DavidLindahl Reviews

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

An engaging beginning, but a bit unfocused on story and characters to deserve a higher rating

[6/10 · 16 November 2016]

Time for the awaited prequel to the Harry Potter films, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. The film is set in the 20's, long before Harry Potter's time. It's about the young Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne, who arrives in New York with a suitcase full of magical creatures. Unfortunately some of them escapes and he is force to go and look for them together with the muggle (non-magic people) Jacob Kowalski and the witch, Porpentina Goldstein, before they wreak havoc all over the city. The film is the first in the Harry Potter universe that isn't based on a book but an encyclopedia of magical creatures. J.K Rowling has written the script and also decided to keep the long and complicated title, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Seriously, couldn't they have thought of something better?

At first we are greeted with a lot of news articles before ending up with Newt Scamander as he passes through the gates to New York. Honestly, the film has a slow beginning. A lot of the Harry Potter films begin quite dramatically with an evil dementor, a difficult house elf or a quidditch tournament. Here it takes a while before I'm starting to feel that the film really takes a hold of me. It also makes me wonder what's it really about? Newt is chasing his animals with the company of a muggle and a witch but at the same time we also find out that the American wizard world is quite different from the English one. Apparently there is some sort of interesting cultural conflict that we never really get the answer to. Pity!

After a few fat jokes, a strange mating dance and a long almost completely animated scene in a suitcase, it actually starts to happen something. The evil in the film appears more and you start to understand the conflict. Unfortunately I don't feel that this evilness or the conflict is motivated or developed enough. It lacks a clear vision and a path already from the beginning. What does Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them really want to say? Whose story is it? Newt Scamander's, the muggle who wants to bake, the USA vs England conflict or the American ministry's fear of being exposed and start a war? Also in all this, add John Voight as a political leader with a son who likes to bully boys. Very strange.

Behind all these questions and strange things, there are actually a lot of things to enjoy. The director David Yates continues in the same style as before, however with much more animation. It is charming to see the American wizard society and the 20's New York look good. Also the acting raises the film with Ezra Miller as a strange boy and Colin Farrell as an evil ministry man. All in all, an okay beginning of a new series, but what the next films will be about and what characters will fit in, especially considering that it is said to be set in Europe and eventually include Dumbledore, I really can't say. As I said, an okay beginning but it could definitely have been better.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Too much technical stuff and good vs bad prevents it from being a perfect emotional ride

[6/10 · 12 October 2016]

Yesterday it was time for a visit to the cinema, it's been a while. The film I saw was Deepwater Horizon, the story of the oil platform that started leaking in 2010 and caused one of the biggest oil disasters in modern time. In the film we get to follow Mike Williams, played by Mark Wahlberg. He is an electronics technician onboard the platform and leaves his daughter and wife (Kate Hudson) to go and work for 21 days. Kurt Russell is also in the film playing the manager of the platform and the top ranking employee. After what they first believed would be three normal work weeks, things take a turn of events when the platform explodes from the oil pressure.

At first I could not understand what kind of film Deepwater Horizon wanted to be. Many family emotions, friendships and relationships at the beginning and after that a very technical part begins. About 20 – 30 minutes of the film is about technical aspects of oil drilling which frankly I think goes straight by most of us. Sure It's a little exciting when they are talking about oil pressure and performs test whether to start drilling or not. BUT, the problem is that we already know that everything will go to hell. Therefore I think that when they are building drama and tension on things that really should be standard procedures onboard an oil platform, it gets a little cheap. I'm convinced that had we not known the outcome of the film, these scenes would feel strange and over exaggerated. To but it simply, they are building drama on pure trifles just because we already know the outcome. Clever and viable, but still cheap and boring.

I think it's a shame how black and white Deepwater Horizon is. It's crystal clear who's good and bad. Despite everyone being soaked in oil and mud, BP's logo is still clearly visible on the "villains" helmet. Somewhere here they touch a very sensitive subject without ever really developing it more. Who's fault was it really? Political and environmental impact? The reactions of the world? None of this is included in the film. Now I've arrived at the things that I actually think the film does really well and what could have made it even better, had it been even more focused. Somewhere in the middle of Deepwater Horizon I realized what kind of film this is and should be. A strong emotional drama. We get to know these people and their families. We follow them onboard the platform and gets affected in the same way they do. We suffer, feel their pain, their loss and eventually at the end we also also get emotional scars. This is the real strong points of the film. To take us on an emotional journey that plays out our whole register, from laughter to crying. Skip the politics, the parts too difficult to understand and the good vs bad. Show us, don't tell us. Finally I want to say that the sound in Deepwater Horizon was also one of the things that impressed me the most. So good and strong sound quality that the speakers in the theater barely could play it. Thumbs up for that.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

The Toy Story of animals

[6/10 · 5 October 2016]

The Secret Life of Pets is about pets and their world. Just like in Toy Story, the animals can speak and have a life of their own when the humans aren't looking or are away at work. The dog Max is living a quiet life with his owner Katie. One day she gets a bigger dog called Duke and immediately they start to fight to win her love. After having argued and fought out on a walk, Max and Duke gets lost in the underworld and meets other animals that don't live a fancy pet life like they do.

The Secret life of Pets is a film like many other animal films and yet it succeeds in entertaining in a charming way by taking us on an adventure where we get to see life from their side. Films like Oliver & Company, Babe and Homeward Bound The Incredible Journey, comes to mind. Animal films are far from new and often contain a worn out story but despite this The Secret Life of Pets really delivers. I think one of the films central elements is the balance in the humor. There is clarity in the dialogue that is easy for children to understand, but there is also another dimension clearly meant for adults. This is often the thing that family films are having difficulties with, to be appealing for both children and adults. The latest Ice Age film that I reviewed here did not succeed in this. The other thing that I really think is the key to the success of this film is the tempo. With its one hour and 27 minutes, the film is not really that long but the time is well disposed and few scenes contains unnecessary things. It also makes us the audience wanting to see more of these animals when the film is over. I am not so sure that we would want that, had the film been 20 minutes longer and slower.

The characters in the film is well thought out and shaped to fit this kind of road movie where someone travels forward. They usually include some sort of leader, someone who is a little stupid, someone who is a bit dangerous and also someone who is cocky and perhaps too brave. The Secret Life of Pets has all of these characters and also a villain, a white bunny. Perhaps a hint to Monty Python's evil bunny in the The Holy Grail and also ironic because a bunny is usually seen as cute and harmless. Quite fun, much due to Kevin Hart's great voice acting. The film summarizes itself well towards the end with several morale plot parts. Don't judge people (in this case animals) based on their appearance, comradeship, the ability to share and also that certain things that you want are often found right in front of you if you just look close enough. Definitely good messages for a family film, very often already told, but if delivered properly and in a new way like here in The Secret Life of Pets, they are worth telling several times over again.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Boss (2016)

A weird mess that was bound to fail from the start

[2/10 · 12 September 2016]

Melissa McCarthy is definitely hot in Hollywood right now. Her Oscar nomination for Bridesmaids in 2011, didn't just give her respect in the business, but also more opportunities to make films. So what did she chose to do with her time. In The Boss she is directed by her husband Ben Falcone, after a screenplay they have both written together. She plays Michelle Darnell, a business woman who built her own economical empire from scratch. After being sentenced to prison for insider trading, she is later released completely bankrupt and forced to stay on the couch with her ex assistant Claire, played by Kristen Bell. Here she puts Claire in trouble when she suddenly sees a business opportunity in her daughter's girls scout cookie sales.

I have to be completely honest and say that it is difficult for me to find anything positive to say about this film. McCarthy plays Michelle as an unsympathetic devil, which appears to be meant to create humor in the contrast between what is morally right to do, and what she chooses to do. The problem is that the film completely lacks comical timing and jokes that actually works. Minutes long breast jokes are mixed with girls fighting each other bloody and other scenes loaded with boring stereo types that just doesn't work anymore. I think that in the middle of this mess, the filmmakers sort of forgot what kind of film this was meant to be. Is it supposed to be a fun family film with a cookie selling daughter, or more closely to black humor with jokes about death, illness and other normally tense subjects? I just don't know.

The Boss is badly edited, badly told from a dramaturgical point of view, and also incredibly predictable. Don't get me wrong, a lot of classic drama is predictable but if the rest of the film is below tolerable, you just don't care anymore and long for the film to end. Who even thinks that it is fun with an arrogant lady who tries to sell cookies to get rich? Very strange plot even to begin with. I find it very difficult to see where this film could have been saved. Very few things are even good to begin with, but the worst part as I mentioned before, is the extremely bad and terribly timed jokes. Watch the film and see for yourselves. But do it on your own risk. Because of the limited opportunities to makes this film even slightly better than it is (and it is not good to begin with), I can't grade it anything else than low.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Zootopia (2016)

An animated animal film about today's social and racial issues that hits the right spots

[7/10 · 13 July 2016]

Imagine a world like the one we people live in, only we are all animals. And not just some animals, all animals together. Zootopia is one of Disney's films from this year and it has really become an international success. In this world of animals, a lot of them grow up into already decided places and positions. If you are a bunny, you should become a carrot farmer. Judy Hopps is exactly that kind of bunny, born and raised outside of the city of Zootopia. She decides at an early age to become something more. After graduating from the police academy as the first bunny ever to do so, she moves to the big city. She soon discovers that it is a long way to the top and not everyone in the animal world is getting along as well as she thought. She is quickly drawn into kidnappings that go higher up than anyone in Zootopia could have imagined. Great voice actors lent their voices for the film, such as Jason Bateman, Idris Elba and Ginnifer Goodwin.

Firstly I got to say that I was positively surprised. Partly due to the fact that the film was awesome, but also because it really wasn't at all what I expected. Sure it is a family film but forget the standard family film formula. We are talking Swedish Beck and Wallander combined with American police films. Sometimes the film is actually scary and exciting, but most of all it is well thought out. We follow mostly Hopps and and Nick Wilde the fox, as they struggle to discover who or what's behind the mysterious kidnappings. We are even offered some plot twists and just when you thought we were getting close to the end, the film takes another turn and becomes something else. Very strong and bravely done by Disney.

Zootopia's strongest points lies in the relationship between the animals. It is a "the small person against the big" film. Hopps is a small herbivore among predators that for a long time ago used to eat animals like her. Anti-racial messages and tolerance is clearly visible in the film. It does not try and hide the fact that we may all look different and have various preferences, but we are all equal and deserving of a chance in life. When you sometimes think that the film will end, the filmmakers does not hesitate to twist it one more time and deliver another punch to our heads about moral and value. Zootopia could be Disney's most political and strongest equality praising film to date. It will certainly remain for a long time in my memory because it dares to ask us these difficult questions and also to venture outside of the frames of the family film genre and sometimes become almost a thriller. Very high level of surprise and entertaining for a family film. Disney Animation Studio's best animated film in years

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Me Before You (2016)

An emotional ride taking a serious subject a little too lightly

[6/10 · 6 July 2016]

I Went to the movies recently and saw Me Before You, the film based on the novel with the same name by the author Jojo Moyes. It is about the eccentric girl Louisa Clark who lives in an English village with her working class family. After getting fired from the small café she works in, she desperately accepts employment as a caretaker of the paralyzed young man Will Traynor. He is a wealthy ex business man who got paralyzed when he got hit by a motorcycle. Will is bitter and unpleasant towards everything and everyone around him. Me Before You is directed by the relatively unknown Thea Sharrock and this is her first feature film. Emilia Clarke, known from Game of Thrones plays Louisa and Sam Claflin, mostly known from The Hunger Games series, portrays the paralyzed Will.

First I want to say that Me Before You is really a British film. Working class meet upper class, they clash and break down social barriers. I also think that Louisa is a pretty typical British "film girl". She wears extremely colorful clothes, is constantly happy, a bit weird and often quite oblivious to the serious situations around her. When she meets Will it is at first very tense, he mostly ignores her and she desperately wants to get out of there. They of course soon become attracted to each other because they really are each other's opposites. She is fascinated by his world, his personally and also in my opinion a bit by his disability. She in turn for him becomes a happy, clumsy and carefree girl like no one he ever met before in his organized and sterile world.

The director Thea Sharrock relies very much on close-ups and reaction shots. This is good, and sometimes not so good. Too much close-ups on a face can easily remove the body language and also make us interpret every single facial expression as something very important. Sometimes we stay to long on Louisa's face. Her smile and her tilted gaze always seems to want to say something and I wonder if that really is what they were aiming for. However they succeed very well in a certain face shaving scene I consider as one of the best ones in the film.

Me Before You is a very heavy film and touches a very sensitive subject that shall remain unknown because it is a major spoiler. I do think that the filmmakers take this too lightly and offer a very simple answer that in reality should be a lot more complicated. Also, the film doesn't go all the way and actually chicken out during what I believe was a very defining moment. A bit weak actually. But the film and especially the author should have credit for daring to speak about it. The overall impression is that they actually manage to finish the film in the way they planned. Our entire emotional register is played out during these barely two hours. We laugh, we get angry, confused and we cry. Not a dry eye in the theater. But for me to become more involved and drawn to the story, it would require more focus on the sensitive subject. Offer no direct answers, ask us the audience questions and let us sit by the end of the film with our heads filled with thoughts. That would according to me have given the film more depth. Also the clichés and the music would have to be toned down. The music was at times very bombastic and tiresome.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Eye in the Sky (2015)

The politics and moralities of a difficult war

[7/10 · 5 July 2016]

War on film seldom speaks the truth they say, the ones that have actually been in one. So how then is war, and how is it conducted? Only those who've ever been in one can tell and the rest of us are left to guess and speculate. Perhaps for the best. Eye in the Sky is a film about a different kind of war, a more modern and difficult to judge. In Kenya two British and one American citizen have been tracked, all converted to acts of terrorism. British, American and Kenyan intelligence services are working close together. But when the time has come to strike, everything is not as simple as they thought. Alan Rickman here does his last live-action film with others including Helen Mirren and Aaron Paul.

I really liked Eye in the Sky. Actually in the same way I liked the Danish film A War. It offers a different angle on war. Not the heroic one where everything is black and white, there is a good and a bad side. Here they go deeper and enter the fields of laws, how we got the right on our side to do this and will it create legal and political consequences? Eye in the Sky focus on the games behind the war. Who makes the decisions and how is the relationship between different countries. Very interesting and thoughtful.

Eye in the Sky works very much with editing between the different locations, USA, UK and Kenya. Excitement is not built from action but created from drama and editing. I like that. It means that there is a thought behind ever sequence. Everything from the trivial choice Alan Rickman's general character has to make about which doll to buy for his grandchild, to Aaron Paul's character's more serious scene where he demands another control on collateral damage for the mission. This film like so many others can of course not give us straight view on what it is to be in a war, but I still like this kind of film because it doesn't exactly show us how it is. It lets us figure it out for ourselves and form or own opinions. Who had the right on their side in the end? I think it is up to each and every one of us to decide. Rickman exits with a great film and is truly one of the strongest characters. A tight and very exciting war thriller.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Eddie the Eagle (2015)

The best sport films need a true underdog story

[7/10 · 29 June 2016]

I've seen some sport films through the years but I've actually never seen one about ski jumping. Eddie the Eagle is the truth based story of the British ski jumper Michael "Eddie" Edwards who participated in the 1988 Olympic winter games in Calgary, Canada. Eddie has since childhood, dreamed of becoming an Olympic participant. When he gets older and is denied to compete in downhill skiing by the British committee, he decides to try ski jumping instead. The problem is that the Olympic games is one year away and Eddie has never before in his life tried ski jumping. The incredibly charming Taron Egerton plays Eddie the Eagle and Hugh Jackman also takes part as the drunken American ex pro jumper Bronson Peary.

Classic underdog stories always works well within the sport genre and really are a well played card by now. And yet there is something with the story about Eddie that grabs hold of me. Nobody believes in him, he is odd and rather strange. Despite dealing with all the resistance and sometimes humiliation, he never gives up. The thing that also really keeps me interested is the ski jumping. I have always found that sport pretty funny, but I now seriously have to confess that I would never dare to jump that high with skis on. Hugh Jackman's mentor character is actually very cliché and perhaps a bit exaggerated. They should probably have toned him down to add a little more realism in the story.

According to the filmmakers the story is really not that truthful, especially not the parts about Eddie Edward's life outside of ski jumping. His result and what happened to him is however not changed that much, but besides that much of the story is made for film. I really don't think that's a problem. I rank Rocky as my favorite sport film and it is because I think that the ultimate sport film needs an underdog story. It is actually the same thing here in Eddie the Eagle. A struggle for the little man and a display with an encouragement to never give up. Perhaps well needed in our sometimes dark world.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 (2016)

Blurry plot and a disoriented focus creates one big mess

[3/10 · 12 June 2016]

The crazy Greek family living in the USA is back in the sequel My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2. Now Toula and her husband Ian are older and have a daughter about to graduate from high school. And of course her Greek family is still present in their lives and always have something to say no matter if it is about upcoming boyfriends or future school choices. The same actors are back which probably almost was a must for this sequel to even be made. I can't help feel disappointed. It is actually not impossible to make sequels to this kind of film. Yet they choose to step into the classic swamp of clichés and also play on the boring cultural and sometimes degrading stereotypes.

The first My Big Fat Greek Wedding had its charm and sort of tried to catch some form of interesting cultural difference between Greeks and Americans. Toula then worked in a travel firm and met Ian. What I suppose they found so funny in the first film, the crazy Greek family, have now taken the absolute most central part in the film. The film begins quite easy with introducing us to Toula's present situation. She lives next door to her entire family and her daughter is about to graduate and wants nothing more than to move far away from their family. So far so good. The suddenly the film makes a quick turn when it turns out that Toula's mother and father are not married due to a paper technicality at their real wedding 50 years ago. Suddenly it is not about Toula anymore, but her parents. Huh?

The blurry storyline is not the only problem with the film. Character problems such as Toula's inability to prioritize herself is not solved in any way during the film. She really hasn't that much of an own story at all. Other things such as the neighbours mean attitude towards the family is left strangely unexplained. Also throw in some half forced marriage within the same culture ideals and also a Greek conquer all attitude, and you've got this film in a nutshell. I think it could have become a nice sequel if they only would have dared to continue in the same way as in the first film. The crazy Greek family should be a side character and Toula and her family should be the main story. Couldn't she have felt distant from Greece and went there instead to recapture her identity. It is extremely nice to film in Greece, Richard Linklater showed it in his film Before Midnight, and also from the musical Mamma Mia. Instead of this they take the cliché, stereotype and at times demeaning way and place everything in strict cultural boxes. A bit cowardly and pretty boring actually. Come on, be bold and try something different. Couldn't the daughter have met an Italian? That would have been interesting.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Warcraft (2016)

Lacks character motivations but succeeds in creating a fantastic world of conflict

[6/10 · 1 June 2016]

After several years of back and forth, the game giant Blizzard finally united and chose Duncan Jones as director and leader of their first film, Warcraft: The Beginning. It is based on the first Warcraft game from 1994. Azeroth is the world where the humans for several years have lived in peace together with the other creatures. The orcs are forced to leave their dying world Dreanor behind and travel to Azeroth to survive. The crazy orc Gul'dan lead them into battle with the help of the warcheif Blackhand. But all orcs are not impressed with their thirst for blood and their lack of respect for life. Conflicts appear in several directions. I have played these games when I was younger and I am also pretty familiar with the story because I've read some novels and facts about it.

I will start by saying that Warcraft is an incredibly good looking film. The computer made effects combined with real actors, makes for a nice contrast very fitting to the style of the film. However, the characters of the film are a bit messy. It is a lot of characters on both sides and also certain ones who hasn't chosen a side which makes it even harder to keep track on everyone. We are quickly thrown into the story without a proper background explanation which is a pity and may cause confusion before you really understand everything. I like the fact that they have chosen to focus on both sides of the conflict. It makes the battle so much more interesting when we can follow it from two angles with two perspectives.

The big weakness of the film also lies in the characters and their at times lack of development. Sometimes we are quickly cutting from one scene to another without ever really staying long enough to get to know anyone. This forces the filmmakers to use cliché dialogue to quickly make us understand what's going on. They've also added a forced love story. The thing that's really good about the film is the story itself. The conflict between the humans and the orcs who just invaded their world is very interesting. I personally really like following the orcs. They have everything to gain after leaving a dying world behind. When we follow them we also see their family situations with children and life mates. I care about them. Medivh, the guardian of Azeroth is also very interesting when he uses his magic. Warcraft is like I said, a bit messy and at times clumsy edited with strange short scenes and fading black screens. I do however like the world and the conflict itself so I forgive these blunders. It's no masterpiece but definitely an entertaining fantasy film.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Man Up (I) (2015)

One of the better romantic comedies in years

[7/10 · 29 May 2016]

Man Up is a British romantic comedy about a man and a woman who meets on a blind date. Simon Pegg plays Jack, a 40 year old divorced man who has planned a blind date with a 24 year old girl. Lake Bell plays the 34 year old Nancy who is taking the train home to her parents wedding anniversary. Nancy accidentally meet Jack's blind date and switch places with her when she discovers that the girl forgot her book, the one thing she needed to bring to the date. Jack is totally unaware of the switch and immediately takes Nancy, the wrong girl, out on the streets of London.

Man Up is definitely among the best romantic comedies I've seen in a long time. With a farce like humor and a perfect timing in editing and story, the film rushes away with the speed of a car chase. Nancy is at first forced to lie to Jack so that he doesn't suspect anything and he also deliberately hides his past to avoid looking foolish. After a while as the film goes on they both discover that they are very alike. Willingly and unwillingly they expose their best and worst sides of themselves for each other. It becomes some sort of race between them, a race impossible to win.

We are thrown out into London's night life with bowling, bars and portable restaurants. In some way the director is able to catch the characters' many sides in a very short time. At the same time every location they visit, plays a big part for the whole picture. They both encounter people from their past, each one affecting their date positively and negatively. Do not miss the very funny London taxi vs bike race between them. It is a very quick and incredibly refreshing romantic comedy after a couple of years with pretty lame and mediocre films in the same genre. I almost thought that the romcom film had died out, but here we actually get proof that it still works. Come on, more films like this.

Deliverance (1972)

A fantastic portrait of terror in mind vs terror in reality

[10/10 · 27 May 2016]

To try and explain the greatness of Deliverance, you must first understand the impact this film had when it came. Most of us have probably seen a horror film about a gang in the woods that gets harassed and stalked by people. Deliverance is the father of these films and an original that stands really well to this day as one of the best films ever made in the genre. A gang of four guys ventures out in nature to paddle canoes along Cahulawassee River before it gets flooded into a lake. However their boat trip does not turn out the way they had hoped for when they suddenly gets stalked and harassed by the locals. Burt Reynolds plays the outdoor fanatic Lewis who brings his friends on the journey, Jon Voght, Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. The film is directed by John Boorman from the novel by the same name from 1970.

What is it then that makes Deliverance so incredibly good. At the beginning of the film the gang is traveling by car, the mood is good and very typical for guys. After having a short break to fill up the cars with petrol and listening to the famous banjo duel "Dueling Banjos" between Ronny Cox's character and a local boy, they head for the river. What happens next out on the river is like a nightmare and also very psychologically demanding. Deliverance always feels so real and genuine that you truly become frightened. How would you yourself react in a similar situation so far away from civilization? After the gang starts to get harassed in the woods, the panic and fear increases. They all react differently, and rightly so, no human being is the other alike. That is just what makes it so good, the characters' different personalities. The film then sort of becomes a psychological mind game, perhaps mostly taking place in their heads. Are they being followed, how will they get out of the situation they are in and what will they say when they return?

Besides the psychological aspects of Deliverance, it is also incredibly beautiful to watch. It's completely filmed on location out in the woods with actors willing to perform the different stunts themselves. As I wrote when I reviewed The Revenant, this is also a man vs wild film. In the beginning we experience nature as incredibly beautiful and stunning but later it quickly turns to become your worst nightmare. Incredibly well done by the director. The absolute greatness in Deliverance lies according to me in the end and the summarization of the film. What really happened and what didn't happen. How do you react to these kinds of situations out in the middle of nowhere? Can we return with our senses intact and how do you change as a person after experiencing something like it? Without spoiling the story too much, I've here tried to review and explain what Deliverance is to me. I recommend everyone to watch it and it is very high up on my list of the best films ever made.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Hush (I) (2016)

Fails to engage due to lack of story

[4/10 · 16 May 2016]

Why not make a horror film about a deaf girl that gets harassed by a complete stranger, only out to mess with her. There's the story in Hush. It actually is quite an interesting idea with a rethinking perspective but unfortunately it quickly destroys that and becomes boring. So, a deaf female author has moved out into the woods to live her life secluded from the rest of the world. She doesn't seem interested in dating and prefers to be alone. Suddenly a psychotic man armed with a crossbow arrives and starts to harass her. The director Mike Flanagan has a certain love for horror films and has directed a couple of them before.

This type of film is actually usually pretty monotone and not very developing. But what other films do better than this one, is to at least tell us why things happen. A total stranger with a crossbow shows up, looking to kill and harass and we have absolutely no idea why. The deaf girl is established in an OK way. We get that she lives there. She Skypes with her friends and then rejects them to spend the night alone. But we barely know anymore than that.

The thing that Hush does well is to use the fact that she is deaf. Computers, phones and alarms comes in handy because she can't hear a sound. That of course also results in a lot of scenes where he easily can surprise her and sneak up behind her. PRetty exciting. But if you remove all that then there's not much left to take with you besides a poor deaf girl in the forest. Couldn't they have tied the perpetrator in some way to the girl? Perhaps director Flanagan wants to show some sort of horror scenario for people living in the woods. You are never safe. Unfortunately I don't think that is the case here. I think he just wanted to make a horror film about a poor deaf girl. Could have been much better.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Boogie Nights (1997)

A dark and emotional portrayal of the late 70's and early 80's porn industry

[7/10 · 11 May 2016]

If you are wondering what it would be like to be a porn star during the late 70's and early 80's, you should watch Boogie Nights. It may seem shallow and objectifying but the story actually goes deeper than that. Paul Thomas Anderson's film is about Eddie (Mark Wahlberg), a misfit soon to be 18 years old, who works as a dishwasher in a night club. He meets Jack (Burt Reynolds), a porn film director who can offer him a chance. Eddie leaves his messy home environment, takes the name Dirk Diggler and heads straight into a tough industry.

Anderson's Boogie Nights is a dirty film and not really a glamorous story. On the surface it may seem easy and tempting considering Dirk's quick and easy way to success, but behind the curtains it's not a pretty tale. Lies, deceit, infidelity and selfishness grow beneath the surface. The story focuses and is mostly about Dirk, but also Jack and his team in the industry. Julianne Moore plays Dirk's co-star and fights for the custody of her own child. Heather Graham plays the young Rollergirl who quit high school to enter the porn industry. Each character has his or her own emotional baggage. Paul Thomas Anderson's style is visible even this early in his career and the film is made of long takes, a lot of characters and a plot sometimes not really knowing where it's going.

I claim that in some way the essence of Boogie Nights lies with the characters' own approach and attitude towards the industry. It is embraced but everybody still sort of wants a way out. Someone dreams of a family and parenthood, another wants to be a magician or a salesman of stereos. Even Jack dreams of directing his masterpiece and constantly tries new ways to get there. In some way they all still gather in the industry because it is the easy way. I don't think Anderson's purpose is to smear the industry but at the same time he doesn't want to glorify it either. There is a will to portray these bleeding people in a serious and emotional way while feeling neither sorry nor praise for them. It is about the understanding of other people's life choices even if they feel wrong for others. Boogie Nights is a few years old but still stands well today as an emotional portrait of a group of people that took a different path than what society called the normal one.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

A brilliant terrifying horror film that'll chill you to the bone

[9/10 · 9 May 2016]

Really great horror films doesn't come around too often. I read a little about The Witch for about a year ago and was immediately interested in the story. It seemed so simple and disturbing, a British family in the 17th century that has traveled to America in hope of finding happiness and success. Not agreeing with the local church, they leave the village they've been living in, to move out to the country and build their own house. Once they are settled in, strange things begin to happen and it seems that someone in the family is more than a human being. Relatively unknown actors and a feature film debut for director Robert Eggers.

Witches on film have been portrayed before, like The Blair Witch Project. It is something disturbing and brutal about witches, especially if you think about our own history here in Sweden where we for a long time burned women believed to be witches. The Witch is a drama horror film that doesn't rush its introduction. A lot of the story is created from the mood and the music. Instead of telling the story and explaining things through dialogue, Eggers lets the music and the cinematography speak for themselves. Sometimes the camera sweeps around the forest with creepy music playing in the background. Also religion plays a big part in the film. God and the belief in him, is always there and gets even worse when the family thinks they've been cursed. To make it even more realistic and believable, the dialogue is written in old English taken directly from old real writings from the same time. That is if we are to believe the credits.

Witches on film have been portrayed before, like The Blair Witch Project. It is something disturbing and brutal about witches, especially if you think about our own history here in Sweden where we for a long time burned women believed to be witches. The Witch is a drama horror film that doesn't rush its introduction. A lot of the story is created from the mood and the music. Instead of telling the story and explaining things through dialogue, Eggers lets the music and the cinematography speak for themselves. Sometimes the camera sweeps around the forest with creepy music playing in the background. Also religion plays a big part in the film. God and the belief in him, is always there and gets even worse when the family thinks they've been cursed. To make it even more realistic and believable, the dialogue is written in old English taken directly from old real writings from the same time. That is if we are to believe the credits.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Choice (I) (2016)

An ambition to feel fresh but unfortunately it doesn't

[5/10 · 4 May 2016]

Time for Nicholas Sparks' next film The Choice. I've previously here on Filmografen, ranked Sparks' films from best to worst and did then exclude this film because I hadn't seen it yet. The Choice is about Travis, a charming womanizer from the southern parts of USA. He lives by the sea and approach life in an easy manner. Gabby, a studying doctor, moves in next door and they immediately start to annoy each other. But what at first seems as dislike soon turns into interest and they begin a romance. But life isn't always a dance on roses and of course problems and dilemmas awaits around the corner.

The Choice is a very typical Nicholas Sparks film and it contains most elements associated with his films. Questions about religion, a past incident or a memory that's been repressed and also somebody that died. I actually think that it starts out pretty good and it feels typical but still new. Drama and problems are not as enhanced as they usually are and their relationship feels normal. Usually there are extreme events such as a soldier saved by a woman from a photo or some other girl running away from a weird man, straight into the arms of a troubled one. The introduction sort of gives a clue of what to come, but at the same time we are offered a little twist near the end.

I am both half happy and disappointed after having seen The Choice. I think they've been sloppy at times with the cinematography and despite the stunning locations, they often go with close-ups on the actors faces. Perhaps to hide the fact that they are shooting in a studio and if not, pity with such great outside locations. I don't think I can expect fresh new stuff from Mr Sparks in the near future and that's a shame. Perhaps many of his films are in fact on the same level but the more the concept and the story are used over and over again, the less interesting the film gets. I still think though, compared to for example The Longest Ride or The Lucky One, that here there was an ambition to create more realism and credibility, at least for the first 30 – 45 minutes. Then it sort of dies out and at the end I just feel, well that was that, and what really was the meaning of that. The Choice could have been made better, the opportunity was there

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Deadpool (2016)

An odd and fun parody on the genre

[6/10 · 30 April 2016]

Deadpool, this crazy superhero that mercilessly kills and refuses to call himself a hero. Wade Wilson is an ex special forces operative who after his service works as a mercenary in New York. He meets the prostitute Vanessa and falls in love, but cancer forces him away from her. After voluntarily signing up to a clinic that claims to be able to cure his illness, he is deceived and tortured until his body deforms and mutate so he gets superhuman powers. Ashamed of his new appearance and driven by revenge, he takes the alter ego Deadpool. Ryan Reynolds plays the red avenger that half mad kills his way through the underworld of New York, looking for his creator.

Deadpool joins Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man, as Marvel's latest more comical superhero films. The humor has always been there in the Marvel films, but these three films at times, belongs to the comedy genre. Deadpool is really a sort of parody that both mocks and salutes the superhero genre. Movie references and classic clichés are fired in all directions when Deadpool also turns to speak directly into the camera. Also sometimes the film completely stops and our hero narratively and humorously explains exactly what is happening. It's sort of playing with the genre and mixing different styles, matching Deadpool's crazy personality.

It is Ryan Reynold's interpretation of Deadpool that is the driving force of the film. Many scenes last quite a while so that we all can get in on his jokes but the rest of the film actually isn't that long. I guess that's the weak spot of it. When we've understood Deadpool as a character and the parody around the genre, there's not that much left to lean on. The British villain's motive to mutate other people and his personal grudge against Deadpool's sassy attitude, eventually gets tiresome. Even Deadpool's jokes are at times childishly foolish and also the brutal violence loses its meant effect after too many decapitated heads. The best thing about the film is actually the short romance between Wade and Vanessa at the beginning. I want to see an entire romantic comedy with just the two of them. However, I don't think that Deadpool should be taken as serious as other superhero films. It is a small and odd contribution to the Marvel family, meant to provoke and take other paths than their big flagships. Light, odd and smart.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

One of the most epic superhero movies ever made

[8/10 · 28 April 2016]

Yesterday it was premiere and time for the second big superhero film this year, Captain America Civil War. I really like Captain America as a superhero, mostly due to his lack of over powerful strength. He is a soldier who during WWII, was subjected to experiments intended to make him a super soldier. The result was superhuman powers but nowhere near the likes of Superman or the Hulk. Frozen down and later awaken in present day earth, he struggles to adapt in modern society where everyone he has known or loved, is gone. In Civil War he is pinned against Iron Man. The government of the USA, forces the Avengers to sign a contract stating that they have to obey and work under supervision of the leaders of the world. Iron Man is convinced that it is the right thing to do while Captain claims that they will be forced to do things they don't want to.

I really liked Captain America Civil War and I would say that it is one of Marvel's and overall among the best superhero films ever made. Forget Superman's or the Avenger films' extremely over powerful enemies that practically can erase the earth with a wind blow. Here it is brains before muscles and I like it. The film practically has more in common with James Bond and the Mission Impossible films, than with other superhero films. The spy theme is pretty constant throughout the film, with for example a hunt for a terrorist through several countries. There is also focus on terror acts which feels both modern and disturbing considering today's world situation. The other thing that the film does really well is balancing the characters. Civil War contains a lot of superheroes and it is at times hard to keep track on everyone. But with finesse and a prioritized focus, they choose which ones will run the story and which ones will figure as background characters. Very smart and thought-out. With most focus on Captain America and then Iron Man, they succeed much better than the previous Avenger films and most of all the latest Batman V Superman.

The biggest question we all had before the film was, how will they put Captain America against Iron Man? Where Batman V Superman totally failed to motivate why those two giants would even fight each other, here they succeeded better from an even more difficult position because Captain America and Iron Man are friends that becomes enemies due to ideological and psychological differences. Overall the characters' actions are really well motivated. They have worked hard on giving every character a believable back story that drives them forward. Aside from the main conflicts and the superheroes, it is an incredibly well made film. The battle between the superheroes is so good looking and well choreographed that I can't think of an equal. Also the tempo and editing of the film works well towards it pretty long but still good runtime. The film constantly moves closer to the truth with small surprise moments and turning points along the way. It is perhaps necessary to have watched some of the other Marvel films before this one, but I still think that this works well on its own and that you should definitely take the chance to watch it in the cinemas because it is really exciting, good looking and well made

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Peanuts Movie (2015)

A fresh movie paving the way for sequels

[7/10 · 25 April 2016]

Last year, The Peanut Movie which I've been looking forward to for a while, arrived. Peanuts is from the beginning an American comic strip from 1950 by Charles M Schultz. The strip is about the boy Charlie Brown and his friends but it is his dog Snoopy that is probably the most popular character from the series and here in Sweden we associate it especially with him. The Peanut Movie is about Charlie Brown and his friends in school. A girl with red hair begins in his class and Charlie Brown immediately falls in love with her. Throughout the film he tries with the help of Snoopy, to get in touch with her in any way possible besides actually just stepping up and talk to her.

The Peanut Movie holds on to the previous traditional looks of the series. The animation is computer made but the character's looks and motions are the same as in the earlier films and TV shows. I especially like how we never see or hear what the adults are saying. Instead their dialogue is heard through something that sounds like a bass horn. Despite the fact the I've seen both the films and TV shows before, I had actually forgotten a lot of things, especially the different characters. It takes a while to get into everything and all the characters, the jocks, the nerds and the little ones with their blankets. If you aren't that familiar with Peanuts, it may take a while to understand everything and everyone.

The story is simple and the humor is sort of slapstick fun. Charlie Brown is more or less a cartooned version of Charlie Chaplin. He falls, slips and stumbles around throughout the film. It's also a delight that Snoopy gets his own story as the flying ace where he in his imagination flies and fights the notorious and actually real World War I pilot, The Red Baron. Snoopy also hangs with my favorite character, Woodstock the yellow bird. It is fortunate that the film chose to focus on Charlie Brown and his attempts to get the red haired girl, because otherwise it would probably have tangled itself in completely with all the different characters. I think The Peanut Movie is a charming small animated film about how children should dare to take chances and be themselves. A fun animated film worth your time.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

A War (2015)

War makes enemies of us all

[8/10 · 23 April 2016]

It's no secret that the Danish people are making very good films. In the last four years they have been nominated for three Oscars, including this film Krigen. It is a tale of Danish troops stationed in Afghanistan, with a special focus on their commander Claus Michael and his family back home in Denmark. The Danish troops takes daily patrols to meet and speak with the locals. At the same time back in Denmark, Claus Michael wife Maria struggles with their children, especially the middle son who is in a defying period. Life in Afghanistan changes quickly when suddenly one of the soldiers gets killed and Claus Michael during a heavy fire exchange, is force to make a decision that comes with devastating consequences.

Krigen is like many other Danish films brutally realistic and dramatic. With a limited budget, they hardly had any possibilities to make a big Hollywood war film, but in some ways Krigen captures something else. With smaller environments, more focus on the soldiers mental health and the relationship between them, Krigen feels very realistic. It doesn't glamorize war or the life of war. When the soldiers lives are put on edge, you really understand that they are also victims in something they perhaps don't fully comprehend. Parallel with the war in Afghanistan, we also see Maria's life in Denmark. She is forced to fight her own kind of battle and the contrast between hers and her husbands life is very interesting.

The best and really most scaring thing about Krigen is the moral questions it asks about war and warfare. When Claus Michael is forced to make a decision to save his squad, he himself gets into deep trouble and suddenly risk prosecution back in Denmark. The country he serves and the soldiers whose lives was his duty to protect, suddenly turns more or less against him. Very interesting and a bit disturbing. I don't think the purpose of the film is entirely to be an anti war tale, but more likely to create debate. What is it like to be a soldier so far from home and can the authorities back home in Denmark really make decisions about certain things when they couldn't possibly understand what it is like to be in the middle of a war zone? I have for a long time, wanted Sweden to make this film but Denmark beat us to it. A very strong and interesting film.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Jungle Book (2016)

The best Disney film in years

[7/10 · 18 April 2016]

I was very excited about the live-action remake of the Jungle Book, and rightly so. With an astonishing list of actors with different voices and practically never before seen animation, all that it needed to shine was a good story. The Jungle Book is as familiar, an old book by Rudyard Kipling that in 1967 was adapted by Disney into the musical cartoon film most of us probably has seen. The orphan Mowgli has peacefully grown up in the jungle with a pack of wolves, but danger threatens when the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) demands that he should be turned over to him. Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) fearing for his life, takes him through the jungle to the man village to return him to his own kind.

The new Jungle Book hardly disappoints you. The animation is stunning and I can't at times make out if it is a real jungle or not. The story is deliberately made more serious, probably to distance itself a bit from the childish tone of the original. Even if I know the story well, I still shudder uncomfortably when Shere Khan or the snake Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) makes an entrance. All the classic scenes are more or less here but still always in new ways mixed with surprise moments that makes it impossible for one to sit back and relax in the chair. For example King Louie (Christopher Walken), is remade into a gigantic scary extinct ape. I also need to give praise to Neel Sethi who plays Mowgli, practically the one thing in the film that isn't animated. For never having acted before, he carries the film firmly and constantly with a daring curiosity that makes me feel like a coward for not daring to watch when he approaches enormous elephants.

On deeper levels there are a lot to take away from The Jungle Book. It is after all a story about an orphan that in different environments than where he is from and among totally different species, must find a family and a place to belong. I definitely think that there are a lot of everyday questions about acceptance and tolerance embedded into the story and that just makes the film even better. Humour and serious moments are freshly mixed together, especially when the bear Baloo (Bill Murray) enters the story. Also Bagheera and Baloo are here just like in the original, a great duo that combines each other with humor and severity. I would say that Mowgli throughout the film, takes himself through he jungle to meet all the fun and scary characters and in the process becomes a human being. We also of course get a mandatory climax at the end that the story slowly builds up to. Definitely the best live-action remake by Disney so far. Perhaps the next gem could be the upcoming Beauty and the Beast, but that's in the future. For now, enjoy the Jungle Book.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Sicario (2015)

To fight evil we have to become evil

[6/10 · 14 April 2016]

Sicario is about the war against drugs and the drug cartels in Mexico. The FBI agent (Emily Blunt) gets hired by the CIA for a secret mission to bring down a drug lord. She will together with a special force working directly under CIA's special departments, cross the border into Mexico and bring back a powerful ally to a drug lord. Joshn Brolin plays a supporting character as a cocky CIA leader and Benicio Del Toro plays a mysterious hit-man whose participation for a long time remains a mystery. Sicario is raw and contains a brutal realism that really reflects the reality it is supposed to represent.

The film starts immediately and Kate who works for the FBI, stumbles across a huge find that takes her to the CIA's special departments. Soon she works under strict secrecy and is forced to question her own morale values. It is here that Sicario starts to get really interesting. Everybody in the CIA has a pretty relaxed and cocky tone, despite the serious and sometimes brutal things they actually experience. I get the same thoughts and feeling as I got when I watched humans being tortured by relatively normal and not particularly affected people in the film Zero Dark Thirty. How far are we willing to go to defeat this evil, and can we come out of this with our ideals and values intact?

Sicario goes on i a decent tempo with only a few slow parts here and there. There is an incredibly exciting car scene about halfway through the film that contains a lot of action, but besides that aren't there really that many action scenes. It is rather the politics and the questions of how to fight this brutal criminality, that are central for the film. Sicario is definitely a film worth watching for the problems and thoughts it takes up. The plot sort of twists itself by the end and I feel content afterward. All in all a solid film, a strong 6 out of 10.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Carol (2015)

A story about homosexual love that never really takes off

[6/10 · 9 April 2016]

Carol is the story of forbidden love in the 50's between Carol, played by Cate Blanchett and Therese, played by Rooney Mara. The film is made from the book The Price of Salt, written by the renowned author Patricia Hightower famous for other works such as Strangers on a Train or The Talented Mr Ripley. The Director Todd Haynes has previous experiences with the genre especially in the great film Far From Heaven, so I had some expectations. Roney Mara and Cate Blanchett both play their characters superbly well and Haynes has really succeeded in creating a good personal chemistry between them.

Carol is a well made film combined with great cinematography and beautiful music by Carter Burwell. We are quickly introduced to Therese and realizes that she isn't comfortable with her relationship with Richard. When she meets Carol, sparks fly and we can tell they have got an attraction. However, Carol has a heavy history and Therese gets drawn into a divorce, a custody battle and a jealous ex-lover. I think this is where it gets problematic because we know so much about Carol and her background, but we are left to draw our own conclusions and make guesses about Therese's past life. Perhaps we would have better understood and known Therese, had we got to know more about her life. I also don't feel like we really understand why Carol is drawn specifically to Therese. Is it love or just mere passion? She has a past of female lovers and doesn't appear to have felt the same thing for them.

As Carol reaches the end I still don't feel like the main characters faces any real trouble. Carol's husband appears to be relatively understanding and we don't know anything about Therese's life and her social circle, and can therefore only speculate on how they would react. It is really not that much standing in their way and yet they mess it up. I think if their love would have been made an even greater struggle and faced with larger obstacles it would have felt more stronger and important. Plain and simple, the film would have needed to be a bit more dramatic. But, still it is a good film and I do get drawn into their story.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)

Possible strong heroine wasted on tears and man problems

[5/10 · 9 April 2016]

I recently watched the last film in the Hunger Games series, The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2. The previous film was a huge let down and I hoped that this film would rise to the same level as the second film, the strongest installment in the series. The rebels have now for real taken up the fight against Capital, and the rebel leader Coin, played by Julianne Moore, tries in every way to control Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence. Katniss defies orders and travel to the front on her own mission to kill Snow. With her is her faithful brother in arms and love interest Gale, played by Liam Hemsworth. Also joining the mission is the brainwashed and now dangerous Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson. Katniss is also in love with Peeta, despite the fact that he now tries to kill her after Snow tortured him. Triangle drama deluxe.

I expected a great rebellion against Snow and Capital. Battles in the city with Katniss at the front as the Mockingjay. Unfortunately we get neither because instead the focus lies mainly on Katniss' own side mission. I understand the idea and why we get a smaller more intimate environment to deeper explore the triangle drama between Katniss, Gale and Peeta. But still, we barely even get that. Gale has suddenly developed questionable moral ideals and Peeta can't control himself and sometimes tries to kill the members of the group. Katniss, the reluctant heroine continues just like in the earlier films, to doubt her own strength and self-confidence. Wasn't it in Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 that she should have gotten over that and finally understood the leader she truly is?

All of the Hunger Games films are supposed to belong together as one series. Still, I think a lot of stuff is left strangely unexplained or entirely up to the audience to guess for themselves. What does the entire Hunger Games world really look like? I don't recall ever seeing an entire map or overview of the world. Is it only possible to get around by train, or travel to the capital in them and why didn't they focus more on a joined attack from the rebels? I guess the novels explain this further but the films should be able to sort this out better than this. Towards the end we get a lot of endings and some sort of twist that unfortunately doesn't save the film. The weak spot of the Hunger Games series is also its strongest, the heroine Katniss. She is supposed grow to during these four films and become the symbol and leader that she actually is. Instead we get a lot of crying scenes and worrying about either Gale or Peeta. Now that we actually have a strong female heroine on the big screen, why can't she just like all the other male heroes get to take up space, become powerful, determined and shoulder the part as a true leader?

In conclusion I think The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2, is barely passable. There were definitely opportunities to make the film better through more change and development in the characters, more focus on the politics and how the world actually works and also gather the story in one place or simply tell it parallelly through editing so we actually know what's happening in other places than where Katniss is at.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se

Steve Jobs (2015)

The half told story of a genius

[6/10 · 8 April 2016]

It's time again for a biography and another film about the IT- entrepreneur Steve Jobs, who passed away just a few years ago. He was portrayed on film in 2013 by Ashton Kutcher in Jobs, but now the famous screenwriter Aaron Sorkin picked up the story again and wrote a new script. Danny Boyle directed it and Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet stars as lead and supporting role. Steve Jobs is not really about the entrepreneurs' whole life, but divided in only three parts. Each part is about the game behind the curtains prior to different product releases. We follow him in these three moments through two decades, just the half hour before he steps up onto the stage.

Aaron Sorkin is known for writing very talkative scripts, like The Social Network or Moneyball. Steve Jobs is no exception. Fassbender fights and argues with Winslet, his family, his employees and his bosses. Every episode is suppose to represent and portray Jobs through different stages in his life, his distance to his family, his employees and his conflicts with the company Apple itself. Here is where the true strength of the film lies. There is much to take away from the dialogues and we can tell a lot just by listening and of course enjoying first rate acting.

Steve Jobs still becomes a bit boring. After you've understood the episode parts and how the story is told mostly through dialogue and not images, nothing more really happens. Steve Jobs is in the film and was probably in real life, a very difficult man to understand. I don't really feel like I know more about him than I did before watching the film. His problematic character and the constant driving forces are there but what really motivates him. There are a few parts that explains this, like his childhood, adoption and so on, but I still think that more scenes from several years of his life, would have been more interesting. Steve Jobs is still a smart film and I like the idea, bit to get more than three out of five, something else would have been needed.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se