kepotaz Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

A remix of the original Star Wars

[6/10 · 16 December 2015]

Just saw the movie, some spoilers ensue. It's basically a remake/remix of the first Star Wars movie masquerading as a sequel. All the famous scenes and characters from the first film and some from the second (Empire Strikes Back) are re-imagined into this one. BB-8 is R2-D2, Rey is the female version of Luke Skywalker, Finn is Lando with little bit of Han Solo in him, Kylo Ren is obviously Darth Vader etc. There's a version of Obi-Wan's death scene remixed with the famous I am your father scene from ESB. There's another Death Star (this time even bigger!) which they destroy. There's images and lines taken from the original film and obviously the original actors make an appearance too for maximum nostalgia factor.

It was OK movie, well made, but too derivative of the original. There were some moments when I thought that this could actually be engaging and a really good film (mostly the later scenes with Kylo Ren), but there weren't many of those, and most of the time I felt like I was just watching a remake knowing exactly what happens next. If I was 10 years old and/or never seen the original movie, I might've really liked or even loved this one.

Hopefully Episode 8 will bring more original content and won't be just a remix of Empire Strikes Back.

Big Game (2014)

Cliffhanger meets 80's Spielberg...

[6/10 · 21 March 2015]

...in this relatively small budget Finnish* action adventure movie starring Samuel L. Jackson. (It's a small budget movie in Hollywood standards - with measly 9 million dollars (8,5 million euros) - but manages to be the most expensive Finnish movie today.)

(SIDE NOTE: No plot is discussed in this review - because you can find the plot summary elsewhere (look up), also because I don't think the plot of the movie is really important in this case.)

Big Game is unapologetically old school (that school being founded in 80's Hollywood) in it's aspirations. There's non of the grittiness and wannabe-maturity or seriousness of recent Hollywood action movies targeted at younger audience (like Hunger Games, Man of Steel etc.). There's direct references to 80's Spielberg movies like E.T. and Indiana Jones, but the movie it resembles most is Cliffhanger, the mountaineering action from 90's starring Sylvester Stallone. It's no coincidence since Cliffhanger was directed by the first and so far only (but not for long, seems like it) Finnish-born Hollywood action director Renny Harlin, and the writer-director of Big Game, Jalmari Helander (whose second feature film this is), Finn himself, was a young man dreaming of becoming a filmmaker when Harlin had his heyday in late 80's and early 90's with movies like Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger, and Harlin was a big deal in Finland (and I guess in Hollywood too) at that time (not so much anymore).

Big Game is a love letter to the movies of Helander's youth. Usually there's certain amount of self-consciousness in backwards looking projects like this, but Big Game is no parody or ironic postmodern pastiche (or something). Helander takes it seriously (without being too serious). Yes, it's predictable, clichéd and formulaic but at the same time heartfelt, joyous and mostly fun (also relatively short with 90 minutes with no really dragging moments), and part of the fun comes from being familiar with the tropes the movie plays with and the willingness to embrace them earnestly**.

It's a film made by someone who watched Hollywood action movies as a kid and played the scenes of those movies in forest with his friends with sticks as machine guns*** and Big Game is direct continuation of that kind of childlike attitude to movies. It's not a film for the more jaded viewer who wants to be surprised with something completely unseen before or who wants "believable" action or more mature or gritty touch from his/her action and adventure movies. Helander made a movie that he loved watching in his childhood and that's both the strength and the weakness of the movie. What are your feelings towards these kinds of old school action movies and whether you are willing to embrace the cliché and take a more childlike perspective to the movie will probably determine whether you will appreciate Big Game or not.

I personally thought it was fun to watch, even if it didn't bring anything really new to the table (in fact it found the old leftovers and served them with fresh dressing). Movie like this could be really stiff and boring if done poorly (it has actually pretty impressive action scenes with such small budget), or armpit-fartingly tryhard and unfunny (Snakes on a Plane), but thanks to the cast - especially Samuel L. Jackson ("Get these *beep* terrorists out of these *beep* Finnish mountains!)**** and young Onni Tommila whose unexpected relationship carries this movie through the more cliché-ridden landscapes - and the earnestness of the director, it managed to breathe some life into the already-done-to-death tropes of the genre and gave the world what it didn't know it needed: Spielberg-flavored Renny Harlin!

6/10 (little above average, fun to watch)

*Co-produced with UK and Germany and shot in Germany, with largely German crew.

**Clichés are not clichés (used too often) without a reason. Usually they were effective and cool the first few times but later became overused and too familiar. In a movie like Big Game you sort of have to be willing to see the original power of the cliché and let go of the impulse of trying to outsmart the movie. In short: it requires a childlike perspective. (Of course every bad movie would seem better with childlike, i.e. uncritical, perspective, so forget what I just wrote and see for yourself.)

***DISCLAIMER: This might've never happened, but it feels like it.

****There actually is no mountains in Finland.

Godzilla (2014)

Going through the motions of a monster movie

[4/10 · 15 May 2014]

There's plenty to love for fans of special effects and monster mayhem in general, but for those who want to see a good original story there's hardly anything there.

Technically it's a well made movie that navigates through all the necessary story beats for this kind of movie, but it lacks personality or soul. The characters aren't interesting or have much of a personality - they're basically just stereotypes instead of real people - and because of that it's really hard to care what happens to them and so the whole movie becomes uninteresting. The actors do plenty of emoting, looking teary eyed at each other or at the mayhem around them and there's lots of personal tragedy etc. but it all feels lifeless.

There's some impressive visuals in the movie especially near the end when Godzilla & co. really lets it loose, but sadly these gorgeous images are hollow because the story is lacking. The visual part of the movie is the only inspired part. The story just goes through the motions of a stereotypical monster movie with some themes of nature's balance or whatever thrown into the mix to justify the special effects.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Uninspired ambition - with deeply flawed screenplay (mild spoilers)

[5/10 · 4 June 2012]

This movie is ambitious, it looks great (excluding the unnecessary 3D) and the actors do mostly a good job. Especially Michael Fassbender's android David being memorable, even if his motives are not very clear. From that we get to the only real problem of the film, which is it's screenplay.

The first half of the movie is promising, even though there are some questions raised - which are unsatisfyingly not answered even by the end of the film - questions like that raised by the prologue, or just unbelievable things like why don't these astronauts know each other and why are they acting so stupid.

It sooner or later becomes clear that the film tries to be too many things at once, but failing to be any one of those things properly. Because most of the characters are not fleshed out very well and their motives are unclear or their actions seem unrealistic, the film lacks real tension and suspense. So it doesn't work as a very tense horror film or even very successfully as an action thriller either, even though it tries to be a bit of both.

The film deals with some serious deep themes like the origin of mankind and the relation of the maker and it's creation and patricide etc. But instead of developing these themes and considering them in any profound manner, the film just puts these questions and themes into the film and leaves it at that.

It's like the film doesn't know what it wants to be. It wants to be a kind of a prequel to Alien, but then again it wants to be it's own thing. It wants to raise serious questions even though it doesn't know how to deal with these questions. It wants to be sci-fi horror but it doesn't want to alienate too many people. And so on. In one word, it's a mess. Ambitious and good-looking mess with fine actors, but still a mess.

There are some plot twists and reveals that seem unnecessary and melodramatic (especially two "big" reveals concerning Guy Pearce's character) that seem to be there just to cover some of the illogical aspects of the plot.

One other complaint I have, comparing to the original Alien films, is that this one doesn't have the morbid genius of Giger's design. The creature design feels uninspired. Instead of the terrifying bio-mechanic and twistedly sexual creations of Giger, the creatures in Prometheus are more like monsters from Half-Life or some other computer game like that. The horrible otherness of the things is gone.

There's supposedly a sequel planned for this, but that doesn't excuse the shoddy plotting, underdeveloped characters or lack of real resolution. If you're making a film like it's a pilot episode to a TV- series you're doing it wrong. Every film needs to work on their own regardless of any planned sequels.

It's not a bad film. It's just hugely disappointing because the concept is really interesting combining Lovecraftian cosmic horror with themes raised by Scott's another early masterpiece Blade Runner. It's just the lazy scriptwriting that makes this a mediocre sci-fi action film instead of the ambitious masterpiece it had all the potential for.

Too bad.

Dimension 1991-2024 (2010 Video)

Abandoned project from a contemporary master

[5/10 · 24 April 2011]

This is an abandoned film project by Lars von Trier. He was supposed to film 3 minutes of film, unscripted, every year for 33 years. For some reason - I have my guesses - LVT abandoned the ambitious project and later released the shot material as a "short film".

The film can be found on a DVD called Nordic Short Films that came in August 2010 with Nordic film magazines Ekko (Denmark), Film (Sweden), Rushprint (Norway) and Episodi (Finland). You can watch the opening 2 minutes on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYCB3R1IBRU

It was a great idea. Too bad that Trier didn't make it all the way through. But after seeing the 27 minutes long unfinished film, I can understand why he lost interest in it. (I believe the aging and even dying of some of the actors was planned to be part of the film, so I don't think the death of Eddie Constantine, for instance, was the reason of abandoning the project.) I think the shot material didn't satisfy him. And he also made a huge shift in style and approach to filmmaking at the time from stylized films like Europa to hand held, more actor oriented Breaking the Waves and the Dogme Movement. Probably he just lost interest in this kind of project.

The style of the movie changes from static shots and Tarkovsky inspired Bach soundtrack to hand held and more lighter, comic touch, after couple of scenes/years. There's some pretty generic gangster plot complete with MacGuffin and all, but it's not very interesting story-wise or visually. Reminds me of Godard's 80's films like First Name: Carmen or Detective. Very loose and making not much sense. Of course the story/film would've evolved over the years.

It feels like a low budget, improvised amateur gangster film with famous actors, instead of the the "monumental film" about the passage of time he set out to do. Of course it's interesting for a Trier fan, because you can see every scene/year mirroring the movie he's made at that time from Europa to Kingdom to Breaking the Waves, with the same actors that he used in those films. I guess it's hard to say if the complete full length feature would've been good or not, but after seeing this short, unfinished version, I'm left with a feeling of disappointment. I first heard about this project over ten years ago and was waiting for the monumental film he said he was going to do. He said in an early interview that this was his idea of making a monumental film. Using time instead of big epic scope in "space" like Lawrence of Arabia.

The idea of the project is interesting and there's probably a lot to be said about it. Too shame that the film itself didn't work out. Either way I'm glad that the abandoned footage was published so you can see some of the "making of" processes of one of the greatest filmmakers of today.

But see for yourself. It's interesting little film if you're a Trier fan like myself, but otherwise you're probably not going to get much from it.

Certified Copy (2010)

Romantic comedy Kiarostami-style

[9/10 · 28 June 2010]

If you're familiar with the movies of Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami, this is a big departure from his usual work. Shot in Italy with Juliette Binoche and some dude, it's basically a romantic comedy, but nothing like Hollywood would ever produce (well, it actually reminds a little bit of Before Sunset by Richard Linklater, but miles away from the Julia Roberts/Sandra Bullock avenue).

It's really enjoyable with unexpected progress of the story (unexpected especially if you're brainwashed by certain type of movies about male-female relationships). It has room for interpretation, everything is not explained and it lets the viewer bind the remaining threads. It's also funny and I found it quite intense. It held my attention and actually felt about ten minutes shorter than it really is. I have to admit that I'm a big fan of intelligent movies about male-female relationships. Long well written and acted scenes with just a man and a woman talking don't turn me off.

The formal control of the shots by the director and the cinematographer are masterful. There are those long shots that Kiarostami has used before, but used masterfully in the context of the story, and not in any "look at me, Mom, I'm sculpting in time" -art house tedium.

I talked with couple other persons who saw the movie, and they said that they didn't like it. But let me tell you that it's really good.