The Producers

This is the cult film having been remade in 2005 but this version from 1968 is still going strong, or rather strong anyway. Directed by Mel Brooks.

We meet Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) who is a failed Broadway producer, who tries to seduce elderly (to say the least) ladies to raise money for his next play.
He hires an accountant by the name of Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder and the character's name reminds us of James Joyce, n'est-ce pas?) who finds 2000 dollar being overcharged in the accounts of Bialystock's last play. Max had raised more money than he needed.
Now Bloom come up with the brilliant(?) idea to raise a lot of money, invest it in a worthless play that will close on the opening night.
They gather that noone will audit the books of a play having lost a lot of money and therefore they will be able to keep the surplus.
They start reading one play after another but they can't find anyone being interesting enough, until they stumble over "Springtime for Hitler...", written by a crazy (of course) former Nazi by the name of Franz Liebkind (Kenneth Mars). He has written this in all honesty and in love for "his Führer"!
The two accomplices persuade him to sign over the stage rights. This done by saying that they want to show the world the "true Hitler, with a song in his heart".
Now a hilarious audition time starts and the following staging becomes a smash hit of course and not at all the failure they were aiming at.
Liebkind thinks he has been betrayed (of course he has) and tries to blow up the theater in cooperation with the two others but of course they fail in this attempt too.
They are imprisoned and there they start all over again, staging another of Liebkind's plays, this time with the inmates as 'actors'.

It's a humourous story with a lot of clichés of course but most of them deliberately planted.
Mostel is grotesque, Wilder neurotic and Mars 'verrückt'!
Of course some jokes are perceived as somewhat dated but on the whole one can enjoy this film in 2012 as well as in 1968.

Mädchenjahre einer Königin

This is a film by Ernst Marischka, a director I'm not to familiar with.
We are both more familiar with the actors and actresses, not least Romy Schneider, Karl Ludwig Diehl and Romy's mother Magda Schneider.

We are also familiar with the personalities in the film: Queen Victoria of England (Romy Schneider), Prince Albert (Adrian Hoven) and Lord Melbourne (Karl Ludwig Diehl), her first prime minister and adviser.
Victoria is about to be crowned queen of England but Lord Melbourne has planned a wedding for her, without consulting her. She is going to be married to the German prince Albert but she doesn't like the idea of being married to a person she doesn't know, wherefore she decides to flee London for a few days.
She stays incognito at a tavern, in company with Baroness Lehzen (Magda Schneider) and there she meets a young, handsome man with whom she falls in love.
The young man happens to be Albert but he doesn't recognize her and she doesn't recognize him, until he is presented to her at the castle during a ball.

This is a very 'light-weighted' film with the 1950's charm and colour and with a very prudish way of telling the story about how these two individuals met, their love affairs and so on.
What happened in 'reality' is of course hard to say but what seems to be clear is that it was Victoria who proposed to Albert, not the opposite. Maybe this was the 'rules'.
It's also interesting to see mother and daughter in the same film even if the two Schneider's have acted together in other films, often with Magda playing Maria's mother or aunt (Wenn der weiße Flieder wieder blüht or Sissi).

Puss in Boots

I think most people know the story about "Master Cat or, The Booted Cat" or in its original language French: "Le Maître Chat, ou Le Chat Botté" written by Charles Perrault. I read it as a child and most of you probably did the same, at least those of you in a certain age.

A lot of adaptatons have been realized: Ludvig Tieck wrote a dramatic satire published during the early 19th century; the Grimm brothers inserted it in one of their works; the cat appears in Tchaikovsky's ballet 'The Sleeping Beauty'; Disney produced an animated black-and-white silent short film in 1922; an animated film by Eugene Marner was made in 1985; another animated one in 1995 by Garri Bardin ('Kot v sapogakh') etc.

In this film by Chris Miller, our hero, that is the cat, is somewhat fat (now I rimed!) and that is also displayed in the French title: 'Le Chat Potté'. Normally the title of this story in French is: 'Le Chat Botté' but the word Potté is a word game indicating fatness.
This is the same cat later on meeting Shrek and Donkey in the film 'Shrek 2'.

Puss (Antonio Banderas) arrives at a town after having escaped a bounty hunter, who held him imprisoned.
He is informed that a couple of outlaws - Jack (Billy Bob Thornton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris) - have in their possession the famous - and in other stories important - magic bean, a bean Puss has been looking for, almost all his life.
What is so magic about this bean? It can lead the owner to a giant's castle where one can find golden goose eggs and with these eggs he would surely become the richest cat in the world.
When trying to steal the egg, he encounters a masked cat, who tries to steal the same egg and this leads to a sword fight and dance-off(!) between the two.
Later he gets to know that this cat is Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), a legendary cat but a cat he thought being a boy, not a girl! How humiliating!
She is allied with Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianaki), a well known character within the world of 'saga's'/fairy tales and a childhood friend from the orphanage where Puss was raised.
Puss was however - according to his story - betrayed by Humpty when the latter wanted him to commit a crime in their youth, or was it the contrary?
After some hesitation they decide to cooperate, trying to steal the egg from Jack and Jill.
They succeed and they plant the bean that grows into the clouds and into the clouds they climb, trying to find the golden eggs. They have to watch out for the 'Terror', a monster guarding the eggs. They find a gosling and escape with him and some eggs, being chased by the 'Terror'.
Back 'on Earth' they are ambushed by Jack and Jill who knock Puss unconscious.
When he wakes up he realizes that both Jack, Jill, Humpty and Kitty all have cooperated against him, in order to use him to find the golden eggs.
He turn himself in and in prison he meets the 'original Jack' from "Jack and the Beanstalk" (Andy Beanstalk), who tells him about the 'Terror' and that it's the Golden Goose's mother who will stop at nothing to get her gosling back. Kitty, who regret her behaviour against Puss, liberates him from the prison and together they will try to set things right.

This is a story blending different fairy-tales and stories having been retold throughout the centuries. It's a story, for younger cinema goers being related to 'Shrek' and Puss' appearance in the second part of the story about 'The Green Giant'.
For the rest of us, not being teenagers or younger, it's related to the traditional stories about this special cat.
In a way it feels as if the director has made a film more related to 'Desperado' and 'Desperado 2' and the role characters of Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek in those. It's hard to keep the thoughts of those films away when seeing this one, even though the subject matter is something else.
It's however a very entertaining film, where 'saga' meets action, containing a love story and a moral lesson about 'right' and 'wrong', about honesty, friendship and betrayal.
There are many charming moments in the film, like when Puss tries to persuade people into doing things by making his pupils grow bigger in a imploring manner.
Being a cat with a big ego, he has found his perfect counterpart in Kitty the kitty!

(Photo fencing Puss copied from:http://www.playwares.com/xe/files/attach/images/5543822/774/745/017/puss_in_boots_new_shrek.JPG)
(Photo Pussy with big eyes copied from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSVcjmyacTNcTb9BK2MMqXtUugHE8gAL3TZifR7VLiQNIRrW2Zr5_Bi0UCUVQqIepg0bScqFoAldyBvojaUqJfYV9Svxk7Do5kufhQTrse0FR9-qCIMEgKxJc6GbMqk_2LCA40/s1600/Puss+in+boots.png)

Les Tontons Flingeurs

This film by George Lautner, was at the time of its release not so well received, at least by the audience. Peu à peu it has become one of the 'classics' within French film and is now regarded as an unalienable part of the French 'Seventh Art'.

Lino Ventura is Fernand Naudin, an ex-gangster now living a quiet life and also eager to continue enjoying his Otium Cum Dignitate.
However, "The Mexican" (Jacques Dumsnil), a mob boss and friend, calls him from his death bed, wanting Fernand to take care of some parts of his criminal business.
He also wants Fernand to look after his daughter Patricia (Sabine Sinjen), who soon is to be married. This, his daughter, is not "a piece of cake" though, as she only wants to have fun ("girls wanna' have fun") and never stayed more than six months in a college.
Besides her, Fernand also have to fight back Raoul Volfoni (Bernard Blier) (not Volpone even if there are similarities in the story, though "The Mexican" is more to be seen as Volpone in this case), a mobster who strongly dislikes Fernand being responsible for "The Mexican's" business. Volfoni and other gangsters saw themselves as the 'natural' heirs to the 'empire' created by "The Mexican".
Volfoni tries to kill Fernand but each and every time he fails, not least because of less competent or incompetent collaborators and Fernand strikes back.

This is a gangster comedy where the 'toughness' is blended with a lot of humour and the obvious difficulties for Fernand - and the others - to 'subdue' the young daughter and her friends when they throw a party in the house.
There is a famous kitchen scene where the 'gangsters' are sitting around a table, talking and not least drinking a lot of very strong liquor. They become more and more philosophical and on the same time it's a way of displaying who is 'the strongest' and most resistant among them.
The screenwriter Michel Audiard thought this scene being superfluous but the director wanted it as a homage to the film 'Key Largo'.

Les Aventures de rabbi Jacob

Louis de Funès is one of the most famous French comedians and he has made several films in the comedy genre. One problem with his acting is that he is to much Funès sometimes, meaning that his over-energetic acting, with a use of similar phrases ("vite, vite, plus vite!") tend to make him somewhat 'tiring'.
In this film, this kind of acting works out well and he is also more 'nuanced', in our opinion.

Who is Rabbi Jacob (Marcel Dalio)? He is one of the most popular rabbis in New York and a veritable authority.
One day his family on the French side - the Schmolls - invite him to celebrate a bar mitzva in France. He leaves New York with his young friend and rabbi Samuel.
On the same time another man is on his way - not to the bar mitzva but to the wedding of his daughter: Victor Pivert (Louis de Funès). His daughter (Miou-Miou) will be married the next day.
When travelling in the car with his driver - the jewish Salomon (Henri Guybet) - Pivert displays all his bad manners and not least his xenophobia or racism.
He dislikes blacks, Jews, Germans, in short, all foreigners, something clearly manifested when he becomes frustrated over motorists not driving as "they should" (that is to say 'in the French way')!
The two have a car accident and when the car is turned upside down in the water and Solomon refuses to help Pivert, because of the shabbath, Solomon is fired.
Things are getting more and more complicated when an Arab revolutionist leader, Mohamed Larbi Slimane (Claude Giraud) is kidnapped by killers who works for his country's government with their leader Colonel Farés (Renzo Montagnani). Slimane is taken to an empty bubble gum factory and to the same factory Pivert arrives, searching for help. In a most complicated way, Pivert, involuntary, helps Slimane to flee.
As they happen to kill two of the Colonel's men, they are now being pursued by the police, alerted by Solomon.
Slimane forces Pivert to go to Orly airport in order to get a plane to Slimane´s country but they are now pursued, not only by the police, but by Pivert's jealous wife Germaine, who thinks he is leaving her for another woman, Colonel Farès and his killers, the police commissioner Andréani (Claude Piéplu) who thinks Pivert is a new Al Capone.
Slimane attacks the two rabbis Jacob and Samuel, disguise himself and Pivert as them and are being welcomed by rabbi Jacob's French part of the family, who haven't seen Jacob in many years and therefore doesn't understand that Pivert and Slimane are not Jacob or Samuel.
From now on, Pivert and Slimane are caught up in a situation they can't fully control (to say the least), not least when Samuel's fiancée falls in love with Slimane.
This film is not only a comedy but also an attempt to advocate multi-culturalism and at the same time opposing xenophobia and racism.
We get to meet different characters fom different countries: Pivert, being the French chauvinistic, rasist, secularized man; the Arab, muslim Slimane and the Jewish community, all with their own cultural heritage, traditions and history but all in the end coming to understand each other, 'making peace' on the micro level.
This is very clearly stated when Slimane and Salomon shake hands in the end.
Because of this plot, the film has been regarded as one of the best antiracial comedies in French film, up til then.
The message is very clear and on the same time, the director Gérard Oury, doesn't hesitate making fun of all the different characters and traditions, but in a most respectful way.
Of course we are being served clichés but this is necessary to keep the film within the comedy genre, not making it into a political manifesto.
It's regarded as one of the best French comedies and has become a cult film.








(Poster copied from: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001DMW6G.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

(Photo Louis de Funés covered in chewing gum, copied from: http://filmsdefrance.com/img/rabbi_jacob_6.jpg)

Le Pére Noël est Une Ordure

Le Pere Noel Est Une Ordure au théatre - sketch par CyberPeople

When seeing this film - previously being a theater play (performed by the troupe 'Le Splendid') but turned into film by Jean-Marie Poiré - I realize that Santa Claus and Christmas evoke a great number of feelings in people.
In this case it's more the title of the play or film itself more than Santa Claus as he is not the main focus of this story but Christmas it is and it's not at all fun for everyone, as we will see.

Talking about less 'gay' but very humoristic films about Christmas we can recall œuvres like 'Bad Santa', 'Tomten är far till alla barnen' ('Happy Christmas' in English) and 'Rare Exports'.

We meet Pierre (Thierry Lhermitte) and Thérèse (Anémone), two neurotic volunteers working at a telephone helpline answering calls from lonely and depressed people.
The first call doesn't work out to well (or maybe it does?), as the person in the other end shoots himself during the conversation!
Not being able to leave the office the two 'Samaritans' are also visited by unwanted callers like: Katia (Christian Clavier), a transvestite being depressed who tries to hit on Pierre; Josette (Marie-Anne Chazel) a pregnant woman on the run from her fiancé Félix (Gérard Jugnot) who in turn works as Santa Claus during Christmas. The latter also turns up with a gun as he can't accept that Josette wants to leave him. During a struggle they accidently kill the lift repairman, butcher him and feed him to the animals at the zoo.
The situation is getting more and more out of hand and as you might understand, Pierre and Thérèse soon loses control over the situation.

As I (Gunnar) have written before, it's not always that I appreciate French humour and this is one of those cases. I have also written that I'm raised on British or Anglo-Saxon humour (I'm not fond of much of the American humour though), and therefore somewhat biased but in this case Aurore agreed with me when establishing that this film and it's humour couldn't be said reaching the higher stratas in the comedian heaven.
When retelling the story above, I found it very promising and if I only had read what I've written, I would have thought that this film was extremely entertaining but the gags felt obsolete, unfortunately.
This in spite of many fine actors mind you.

Kung Fu Panda

Kung Fu Panda is the story about a anti-hero becoming a real hero in spite having all odds against him.
Po (Jack Black) is a fat, clumsy panda who is totally obsessed with the martial art kung fu.
He lives in the Valley of Peace and works with his goose(!) father Mr. Ping (James Hong) in his noodle restaurant.
The valley is visited by "The Furious Five" a group of kung fu masters consisting of Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu) and Crane (David Cross). They have all been trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman).
Po wants to become a martial arts expert too but how will he succeed in this his aim?
Master Shifu has a mentor, an old tortoise by the name of Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) who in a vision sees Shifu's former student and adoptive son, the evil snow leopard Tai Lung (Ian McShane) escape from his prison and return to the valley in order to take revenge. For what? For having been denied the so called "Dragon Scroll", a document holding the secret to limitless power.
Shifu now arranges a kung fu tournament so that Oogway will be able to identify who among the masters is the "Dragon Warrior", the kung fu master worthy of receiving the Dragon Scroll and capable of defeating Tai Lung.
In a most peculiar way Po becomes this Dragon Warrior and after being tested by 'The Five', Shifu and Oogway he is able to take on the intimidating enemy, Tai Lu.
After having defeated the other five and almost killed Shifu, Tai Lu now has to meet Po and of course the latter defeats the leopard and becomes acknowledged as a master of kung fu!

We found this a very charming story about the underdog becoming the hero, about not underestimating 'people' (or animals?) not seeming to have the qualities needed for a certain task etc.
The film blends different martial art-films and not least samurai-films, in a world of anthropomorphous animals.
Animals are also - as we know - very important symbols within the martial art but also within the Chinese (and Japanese) society(ies). They all symbolize a quality, not only of pysical art but also - and more so - of spiritual.
Shifu reminded us of Yoda to some extent and as in Star Wars there are not only the physical fights but also a spiritual one.

Young Frankenstein

Mel Brooks directs another one of his crazy films, this time about Dr. Frankenstein's grandson, Dr Frankenstein (Gene Wilder).
He is struggling to eradicate the bad reputation his ancestor has caused him and his family, being a respectable professor at the University, as he is. He even insists that his name be pronounced "Frankensteen" not "---schtain".

All of a sudden he is reached by the message that he has inherited his grandfathers castle, the grandfather being responsible for the creation of Boris Karloff!
When arriving at the village and the castle, he first tries to refute all suspicion against him for being as crazy as his ancestor but after a while he begins undertaking the same experiments as him.

In the role as 'The monster' we see Peter Boyle and as Igor - Frankenstein's 'assistant' - we see Marty Feldman, the man with the mesmerising eyes.
It's an entertaining film but I found a lingustic problem, if one can say so.
We looked at this film in French but when seeing the trailer and other clips in English I found it funnier. The jokes didn't work out well in French I think.
This might have to do with the fact that I (Gunnar) am brought up with Anglo-Saxon jokes and I can't say that I always understand the French humour. Now translating the English to French might lead to that some of the humoristic parts is lost on the way. I don't think that Aurore felt the same but she is French so what can I say?

Hugo

In this film Martin Scorsese has made a Tarantino, that is to say, inserting hundreds of references to the film history, blending it with the 'external' story of the orphan Hugo and his adventures. Maybe it's more correct to say that Tarantino usually makes Scorsese's?

The story is though set in 1931 in Paris.

Hugo's (Asa Butterfield) father (Jude Law) works as a clockmaker in Paris and Hugo's mother is dead.
They often go to the movies to see not least the films by George Méliès.
After his fathers death - in a museum fire - Hugo is taken care of (not the correct word in this case) by his alcoholic uncle Claude (Ray Winstone).
The latter works as a watchmaker who is responsible for maintaining the clocks in the railway station. When his uncle has taught him how to handle the clocks, the former disappears, living Hugo all alone. In order to survive he steals food.

Parallel to his work at the station, he's also working on a project his father began, namely repairing a broken automaton, a sort of mechanical, self operating, 'man' or metal 'puppet' (robot) being able to write.
He is though in need of spare parts and he steals them from a toy store owner, that happens to be Méliès (in the body of Ben Kingsley). Hugo doesn't know then that this is his idol from the movies but he will become aware of this later on. Méliés catches him and also takes his blueprints of the automaton away from him, causing Hugo a minor cerebral hemorrhage (metaphorically speaking).
From now on Hugo tries to get the blueprint back; meets the goddaughter of Méliés and his wife - Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) - the young girl not allowed to visit the cinema. In spire ot this Hugo takes her to see a film.

Hugo is also being chased by a zealous station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) who is 'collecting' missing, orphans.

Hugo is indirectly helped by a specialist in the films of Méliès and finally he gets to know that the automaton was created by Méliés, now becoming aware of that the old man in the toy shop is 'Le Maître'.
The fact that Méliés didn't want his goddaughter to visit the cinema, was a result of his own chagrin over the fact that the world had forgotten him, one of 'their' finest film magicians.

The film is - as mentioned above - filled with references to the life of Méliés, to the early cinema and to many events in Paris during these years.
One example is when a train is barreling through the walls of the train station, an event actually having happened in Paris.
All these references are very obvious if one know a little about the early cinema and the life of Méliés, actually ending this tragically, being forgotten by the world around him.
Besides this, the film was shot in 3D but as we don't have that technique - yet - in La Châtre (coming this spring), we saw it in a 'normal way'.
On the whole the script is very thin and it circles around the same theme all the time, the scenario not moving forward in any interesting ways.

It's not enough making references to the history of cinema, even though we know that Martin Scorsese is very interested in the history around 'The Seventh Art', a collector of historic items and films.
It's not enough to shot it in 3D as this doesn't add more than a superficial sensation, not lasting longer than the film.
In short, we thought it rather a boring experience, even though one must say that they had succeeded in making Ben Kingsley look very much like George Méliès.
Pointing at the importance of the latter is something Scorsese should be praised for though.

The Muppets Christmas Carol

This is one of my wife Aurore's favourite Christmas Tales, the classic 'saga' about Scrooge but in a 'muppet outfit'.

I can agree that it's a charming story, not least if one has seen and appreciated The Muppets during not least the 1970's. The idea around the Muppets started much earlier when Jim Henson started his creational work. but it was during the 70's it became known to a worldwide audience.

The first and foremost reason why this version is one of Aurore's favourites, is however not the muppets but Michael Caine!! You know the actor who always is awarded three hearts when she writes about him. The man with 'the perfect body' (at least when he was younger and still according to my wife) and the man she growls at when seeing him in a film.

(Photo Michael Caine copied from: http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/michael-caine/michael-caine-20090305-497129.jpg)
(Heart copied from: http://shyjumathew.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/heart.jpg)

The Nightmare Before Christmas

This is not a film directed by Tim Burton as many people think, it's directed by Henry Selick. Burton has though co-written the script and also produced the film.

We are introduced to the somewhat gloomy town called Halloweentown where Jack Skellington (Chris Sarandon) is the mastermind behind almost everything being done there.
Halloweentown is filled with different kinds of 'dark creatures' sucgh as monsters, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, vampires, werewolves and witches, a rather normal town in other words.

Jack is The Pumpkin King and it's he who organizes the celebration every Halloween but after all these years he wants to do something else, create a new tradition. A good thought!

When wandering in the forest with his dog, he finds a cluster of trees with a door representing a certain holiday and opens the door shaped as a Christmas tree. This leads him to 'Christmas Town'.
There he studies how they celebrate Christmas and now he returns to 'his town' in order to make the others understand and adapt this Christmas celebration. Unfortunately they only make references to Halloween whereby Jack has to become more explicit.

Sally (Catherine O'Hara) is a rag doll-woman who is in love with Jack and she is able to see that this, his 'experiment', is not going to end in a good way.
She tries to warn him but as he's neither aware of her feelings for him nor interested in listening to anyone in all his obsession, he continues his planning.

He assigns three 'scary children' - Lock, Shock and Barrel - to bring Santa Claus to town and when the latter arrives - being kidnapped - Jack tells him about his plans of taking over Christmas. Santa is not happy about it at all.
In spite of Jack's instructions to guard Santa, the three kidnappers deliver Santa to Oogie Boogie (Ken Page), a gambling-addicted bogeyman who wants to play games with Santa's life on stake.

Meanwhile Jack embarks on his journey to Christmas Town on his coffin-like sleigh being pulled by skeleton reindeers.
Like Santa he starts to deliver presents to children but the presents consists of shrunken heads, Christmas tree-eating snakes and the like, wherefore Jack is being looked upon as an impostor, trying to look as Santa - and this is of course true!

Sally tries to free Santa and at the same time Jack is shot down by military forces during his 'raid' towards the children.
He returns to his own town and now starts a fight with Oogie Boogie, literally tearing the latter apart.
Santa is able to return to Christmas Town and repair the damage done by Jack and Jack and Sally becomes a couple - of course.

This is a very interesting and charming film, a bit 'noir' but not at all too gloomy as the content might indicate - at least not for those of you who don't prefer romantic comedies or 'Sound of Music' and the like.
First of all we get references to all kinds of 'monsters' and famous horror figures, secondly a love story, thirdly a rather thrilling 'crime' story and so on.
The drawings and effects are very well realized and we've got a hero making mistakes but also trying to make things right.
We both liked this film.

Scrooge

This is the classical story about the Victorian miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Seymour Hicks) who, in all his spiritual paltriness, grudge other people to enjoy the Christmas, as he can't. Not that he can't afford it, on the contrary, but because he has denied himself this 'luxuary' due to events in the past that have made him a bitter old man.

His poor clerk Bob Cratchit (Donald Calthrop) wants to enjoy the Christmas but he is almost prevented by Scrooge and this in spite of the fact taht Cratchit has a young son being very ill.

After this follows the well known events about when Scrooge meets the three Christmas Spirits, making him both bethink the past, by displaying for him his choices in life and how they have alienated him from others, even the woman he loved.
He also get to see the present and Bob Cratchit's family, their misery and at the same time joy when having some food to share.
The future looks gloomy but he might be able to change it?

This is a quite straight forward narrative telling this classic 'saga' and at the same time - as so often with these stories - trying to teach us a moral lesson.
Seymour Hicks is however quite harmless as Scrooge in my opinion but on the whole it's a sufficiently 'mean' story, not to much not to little in times of Christmas.

Director: Henry Edwards.

Mon Pire Cauchemar/My Worst Nightmare

In this film by Anne Fontaine, we probably meet the most unlikely couple in French-speaking movies: the actress Isabelle Huppert and the Belgian actor Benoît Poelvoorde.

Could anyone imaging them living together, even acting together? No, not til now.

Huppert is Agathe, who's leading a prestigious art gallery, living near Jardin du Luxembourg, with a seven year long education, being "hi" and "hello" with ministers etc.
Poelvoorde is Patrick, doing some small work now and then and the rest of the time living on uemployment compensation, living in a small camion, almost doing seven years (not education) in prison, being "hi" and "hello" with the bottles he meets.
She loves intellectual debates, he loves having sex with unknown women with big breasts.
They don't ressemble each other at all, and they can't stand each other either.
If it hadn't been for their sons, they would never have met but the sons are best friends even thought the reasons for this will be revealed later on and not at all correspond to the notion of the two boys.
Meantime, Patrick is offered a job in Agathe's apartment, offered to him by her husband. The latter having met a young ecologist, fond of trees and taking him out to different excursions, to tiresome for this elderly, not so well fit man.
Of course Patrick and Agathe learn to understand one another better but what is that will be revealed concerning their sons?

It's a comedy and as such of course playing on the total difference between these two actors, Huppert being known for dramatic, sometimes psychologically complicated role characters, and Poelvoorde nothing like that at all.
The result is rather charming though it's not the most hilarious comedy I've seen as Poelvoorde is somewhat to much himself and having seen him before, it tends to become somewhat repetetive.
Huppert is no comediénne but she does alright in this film anyway.
The theme is of course not new, we've seen these kind of subjects before.

Mannen från Mallorca/The Man from Majorca

A cold-hammered mail robbery is carried out in the middle of Stockholm during Christmas rush and the two policemen Jarnebring (Sven Wollter) and Johansson (Tomas von Brömssen) from the investigation department arrives first at the crime scene. The robber escapes though.
Evidently two of the witnesses have recognized the person committing this crime and it also seems as if they know him prior to this bank robbery.
Before the police is able to come to a conclusion about what they have in common, the two witnesses are murdered.
When the identity of the murderer finally is exposed, Jarnebring and Johansson work hard to come up with proofs but there's always someone who sweeps up the trails.
The ones responsible for this, is to be found in the highest political establishments.

This film is built on the book 'Grisfesten' ('The Pig Party', my literal translation) by Leif G.W. Persson, a Swedish criminologist.
The film as well as the book is inspired by the so called 'Bordellhärvan' ('Brothel skein' or 'The Geijer Affair'), the story about the Minister of Justice Lennart Geijer who was said having bought prostitutes at several occasions together with other so called 'prominent' persons.
This happened during the 1970's and as Geijer was a Social Democrat, 'the Party' used all its influence to quiet the affair.
Leif G.W. Persson was also involved as a 'whistle blower' and so was Hans Holmér (later known as the police in charge during the investigation of the murder of Olof Palme) and Ebbe Carlsson, a publisher with a lot of influence, his tentacles reaching out far in those years.
The latter two more served as those trying to hide the truth around this story.

(From Wikipedia: "In 1977, while working at the Swedish National Police Board, Persson was used as the whistleblower by journalist Peter Bratt in the so called Geijer affair when he confirmed a classified memo sent by then National Police Commissioner Carl Persson to Prime Minister Olof Palme about the alleged ties of the Minister of Justice, Lennart Geijer, to a prostitution ring in Stockholm. Following this affair he was fired from the National Police Board. The string of events almost drove Persson to suicide,[2] but he soon returned as lecturer at Stockholm University. The prostitution ring affair inspired him to write his first novel, Grisfesten. He returned as a professor at the National Police Board in 1992.")

In the end, those having accused the Minister of Justice Geijer of having bought prostitutes, had to apologize (if I remember correctly) and the affair was shut down, as so often is the case when persons in so called 'high positions' in society make mistakes. We are not equal before the law, as we all know.

Did Geijer buy prostitutes or not?
When working as an aid-worker partly within the S:ta Clara congregation in Stockholm (in my capacity as an assistant clergyman) and later on in my own foundation (Ascendere), I talked with some of the women prostituting themselves and they clearly stated that they had received Geijer as one of their clients. This not said because I pushed them to tell but spontaneously during conversations. I do fully believe in these women and they also told me that they had been put under pressure when trying to tell the truth.
As you might know, the Social Democratic Party had an immense power and ruled Sweden in an almost authoritarian way from the 1930's til 1976.

What about the film as such? It's actually one of the best Swedish police films ever made and it's the same director who made 'Mannen på taket' ('Man on the Roof') - Bo Widerberg - and it's almost the same actors. Both stories are built around more or less realistic criminal investigations and the work carried out by the policemen is portrayed in a most realistic way I think.
This in combination with some very good action scenes makes it into a very well narrated story.

A Bucket of Blood

This film is somewhat absurd in the same spirit as 'The Little Shop of Horrors' but with another theme.

We get to meet Walter Paisley (Dick Miller) a somewhat characteristical busboy at a café for bohemians, meaning artists of different kind or wannabes, some of them talented, others trying to act as if they were.
When returning home one evening he hears a miaowing sound and discovers that it emanates from behind the wall. In order to get the cat out, he uses a knife to cut a whole in the wall but unfortunately he cuts a whole in the cat too.
As it's his landlady's cat, he has to hide it when she comes to see him about the rent. In order to do so he covers the cat (with the knife sticking out of the body) in plaster and brings it to the café. There he now becomes celebrated as a great, more or less, surrealistic sculptor.
When asked how he achieved this work of art, he succeeds in fooling his friends, telling a story they all accept. The problem - as it becomes somewhat troublesome for him and not least for others - is that the bohemians now want to see more of his works.
As he totally lacks talent, he has to use the same method as with the cat, leading to that people in a mysterious way disappears.

It's bagatelle this film but for those of you appreciating somewhat absurd ideas (as I do), it's rather entertaining anyway.

Director? Roger Corman (surprise?!).

Le Tableau

When visiting Haugesund and The International Norwegian Film Festival there, we saw the film 'The Mill and the Cross' ('Brueghel, le moulin et le croix') by Lech Majewski. In that film we 'enter' the painting and get to see how it was made and who the different characters are. As Brueghel we saw Rutger Hauer, far from the psychotic and troubling roles he often plays.

In this film we also get to enter not only one but several paintings and in the end the question could be summed up as: Who has painted or made the painter?

Before this we are presented one single painting.
We see a castle, flowering gardens, a threatening forest (why are forests so threatening?) but the painting is not finished.
In this painting three different kinds of people are living with different degrees of completion: It's the 'Toupins' who are being finished in their entirety, the 'Pafinis', not entirely finished as it's still some colours missing and lastly the 'Reufs' only being sketched so far.
This creates a struggle for power where the 'Toupins' regard themselves as the superior part of 'the population', chasing the 'Pafinis' out of the castle and using the 'Reufs' as some kind of slaves or servants.
At this point in the story we get to meet Ramo, Lola and Plume ('Pafinis') who are all convinced of that only the painter is able to restore the harmony by finishing his work.
They therefore cross the 'dangerous' and very living forest and all of a sudden they are at the end of the painting, jumping out from the very same and into the painters study or studio. Unfortunately they also jump into another painting and another, hereby experiencing more adventures and more places than they've ever could have imagined.
During this 'excursion' the questions multiply: What has happened to the painter? Why has he abandoned them? Why has he started destroying some paintings? Will they ever find him and unfold his secrets and thereby bring peace to 'their world'?

There were many children in the cinema theatre and I'm not quite sure they understood all the subtleties in the film.
It's not only the question about the painter but of course seen in a more universal perspective the question of The Creator, the human beings as creators not only of art but of artefacts, the world around us, the lives to come etc.
It's also the question about sovereignty and subordination in a society and the often stupid reasons for the one or the other.
We also got to see a scene where a woman is trying to cross the forest and the plants surround her and make her relax in a way that was clearly erotic: The living forest, it's plants being equipped with stamens and pistils and often resembling human parts of the body, not seldom genitals.
It's however a very thought provoking film, very beautiful and almost thrilling.
Questions about responsibility and the fact that if one has started something, one most often have to finish it. The consequences of not doing so and thereby assuming ones responsibility as a 'maker', could be disastrous.

Director: Jean-François Laguionie.

Dementia 13

This is one of Francis Ford Coppola's first films, at least within - what we can call - the 'horror genre', if one exclude 'The Terror' (a film we've written about before). The latter was however primarily directed by Roger Corman who instead produced this film.
First it was ment to be called only 'Dementia' but as a film with the same name had been made in 1955, they added 13.

The film starts with a young happy(?) couple rowing a boat in the middle of the night.
It's a couple by the name of John Haloran (Peter Read) and his wife Louise (Luana Anders) and they are not as happy as one might have thought.
They are actually discussing John's rich mother's will and the fact that every penny of it is designated to charity and this in the name of a certain Kathleen.
John tells Louise that if he dies before his mother, Louise will not be entitled to anything of the heritage and of course he dies there and then in the boat, a death caused by a massive heart attack.
Louise can't return to the family saying that her husband has died so what can she do?
She throws him overboard (of course) and then writes a letter to John's mother Lady Haloran (Eithne Dunne) in which she invites herself to the family's Irish castle while pretending that John is away on business, something that couldn't wait.
John's family is however not like an ordinary family and soon she witness that John's two brothers Billy (Bart Patton) and Richard (William Campbell) are taking part in a strange ceremony with their mother, a tribute to their younger sister Kathleen (the heir), dead through drowning.
When Louise now realizes that Lady Haloran is a psychologically overstrained person and also very superstitious, the former tries to convince the Lady that Kathleen is trying to communicate with her from 'the other side'.
In doing so she puts out objects belonging to Kathleen, things she has found when doing an 'inventory' in the house.
One night she plonges into the pond, in order to attach these belongings to something on the bottom, where they easily could surface but when doing so she finds, what she thinks is the perfectly preserved body of Kathleen.
When coming to the surface she is axed to death by someone. Who?
The family doctor Justin Caleb (Patrick Magee) arrives and starts his own 'investigation' in order to find the killer and solve the mystery with Kathleen's death on the same time.
Like Hercule Poirot he starts interrogating the family members and of course we find them all somewhat suspicious.
The killer is however found - after having found a wax model of Kathleen first. Who made it and who is the assassin and is it the same person?

The film contains some good ideas and material even if it's not made in a way preventing the viewer from anticipate the answer beforehand.
The aim of the director is to make everyone look suspicious but often this kind of approach lead to the fact that one concentrate on those seeming to be the 'least bad' among a group of suspects (think 'Usual Suspects').
It's however quite a 'kind' and harmless horror story but in spite of that worth seeing.

Brandbilen som försvann

The literal translation of this film title is: "The fire engine that disappeared". The story is however not centred around a fire engine even though fire plays a certain role in this drama, as well as a small toy fire engine.

This is a story built on a book by two of the very first - and very best - 'crime writers' in Sweden: Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö.
As its principal individual we find the police inspector (superintendent) Martin Beck and his tough, hardhitting colleague Gunvald Larsson. In this version Beck is played by Gösta Ekman and Larsson by Rolf Lassgård.
One of their police colleagues is assigned a routine task, surveilling a house where one believe men are buying sex.
All of a sudden the house explodes and Larsson tries to rescue some of the men and women being trapped inside the building.
At first it looks as a suicide through gas being inflamed and exploding but one also find a bomb adapted inside the house, wherefore it's obvious that someone planned to kill one or more persons in this house. In that case a regular murder.
From now on the investigation grows and all of a sudden Beck et consortes find indices pointing towards a narcotic syndicate.
A far too important case for Beck?

As a Swede I'm used to see Gösta Ekman in comedies and therefore I don't find him convincing in the role as Beck but on the other hand, I'm not impressed by Peter Haber in this role either, wherefore I still search for the 'perfect' Beck.
Rolf Lassgård is perhaps more congenial as Larsson, seen in relation to the books but Mikael Persbrandt is much more entertaining with a lot of punch lines that he delivers in a wonderful way.
This version is not bad at all but - as we've written before - it's not at all the same professionalism and 'flow' as in the American or British crime films or -series.
Well, I don't know if I/we can add anything more to this film. Judge for yourselves. What one can add is: Read the books by Sjöwall/Wahlöö instead, they are great!
Director: Hajo Gies.

Julefrokosten

julefrokosten par chrosstv12

This is a Danish crazy comedy with a 'family drama' as a backdrop.

Anders Bo (Thomas Voss) is hired as a car salesman in a big company but as one of his first tasks, his boss tells him to infiltrate the annual Christmas party in the small competing shop 'Holger's Auto'. Why? To steal their custom file, of course.
When succesfully working 'undercover' he realizes that the task given to him has something to do with a family feud where father and son happen to be on the opposite sides of this car dealing business.
During the party a lot of more or less strange things are going on and one of the employee's, Buller (Kim Bodnia), is hit in the head, loosing his memory, not knowing who he is he and not knowing who the others are either. One of the female workers takes advantage of this so satisfy her needs.
After a lot of confusion and mistakes, involving Santa Claus, an SM-interested female employee (above mentioned), a very pragmatic boss at the car company and his vengeful son, they all unite in the end.
This not least thanks to love, the love between Amalie (Julie R. Ølgaard), the daughter of owner Holger (Dick Kaysø) and Anders Bo.

After seeing this film and in spite of Kim Bodnia who we appreciate very much (even though he's too type casted) and other fine actors, we concluded that comedy is perhaps not the Danish film industry's strongest card.
Drama, social conflicts, somewhat violent films about socially handicaped persons, they succeed very well makaing.
When it comes to comedies there are some good actors or rather have been but today I feel more as if one can find good comedians in Norway and - in a more tragically comical way - Finland.
It's not at all a bad film but - again - the screenplay is not sufficiently strong and the gags in the film, not as funny as to compensate for the weak story. Better luck in the future!

Intouchables

This film is inspired by the real life story of Phillippe Pozzi di Borgo, quadriplegic since 1993 and totally dependant on others for his survival, both physically and mentally. The most important person in his life is Abdel Yasmin Sellou, his domiciliary care.

Pozzi di Borgo has written a book called 'Le Second Souffle' ('The Second Breath', my translation) where he tells the story about his life with Yasmin Sellou and it's from this book the directors Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano made the adaptation for the screen.

In the film they are called Philippe (François Cluzet) and Driss (Omar Sy).

The film starts during a nocturnal car trip with Driss driving the Maserati Quattroporte of Philippe in highest speed, in a slalom-like way, through the streets of Paris. Very soon they are apprehended by the Police and when this happens, Philippe simulate a seizure of some kind and Driss starts to argue with the police saying that they were on their way to the hospital.
The police thereby accompany them, leaving them outside to wait for the personel they have called. The police disappears and before the doctors and nurses get to the car, the two men leave.
After this we are introduced to these both characters, beginning with the story about how they met, told through flashbacks.
Driss needs an unemployment paper signed and in order to get this done he turn up at Philippe's house when he is having interviews with potential domiciliary cares.
All of these candidates are very serious-minded and they display their credentials but Philippe doesn't seem to be satisfied with their 'performances' anyway.
The day after their first meeting, Driss - who's mother has thrown him out of the apartment as he hasn't shown himself in a long time, not taking his responsiblity for economy and his younger siblings.
Of course Philipp hire Driss, not because of his qualities in the capacity he is in but more because he adds something totally different to the everyday life of Philipp who is an extremely wealthy person but also rather blasé.
At the beginning Driss doesn't seem to know anything about how to handle a person with this kind of handicap and he is both nonchalant and ignorant.
They get along well however and Philipp as well as Driss learn from each other and get to see a part of life they've never come in contact with.
Problems of different types occur of course but even if separated for a time, they stay with each other for many years, as in the real-life story.

This film has to this date (I'm writing this, not the same night as we saw the film but the 5th of Janury 2012) become the third most viewed French film in France and the 5th most viewed film, counting all films screened in France since 'the dawn' of The Seventh Art. Almost 17 million Frenchmen and -women have seen it!
Was it that good?
Well, let's say that the story - also being a true one - has its interesting angles but on the same time, there are to many sterotypical images in this film, preventing it from becoming really interesting and touching.

It's the black man from the suburb, not seeming to know anything outside the social context in which he lives and then the white upper class Frenchman, knowing his whereabouts in 'his world' but not much about what's going on in Driss' world.
In addition to this, Philippe is also a very priviliged person, being extremely rich and therefore being able to buy what he wants, consult any specialist he wants or hire whoever he wants.
It's of course not a enviable situation the one Philippe's in but with money you can alleviate the burdens of you're daily life, something the poor can't.
When driving the car like fools through the town, being stopped by the police, lying about the reasons for driving so fast, blaming it on Philippe and his handicap, it sends out signals that if you're rich you can do what you want, not having to pay the price for your mistakes. Isn't it like that in real life? Of course it is. Rich and/or influential people can always buy themselves out of situations but it might have been better to display that the law - for once - applies to everyone, rich as well as poor?
On the whole, these stereotypes in combination with to much of feel good ambience combined with the very foreseeable screenplay makes this film somewhat charming but fairly uninteresting. It's not at all a film that will stay on in your memory for long.

(Photo Phillippe Pozzi di Borgo and Abdel Yasmin Sellou http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2011/11/10/dfb9d11e-0bc4-11e1-852e-cea02dc2c30f.jpg)

(Photo François Cluzet and Philippe Pozzo di Borgo copied from: http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/francois-cluzet-and-philippe-pozzo-di-borgo-VsiFsv.jpg)

Sällskapsresan eller Finns det svenskt kaffe på Grisfesten?

For those of you not knowing anything about this Swedish film - it's nothing to know!
Yet I will continue writing:
The film was made by one of Swedens most well known comedians, 'children-TV-entertainers' and artists/painters, Lasse Åberg.

It's the first in a series of films, telling the story about Stig-Helmer (Lasse Åberg), an extremely 'geeky', bumbling person who for the first time in his life is going to travel abroad, having chosen the Canary Islands (as most Swedes during not least the 1970's and 80's).
First he visits his doctor who, after examining him, gives him a package he wants delivered to a person on the island. The package contains 50 000 SEK and as it's illegal to bring these money out of the country without paying customs duty, Stig-Helmer is in danger without knowing it.
During the journey, his suitcase with the package disappears and now the doctor and his friend also starts to worry, the friend believing that Stig-Helmer has stolen the money.
After this our 'anti-hero' is experiencing a lot of adventures, not least after having met a Norwegian friend, Ole (Jon Skolmen) and two women - 'Majsan' (Lottie Ejebrant) and Siv (Kim Anderzon) - the latter only being on the island in order to get laid, Ole to get drunk.

I don't know who the persons are having rated this film at 7,1 at IMDb but on the other hand this site is not reliable when it comes to this kind of rating. I would almost change the figures around: 1,7. If not that low, at least not more than 3.
The film partly contains humour only Swedes and Scandinavians can understand and - perhaps - appreciate, partly dated humour of a kind I don't find amusing at all.
It's perhaps because I don't belong to the segment of the population having made this kind of 'booze cruise' and not experiencing all the degrading events among the plebs.
Let's say that we both - Aurore and I - laughed three times during the 107 minutes the film lasted. As this is a comedy, it's a bit alarming. Maybe we lack sense of humour?

I believe that Åbergs ambition has been to mix different comedy styles together, taking something from Tati, something from Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Stan & Laurel etc. but in contrast to them, this is not at all made in an intelligent way. Nul, comme on dit en français!

Polisse

This film by Maïwenn has a subject being very 'inflammatory', if one can put it that way.
Abuse against children is by most people felt as being the worst crime one can commit, partly because children often are totally defensless, partly because the abuse is committed by grown ups in whom children put their trust. This in combination with the fact that children all over the world - whether in economically developed countries or not - are being the victims of often very cruel treatments, to say the least (including torture perpetrated both in war and during 'civil' circumstances or other forms of physical or psychological abuse), creates a lot of emotions around these crimes. This is natural and of course very good as it shows that we have not yet become totally dehumanized in the sense that we can't engage ourselves emotionally. This could be a risk in societies where money and science often cooperate to temper or even silence the natural, logic reactions to these crimes, namely to eradicate the perpetrators from the surface of the Earth.
The director Maïwenn got the idea making this film when she saw a documentary about the 'Child Protection Unit' ('Brigade de Protection des Mineurs') in France. She was given the chance to follow this unit and through these experiences she created this drama.

What we get to see is how a unit like this work and what their goals are but also the different emotions surfacing when they witness children being ill-treated, perhaps meeting the perpetrators who, in some cases, are totally coolheaded, not at all feeling any guilt for what they have done.
How can one endure these confrontations without loosing your emphathy for the victims by shuting off your feelings and at the same time, not wanting to beat the perpreatators to death?!
It's a thin line you have to walk and I know that not all people would be able to handle these experiences in a way that would make them wanting to continue.

This not least as there are no excuses for mistreating your children or others, not least in the terrible way this can be and have been done.
Even if psychologists, other therapists and social scientists have tried to find 'explanations' to unforgivable behaviour - and this only for professional reasons - I have never heard any 'valid' argument being able to explain why these violent acts are committed.
The only explanation is of course that we are humans and as such we have these traits in our personalities but on the same time we have the responsibility to balance them.
If one don't believe in some form of predestination - and I don't - every single human being must be held responsible for the acts he or she commits, even those being diagnosed with some sort of psychological disorder. Why also the latter?
Because these diagnosis are such that they can never be proven right or wrong, meaning that we don't know what goes on in the brain of a person having some kind of psychological or psychiatric diagnosis and there is nothing indicating that people suffering from a psychosis, are not able to estimate the consequences of their actions.

Another aspect this film takes on is the fact that children or adolescents also can lie about these things and this is displayed during a conversation with a young girl. The consequences of these lies - for those being targeted - can of course be disastrous.

Further more: Therapists seeking to determine what a child has gone through, sometimes 'helps' the child in constructing images and explanations not being in congruence with the truth.
This is not explicitly shown in this film but I know through different reportages in TV that they sometimes put arguments or explanations in the mouth of a child when being convinced that something has happened.

The different discussions among the police officers around the work is also well displayed I think, showing that the policemen and -women working with these issues do not always agree neither on how to proceed with the work nor how to tackle different tasks.
This is of course very natural but sometimes one might imagine that they all act as one (wo)man having the one goal before their eyes.

I saw one critic (in the Guardian I think) write that he found the acting being exaggerated ("overacting") and the emotional outbursts to artificial.
I don't agree even though there was one scene between two female police officers, that tended to become a 'two angry cats fighting'-scene but on the whole I think that the feelings were correctly described.
I believe myself that I would find it hard to work with this kind of tasks as I easily would become rancourous (to say the least) against the perpretators.

The end is very surprising - at least I thought so - and dramatic.

One have to admire the police officers and other staff being able to continue such a tough work.

Among the actors we find: Karin Viard, Joey Starr, Marina Foïs, Nicolas Duvauchelle and Maïwenn herself.









(Poster copied from: http://www.cinemactu.com/Cinema/Polisse/Polisse.jpg)

(Poster 2 copied from: http://www.artistikrezo.com/images/stories/redac3/Stephen_Warbeck_-_bande_originale_de_Polisse_film_de_Maiwenn_Le_Besco_.jpg)