Danish Cinema

Lately I've wandered off the Hollywood map as I do now and then. Usually I find a director or an actor that interests me. I read there IMDB page or biography somewhere on the web. Then, as I do occasionally still, I hunt down everything by that particular artist I can find. It is like pulling on a thread on a sweater. Soon you find so many other threads are attached to it.

This thread was Mads Mikkelsen. Most audiences remember him as the villain in the James Bond re-boot Casino Royale. I actually discovered him not via Bond, but by way of Valhalla. Bored with another Michael Bay enema, I trolled the depths of the web. I found the intriguingly titled Valhalla Rising. The capsule on the plot sounded intriguing so I downloaded it.

90 minutes later I was confused, amazed and hungry(I'd forgotten to eat dinner). With only 150 lines of total dialogue and a protagonist who has no dialogue(and almost no visible emotion), why was this film so captivating? It was like an acid trip. Visually stunning, unclear meaning, and it left you with a sense of unease. I still don't know if this was a great film or total crap, but it's stuck with me.

But what stuck with me the most was Mads. So I was back to the web. After the Wedding was heartrending and a very good film. Another thread which led me to some more great Danish actors and directors. Adam's Apples was a messy and slow mongrel of a movie attempting to be an allegory or slight allusion to the biblical story of Job. Good actors, bad movie. Flame and Citron, a WWII resistance story based on fact, is a solid war movie that delves deeper than the black and white realm of friend and enemy into the grays in between.

Just today I watched Kongekabale, or the King's Game. Not 100% sure what the title refers to, but this felt like the Danish version of All the President's Men(the story of how two reporters broke the Watergate scandal)... except this is pure fiction. It lacks some dramatic punch in its final act, but is solid fare.

I find that without the big recognizable Hollywood rising stars, power brokers, and the old guard... I focus more on the movie. The plot, the acting, the camerawork and so on...

I still have a few films in my queue:

Max Manus -another WWII film

The Pusher Trilogy -crime/drug thriller

Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky -love story?

Nu -a short film

Exit -about corporate blackmail

and some non-Danish films:

Mesrine & Public Enemy Number One -a French crime/police series

Howl -about the great Beat poet Allen Ginsberg

Monsters -an independent science fiction movie

Cheers and happy viewing.

Genre Favorites: Science Fiction

Inevitably someone always asks me what is my favorite movie. I give a few movies I recall off the top of my head, but I have this sinking feeling I'm leaving some great films out. So I thought I'd give a list of favorites. However, there were too many to list in a single blog entry.

This brings us to "Genre Favorites." This time I'll start with Science Fiction.

SF is one of my all-time favorite genres. What can I say... I'm a nerd.

Science Fiction allows filmmakers to delve into a wide variety of deep issues without feeling preachy. What is life? What happens after death? Is cloning wise? Are computers too pervasive? What happens when a computer becomes sentient? What will space exploration look like? What will we find out there? What will we learn about ourselves, our planet, our origins because of space exploration? What will war look like in the future? What if....?

Now some of the films on my list have special effects which are "creaky" and show their age, but they were at the cutting edge at the time. I feel to exclude a film because its special effects do not stand up to today's standards is unfair. How can Metropolis, made in 1927, compare with the visual carnival that is Avatar? Should we discount a film just because it is black and white? What about films that predate 3D? No, films are in the list because of their merits as cinematic expression, because of their message, the acting, the story...

In no particular order...

1. Alien 1979

While the remainder of the series has more action and is paced far faster, Alien is the best of the series. A deft mix of science fiction and horror, Alien continues to stand the test of time. Ridley Scott, who went on to direct other fine films such as Black Hawk Down and Gladiator, for my money Alien is still his best. The trailer is pretty wild.

2. Blade Runner 1982

Once I loved this film with an illogical passion... I couldn't really explain why it was so great. Now I think it's a fine film, but with some cracks. It's worth seeing if for little more than a visualization of a cyberpunk landscape, Rutger Hauer's fine performance and some disturbing questions about artificial lifeforms. Also directed by Ridley Scott. LA in 2019 probably won't look like this, but it's good fun anyway.

3. Metropolis 1927

I almost wish someone would remake this so modern audiences could appreciate the depth of this story, but some hack like Michael Bay would get his hands on it and it'd be a puddle shallow, swiss cheese plotted special effects extravaganza... an action flick without a soul. This is a classic worth seeing at least once to see where other SF films stole their ideas from. Check out the HD trailer here.

4. 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968

If you get to the end of this film and feel as if you have a good handle on what it means... you didn't get it. This is one of the few commercially very successful films that doesn't have a clear cut meaning. Life and the universe is not cut and dried... black and white, but shades of gray... so is this movie. It deals with humanities origins, technology, sentient computers, death, faith, time and space. It's a confusing movie that benefits from several viewings(years apart). No LSD necessary... Trailer in HD.

5. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back 1980

I decided to limit myself to just one Star Wars film. While the first one(A New Hope) was fun and got the adventure started, Empire is the pick of the litter... even including the prequels. The special effects hold up relatively well, but the best part is the story. Everything that can go wrong does. Why does every film have to have a happy ending? Characters nearly die, are captured, lose limbs, are frozen solid, and the rebels get pretty well stomped by the Empire. I love it! Trailer.

6. Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan 1982

A plot that deals with aging, abandonment, a huge dose of revenge, technology, the nature of creation, entropy and friendship... the special effects are solid, but the acting is what carries this film. Ricardo Montalban as Khan is an amazing villain, Shatner's Kirk is serviceable, DeForrest Kelly and Leonard Nemoy a consummate professionals. Despite the newest incarnation of Star Trek for the silver screen, this Trek is still considered the best by fans. Trailer.

7. Tron 1982

Imagine that it is 1980. You have an idea for a film set inside a computer. People as programs. Ok, interesting SF idea. Then you tell the suits with the money that you want to use the computers to make the movie. Huh? Yeah, we want to use the computers to create 100% synthetic images. So it's an animated movie? No. Clearly it took some time to sell the idea to the studios. In the end Disney ponied up the cash(in the hopes to jump on the Star Wars bandwagon) and a classic was born. While the sequel(Tron Legacy) is a visual triumph whose roots can be traced directly back to Tron, it lacks real depth of character, acting, story... save for some fine work by Jeff Bridges. Trailer.

8. The Matrix 1999

It's a classic philosophy question. How do we prove that what we experience is reality? Descarte had a novel solution with his "I think, therefore I am" explanation, but it failed to explain the truth/validity of our experiences beyond the limits of our mind. Does this computer exist? Are you real? Is all of this a dream? It's an action film with a soul. Unfortunately the pair of sequels blunder into cliche and religiosity cloaked in weak action films with bad acting and stilted writing. Trailer.

9. Primer 2004

You've probably never heard of this one. A couple guys are trying to invent the next big thing in their garage so they can launch their own company. They have all kinds of ideas, but one they blunder on is actually a time machine. So they test it. Chaos ensues. It is a small lower budget film. Which means the filmmakers relied on the writing and acting(from a handful of unknown actors) rather than stars and special effects. Well done.

10. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004

What is it that makes comic actors good dramatic actors? Remember Tom Hanks... he started out in comedy. Here in ESOTSM its Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet as ex-lovers. Jim underwent a procedure to have his memory erased following a very painful break-up. This is a classic SF set up. Imagine a new technology which does not yet exist. Then explore the consequences of using such a technology. In the end the question is left to the viewers... should we do this? Trailer.

11. Children of Men 2006

This film is notable for the amazing camerawork, especially in several scenes with very long takes for modern filmmaking. One sequence is over seven minutes long! Clive Owen's acting and the dreary English weather set the dark tone for this dystopian film. Get the DVD and watch the special features to see how the filmmaker pulled this one off! Trailer.

12. Moon 2009

Low budget, one actor on screen for the majority of the movie and an interesting twist on the classic SF idea of cloning... Sam Rockwell's twitchy and excellent performance as Sam Bell. He's on the moon as the solitary technician of a helium mining facility. Again another classic SF method: begin with something basic and logically elaborate the line of thought to one of thousands of possible consequences. Here: what if we used clones to run a mining facility on the moon? What if the clone found out he's a clone? What then? Check out the trailer.

13. District 9 2009

Hollywood often likes to play it safe. The backers of films want a big return on their investment(see Michael Bay's various monstrosities). So often the most innovative and unusual ideas come from outside the entertainment establishment. Peter Jackson, of Lord of the Rings fame, saw Neill Blomkamp's short Alive in Joburg. Jackson's own planned feature based on the Halo series of video games fell through, but there was this $30 million just sitting around... trailer.

In District 9 Blomkamp explores to one logical end what might happen if aliens did pay us a visit and humankind's response is not pretty. Check out the original short movie here: Alive in Joburg.

14. The Fountain 2006

When I first watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (#4 on the list above), it was like a waking dream or a hallucination. The Fountain was one of the first films to replicate that experience, if only in part. Do not watch this film expecting to understand everything. Sometimes the best part of SF is that it can transport us entirely outside our scope of understanding. For some this is too jarring and uncomfortable. The director, Darren Aronofsky, also directed Pi which while not SF is definitely worth seeing. Trailer.

15. A Clockwork Orange 1971

Some films are obviously SF... with space ships and laser weapons and robots. Others like Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange are not. Here Kubrick explores the nature of the human mind and psyche, of violence and rehabilitation, of the nature of human nature. It's pretty deep stuff, but its wrapped up in some disturbing "ultra-violence" as the main character would say. Not for the faint of heart, but worth the chance. Trailer.

16. Gattaca 1997

Imagine a future where genetic screening before birth is not only easy, but commonplace and rather detailed. Now what large institutional organization wouldn't use this tool to its benefit? This is the premise and conflict for the main character, Vincent, who is of substandard genetic stock. Yet he dreams of the stars. Vincent does everything possible to game the system so he can earn a seat on a coveted mission. Trailer.

17. The Thing 1982

Here John Carpenter, better known as the director of the horror classic, Halloween, starts with a simple premise. An alien crashed in the ice long ago... was frozen and then discovered by a modern day science team. Mayhem ensues! In an era before computer generated effects, The Thing does wonders with physical effects specifically those for the creatures. The classic 1951 B-movie that served as the source--The Thing from Another World-- and the John Campbell short story "Who Goes There?" are both worth a visit. My favorite part of the story(without giving a spoiler) is the ending. Trailer.

18. They Live 1988

Ok, so this film (another by John Carpenter) isn't big on great acting and realism save for a brutal six minute long fight scene, but it has another interesting concept. What if the aliens are already here? What if a drifter stumbles on to a huge conspiracy all with the help of a pair of sunglasses? On the plus side there are some great lines some of which found there way into video games over the years(I'm here to chew bubblegum and...).

19. Close Encounters of the Third Kind 1977

This Steven Spielberg film has a solid story of alien visitation, great acting from Richard Dreyfuss, some solid special effects, a nifty cameo from French New Wave director Francois Truffaut which makes for a family friendly SF experience. Using music to communicate with aliens was a novel was to liven up what could have been a deadly third act to the film. Trailer.

20. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial 1982

Another Steven Spielberg film... this looks at the aliens as benevolent and child-like. The villains throughout are the scientists who want to capture, dissect, and study the alien. The scientists and government officials lack the sense of wonder that Elliot has for his friend, ET. Spielberg tinkered with his film a little for the 20th anniversary film(no shotguns at the roadblock, radios now), but it's still a great family friendly entry to SF. Trailer.

Now I could add other films like Avatar, Iron Man, X-Men, Armageddon, Men in Black, Independence Day among others, but I won't. Some like Iron Man and X-Men fall in their own genre of superhero movies. Others like Armageddon and Independence Day are disaster movies and beyond the CGI graphics pretty terrible movies. Then there is Avatar... which I'll cover in another post later.

Archangel

Archangel TV movie, available on Hulu

Archangel stars Daniel Craig(pre-Bond) as a history professor of all things Stalin desperate to write another book and return to the heights of his previous popularity. He stumbles onto a plot to (at first) hide the birth of a son to Joseph Stalin. (Ok, spoilers start here)

In the end Craig is a tool of hard-line communists who are working hard to get back into power(this time by way of an election) and a Craig is needed to authenticate a young girl's diary(she bore little Joe to the old man).

The acting was fair. Craig with his clenched style of intensity... never really relaxing, Ekaterina Rednikova as a law-student(who sleeps with men for money to pay for school) is solid, and Gabriel Macht as a shady TV reporter is about as awful as his lines.

The primary issue I have is with the final 10 minutes of the movie. Craig has found little Joe Stalin is all grown up and as much of a psychopathic killer as his old man. A special forces unit is sent to the remote forest cabin to "erase any evidence." Craig and the TV reporter are some distance away by a lake seeking a way to escape when the troops arrive.

So here's the first issue. The troops stomp through the woods toward the cabin. An old man is outside(little Joe's "adoptive father") cutting firewood. Perhaps a dozen or so troops are there within sight of the old man, all armed with AK-47 (or similar) automatic rifles. One soldier fires... one round. Ok, that's odd. No double tap(one to the chest, one to the head), no follow up shot once he's on the ground. Nothing too major though.

Then the old woman(little Joe's "adoptive mother") runs out of the house shrieking. Now this part is just illogical. With the 12+ soldiers moving toward the now-dead old man and the cabin... who fires? The leader of the group... with a pistol. And he's further away than any of his troops. He shortly has a line to the effect that their orders were to leave no one alive. If that was the order why didn't one of the other soldiers fire? Why with the pistol? He was at a great enough distance and moving that a truly accurate shot would have been pretty difficult(but not impossible).

Ah, but it's an ambush. Shots are fired from off in the trees and several of the special forces troops fall dead. They return fire(not single shots, but in bursts as you would expect with their weapons). However, they hit nothing. Little Joe Stalin proceeds to kill all of the special forces troops with what appears to be a WWII or 1950's era Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle. They're solid rifles(I've shot one several times). But there is a logical inconsistency. If the troops are Russian special forces as they say, shouldn't they--with their superior training, weapons, and numbers--be able to deal pretty easily with a single man with a bolt-action rifle?

Craig and the TV reporter (understandably) are running for their lives back to the lake(where Crag had found a boat) with the leader of the special forces unit following. Ok, another problem. While engaged with an enemy with a weapon, the officer in charge abandons the primary operation to stalk off after two unarmed witnesses. Dumb. The TV reporter gets his leg caught in a bear trap(ouch!). Craig runs back and helps extract his leg.... allowing the special forces leader to get much closer. Now he's got one of those handy AK-47s in his hand. However, when he is close enough to shoot... what does he do? Fires only once! Boom, that's TV guy dead. But Craig is still in range... shoot! Nope. Craig runs off.

This gets to the last nit to pick. Craig in his haste to flee falls in the lake(looks cold) and swims to the dock where the boat is tied up. The leader guy walks out onto the dock--when he easily could have shot from the shore. Then he does something very odd. He cycles the action on the rifle.

Now for those of you not familiar with guns let me fill you in. Our villain has already shot at our intrepid hero. By design semi-automatic and automatic guns eject the spent shell and put another into the chamber... which is why they are called automatic. They automatically reload. So since the villain has fired there is a new unfired round in the chamber. Just pull the trigger and bang! But no. He cycles the action(which would actually dump a perfectly good cartridge on the ground).

So he wastes just enough time walking out on the dock and unnecessarily cycling the action... only to die from a shot from little Stalin. So little Joe has single-handedly wiped out a special forces unit with a bolt-action rifle. Uh, what?

So this three part cliche riven pile of tripe is worth a miss.

Just because it's good...

There's a saying I tell the kids when they get into a disagreement about a film or piece of literature(I teach English):

"Just because it's good, doesn't mean you have to like it... and just because you like it, doesn't mean it's good."

I'll use a literature example to illustrate my point. Take A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens... critics generally call this novel as a classic and hold it in high regard. Thus it is considered by those who look at the technical and structural aspects... the workmanship(in this case things like plot, character, diction and syntax, etc.) and determined that it is a "great" novel. This is not accomplished by a single critic in a single time period, but by hundreds over many many years. However, I don't like it. It fails to appeal to me. The language is awkward, the list of characters is maddeningly lengthy, and its episodic style(driven by the serialization of his works in newspapers) drives me to distraction. My judgment on Dickens' work does not lessen its greatness(duh!), but points out one of the sticky issues for artists of all stripes.

Now look at one of the top grossing movies in the past few years: Transformers. Michael Bay's eight films have grossed a total of over $1.4 Billion dollars. It's difficult to argue with that kind of success. However, Bay has been lambasted and parodied quite widely for his thin plots, cardboard characters, and his penchant for pyrotechnics and special effects. Transformers is not a good film(as in deep, moving, and well made), but I like it. It's fun. Let's look at something on the flip side of this equation.

Orson Wells landmark film, Citizen Kane, is widely regarded as one of the top ten films ever made. The camera work is remarkable. The acting is stellar. The plot feels almost literary in its depth and mystery. Yet, I find it a boring film. It fails to move me. It is like a classic piece of literature that is part of the canon--a classic which no one reads. I've seen it several times and will likely see it again, but mostly because I want to steal all of Wells' ideas on camera placement.

So the next time you see an Oscar match up like in 2010--Avatar vs. Hurt Locker-- for Best Picture think back to this post. Avatar is a fun and visually stunning film. However, it's quite shallow plot-wise, the acting is mixed, and many have pointed out the obvious parallels between Avatar and both Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. Hurt Locker while it does have issues with realism(real EOD troops rarely walk right up to a bomb, yet in Hurt Locker the EOD soldiers rarely use the robot), the plot, acting, and overall depth are far greater. I like both, but Hurt Locker is a better film.

A Place for Reviews

I run the Cinema Club at Hershey High School. We talk about films and TV shows, but mostly we brainstorm, write and shoot our own short films. Our main audience is HHS students via a film festival each year.

I set up this blog as a place to post movie and television reviews/thoughts. Enjoy!