Posts Tagged ‘cuties’

Is-Slottet [Ice Palace]

Is-Slottet [Ice Palace]

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

I have some reviews from the past month to fill in before this one but I want to jump ahead and write this one while it’s fresh in my mind the very day I watched it. This is another movie that has been on my “to watch” list far too long. The initial reason was that I only had a dull VHS copy of the movie with no subtitles on it, and I decided to wait either until I found time to learn a little Swedish (something I still want and plan to do for a variety of other reasons) or some subtitles showed up on the net. Then, I waited so long that I decided perhaps I should read the book and then watch the movie with no subtitles, which is what I eventually did. I read the (translated) book over the past few weeks, and it instantly became one of my alltime faves. The simplicity of language and degree to which I related to the emotions conveyed, the likes of which are rarely, if ever, conveyed, just blew me away. I had a hard time thinking how it could make a movie, let alone one that clocks in at a mere 75 minutes.

By the time I got to watching the movie, then, I had the book as a background and I had also acquired subtitles, so I was set. The irony is – and this serves as encouragement to anybody reading this and having the same hesitations about watching – the smattering of dialogue in this movie is really nothing to worry about, should you either have no subtitles, or even if you have them and just don’t like reading them. This is a visual interpretation all the way, and frankly, it’s the only way you could even hope to attack the complexity of the inner world of these characters in the novel: by practically ignoring it, and letting the viewer fill in the gaps, which is as pure as cinema gets if you ask me.

The story is almost embarrassingly simple and does nothing towards selling you the experience of either reading or watching (but if you need this kind of movie “selling” to you then you’re frankly on the wrong site, lol): two young girls, Siss and Unn, meet and immediately connect on a level they can neither understand nor communicate. Unn is new to Siss’ school and distant from the other kids. Siss goes to Unn’s house and they share an intimate moment in Unn’s bedroom, after which Unn says she has a secret she wants to tell Siss. Siss gets uncomfortable and leaves, and the next day, Unn mysteriously disappears. I won’t go further than that, except to say that what follows not only continues a much-needed exploration of unspoken feelings but also the grief process, growing up, and moving on (I feel like I should at least acknowledge the lesbian aspect of the story but I honestly did not even think of this while reading the book, reading the girls’ attraction to each other on a much deeper spiritual level, with all that follows stemming merely from Unn’s secret that Siss, and us, never learn*… the book is just that minimal, not to mention so averse to such easy descriptors as the ‘L’ word…).

I would recommend the book much more enthusiastically than the movie because there is just so much more there, including a heartwrenching “second ending” which is understandably excised here (I was overjoyed, if that’s the right word, by the portrayal of the ice palace’s collapse, however). But considering this was made in the late 80s for what can’t have been an enormous budget, I was seriously impressed by how well the film simply visualises the book (this does, by the way, entail some underage nudity, for those who need to know these things). I really didn’t expect the scenes of the ice palace itself to be so overpoweringly visceral. I almost didn’t expect to see the ice palace at all, assuming a film of such paltry length would somehow take the story on a more metaphorical and talky level. This is a film that takes a minimal novel and strips it down even further. It’s all about the images, the faces, and a haunting (if a little synthy) score. It actually interests me how a person who hadn’t read the novel first would take it. It didn’t blow me away nearly as much as the book, which left me teary-eyed and speechless, but I really can’t imagine a better way it could have been filmed.

* This secret, now I’ve had time to process both book and movie, seems simply to be that Unn is afraid she won’t go to heaven, and it follows perhaps that this is because of the attitude towards homosexuality at the time the story is set, in the 30s – but again, the way it read to me in the book, it seemed to me that Unn was afraid of not going to heaven, but equally afraid of elaborating on why, which is what unsettles Siss, who leaves before such a thing can ever happen…



New York, I Love You

New York, I Love You

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

I had a gut feeling I wouldn’t be as crazy for this as I was for Paris, je t’aime as I simply don’t feel the same connection to this city (which I haven’t visited) as I do for Paris (which I have, multiple times). In addition to this, the directors list for this one – Jiang Wen, Mira Nair, Shunji Iwai, Yvan Attal, Brett Ratner, Allen Hughes, Shekhar Kapur, Natalie Portman, Fatih Akin and Joshua Marston – does not really wow as much as the list for “Paris…” – which included segments by the Coens, Wes Craven, Gus Van Sant, Alfonso Cuarón, Tom Tykwer, Alexander Payne and Isabel Coixet.

Overall I was surprised how tonally it felt so similar to the Paris movie – which certainly makes a case for an argument of producer as author, they being the only solid connection between the two movies – and some of the shorts work really well. I made something of a point of not looking up the credits of this movie before watching so I can assure you when I tell you that, it has nothing to do with names when I say my favourite of all was easily the one directed by Shekhar Kapur and written by the late Anthony Minghella. It’s a poetic musing with the stunning Julie Christie, John Hurt and Shia LeBeouf that’s hard to describe as anything but beautiful and worth watching the whole movie for on its lonesome.

The problem with the movie – and I guess I have to admit I can’t really qualify this since, like I said, I haven’t been to NYC yet – is that it really doesn’t ever feel like it’s necessarily about New York at all, as much as the Paris movie felt it was about Paris. It could be about multicultural Anywhere. Maybe that was partly the point, but it seems a kind of senseless waste of the location and title to me.



Whip It

Whip It

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Let’s face it, I would’ve seen anything that came with the label “Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut” on it, but I won’t deny I was a little, “ugh” when it turned out to be a movie about skating with Ellen Page in it. I look back on that me and smile pityingly. This is as joyous as you’d expect, a truly old-school “follow your dreams” tale with colourful (and quite surprisingly violent at times) skate scenes a plenty. There’s really not much more to say than that: it aspires to little more than being mildly inspiration but mostly kinetic fun and Drew proves herself more than capable behind the camera. If you’re as crazy about anybody involved as much as I am crazy for Drew (my heart leapt when I realised she was actually in front of the camera too, along with another fave of mine Juliette Lewis), then that’s icing on the cake (which is probably all squished from being thrown at somebody in the movie’s most Drew-ish scene lol).



The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I was surprised by the emotional path I took through this movie after hearing such a widespread lacklustre response to it elsewhere. I’d been looking forward to it for a long time, since it was announced perhaps, just the idea of Peter Jackson doing a) anything on a “smaller” scale than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong and b) something that sounded so tonally like one of my favourites of his, Heavenly Creatures. I was slightly annoyed when Saoirse Ronan was cast in a role that sounded to me (though I hadn’t, and still haven’t, read the book it’s based on) perfect for Dakota Fanning – I don’t even know now if that was a real rumour or wishful thinking from me, lol – in any case, subsequent viewings of Atonement warmed me to her as an actress.

The story’s a simple one, kind of Ghost meets What Dreams May Come: a young girl is murdered and views the aftermath from an “in-between” place between earth and heaven, both her and her family unable to move on. Thoughts of revenge are entertained, the girl able to a point to “touch” the real world and send signals to her father in particular, a boy she fell in love with shortly before the incident, and a fellow schoolgirl who has a kind of sixth sense. The movie deals with grief, loss, and moving on quite beautifully as well as adding (I’m told it’s been added in the adaptation process, anyway) a suspenseful thread of the attempt to identify and bring to justice the killer, played quite frighteningly well by Stanley Tucci.

I gave the movie 4 stars at The Auteurs site immediately after the credits rolled but thought of it as a high 4; however the more I think about it, the higher I think that should have been, I feel I’ve been affected by the strange quantity of negative reviews when I can really see nothing wrong with the movie. There’s a turn the story takes at the end where I felt the ending was going to be crushingly unsatisfying, but even that is fixed (hard to explain without spoiling things). I would put the negativity down to it merely being a bad adaptation and that all these negative opinions are coming from fans of the book but it seems too widespread for that explanation… am I the only person who saw the movie but didn’t read the book?

Maybe it’s that people measure Peter Jackson’s work now with a larger scale. I’m certainly one who tends to compare a great artist’s work with what has come before and rate relatively, but one has to remember that in addition to Heavenly Creatures and The Two Towers, he also made King Kong and The Frighteners, both of which this far outweighs. Maybe it’s just that there have been so many great movies and “must-see” movies in the past year and this one drew the short straw. It goes into my favourites, anyway. Saoirse Ronan is phenomenally haunting in the lead, the visual effects used to portray the in-between a really pleasant surprise (it’s not really much “smaller” in these sections than we’re accustomed to from Jackson lol), and there are other notable supporting performances from the likes of Rose McIver (a Power Ranger, I’ve just read, making her all the more impressive here!) as the girl’s sister, a quite mesmerizing turn by Rachel Weisz as her mother. It is a beautifully haunting, sad, yet ultimately strangely uplifting movie that I look forward to seeing again, perhaps after reading the book. I really don’t understand the underwhelming response elsewhere.



One Magic Christmas

One Magic Christmas

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

At last, my “good, new (to me), Christmas movie” for the year :) How come they always come to me at the last minute?

At the heart of this movie is a practically flawless performance by Mary Steenburgen. An angel, played by Harry Dean Stanton, is sent to her with a mission basically to get her back into the Christmas spirit, as she never says “Merry Christmas” to anyone anymore (“Nobody ever means it when they say it anyway,” she tells her 6 year old daughter). Like the best grinchy characters, she’s not a total Scrooge (okay, obviously he wasn’t either, but I like that sentence anyway). We get a sense that she’s “worth” saving despite her current opposition to the Christmas season when we meet her. We see her happily singing in the shower early on, and singing again later on in the street at night in what turns out to be an important scene. We discover a different side of her, this side worth saving, in these private moments shown in harsh contrast alongside her difficult and very real public life. She remembers better times and knows what happiness is … but like a lot of us, she just doesn’t get much.

Midway, when I had already pretty much fallen in love with the movie, it takes a turn I will try not to spoil here but feel compelled to discuss. I’m pretty sure there will be reviews out there that criticise the way it deals with death given that many kids, some perhaps without one or both their parents, will see it and be taken in particularly in the Christmas season. I wondered how JK Rowling, who has always been so final about death even in her magical world, would think of this movie. But despite a little unsettlement at one particular point here, I kinda went with it in the end as it’s more a It’s a Wonderful Life type solution in the end and is more about giving Steenburgen’s character a second chance than giving anybody in the world just anything their heart desires, which let’s face it would be the “bad Disney” many people mistakenly perceive. I would just say, if you plan to watch it with young kids, especially if your family has known death, then take a look at it first yourself and then decide whether to go ahead and watch it together.

All this goes towards saying, wow, what a movie. Its early portion has moments in it where Stanton’s character “intervenes” with events that just goshdarnit make you want to believe in angels at the very least. The grounding of all the fantasy elements in this harsh reality is crucial and missing from so many seasonal movies because filmmakers are so afraid of offending anybody this time of year. This one so goes for it, more than I ever imagined. You watch this and Return to Oz and The Black Cauldron and think “who the heck had a bad day at Disney in 1985 and can I shake their hand?” ‘cos they really nailed the tightrope balance between dark and light at that time. If you’re starved for a great new Christmas movie to watch next year (since it’s a bit late now for this Christmas), and haven’t seen this, put it on top of your list. It mightn’t be great great, but it really goes there.



The Wild Stallion

The Wild Stallion

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Watched, of course, primarily for the presence of Miranda Cosgrove, though that hasn’t always been cause enough alone for me to watch a movie (I still haven’t seen Keeping Up with the Steins and it’s been languishing in my collection for years, lol). This one, however, I pretty much knew I would enjoy as it’s a “girl and horse” movie which I’ve covered here before. It looked to me initially like a tame noughties Wild Horse Hank and that’s a close enough comparison: young girls save the horses from the bad man and “learn things”.

It lacks the wonderful soundtrack and smokey Seventies cinematography but this is a perfectly simple watch if you like this genre as much as I do. It’s pretty much the definition of a 3-heart movie around here: absolutely nothing unique or indispensable, just about everybody concerned (including supporting players like Robert Wagner, Fred Ward and Paul Sorvino) have done better work, and there are better movies to watch first even within the tiny sub-genre … but if it’s your kind of movie, it passes, and Miranda is simply wonderful.



Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Flesh for Frankenstein [3D]

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was on this week in the UK as part of Channel 4’s 3D week which I’ve become increasingly excited about since I first heard about it (it’s not hard to get me onto a 3D kick really). This was to me the clear star item on their schedule, not just because it had never aired on TV like this before, not just because Mark Kermode (my favourite film critic, who despises the resurgence in 3D of late) called it the best of the old 3D back catalogue, but also because it’s just such a curiosity … I knew nothing of it really except of course some link to Frankenstein and that Andy Warhol was connected to it. I really expected something supertrashy … but as the word “End” appeared on screen at the end, I found myself speechless.

There is something Herschell Gordon Lewis / John Waters / Roger Corman -ish “trashy” about this movie … there’s plenty of gore and gratuitous sex (the camera literally just goes in on a woman’s bare breasts at one point “just because it can and it’s 3D!”) and lines like the insanely brilliant, “To know death… you have to f*ck life in the gall bladder,” and (from a man who just lost his hand), “It’s all your fault!” call to mind the deliberately shambolic humour of The Rocky Horror Picture Show … and yet, there are fleshes of real and genuine art, romance, tragedy in this story that frequently had me with a sort of lump in my throat. I just, I don’t know, felt like I really “got” this one.

I still frankly don’t know what to make of this first viewing except for the certain, that this film is surely unique. I would love to see it again in the better polarized, cinema variety of 3D; failing that, just to see it again without the 3D effect and see if it works on me the same way again that way. The use of 3D is better than most I’ve seen, incidentally; the feeling of depth extends even to scenes that don’t exploit it, though again there’s plenty of that throughout from a grisly beheading (really, if only Tim Burton had been onto 3D when he made Sleepy Hollow …) through to the bats that plague the children as they hide from their father, the aforementioned requisite 3D boobs right to the final extraordinary shot that is best kept to myself as I’m guessing most that read this won’t have seen the movie yet. I just found the experience truly mesmerising, and there’s not much more you can ask for from a movie like this.



In the Loop

In the Loop

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

I watched this after a large catch-up session watching all of the “Thick of It” episodes that had aired before the release of this spin-off movie and I’m not really sure whether it helped by setting me up with the world and style or just hindered by sheer overexposure to it in such a short time. In any case, I didn’t feel the time was entirely wasted. I found myself towards the end of the TV episodes I watched rather unfavourably comparing it to The Office in my mind and I still feel as a whole it is “good” rather than “great” … though that could be that I’m just not interested enough in politics, even if I am far more interested than I was when I first passed on watching the show.

On the “Thick of It” side of things, I have to say I preferred it in TV form. A whole other side of the story is presented in the movie in the shape of America and it’s too much of a leap, while the shooting style remains the same and I found myself thinking how I couldn’t imagine going to the cinema to see something like this. It’s entirely uncinematic, almost anti-cinematic, and I felt compelled before writing this to dig up Mark Kermode’s review and was surprised to find he liked it.

However, there was one unexpected surprise waiting for me here and again I can’t quite decide whether it helped or hindered my appreciation of the film. I had no idea Anna Chlumsky (of My Girl fame) was in this movie, and frankly she steals the movie entirely. I was pretty sure of her impressively honed acting skills in Blood Car but her performance here seals it for me, she has officially survived “the child star thing”, and the double whammy of those two movies shows just how interesting her choices an an actress are going to be. As for “The Thick of It” side of things … I look forward to getting back to the third series of the TV version.