appearance! Similarly so, the only other female character# - Inkeri (Niina Koponen) - is also shown completely mute - well, in any case, with absolutely no lines afforded to her character, either. Apparently it seems (obviously?) director/writer R.R. must consider female input into the architectural world completely superfluous, other than as plot devices for the guys' (architects) foibles e.g. the latter as some sexual plaything to be subsequently betrayed by Vincent's Stateside perfidy - or some sort I possibly discerned from his latterly interminable utterings. #Ah, sorry, not quite: still one other female DOES turn up; as, it would seem (perhaps?) as Theo's muse / fantasised after missing Miss? - who can tell, because - oh, surprise, surprise, shock - she's also has absolutely no lines / nothing to say other than enigmatically smile, á la Mona Lisa-style! So, gI suppose this is perhaps deliberate.
For then, there's also a - contractually bound from shared funding? - German board house keeper cum gardener (Boris Konezcny) who amongst sharing apparent unconnected (thereby quite pointless?) philosophical musings with the eponymous Theo, serenades his late wife - (therefore, note: no need to cast and show this female character, either: clever, that, Raz) - with his cello renditions in the garden, whilst gazing wistfully up through those autumnal tree leaves shots. (I think Nietzsche might have been mentioned: but I'm NOT gonna watch it again to check!)
And all this is even more enervating as a gallingly repetitive to irritating eight note piano refrain seems to permanently permeate the soundtrack, too (and, what, composer Pascal Gaigne won an award for, too ...?! See IMDB further info here.)
SO: since this was not only directed but also scripted by (auteur?) R. R., then the full responsibility for boring the heck out of foisting this onto an audience, does surely lie with; ah, BUT wait: of course, I must fairly admit I watched this to comprehend through the English subtitling so I may have missed something of incisive substance on the whole shebang: as, like, perhaps of the titular Theo's house: which ...
* NOW, WARNING, PLOT SPOILER coming ALERT ...
still, we never see other than, even that, in what looked a rather (inept) amateur drawn floor-plan rendition only (so we were even cheated there!): but, if not, then this otherwise truly is one of those offerings that rivals the proverbial watching paint dry (or, perhaps here, those Autumn leaves drop!)
* Personal aside: y'know in my Finnish cinematic oeuvre exploration I oft find it absolutely amazing at what out and out inanities can oft seem passed off onto Finnish audiences!
