UlrikSander Reviews

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

Criminally Underrated Hollywood Risk-Taker!

[7/10 · 28 June 2012]

Warning: My reviews are 100% guaranteed plot-summary-free - as you can find movie summaries anywhere online. I truly believe a real movie reviewer should dissect the soul of movies, as opposed to merely summarizing plots - which any 14-year old could do.

Embarrassingly low IMDb rating for a Hollywood superhero-movie this unique and risky! GR2 creates a twisted and dark universe with visually compelling night-scenes bathed in Absinthe-green color-tones contrasting the day-time's over-exposed sharp white daylight. Equally compelling are the cartoon-universe's morally ambiguous characters - including the Morphine-popping, self-loathing protagonist Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider (Nicolas Cage)! The line between good and evil is thin here. Cage injects drops of his former manic acting-style known from early-career surrealistic masterpieces, e.g. "Wild At Heart" (David Lynch, 1990) which will please his long-time followers.

GR2 does admittedly have faults. It suffers from the standard sub-par, dumbed-down dialog of big-budget blockbusters, and its audience are asked to accept some far-fetched events so fantastic they would be fatal to the credibility of any storyline... normally! However, GR2 is not normal. Do NOT expect sophisticated plot and realism! Watch it for the weird world and sensatory experience: the GR2 trip is instinctive - NOT intellectual! When you open your mind to such an experience, the aforementioned faults become irrelevant.

Consider the odds: it is a closely-controlled, big-budgeted blockbuster sequel targeted at the horrified-of-boredom, escapism-craving superhero- movie audience (which is how Hollywood studios wrongfully conceive us...), and despite all this, GR2 is clearly a work of its own, therefore considerably more interesting than its by-the-book predecessor "Ghost Rider" (Mark Steven Johnson, 2007).

...

And as a result, sadly also widely misunderstood, hence the criminally low IMDb rating. Risk-taking is not a quality in itself, but when it results in an different AND fascinating spin on the arch- American superhero-movie genre, it deserves to be rewarded. GR2 is not a masterpiece, merely a slightly left-field, good movie. 7/10

THX 1138 (1971)

Underrated science fiction classic full of philosophical ideas

[9/10 · 7 November 2008]

This is a review of the Director's Cut version of "THX 1138". I have not seen the original theatrical version, and I have no idea how well it works or if it's even nearly as good as the Director's Cut.

I will not summarize the plot of "THX 1138" as it's a waste of both your and my time. Reviews should ideally always seek to investigate and analyze the core of a given movie as opposed to the easy way out which is just summarizing its plot. In fact my reviews are as much for those who have already seen the given movie as it is for those who haven't.

At the beginning of sound movies, one of the old masters of silent film, perhaps it was Buster Keaton, but it could have been any of those legends who never fully made the transformation from silence to sound, said that dialog was a cheap and uncinematic way of telling a story in films. In a sense he was right, because what is film, but a long series of pictures executed quickly after each other? Cinematic stories should be told in pictures.

Dialog, sound effects, and music are spices that complete the dish, but ultimately the soup that is cinema is cooked on pictures. George Lucas understood this perhaps more than ever in his career when he directed his debut-film, the hopelessly underrated "THX 1138". The cinematography of "THX 1138" is stunningly beautiful, yet cold and overly stylized perfectly underlining its themes of conformity, identity, bureaucracy, surveillance, consumerism, etc.

"THX 1138" is about escaping or leaving your old routines and schematically planed everyday life, and venturing out into the unknown. When THX is imprisoned for participating in sexual activity and avoiding drug-use, he spends his time waiting, thinking... like one does in prison. But he gathers up the courage to explore the prison, and discovers that it in reality only is a mental prison. He believes he is imprisoned, therefore he is imprisoned. The enemy is therefore, in some sense, himself.

All the rules and routines of the sterile and cold mechanized society THX lives, can also be interpreted as representing the inner workings of small-town societies. THX escapes his mental prison, and ventures in to the big world, leaving his home-town behind. When the film ends, we have no idea what's going to happen to him, nor whether it's bad or good. And where he's going does essentially not even matter. The only important thing is that he's leaving the familiarity of home behind. In this interpretation, systematized societies are the key enemy.

The theme of flying from the nest might sound kind of basic and boring. Not in "THX 1138"! Lucas and co-writer Walter Murch spice it up with so many philosophical ideas about faith and society that one could several books on it. The theme might also sound kind of familiar... that is because Lucas re-used it in "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars". That's right, George Lucas is at heart an auteur! But where "Star Wars" essentially is an entertaining and very professionally executed mainstream action-adventure movie (although not without its own share of ideas and layers), "THX 1138" is at its core an art-house movie with something to say. "THX 1138" is clearly closely related to sci-fi classics such as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner", and even Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solyaris". Yet at the core it ressembles mostly Danish sci-fi/love-story art-house film "Allegro" (Christoffer Boe, 2005) which also has the main character searching for his identity in a labyrinthic, otherworldly society.

The only flaw in "THX 1138" is its third act which fails to expand further on the themes and merely drags out the story. Pure action for the sake of entertaining the crowd. It's a bit as if George Lucas didn't fully have the guts to complete such an uncompromising film. This doesn't take away from the fact that it is a cinematic (near) classic that should be required viewing for any self-proclaimed science fiction fan.

Currently "THX 1138" has the low rating of 6.8 on IMDb which is unfair to say the least. However, many of the films we acknowledge as classics today, were for a long time not recognized as good films at all. For example, the movies of Italian horror director Mario Bava (my favorite director) made in the 60's and 70's were not seen as classics at all until long after his death. Only for perhaps the last 10 years have movie-buffs begun to acknowledge Bava movies such as "Black Sunday" (1960"), "Blood and Black Lace" (1964), and "Rabid Dogs" (1974") as important cinematic works. Perhaps, though long overdue, this will happen to "THX 1138" too some day. I certainly hope so. 9/10

Lost Souls (2000)

Far from perfect, but a lot better than it's IMDb rating...

[8/10 · 5 November 2008]

I just finished watching "Lost Souls" on TV2 Film (a Danish movie channel), and I instantly logged on to IMDb to see its rating, and perhaps learn more about the layers of the film.

I was shocked:: a 4,5/10 rating on IMDb!? Granted, the film is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than 4,5/10, so I must admit, I actually only think the film deserves a 7/10 rating, but because its rating is so low, I give it an 8/10.

I also managed to find some good heated discussions about the movie on its IMDb board - especially its ending. And I must say, any movie-ending capable of starting such heated discussions on IMDb has my full respect! "Lost Souls" definitely owes a lot to Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968 and William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" from 1973 (and perhaps even Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" from 1995) thematically, visually, and plot-wise. Examples: the general dark cinematography, the cinematography during the "exorcism of the priest"-scene resembles scenes in "The Exorcist" a lot, director Janusz Kaminski's choice to leave scenes open to debate (Which they are! Want proof? Just check the heated discussions on IMDb...), and finally the whole idea of "everybody" being in on it (as shown in the church-scene towards the ending) resembles "Rosemary's Baby" a lot. You can see these examples as a sign of director Kaminski being unoriginal, or as references/a tribute to the original classics. I choose to see it as the latter.

It's clear that director Janusz Kaminski and cinematographer Mauro Fiore understand the horror genre. The cinematography is dark, creepy, and classy. The scenes are slow, although not Tarkovsky-slow, but, however, still far from the past-paced MTV editing of most of today's horror movies. All in all the movie is very atmospheric and has the feeling that something dark is looming around the corner (which perfectly underbuilds its plot). Kaminski also manages to avoid the most annoying horror clichés, although, as aforementioned, he does pay a lot of (too much?)tribute to especially "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist" - but there are even more genre references, so keep an eye open if you dig movie intertextuality. Furthermore Kaminski understands that true horror arises not from whats going on on-screen (too often big over-blown CGI-monsters), but from what goes on off-screen (in your mind!). No movie monster can ever compete with the figures of your imagination. This movie follows that philosophy.

Wionna Ryder fits perfect in the role as Maya. It's not a mind-blowing performance (because the character is, to be honest, rather cliché), but it's steady. Ryder understands when to act subtle and when to act on the big emotions. Ben Chaplin is acceptable as Peter, although a bit more anonymous character-wise and easily replaceable by another actor with similar looks. Finally, Philip Baker Hall as Father James, is always a joy to watch. He doesn't receive much screen-time, but he's menacing in the few scenes he appear. A true character actor!

I see a lot of IMDb users hate this movie because of its ending. Personally I like the ending, but I understand them to a certain a degree. It can feel like an anti-climax - but only if you're not using all your senses when watching movies. I think it's a great ending for the same reason I liked the ending of "Rosemary's Baby": it's open for interpretation, thus leaving the movie running in your head a long time after it's ended. You can't stop thinking about the ending. Did Peter turn into Satan before Maya shot him? Or Did Maya actually shoot an innocent man? Was she, in fact, the one destined to become Satan all along? Or did the whole story perhaps take place in a mentally ill Maya's mind? If you're a thinker, these questions are bound to come up. That's what makes this movie so interesting, and even re-watchable. At least I'm gonna watch it again, so I can look for more clues to the puzzle that I didn't catch the first time.

But the movie also has its flaws. It's as if the director didn't have the guts to go all the way with the "horror works best in the audience's imagination"-philosophy, and had to put in some supernatural slasher scenes that only work against the movie's horror. Either that or he was under pressure from studio execs. Furthermore the plot and the dialog sometimes feel a bit too cliché. It's as if the movie isn't sure if it's a mainstream or art-house movie. Does it want to be an intelligent piece of art or a mind-numbing by-the-books Hollywood horror. It's as if it's going in both directions at once, and therefore doesn't fully succeed at either one.

That being said, the movie does have a lot of qualities, and is definitely worth watching for any serious fans of the genre (as I am). I've watched all the classics: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Repulsion", "Halloween", "Cannibal Holocaust", "Nosferatu", "Dracula" (1932 and 1958), "Vertigo", "Psycho", etc. etc. etc. - this movie has a lot of good elements, although not quite enough to reach the classic/cult status of the aforementioned movies. At the moment I'm waiting for Lars von Trier's upcoming 2009 movie "Antikrist" which is, surprise, surprise, a horror movie... Trier's first since his TV-series "Riget". I hope he'll bring something new to the genre, because the genre sure needs it.

Well... that's about it I guess. On to the rating. I find the movie worthy of 7/10, but give it 8/10 because of its currently absurdly low IMDb rating of 4,5/10!

Hondo (1953)

Arch-typical American western that should be required viewing for genre fans

[7/10 · 19 December 2007]

Hondo Lane (John Wayne) is a scout for the cavalry, and a loner. In the Apache-Indian territory he receives shelter on a farm, where Angie Lowe (Geraldine Page) lives together with her son Johnny (Lee Aaker). Here, Hondo and Angie slowly fall in love, but soon there's a shown between the Apaches and the cavalry, and Hondo rides out to participate.

"Hondo" from 1953 is directed by John Farrow, written by James Edward Grant, and based on a short story by Louis L'Amour.

Hondo is tough. He is that type of guy who has learned everything the hard way. When he discovers that Johnny can't swim, he simply throws him in the water, so that he can learn-by-doing. It is a clash between the tough and the civilized. Hondo understands the Apaches, because he has Apache-Indian blood in him. He can smell them as Apaches can smell the white man. He respects their chief Vittorio (Michael Pate), but when war time comes he does what he has to do.

"Hondo" is an arch-typical American western that should be required viewing for fans of the genre or The Duke.

The Last House on the Left (1972)

A masterpiece exploration of violence

[9/10 · 14 December 2007]

Wes Craven's "The Last House on the Left" is a masterpiece exploration of violence, and what it does to the human soul.

This movie contains many a classic scene. The Krug-orders-Phillis-to-urinate-scene. The messing-with-organs-scene. The Mari-walks-into-the-water-and-gets-shot-scene. Not for the faint of heart! This movie is all about animal instinct. It could be argued that Krug, 'Weasel', and Sadie just follow their natural instincts. Killing, hunting, and playing with the victim are human instincts that are largely neglected in civilization today. All civilized thought patterns aside, is it healthy to neglect this side of ourselves.

Craven does fail in the largely unnecessary comedic scenes, which seem hopelessly out of place. Most likely in the movie to counterweight for the violence scenes, their only success is tearing apart some of the terrifying atmosphere established by the aforementioned scenes.

This is, however, not enough to destroy an otherwise fantastic movie. "The Last House on the Left" was probably the first movie to seriously explore the depths of the human soul via violence. Perhaps this is the success of the movie. It casts light on instincts we had pleasantly forgotten. 9/10

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

Powerful documentary with important themes and great psychological insight into its characters...

[8/10 · 12 April 2007]

Andrew Jarecki's CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS from 2003 asks many important questions about family ties, mental illness in form of pedophilia and the US court system: Was it fair to judge the 19-year-old Jesse? Should only the father-of-three Arnold, who did confess, have been imprisoned? Was the US court system too harsh? Was it worth further destroying the family's life, even though the father certainly caused permanent damage to the minds of a lot of young children? Personally I believe that Jesse was involved in these perverted sex-crimes, but I also believe that the court system was too harsh. Perhaps because I live in Denmark where imprisonments of criminals generally are substantially shorter...

Throughout almost the entire documentary I couldn't feel sympathy for these brothers. During the four years of waiting-time they acted as brats, especially towards their mother, who was only looking for the truth, but didn't get it, even from her own husband and son. She did the right thing in avoiding just accepting and helping cover it up. In retrospect I understand how unbelievably demanding it must have been for the brothers to witness their beloved father transform from a well-respected member of the Great Neck community, who other family-fathers entrusted with their children, into a perverse child-molesting monster! They refused to accept this fact mentally - and they still do to this day. In the interviews it's obvious how especially David attempts manipulating us, the viewers, and even himself unconsciously, into believing that his father was much more innocent than he was in reality. The attempt backlashes, and is easily exposed as a primitive psychological defense-mechanism.

But in the ending-shot something strange happens - I start feeling actual sympathy for the whole family. When Jesse, after a 13-year-long imprisonment, returns home to his now-remarried mother Elaine, one senses in his eyes (which are the windows to our soul) that he is a changed and ultimately better man. It finally looks like this self-destructive family is going to be okay after all. They have lost an enormous amount of time, so their main objective is to forget their bitterness and anger towards each-other, and thereby obtain a decent family-life. It's still possible! The father Arnold, who is the only "real" monster (if there indeed is a such? I personally think it's a terrible term, but the public tends to be looking for one, so for the sake of simplification...) dies with honor and at least some sympathy when he commits suicide by swallowing a large amount of benzodiazepines (pain-killers) in prison, so that Jesse gets paid 250.000$ in insurance money. A rare case of suicide not being a selfish act - you can't help thinking that it's the best solution, and as Arnold's brother Howard puts it (I'm paraphrasing): "he's finally out of his misery". In the end we feel compassionate towards the family - they've suffered more than enough: Jesse has paid his debt towards society, they've been torn apart as a family, their father Arnold is dead, and they've been widely exposed and harassed in the press. It's time to forgive - for the Friedmans and for rest of the US!

Andrew Jarecki's documentary CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS is a very touching, heart-wrenching, hard-to-watch experience with great psychological insight into its characters. It shows you that the executioner (the child-molester) is almost always also a victim in some ways, and that the victims sometimes also are executioners. Cinematically it's very well put-together - actually so well you don't even notice its mechanisms, which helps you to just focus on the story being told. And that's how serious documentaries should be. An absolutely recommendable documentary that almost ranks up there with Barbara Kopple's classic "Direct Cinema" documentary HARLAN COUNTY U.S.A. from 1976, in terms of CAPTURING a realistic depiction of life. 8/10

Clerks II (2006)

Generation X - 10 years after!

[9/10 · 25 January 2007]

I'm a loyal fan of Kevin Smith. I even enjoyed JERSEY GIRL from 2004 to some degree. But the quality had been steadily declining from movie to movie almost without exception. CLERKS from 1994 was his greatest movie, MALLRATS from 1995 was his second-greatest movie, CHASING AMY from 1997 was his third-greatest movie and so on. And then came CLERKS II in 2006, in my opinion his greatest effort yet, and perhaps one of the greatest movie sequels ever. It's clever and funny, it's touching, and it's full of Kevin Smith trademarks such as the inter-textual reoccurring of characters and locations, and its themes and message.

Storyline: Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) and Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) are now working in Mooby's, a fictional McDonald's-inspired fast-food restaurant in New Jersey, which isn't less of a dead-end job than Quick Stop. Dante has a girlfriend Emma Bunting (Jennifer Schwalbach Smith) whom he's about to marry and move to Florida with, but the unspoken truth is that he loves the Mooby's manager Becky (Rosario Dawson). Randal is depressed. He's now 32 and the world slowly passes by him. And soon Dante, his best friend, will move away to Florida to start a new so-called proper life...

Kevin Smith's manuscript is full of his usual ingenious pop-culture dissections, relationship talks, and other authentic Generation X trademarks (if such trademarks indeed exist?). Thematically it's about finding the place in life that fits you and makes you happy, and not taking the wrong route just 'cus it at first glance seems more right and respectable; a mistake Dante almost makes when he nearly moves to Florida with his incredibly annoying fiancé. I would imagine that it's a very uplifting movie for everyone in their post-30's who still haven't found the right route in their life. Smith's characters are well-defined and realistic, only slightly more cartoonish than in CLERKS which I still feel is the perfect portrait of Generation X (perhaps Smith was smitten by the cartoon-Clerks-style). But that's not what Smith intended with CLERKS II. CLERKS II is Generation X - 10 years after! Smith makes perfect use of his long-time friend Jeff Anderson's dry wit and voice, yet without losing sight of the character's soul and personal motivations. And all us not-so-perfect-looking nice intelligent guys can perfectly relate to Brian O'Halloran's character Dante Hicks.

Kevin smith has also shown improvement visually. CLERKS II just looks much greater than his previous efforts. The colors are extremely fresh and cheerful. There are some nice crane-shots, and a well-shot sing-and-dance scene(!) bound to cheer even the saddest souls up. Some would say that some of the heart and soul of the original CLERKS movie lies in its under-lit black/white picture, but actually the color transition is just perfect. And it's incredibly effective when Smith fades the colors into black/white in the end-shot. I always loved the soundtrack in CLERKS, and this one's even better consisting of such diverse groups as Talking Heads, King Diamond, Jackson Five, and Soul Asylum (who also were on the CLERKS soundtrack).

What I like the most about CLERKS II is that it's a feel-good movie that I can believe in and relate to. Too many Hollywood feel-good blockbusters are out-of-sync with their audience, but Kevin Smith manages to make me believe that this is a real story with real characters. For the first time in a long time I was moved by a feature film. It's funny, sharp, touching, and perhaps Kevin Smith's greatest movie ever. With CLERKS II Smith (again) proofs that great movie-making doesn't necessarily require billions of dollars. The budget of CLERKS II is only $5,000,000 which is pretty low for a Hollywood blockbuster. And look at no-budget/low-budget directors like Lars von Trier (Denmark), Werner Herzog (Germany) and Todd Solondz (USA) who always deliver the goods. Hollywood could really learn from this, but hey, enough film-politics. CLERKS II is freakin' great movie - steal it, borrow it, buy it. Whatever. Watch it!! 9/10

Rope (1948)

Great experimental Hitchcock movie

[9/10 · 3 November 2006]

The big strength of ROPE (1948) is that it manages to be Alfred Hitchcock's possibly most experimental movie ever, while exploring one of Hitchcock's favorite themes, guilt, at the same time. It's experimental, because Hitckcock wanted ROPE to have no cuts in it whatsoever, which he almost succeeded in achieving. There's an invisible cut every tenth minute (the camera zooms in on a character's black suit while the cut takes place) which was necessary, because 35mm film rolls only lasts 10 minutes, and there are three visible cuts, which were necessary for practical reasons, because back then, cinemas replaced the film roll three times during a movie. Hitchcock's artistic reason for the not-cuts-allowed rule was to melt the actual time and the fictive time together. The story lasts 105 minutes, and so does the story. Just as with Lars von Trier's Dogme95 rules in IDIOTERNE (1998), the rule helps tell the story. The lack of cuts gives the movie a theatrical feel, which is ironic, because Hitchcock believed that movies were to be told trough images, and not dialog. On the hand, Hitchock has many times disproved this theory, as a lot of his best movies are dialog-based.

Storyline: The two young upper-class intellectuals Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) carry out a vicious plan to strangle their old friend/classmate in their apartment, hide his corpse in a old chest, invite guests over for a party, and use the old chest as a dinner table. While Brandon sees their plan as art and likes playing with fire, Phillip already feels an enormous amount of guilt. They both start getting nervous, as the guests starts wondering where David Kentley (the classmate they killed) is. Their old role model and philosophy teacher, the very intelligent Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who is also among the guests, senses that something is terribly wrong, as he sees all these little hints that support his theory that David is dead.

ROBE is one of the most underrated Hitcock movies. It's interesting, suspenseful, and James Stewart is as great as in VERTIGO. In the documentary on the DVD the writer says that he thinks Hitchcock shouldn't have shown the two men strangle the friend, because he thinks that the suspense lies in that audiences don't know whether there really is a corpse in the chest or not. I don't necessarily agree. I think that would be unnecessary, and suspense for the take of the suspense, with no meaning behind it. It would remove focus from the Hitchcockian guilt and moral themes. Another (almost) idea left out of the movie was the homosexual theme between the two men, although you still sense that the undertones are there.

Highly recommendable, especially if you're a Hitchcock fan. 10/10

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Grave Danger (1) (2005) Season 5, Episode 24

Great episode from an interesting director

[8/10 · 26 September 2006]

I'm usually very ambivalent about Quentin Tarantino's movies. To use an old but relevant term, he puts style above substance. If you strip away the hip references to pop-culture and Asian cinema, you will realize that the themes of his movies only get touched upon very superficially. Yet his cool dialog and ingenious use of continuity in PULP FICTION (1994) has been a great inspiration to movie-makers for over a decade, therefore it could be argued that he's the Godard of his generation. I personally acknowledge the significance of his movies, although I request more real substance.

Quentin Tarantino's episode GRAVE DANGER: PART 1 (of two episodes) doesn't disappoint, whether you are a fan of Tarantino or CSI. I haven't seen many CSI episodes, so my reference frame isn't exactly huge, but I understand its basic concept. In my opinion Tarantino manages to harmonically combine the usual CSI thriller elements with the classic Tarantino trademarks. It could in fact be argued that fusing completely different movie styles and genres is Tarantino's great strength. That's possibly the main reason this project fit him so well. The result is a fresh, pumped-up, stylistic CSI. It's not as ground-breaking as PULP FICTION, but who expected it to be? TV-series are always dumbed down to fit the mainstream, and that goes for the GRAVE DANGER episodes too. Yet if all TV-series were like this, the general TV standard would indeed be very high. Then again, Tarantino was gives two full episodes to operate on, which meant that he had the necessary time for character developing scenes with non-plot-driven dialog that the normal CSI directors don't have.

Regardless of you're a CSI or Quentin Tarantino fan I highly recommend watching the GRAVE DANGER episodes. It's CSI Ultimate Edition and an interesting curiosity for QT fans. 8/10

Gambler (2006)

A testament to the great inconvenience of personal movie making

[7/10 · 23 September 2006]

Phie Ambo's documentary "Gambler" follows Danish auteur movie maker Nicolas Winding Refn during and after the making of "Pusher 2". It makes the assertion that Refn's decision to follow up his hugely successful "Pusher" from 1996, the highest-grossing Danish directorial debut movie ever, with two sequels is risky business; hence the title. In reality it is the the most secure career move available to Refn whose production company went bankrupt with box office disaster "Fear X" in 2003. Although the soul of the trilogy is art-house, it has huge mainstream appeal.

The biggest success of "Gambler" lies in its portrait of Refn's day-to-day life during a stressful period of dealing with actors, the bank, his producer, his girlfriend Liv Corfixen, and, last but not least, his inner demons. One feels for Refn as he struggles, and barely manages to finance his projects. In that respect this is a testament to the great inconvenience of making personal movies in a commercial world. Rumor has it that Refn is a cynical manipulator that will do literally anything to get the performances he needs from his actors. It is therefore nice to see him appear actually very humane and responsible towards his actors, specifically former drug addict Kurt Nielsen, whom Refn locates a weekend cottage for to stay in in a time when Kurt feels especially inclined to relapse. Moviebuffs should find great pleasure in Refn's cool movie stuff, among it a huge "Cannibal Holocaust" poster hanging above Nicolas' and Liv's bed - any woman willing to accept such a poster above her bed has to be the dream wife of any movie buff!

The documentary is constructed chronologically, and takes on a fly-on-the-wall approach, in the tradition of Barbara Kopple ("Harlan County U.S.A.", "Shut Up & Sing"), with director Phie Ambo never seen or heard once, however sometimes with the participants speaking directly to the camera. It is, however, also very cinematic utilizing several stylistic tools, e.g. recurring close-ups of a Treo tablet, which Refn apparently is somewhat addicted to, dissolving in a glass of water (as a metaphor for Refn's disintegrating career situation) and the montage sequences in the the beginning and end. As a result it has a very cinematic feel to it, and the fact that it had cinema distribution (by new Danish distribution company Dox-on-Wheels) seems reasonable.

"Gambler" is not just for the fans. It contains plenty of drama, and Refn's struggles resonate far beyond the movie world. Several documentaries on Refn and his "Pusher" trilogy exist. This one is justifiable for its unique portrayal of the Danish art-house director's day-to-day life. "Gambler" is, its aforementioned assertion aside, an interesting and well-made documentary, and a testament to the great inconvenience of personal movie making. 7/10

Show Me Love (1998)

Swedish teenage life on display - great!

[9/10 · 15 September 2006]

"Is it true you're a lesbian? If you are I understand, 'cause guys are so gross. I'm also going to be one, I think!"

Storyline: The two young high-school girls Elin (Alexandra Dahlström), the most popular girl in class, and Agnes (Rebecka Liljeberg), who hardly gets noticed by anyone, live in the small suburb Åmål in Sweden. On Agnes's 16th birthday, Elin and Agnes, who are not good friends, coincidently get together, and slowly develop a tacky relationship in which they go through the worst hell of all: teenage prejudice. They begin almost as polar opposites, and end up falling in love.

These very three-dimensional characters actually feel as if they could really exist, probably because there is no Hollywood larger-than-lifeness to be found here. It's a beautiful movie, not just as a visual experience, but as a whole. It's a movie about discovering your sexuality, and it's light-hearted message is: love conquers in spite of even the worst of conditions. It's also thought-provoking: is it okay to declare yourself homosexual in such a young and sexually confusing age? Is this focus on being cool and hip-with-the-hip in high school not unhealthy? Moodysoon puts the thoughts and feelings of the the frustrated 90's teenagers on display, and his observations are spot-on correct. Don't believe me? Ask your teenage son/daughter.

You understand why Ingmar Bergman has called Lukas Moodysson the greatest current visual talent of Sweden when you watch this 1998 docu-drama about teenage sexuality. It has the feeling almost of Danish Dogme95 movies such as Thomas Vinterberg's FESTEN also from 1998: it's raw and grimy, however beautiful to look at, and it only adds to its realism. I'm also stunned to experience how two actors as young as Alexandra Dahlström (1984) and Rebecka Liljeberg (1981) are able to carry a drama like this. It's an incredibly talented young cast that never plays on false emotions, which probably partly also has to be credited the director who is also young. Moodysson directed this movie in an age of 27 years. Incredible! It shares similarities with Martin Scorsese's MEAN STREETS from 1973: it's a debut movie in which the director incorporates large amounts his personality. Moodysson's perception of and view on life really shines through. He is an auteur in the truest sense of the word.

F****NG ÅMÅL bridges the gap between art-house and mainstream. So does the other two Moodysson favorites, TILSAMMANS from 2000 and LILJA 4-EVER from 2002. However his newer efforts such as ETT HÅL I MITT HJÄRTA from 2004 and CONTAINER from 2006 have somewhat disconnected many of his fans. Although I find them rather interesting, I also acknowledge that they are very arty (terrible word!) and not for everyone. I recommend you check out the three first-mentioned, and if you like them, move on to his short-movie BARA PRATA LITE from 2007, and then finally move on to the newer efforts which are mainly for the die-hard fans. However, everyone should watch this one! 9/10

The Game (1997)

Unique David Fincher thriller gem

[7/10 · 14 September 2006]

David Fincher is a master of establishing atmosphere and mood as demonstrated in the White Rabbit sequence. A stumbling, moody, and almost tickling piano score underlines Nicolas Van Orton's (Michael Douglas) delusional mind-state. Douglas is acceptable as the main-character, although somewhat anonymous. That is a good thing! We are supposed to accept this guy as just another guy from the multi-millionaires' club. Sean Penn over-acts as Nicolas' brother Conrad, playing it very paranoid, but there is no question it works.

It is interesting how the movie is constructed so that the audience's mind-state follows Nicolas' mind-state. We develop paranoia in the exact pace he does! When Nicolas believes CRS are after him, we believe it. When he thinks it is a game, we think it. When he doesn't - we don't. Consequentially we are not convinced that it is just a game until the plot-twist end.

"The Game" is, however, not perfect. The last five minutes are mostly unnecessary. It is such a shame David Fincher didn't have the guts to pull off an open ending. The current one leaves no room for further interpreting. An open ending would have left the movie running in the mind of the viewer long afterward.

Its flaws aside, "The Game" is a very successful thriller that should appeal to everyone.

Groundhog Day (1993)

The ultimate 80's-style comedy!

[9/10 · 16 July 2006]

GROUNDHOG DAY (1993) continues the tradition of 80's-style comedies such as THE BLUES BROTHERS (1980), GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) and SCROOGED (1988), although there is a major difference. This one is based on an amazing concept, and has much more ambitious, existentialistic themes, almost in the vein of art-house movies, yet without ever feeling pretentious. It manages to be as thought-provoking and clever as movies by Stanley Kubrick, Michael Haneke or Lars von Trier, but it's told in such a light manner that it's much easier to grasp for mainstream audiences. Therefore it's able to almost sneak its themes in on those, who perhaps aren't normally used to thinking about the movies they watch. To me that's a great accomplishment in itself. GROUNDHOG DAY shows how we shouldn't take the important things for granted, that we should make the most of the time we are given on Earth, and that if the world feels like a terrible place, the changes must come from within yourself.

It's a movie which different people will interpret different meanings from. It tells the story of Phil Connors (Bill Murray), an arrogant and egocentric TV weatherman, who goes on an assignment in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, where he mysteriously gets forced to live through the same day over and over, apparently with no possibility to break the loop. This gives him the opportunity to explore life without consequences. At first he takes advantage of his situation by stealing money, becoming a drunk, and even committing suicide. Yet Phil soon realizes that his hostility towards the world isn't really because of the world, it's because of himself. The lesson is that he must change within to get together with his dream-woman and live happily ever after. Phil is not supposed to make her like him, he's supposed to make himself a likable guy. If you are constantly angry at the world then search within yourself, because that's most likely where the problem exists.

GROUNDHOG DAY is Harold Ramis's greatest movie yet. It far exceeds his other comedies, which are funny movies, but without the grandiosity of this one, in terms of the unique idea and themes. Of course Danny Rubin's ingenious manuscript has to receive credits as well, as it is basically the premise of the whole movie. Bill Murray, who is one of my favorite actors, is perfect as the Phil Corners character. Murray is able to express more than thousands of words with his eyes, and his sense of irony is fully exploited. The cameo-roles are full of comedic character-actors such as Chris Elliott, Harold Ramis (the director) and Stephen Tobolowsky. Pure genius! 10/10

Pusher III (2005)

An exciting and experimental final-chapter in the Pusher trilogy 9/10

[10/10 · 26 March 2006]

Storyline: 10 years have passed since the first PUSHER movie. Big-time drug dealer Milo (Zlatko Buric) is stressed. Milo attempts to quit heroin by attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, a shipment supposed to contain brown heroin turns out to contain 10.000 ecstasy-pills, and it's his daughter Milena's (Marinela Dekic) 25th birthday, and Milo has promised to cook food for her 50 guests. Little Muhammed (Ilyas Agac) leaves with the ecstasy-pills to sell them for Milo, but soon Milo can't find him, and the Albanian-Danish gangsters who smuggled the ecstasy-pills into Denmark are stressing Milo for their money. Conidentially Milo meets Kusse-Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) who slips him a small amount of heroin. Soon Milo's finds himself in a spiral of bad decisions smoking heroin, sniffing speed and murdering gangsters. Is Milo's drug empire finally crumbling?

Each installment of Nicolas Winding Refn's docu-drama trilogy tells a story from Copenhagen's underworld, but from three completely different protagonists' POV's. PUSHER tells the story of middle-level pusher Frank (Kim Bodnia), PUSHER 2 tells the story of low-level criminal Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen), and PUSHER 3 tells the story of high-level pusher Milo (Zlatko Buric). The clear message of the trilogy is: you live by the sword, you die by the sword. All three movies end on very ambivalent notes. Frank gets killed... or perhaps he doesn't. Tonny breaks loose of his dead-end lifestyle... or perhaps he doesn't. And Milo's drug empire crumbles... or perhaps it doesn't. That's how life is. It doesn't just stop. Each movie keeps evolving in your head even after they've ended, similar to John Cassavetes' movies or Danny Boyles' 1996 masterpiece TRAINSPOTTING. It's certainly something one doesnn't experience in braindead Hollywood blockbusters nowadays.

Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER trilogy is obviously inspired by John Cassevetes' movie-making style as they are more instinctive than intellectual, because the audience goes through the same turbulent emotions as Milo, whether it's melancholy, joy or bitterness. It's not a very fast-paced movie (except for a few breath-taking scenes), but Refn manages to maintain an uneasy tension that keeps the audience on the edge of the seats. It reflects Refn's love for his (three-dimensional) characters. Refn's 95% non-Danish dialog (the cast mainly consists of immigrants) is somewhere in-between Quentin Tarantino and John Cassavetes: very self-conscious, yet also natural and realistic. The foreign languages only adds to the mysteriousness and danger of these immigrant gangsters.

The cast primarily consists of unprofessional actors, some even with semi-criminal backgrounds, and, naturally the great Zlatko Buric whom Refn has called "the new Dirch Passer". Buric brilliantly brings out Milo's two-face ambivalence and vulnerability of an aging man in a constantly changing milieu. Refn gets performances from the unprofessional cast that range from acceptable to great -- they all add to the realness and authenticity. Many of them, of course, more or less play their real life-themselves. Many of the PUSHER characters keep re-occurring throughout the trilogy. For example: Milo (Zlatko Buric) has a supporting-role in PUSHER, a cameo-role in PUSHER 2 and the main-role in PUSHER 3. Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) has a supporting-role in PUSHER and the main-role in PUSHER 2. Kusse-Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) has a supporting-role in PUSHER 2 and a cameo-role in PUSHER 3. This provides a feeling of continuity to the trilogy's milieu.

Peter Peter (ex-member of the legendary Danish rock-group Sort Sol) has again composed the music in collaboration with Kyed. Although I preferred the 80's-synth-inspired score in PUSHER 2, this time it's effective, bleak and minimal. For example: When Kusse-Kurt slips Milo a small amount of heroin in the grill-bar, shortly after a disturbing, noisy, distorted guitar-riff begins clashing repeatedly with 4 second intervals. It underlines Milo's desperate mind-state. One minute later Milo walks into the restroom to smoke the heroin, where the clashing guitar sound slowly transforms into a beautiful, melancholic piano-tune to underline the heroin's effect on Milo. It's a good example of subtle use of music as a movie-language.

Refn's love for so-called trashy genre-flicks shows through-out his work. Although his movies (the PUSHER trilogy, BLEEDER and FEAR X) are more art-house than genre-pieces, they are loaded with references to his favorite obscure movies, most noticeably in BLEEDER. But also PUSHER 3 contains a subtle reference, probably not known to most audiences. The climax-scene in-which Radovan (Slavko Labovic) slices up the body hanging form the ceiling is an obvious homage to one of Refn's favorite-movies Paul Morrissey's FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN from 1973 starring Udo Kier. FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN is a an original twist on the Frankenstein franchise with necrophiliac undertones. Refn borrows his climax from the climax of FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN: the music, the chains slowly pulling the body up, the depraved depiction of human-flesh etc. As they say, the best directors borrow from their favorite-directors.

Although all three installment are semi-masterpieces I personally prefer PUSHER 3 by a few inches. It's more honest, more disturbing, and more experimental. I have experienced the first-mentioned first-hand, as I spend years in the drug milieu. Refn's PUSHER trilogy is a street-level counterpart to Martin Scorsese's gangster trilogy (consisting of MEAN STREETS from 1973, GOODFELLAS from 1990, and CASINO from 1995), because both trilogies portray the crime underworld from low-level, middle-level and high-level gangsters' POV's. I highly recommend PUSHER 3 especially if you enjoyed its successors, although, the re-occurring characters aside, it's not completely necessary to watch the prequels before experiencing this gem, but I recommend doing so. Watch it! 9/10

The Celebration (1998)

The #1 Dogme movie - and still the greatest!

[10/10 · 13 March 2006]

Danish Thomas Vinterberg's FESTEN from 1998 is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the greatest movie of the The Danish New Wave which began in the 90's with Ole Bornedal's cynical thriller NATTEVAGTEN from 1994, and sadly is on the verge of ending now (2007) - ironically again with Bornedal as a front-runner. However FESTEN remains a remarkable testament to a time in Danish cinema history where directors managed to bridge the gap between art and mainstream, at first in the early 90's by reaching the audiences in eye-hight with movies that had a realistic feeling to them, and then in the late 90's with the Dogme95 movement that gained Danish cinema a success it hadn't experienced since the silent-movie era of Carl Theodor Dreyer and Benjamin Christensen. Thomas Vinterberg was/is a member of the Dogme95 brotherhood created by Lars von Trier, and FESTEN was the first movie directed under the 10 rules of the Dogme95 manifesto, which provocateur Ole Bornedal recently dubbed nothing but "a smart producer trick" in the Danish movie magazine Ekko.

FESTEN is a so-called docu-drama that deals with the consequences of incest, family secrets, family relations, and family rituals. It depicts the Danish mentality by putting the Danish upper-class family Klingenfeldt on display. There happens so much between the lines in the Klingenfeldt family. The consequences of the family father Helge's (Henning Moritzen) incestuous cruelties to his four children in the past are obvious: the sister (Lene Laub Oksen) has recently committed suicide, Christian (Ulrich Thomsen) has a strained relationship to the women of his life, Helene (so-called Dogme-queen Paprika Steen) is a paradoxical upper-class eccentric hippie-type who smokes weed, and little-brother Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen) is a violent screw-up who won't acknowledge the truth about his father. However Helge is never portrayed as an arch-typical villain. He is brilliantly portrayed by Henning Moritzen as a realistic three-dimensional character. In FESTEN everyone is pretentious and cool on the surface, but the pain and secrets of these characters shines through the social hypocrisy constantly - therefore it's more a story about the unspoken than the spoken.

When the guests arrive at Helge's 60th birthday celebration party, Helge and his wife (Birthe Neumann), the two sons and the remaining daughter welcome them at the entrance. We hear how everything said is excruciatingly superficial and stupid. The words, the hand-shakes and the hugs don't mean anything. Don't they have anything substantial to say to each other? In another scene Christian exposes the family secret in his first speech, however the dinner guests just ignore it, and keep going on, as if nothing has happened. It takes Christian three more speeches, and one from Helene reading aloud the suicide letter from her sister, before the truth is acknowledged. It's shocking to see the guests sit there and do nothing! This is the typical Danish mentality: nobody wants to interfere - everybody minds their own business. Helge confronts Christian merely to manipulate him into thinking he is insane! In a third scene scene the social misfit Michael makes the dinner guests, unaware of their wrong-doing, sing aloud the old seemingly innocent, however really underneath racist Danish song 'Jeg har set en rigtig negermand' in order to provoke Helene and her African-American boyfriend Gbatokai (Gbatokai Dakinah). This scene implicates Michael's insecurity and displays Danish racism at its worst. There are many more scenes worth high-lighting, but these three are great examples.

Everything works in FESTEN: the fully-developed three-dimensional characters, the acting, the innovative hand-held Dogme95 camera style, Vinterberg's and Mogens Rukov's manuscript. Many has hypothetically tried posing the question: what did the Dogme95 rules do for FESTEN that it couldn't have done without? I say everything. One has to realize that everything that worked so beautifully in this gem was worked out on basis of the (paradoxically liberating) limitations of the manifesto. Every decision from the manuscript (real locations, genre-movies not allowed etc.) to the acting is made on the basis of Dogme95. If stylish camera and lighting setups were a possibility the harsh realism and fly-on-the-wall-feeling of it wouldn't have been achieved, and it wouldn't have been the same movie. As Lars von Trier put it: "Limitations are liberating" meaning that complete freedom leaves one with too many options, so creating rules is just a way of setting up the playground.

I have a particular fondness for this movie. FESTEN along with the second and third Dogme95 movies, Lars von Trier's IDIOTERNE from 1998 and Søren Kragh-Jacobsen's MIFUNES SIDSTE SANG from 1999 introduced me to a more intelligent and interesting way to approach movie-watching. FESTEN has an arty feeling to it. Apparently the time was just right for such a movie, but as aforementioned it managed to bridge the gap between art and mainstream. It's a dark, funny, and intelligent movie. Perhaps the humor made it so easy to swallow for audiences world-wide in spite of the arty hand-held camera-style and raw realism. What surprises me to this day is its international success, because the tone of the movie is Danish (I would think). Perhaps the social hypocrisy portrayed in FESTEN, which feels so Danish, is in fact a world-wide phenomenon. Watch this! 10/10

M (1931)

A true cinematic classic. M is one of the best film-experiences ever!

[10/10 · 13 March 2006]

Storyline: A German city is terrorized by a pathological child-murderer (Peter Lorre) that has murdered eight helpless little girls by seducing them with candy or toys, and continues to make streets unsafe. The mothers of the city live in constant fear of having their little daughters kidnapped. Soon both the Inspector Lohmann (Otto Wernicke) with his police force and the criminal underworld, who believe that the killer's actions reflects badly on their business, are on a manhunt to find the child-murderer.

Frits Lang's first sound-movie M is brilliant classic from the late period of German Expressionism (1920s-1930s). It contains so many of the elements that would lay the foundation for film-noir, in terms of Lang's brilliant use of shadow and that it's portrayed from a morally flawed character's POV. Lang often only shows the murderer's actions indirectly, for example via a shadow on a wall or when we hear him whistling the very characteristic tune "In the Hall of the Mountain King".

Lang says some very important things with this movie. It's about the true nature of justice, and the madness it is to have people self-regulating it. This is a very current theme considering the lynch-atmospheres that often arise in medias led by journalists and readers who feel offended by, for example, sex-criminals. I understand the harm, but it really is a police matter. If we were allowed to take the law in our own hands, an anarchy would arise. Lorre's character was also very complex for it's time, as seen towards the end of the movie. The criminal underworld gathers to sentence the him to death. He gets desperate, begging them to hand him over to the police, pleading with them that he's a mentally sick guy. It's my favorite scene, because of the social-criticism and poetry. The points that Lang is making are very important, and it's sad to see that bad guys in thrillers nowadays aren't half as complex characters.

M is full of suspense and atmosphere, and highly recommendable to everyone, especially fans of German Expressionism or film-noir. 10/10

Pusher II (2004)

Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher 2 is even better than the first one

[8/10 · 11 March 2006]

Nicolas Winding Refn's Pusher 1-3 is my favorite trilogy of danish film history. Pusher II (2004) is the best part of it. I have been a follower of Refn's work ever-since I saw his directional debut Pusher (1996) the first time. It had a great dynamic, it was brutally honest and it had a documentary-style (hand-held camera, great method-acting etc.) that gave it an authentic feeling.

The story-line: Small-time gangster Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) is released from prison, but quickly returns to the criminal underworld and gets hired by his father "Smeden" (Leif Sylvester): a big-time gangster highly respected in the underworld. But Tonny has a hard time earning his father's respect, and on top of that, he discovers that Charlotte (Anne Sørensen): a girl he once had sex with, has given birth to his child. Tonny has a hard time making the right decisions, and one day he agrees to help his friend Kusse-Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) purchase heroin worth of 80.000 danish kroner from big-time pusher Milo (Zlatko Buric), but since they are high off cocaine and paranoid they accidentally throw the heroin in the toilet, as they think a police-man enters the room. Now they have a big problem. They have to get 80.000 kroner very quickly...

In 2004 Nicolas Winding Refn almost went bankrupt, because his previous film Fear X (2002) which was shot on a big-budget in Canada, did horribly in the theaters and at box-office. Refn knew that a sequel for Pusher would do very well (Pusher 1 was the most engrossing debut film ever of Denmark) and the universe of the film had lots of artistic possibilities - therefore he decided on making it a trilogy. And Refn very much proofed that it is possible to make artistically interesting films out of rather commercial interests.

It could be argued that Pusher 1 glamorized the gangster/drug underworld at times. This is NOT the case in Pusher II. Although Pusher 1 did show the decay of a cold man in a cold milieu, we never really got into his feelings. In Pusher II we get to feel the pain and coldness (even when Tonny himself doesn't). Pusher II is a docu-drama based on realism (like Pusher 1), and only three characters are real actors. The rest of the cast consists of people off the street, and this very much adds to its authenticity. They do a great job! The second half of the film has a few very beautiful artistic scenes (almost dream-like) that almost pauses the film and gives its audience time for reflecting. In the scenes we see very dominant red colors and the music is almost ambient-like. A great idea that works very well - even in such a realistic film.

Mads Mikkelsen, Leif Sylvester and Zlatko Buric do terrific jobs. They are (as usual) very professional and passionate actors. But the real surprise is the untrained street-actors. They add SO much to the realism and rawness of the film. Pusher II is shot on DV-camera with a hand-held style, but it's far from Dogme. Many scenes look terrific, and the playing with distinctive colors red and green works well. I also have to give credit to Peterpeter's great rock/80's synthesizer soundtrack. It really under-builds the scenes in a scary way.

I highly recommend Pusher II (and the rest of the trilogy) to everyone! A perfect example of an artistic film that actually works for all audiences! 9/10

King Kong (1933)

CG or stop motion?? I prefer the latter!!

[7/10 · 7 March 2006]

Warning: I admit. This is a terribly biased review as I hate CG animations and I'm a huge fan of the original 1933 KING KONG. Read on if you dare...

Storyline: The disreputable Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his film crew travel to the unexplored Skull Island to shoot a movie starring the beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as leading lady. On the island the film crew encounter first a tribe of primitive cannibals and the giant ape Kong who falls in love with Ann Darrow. They use Ann Darrow as bait to catch Kong and transport him back to New York. But all hell breaks lose in New York when Kong escapes from a presentation show to seek out his beloved Ann Darrow...

Since I first heard Peter Jackson was remaking KING KONG I had been anxious to see what the New Zealandish director of infamous low budget/no budget horror movies such as BAD TASTE and BRAINDEAD, the funny mockumentary FORGOTTEN SILVER, and the overrated LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had done with the perhaps biggest monster icon in the history of cinema. Remaking such huge cinematic milestones is always near-impossible. Many people have nostalgic memories of the giant ape, and therefore everybody will have opinions.

Surprise, surprise - the movie was actually good! And much better than the 1976 and 1986 versions. Most impressive are the CG special effects. For example: the fast-paced "Kong vs. dinosaur(s)" scenes or the small details on Kong's body. His hair. His eyes. And his realistic movements. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography looks stunning, and the movie is generally full of stunning backgrounds and set designs. Secondly Jack Black nails the Carl Denham character by never overdoing the sentimentality or comedy, unlike fellow comedic actors Robbin Williams and Jim Carrey. Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody, along with the rest of the person gallery, struggle to give their cliché cardboard characters life, but that doesn't matter too much, because in reality this movie is all about Kong. Thematically it deals with impossible relationship among uneven sizes.

But, aside from being an hour too long, I have another more fundamental, yet highly subjective, problem with Peter Jackson's KING KONG. This is where the inevitable subjective and nostalgic criticism comes in: I want stop motion animations and not CG animations! Although Kong looks better than ever CG is just too slick and, in lack of a better word, "undemanding" for me. Admittedly the 1933 KING KONG looks laughable compared to today's standards, but one can only imagine the impact the stop motion technique must have had on its audience in the early 30's. To me stop motion just has a certain unique visual quality that CG will never be to deliver. Nowadays CG easily handles anything, while in 'dem good ol' days it had to be done manually. And the result just came out more cinematic. I enjoy looking at Kong 2005, but when the initial wow-effect has worn off I find Kong 1933 more exciting to look at. As with all good film elements it's hard to pinpoint the exact quality of stop motion, but it has something to do with visual poetry (to use German director Werner Herzog's expression). The CG is so overdone and slick that it gives you all the answers, and doesn't leave room for the imagination. Stop motion looks more strange, terrible, mysterious, funny, and... poetic!

I welcome CG animations to the world of cinema, but only when used rightfully. Hollywood shouldn't forgot to reflect on what qualities they neglect by always taking the easy route. If you want a modern Hollywood action popcorn blockbuster then Peter Jackson's KING KONG is a fine choice, but I highly recommend that you seek out the 1933 version to see what they accomplished back then. Judge for yourself which one is superior. Remember to get the original black/white version, and not the colorized version. 7/10

Trainspotting (1996)

Danny Boyle's greatest film - perhaps even the greatest of the 90's

[10/10 · 27 February 2006]

I discovered the work of Danny Boyle when I watched Trainspotting (1996) with my friend in his apartment, about two years ago. We could relate to its themes (friendship, growing apart, heroin-addiction etc.), since my friend and I were in fact heroin-addicts ourselves back then (thank God, I'm clean now!). Film-critics have criticized Trainspotting for glamorizing drugs - I don't agree. Trainspotting is supposed to be almost a journey in the life of an addict, and although we do see the good times of heroin-use, we certainly also see the bad ones. Portraying heroin-addiction in any other way would be looking down upon the film's audience.

"People think it's all about misery and desperation and death and all that sh*t which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not f**king stupid. At least, we're not that f**king stupid." - Mark Renton, Trainspotting

Trainspotting is pure cinematic art. It has a unique visual style (play with distinctive colors red/green in rooms, several surrealistic scenes etc.), a great rock/80's-pop/classical/electronica score by artists such as Iggy Pop (with David Bowie), Lou Reed, Underworld and Mozart and fabulous method-acting (especially by Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner and Robert Carlyle). It's very artistic, avant garde-ish and at the same commercially. This in itself is one of Trainspotting's great strengths.

Trainspotting can't be described. Like for instance Lars Von Trier's Europa (1991) it's one of those movies that has to been seen - not discussed. This is pure cinematic art! 10/10

Pusher (1996)

Exceptional debut-movie by Nicolas Winding Refn.

[10/10 · 20 February 2006]

In the 1990's a new era in the history of Danish cinema began with movies such as NATTEVAGTEN, DE STØRSTE HELTE, PORTLAND and most importantly PUSHER. Nicolas Winding Refn was only 26 years old when he co-wrote/directed this art-house masterpiece debut. I first saw this gem when I was 12 years old. I remember being immediately stunned. It had the stylishness and brutality of Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS or MEAN STREETS, the realism and hand-held camera-style of John Cassevettes' THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE and the cool pop-culture referential dialog of Quentin Tarantino's PULP FICTION, although it easily exceeds being just another post-modernistic Tarantino rip-off. It portrays the milieu and characters in such a realistic and dramatic way that it feels voyeuristic. PUSHER is a docu-drama in the truest sense of the word.

Storyline: Frank (Kim Bodnia) is a intelligent, ill-tempered, young drug-dealer who can deliver just the drug for your purposes - hash, heroin, cocaine etc. Frank's everyday life consists of selling drugs with his partner-in-crime/best friend Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) in Copenhagen's underworld, and hanging out with his girlfriend, the prostitute Vic (Laura Drasbæk) in the evening. They are three drug-addicts themselves. One day two police-men interrupt Frank in a big-time heroin-deal with a Swedish customer. Frank outruns the police-men down to Søerne, where he empties the heroin-bag into the water. Frank is arrested, but the police are forced to release him 24 hours later, since they didn't get the evidence. But now our protagonist has a much greater problem, as he owes away 230.000 Danish kroner for the eliminated heroin to Milo, one of the most dangerous drug-dealers in Copenhagen's underworld.

PUSHER portrays a bunch of lost people in the drug milieu of Copenhagen (the capitol of Denmark). Nicolas Winding Refn doesn't care about the drugs or the crimes, he's interested in the humans behind them. Therefore PUSHER feels very real and heart-wrenching. In a very brutal scene Frank locates Tonny at a bar, grabs a baseball bat under the counter, and smashes Tonny to pieces, because the police have informed Frank that Tonny has agreed to witness against Frank. In another scene Frank visits his mother, which he apparently rarely does, in a desperate attempt to loan money. We discover that Frank, unlike most of the lost souls in the crime world, actually comes from a normal danish middle-class family without any negative social heritage. Combining these two scenes illustrates greatly that Frank is a three-dimensional character, because he comes from a socially positive home, and still he's cynical enough to beat up his best friend with a baseball bat. What in Frank's life made him so cold? Hatred for his parents? Boredom? Depression? The answer isn't apparent, and that's what makes it so great.

Kim Bodnia (Frank) delivers one of the best performances ever seen in a Danish movie. In fact he's often been compared to Robert De Niro, although I think that image has changed since. Mads Mikkelsen (Tonny) shows much promise in his debut role. Today he's one of the highest regarded actors in Denmark, and in 2004 he continued the Tonny character in PUSHER 2. But the biggest cast surprise is Zlatko Buric (Milo) - an actor you have to see to believe. Many of his dialog improvisations in PUSHER have become popular catch-phrases in Danish youth culture. For example: Du er min veeen, Franke" or "Så du er blevet bustet, huh?" and many more. This is something that you can't pre-invent in any manuscript. Zlatko Buric is a natural!

The PUSHER soundtrack consists of amazing 80's-style glam-rock and heavy metal by Peter Peter (ex-member of legendary danish rock group Sort Sol). The hand-held camera work and semi-expressionistic cinematography by Morten Søborg was very innovative for its time, and matched the movie perfectly. The aforementioned cast is great, but also the small cameo-roles played by Lars Bom (Cop), Thomas Bo Larsen (Junkie) and Jesper Lohmann (Mikkel) must receive credits. If you enjoy raw semi-realistic gangster-movies such as THE KILLING OF A CHINEESE BOOKIE or MEAN STREETS, you have to give this a chance. Don't forget its two sequels which, amazingly enough, are even better. 9/10

Superman (1978)

A great early superhero movie.

[8/10 · 19 February 2006]

Richard Donner's SUPERMAN was released 11 years before Tim Burton's dark BATMAN (1989), which is regarded as one of the best superhero movies yet. Tim Burton took the source-material seriously by giving the Batman character multiple dimensions via the internal Batman/Bruce Wayne conflict. The duality of superhero identities has ever since been a very popular theme in superhero movies such as Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN franchise and Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS (2005) etc. Everyone find that anti-heroes are cooler than heroes. STAR WARS is the classic example: the morally flawed Han Solo is much more interesting than the perfect Luke Skywalker. Yet somehow Donner (and Christopher Reeve) succeeded in portraying The Man of Steel as an arch-American hero (patriotic, ethical, and strong = perfect), without making the Superman character uninteresting. That's quite an achievement, and after-all Superman is not a "super-anti-hero".

The casting is ingenious. Christopher Reeve (Superman/Clark Kent) is the best Superman yet. He has an ability to alternate between being handsome as Superman and clumsy as Clark Kent, which Brandon Routh of Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) never achieves in a convincing manner. Gene Hackman combines devil's charm and wit perfectly in the role of Lex Luthor. Marlon Brando is terrific as Superman's moralistic father Jor-El, and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) plays the straight girl without being boring. The special effects are on cutting edge. Superman's flying scenes were actually done convincingly. They looked far more artificial in especially SUPERMAN III and IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE, but in Richard Donner's original movie the flying scenes look great. It's hard to understand how they achieved it. John William's score underlines the Superman character's heroism perfectly, although it resembles his STAR WARS theme a bit much.

The only flaw of SUPERMAN is the manuscript. The movie spends approximately 40 minutes introducing the characters and setting up the Superman universe. That's too long. It takes away time from the actual story. Like in SUPERMAN RETURNS, there is also a slight problem with the climax. It's as if Superman isn't up against big enough forces, therefore the threat never creates enough tension. This is one of the few things the three sequels actually manage to pull off better that Donner's original. Yet this is an action-packed Hollywood blockbuster that has great cinematic qualities, and because Donner pulls off making Superman an interesting superhero, it's a classic. Although a classic with a few problems. 8/10

De ydmygede (1998)

Great documentary in the true spirit of Dogme95

[7/10 · 19 February 2006]

Lars von Trier's masterpiece IDIOTERNE (1998) is an absolute must-see if you are interested in European independent movies with more depth and originality than the average Hollywood blockbuster formula: kiss kiss, bang bang!!

If you want to learn more about IDIOTERNE, about the creation of it, about sticking to the Dogme95 rules, and Lars von Trier's thoughts during the process then Jesper Jargil's documentary DE YDMYGEDE is absolutely essential viewing. It's structured together by short clips from Trier's movie, Jargil's footage shot on the set, and, most importantly, out-takes from Lars von Trier's dicta-phone diary used as a voice-over.

Lars von Trier speaks straight from his heart without beating around the bush. He talks about his feelings, thoughts, phobias, meanings, and different problems he had during the shooting the movie. I once saw an interview with Trier, in which he said he would have loved if Ingmar Bergman had written diaries during shooting of his classics, so in a sense, Trier is doing all his young fans a favor. It's a truly a great gift for young ambitious movie-makers. Yet his very unfiltered diary entries are a mess without any kind of structure, and I believe some of it could have been left out. Running at 79 minutes, I think Jargil's documentary could have used some tightening up, some of the material is simply not interesting enough. On the other hand, the loose structure goes very well hand-in-hand with IDIOTERNE, and is as such not meant as an average factual documentary, rather than a fly-on-the wall kind with emotional insight into the director's mind. Definitely worth a watch! 7/10

Flugten (1973)

The first part of a classic, although underrated, Danish gangster trilogy

[9/10 · 12 February 2006]

Danish director Hans Kristensen's trilogy about small-time gangster Per consists of FLUGTEN from 1973, PER from 1975 and BLIND MAKKER from 1976. The trilogy as a while is a classic in Danish cinema history, although sadly often underrated. I see it almost as the Danish equivalent of Francis Ford Coppola's THE GODFATHER trilogy: both trilogies are social-realistic 70's-works that portray real humans in gangster milieus. Danish social-realistic crime movies such as the Per trilogy, Anders Refn's (father of PUSHER director Nicolas Winding Refn) STRØMER from 1976, Esben Høilund Carlsen's NITTEN RØDE ROSER and the late-70's wave of serious kid's-movies all contributed in distancing Danish cinema from the extremely bad farces and melodramas of the 1960's. It seems to me that the directors of this wave were almost Danish equivalents of the bad boys of the New Hollywood Wave of the 70's (Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma etc.).

Storyline: Small-time gangster Per (Ole Ernst) and his partner the morphine-addicted photographer Mikkel (Torben Hundal) collaborate to unravel the crime underworld of Copenhagen by secretly shooting photos of high-level gangsters meeting about criminal activity. But Per and Mikkel don't share the same motives. Per plans to blackmail the gangsters, and Mikkel wants to use the photos for a photo-book. Of course their plan goes wrong big-time, and their only remaining option is to escape...

In FLUGTEN it's a world of everyone-against-everyone. No man is safe. Find a way to climb the social ladder, and think about yourself only. Per and Mikkel are losers, but their motives are extremely common. There is a great quote by Edvin Kau from Levende billeder af Danmark, Medusa 1980 which sums it up perfectly: "The social life is depicted like the everyone-against-everyone battle of the jungle-law - and the mental as a game of masks and bluffing each other and struggling with insecurity and fear of defeat". My translation is terrible, but the idea shines trough I hope. FLUGTEN was impressive by the Danish standards of the time, but what primarily makes it watchable even by today's standards is its insistence on portraying its main-characters as real humans, and not your average gangster stereotypes.

FLUGTEN and PER jump-started a great career for Ole Ernst (Per) who later starred in movies such as HÆRVÆRK from 1977 (based on author Tom Kristensen's classic novel by the same name), Lars von Trier's EPIDEMIC from 1987, Anders Refn's SORT HØST from 1993 and recently REMBRANDT from 2003. The last-mentioned REMBRANDT is a fairly interesting crime movie portraying three generations of male gangsters: Ole Ernst plays the grandfather, Lars Brygmann plays the father and Jakob Cedergren plays the son. This three-generations-of-gangsters idea was copied from THE SCORE from 2001 in which Marlon Brando plays the grandfather, Robert De Niro plays the father and Edward Norton plays the son. This idea, although unoriginal, makes REMBRANDT interesting, as there is a direct connection between the actors' life-experience and the gangsters' life-experience. And it's of course highly possible to draw a red line from the Per trilogy to REMBRANDT.

The Per trilogy is a hugely underrated Danish classic that you don't have to be a film-student to enjoy. It's terrible that it has lost so much recognition over the years. Hopefully that will change. All three chapters are available on DVD (On Air Video's discount R2's) for circa 5$ (=30DKR). That should be affordable to most people, so there really is no excuse. Start your collection with FLUGTEN or PER. 9/10

Europa (1991)

The culmination of Lars Von Trier's period of perfectionism -- 9/10

[9/10 · 10 February 2006]

Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.

Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.

EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.

EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.

All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.

EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10