I'm back!

My first post in a looong time, mainly due to urgency with my thesis, which, finally, is done! So this will be kind of a new beginning for this wretched blog of mine.

I awarded myself for finishing my thesis with two tickets to the cinema. The first movie I went to watch is called Drive by the self-taught Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn. The film is about a Hollywood stunt driver (played by Ryan Gosling), who makes some extra cash on the side by driving his car for whoever pays him. These jobs aren't exactly legal. The movie really kicks in after one of his jobs goes horribly wrong, after which the "bad guys" are on his tail.

Drive is a difficult movie to categorize. It's not a car chase movie, although there are some pretty awesome car chase scenes, but they are not the essence of the movie. There's also a clear 'art house' feel to the movie, hence the comparisons this movie has gotten to David Lynch. There's a lot of violence too; brutal violence. And it's thrown at your face without a warning. Maybe 'art-house action movie' would be a fitting descprition. I don't know, watch the movie and decide for yourself, cause the movie is rather good!

The movie is pretty low-key, 'arty', stylish - hence the references to Michael Mann - and slow paced. Some like it, some don't. I think the movie has a very special, almost hypnotic feel to it, while the 'action' elements might make this film more accessible to a bigger audience. The blend of these two elements - the 'art house' and the 'action' - is pretty seamless, in my opinioin. I'm pretty sure that the stylishness of this film appeals to a lot of hipsters out there. Drive reminds me a bit of Lost in Translation, which is all about form, not content. There's more content in Drive, but it is very elegant too. Just listen to the soundtrack (here, for example), which, I have to admit, is pretty good.

* * *

And the second movie is The Thing (2011). The prequel, or, rather, the remake. A mild disapointment, I have to say. John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) (which , by the way, is a remake too), on which this new film is based on, is so much better. This new film does not attempt to do anything new. Carpenter's film is being used as a template with too few new things added. Like with so many other mediocre films, the beginning is good. The director knows how to create a good mood and atmosphere, but when it comes to making big decisions conserning the plot, the whole film collapses.

The Thing (2011) is not rubbish, there's a time and place for this kind of movies too. Sci-fi horror is a genre close to my heart. I don't regret paying 10 euros for this film, but you might.

Woodsman - "I'm not a monster..."

The poster (see here) and the tagline ("I'm not a monster...") summarizes the movie pretty well. Woodsman tells the story of a paroled paedophile, Walter (Kevin Bacon), who tries to start a normal life (or, rather, as normal as possible) out in the society after 12 years in prison.


Much of the movie is centered on the internal struggle of Walter. The title of the movie is an allusion to the old folk tale, in which a woodsman saves Little Red Riding Hood from the stomach of Big Bad Wolf by cutting the wolf open. Which one is Walter; the wolf or the woodsman? The (red) ball is in his court...

Woodsman is only 80 minutes long, but there's a lot of content crammed into those minutes, even though the film, and Kevin Bacon's acting particularly, is rather minimalistic. Thought provoking. Not pleasent, but still not completely devoid of hope. Not for Fast and Furios fans.

The Walking Dead, Season 2 – Finally here!

Frank Darabont's zombie apocalypse series The Walking Dead is back with new episodes. The last two episodes of the new season have not been disappointing. The series represents a more mature take on the zombie genre. It mixes horror and suspense with drama. The balance between the three is spot on! Good acting and (some) interesting characters. This series has to be one of the best things on TV at the moment. Seriously, if you haven't seen the first season, you should be ashamed.

I'd also like to recommend some of Frank Darabont's films, such as Shawshank Redepmtion, which everybody know and loves. Shame on you if you haven't seen it. Mist is a very good, old-fashioned monster/sci-fi thriller. Some of my friends called it cheap, but they didn't get it, that's the thing that makes the film so charming in this age of CGI-extravaganza.

Check out the trailer: 

 

Hunger

I watched this film from my laptop on a train up north, constantly looking over my shoulder, worried that other passengers might think I am some kind of perv or sadist. Hunger is not a pleasant film to watch; there is a lot nudity and violence - both physical and psychological. Not the film you would like to watch on a first date.

Hunger is based on a true story. The film depicts the lives of IRA inmates in the notorious prison named Maze in the early 1980s, more specifically the last few weeks of Bobby Sand's life. The film is very low key and there's no dramatic plot line -- some would undoubtedly say that the film is boring. It is not. Hunger is dealing with a subject matter that still today is rather sensitive, but without turning the film into a political statement. The director, Steve McQueen, is portraying the suffering inside Maze as a tragedy not only for the inmates, but also for the prison guards.

The IRA prisoners and Bobby Sands are in the spotlight, but there are several hints of the silent suffering of the prison guards. Hunger portrays many of the wrongdoers as men trapped in a situation they would never have wanted to be in, and how the overwhelming stress and feeling of guilt feeds the spiral of violence.

Hunger is a very watchable film and a very decent debut film, but it is not your typical gangsta prison flick. Hunger is very low key, slow paced, dark and disturbing - it does not handle its audience with care. The world of Hunger is almost entirely devoid of light and hope.

Hunger is available at Turku public library, make a reservation here.

Ninja Scroll

Ninja Scroll is a straightforward and bloody anime film. The plot is fairly simple: an itinerant ninja (or something) travels around Japan and stumbles upon a vile plot by some bad guys. Needless to say that he takes care of them.

Unlike many other anime films, this one is not ruined by a supposedly philosophical or megalomaniac plot. It's just fun and brainless entertainment, which a lot of times is enough. If you enjoyed playing Ninja Gaiden II, the chances are that you'll like this one. Some of the scenes are very bloody. There is also some explicit sexual content; this is no cartoon for kids. Is it any good? Yes, I would say so, the entertainment value is pretty high. I especially liked the innovative bad guys.

Watch the clip below for a little taster. It's not a spoiler, it's from the beginning of the film. But consider yourself warned, what you are about to see is pretty violent.

Don't mix Ninja Scroll the movie with Ninja Scroll the series. The series sucks!

*   *   *

For the record: I watch "real" movies too. I have the russian classic Come and See and the Swedish art house movie Du levande waiting on my table. I prefer to watch more serious movies in a more focused state of mind. So called "trash movies" are better for resetting your brain after a hard day of studying and/or working. 

Crappy (22 Bullets) and mediocre (Paranormal Activity)

Never, ever watch 22 Bullets (aka L'immortel). I have nothing good to say about this film, in the middle of the film I felt like shooting myself in the face. For the sake of courtesy I had to finish the film.

I Also watched Paranormal Activity, which is loathed by a lot of people I know. The film sort of works when you are alone in the dark (my flat mate ruined the experience by coming home in the middle of the film), but yeah, its pretty boring when you really think about it. The characters in the film hang around in the house during daytime, when they go to bed at night strange shit starts to happens. Paranormal Activity is composed of god know how many repetitions of this cycle.

*   *   *

Few things about my taste in films: I'm pretty demanding, I think that I have probably seen too many films in my life. Few films surprise me anymore. I'm also very masochistic. For some reason I keep watching films that are bad - and get strange pleasure from it.

Contact - Between faith and rationality

Contact is a sci-fi/thriller/drama film with a twist of romance. The director, Robert Zemeckis, is probably most famous for making the Back to the Future trilogy and the moronic Forrest Gump. His 1997 movie Contact was his first release after the acclaimed Forrest Gump. The reason I bought this DVD is the script, which is based on a novel by one of my childhood heroes, the late Carl Sagan (probably most known to the internet generation through this video). Sagan -- an astronomer and a notable popularizer of science -- was not a militant atheist à la Dawkins. This film is a reflection of Sagan's conciliatory stance. 

Contact tells the story of Dr. Eleanor Arroway (Jodie Foster), a gifted scientist who devotes her life for the search of E.T. through the SETI-project, instead of trying to make it big in the world of science. One day Eleanor captures a transmission from the star Vega consisting of prime numbers. Hidden in this message are also the blue prints of a device of some sort. Later in the film, when Eleanor gets to speak to all the world leaders, she meets an old one-night stand, the president's spiritual advisor (or something), reverend Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaghey). That's all I can reveal of the plot without spoiling the film. 

The major themes of the film are -- at least in my opinon -- science versus religion, faith versus facts; and how these opposites in fact overlap eachother. These questions are reflected upon through the relationship of Eleanor and Palmer. There's a lot more things happening in the film, but this dimension is by far the most interesting thing in Contact.