martin_g_karlsson

This is a film that is what we in Sweden call "småputtrig", i.e. it kind of just "simmers along", like a pot of stew on a stove. Its not going nowhere, and not much is really happening, except a bit of heating and the creation of small bubbles. Actually, this film also simmers on a rather low heating, a 4 out of 10 heating, that is. Its never above a 5 in the funniness respect.

As to tie together the story of two girls trying to get into the police academy in Stockholm, they get to become mavericks, tracking down a criminal in the silliest "Kalle Blomkvist" fashion imaginable. This lowers the whole film, a couple of extra degrees, and reduces its "småputtrighet".

Jodie Foster takes her revenge on the scum of the city, 'Death Wish' style. I now expect her next film to feature Jodie as a bad-ass cop, who does not follow the rules, but gets the job done - 'Dirty Harry' style. Or perhaps she will team up with Stephen Segal, in his next flick?

It seems rather sad that Foster, who made the excellent anti-violence (rape) film 'The Accused', goes decidedly pro-violence here, in a revenge fantasy with its moral taken from the old testaments "An eye for an eye...". I was waiting for this film to take some type of intelligent turn... but I waited in vain.

I feel that I should say something about it being a woman doing the gun-toting, for once in this genre, but I cant bare myself to call that positive, as non-stereotypical as it now is.

Nicely filmed, very well acted, but pretty damned stupid, and absent of any societal analysis above medieval standards.

While the TV-series, as Bushnells chronicles, was kind of shallow and well... stupid, in some respects, SATC did have a certain zing and friskiness, and it was entertaining and even at times exciting to take part of Carrie's and the others lives. It carried a slight feminist edge, as women had rarely been portrayed talking relationships and sex in a candid way, before.

The film however has no emotional resonance above a typical half-assed rom-com. It seems that they only took the shallow and stupid stuff of the series, and created a rather contrived left-at-the-alter plot, far removed from the light touch, that was there, in the writing of the series. The characters only vaguely resemble human beings. Any feminist touch seems blown out the wind. I did find the film to have a certain entertainment value though, at times.

I found this movie strange and interesting in the blatant way it promotes the army to children. In the army children will get friends, learn team-work, structure and discipline. As well as learn healthy competition and screaming at each other while juggling a rifle. What kid would not want that? To be a conformist cog in a well-oiled killing machine is fun! I cant help but think its like a Hollywood-Disneyfied version of the Third Reich propaganda films for the Hitler Jugend. Sick but cute. It is very interesting that a film like this can be made and put out into the mainstream culture, being treated like an ordinary family movie. I did not find it particularly wholesome.

Bill Murray is Don Johnston, an over-the-hill Don Juan, caught in an introverted bubble. He is a ladies man, and a success in business, but dwells in his own lonely little hell. A letter appears, telling him hes got a son. The color pink and a typewriter might provide clues. Could this bring some meaning to his life?

It is a relational detective story, where Murray/Johnston looks for clues among old flames, meeting kids who may or may not be his children. Is somebody trying to teach him a lesson, and if so, is he learning? I am not sure if the mystery is completely solved within the film. Its up to the viewer to decide. The coldness of the Don Juan however seems to have caused many relationships, and perhaps people, to break.

Murray has muted a territory for disillusioned and blasé' characters ('Lost...', 'Life...'), and he does them very well. The Don Juan sidekick in the film, Winston, well-played by Jeffrey Wright, is perhaps the most likable character in the film, in his attempts to help Johnston find his son, and perhaps a life. The old flames are also fun, and we get a brief but telling picture of all their lives. Worth watching more than once, to pick up all the clues.

Meg Ryan plays a detached English teacher in New York. She is looking for love in all the wrong places, sitting on faces. Her former boyfriend is a manic depressive stalker and her new, prospective boyfriend is also a prospective killer.

In fact, all males in this thriller are would-be assailants. Danger lurks around the corner and is almost unavoidable. A slightly cynical picture of relationships is painted here, with the romantic myth in the cut. People have their own agendas and keep stepping over other peoples boundaries all the time. During the coarse of the film, the history of Ryans parents is revealed, starting off as a romantic cliché, but ending with the mother being "cut in half".

This is, despite Campions sensitive touch and beautiful images, a film that perhaps bites of a bit more than it can chew (and Im not talking about the oral sex scene here). The basic crime story is banal, serving as a backdrop for ponderings on romance, relationships and sex. This is perhaps most clearly manifested as Ryan and her sister, played by Jennifer Jason-Leigh, confide in each other in a strip-club apartment. Its not a bad film though and may be viewed as a series of moods, spoken words and pretty pictures. Ryan actually works quite well in this part.

As a side-note, Ryan was scythed by British talk-show host Michael Parkinson for making this film, while appearing as a guest on his show. Parkinson said that the film goes against everything that he thinks is worthwhile about love. This more than anything shows that the film does have some potency, can stir things up and may have something relevant to say to people.

A world famous conductor, who is so impassioned with his art he gets all sweaty and suffers from nose-bleed when he conducts. A small village with a suppressing and suppressed pastor, a free-spirited young woman yearning for said conductor, and villagers who come out of their shells thanks to the great artist. I don't know if this is as trite to people of other nationalities, but in Sweden its so clichéd that its a Pekoral - a pathetic pastoral.

The ever-so-brilliant-and-burning-for-his-art conductor, suffers from heart failure due to being such an impassioned artist, and moves back to his childhood village. As a kid he was tormented by the other children because he, even as a child, was such an impassioned artist. He cant resist art though, and "saves" the quirky villagers through his passionate love of art. Is this a pastoral? Yeah perhaps. Is it pathetic? Yes, sure. Is it a Pekoral? Yes, ja, utan tvekan, without a doubt.

An up-tight pastor tries to fight the conductor and all the feelings that his art releases in anyone it touches. The pastor talks a lot about sin, in a way that no Swedish pastor I have ever heard does, but pastors in Swedish films do for some reason. He is so repressed and of course stacks a bunch dirty mags to prove that he is a hypocrite. Pekoralish? Yes indeedy. Jojo.

Then there is the love story. The in Swedish films archetypal "free-spirited" young woman, a natures daughter, who really wants nothing but to love and care for other people and in particular love the (older) conductor and... yeah you get the picture - Pekoral.

The film isn't all bad though, it has its moments. But also in those moments it is a... Pekoral.

We follow the Indian great families of gods and demi-gods, and the conflicts that arise between them. Yudhisthira is a righteous man, but can succumb to great foolishness when it comes to gambling. Arjuna the great warrior hero, is prepared for war but yet is besieged by doubts. Is war unavoidable, and is it possible to fight a war without losing? Krishna takes on an ambiguous trickster role, as he proceeds in guiding the Pandava family, but towards what?

This is very much a theatrical version of the story, do not expect any special effects or such, you wont get any here. The stripped down production gives it a timeless feel, and it has its logic, after all how do you do visual justice to gods and great mysteries? The acting is strong, some of the characters are fantastic to just listen to, and more or less the whole cast manages to tread the thin line between the grandiosity and humanity, that the characters possess.

I am a little annoyed that the full version is not available on DVD. Isn't DVD about putting things out in their full length and then some? It feels like an unnecessary loss that we don't get the see the play in its full.

I love these great epics, but the Mahabharata in particular can be a pain in the butt to try and read, in its enormous length, so to get condensed version of it as a play, this well executed and acted out, is well, a god-send.

Small towns in Sweden are safe and clean, not necessarily rural, but perhaps not as stimulating as the Big City. Here we follow some kids in a small town, Falkenberg and their angst about adulthood and the world. What I like about "Farväl..." is its directness. It isn't trying to be smart or deliver puns, but just shows what life was like in Falkenberg, for the people that have made the film. They are also playing more or less themselves, I understand.

The kids portrayed are without any real sense of purpose in their lives, but at the same time quite comfortable, and with deep friendships. Adults are depicted pretty much as half-dead bores, and in juvenile narcissistic manner, adulthood indeed seems akin to dying.

I think that the "twist" that provides the only real drama of the film is a bit adolescent, but perhaps its just a traditional "hero mythology", with the hero sacrificing himself so that others may live. An effort could have been made to drive home a few more points though, now you kind of wonder if the film-makers have bothered to take a step back to seriously consider what they want to say. Politics are kind of absent, except in a very small comment on the separation of girls and boys into different groups.

Swedish small town blues have been the subject of films before, in e.g. "Fucking Åmål" and "Masjävlar", but never in quite this naked way, I think. "Gitarrmongot" I guess comes closest in terms of the tone of the movie. Not exactly entertaining in the traditional sense, but gripping, and I am glad that the film was made.

Do you like Tom Petty? Do you think that women should be caring and nurturing? Then this film is for you.

So, the film was not so much for me, but I kinda liked it anyway. I do not believe that a film should have as its premise that women are innately nurturing, and derive their pleasures from taking care of men. I do like Tom Petty, and indeed some old peoples rock music, but overall its not my cup of tea. The film however has a feel-good quality to it, that is compelling and its got - Kirsten Dunst, she has just the type of charisma that really lights up the screen. Susan Sarandon is also fun. Orlando Bloom is pretty horrible though, every line of his feels pushed and... just plain wrong.

The story centers on Bloom being depressed due to a lack of success in his career. Dunst then pops up as an angelic female dedicated only to saving him. Its not much of a story, the film is neither surprising nor innovative in any sense. The attempts of the main characters to make their meeting each other into something "different", just comes of as, not least considering that their gender roles are very traditional, contrived. Or is it just Orlandos acting again? Instead its more about atmosphere... and rock music. Not great or thought-provoking, but not a complete waste of time either, if you have a shred of middle age rocker inside of you, at least.

The Hulk is angry again and this time hes not Lou Ferringo but a CGI monster, as strong as he was in the Marvel comic and greener than ever. But why is Nick Nolte, with his now trademark vagabond look, lurking in the background?

The Hulk here becomes a symbol of male aggressiveness in general, or an over-aggressive person in particular. Its about power, and Nietzsche is paraphrased by Nolte on more than one occasion. The military is of no use here, they are just another type of aggressive power, and no power is as great as Hulk power! The Hulk can only really be stopped by a female, a Jennifer Connelly is needed to calm his green ass down.

Ang Lee is no fool - the film makes a quite conscious attempt at creating a more systemic mythology, which gives it a substance that makes it rewarding to watch, in a way that it otherwise would not have been. Much like 'Batman Begins', and the Spiderman films, there is enough humanity within the frames of this picture to make it more than a CGI extravaganza.

An FX feast it is though, but also cinematically beautiful. Photography, scenery and overall aesthetic is quite perfectly executed. Eric Bana as Banner works just fine (though he is no Bill Bixby!) and Jennifer Connelly is always very nice to watch on screen. Nolte plays his slime-ball card well.

All in all 'Hulk' is more than meets the eye, and what does, is quite appealing as well.

Its the old familiar story of two cowboys developing a love for each other and the obstacles that a very conservative society puts up in order to prevent it. The challenge they face is much greater than that of an average rodeo ride as there are forces involved bound to throw you out the saddle a lot harder than any horse ever would.

The story is actually quite simple, but still very gripping. The two main characters work hard to hide their love, they take on new families and deny themselves continually and systematically, just to create the front required. The film never gets cheesy or syrupy, the way that I perhaps thought it would for some reason. Rather its all about a long struggle to achieve "normality" and to at least just sometimes get to bust that nut up in your lovers butt. The sex in the film is not particularly graphic though, there is only one real sex scene, and its short. Rather you sit and want for them to at least blow each other a bit.

Its a pretty classy movie, which might indeed become a classic. Wonderful photography. Great acting. And a believable sad and sometimes bitter sweet storyline with an important message. People should be free to love each other the way that they want. It is a tragedy when they don't.

Samuel Jackson is a teacher who's subject to violence. He starts at a new school straight out of el barrio and the kids are not OK! Is Jackson gonna stay on the straight and narrow as a teach or go all Charles Bronson on em?

This film latched on to the 'Dangerous Minds' wave, I suppose. Where 'Dangerous Minds' had some shred of intelligence, feeling and realism to it, this thing just comes off all lame. It tries to come at the subject in a provocative way, but ends in nothing but another morality tale. With violence sprinkled on top. There is a war going on between teachers and students as Jackson tries to bring order to a school full of gang members, killers and rapists. The insights provided here are on the level of lunch room rants from a teacher with a severe case of post traumatic stress disorder.

In a socially disrupted neighborhood, of course you are going to have "bad schools". Its not about the students, or the teachers. Its about having your life destroyed by socioeconomic forces. Then you can talk about how people need to take responsibility for their own lives all you want. That is not the point. People will take responsibility for their lives if indeed they do have lives. Not if all that is left is a torn apart dead end existence. So to end "bad schools", you need to end bad society. Pitting teachers against students in this way, making their interaction the problem, is just dumb. The film also has got a hint of that at the end. But its not enough, and adding 'a teacher wrote this' to the credits really does not help much. Worst "The Teach Knows Best" film since James Belushis 'The Principal'.

James Coburn is Pat Garrett and hes looking for Kris Kristofferson as Billy the Kid. And this time its personal!

The problem with this film however is that it doesn't get that personal. As much as I like Kristofferson as an actor, we follow Billy around just acting up all the time. Likewise with Garrett. And I don't feel any per se interest in any of the characters as such. They are both a couple of hard-asses with a criminal past. Garrett is succumbing to the status quo whilst Billy is still the rebel. The land owners are in the background and supportive of Garrett. Billy has sold himself to them before. People are dropping like flies from various shoot-outs. So we are offered a bland kind of nihilism. Bob Dylan pops up as the enigmatic Alias, but that does not really lead anywhere either now does it?

Still, I can appreciate the whole nihilism thing on some level also. Whats good about this movie is the overall ambiance, the dirty wild west thing, and the Pekinpah machismo, though some type of hint as to why we are offered only quiet female roles, laying in bed or cooking, and with women being beaten, would have been good. I also appreciate the genuine 70s film-making kinda vibe that this film has. And Dylans soundtrack, that very well could have gotten to shine some more, as it is, including the over-played 'Knocking on Heavens Door', pretty sweet.

If I could somehow have remade this film I would have brought Dylans music even more to the fore, and would have made the beginning of the film such that we got more of a feeling for what the characters are about. Now, still, what we do get is not half bad, I reckon. Pekinpah at his half-best.

V is a knife-throwing anti-government crusader in a future fascist Britain. Fear and violence are the tools of government. V in turn uses terrorism as a means of liberation. And he drags a bald Natalie Portman along with him.

The story, like Orwells '1984' is not exactly subtle in its critique of authoritarian government and its call to fight for liberty by any means necessary. If you watch it, you will get it. But its still an important tale to tell, and I can imagine its quite subversive in todays US or Britain. Some of the images projected, in particular the... big thing at the end... are subversive in themselves. Extra points for the Bill O'Reilly character, spouting hateful patriotic nonsense in support of the powers that be. And for the orange Guantanamo wardrobe of the prisoners, the Emma Goldman reference: "If I cant dance its not my revolution." and Anthony and the Johnstons on the soundtrack.

Minus points for the male control fantasy, the "conversion" of a woman by subjecting her to imprisonment and torture. "Its for her own good", as wife-beaters usually tend to put it. The benevolent interpretation of this I guess would be a "beauty and the beast" mythology. Alan Moore has always been pretty pubertal though, in the original story, the Natalie Portman character is also a prostitute.

The problem otherwise, from a political perspective, is, like in 'The Matrix' films, the Messianic part. Political change is brought about by one person, an avant-garde, resorting to extreme measures. Rather than being initiated and created by the people through mass action. But hey, its Hollywood.

Hugo Weaving has got a great voice, Natalie Portman is fetching and compelling and Stephen Fry and Stephen Rea do what we expect from them. John Hurt is almost as megalomaniac as he was as Caligula in 'I Claudius'. The story-telling has a nice drive to it, the direction and visual aesthetics are consistent and well thought through. The plot builds well and the film gets consistently more exciting throughout its course.

Its great that a subversive film like this can become part of mainstream entertainment. And hey it even looks like this is going to be a Blockbuster!

Some 120 hours of raw footage have been cut down into a 81 min documentary. We get to follow some kids in a Norwegian high school. The film-makers have chosen to focus on boys. And a particular type of boys, with difficulties concentrating, perhaps with certain ADHD tendencies, probably the "problem children" of the school. This makes the film a bit lop-sided. Essentially the boys are shown goofing around, screaming and displaying violent tendencies. We also, in a shorter segment, get to follow a girl with depression.

Many of the students are immigrants, and immigration and racism are the themes explicitly discussed throughout the film. We get to see both the students and teachers prejudices against immigrants clearly. The immigrant students are conscious of their situation, and the stigma attached to being an immigrant. A boy thinks that there is no point in him pursuing education, since he will anyway end up an outcast. The film-makers interest however seems to be in the conflicts arising, in themselves, rather than providing insights into the conditions that create them, which leaves the film lacking in this respect

With the focus that the film has, on boys with "disciplinary problems", it is hardly representative of the way kids live today. And we all already know that school is there to teach the majority how to endure boredom, setting them up for the rote jobs of capitalism. Neither does the racism theme really go anywhere. This does not mean that the material is not interesting however, the film does succeed in giving us a bit of the raw deal that is part of youth.

This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish.

Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable.

Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person.

Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.

The story centers on a social studies high school teacher. Hes married and has been having an affair with a former student. Hes an old communist and the student is a radical, inclined towards hard-line activism. We might perceive him as her ideological father.

We learn already in the beginning of the film that the student has taken part in an action against a weapons manufacturer, where a policeman ended up dead somehow. The question is how and why, how to deal with it and what the consequences will be? We follow the teacher as he tries to come to grasp with what has happened. He is dissatisfied with his marriage and finds his safe middle class existence lacking. So he latches on to the wings of his love for the young student, and her convictions, and takes off, on an Icarus ride towards societies boundaries.

Its the old 'Crime and Punishment' theme again, set to a Danish middle class and political background. It deals with questions of guilt, romantic love and the meaning of politics. If bombs are killing thousands in Iraq, is it so odd when someone dies in Denmark? Is the main character a thrill seeker, out for the rush of a young woman's love and fiery convictions? Is there any meaning in punishment? How much guilt should one be feeling?

The film weeds a tangled web of morality, desires and politics. However, it is not as tangled, or perhaps not as well untangled, as it could have been. The motives for the different actions undertaken are never really elaborated on. Rather the film is often quiet. Perhaps that is part of the point, a low bass-like sound is humming all through the movie, like a constant, gnarling feeling of guilt. But it still feels like something is missing in the character description. We also understand quite soon what direction the plot is taking, the contours are a bit obvious. It is not hard to predict the moral of the story, or the fate of the school teacher, far ahead of time. Still, it is a compelling and thought-provoking film in many ways. The acting is highly believable and we understand the main characters aggression against petite bourgeois existence as well as his loneliness and sadness over losing it.

Also Id like to give props to the most explicit hand gliding-Icarus analogy since '24 Hour Party People'. Real good stuff. That should be used in even more films, I think!

Larry Flynt beat and divorced several wives. His daughter has accused him of sexual abuse. 'Hustler' is a sexist, often misogynistic magazine, that has published violent porn and romanticizes rape and violence against women.

Formans film however, portrays a man who is, in his own way, a loving and devoted person. An entrepreneur of sexual liberation, who publishes dirty, but quaint, nudie-pictures.

I think that Formans beautification of the life and deed of Larry Flynt does damage to the point he seems to be trying to make. The point is that freedom of speech is precisely for the views that we do not like. So why does Forman then go out of his way to make Flynt into a likable, albeit quirky, guy? This entirely misses the point.

Why couldn't Forman show Flynt as well as the Christian right, both, as the reactionaries that they are? Perhaps from the perspective of the lawyer - Nortons character? Is that really too much to ask? I know this is Hollywood but...

Formans own sexism may enter into this. The scenes at Flynts strip club shows a boss, Flynt, who has sex with his employees, the strippers, but the film never makes an inkling to reflect on the unequal power relations or exploitation. Instead all we get to see are always willing and happy women, eager to satisfy and serve men. In Formans 'Man on the Moon', prostitution is, in a smaller scene, also depicted as something harmless, quaint and fun.

'The People vs. Larry Flynt' is well-made though, and Harrelson, Norton and Courtney Love are entertaining to watch, though their characters sometimes tend to become caricatures. The story is told with a nice drive to it. And the film does make a certain, but as said above, quite shallow point about freedom of speech.

There are both explicit and implicit references to 'Crime and Punishment', as well as the naturalistic Strindberg in this movie. It also packs the same moral as Allens own 'Crimes and Misdemeanours'. Allen seems to think that the story of how someone can get away with murder is an important one to tell. Why? Hitler and Stalin "got away" with the murder of millions and millions, its hardly news is it?

Essentially the movie paints the picture of a working class sociopath who climbs the social ladder in ways he sees fit, and who wont stop at murder to get what he wants. Allen makes no distinction between "being guilty" and "getting caught", there is little social commentary and not much in the way of serious reflections on class dynamics. So the film becomes a Nietzschean success story of nihilist overcoming of societies boundaries. Fourtunately the story is not that compelling or believable, though the films entertainment value is above average. The dialog is sometimes pretty corny, but it is well acted.

That Allen finds this theme important, this is his second film with an in parts identical theme, probably tells us more about his petite bourgeoisie world view and narcissistic tendencies, than anything else. No doubt Allen is both scared of and titillated by the thought of self-centered nihilistic action as a route to self-gratification.

This is about the buying and selling of human beings. Lilja is in a hopeless situation, she is betrayed and then sold. The men who sell and buy her are not concerned with who she is, or why she is there. They don't want to know. They do their business and don't ask questions.

There is not much doubt this could be a true story. Moodysson wrote the script after reading about a young girl, an eastern European refugee, under strange circumstances throwing herself off a bridge in Malmö. "Sex slavery", trafficking, is out of sight, out of mind for most of us, but is still very much in effect. And most of the people on the planet live very hard lives.

The buying and selling of people is something that we all live with. We all sell ourselves to anonymous corporations, we have to do it, it is in the fabric of our societies. Liljas sale is on another scale of exploitation, of course, but it is also an extreme of what capitalism effectively means. Everything is a commodity.

The movie tells the story of of a young girls destruction by brutal socioeconomic and individual forces, both objectively and subjectively. While there is no big drama, the story is told from the perspective of Lilja. There are a few weaknesses, the portrayal of Lilja starts with things going bad, and then they turn even worse. We don't get to know Lilja outside of hardships, which probably enables us to differentiate ourselves from her. Also its a bit over-explicit in the depiction of the adult betrayal of Lilja. What if, for example, Liljas mother hadn't disappeared, the way she does in the movie, would that make the story much less tragic?

Otherwise, its a film that people "should see", there should be a 100 of these kind of movies made for every new, strained, meaningless, "J.Lo is pretty and wants romance" or "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody", film. Instead of the other way around, the way it is today.