Reviews

I really liked this film - and in typical Jim Jarmusch style - you are not going to be treated to conflict, intense drama or larger than life characters; rather it is the internal, the small things, the thoughts and moods of an introverted man. This type of filmmaking is sorely lacking these days, and is where film as a more poetic medium seldom actualy shines.

Adam Driver plays an amateur poet who works as a bus driver for a living. The work also feeds back into his work, and conversations and encounters he makes during his everyday life serves as inspiration for his poetry. His girlfriend also is of the creative hobby artist kind, but with new projects every week, and an obsession with black and white. Its an acute and realistic observation, I know many of the scatterbrained type well - although this does not really serve as a source of conflict in their relationship, and they share a sort of love, if somewhat distant to each other's thoughts, as both lost in their own creative worlds. Again, this is another fairly acute representation of the reality of a creative couple, where each part pursue their own dream but share rituals such as meals, waking up, breakfasts.

Adam's desire to write poetry isn't really touched on. He simply writes a lot, if as a result, he becomes a little distanced to his own world. Personally, I have grown weary of the 'crazy artist genius' stereotype in films, but Adam plays his part subdued and straight-faced. Like in most Jarmusch's films, the dialogue is simple, not complex and baroque, and Adam's makes up for a lot of the emotion that the dialogue is missing. An observer of daily life, he sometimes evesdrops to conversations in a bar, interestingly most of the people he observes are black. Interestingly, the biggest drama that happens in the film is with him as an onlooker, concering a case of unrequited love in a black couple. Although his girlfriend is obsessed with black and white, I don't think Jarmusch is making a racial analogy here, rather it serves as a metaphor for Adam's duality. It also separates him visually from his world, as he as a white man often has the role of an observer of black people.

The poetry is presented as text on the screen, and over a series of 'fading montages' that stand out from the rest of the film. The imagery of water shows that his mind is flowing, in motion, and connecting to other parts of the world outside of his everyday world. In the end he is treated to a revelation that I would like to speculate, will only improve his writing. Inspired by real-life William Carlos Williams, a poet of Patterson city, it is an interesting addition to the film. Personally, I find this type of poetry a little prosaic perhaps, but poetry is a written, internal format these days, so it serves well as text on the screen. Also a recurring theme is the appearance of twins in the cast, without a specific relevance to the story. This symbolism serves into making the film a piece of 'hyperreality', or 'poetic reality' as opposed to the more straight-laced kitchen-sink social reality.

8/10 from me, some of the scenes felt a little flat or perhaps a little too metaphorical (such as the end scene with the Japaneese man) and overly ponderous. The relationships in the movie could perhaps have been better explored, but I realize Jarmusch's style of filmmaking is much more mood-focused, and also, if you are looking for a type of film you can watch and experience little poignant moments instead of car explisions, this is for you.

This is not a horror show. Why is this getting such high reviews? I love horror but this is a melodrama with a few horror jump scares. And that's it. The writing is overly expositional and the acting is stiff and awkward. The editing is extremely confusing at times and the logic is sometimes inconsistent. But above all, the characters are incredibly dour and dull. Its like watching 6 feet under without irony or wit.

I can understand why this failed at the box office and in the theatres; where people with the attention span of goldfish start reaching for their phone after 15 seconds, but as a movie to watch on your own time in your own pace; it holds up pretty well after a little shaky start.

I must disclaim that I don't know anything about the American Civil War; apart from the fact that it was a nasty business and about that slavery business; it is probably for the best the Union won. Otherwise, every movie claiming to be absolutely 'truthful' about a war has to be taken with a grain of salt. For some reason the moral high ground in the film does seem to be occupied by the Confederacy; as a film about the conflict it simply didn't investigate enough the reasons for or indeed why the war started. We simply see Lee refusing command of the US. army in an opening scene and that's about it as to politics. Indeed the war just starts and everything else from that point onwards could be seen as propaganda seen from one side or the other.

But - it is as a character portrait of general Stonewall Jackson and an investigation of the early course of the war itself where this movie really starts to shine. I found Stephen Lang's portrayal of a man who at one hand is a devout Christian given to compassion and prayer and on the other a merciless general; how those elements mixed up in him to be very interesting and compelling. The film does lean very heavily on his shoulders for depth and psychology, even Robert Duvall's general Lee story seem to be unable to do anything but to orbit around Jackson's character. There are a lot of long speeches and prayers going out left right and centre; but like Jackson the movie stands alone in the room like an antiquated piece of furniture and is very comfortable doing just that; being weird and slow and spiritual compared to our modern sensibilities. I liked that eccentricity about the film.

Second; the battle scenes are just excellent, beautifully shot and choreographed and by the looks of it; historically accurate. Most movies can just afford about one large scale encounter; here you have a whole campaign. If you like that sort of stuff here's an abundance. Little details like fraternisation at Christmas between forces, the Irish ending up fighting their own down to the music and plays they enjoyed at the time really adds to the dimension of conflict. We also see examples where the bad decision making of high-end generals mean certain death for the foot soldier. As a side note; as a European I admit to having had an image of the southern armies being a provincial rabble; I can see clearer now that they had some excellent leadership and quality to them; it was a refreshing revelation to me.

The entirety of this film is a strange nest of different story lines weaving in all sorts of different directions. I liked the inclusion of Chamberlain's story. It may seem an odd match up against Jackson's story; but they were both teachers and fought out of a sense of duty to their country. The film also includes a play with in the play, where we see actors playing actors playing at war within a war. It's a nod to us the audience about what we ourselves see on film; that we have a responsibility to make our own minds up about who was right or wrong. Everyone was playing some part in that war and we all project our own thoughts and fears into a story. I am not one for glorification and I am fully aware that the film may have a rosy-tinted view of the Southern states in the war; but I wasn't watching it for political reasons. As a slow-paced war film to watch in your own time while pondering about the human consequence of conflict; it is time well spent and enjoyable too.

Starting out, I liked this movie's beginnings, with a reunion from hell unfolding like a scene in a play, in the same vein of Thomas Vinterberg's "Festen". However, as the film progresses, it becomes clear that the directors aim is not to create drama or a slice of life drama-documentary, but rather an attempt of cold, dialectic dissection between the bully(s) and the bullied.

The film only marginally succeeds at this, and the resolution is prehaps all too unsatisfying as a film seen in the cinema. It feels like a vanity project. The storytelling is self righteous and self-obsessed, the director being the main character of the film; she's surrounded by the 'actors' in her fake reimagination of a school reunion. Here her own performance isn't exactly giving us much to go on, and her backstory is only referred to sporadically, giving us little chance to sympathise. The other cast members play well enough, but they too, seem trapped by material that is too narrowly focused on analyzing, rather than showing the true consequences of bullying and abuse in institutions.

Shame for a film with a good start to fail so miserably in its execution.

I saw this in a film festival recently, and for a directorial debut thought it was a good thriller with assertive direction and a tense plot.

However - you cannot help but be annoyed and marvelled at all times by the sheer stupidity shown by the two protagonists; it is realistic at times and at other times not. A certain and highly implausible scene on a bus early in the film nearly ruined that sense of realism for me, but otherwise the movie kept everything pretty real in the sense that the two brothers are merely amateurs and hadn't planned things properly. Performances are good, but due to the nature of the story it is difficult to have any empathy with the characters, and you cant but help to chuckle and be relieved over their shortcomings.

There is some sense of social critique under it all, but (un)fortunately this is never delved too much into in order to fully justify their actions; the director has been less interested in motivations and character background, more interested in minute details of the crime and the act of kidnapping someone, leaving us pondering over the why's until the very end.

Let's not beat about the bush, Prometheus is bad, two hours plus of Absolute Nonsense. Poor script, plot holes like a bloody minefield. Quasireligious references placed not-so-subtly throughout and annoyingly, unbelievably stupid (or lack of) characters and character choices. Just wondering, is Ridley going mad or senile in his later days? I seriously hope he stops making blockbusters; his oeuvre has been utterly terrible since that movie where Orlando Bloom plays a blacksmith that saves Jerusalem and/or the world from a bearded guy or something.

I can't even start to pick apart this film, it's too much and frankly it's not worth it. Just imagine Alien upside down, take anything that was good about it, ram a black, slimy Hollywood's development execs CGI tentacle through it and watch the irregular, black splotch on your screen. If you have dwindling, fond memories of the original, give this maggot-ridden cheesefest a miss.

I saw this film in Norway where it recently came out in the cinemas.

The title refers to the four seasons and the story follows a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. There is a symmetry in the film, and each part focuses on the fate of one individual (a farmer, a goat and a tree, for instance).

The film makes effective use of the beautiful landscape of Calabria, and the old, ramshackle village. The setting is perhaps in itself the main character of the film. Humans are often viewed from above, and we are in a sense getting the "God" treatment.

There is barely any plot or a story to speak of, yet we go through stages of life that are eternal and inevitable - and we are reminded again and again that all things must pass.

There are life-like documentary aspects to this feature. The film is shot in available light with amateur actors and animals that will endear you. The result is breathtaking and inspiring. The sound scape is also rich: it helps create an emotional journey through every chapter of the film.

I can highly recommend this to anyone interested in unusual films with no dialogue or discernible plot, but anyone also will no doubt be captivated by it's gorgeous setting, it's humble characters or the feeling of watching life pass, unfiltered.

Vincent Gallo stars as a confused, lonesome Taliban fighter in this survival film, perhaps a spiritual successor to the old Nils Gaup film 'The Pathfinder' (not the remake). An unnamed fighter is captured by Americans, extradited to a base inn a Russian-speaking country, then escapes, and spends the most part of the film chased by Americans in helicopters or patrols of dogs. It's refreshing to see Americans portrayed through the eyes of a Taliban fighter; with their superior technology and almost infantile attitudes they seem quite like aliens. The fighter is ever troubled by the killing he has to do in order to survive, as he struggles through a bleak wintery landscape (shot in Norway and Poland), searching for food, clothes and shelter. This is a film about the human condition rather than a political one, in some respects it has a classic chase plot but with minimal dialogue a dream-like feel. The strangeness of it all made me intrigued; here is a Taliban fighter chased by rather alien Americans surrounded by hapless Russian-speaking farmers or foresters. This slightly unreal quality is the film's strength, also parallel to the man's sand-coloured 'dream-visions' of his homeland and imagery of a woman (whose face we never see) and images of his family.

The cinematography and use of colour contrasted against the pale winter landscape is stunning. The plot isn't entirely believable, and takes you through some pretty unlikely twists and turns, but nevertheless this is more existentialist than realist, and Vincent Gallo pulls off the non-speaking part with a humbling and convincing performance.

I was delighted to see this film. I'm a little puzzled and surprised over the amount of bad reviews it gets here, and I think it's the basic premise at the core of the Lovecraft universe that these people don't understand. The weird 'horror' of H.P. Lovecraft is that quiet, unnerving tone, the archaic language, the almost detached point of view. It's a language very hard to translate in film terms, and certainly something not fitted for a 'modern' adaptation. Horror film producers are obsessed with fitting their concepts into modern, relevant settings, a principle with is inherently against everything H.P. Lovecraft was about. His style is all about the haunting of the past, the revelation of hidden, ancient and terrible.

There is a clear influence of Gothic horror from which on can draw comparisons back to old silent expressionist films such as Nofesratu by Murnau. These classical films manage to be somewhat unnerving today because of their style of lighting and acting. The filmmakers have obviously copied this aesthetic and the result is an interesting one, even if it is achieved at a shoestring budget. It plays like a slow-paced silent movie in black & white, with typical silent movie 'acting' and dialogue. The ultimate horror is saved for last, which is the whole idea of the Call of Cthulhu. The build-up and the maze of constant flashbacks work perfectly.

I urge anyone who understands and appreciates H.P. Lovecraft to not listen to the bad reviews, watch it and enjoy.

I just saw it and its not great. Its mediocre. I cant believe people praise this, like reading the first review at IMDb where some fool compares it to the works of Dostoyevsky. I mean... what kind of drugs are you on while you watch this film because I want them! Its about as subtle and layered as a sledgehammer. Characters ripped off almost entirely from the Godfather and a host of other gangster films. OK, so it also tries to show a new, rough, gritty side of London. Well, I live in London and... well, that's just a joke. Throwing bodies in the Thames, great idea. Added for effect is lots of rain and perfectly lit, characters. No, in real London Russian ex-KGB guys gets poisoned with plutonium. In this film some Arsenal fan gets his throat slit cut with a knife. Big deal. Not very shocking at all, David. Viggo-balls, fake immigrant accents and saving babies at the riverside does not make a film! And Vincent Cassel, what the hell is he doing in this? Everything about him is FRENCH. I can't possibly imagine him as a Russian. First off, I thought he was speaking french. And then I realised he was trying to do Russian. But then he did English as well. Because all Russians here in London speak half-English, half-Russian. Eh.... no, they speak Russian. ALL THE TIME. The only time they resort to English is when they need to tell the bouncer in front of the night club that their dad owns about half of russias oil and he will buy his house and burn his kids if he doesn't put them in the VIP section with 50 bottles of vodka. Cronenberg has set out with an unfinished script, and completely miscast this movie and the result is a mediocre gangster story set in a "real" London that truly should only belong one place - in his head.

I am not going to outline the plot.

This film is very good, very similar to the Swedish "Ondskan" about young boys fighting again, against a system of institutionalised violence. The fear of punishment for disobedience that perpetuates this system is also absorbed into the movie and projected upon the watcher. The two main characters, two boys that share sentiments through some deep underlying humanity, start to question the morality of the Napola, and find themselves both outsiders with the only real solidarity and t trust within each other. The elders and teachers of the school are aloof, manipulative and perverse, but here in this film the Nazis are all portrayed as flawed humans, and not as alien beasts. There is a strong sensation of homo-eroticism pervading in the relationship between the two main characters, which reflects some tendencies in a strict, spartan boy school with a rigorous training scheme that is designed to root out the physically weak and the mentally strong.

I thought the movie is a great comment on the right to speak up against tyranny, even if it does not bring much originality to the table. A spectacularly beautiful film, set in the idyllic countryside, to contrast the man-made brutality of a corrupt and perverse system.

I think these days the audience has forgotten how minimalist a film can be to achieve effective and powerful stories. "The Page Turner" reminds us of just that, in a era where films under 2 hours are often deemed as too short.

Clocking in at 70 minutes, this is a great, neat little piece of work with solid performances throughout. Deborah Francois is has a natural cool and a hidden Machiavellian glint in her eyes that is only subtly conveyed throughout the movie, and her seeming lack of emotions is frighteningly real. This is a revenge story, and is a no nonsense script, helped further on with beautiful choices of music and great camera and directing.

It conveys a powerful message on the nature of revenge how easily we humans come to lean on one another, emotionally and psychologically. Betrayal is the worst for a person to experience, and here the betrayal and revenge of "The Page Turner" is delivered with the grace of a real master of intrigue.

If you like the Lovecraft mytos, then you will love this movie. It's the closest adaption of Lovecraft as of yet.

OK; you have to disregard the following, none of what we might call Lovecraft's poignancy or subtlety is present. In this movie its all rather disgustingly and tastelessly smeared across your eyeballs. Also you have to prepeare yourself forive the annoying and stupid main character who can hardly even believe his own lines and his incredibly stupid choices throughout the plot.

But great dream scenes which ties in with the spectacular end - this film has really captured the atmosphere of HP Lovecraft, and is simply more weird and creepy than conventional horror shock/splatter scary.

A real shame they didn't get better special effects CGI work done on this movie, which lets it down at places. But I read it was made for a million dollars and I admire the work the director has done.

I watched 10 minutes into this movie, and then I fast forwarded the rest.

Long, boring, clunky, episodic and badly acted. It even has a Brit soldier with a moustache and a silly stiff-upper lip worthy of Monty Python. The long 'men on the march' sequences reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, just in winter time and with a worse musical score.

In the rest of the world we don't really need more movies about American soldiers in WW2. I could not or did not connect with any of these country lads or their journey.

I don't recommend this movie even if you liked Saving Private Ryan, it also lacks any kind of exciting action or battle scenes that distinguished the latter.