28 February 2011
27 February 2011
Tron: Legacy
'Tron: Legacy' is of course the sequel of 'Tron' (1982) and in the first film we could see Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn or Flu (in the digital world), a hacker being more or less 'abducted' by the digital 'underworld' ('overworld?) when trying to penetrate a computer system, creating a virtual society.
Inside this world/society he is forced to participate in a gladiator game where his only chance to survive is to find a "heroic security program".
As his colleague Allan Bradley or Tron we saw Bruce Boxleitner. Tron is - besides Flu - the main character in the first film and they both try to find a way out.
In this film we meet the son of Kevin Flynn - Sam (Garrett Hedlund) - who is searching for his father and in doing so he ends up inside the digital world that his father designed.
There he meets his father's creation - Flu - turned bad but also his father, who tries to escape by not participating in the games, a strategy he thinks will diminish the power of his clone.
Kevin Flynn has a companion, a woman/an ally born inside the digital domain of 'The Grid'.
She saves Sam when he's on the verge of being killed in the gladiator games and of course they fall in love etc etc.
I (Gunnar) haven't seen the first 'Tron' but the story in itself is a combination between different futuristic stories, of which we've seen some on film and read some in books.
The idea was probably born when computers started to develop into a tool for others than the military or the companies but in 1982 when the first 'Tron' was made, the World Wide Web, as we know it, wasn't yet born and I don't know how deep an insight into these matters the director Steven Lisberger had.
Today 'Tron: Legacy' is more understandable and one can also - as a viewer - in one's own mind, 'inject' personal ideas about how this world might function.
The story we get to follow inside The Grid is not unique though, which is a pitty.
One have worked a lot with the technical side of the film, leaving the plot to the more ordinary scheme of bad vs good, the genius who created a monster, the potential threat towards mankind, hate, love, friendship, betrayal and so forth.
Some described this as not being a film but Daft Punk's longest music video - and why not?
However we both found the aesthetic very appealing and the story in itself wasn't at all bad even if we didn't find anything that surprised us.
Director (chosen by Steven Lisberger): Joseph Kosinski.
'Tron: Uprising' is scheduled 2012 as a TV-series but I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel on film follows.
Inside this world/society he is forced to participate in a gladiator game where his only chance to survive is to find a "heroic security program".
As his colleague Allan Bradley or Tron we saw Bruce Boxleitner. Tron is - besides Flu - the main character in the first film and they both try to find a way out.
In this film we meet the son of Kevin Flynn - Sam (Garrett Hedlund) - who is searching for his father and in doing so he ends up inside the digital world that his father designed.
There he meets his father's creation - Flu - turned bad but also his father, who tries to escape by not participating in the games, a strategy he thinks will diminish the power of his clone.
Kevin Flynn has a companion, a woman/an ally born inside the digital domain of 'The Grid'.
She saves Sam when he's on the verge of being killed in the gladiator games and of course they fall in love etc etc.
I (Gunnar) haven't seen the first 'Tron' but the story in itself is a combination between different futuristic stories, of which we've seen some on film and read some in books.
The idea was probably born when computers started to develop into a tool for others than the military or the companies but in 1982 when the first 'Tron' was made, the World Wide Web, as we know it, wasn't yet born and I don't know how deep an insight into these matters the director Steven Lisberger had.
Today 'Tron: Legacy' is more understandable and one can also - as a viewer - in one's own mind, 'inject' personal ideas about how this world might function.
The story we get to follow inside The Grid is not unique though, which is a pitty.
One have worked a lot with the technical side of the film, leaving the plot to the more ordinary scheme of bad vs good, the genius who created a monster, the potential threat towards mankind, hate, love, friendship, betrayal and so forth.
Some described this as not being a film but Daft Punk's longest music video - and why not?
However we both found the aesthetic very appealing and the story in itself wasn't at all bad even if we didn't find anything that surprised us.
Director (chosen by Steven Lisberger): Joseph Kosinski.
'Tron: Uprising' is scheduled 2012 as a TV-series but I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel on film follows.
26 February 2011
Kill Buljo
As the title indicates this is a story, not built upon, but using material from Kill Bill but also - as in the case of Tarantino's film - a number of other more or less well known cinematic oeuvres.
We didn't find Kill Bill (no 1 or 2) being films worth seeing and this humorous(?) version planted in Lappland, must be regarded as a fiasco - to put it mildly.
Why did we buy this DVD? Because the director, Tommy Wirkola was the originator of Død snø (Dead Snow), the nazi-zoombie-film we saw a couple of years ago and a film we appreciated in all it's absurdity.
In this case we meet Jompa Tormann (Stig frode Henriksen), a sami whose family and friends are being killed by a gang led by Tampa (Martin Hykkerud) and Papa (Frank Arne Olsen) Buljo, at the party celebrating Jompa's upcoming wedding.
Parenthetically one can mention that the party was held in Kautokeino, a small village also used in the film The Kautokeino Rebellion (Kautokeino-opprøret).
Jompa survives the attack and now sets out to find and eliminate the Buljo gang, first learning Martial Art by a 'master'.
The stupid police officer (Tommy Wirkola) with the 'mega-stupid' colleague of course believes that it's Jompa who is responsible for the killings but one of his female officers soon finds out that this is not the case and sides with Jompa.
This is an extremely bad film, resembling a teenage-we-will-try-to-make-a-movie-with-no-means-and-no-ideas-film, using material from every single film you can think being of use in the plot, blending it with a prejudicious portrait of the sami population.
One of the worst films we've seen in a long time!
Tarantino is said to have liked the trailer but I think he must have been disappointed by the feature film - I hope!
We didn't find Kill Bill (no 1 or 2) being films worth seeing and this humorous(?) version planted in Lappland, must be regarded as a fiasco - to put it mildly.
Why did we buy this DVD? Because the director, Tommy Wirkola was the originator of Død snø (Dead Snow), the nazi-zoombie-film we saw a couple of years ago and a film we appreciated in all it's absurdity.
In this case we meet Jompa Tormann (Stig frode Henriksen), a sami whose family and friends are being killed by a gang led by Tampa (Martin Hykkerud) and Papa (Frank Arne Olsen) Buljo, at the party celebrating Jompa's upcoming wedding.
Parenthetically one can mention that the party was held in Kautokeino, a small village also used in the film The Kautokeino Rebellion (Kautokeino-opprøret).
Jompa survives the attack and now sets out to find and eliminate the Buljo gang, first learning Martial Art by a 'master'.
The stupid police officer (Tommy Wirkola) with the 'mega-stupid' colleague of course believes that it's Jompa who is responsible for the killings but one of his female officers soon finds out that this is not the case and sides with Jompa.
This is an extremely bad film, resembling a teenage-we-will-try-to-make-a-movie-with-no-means-and-no-ideas-film, using material from every single film you can think being of use in the plot, blending it with a prejudicious portrait of the sami population.
One of the worst films we've seen in a long time!
Tarantino is said to have liked the trailer but I think he must have been disappointed by the feature film - I hope!
25 February 2011
Enfermés dehors/Locked Out
A homeless man - Roland (Albert Dupontel) - one day witnesses a man jumping from a bridge, without being able to help.
The man has left a bag and clothes behind and those belongings shows that he was a police officer, leaving a note with the approximate content: "I can't stand it anymore!".
Roland takes care of the bag and clothes and heads straight to the police station, with the intent explaining this story and at the same time leaving the possessions of the police officer to his superiors.
However, being a homeless (SDF in French) does not make him trustworthy in the eyes of the police wherefore they throw him out.
Ok, if they don't wan't to listen to him, he might as well use these clothes to gain advantages.
Roland has seen that they have a very good canteen at the station house and he decides to use the police uniform in order to give him access to this dining room.
Later on he also finds out that through this uniform he has become somewhat 'powerful' as people around him in fact obey what he says when 'patroling' the town.
This leads him to become somewhat tougher, more confident, demanding things from his fellow- countrymen. On the same time he tries to help the homeless when they are in trouble - up til a certain point when something more important happens: He meets a woman.
The woman he meets is a mother (not homeless) who tries to get in contact with her child, who is being taken care of by an elderly couple (the grand parents?).
This as the latter find her work as a former striptease dancer and now working in a porno shop, not being the ideal occupations for a mother.
Roland tries of course to help, creating a turmoil.
Another very humoristic and, in a way, thought-provoking film by Dupontel.
The man has left a bag and clothes behind and those belongings shows that he was a police officer, leaving a note with the approximate content: "I can't stand it anymore!".
Roland takes care of the bag and clothes and heads straight to the police station, with the intent explaining this story and at the same time leaving the possessions of the police officer to his superiors.
However, being a homeless (SDF in French) does not make him trustworthy in the eyes of the police wherefore they throw him out.
Ok, if they don't wan't to listen to him, he might as well use these clothes to gain advantages.
Roland has seen that they have a very good canteen at the station house and he decides to use the police uniform in order to give him access to this dining room.
Later on he also finds out that through this uniform he has become somewhat 'powerful' as people around him in fact obey what he says when 'patroling' the town.
This leads him to become somewhat tougher, more confident, demanding things from his fellow- countrymen. On the same time he tries to help the homeless when they are in trouble - up til a certain point when something more important happens: He meets a woman.
The woman he meets is a mother (not homeless) who tries to get in contact with her child, who is being taken care of by an elderly couple (the grand parents?).
This as the latter find her work as a former striptease dancer and now working in a porno shop, not being the ideal occupations for a mother.
Roland tries of course to help, creating a turmoil.
Another very humoristic and, in a way, thought-provoking film by Dupontel.
22 February 2011
Le créateur/The Creator
A film about a classical problems for a writer: Writer's cramp or mogigraphy.
The succesful writer Darius (Albert Dupontel) is about to advertize his new play but all of a sudden he remembers that he has forgotten how to write!
Faced with the demands of the theatre manager, the actors and others, he tries to find a remedy to his problem.
This includes positioning his bed in front of his writing desk, as he has written in the sleep before - he thinks.
He has a very nice and considerate neighbour who helps him keeping things together but does he play a more important role than that?
Another unusual film by Dupontel with good acting. He uses a group of actors he has used in most his films, meaning: Claude Perron, Michel Vuillermoz, Paul Le Person, among others.
This is understandable as they are very good.
The succesful writer Darius (Albert Dupontel) is about to advertize his new play but all of a sudden he remembers that he has forgotten how to write!
Faced with the demands of the theatre manager, the actors and others, he tries to find a remedy to his problem.
This includes positioning his bed in front of his writing desk, as he has written in the sleep before - he thinks.
He has a very nice and considerate neighbour who helps him keeping things together but does he play a more important role than that?
Another unusual film by Dupontel with good acting. He uses a group of actors he has used in most his films, meaning: Claude Perron, Michel Vuillermoz, Paul Le Person, among others.
This is understandable as they are very good.
21 February 2011
Désiré
Désiré(albert DUPONTEL-Court Métrage)
envoyé par yroshimasystem. - Regardez des web séries et des films.
This short film by Albert Dupontel is enacted in a future (not so far away perhaps?) society where even the births are automatized and done in a sterile milieu, on assembly lines.
Left more or less alone with the machines, the mother tries to alert the doctor, the nurse and her husband when the baby is born to early but as they all rely on the machines for monitoring and estimate the time for birth, they do not observe when the mother gives birth.
Through circumstaces in the narrative, they don't even find the baby when it's born. Instead they think that the mother has not yet given birth and this create an emergency situation in this highly technocratic state where everything normally is done on time.
A baby that doesn't want to be born, is of course a sensation!
The mise en scène reminds me of books like 'Kallocain', 'Fahrenheit 451' and '1984' and it's a very amusing idea, displaying the dangers in letting the technical equipment take over.
The title plays with the name Désiré/Desire - wanted, desired but also in the French combination; 'Se faire désirer', meaning 'waiting for', 'hesitating to come out' etc.
Another unique and special oeuvre by Dupontel.
Left more or less alone with the machines, the mother tries to alert the doctor, the nurse and her husband when the baby is born to early but as they all rely on the machines for monitoring and estimate the time for birth, they do not observe when the mother gives birth.
Through circumstaces in the narrative, they don't even find the baby when it's born. Instead they think that the mother has not yet given birth and this create an emergency situation in this highly technocratic state where everything normally is done on time.
A baby that doesn't want to be born, is of course a sensation!
The mise en scène reminds me of books like 'Kallocain', 'Fahrenheit 451' and '1984' and it's a very amusing idea, displaying the dangers in letting the technical equipment take over.
The title plays with the name Désiré/Desire - wanted, desired but also in the French combination; 'Se faire désirer', meaning 'waiting for', 'hesitating to come out' etc.
Another unique and special oeuvre by Dupontel.
Bernie
Who's Bernie? Well, he's first of all - in this film - the creation of Albert Dupontel and as such a 30 year old orphan, once thrown into the trash can by his parents and raised at an orphanage.
At the very age of 30 he decides to leave the relatively calm and safe orphanage in search of his parents. Not a day to early?
This 'mission' becomes somewhat complicated due to the fact that Bernie (Albert Dupontel) is extremely paranoid, creating his own world of horrors and persecution, leading to problems for all those who encounter him.
First of all he finds his father living in a dump as a homeless. This is though something Bernie interprets as a conspiracy against his father, not as the consequences of his own mistakes in life.
He takes care of him and they set out to find his mother, who nowadays lives a very good life, -at least economically - with a husband and children in a big house.
In 'releasing' his mother, Bernie and his father use the formers more violent methods. This as his only way to solve problems is by using physical force, it seems!
His mother is of course not the least interested in being 'released' as she once actually has fled from the life with her husband and Bernie, as the two became parents 'by mistake' and never seemed to have loved each other, not least visible later on in the film.
Both parents are however responsible for the fact that Bernie was thrown in the trash can and later on came to live in the orphanage, wherefore they morally share the same guilt for his tragedy.
After this 'heroic' rescue action the film goes on in an absurd way, not least as Bernie also meets a young woman who is a drug addict living with an old man who 'supports' her. Of course she also becomes implicated in Bernie's life and the triangular relation between him, his mother and father.
This is a very entertaining film also dealing with questions concerning responsibility, family relations and if genes actually are the best bond between parents and their children; 'impossible love', solidarity, confidence etc etc.
Everyone exploits everyone but in the end an underlying and deeper sense of closeness and love might be revealed - or not? At least the truth about Bernie's parents and their treatment of their son is revealed - if it's not a conspiracy?
It's an intelligent film and the actors are brilliant (Claude Perron, Roland Blanche, Hélène Vincent, Paul Le Person), not least Albert Dupontel himself as the main character Bernie. (Directed by Dupontel).
At the very age of 30 he decides to leave the relatively calm and safe orphanage in search of his parents. Not a day to early?
This 'mission' becomes somewhat complicated due to the fact that Bernie (Albert Dupontel) is extremely paranoid, creating his own world of horrors and persecution, leading to problems for all those who encounter him.
First of all he finds his father living in a dump as a homeless. This is though something Bernie interprets as a conspiracy against his father, not as the consequences of his own mistakes in life.
He takes care of him and they set out to find his mother, who nowadays lives a very good life, -at least economically - with a husband and children in a big house.
In 'releasing' his mother, Bernie and his father use the formers more violent methods. This as his only way to solve problems is by using physical force, it seems!
His mother is of course not the least interested in being 'released' as she once actually has fled from the life with her husband and Bernie, as the two became parents 'by mistake' and never seemed to have loved each other, not least visible later on in the film.
Both parents are however responsible for the fact that Bernie was thrown in the trash can and later on came to live in the orphanage, wherefore they morally share the same guilt for his tragedy.
After this 'heroic' rescue action the film goes on in an absurd way, not least as Bernie also meets a young woman who is a drug addict living with an old man who 'supports' her. Of course she also becomes implicated in Bernie's life and the triangular relation between him, his mother and father.
This is a very entertaining film also dealing with questions concerning responsibility, family relations and if genes actually are the best bond between parents and their children; 'impossible love', solidarity, confidence etc etc.
Everyone exploits everyone but in the end an underlying and deeper sense of closeness and love might be revealed - or not? At least the truth about Bernie's parents and their treatment of their son is revealed - if it's not a conspiracy?
It's an intelligent film and the actors are brilliant (Claude Perron, Roland Blanche, Hélène Vincent, Paul Le Person), not least Albert Dupontel himself as the main character Bernie. (Directed by Dupontel).
19 February 2011
Den sidste viking/The Last Viking
The Last Viking is a film centered mostly around a village with inhabitants living in relative peace and harmony, until the day the king demands their ships in order to continue his wars.
The village has earlier left contributions to the king, both money, people and ships but this time they think he is demanding to much as he wants all their ships and all their men, not only a few.
The leader of the village - and also the father of the young viking Harald (Holger Thaarup) - decides to take his ships, his men and join some rioters who also have had enough and want to see the king dead or dethroned.
The decision to fight the king also leads to that Haralds father leaves not only Harald but his wife Eisa (Marika Lagercrantz) and Haralds, somewhat mentally retarded, brother behind, besides all the other villagers, consisting mostly of elderly people, women and children.
Harald wants to follow his father but the latter denies him this request, saying that he have to stay behind and defend his mother and the others in the village.
Soon after the departure of Harald's father, the kings men, Thorgrim (Bjørn Floberg), Sigbard (Kim Bodnia) and warriors, reach the village in search for the men and the boats.
Sigbard arrives first and he is - or seems to be - a very brutal individual, at first using violence, raping the women and humiliating the inhabitants in order to get the informaiton he seeks.
Thorgrim - who is the leader of these men - is a more civilized person, not using violence if it's not absolutely 'necessary'.
In the village, we also find an old boat builder, Skrælling (Per Oscarsson), an alcoholic who prefers mead ahead of food and not least work.
The king's men now demand of him to build a boat for them and for the king but this is easier said than done and the villagers try everything to delay this work.
The story circles around the young Harald and how these events makes him discover that the world is not black or white, a very important lesson, many people ought to learn.
As the story unfolds he becomes an adult in his mind-set, sometimes in a very painful way.
When the film begins he adores his father and mother and has put them on a pedestal - as is often the case - while he looks upon the intruders as equally evil - of course.
Through the course of the film he finds out that his mother and father are not as good and fair as he had thought and that the king's men are not as bad as he had thought either, to put it simply.
His mother betrays both him and his father and the loyalty to their village and the people there, his father betrays him and his mother, the village and the cause he had set out to fight for.
The leader of the king's men - Thorgrim - is a reflecting, contemplating person, not a bloodthirsty 'beast'.
Even his collaborator Sigbard, who at first seems to be a rude and violent individual, displays both clear-sightedness and is the one making Harald aware of his parents betrayal.
Harald on the other hand is also full of flaws, not least visible in the way he treats a young slave girl, degrading her and trying to command her in a reckless way.
This until the day she saves his life, he himself is marked as a slave by the intruders and they join forces against the king's men.
I very much liked the photo and the acting.
One of my friends found that the film was full of clichées but I think that it was less clichés in this 'viking film' than in many others and the violence was restricted, not making it into a 'bloody mess' if the expression is allowed.
The underlying moral questions about relations, loyalties, love and respect render this film an aura of a more intellectual perspective in relation to the 'viking era'-subject than many other films in the same genre.
Some sequences could have been remowed though, as they were felt being to repetitive, not moving the theme forward, but creating a narrative standstill.
The village has earlier left contributions to the king, both money, people and ships but this time they think he is demanding to much as he wants all their ships and all their men, not only a few.
The leader of the village - and also the father of the young viking Harald (Holger Thaarup) - decides to take his ships, his men and join some rioters who also have had enough and want to see the king dead or dethroned.
The decision to fight the king also leads to that Haralds father leaves not only Harald but his wife Eisa (Marika Lagercrantz) and Haralds, somewhat mentally retarded, brother behind, besides all the other villagers, consisting mostly of elderly people, women and children.
Harald wants to follow his father but the latter denies him this request, saying that he have to stay behind and defend his mother and the others in the village.
Soon after the departure of Harald's father, the kings men, Thorgrim (Bjørn Floberg), Sigbard (Kim Bodnia) and warriors, reach the village in search for the men and the boats.
Sigbard arrives first and he is - or seems to be - a very brutal individual, at first using violence, raping the women and humiliating the inhabitants in order to get the informaiton he seeks.
Thorgrim - who is the leader of these men - is a more civilized person, not using violence if it's not absolutely 'necessary'.
In the village, we also find an old boat builder, Skrælling (Per Oscarsson), an alcoholic who prefers mead ahead of food and not least work.
The king's men now demand of him to build a boat for them and for the king but this is easier said than done and the villagers try everything to delay this work.
The story circles around the young Harald and how these events makes him discover that the world is not black or white, a very important lesson, many people ought to learn.
As the story unfolds he becomes an adult in his mind-set, sometimes in a very painful way.
When the film begins he adores his father and mother and has put them on a pedestal - as is often the case - while he looks upon the intruders as equally evil - of course.
Through the course of the film he finds out that his mother and father are not as good and fair as he had thought and that the king's men are not as bad as he had thought either, to put it simply.
His mother betrays both him and his father and the loyalty to their village and the people there, his father betrays him and his mother, the village and the cause he had set out to fight for.
The leader of the king's men - Thorgrim - is a reflecting, contemplating person, not a bloodthirsty 'beast'.
Even his collaborator Sigbard, who at first seems to be a rude and violent individual, displays both clear-sightedness and is the one making Harald aware of his parents betrayal.
Harald on the other hand is also full of flaws, not least visible in the way he treats a young slave girl, degrading her and trying to command her in a reckless way.
This until the day she saves his life, he himself is marked as a slave by the intruders and they join forces against the king's men.
I very much liked the photo and the acting.
One of my friends found that the film was full of clichées but I think that it was less clichés in this 'viking film' than in many others and the violence was restricted, not making it into a 'bloody mess' if the expression is allowed.
The underlying moral questions about relations, loyalties, love and respect render this film an aura of a more intellectual perspective in relation to the 'viking era'-subject than many other films in the same genre.
Some sequences could have been remowed though, as they were felt being to repetitive, not moving the theme forward, but creating a narrative standstill.
18 February 2011
I rymden finns inga känslor/Simple Simon
Svenska:
Den stora frågan i denna film är alltså om det finns känslor i rymden?
Kanske inte. Dock utgör det huvudpersonens initiala utgångspunkt för sin flykt från de dagliga, oregelbundna, föränderliga livsomständigheterna, vilka stör hans livsrytm och välbefinnande.
Vi möter Simon (Bill Skarsgård), en ung man med Aspbergers syndrom, som när filmen börjar bor hos sina föräldrar. Dock klarar de inte av att hantera alla hans olika infall och nycker (så som omgivningen tolkar det), varför brodern Sam (Martin Wallström) - som alltid kallas hem när föräldrarna inte lyckas få ut Simon ur hans 'rymdkapsel'/tunna - erbjuder Simon att flytta hem till honom och hans flickvän.
Eftersom Simon har strängt inrutade rutiner för allt han gör i livet - detta i syfte att nå ordning i kaos - tär det på förhållandet mellan brodern och hans flickvän och då hon lämnar sin pojkvän, börjar Simons odyssé i jakt på en ny flickvän.
Inte så mycket av medkänsla för sin bror Sam som för att hemmets regelbundna vanor i och med flickvännens försvinnande, mer eller mindre upplöses och detta står inte Simon ut med.
På hans väg mot sitt mål 'stöter' han bokstavligen ihop med en ung kvinna - Jennifer (Cecilia Forss) - som visar sig bli Simons öde - eller hans brors?
Viss kritik har riktats mot att Skarsgårds gestaltning av en person med Aspberger är överdriven och inte stämmer med verklighetens 'Simons'. Syftet med filmen kan dock inte vara att ge en korrekt medicinskt-vetenskaplig bild av en person med Aspbergers syndrom utan mer en humoristisk skildring av de många gånger absurda konsekvenserna av denna åkomma.
Personligen upplevde vi dock idéen till filmen vara mycket väl genomtänkt och genomförd och visst kan man alltid dra paralleller till filmer som 'Forest Gump' som förlaga men jag tycker att filmen har sin egen personliga touch.
Dock kändes det inte riktigt som den höll som långfilm. Vi har sett novellfilmen och det som däri var kondenserat kändes tillräckligt bra, varför exempelvis vissa personer i långfilmen - exempelvis föräldrarna - kändes överflödiga i detta berättartekniska skeendet.
English:
The principal question in this film is in fact if there are feelings/sentiments in space (the Universe) (The Swedish title of this film is 'In Space There Are No Feelings/Sentiments')?
Maybe not. This is however the initial standpoint for the main character in his ambition to flee the irregular and changeable life circumstances, disturbing his rythm and well being.
We get to meet Simon (Bill Skarsgård), a young man with the Aspberger syndrome, who, when the film sets out, lives with his parents.
However they can't handle his different 'caprices' and whims (as interpretated by the surrounding persons), why his brother Sam (Martin Wallström) - who's always called on when the parents doesn't succeed in getting Simon out of his 'space capsul'/barrel(!) - offers Simon to move in with him and his girlfriend, in their apartment.
As Simon has a strict scheme for everything he sets about to do in life - in an effort to bring order out of chaos - it 'gnaws' on the relationship between Sam and his girlfriend and when the latter leaves Sam, Simons odyssey - trying to find a new girlfriend for Sam - begins.
This not so much as a sign of sympathy for his brother Sam as result of the fact that the regular habits in the home, more or less dissolved when the girlfriend disappeared and this is something Simon can't put up with.
On his way towards this goal he literally 'bumps into a young woman - Jennifer (Cecilia Forss) - who proves to be 'the destiny of his life' - or his brothers?
Some criticism has been raised against the interpretation of a person with Aspberger syndrome by Skarsgård, implying that it's exaggerated and does not comport with the 'real' Simons.
The purpose with this film is however not to convey a 'correct' medical-scientifical picture of a person with Aspberger's syndrome but a humoristic depiction of the oftentimes absurd consequences of this problem.
Personally we found the idea to the film very well thought-out and realized and one can of course always find analouges to movies like 'Forest Gump' as a model but I think that this film has its one personal touch.
However the idea didn't convince us in the form of a feature film. We've seen the short story film and the ideas condensed in that one felt sufficiantly good, why e.g. certain characters in the feature film - the parents - felt superfluous in the narrative process.
Den stora frågan i denna film är alltså om det finns känslor i rymden?
Kanske inte. Dock utgör det huvudpersonens initiala utgångspunkt för sin flykt från de dagliga, oregelbundna, föränderliga livsomständigheterna, vilka stör hans livsrytm och välbefinnande.
Vi möter Simon (Bill Skarsgård), en ung man med Aspbergers syndrom, som när filmen börjar bor hos sina föräldrar. Dock klarar de inte av att hantera alla hans olika infall och nycker (så som omgivningen tolkar det), varför brodern Sam (Martin Wallström) - som alltid kallas hem när föräldrarna inte lyckas få ut Simon ur hans 'rymdkapsel'/tunna - erbjuder Simon att flytta hem till honom och hans flickvän.
Eftersom Simon har strängt inrutade rutiner för allt han gör i livet - detta i syfte att nå ordning i kaos - tär det på förhållandet mellan brodern och hans flickvän och då hon lämnar sin pojkvän, börjar Simons odyssé i jakt på en ny flickvän.
Inte så mycket av medkänsla för sin bror Sam som för att hemmets regelbundna vanor i och med flickvännens försvinnande, mer eller mindre upplöses och detta står inte Simon ut med.
På hans väg mot sitt mål 'stöter' han bokstavligen ihop med en ung kvinna - Jennifer (Cecilia Forss) - som visar sig bli Simons öde - eller hans brors?
Viss kritik har riktats mot att Skarsgårds gestaltning av en person med Aspberger är överdriven och inte stämmer med verklighetens 'Simons'. Syftet med filmen kan dock inte vara att ge en korrekt medicinskt-vetenskaplig bild av en person med Aspbergers syndrom utan mer en humoristisk skildring av de många gånger absurda konsekvenserna av denna åkomma.
Personligen upplevde vi dock idéen till filmen vara mycket väl genomtänkt och genomförd och visst kan man alltid dra paralleller till filmer som 'Forest Gump' som förlaga men jag tycker att filmen har sin egen personliga touch.
Dock kändes det inte riktigt som den höll som långfilm. Vi har sett novellfilmen och det som däri var kondenserat kändes tillräckligt bra, varför exempelvis vissa personer i långfilmen - exempelvis föräldrarna - kändes överflödiga i detta berättartekniska skeendet.
English:
The principal question in this film is in fact if there are feelings/sentiments in space (the Universe) (The Swedish title of this film is 'In Space There Are No Feelings/Sentiments')?
Maybe not. This is however the initial standpoint for the main character in his ambition to flee the irregular and changeable life circumstances, disturbing his rythm and well being.
We get to meet Simon (Bill Skarsgård), a young man with the Aspberger syndrome, who, when the film sets out, lives with his parents.
However they can't handle his different 'caprices' and whims (as interpretated by the surrounding persons), why his brother Sam (Martin Wallström) - who's always called on when the parents doesn't succeed in getting Simon out of his 'space capsul'/barrel(!) - offers Simon to move in with him and his girlfriend, in their apartment.
As Simon has a strict scheme for everything he sets about to do in life - in an effort to bring order out of chaos - it 'gnaws' on the relationship between Sam and his girlfriend and when the latter leaves Sam, Simons odyssey - trying to find a new girlfriend for Sam - begins.
This not so much as a sign of sympathy for his brother Sam as result of the fact that the regular habits in the home, more or less dissolved when the girlfriend disappeared and this is something Simon can't put up with.
On his way towards this goal he literally 'bumps into a young woman - Jennifer (Cecilia Forss) - who proves to be 'the destiny of his life' - or his brothers?
Some criticism has been raised against the interpretation of a person with Aspberger syndrome by Skarsgård, implying that it's exaggerated and does not comport with the 'real' Simons.
The purpose with this film is however not to convey a 'correct' medical-scientifical picture of a person with Aspberger's syndrome but a humoristic depiction of the oftentimes absurd consequences of this problem.
Personally we found the idea to the film very well thought-out and realized and one can of course always find analouges to movies like 'Forest Gump' as a model but I think that this film has its one personal touch.
However the idea didn't convince us in the form of a feature film. We've seen the short story film and the ideas condensed in that one felt sufficiantly good, why e.g. certain characters in the feature film - the parents - felt superfluous in the narrative process.
13 February 2011
Season of the Witch/Le dernier des Templiers
This is not a 'traditional' film about the Crusaders and their fight for 'The Holy Land' but more a mixture between the history of the Christian warriors and the supernatural in the form of witches and demons.
Initially this film promises an exciting and seize in an iron-film with historically relevant material but soon we realize that it will leave the more realistic depiction of one of many dark periods in the history of Christianity and blend it with a supernatural story.
There are many interesting cinematographical moments in the film and the photo is partly very appealing but on the whole the problem with the blend of historical 'facts' and fiction/myth does not convince me/us.
The film is filled with material used in hundreds of films and sometimes it's well done - as a scene on a bridge - and sometimes it gives an impression of déja vu and recycling and those parts lower the overall impression of this oeuvre.
There are also some 'humoristic' parts in the film, sometimes delivered in unbelievable situations making it somewhat 'slap-stickich' (a scene from the battle field where the two 'heroes' are joking and fighting at the same time). Of course one shouldn't take oneself too serious but in this case it feels as if one don't know what style to use.
Actors like Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman and Ulrich Thomsen do create a good ambience and Robert Sheehan is not bad at all, neither Claire Foy but their roles are not particularly hard to create.
Christopher Lee is participating as somewhat of a living legend being around almost as long as the Crusaders!
Three stars out of five is a reasonable mark.
Initially this film promises an exciting and seize in an iron-film with historically relevant material but soon we realize that it will leave the more realistic depiction of one of many dark periods in the history of Christianity and blend it with a supernatural story.
There are many interesting cinematographical moments in the film and the photo is partly very appealing but on the whole the problem with the blend of historical 'facts' and fiction/myth does not convince me/us.
The film is filled with material used in hundreds of films and sometimes it's well done - as a scene on a bridge - and sometimes it gives an impression of déja vu and recycling and those parts lower the overall impression of this oeuvre.
There are also some 'humoristic' parts in the film, sometimes delivered in unbelievable situations making it somewhat 'slap-stickich' (a scene from the battle field where the two 'heroes' are joking and fighting at the same time). Of course one shouldn't take oneself too serious but in this case it feels as if one don't know what style to use.
Actors like Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman and Ulrich Thomsen do create a good ambience and Robert Sheehan is not bad at all, neither Claire Foy but their roles are not particularly hard to create.
Christopher Lee is participating as somewhat of a living legend being around almost as long as the Crusaders!
Three stars out of five is a reasonable mark.
06 February 2011
Le nom des gens (People's Names)
Our film at Cinéma Lux, La Châtre this afternoon:
Le nom des gens is a film where the left wing devotees in France make fun of the left wing party and themselves and their sometimes - often I would say - naïve approach to life and politics.
It's also a film debating the somewhat dated question about the national identity in France, a debate promoted by Nicolas Sarkozy and his government a couple of years ago. Who is French and why?
We meet two principal characters: Bahia Benmahmoud (Sara Forestier) and Arthur Martin (Jacques Gamblin).
For those of you who are not familiar with French names, the name Martin is the most common family name in this country and combined with Arthur, he becomes the bearer of one of the most common name combinations in France. With a first name like Michel, he would have become 'the most common Frenchman'.
Bahia Benmahmoud is the only (according to the character in the film) person in France with that specific name.
Of course it's later revealed that underneath the very French name and history of Arthur, we find that his family is as little or as much French as Bahia's.
Arthur is working as a biologist, specialized in epizootics and they meet by chance, two utterly different persons, superficially looking.
Bahia has her own goal in life and that is to convert all right wing supporters to become left wing dito and this by sleeping with them - all!
She is rather succesful til the day she meets Arthur and not least his parents.
Contrary to what she thinks, he is a Jospinist, that is to say he is symphatizing with Lionel Jospin=leftist.
The story goes back and forth, not only when it comes to Bahia's and Arthur's relationship but also concerning the discussion of the national identity in France.
It's an entertaining and in a way thought-provoking film but the combination of humour and a social-political 'message', does not totally convince me. This mixture doesn't work out to well, I feel (Gunnar).
Trivia: Lionel Jospin does appear in the film during three minutes when visiting the main character in his home.
Director: Michel Leclerc.
Le nom des gens is a film where the left wing devotees in France make fun of the left wing party and themselves and their sometimes - often I would say - naïve approach to life and politics.
It's also a film debating the somewhat dated question about the national identity in France, a debate promoted by Nicolas Sarkozy and his government a couple of years ago. Who is French and why?
We meet two principal characters: Bahia Benmahmoud (Sara Forestier) and Arthur Martin (Jacques Gamblin).
For those of you who are not familiar with French names, the name Martin is the most common family name in this country and combined with Arthur, he becomes the bearer of one of the most common name combinations in France. With a first name like Michel, he would have become 'the most common Frenchman'.
Bahia Benmahmoud is the only (according to the character in the film) person in France with that specific name.
Of course it's later revealed that underneath the very French name and history of Arthur, we find that his family is as little or as much French as Bahia's.
Arthur is working as a biologist, specialized in epizootics and they meet by chance, two utterly different persons, superficially looking.
Bahia has her own goal in life and that is to convert all right wing supporters to become left wing dito and this by sleeping with them - all!
She is rather succesful til the day she meets Arthur and not least his parents.
Contrary to what she thinks, he is a Jospinist, that is to say he is symphatizing with Lionel Jospin=leftist.
The story goes back and forth, not only when it comes to Bahia's and Arthur's relationship but also concerning the discussion of the national identity in France.
It's an entertaining and in a way thought-provoking film but the combination of humour and a social-political 'message', does not totally convince me. This mixture doesn't work out to well, I feel (Gunnar).
Trivia: Lionel Jospin does appear in the film during three minutes when visiting the main character in his home.
Director: Michel Leclerc.
04 February 2011
Sound of Noise-terrorism
'Sound of Noise' is called a 'police musical' and this might be a genre in itself, invented by the Swedes but even if we find a police trying to catch a group of 'music terrorists', the film is more about exploring different sounds in our daily life and making music out of them.
The story circles around six musicians, mainly percussionists, having as their ambition to invade our day-to-day life with music and rythms and doing so by using every conceivable means and methods, making music out of, at first glance, non-musical items and things.
The milieus they use are a bank, an operating room with a patient, huge tractors, drilling machines and more.
Trying to depict and make music out of the sounds in our daily life is in itself not a unique concept.
In earlier pre-urban time, the nature and all the sounds produced by the wind, the water, the animals etc. inspired composers to write music in a more or less mimic fashion.
When the urban life became the novelty in human life, the city with its 'noise' became another inspirational source for composers and film makers.
In the latter case we can mention Walter Ruttman's 'Die Sinfonie der Grosstadt' as one example.
Not retelling the story in toto, we can only mention that besides the 'music terrorists' we find a music hating police inspector with a brother being the chief conductor of the sympony orchestra in town.
The name of the police inspector is Amadeus Warnebring and where the name Amadeus stems from is of course obvious but for Swedes the name Warnebring also evokes a popular Swedish singer, Östen Warnebring, active during the 1960's til 80's.
As Aurore and I earlier have seen the short film 'Music for one apartment'and Six Drummers' (2001) - lasting 10 minutes - by the same directors and liked it very much, we now wondered if Ola Simonsson and Johannes Stjärne Nilsson, would succeed in making a film centered around the same group and a similar theme but lasting 102 minutes.
As a matter of fact we thought they succeeded in their efforts, not least since there were many side stories making this film very entertaining and thought-provoking, not least in a time when - once again - one discuss what should be regarded as art and music and how, where and when art and music should be displayed or performed (a recurrent discussion).
As Aurore worked as production assistant on this film (as well as on 'Les grandes personnes') she could compare the screenplay she had seen and the final result and there were some differences, not least in the ending of the film but this information we keep to ourselves.
We could also enjoy seeing our(!) names in the titles after the film.
Aurore had actually worked on the film but what had I done?
Well, according to one of the producers - Olivier Guerpillon - I had talked to and entertained a couple of other producers and bought a cake we ate together and this was of course very important!
(Photo Cinéma l'Apollo copied from: http://www.ville-chateauroux.fr/uploads/pics/apollo_04.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)