Få meg på, for faen/Turn me On, Dammit

The first thing coming into your mind is 'Fucking Åmål' revisited or 'Fucking Åmål 2' when looking at the content of this film.

Well, it's not this time about a sexual relationship between two young women or girls but the story about a sexually frustrated young woman - Alma (Helene Bergsholm) - being a sex telephone addict, masturbating on the kitchen floor while a man in the other end of the phone tries to make her sexually aroused.

At one occasion (in the beginning of the film) her mother enters the kitchen just after Alma has tried to reach an orgasm, seeing that there is something bothering her daughter. Of course she doesn't understand a thing, she's blonde.

We are in Norway, this very otherwise(?) country where people are emotionally frustrated because they are not able to show their feelings in a proper way, relevant to different situations (Anders Behring Breivik is a good and representative example), just like the Swedes, Finns and Danes.

Skoddeheim is a small village or town where Alma lives with her mother, friends and hormones.

Her mother is as frustrated as Alma, seemingly not enjoying her parenthood and how many parents do?

Alma is in love with Artur (Matias Myren) and dreams about him everyday.

At a party they step outside and Artur, being sexually aroused takes out his penis and lets Alma touch it. Alma is not the most diplomatic person in the world, so of course she tells her friends inside what Artur did, leading to that both of them are being ostracized, Alma more than Artur.

The latter following a pattern, implying that women are less credible than men or that if a thing like this happens, it's the woman who is the instigator to the whole thing. This in turn following the stigmatizing of women ever since Eva gave an apple (not the computer) to Adam and before that!

Her female friends also find her a bit 'strange' and at the same time they are as frustrated as her, not least by living in this - what they perceive as - 'jerkwater town'. This is, among other things, illustrated with them always 'greeting' the road sign displaying Skoddeheim, with a finger!

They all have great plans implying moving from this village to another, bigger town or abroad but most of their plans are fantasies as they have no money, no education, no nothing to start over somewhere else.

The story continues with their search for love, company, sex, alcohol (of course!), as they would never be able to approach the other sex without that help!

There are some scenes, again remindigin us of, that the Scandinavian peoples are not like other people in the world, or at least that's the way they are depicted, being 'unusual', not often in a positive sense of the word.

We realize that in the end, they will stay one and be content with the life they have. To much change, being forced to live the 'secure' subsistence, would become to perturbing for these youngsters.

Much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare said.

Director: Jannicke Systad Jacobsen

Wolfman

This film is a remake of not least 'The Wolf Man' from 1941, starring Lon Chaney Jr, Claude Rains and Bela Lugosi, among others.

The story is so well known that one don't have to repeate it much. 'The Prodigal Son' - Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) - returns to his home and his father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) after having been away for years. The relation between father and son is tense and the reasons for this are hinted in many ways.

After returning, he is bitten by a were-wolf and consequently becomes one.

The killings begins but on the same time we become aware of the fact that Lawrence can't be the only were-wolf around so therefore the question is: Who is the other one and in the end there's a 'showdown' between the both, the second one now being revealed as...

Even though there are many fine actors in this film and the technical side is much more developed than in the older version, we prefered the 1941, George Waggner-film before this Joe Johnston-version.

I don't think it has to to with nostalgia but more that a newer version is able to add different camera angles, not technically possible in 1941 including all the digital work and so forth but the charm and suspense-factor is at least as high in the older version as in this one.

Wallace & Gromit - The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Wallace (Peter Sallis) and Gromit is this time implicated in a matter of "loaf and death"!?

They have started a bakery but suddenly they realise that other bakers are being killed but by who or what (as indicated by the additional title; 'Were-Rabbit, the well known creatures?)? They have to solve this mystery before Wallace himself becomes the next victim.

Wallace falls in love with Piella Bakewell(!) (Sally Lindsay) and this leaves Gromit to solve the case on his own. In this case it shows itself being the best solution for both of them - and the surrounding society.

We looked at this film in French and as often, the jokes sounds better in my (Gunnar's) ears when listening to them in English. I don't know if this is due to the differences concerning the culture of humour in France vs the English speaking world or if it's a question of translation.

Generally I have some problems with French humour but this might be connected to the strong influence from the Anglo-Saxan world in Sweden where I've lived most of my life. The exceptions are comedians like Jacques Tati, Louis de Funès, Pierre Etaix and the like.

It's a charming little piece of work and Gromit is - as always - the brightest of the two but somehow Wallace succeeds in getting things right anyway.

In this case the solution to the mystery is to be found in Wallace himself and this becomes rather obvious after a while!

Director: Nick Park.

Munich

"Based on a true story" as one often say. This is the story about what happened after a group of Israeli athletes where taken hostage in Munich (München) by a group called 'Black September', during the Olympic Games in 1972. The athletes were later killed (11 of them, including coaches and a West German police officer) and five of the eight members of 'Black September' were also killed. The others were captured but later released by the German authorities.

After this Israel started what they called 'Operation Spring of Youth' and 'Operation Wrath of God'. In these operations, Palestinians suspected of having participated in the planning or implementation of the killing, systematically were trapped down and killed.

It's this story the film tries to tell.

As often with Spielberg, it's in a way a 'grandiose' film as a piece of cineastic work and the music accompanying the events is likewise.

It seems as if Spielberg tries to depict the Israeli men in charge of this mission as being rather noble, not least the young leader Avner (Eric Bana), in contrast to the Palestinian 'savages'.

This is of course understandable from his point of view but in fact both groups are killers/murderers even if one always can discuss whether or not some of the killings are more 'justified' than others.

When the young Mossad-agent Avner Kaufman is assigned this mission, he is known to have been the bodyguard of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. His family is respected and therefore the government wants him to lead this group.

On the same time he has a wife and a child, with another child soon to be born and as usual I ask myself why: 1. One chooses to have children when one works in a field where being killed is very likely; 2. Why a woman (in this case) marries a man who works in this field and wants to have children with him. Totally irresponsible, seen from the childrens perspective but as children to most people only are toys, status and a wish to become immortal; who cares about the children.

Of course he "can't say no" when he is asked to perform this mission, in spite of his wife and children. Another imbecile aspect: The State and its well being is always more important than family and children, not least for soldiers. Stupidity.

On the whole this might be a film depicting the events in a rather 'realistic' way, even though the decisions taken by the government, the way it's described in the film, has been criticized.

One thing - reminding us somewhat of 'Mission Impossible' - is that Avner formally has to resign from Mossad, so that the government can deny all knowledge about the actions and this part is most likely true. No dirty hands visible in the governmental buildings, although it's there one find the greatest scoundrels and murderers.

I didn't find the casting to good though but I don't know why. The different actors didn't match to well I thought. Maybe this was done in a deliberate way to create a more 'natural' situation where totally different persons have to cooperate for a certain goal.

It's a habile film but not at all impressing, although it was nominated for different film prize. 

As we've written before: The professionality is always there but a film needs more than a professional execution to become really interesting. No news but this is often what makes non-American films more interesting than the American ones. At least for us cinephiles.

L'anniversaire d'Aurore

the fire snake enters the year of the water dragon

Gunnar wrote most of the posts here these latest months because I was too busy with my own staff.
So let me explain why.

Tomorrow starts the Year of the Dragon with my first client for 2012.

What? Do I need clients now?

Well, that's no surprise I have been wanting to freelance for many years without doing it - no money syndrom. Since I

♥ films

am technique friendly

and speak 3 languages- did I mention that I kick ass on Wordfeud in Norwegian?

I entered a business incubator last october.


It means that I presented a solid business plan, attended some exciting bookkeeping course and trained my skills as a salesperson - definitely the toughest point.

What do I do?

I write to engage people, meaning that I combine copywriting, community management and web redaction.


My first two contacts are companies involved with... cinema - which is basically perfect.


I am still waiting for the answer of the second one, a BIG client - the kind of company which is older than my four grand parents - and if it worked out, this means I would promote the company that released the first movie I ever saw on a silver screen [a clue: it's not Disney and the year was 1982]

I know that I am among the last four candidates that were picked up and am really eager to know how my professional life will look like next month. In the worst case scenario, I will have enriched my mainstream film culture these latest weeks (which is a great point for any cinephile).

Now, let's go back to a normal life!


Happy New Year!

Låt den rätte komma in/Let the Right One In

The director Tomas Alfredsson is perhaps right now more known for his film 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy', a very well directed film, not using the 'usual' 007-like means to create suspense but more told in a quiet and calm tempo. The acting (not only from Gary Oldman) was also superb and gave to this depiction of 'espionage', an air of credibility.

The film we are going to write a little about hear ('Låt den rätte komma in') is however a film having won even more prizes than the above spy film, and having been submitted a remake by Matt Reeves, called 'Let Me In'.
It's an adaptation of the book 'Låt den rätte komma in' written by John Ajvide Lindqvist, before becoming a writer, having worked as a magician and stand up comedian.
This was his debut book.
Aurore and I met him at the Swedish Institute in Paris in 2009, when being invited to talk about his book and the next he was underway writing. Aurore got her french version dedicated by him.

In the book and film we meet Oskar (in much the alter ego of Lindqvist) and his mother living in a suburb called Blackeberg (being a real suburb and also the suburb displayed in the film, the subway station etc.)
I (Gunnar) lived not far from this suburb some 8-10 years ago, often visiting the Post Office.
Oskar is bullied at school, both physically and mentally by his school mates Johnny, Micke and Thomas and he dreams of revenge but is to afraid of doing anything.
All of a sudden new neighbours move in, a man called Håkan and a young girl (or is she?) called Eli.

After a while Oskar and Eli become friends although he finds her somewhat strange.
According to him, she sometimes smells bad and in their apartment the curtains are drawn all day, combined with her 'father' (or whoever he is?) having put cardboard all over the windows.
We also get to see Håkan when he meets a man in the forest, anaesthetizing him and hanging him upside down in a tree, emptying him on blood. He can't finish his work as people arrive and when returning home to Eli, she reprehend him in a very harsch way and in a particularly dark voice.

In school the bullying continues but Eli encourage Oskar to "fight back". Oskar tells her that he is 'outnumbered', the others being three against one but Eli answers: "In that case you have to fight back even harder!"
Oskar starts to train his muscles and later on he actually fights back when being threatened by the others.

After having seen Håkan perform the same action again, emptying a person on blood, having seen Eli attacking a man, killing him and drinking his blood, we now know that Eli is a vampire.
She also bites a woman who in turn becomes a vampire, frightened of light and and in the end burning up in a hospital bed after having 'seen the light'.
In the end, Eli has to leave this town for another as her situation has become to complex, not least since she looses Håkan as her 'blood collector' and guardian.
When Oskar things she is gone and being subdued in a swimming-pool by a elderly brother to his tormentors, she returns, kills two of them and the elderly brother, saving Oskar.
They both leave the town on a train.

This film is of course, superficially a vampire movie but on a deeper level, it's a more or less autobiographical story about Lindqvist when he was small, growing up in this very suburb and being bullied around by his schoolmates. Maybe did he have a fantasy figure, being the one who - at least in his thoughts - retaliated those bullying him, because he didn't dare to himself.
It's very common, as we know, that not least children, create a fantasy world in order to compensate for the harsch reality they might live in.
On the same time, this is a film, in part dealing with the alienation in society. Eli could symbolize the immigrant, not being accepted by the overall, rather ethnically homogenous society. In this case, taking into account her physical appearance, it's very easy to think of the Romanis or gypsies as one said before and sometimes says today.
As Sweden has been a rather homogenous society during decades, this has lead to great problems for those people coming from different countries, trying to 'acclimatise' themselves and become integrated.

In the book the actions are much more violent than in the film. This said as there are those thinking that it's a violent film.
We also get to understand (most of us) that this young girl is not a girl but in fact a castrated man! Well, it's of course easier to understand if one have read the book. In one of the scenes in this film we see that she has a scare at her sex, indicating the above.
Parenthetically one can add that in the American version, the audience are not 'allowed' to see the sex of the young woman/girl/man. Surprise! Hypocrites!

Finally - after having seen this one and the American remake - I can't say that we were impressed. In spite of all the different awards all over the world, we found it badly directed, the acting somewhat stiff and amateurish and it lacked real suspense. This although the story is rather violent, thrilling supplemented with some good special effects.
Aurore found the book better than the film. Personally I have to admit that I haven't read the book.

A bit surprising was to see that this film, on a list rating the 100 most suspensful horror movies, came in place 28!

(Poster copied from: http://s.cdon.com/media-dynamic/images/product/00/00/95/62/36/3/6722a38f-f14b-4a72-acd8-a95666278af6.jpg)
(Photo 'Oskar' copied from: http://www.sfi.se/PageFiles/8169/LATDENRATTE_445.jpg)
(Photo 'burning woman in a hospital bed' copied from: http://res.moviezine.se.s3-external-3.amazonaws.com/de613/de6134b70bab478138d7723f26f7a49b/video_l.jpg)

To Be Or Not To Be

This film is not a story about Hamlet although the story about Hamlet appear in the film or rather his famous soliloquy and other phrases from Shakespeare's plays.

Instead the film starts with a panorama over Warsaw before WWII and the invasion of Poland, with a speaker voice informing us about some of the things we see.
All of a sudden people stop, looking either terrified or extremely surprised. What is it?
It's Adolf Hitler, wandering the streets in Warsaw all by himself, without any other military or escort. How is this possible?

It's possible through the fact that a theatre group is rehearsing a satire about 'Der Führer' and the actor doing him - Bronski (Tom Dugan) - is questioned concerning his resemblance, whereby he leaves the theatre, walking the streets of Warsaw, "like an ordinary Führer". Unfortunately for him, a young girl approaches him, asking for the autograph of "Mr Bronski".
We get to meet more members of this touring theatre company and not least the always fighting couple Joseph Tura (Jack Benny) and his wife Maria (Carole Lombard, who died in a plane crash two months before the première of the film).

They perform 'Hamlet' and Bronski and his colleague Greenberg (Felix Bressart) are both tired of only doing small roles, they want to be in the spotlight - where Tura is. Greenberg says he always wanted to do Shylock ('The Merchant of Venice') and his monologue "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases...". He will be given the chance to do the role but not on stage.

Maria Tura has received a bouquet of flowers from a handsome young pilot - Sobinski (Robert Stack) - and he comes to her dressing room, leaving the stalls during Josef Tura's Hamlet-monologue. Before anything happens Sobinski has to leave for an assignment as they are reached by the message that Hitler-Germany has occupied Poland. In a PUB he meets a professor by the name of Siletsky (Stanley Ridges), who he suspects being a Nazi allied although he pretends being the professor of the young men now being engaged in the war.
Sobinski gets a message through to Maria who will pass it on but Siletsky invites her to dine with him, hoping to win her over on 'his side' in order to use her as a spy for the Nazis.
Maria Tura returns home to think it over and on the same time she contacts the theatre group in order to find a way to get hold of the list over the names of the Polish pilots, Siletsky is going to deliver to a certain Col. Erhardt (Sig Ruman).
They decide to lure Siletsky by disguising themselves as nazi's, knocking on his door inviting him to a Gestapo headquarter. This headquarter is the theatre, remade and there Joseph Tura awaits him pretending to be Erhardt (as Siletsky doesn't know what he looks like). Tura gives himself away but when Siletsky tries to flee he is shot by Sobinski.
From now on the actors are forced to do different roles in order to save the pilots and their families and help the resistance movement. They need to be both Hitler and many others and Greenberg gets to recite Shylock's monologue. Tura takes on the role as professor Siletsky.
Of course everything ends well.

This is a typical screwball comedy with a lof of quick cue's from the different characters and a rather rapidly told story, although not so rapid that we can't follow the different movements in the film.
We've both seen this film before and even if films making fun of Hitler and 'The Third Reich' are legio, it has quite a lof of charm, not least thanks to the fact that it's made in a way where we, as viewers, continuously ask ourselves if they will be in time for this or that, be able to fool the nazi's with their acting etc etc.
Most actors are very good and they are among those being known for their performances in this kind of comedies. This goes of course not least for Carole Lombard.
She was actually, a time during the 1930's, the best payed actress in Hollywood, earning 500 000$ per year, five times more than the President of the USA at the time.
As noted above she died not long after the making of this film in a plane crash, after having participated in a war bond rally.

(Photo Carole Lombard/Maria Tura and Jack Benny/Joseph Tura copied from: http://images.telerama.fr/medias/2010/08/media_59085/cette-semaine-lubitsch-a-paris-peplum-a-arles-et-les-caraibes-a-douarnenez,M41285.jpg)

(Photo Tom Dugan/Bronski/Hitler copied from: http://louvreuse.net/images/stories/simidor/tobeornottobe_01.jpg)
(Photo Felix Bressart/Greenberg copied from: http://images.telerama.fr/medias/2009/11/media_49258/revision-de-classique-to-be-or-not-to-be-d-ernst-lubitsch-2,M29350.jpg)

The Wolf Man (1941)

This film was made in 1941 and since then we've seen many 'wolf men'/'werewolfs' on screen and some of them are somewhat frightening but some rather laughable as it's hard to create a credible character of this kind. This film was written and produced by a man who was born in Germany but became a 'naturalized' American citizen (like so many other directors and actors before and during the Nazi era in Germany): Curt Siodmak.
This film is also written by Siodmak.

There are some very good and interesting actors participating in the film: Lon Chaney Jr (as 'the Wolf Man', Larry Talbot), Claude Rains (as his father, John Talbot), Bela Lugosi and Ralph Bellamy.
This film - being the second screen version of this story, the first one 'Werewolf of London', not being commercially succesful - has been very influential on how later versions or adaptations of this theme was made.

It starts with Larry Talbot (Chaney Jr) returning to his ancestral home in Llanwelly in Wales where he will try to reconcile himself with his father, John Talbot (Rains). This after the death of Larry's brother, the favourite of his father. The question is perhaps: How did he die?
Larry falls in love with a young woman called Gwen Conliffe (Evely Ankers), who runs an anitque shop. Just to come close to her, he goes there and buys a silver-headed walking stick decorated with a wolf. Gwen tells him it represents a werewolf.
When the subject of werewolfs surface, villagers often recite a poem sounding like this:

"Even a man who is pure in heart
and says his prayers by night
may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
and the autumn moon is bright."

One night Larry rescues Gwen's friend Jenny from an attack by a wolf, or what they think is a wolf. He kills it with his walking stick but is on the same time bitten by the animal.
A gypsy (romani) fortune teller explains to Larry that this was not a wolf but a werewolf and also her son, Bela (Bela Lugosi) who once was transformed into this creature when being bitten himself.
Now Larry's purgatory begins, finally leading to his death by his own walking stick, held by his father. But is his father actually only a human father?

I think George Waggner succeed in not creating a too ridiculous figure and the story is built up in a rather meticulous way, not revealing everything at once.
The 'beast' being a combination between man and wolf, has to be portrayed not to overtly at once to retain the suspension but once we've seen him, he doesn't scare us.
One of the more interesting scenes is when Larry is being locked up in a cellar by his father. That night the werewolf commits an assault anyway but the question is: Who escaped from the cellar, Larry or...?
In later versions the werewolf is perhaps depicted in a more frightening way (not in all of them) thanks to better techniqual resources but I think this film is very charming and the characters around the werewolf is not just props, like in many other versions.

Comme les 5 doigts de la main

If you're an anti-semite, this is not a film for you as it's only Jews in the leading roles. If not, take a look. On the other hand one must ask oneself whether or not this film depicts a Jewish family in a positive way or not. I don't think so. It's more an Italian family structure where 'La Mama' is in the center and where the solidarity among the family members is stronger than honesty and impartiality.

In a Jewish community in France we meet the Hayoun family, consisting of five brothers: Dan (Patrick Bruel), Johathan (Pascal Elbé), Michael (Mathieu Delarive), Julien (Eric Caravaca) and David (Vincent Elbaz), gathering around their mother Suzy (Françoise Fabian), recently having become a widow.
At first the younger brother David is not present and this because he is in great danger and having problems with a group of criminal Romanis from Marseille. He has been cut of from the family since he began his life as a 'thug' but now he is in need of their support.
Of course he turns up at this very critical moment after his father's death.
Tensions surface and at first, the brothers reject him but after a while, the 'brotherhood' becomes stronger than the divergences between them. Unfortunately blood is too often thicker than water.
They all gather to help saving the 'honour' of their brother - if he has any.

This is a film combining some parts of, not least, 'Rocco e i suoi fratelli' ('Rocco and his Brothers'), in combination with the gangster themes of 'The Godfather' and 'Once upon a Time in America' and other similar films, digging into the psychology of 'The Family', without using psychoanalysis.
It's a habile film, but the plot within the story is very thin and the goal is the Finale Grande with a shoot out, something we know already from the beginning.
It also makes clear the danger of too strong family bonds, as it tends to darken veracity and estrange people from seeking the truth about events where family members are involved.
Personally we both agree on the fact that blood is not and should not be thicker than water.

The Adjustment Bureau

At first we didnt't think much of this film after having seen the trailers but I must say that it surprised us positively. It's not a masterpiece but in its genre it's worthwhile spending the 106 minutes watching this œuvre, in our opinion.

In the role as Congressman David Norris we see Matt Damon who is running a promising but not so successful campaign for the United States Senates.
He randomly (or is it actually randomly?) encounters a woman by the name of Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt), starts to talk to her, finally kissing her and thereby becoming extremely inspired and 'strong' (like Popeye and his spinach!?) in his conviction, delivering a speech making him a favourite for the 2010 Senate elections.
Now follows a row of events that finally leads to David finding his campaign manager, Charlie Traynor (Michael Kelly) 'frozen in time' and examined by men in similar suits, unfamiliar to David.
He tries to flee but they catch him, taking him to a warehouse where he meets a man called Richardson (John Slattery).
The latter explains that they are working for something called 'The Adjustment Bureau', an 'institution' ensuring that people's lives proceed according to what he calls "the plan".
This plan is being explained in a complex document, always in motion as it predicts what will happen to each and every member in the society.
In this case, David's encounter with Elise has actually 'disturbed' "the plan" and therefore Richardson urge David to forget her and go on living as he had never met her. Richardson also burns the paper where David noted her phone number. If David does not follow this advice, he might be "reset", meaning a sort of lobotomy.
Life goes on but after three years David finally meets Elise again and now a chase begin, where David tries to revolt against the will of 'The Bureau' to "control his choices".
On the same time 'The Bureau' finds out that Elise and David actually was ment to be in another, earlier version of 'The Plan'. This might indicate that this overall plan is not perfect after all.
Norris also gets to meet a 'higher' representative of 'The Bureau', called Thompson (Terence Stamp, this time not Priscilla!).
Norris argues that he thinks he has the right to choose his path in life but Thompson argues that they have let humans make their own choices but this has always lead to disaster. He uses some historic examples, displaying his reasoning.
He also tells Norris that if he wants to pursue his relationship with Elise, he either have to give up his campaign or destroy her career as a dancer.
Later on in the film Norris and Elise are being helped by a member of 'The Bureau' who shows them how to get around easily by using doors that connects to other places in the town or elsewhere. This in order to help the two lovers stay together and also investigate if 'The Plan' is waterproof or not.

We will not tell how it ends but I think it's a very well realized film, taking us into the realm of philosophical questions about our free will, about God or any other cosmic power(s) that might rule the human life on Earth.
I found it much more interesting than 'Inception' even though the scores on IMDb says otherwise but who cares about IMDb when it comes to ratings?
Do we have a free will and if we have a free will, is this something predetermined anyway?
I strongly believe in the free will and oppose all kinds of predestinationist reasoning, in the respect that we always FEEL ourselves having different options in life. Even during extreme conditions there are choices even though they might be limited. If someone tells me to kill someone else, otherwise I will be killed myself, I still have the choice to either kill, being killed or try to flee or fight.
There are no single situation in life where we are forced to do either this or that. Some might say that mental illness reduces our ability to choose between this or that but still noone has succeeded in proving that people with psychiatric problems are unable to choose.
However, when making our decisions, are they free in the sense that it's actually me making this decision or are there anyone else, a mighty cosmic power actually implanting this decision in my mind?
The important thing is though that we feel that we have different options and whether or not these options are chosen freely in a metaphysical perspective, is something we will never know.
In this film the men from 'The Adjustment Bureau' might be seen as angels, fallen angels or representatives from a higher civilisation in the Universe, being in charge of our Earthly lives.
They could also bee seen as men representing the government, having developed a sophisticated way to control our lives.

A modern dystopian vision of the world, where important epistemological questions are raised within the framework of a thriller. Not bad at all.







(Photo poster copied from: http://www.realbollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Adjustment-Bureau.jpg)
(Photo men in grey suites from 'The Adjustment Bureau' copied from: http://www.theadjustmentbureau.com/splash/images/gallery/img4.jpg)

Rise: Blood Hunter

This is a thriller that started of well with a woman who wakes up at a morgue, being killed but yet not dead as she was killed by a vampire sect. Now she arises and she wants revenge.

Sadie Blake (Lucy Liu) is a reporter who had written an article about a secret Gothic party scene. The day after publication one of her sources - Tricia (Margo Harshman) - is invited to an isolated house where such a party is held. Tricia doesn't want to go so her friend Kaitlyn (Cameron Goodman) goes instead but when she doesn't come back, Tricia goes there herself just to find that her friend has been kidnapped and killed by a vampire sect. She is the next victim.
When Black tries to examine their deaths she is also kidnapped, raped and killed by the very same sect and it's after this we find her in the morgue.
She now starts to track down and kill one after another among the vampires until she gets to the leader who killed her.
To her help she finds Tricia's father, detective Clyde Rawlins (Michael Chiklis), who wants to revenge the death of his daughter too.
On the same time, Sadie is trying to fight her urge to drink blood.

As I wrote, this could have become a rather charming story, combining the famous female revenge theme seen in 'Kill Bill' and the film Tarantino was inspired by: 'Thriller - en grym film' by Bo Arne Vibenius (and many others of course) with the classic vampire traits.
Nothing of this does occur, that is to say that this film does not develop into a thrilling and exciting, mysterious story about restitution through bloody revenge.
The acting is poor and so is the directing. The plot is thin and it's filled with clichés.
A stinger doesn't make us frightened or eager to see more either.

Director: Sebastian Gutierrez.

'Pimpernel' Smith

I (Gunnar) remember this film from my childhood and particularly a scene where Leslie Howard as 'Pimpernel' Smith is hiding in a field, disguised as a scarecrow. In my memory he is shot from a window of a train by a Nazi soldier but in the film the soldier is standing in the fields, shooting.

Well, I guess this slip of memory is not to important.
Another thing is however that I often mix this film up with 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' also starring Leslie Howard, where he also is doing a role portraying a person living a double life. In that case a noble who 'under cover' tries to free the French aristocracy from the reign of Robespierre.

Howard plays a Cambridge archaeologist by the name of Horatio (like the Roman poet, and admiral Nelson) Smith (unusual surname), working during the pre WWII-period.
Under the pretext of conducting an excavation in the search of the Aryan origins in German civilisation, his secret agenda consists of freeing inmates in concentration camps. He brings with him some of his students to this pre-Nazi Germany, already displaying what is to come in the future.
During one of his missions - succeeding in releasing a pianist from a work gang - the above mentioned shooting takes place. When his students see that he is wounded and read in the newspapers that a soldier has shot a resister, working under cover, they come to understand Horatio's hidden agenda but join him gladely in his mission.
The German General von Graum (Francis L. Sullivan) is using Ludmilla Koslowski (Mary Morris) to reveal who this 'Pimpernel' is.
When Smith becomes aware of this, he arranges for her and her father - being held prisoner and hostage in order for Ludmilla to cooperate - to be released. This with the help of the students.
Later on she is captured again and Smith returns to give himself up in return for her release.
In the end he distracts the General, disappears in the fog but promises to return.

This is a classic spy- or war film with a lot of humour and on the same time making fun of the Germans - of course. Even though the General is depicted as being somewhat more intelligent than the rest of his collaborators, the British and Americans are of course more intelligent and smarter.
This was one in a row of films used as a form of propaganda against the Nazi regime and also as a mean to raise the moral and will to resist the Nazi threat.
As such it might have worked well as one get the impression that the Germans are people trained to obey orders but not able to think and act on their own, individually. This could of course be a strength during certain circumstances, not least when wanting to rule a people, but also a weakness as it creates people estranged to personal initiative.
In all it's a harmless film with a glimpse in its eyes.

Night Creatures (Captain Clegg)

'Night Creatures' sounds like a B-movie about some unrealistic monsters, who make you laugh more than scare you. Well, it's not a B-movie perhaps even though it's not a masterpiece either.

It's a costume drama or melodrama perhaps, set in the 18th century during a time when smuggling was a good business.
In order to investigate a case of suspected smuggling, a certain Captain Collier (Patrick Allen) is sent to an English coastal town to find evidence of any contraband activity.
When arriving there, the people start to talk about mysterious swamp phantoms - "Marsh Phantoms" - who ride at night, creating fear and terrorizing the town and its inhabitants.
Collier soon becomes suspicious against the local reverend, Dr. Blyss (Peter Cushing).
Is he perhaps involved in this smuggling and in that case in what way.
Soon another question arises: Is reverend Blyss really reverend Blyss or who is he?
Are the 'phantoms' real or are they a way of diverting the attention from what is really going on 'under cover'?

This is a rather ordinary story but it's a combination between the classic 'pirate films' and a British - almost - 'Pimpernel Smith'-story although these people are perhaps fighting for causes not as noble as the one Smith fought for. Adventure, no 'good' or 'bad' people and mysterious individuals combined with some ghosts. Not at all bad for 80 minutes of entertainment.

Director: Peter Graham Scott.

Modern Times

This is the wonderful story about 'the Tramp' (Charlie Chaplin) who is empoyed as a factory worker on an assembly line.

The work is totally 'mind killing' and he becomes more and more possessed with the movements he execute (screwing mutters on pieces of machinery at an increasing speed) and when having his pauses, his body continues to do the same movements as on the assembly line. The monotony and stress creates a 'robotized' Charlie.
Not only is his work monotonous but he is also subjected to an experiment with a machine that force-feed him while working. The machine gives him food and dries his mouth of, first in a slow pace but problems occur, making the machine run amok and when this happens, Charlie also runs amok. He destroys different processes in the factory while going berserk and when he is finished, he is sent to a hospital for mental care.
Released from the hospital, he doesn't have a job to return to and the problems continues when he is being mistakenly arrested as an instigator in a Communist demonstration.
In jail he - again accidentally! - ingests cocain, believing it's salt, leading him to run amok again but this time he stops a jailbreak during his delirium, becomes a hero and is released.
Outside jail he meets a young girl (Paulette Godard) who is arrested for stealing bread. Charlie takes on the responsibility, saying that it was he who stole the bread, ending up in jail for the second time.
Released - once again! - the young girl is waiting for him and they try to make a living together.
They are not so succesful, not least Charlie who loses every job the girl finds him but they stick together and at the end we see them both wandering away in the distance, facing unkown adventures, troubles or happiness.

This is of course a very comical - sometimes hilariously funny - film but as with most films by Chaplin (or comedians in general), it has a serious purpose, displaying the disadvantages with the industrial revolution and the technical advancement. Most people within politics and science unexceptionally calls every new development 'progress' but as we know progress is not always something good, at least not intrinsically good.
In this case we can see that even if the industrial production is improved, meaning that products can be produced at a faster pace, people working within these industrial structures are being forgotten. They are treated as machines and the only thing being important is to become more productive and efficient.
Chaplin is inspired by 'Metropolis' (Fritz Lang), concerning the dystopian issue, this most notably in the beginning and indeed aesthetically. Lang's film was also a criticism towards the emerging industrial society and its 'mechanization', not only of the socieety but of the human life.


METROPOLIS, Fritz Lang (1926) - Ouverture. par cinemacinemas
Were they wrong when predicting this? No, I hardly think so. We have experienced an industrial and post-industrial development forcing people to become a part of this process and the ever increasing pace at which everything is done. This has lead to both physical and psychological problems and discontent, not being compensated by the growing wealth among individuals.
Today we see the same development in the factories in e.g. Asia, where many of the products being sold in the Occident, United States and the rest of the world, are produced during awful circumstances. In Europe and other so called 'developed' countries (economically developed, not intellectually), these problems have been addressed but still the working conditions are far from optimal. In France these has been evident when one after another among the employees at France Telecom, suicided last year and the previous years. This is not unique for that company.
In this film we see how two of the 'victims' of the, then, modern society, tries to create something of their own but how they fail to fit into the growing industrialized city and its different societal structures.
Overall Chaplin's film is reflecting a true image of how many people where treated and how they found it hard to adjuste to the changing lives in a 'developing' world.
Mentally this couple is sounder but physically they suffer. The suffering is also psychological of course, as the setbacks creates dispair.

Another cineast being inspired by this theme is of course Jacques Tati in his 'Play Time' and 'Trafic'. In those films - not least 'Play Time' - it's more the 'perfect' clean society being described, the perfectionism also being superficial, hiding dysfunctional persons and a dysfunctional society.
For a modern look at the 'perfect', superficial and emotionally 'turned off' society we can recommend the Norwegian film 'Den brysomme mannen' ('Norway of Life'/'The Bothersome Man') by Jens Lien.

The Phantom of the Opera (1943)

How many versions of this story exist within film and musical? I don't know. One of the things I know is that this version is not the first for the movies. An earlier, silent version, was made in 1916 ('Das Phantom der Oper', directed by Ernst Matray) and in 1925 Rupert Julian made another silent version ('Le fantôme de l'Opéra') with Lon Chaney in the principal role. This one, directed by Arthur Lubin, is the first sound version.

Erique (Erik) Claudin (Claude Rains) has been working as a violinist at the Paris Opera House for twenty years and when he is having problems with the fingers on his left hand, not being able to play as well as before, he is dismissed by the conductor.
The latter assumes he has enough money to support himself but this is not so, as Erique has spent his money on funding music lessons for a young soprano at the Opera, Christine Dubois (Susanna Foster). This he has done anonymously.
In order to survive and being able to pay for her lessons even when he is not working at the Opera, Erique tries to get a concerto he's written published. When he doesn't get any answers, he visits Pleyel & Desjardins to ask if they have listened to it but noone knows what has happened to his work. Pleyel himself is nonchalant and asks him to leave, continuing with the etchings he is working on. All of a sudden Erique hear his music being played (in fact by Liszt) and thinks that Pleyel has stolen it, runs in to his office and tries to strangle him. Pleyel's assistent throws etching acid at Claudin who screeming and wailing runs out of the building, hiding in the sewers of the Opera House.
From now on the nightmare for the Opera starts with accidents among artists - those who Erique doesn't approve of as they are standing in the way of his protegé Christine - keys disappearing, other mysterious things happens.
He finds a mask, behind which he can hide his disfigured face. He becomes more and more obsessed with Christine, thinking he will win her love.
Two other persons are also trying to win her love, the Inspector Raoul D'Aubert (Edgar Barrier) and the opera baritone Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy, for once without Jeanette MacDonald).
One of the Opera's divas, Mme Biancarolli (Jane Farrar) is being drugged after drinking a glass of whine and this is of course the work of Claudin, leading to that Christine can take her place.
It's getting more and more complicated when Erique kills Biancarolli and her maid, later on also one of Inspector D'Aubert's men.
In the end, Erique lures Christine down in his cave under the Opera House but both Garron and D'Aubert follows them towards Le Grand Final.

Personally we didn't find this version as suspensful as others we've seen although the beginning is very intriguing when Erique is dismissed without any pardon, making us understand and feel the anger and frustration he must have felt. Having worked so long in the orchestra and also being a fine and dedicated musician, he should of course be allowed a much more appropriate sortie but no.
We are also (I think) able to sympathize with him when Pleyel totally ignore him when wanting to know what has happened to his piece of music. It almost makes us understand why Claudin strangles him. I know I would have felt the same, even though I might not have gone through with the killing - but who knows.
Later on we felt that Erique is a bit to - let's say - visible, making the 'mystery' around him disappear.
In other versions one don't see as much of the 'Phantom' before the end, making him into a real 'Fantômas'. That feeling vanishes to some extent in this version.
The acting between the two other 'lovers', Garron and D'Aubert, is supposed to be funny, sometimes wanting to talk alone with Christine but arriving at the same time, talking at the same time, leaving the room at the same time being stuck in the door opening etc etc. This is not funny at all but rather clumsy.
It's however not a bad film but the direction could have been better.

The Fly

As I/we wrote about two other films we saw, being the 'originals', later remade - 'The Last Man On Earth' and 'Scarface' - this film is perhaps among 'younger' generations more known from the 1986 remake, directed by David Cronenberg (a favourite among directors in the 'horror' or 'bizarre'-genre) with Jeff Goldblum in the leading role.

As with 'The Last Man On Earth' we get to meet Vincent Price in this film too.

André Delambre (David Hedison) is a scientist who is found dead with his arm and head crushed in a hydraulic press. His wife, Helene (Patricia Owens), confess being the perpetrator of the crime but she refuses to say why she has committed it.
However, after a while, the police and others find that she is obsessed with flies and particularly with a white-headed one. André has a brother - François (Vincent Price) - who lies to her, saying that he has caught the fly with the white head. This as Helene seemed afraid that they were going to kill it, as her domiciliary care intended to do.
Well, most of you know the rest of the story: André has been working on a matter transporter, called a disintegrator-integrator with which he can 'move' objects from one to the other in space and time. Most of his experiments have gone well, even though he tried with their cat, who didn't reappear. One day he tries the same with himself but unfortunately a small fly happens to share the 'capsule' with him and this leads to that he 'inherits' some of the genetic codes of the fly, little by little transforming him into the insect. First it's not obvious as he hides himself but one day his wife sees him without the cloth he has been hiding his head with.
On the same time he wants her to catch the fly with the white head, being a part of himself, so that he can reverse the process.
Gradually André is loosing his mind but before this happens he destroys the equipment and it all leads to his death in the hydraulic press, the button pressed by Helene.
Helene is convicted of murder as they all think she is mad when she tells her story, all but François and André's and Helene's son Philippe (Charles Herbert).
Before they take Helene away, Philippe calls for François and the Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall) as he has seen a fly trapped in a web in the garden and when they approach they can hear the fly scream: "Help me! Help me!"
The inspector smashes them both, Helene is liberated through lack of evidence and they can all get back to normal - or can they?

Again we have the scientist prepared to take risks that can cause immeasurable dangers for themselves but - more important - for others and for the nature as such.
In this case one also see that the scientist is prepared to go ahead with his experiments without them being fully tested. Is this an exaggerated description, not corresponding to 'reality'?
No, I don't think so. Science is - as most things in society - intervowen with economy. If you are able to create something new and innovative, you will also be able to earn money on your invention and often a lot of money.
Surrounding the scientist there are financiers, prepared to invest great amounts of money, making them - and the scientist - blind for possible problems and negative impacts.
I think this film displays this very well as do many other films and books about science. This not least important as It seems as if most people still look upon science as being or representing the 'truth' about our life on Earth.
Naively enough a lot of people also seem to regard scientists as being more or less idealists, only striving to improve the human life without any other hidden agendas and this is of course not true.
Concerning the film as such, I think that the remake in 1986 - Cronenberg's version - is as good as this one and perhaps even more thrilling, as far as I (Gunnar) remember correctly. It's quite a while since I saw that version.
The director of this film, Kurt Neumann had though some experience of directing films of horror and suspense but Cronenberg is perhaps weirder in his conception of film making?

Scarface (1932)

This is the basis for the film with the same name, directed by Brian de Palma in 1983, with Al Pacino in the leading role.

In this film, 'Scarface' - Tony Camonte - is created by Paul Muni.
Camonte is an ally to a gangster boss by the name of Johnny Lovo (Osgood Perkins, the father of Anthony Perkins) and obviously it's Camonte who kills Big Louis Costillo (Harry J. Vejar), another mob leader, thereby helping Lovo taking control over the South Side in the city.
Acting as Lovo's 'lieutenant', Tony starts selling illegal alcohol but he gets more and more 'ambitious' and in spite of Lovo's warnings, he starts to attack the North Side, run by an Irish gang led by a certain O'Hara (original Irish name!)
Lovo realizes that Tony is constituting a threat to his power and tries to assassinate him but Tony survives and instead he kills Lovo, thereby taking control of the whole town, from a gangster point of view.
He have to face the North Side gangs however and they are led by Gaffney and in this role we see Boris Karloff. I don't know if I've seen him in this kind of roles before but he is good and you don't think of 'F'.
Tony has also persuaded Lovo's girlfriend Poppy (Karen Morley) to become his girlfriend, something she didn't want in the beginning but gradually when he becomes more and more influential, she changes her mind.
Tony's sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak), who he is being overprotective of, marries Tony's best friend Guino (George Raft), something Tony can't accept and the only solution in his black and white world is of course to kill Guino.
His sister first wants to kill Tony but later on she joins him when he is trapped in a building surrounded by the police, trying to shoot themselves out.

This is a very classic film noir, gangster story and in spite of some exaggerations in the acting, we found this film very charming, if one can say so about a film where people are being killed all the time and where dishonesty and cruelty rules.
When it comes to some parts in the story it's built on 'real events' being somewhat modified.
The shootout between Tony's gang and the North Side is taken directly from the so called 'Saint Valentine's Day Massacre'. This was the name given to the murder of 7 mafia members in 1929 during the prohibition era and a conflict between two powerful gangs in Chicago: the South Side Italian gang led by the incarnation of a mob leader, Al Capone (also nicknamed 'Scarface' and of course the inspiration of the Tony character) and the North Side (actually) Irish gang led by Bugs Moran.
I very much like the 1983 version of this film but I think that Paul Muni is at least as 'crazy' acting as Pacino, or even more, rending his character a very 'primitive' and savage exterior. Pacino is perhaps somewhat more 'refined' in his role interpretation but the differences are small.

The Last Man On Earth

For most younger people (whatever that is?), this film is more known from its - more or less - remake: 'I am Legend' with Will Smith in the leading role.
In this film we get to meet one of the most famous actors among those creating very special, mysterious, dangerous and sometimes evil characters: Vincent Price.

The film was made in 1964 but obviously one awaited the end of the world very soon, as the events take place in 1968. The 1960's was a turbulent decade all over the world and sometimes one get the impression it was The Most Turbulent post war decade, wherefore doomsday-feelings might have been very common - as it is today.

Price is Dr. Robert Morgan, seemingly the only survivor after a plague turning everyone into vampiric creatures, not standing mirrors (of course), sunlight (of course) or garlic (of course).
He spends his days killing as many of these 'creatures' as he can, then burning them and during night-time he locks himself inside his house, in order to protect himself against 'the others'.
If the creatures had been more intelligent they would easily have killed him but fortunately for Morgan, this plague also makes them unintelligent and very weak.
Earlier his wife and daughter had died because of the plague and this was before Morgan or any other person knew that they would 'come back' as living dead. When they did, he understood that he had to kill them with a wooden stick (of course).
From different reasons - explained in the film - Morgan has become immune against the plague.
One day he sees a woman - Ruth (Franca Bettoia) - who tries to run away from him.
When he finally catches her, she is very suspicious but Morgan soon finds out that she is infected too. She is however part of a group having found a vaccine that keep the plague under control and she was sent to spy on him
He infuses his own blood into hers and sees that she recovers. Now they see a hope, a hope being crushed when Ruth's people attack Morgan's house and they have to flee.
They flee into a church and although Ruth tries to convince her group that he is 'good', they kill him, impaling him on the altar with a spear.
When dying he declare them being "freaks", saying that he is the last "true" man on Earth.
Happy end?

As being a dystopia, there are no hopes for the Earth and the humans (as we know them) or at least it doesn't seem that way.
On the other hand one could say that the human race was extinguished on behalf of another 'race' and even if this group of 'new' inhabitants seem to be mentally and physically weaker, they might develop into something better than the humans. Could there exist something worse than the humans in the Universe? Perhaps.
It's however a nightmarish film, not least if one consider the fact that this Dr. Morgan is the last man trying to survive and trying to kill as many as possible among the 'sick', not seeming to have any future at all for himself. Normally most people might perhaps have killed themselves during the same circumstances but on the other hand, one often say - right or not - that hope is the last thing abandoning man. In this case: Hope for what?
Price is of course a very good choice for this role as his a person, in his looks, incarnating both 'evil' (whatever this is), strength, determination, inscrutability, mystery and charm.
We haven't seen the remake with Smith but the trailer looks good and I would like to compare the two.
This one I can however recommend, not least for the young not having experienced the acting of Price.