info-5111 Reviews

Foodfight! (2012)

No matter how bad you think it is...

[1/10 · 31 July 2012]

...it's even worse.

All evidence points to this animated film being contrived as a money-making scheme. "Hey, we can create a cheap CGI movie and make companies pay for the celeb voices in advance by inserting their brands in the film!"

The result is worse than crass, it's abominably bad. It's so bad that the film has been stuck in production limbo for a decade and it hasn't aged well. The CGI, the story and the one-liners (oh God, the one-liners...) all bear the mark of genuine and profound incompetence, a complete lack of even the most most rudimentary story-telling skills.

What passes for a narrative revolves around supermarket brands coming to life at night. Rex Dogtective (yeah, go ahead and try to laugh at that one), voiced by Charlie Sheen, mourns his lost love but must soon save his supermarket city from the evil, impersonal Brand X. With the help of ... ah, who cares?

Foodfight! will bore, offend and anger you at the same time, such is its unprecedented badness. Please don't watch it.

Oliver Sherman (2010)

Tense drama, but with few real surprises

[7/10 · 5 February 2011]

I just caught this film at the Göteborg International Film Festival, with the director in attendance. Afterwards he stressed the fact that he's leery of making a political film - in short, it is just a story, based on a short story.

One has to wonder about Garret Dillahunt. Is he an actor who has mastered off-kilter to perfection or is he slightly crazy himself? Between his two roles (!) in Deadwood, his short appearance in The Road and now this film, I've never seen him play a normal or even nice guy. Anyway, he's great at what he does and makes the title character a both pathetic and awkwardly menacing figure. A disabled veteran, he moves in with a former soldier who once saved his life and sets about making his only friend's life complicated. The setting is somewhere in the States or Canada. The wife (Molly Parker, another Deadwood actor) pretty swiftly decides that he ought to move on. The lingering, nervous question is: will they get rid of him in time, before something bad happens.

I'll not tell. The film holds some surprises, though some of them can be spotted from afar. The purpose of the film is not to shock you with plot twists or even lay the groundwork for a thriller climax. It's an opportunity to mull over difficult dilemmas in the company of people who seem real. And, political or not, it obviously puts the spotlight on how war can destroy people, who are then expected to adjust to society nonetheless. It's a good film, though a bit of a downer.

Täällä Pohjantähden alla (2009)

Thoroughly told Finnish history lesson

[7/10 · 4 February 2010]

It's a long film - too long some might say, including to some extent me - but I'll be brief.

Under the North Star, based on Väinö Linna's novels is the first of two films dealing with Finland's civil war, contemporary with but not really a part of World War One.

The story begins way before that, however, as farmer Koskela gets permission to turn a marsh on the congregation's property into farmland, and succeeds through uncomplaining hard work. The years pass and his children grow up in a world where class struggle is starting to become a buzzword. All the farmers in this beautiful land of birch forests, lakes and fields may at short notice be evicted by the owners of the land, but the village's local socialist Halme does his best to implement change in a peaceful manner. Others, including Koskela's oldest son Akseli, have no illusions about how to force change down the throats of the lucky few.

There's war and lots of cruelty to be found in this film, but also the patience to thoroughly present the place and the characters before that. The cinematography and music suit the story's slow, serious arc and it's apparent that a lot of effort and, for a Nordic production, money have been put in the film.

It's worth seeing, though not exactly uplifting, especially for those interested in history and politics.

Dolan's Cadillac (2009)

Good for what it lacks, as much as what it has

[6/10 · 17 July 2009]

The harmless school teacher Robinson (Bentley) seeks revenge on a cold and greedy crook (Slater) who had his wife killed. The plot is familiar, the details of the revenge rather ingenious.

This is actually a rather solid and effective chiller, based on Stephen King's memorable short story. Instead of adding countless new themes in an effort to show the audience that they are not "merely" making a horror flick, the filmmakers have added scenes that actually foreshadow and strengthen the ending.

This hardly classifies it as a classic, but I found surprisingly little to gripe about and actually one or two additions that I found impressive. Christian Slater seems to be enjoying his part without turning it into camp and Besley manages to convey some real human emotions without seeming to reach for the Oscars. In this sort of (short) movie, restraint is just as important as ideas, seeing as how countless thrillers just go overboard on a desperate quest for "impact".

The cinematography and sound engineering stand up to scrutiny and the minor parts are well executed. In short, this one works.

The Genius of Charles Darwin (2008– )

Clumsy rhetoric from smart scientist

[4/10 · 12 December 2008]

As someone incredibly smart and constantly pondering the apparent clash between faith and science, I should be the perfect viewer for this. Alas, it seems I am too smart...

First off, the score (4) is a verdict on the series, not on the merits of prof. Dawkins as a scientist - he is obviously at the top of his field. Would that he would stay in it. For this supposed celebration of Charles Darwin actually has more important goals:

1) To present not Darwin but Dawkins, the clever but not heartless - Heaven forfend! - thinker. The man on a Lifelong Quest for truth, who unflinchingly faces the implications that scientific truth casts before us. The series is filled with images of him walking, talking, facing the camera or gazing elsewhere. And, more often than not, scowling at the disturbing fact that not everyone is as rational as he. Frankly, ought the title of the series to have been changed?

2) To once and for all establish the indisputable fact that religion is always wrong and can at best be tolerated - if it doesn't interfere with science. Dawkins has never made his impatience with religious belief a secret and this is yet another bout in the boxing ring, intended to provide the definitive knockout.

It fails in both regards. While comfortably at home in the science lab or when summing up his evidence, Dawkins seems almost childlike when trying to describe the belief in Something More, rigidly unable to look past the scornful caricature he prefers. He also, for some reason, resorts to cheap tricks. This is annoyingly obvious in the "confrontations" where he either takes on lightweights who are easily dismissed (in the poorest Penn and Teller Bullsh*t tradition) or, when talking to someone actually able to speak for themselves, he (or the producer) feels impelled to fade out the answers and superimpose Dawkins's own comments in a self-congratulating voice-over. It's so clumsy that he looks as if he has something to hide. He probably doesn't, he just has no patience with those who disagree with him and seems less curious in other viewpoints than eager to shoot them down and swiftly move on.

The most important definition of a scientist is the thirst for knowledge, but when it comes to faith Dawkins is absolutely certain that he has nothing more of value to learn. He would hardly dispute this statement, but it makes this "quest" seem as labored as a morality play. His guests are there to prove his point, whether or not they agree with him.

He is, in short, just as confrontational as Michael Moore taking on a favorite cause, but with this difference: he has no sense of humor. When he dryly describes the enormous empathy he feels for others when they suffer, the effect is rather comical but surely unintended.

Let's face it: religion has survived Darwin's evolution for a very long time. If he actually means to dismantle it, he will have to come up with something better than this half-assed diatribe.

That said, the parts about Darwin himself are interesting. Perhaps there should have been more in that vein. What with the title and all...

Hell Ride (2008)

An awful film

[1/10 · 26 August 2008]

This is my first "awful" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.

"Hell Ride", directed, written by and starring Larry "Friend of QT" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns/metaphors to put one off the word "fire" for life.

Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.

My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead.

Vilse i pannkakan (1975)

Loved by some, dreaded by others

[3/10 · 19 September 2007]

Vilse i pannkakan may have been loved by some, and these days the show has something of a cult following. However, bring it up in conversation (apropos the 2007 DVD release, for example) and chances are you'll be met with frightened grimaces and squeaks of unease.

To many 70s kids, including this one, Westerberg's low-low-budget puppet show, was pervaded with a sense of unease and almost dread. The "Big potato" was a domineering and frightening figure with a monstrous wooden head who might appear at any time (sometimes in a painting behind the main protagonist). Feared by all, loved by none, Storpotäten is the stuff that childhood nightmares are made of.

The pancake world itself is rather depressing, with a raggedy figure desperately trying to fix a boat by a dried out pond, mouse kids watched by a skeleton and rats with names like Lucifer.

On top of that, the two-dimensional parents might pop up at any time, scorning the kid who was supposed to eat the magical - and increasingly dusty - pancake.

Finally, it was pretty boring. Westerberg had two modes: unease and dullness. Songs went on forever, "funny" phrases were repeated ad nauseam and you never really had the feeling that the show was going anywhere.

Do check it out for reasons of nostalgia and / or curiosity but think twice before exposing your own kids to the pancake world.

Death Proof (2007)

The art of over-presenting characters

[4/10 · 31 May 2007]

I haven't seen the Grind House version of this, but be warned that the longer version of "Death Proof" drags on and on before the actual entertainment starts. I may be mistaken, but aren't exploitation B movies supposed to be fun? This is too much like homework...

As in his Kill Bill films, Tarantino spends way too much time on dialog which is fairly dull compared to what he wrote in his golden years. The girls are all thoroughly presented, regardless of whether they are:

A) Interesting B) About to survive for more than five minutes

Kurt Russell seems to be enjoying himself as the maniacal stuntman and the ending car chase is pretty cool but this doesn't save Death Proof from being Tarantino's weakest film to date.

Eragon (2006)

You are lamer than you realize. Dumber than you think. What could have been escapism is not.

[2/10 · 15 December 2006]

There have already been written plenty of warnings already, but in an effort to balance those surprising blurbs that for some reason commend the film I think I'll add my two angry cents anyway.

This is the sort of film that, were to you to watch it in the company of a little kid, you would have to struggle not to point out all the (much better) sources from whence young Paolini has culled his subject matter. "That's from Star Wars and that one's from Tolkien", you'd want to say - hastening to add that in the older works there was a grand sense of adventure, of destiny, of storytelling. Not so here... The elements are simply crammed into a sketchy narrative as if they are are merely working their way down a checklist. Old wise master? Check! Princess rescue? Check? Grand battle? Well, sort of...

Sadly, neither the actors (with the exception of Jeremy Irons) nor the effects help make it interesting. This must be John Malkovich's lamest role to date. Young Speelers plays the young hero as though his only objective is not to overact. The dragon looks OK, no more.

Frankly, the fact that the writer of the novel is very young seems much less impressive once you actually meet the world he has created - if that is the word. Most kids on a diet of classic and contemporary escapism could write this.

Apart from the strangely lustful look in Sienna Guillory's eyes, there is little to entertain you here. It is, in fact, the Krull of the new millennium.

Deepwater (2005)

Interesting choices and okay story

[6/10 · 15 October 2006]

I will confess that the choices that director Marfield has made concerning cast and crew make me somewhat more sympathetic towards "Deepwater" than I otherwise might have been. Lucas Black is an underrated actor who deserves bigger roles and Charlie Clouser's NiN-like music suits the mood of the film very well. But I think the film has merits of its own. Compared to fellow indie/festival flick "Down in the Valley", which has some interesting similarities, "Deepwater" feels much more genuine to me.

A young man just out of ... well, some sort institution winds up in a small town working for a strange fellow (Peter Coyote) and lusting for his wife (Maestro). What initially seems like U- turn revisited turns out to be a quite different film in the end. The acting (mainly from washed-out but cool actors apart from Black) and the mood keep you fairly interested and the fairly down-to-earth tone that the film finally adopts work fine if you ask me. Worth watching, although not a masterpiece by any standard.

Jekyll + Hyde (2006 Video)

Thoroughly pointless

[2/10 · 10 July 2006]

Jekyll is alive and well and is studying medicine in the States. He is a nerdy character who experiments in illegal substances that might enhance his self esteem and, mayhap, "improve mankind". But before this lame nonsense is explained to us, we are at least treated to a prologue with some sense of dread and mystery. Then it all goes downhill.

This lumbering adaptation of Stevenson's classic tale of human duality lacks everything that might make it worth any viewer's while, I'm sorry to report. Insofar it's been "modernized", it has been so in such a simplistic manner that the original seems more ... modern, if you will. The elements of horror have all the stupidity of a Friday 13 movie, but virtually none of the shlocky effects that might entertain some (even me, on some days). This movie offers nothing new and the old stuff is presented in a weak and confused manner.

My guess is that somewhere along the line all those involved must have realized that their movie is a dead end, but somehow managed to shoot enough footage to reach its humble length, thus being able to say "we've made a feature film" and then hope that no one actually sees it.