Reviews

Having read raving reviews about 'Miesten vuoro' (Steam of Life), which reportedly has reduced many viewers to tears, I expected much from this hauntingly beautiful documentary about Finnish masculinity, the sauna culture, and male vulnerability. The movie delivered everything I expected from it, and more; it's a gripping, genuinely moving portrayal of the sensitive side of rough men who have been raised to hide their emotions.

The concept is rather simple; a variety of ordinary Finnish men talking about highly emotional moments of their lives in saunas. The men represent various different age groups and occupations, but in the context of the film their roles in the society are almost irrelevant. In the sauna, the men shed their clothes, social masks, and inhibitions, and bare the true, raw emotions behind their tough exteriors. Clothes and occupations can only tell so much about a person. The bare, life-shaped bodies of these men - some old and some young, some fat and some skinny, some well-built and others filled with scars - say so much more. And beneath both their clothes and their skins, the men are very much alike.

The stories the men tell vary between heart-warming and heart-breaking; they talk about parenthood and childhood, of friendship and marriage, of birth and of death. Many of the men talk about their children, and for me both the tragic and the happy stories of fatherhood stood out as the most touching scenes of the movie.

It's very difficult to make a movie about such an emotional subject matter without being overly sentimental, but 'Miesten vuoro' manages to do just that. The scenes are very intimate, but also properly aloof. The beautiful score and gorgeous images of the rough wilderness and snowy cities support the emotional content perfectly without drenching the movie in needless sap. There are also splashes of tender humour scattered around the film, which makes it vibrant and balanced.

There's something cathartic about watching the men open up, reveal their emotions, and wash themselves. It doesn't take a genius to point out the metaphorical connection between emotional and physical purification through bathing and talking. It's like a religious rite; in 'Miesten vuoro', the sauna is a place of meditation for men who cannot bare their hearts anywhere else.

Saippuaprinssi is a movie about the timid Ilona (Tola) - an amateur wannabe-actress, who incidentally joins the writing staff of a popular daytime soap opera, and falls in love with the hunky star of the show, Kalle (Leppilampi). She soon discovers two things about Kalle: he is a genuinely talented actor who does not enjoy acting in the trashy show, and he's secretly romantically involved with the head writer of the show - the iron-willed Raakel (Mäenpää). To steal her new beloved from the claws of the harpy-like Raakel, Ilona puts her writing skills into action to make Kalle's character in the series prefer a character who resembles her over a character who resembles Raakel. Raakel answers fire with fire, and soon a war occurs between the two rivaling women, with the battle taking place both in the fictional world of the soap opera and in the real one. Evidently, there is room for only one strong woman both in Kalle's heart, and on the set of the series, which becomes wackier and wackier as the war between Ilona and Raakel progresses.

Aside from Mäenpää's marvelous comedic performance as the monstrous Raakel and a hilarious subplot involving a group of young over-the-top avant-garde thespians, there's not much I can say for the movie's advantage. The premise sounds delicious, but the execution is disappointing. Not only is the movie simply unfunny and essentially one-layered, the plot suffers from basic-level technical mistakes like incoherence and plain messiness. The worst thing about the movie is that, due to the shoddy writing, the main characters come off plain dislikable, when they should be genuinely agreeable in order to make the audience give a damn.

Take the leading lady of the movie, Ilona, for an example. The audience is apparently supposed to side with her, even though she comes off as a self-righteous, self-contradicting hypocritical person, who thinks she has a right to meddle with Kalle's life simply because she has a crush on him, and accuses Raakel of being possessive and controlling when she's doing the exact same thing herself. Why should the audience root for her - or for Kalle, who comes off as a spineless idiot who can't even live his own life? Naturally, a love story between characters like these can't be interesting or likable - especially since the movie never shows why these two like each other to begin with, and why the audience should care. The relationship is never fully developed, which is why Ilona's sudden demand to steal Kalle from Raakel by any means possible seems just intrusive and unreasonable.

Interestingly enough, the only character I found relatable and likable in the movie was the main antagonist, Raakel. Thanks to the acting skills of the superb Outi Mäenpää, who makes the character both funny and slightly vulnerable, Raakel has more character and depth to her than Ilona and Kalle have combined. So again, why should the audience prefer the phony Ilona and the whiny Kalle over this strong, witty woman who at least is shown having credible reasons for doing the things she does, as questionable as they might be? Furthermore, I do not like the way the movie pits the middle-aged Raakel against the twenty-something Ilona and makes them fight over the same guy, as though to indicate that when an older woman dates and dominates a younger man, she's a possessive she-devil, but when a younger woman does the same thing, she's just in love. Really, Raakel and Ilona treat Kalle exactly the same way, so the only thing that marks the difference between the heroine and the villainess is the age difference. So, what? Age does matter? Men shouldn't date older women? People in general shouldn't date people who are slightly older than them? Strong middle-aged women are bad? I know I'm probably reading too much into this, but what else was I supposed to think? Disregarding the whole likability factor, the character development is overall rather lousy, and even illogical. For example, Ilona starts off as a timid wallflower, and then she suddenly turns into a confident young woman (complete with the classic "from glasses to contacts" transformation) in the middle of the movie, and yet the change is never directly shown, nor gradually indicated. It just happens. Overall, both Ilona and Kalle remain so distant to the viewer that it's virtually impossible to care about either one, whether they're together or apart. And because of that, it's very difficult to care about the movie in general.

So, in a nutshell, 'Saippuaprinssi' was a huge disappointment to me. The idea sounded clever, but it's not funny, the characters are not likable enough, and the plot is just all over the place. It's trying to be like a Hollywood-like romantic comedy, but it lacks all the technical requirements and genuine charm of the aforementioned. I wish they'd stop trying to incorporate Hollywood storytelling and cinematic conventions into Finnish cinema, because it just doesn't work. It only looks awkward.

At the time of its release, 'Tyttö sinä olet tähti' was considered an event in the small world of Finnish cinema. Dome Karukoski, the then-unknown young director was praised both for the movie's refreshing and contemporary look, and for the well-constructed and coherent storytelling. Some critics went even as far as dubbing it "the best Finnish movie ever made!" - which I personally consider a major overstatement. The movie does have its merits, but overall it's simply a harmless, yet a very commercial and a hopelessly mediocre film with nothing new to it, except a) it's a Finnish movie portraying the urban youth of contemporary Finland - a refreshing oddity in a field of cinema dominated by movies about the everyday problems of disillusioned thirty-somethings - and b) the use of r'n'b/hip hop music - a genre of music rarely seen or heard in Finnish cinema - on the soundtrack and as an essential part of the story.

The movie tells the story of young Nelli (Pamela Tola) - a classic, beautiful "good girl" from a wealthy family - who dreams of becoming an r'n'b singer, although her family expects her to pursue a career in law instead. To realize her dream, Nelli teams up with Sune (Samuli Vauramo) - a member of a semi-underground hip-hip group, who initially refuses both Nelli, whose taste of music he deems too commercial, and a record deal with a major music label to stay true to his artistic vision and street cred. Eventually, though, a fruitful professional, as well as a budding romantic, relationship occurs between Nelli and Sune, who spend their summer together composing and recording tracks for Nelli's demo album. But alas, love between the two could-be lovers seems impossible, because Nelli already has a serious boyfriend, and her parents are thrilled by neither Sune, nor the idea of Nelli abandoning a steady future for a potential career in music.

So basically, this is light romantic teen drama/comedy by numbers. The plot is just about as basic as it gets from its overused scenario all the way down to its predictable plot twists (= good girl meets a bad boy, obstacles stand in the way of their unexpected love, blah blah blah, and the viewer starts contemplating suicide), and there isn't even a proper gimmick to the film to jazz the clichés up a little bit - apart from the fact that the story takes place in Finland instead of the USA. Many of the much-hyped aspects of this movie - such as the refreshingly natural dialogue, the portrayal of the r'n'b/hip hop scene of Finland, and the coherence of the plot - only pass as something noteworthy when judged by the standards of commercial Finnish cinema (as it was by the time of the movie's premiere). Compared to other recent domestic hits, 'Tyttö sinä olet tähti' was an original, high-quality film - which says much, much more about the quality of commercial Finnish cinema of the time than about the quality of the film itself. Taken out of the aforementioned context, it's just mediocre, clichéd and kind of boring as well.

Nevertheless, the movie is not completely without charm. Much of it owes to the modest charisma of the young stars Pamela Tola and Samuli Vauramo, who both bring delightful warmth to the simple characters they play, making their subtle on-screen romance likable enough to keep the viewer emotionally invested in it, despite its unoriginality. Also, even though the movie follows religiously the conventions of Hollywood cinema, the general feel of the film is genuine enough not to give you the impression that the movie is vaguely trying to imitate life as it's portrayed in commercial American movies - a common mistake a lot of commercial Finnish movies seem to make ('Saippuaprinssi', I'm looking at you!) - instead of vaguely trying to imitate life itself. But it's still just not enough - certainly not enough of an excuse for telling a story that has been told a thousand times before without bringing anything new and original to it.

'Tyttö sinä olet tähti' is a harmless little film which is bound to entertain the casual (and bored) viewer, but I still don't think that it deserves half of the credit it was showered with when it was released. It's not exactly a crime against mankind, but it's tremendously commercial, unimaginative, and predictable - which is ironic, because the "bad guys" of this movie are the greedy pigs of the commercial record label who try to force all the originality out of Sune and Nelli to make them appeal to the masses. Personally, I did not feel like the makers of this movie were honestly trying to tell me a story, because the plot was so clichéd. It just mildly distracted me for a moment - and that's just not the highest function a movie should have.

In the year 2027, the world as we know it now has collapsed due to an unknown condition that has turned women all over the world infertile. The world is in a chaotic place save for Britain, which has resorted into totalitarian methods in order to keep the desperate immigrants outside its borders. Theo (Clive Owen) is a cynical bureaucrat and a former activist whose life changes when his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore) asks his help to escort a young immigrant girl called Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey) to a safer place. Soon Theo finds himself caught in a crossfire on a breathtaking journey through the ruins of England, with a sole purpose to protect Kee.

Children of Men paints a grim picture of a future, depicting a desperate world that has no tomorrow to look forward to. Though the scenario has a fantasy/sci-fiction feel to it, the fact that women has mysteriously stopped being able to have children, the consequences of this total loss of hope are portrayed in the most realistic way possible. This is why the movie works as a topical social commentary on some of the most heated topics of today. Beyond that, Children of Men also addresses timeless themes, telling a powerful story about humanity faced with hope and desperation.

I didn't expect much from this film when I first went to see it, having read a review that gave it an average rating, slating it as a "naïve and unrealistic" film. I ended up gaining one of the most emotional movie-related experiences in my life, and learning never to trust reviews again. I so extremely affected by the entire movie that I felt emotionally exhausted once the credits started rolling. As if the plot wasn't gripping enough, the long, perfectly choreographed, seamless shots filmed with a hand-held camera give the movie such a strikingly realistic touch that it's almost impossible not to get emotionally invested in the story, and feel as though you're dragged through the rubble and mud yourself as Theo and Kee's companion on their dangerous route from a conflict to another.

I didn't particularly appreciate Alfonso Cuarón before seeing this movie; now I'm a devout fan. I'm still thoroughly amazed that he wasn't up for an Oscar for this movie, and that this picture didn't receive more nominations at the Academy Awards. As far as I'm concerned, Children of Men was one of the best, if not The Best, picture of the year 2006.

Before I say anything, I have to mention that I'm a huge fan of the famous 1995 BBC mini-series adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I own it on DVD, and I've watched the entire series several times from start to finish. It's by far the best adaptation of a Jane Austen novel I've ever seen. Therefore, I may be a little bit subjective, but I try not to keep comparing the movie to the fantastic TV-series.

Pride and Prejudice is based on Jane Austen's classic novel about five young sisters whose mother desperately tries to marry off to wealthy men to avoid a future of poverty and loneliness, the witty second-born Elizabeth being the protagonist. The sisters' luck seems to turn when two such men, the cheerful Mr. Bingley and the haughty Mr. Darcy, enter their lives. While Mr. Bingley courts Elizabeth's beautiful older sister Jane, Elizabeth finds herself clashing with Mr. Darcy, an immensely proud man who seems impossible to please, but who turns out to conceal a gentleman Elizabeth is too prejudiced to see.

The plot is faithful enough to the original novel, so one can't really blame the story for not being interesting enough. However, it is still much less compelling than any other adaptation of the novel. Why? Because it completely overlooks the central dilemma of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy's relationship - that they can't be together until Mr. Darcy stops being too proud to treat Elizabeth and her family with the respect they deserve, and Elizabeth stops being too prejudiced to see past the false rumours and misunderstandings which have stained her opinion of Mr. Darcy. On the contrary to the book, the movie's Mr. Darcy appears to fall for Elizabeth at first glance, displaying none of the disdain the original character regards her with when they first meet. Their love is shown beginning with immediate mutual attraction, instead of being shown as something they both grow into once they get over themselves. There's no pride, and hardly any prejudice, both of which are essential to the character development. Hence title, Wright, hence the title.

Now, I'm not someone who gets overly obsessed with staying loyal to the original source when translating novels into the silver screen. I don't mind changes because I understand that movies and books are two different mediums. In fact, I fully embrace even the boldest changes when they improve the quality of the movie. However, the tiny little thing changed in Pride and Prejudice is simply unacceptable because it destroys the tension between Elizabeth and Darcy, which is a crucial element in their story.

The casting is also all wrong. While I personally didn't mind Keira Knightley's bubbly take on Elizabeth Bennet, I cannot over-emphasize how bad Matthew Macfadyen is as Mr. Darcy. Mr. Darcy is a strong, supercilious man whose arrogant exterior conceals a respectful, honest heart. Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy seems like a brooding, insecure teenage boy with a dull, sheepish, submissive look in his eyes. His acting is wooden, every word he speaks is empty, and there isn't a hint of the character's defining traits about him. This is where I absolutely must make a comparison with Macfadyen and Colin Firth, who portrayed the same character in the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice. Where the superb Firth was able to inject the battle of pride and passion which rages inside Mr. Darcy when he finds himself falling for a woman who he considers unworthy of him in a single look, Macfadyen cannot channel his character's emotions even when he's pouring out his soul to his beloved. With a leading man like him, how could the movie work?

While I personally quite like Joe Wright's way of portraying the hot, lazy summer days in the lush English countryside, he doesn't have much to offer than some breath-taking shots of the surrounding nature that aren't enough to compensate the movie's flaws. Most of the time he seems rather clueless about the story he's telling, struggling especially with dialog-heavy scenes. I much preferred his next title, Atonement, a movie similar in style but remarkably advanced in quality.

Stardust is the story of Tristan Thorn, a young man who sets off on a journey to a land of magic and adventure to bring back a fallen star as a token of his love to the girl he wishes to marry. On the contrary to his expectations, the star isn't just a lump of rock, but a vibrant young girl, who reluctantly has to follow Tristan back to his home village, while she's also hunted by an evil witch, who needs the star to restore her youth, and a number of power-hungry princes, battling each other for the throne of their kingdom.

Based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is an adventurous fantasy movie slightly unlike other recent films of the same genre. It draws its inspiration from English folklore, which gives it a fresh touch and original enough a setting. However, the movie fails to capture the spirit of the book that was originally Neil Gaiman's take on classic fairy tales - fairy tales as they were before they were sanitized by Perrault, eventually Disney. It's an honest fairy tale for adults, following the classic pattern of the coming-of-age story of a young man through a quest, without the sugar-coating seen in the kid-friendly re-tellings of stories that weren't originally even aimed for children. This is something director Michael Vaughn appears to have missed, having turned the story into something that resembles action-packed family movies more than the fables the book imitates.

I have mixed feelings about the casting. Charlie Cox is likable enough as the hero of this modern fairy tale, but Claire Danes just isn't convincing as the stubborn star girl, unable to channel the extra-terrestrial earthiness that made the book character so interesting. Sienna Miller, on the other hand, steals all of her few scenes as the spoiled Victoria, giving such a delicious little performance that I wished she had been casted in the leading role instead of Danes. Ricky Gervais and Robert De Niro both have remarkably unfunny supporting roles, at least compared to their usual standard, whereas Mark Strong really caught my eye as the sinister prince Septimus. The real star of Stardust, however, is without doubt Michelle Pfeiffer, who plays the beautiful wicked witch Lamia, easily outshining her co-stars with her charismatic performance and cool charm.

Overall, Stardust is mildly entertaining and passable, but not really outstanding in any way. It has a few action scenes too many, a climactic yet tremendously boring final battle that seems to drag on forever, and a leading romantic couple that lacks the chemistry required for the viewer to be genuinely interested in the fate of their relationship. The quality of the film would have improved a great deal if at least half an hour of it had been left on the floor of the cutting room.

I bought a DVD of this movie a few years ago when it was on sale in a local store, even though I didn't know anything else about it than what I'd read from the blurb. My initial reaction to this film was that it was boring, disappointing, and clichéd, and I just didn't like it one bit. So I just hid the DVD in a secluded corner because one look at the cover made me remember that I'd wasted money and a little over an hour of my time for something that failed to entertain me.

Nearly two years later, I had a sudden urge to watch the film again. Strangely enough, I really liked it this time. I don't know what had changed, but my opinion of it isn't as harsh as it originally was anymore. I guess I just learned to appreciate things I'd overlooked the firs time I watched it. Or maybe it just took some time for it to grow on me.

So, anyways, this movie is based on Hideyuki Kikuchi's series of novels about a brooding half-vampire, half-human vampire hunter known simply as D. Set in a time thousands of years ahead in the future, the lonely rider D hunts down creatures of the underworld for a fee in a world once ruled by a race of elite vampires, who have originally overthrown humans after a nuclear war swept the earth but are now falling into extinction, thanks to merciless hunters such as D himself. The plot isn't hugely original. In fact, it's nothing anyone familiar with half-decent modern vampire fiction hasn't already heard a hundred times. The deadpan D - and a rivaling group of tough vampire hunters - is hired to chase down a powerful vampire by the name of Meier Link, who has kidnapped a human girl called Charlotte. Halfway through the hunt, however, D begins to suspect that the girl has ran away with the vampire out of her own free will, though this doesn't stop D from carrying on with his mission. Enter sword-clanging, gore, big-busted anime babes, monsters, and endless musings about the existential anxiety of being a blood-lusting vampire.

Though I quite enjoyed this film on the second viewing, the plot still failed to impress me. However, the charm of this movie isn't in the plot, but in the exquisite animation, and in the "mythology" of this movie. If anyone ever said that combining Western, Gothic horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy was impossible... well, they were wrong. Not only does Vampire Hunter D bring all this sub-genres of pulp fiction together in a convincing manner, it also manages to do it entirely without the aid of parody or self-irony. That's a real achievement, and I failed to appreciate it on the first viewing.

I think there is a lot of potential in the whole concept of Vampire Hunter D, though the plot of this particular film is overdone. I gave it quite high a rating mainly because of its visual merits. However, of they ever decide to do another as beautifully animated film based on the series, I'd be sure to check it out.

I went to see Tideland with absolutely no idea what the movie was about, except that it was directed by Terry Gilliam. Seeing that the main character was a little girl, I thought I was about to see something along the lines of Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, or Time Bandits - a zany, imaginative fantasy adventure told from the point of view of a child. Well, it was zany - "trippy" would be more apt - and it sure was an adventure, but I still obviously had no idea what kind of rabbit hole I was about to fall into.

Jeliza-Rose (the amazing Jodelle Ferland) is the playful daughter of a junkie couple played by Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Tilly. When her mother dies, Jeliza-Rose's deranged father takes his daughter to the now deserted house he grew up in, where the imaginative, lonely little girl explores the rundown house and the barren land around her with innocence only a child can possess. Accompanied by the four ill-treated remains of dolls she has for friends, Jeliza-Rose eventually gets familiar with her only neighbours - the strange, sinister lady by the name of Dell, and lobotomized brother - and manages to keep herself happy and entertained through make-belief and imagination.

If there ever was a movie that should be restricted from adults because of its disturbing content, Tideland would be it. A child as innocent as Jeliza-Rose could watch this film without being constantly scared that something awful is going to happen to her, unable to see all the neglect and threatening situations she's exposed to. Jeliza-Rose is a happy little girl, but she lives in conditions no child should have to live in. Her world is full of dangers no-one will protect her from, yet the girl doesn't even realize this herself, being so estranged from normal life. That's Tideland; it's sheer everyday horror, filtered through the eyes of a child who is just too innocent to be afraid.

Innocence, however, is also a bliss for Tideland's curious little heroine. Her innocence and her vivid imagination keep her happy when terrible things happen. This is the comforting side of the story; even in the worst possible conditions, imagination gives children the strength to survive.

The role of Jeliza-Rose is played by the superb Jodelle Ferland, who carries the weight of the entire movie on her tiny shoulders. Not only does she give a compelling portrayal of the constantly rambling heroine, she also provides the voices of Jeliza-Rose's "friends" - the four doll heads she carries around with her. There are various scenes that consist mostly of dialogue between the girl and her dolls, and sometimes it's just very difficult to comprehend that every word is spoken by an actress who has barely hit the double digits. Her performance is simply amazing. I've never seen a better child actress in a leading role.

I'm sure Tideland will always be a controversial movie. I'm sure that a lot of people will find it too disturbing, even disgusting. I did - I loved it, but it felt terrible to watch. I'm not sure if I want to see it again because it's so heavy and affecting, and it really tests the nerves of anyone with the natural urge to protect children. Because of this, Tideland is a powerful movie I continue to praise. I'm not sure if I'd recommend it to everyone because I know a lot of people would hate it, but it's still definitely worth a watch for Jodelle Ferland's amazing performance alone.

Juha (Tommi Korpela) is the middle-aged father of two and the husband of a depressed wife. Too afraid to tell his depressed wife that he has lost his job as a construction worker, Juha tries to make a living by offering his services to private customers, with little success. When he's contacted by a slightly older woman who turns out to want more than just the reconstruction of her living room, Juha secretly joins the sex industry in to be able to support his family. This provides the setting for a story about the responsibilities of a family man and shame.

Movies about the sex industry tend to fall into four main categories. There are moralistic tales about the depravity and dangers of the industry, exploitative movies that use the theme as an easy excuse for excessive nudity, light-hearted comedies about the liberation and empowerment through open sexuality, and realistic stories about the cruel and abusive nature of prostitution. Strangely enough, Miehen Työ doesn't really fit into any of these categories. On the contrary of what one might think after reading the summary, it's a remarkably un-erotic film. The theme of male prostitution isn't the focus of the film, but a mere extension to the net of lies Juha spins when he tries to hide his family the fact that he's unemployed. This story isn't about sex - it's about humiliation and shame that stems from Juha's failure to do what he believes is expected of him. What's a man to do when he can't even do his duty? Ultimately, the movie becomes a study of the roles of a man - or the job of a man, as the title puts it. Is it really more important for a good husband and a father to keep the money coming than to actually be there for his family when they need him the most?

Overall, Miehen Työ is a bleak, bleak movie about the harsh reality of everyday life. It isn't light-hearted entertainment, but I personally enjoyed it. Tommi Korpela is fantastic in the lead role, portraying the everyman who paradoxically degrades himself to preserve his pride. I also liked Jani Volanen as Juha's troubled best friend Olli, who discreetly tries to replace Juha by spending time with his family when Juha himself is gone.

I heard about this movie over a year before its release, and followed the progress of the project with mild curiosity throughout the production. When it finally premiered, I expected to see a campy martial arts film with tongue-in-cheek action sequences, and a feeble plot. What I got was the opposite; the movie turned out to be much less of a Kung Fu film than it was cracked up to be, but I was pleasantly surprised with the plot and the character development. Thus, I left the theatre with mixed feelings, though my general opinion of the movie was more on the positive side.

The first third of the film is rather... odd. It opens with a stunning scene set in ancient Finland, but when the story shifts into modern times, it temporarily loses its touch. The plot is dragging, and characters are introduced in a way that leaves the viewer confused about who they are, what they want, and what has happened to them prior to point where the story picks up with them. I suppose it's the director's fault that half of the time everything the characters do feels irrational and pointless. However, when the plot line set in ancient China kicks off, the quality of the movie immediately improves. The parallel stories support each other, the main character gets more depth, and the pace of the story becomes steadier. By the end of the movie, the two plot lines have neatly entwined into a coherent whole, providing the story a beautiful finale in perfect contrast to the messy beginning. In the end, the plot manages to even out its flaws, though only scarcely.

What I particularly liked about Jadesoturi was the delightfully original plot. Generally speaking, the plots of Kung Fu movies aren't exactly epitomes of originality and great character development, and I expected that the makers of the first and only Finnish Kung Fu movie ever wouldn't even need to bother themselves with a proper script as long as the action scenes work. That's why I was surprised that not only did Jadesoturi manage to tell a tremendously humane story about a man's fear and desperation when facing the inevitable, it also provided believable character development and an unexpected twist ending. And all free of the typical Hollywood clichés! The hero isn't your average sword-shielding action god, but a lonely, insecure man with a painful desire to love and be loved, who consciously disregards the greater good in order to pursue personal happiness. Even his name is an apt pun - Kai meaning "perhaps", and the 'pelko' part of his surname Pelkonen meaning "fear". His inner conflict is the heart of the movie, and the one thing that sets this movie apart from all the rest.

In addition to the good plot, the movie contains lots of beautiful imagery, like the shots of Kai's rundown workshop, and the secluded Chinese village. The action sequences are quite stunning, though more artistic than realistic. I also liked most of the actors. These are the reasons why I personally enjoyed the film enough to be able to forgive the movie for its flaws - such as the weak beginning, the pointless subplot including Ronja and Berg's co-worker, and the Worst Evil Scheme Thought Up By A Villain Ever (seriously, am I the only one why is still confused about what the demon was trying to achieve with his cunning plan in the first place?). Jadesoturi has also been criticized for the lack of Kung Fu scenes, which are limited to the minimum. I personally think the problem isn't the lack of martial arts itself, but the fact that it was marketed as a Kung Fu movie even though the emphasis was on the drama, not on the action. It's more of a fantasy/drama film with Kung Fu elements, rather than the reverse.

My opinion? Jadesoturi is an interesting movie, but not an outstanding one. It has plenty of flaws, but also an original story to tell.