Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Stars at Noon (2022)
7/10
The importance of casting.
28 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
An ideal scenario for a Claire Denis film, with mystery, intrigue, cultural conflict and the interpersonal amongst the global political. However, this is not one of Ms Denis more successful and satisfying films. This is due to the casting of the 2 main leads. Margaret Qualley gives a brave and committed performance but she seems to be young and unwordly to inhabit the character she plays. Meanwhile her co-lead, Joe Alwyn, with whom she appears to have very little screen chemistry, has the charisma and screen presence of a concrete fence post. What a great pity that Robert Pattinson, a much more complex and accomplished actor was not available.

The film features fascinating themes relating to USA involvement in Central America, Coca Cola and the power of the mighty dollar. The relative status of cultural domination is referenced by the role that the English and Spanish languages play in the film and the ability of the different characters to speak either or both language. The supporting cast of NIcaraguan and Costa Rican characters are excellent and Benny Safdie makes a strong impression as a shady CIA operative/Business "Consultant" . As with all films by Ms Denis the soundtrack is great and the photography is wonderfully atmospheric. As ever, Ms Denis requires us to engage with the film intellectually as well as emotionally and visually and provides no convenient explanations. So I'm left with a sense of sad regret of what might have been if a better actor had been available to play the male lead.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Void (I) (2016)
8/10
Does for horror movies what "Stranger things" did for TV series....
12 August 2017
It takes an awful lot of self confidence to try and mesh Stuart Gordon's "Re-animator" and "From Beyond", John Carpenter's "The Thing" and "Assault on Precinct 13", Clive Barker's "Hellraiser" and even Lucio Fulci's "the Beyond" into an original new film. It takes even more skill to actually pull off such a balancing act and to produce an individual film that has its own identity but that is exactly what Jeremy Gillespie and Steven Kostanski have achieved.

Moments of real tension, black humour and some excellent and gory effects - I love the physicality and sense of weight that you get with mechanical effects as opposed to lifeless CGI - all add up to a terrific movie.

The cinematography, shot selection and editing all serve to give the film a sense of forward momentum and atmosphere. The soundtrack is always supportive of the action we are seeing on screen and adds greatly to the waking nightmare atmosphere of the film..

Aaron Poole, looking like a more down to earth Aaron Paul but without Mr Paul's rather over wrought performances post "Breaking Bad", is a likable main character and Kenneth Walsh delivers a wonderfully creepy performance relishing the dialogue and producing a classically evil "Mad Doctor" presence as Dr Powell.

A film that is full of surprises and some of the scenes - particularly the ones featuring pregnant women! - are extremely tense. Doesn't opt for clichéd characterisation or a Hollywood style resolution and like films such as "John Dies at the end" manages to keep you on the back foot from start to finish. A terrific surprise and strongly recommended for people who love the best of 80's creative horror.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
68 Kill (2017)
8/10
All money has blood on it......
6 August 2017
A wonderful film full of energy, verve, humour and great characters. Despite the constant mayhem and fun Mr Haaga also manages to include some strong feminist commentary – love all of the gender reversal stuff – and a sub text about what the dollar is really all about, in both the title and the theme that all money has blood on it.

This film mixes a heady concoction of the best bits of Tarantino, Rob Zombie( not a lot of "best bits" to choose from I'll admit ) John Walters and Stuart Gordon but produces an original film that represents another step forward for the genre craftsman Mr Haaga to add to his excellent work on "Deadgirl" and "Cheap Thrills".

Love the direction, cinematography, script and soundtrack and the film feels very much a cohesive and satisfying whole. The performances are very strong – with Matthew Gray Gubler becoming the indie comedy thriller leading man of choice - a post John Waters era James Stewart "everyman" who you automatically like and want to succeed. AnnaLyne McCord gives another remarkable performance, proving that women can be incredibly strong and sexy without being exploited or reverting to a femme fatale stereotype. It's great that Ms McCord has opted for much edgier material than her earlier CV would have automatically lead to ( maybe as the young foil to Cameron Diaz in some lousy rom-com or some such?) She has a feline, reptilian beauty that is perfectly matched to the role she plays here ( she was also stunning in "Excision".) Who knows what she is capable of if someone produces the roles for her? Sheila Vand ( after her performance in "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night" ) is also becoming a very interesting screen presence and Alisha Boe is a heart meltingly sweet in her role who almost, but not quite, makes us forget Ms McCord when she is off screen. So brilliant casting Mr Haaga as well.

I enjoyed the entire movie from start to finish but I have to say that a couple of the set piece scenes deserve to become cult classics in their own right. The "Pop Music " scene ( particularly in the context of what just happened in the film ) is hilarious and deserves to join the pantheon of those in car music movie moments such as the "Wayne's World" Bohemian Rhapsody" episode and the "Trailer scene" is approaching the family meal time scene in the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre " for creepy fun.

Deserves to gain a cult following and I can't wait to see more from the director/writer and cast.
29 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Twin Peaks (2017)
3/10
Bring on the dancing girls.....
18 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Neither daring or innovative but sadly rather old fashioned. This feels like a 70's talk show host inviting all of his pals on to a memorial show and reminiscing about old times. The guests are clearly struggling to remember the stories and when they do they are neither as clever or as funny as they thought they were ......and it's all painfully slow and wooden. Oh well the energy and sparkle of the old variety show schtick they did together 25 years ago may have gone but they can still drool over the dancing girls on the show…………..

I bow to no one in my commitment to, fascination with and love of the work of David Lynch. I have seen all of his films and TV series multiple times, read all of the critical literature around his work and scrutinised his interviews. I list "Mulholland Drive", "Blue Velvet" and "Eraserhead" in my top 10 films. However this is awful!! Reading the nonsense contained in some of the glowing and enraptured reviews on IMDb I am painfully reminded of Hans Christian Andersen's story "the Emperor's New Clothes".

The performances – apart from Laura Dern, who truly understands the Lynch idiom, and Robert Forster, who always delivers a laconic Robert Forster like performance regardless of what is going on around him!! – are truly abysmal. Beloved characters like Lucy and Andy have been turned into empty puppets, parodying the charm they once possessed until they emerge as something quite pathetic. Original cast members have been resurrected ( from the tomb I'm afraid looking at some of them) regardless of what they are able to provide to the integrity of the series and poor Miguel Ferrer, clearly ill, Russ Tamblyn, Richard Beymer etc completely lack the vitality and spark that served to energise the original series. Even the normally wonderful Naomi Watts seems to be lost as she tries to shift between 2 incompatible character stereotypes – the harridan and the caring wife. Kyle MacLachlan wanders through the whole affair in two incarnations. In one he's, the most unthreatening "bad guy" ever, with his cliché ridden greasy, slicked back hair and leather jacket. In the other he's the actor who badly failed the audition for "Rain man"! Poor old Kyle, the actor who was the quirky heart-beat of the original series, now reduced to an un-engaging, empty shell.

If this is such a pure pursuit of the fantastical and surreal and if it is intended to uncover the cosmic physical energy around us then why does the series indulge itself with all of these pointless cameos? Silly blink and you'll miss it appearances by a whole host of people – Amanda Seyfried, Michael Cera,Ashley Judd, Jennifer Jason Leigh, James Belushi, etc etc – all parachuted in as pointless under written, badly acted characters who's only purpose would appear to be to massage Mr Lynch's ego.

I have always remained uncomfortable about the depiction of women in some of the scenes in "Blue Velvet" and "Wild at Heart" but Lynch's work in "Mulholland Drive" and "Inland Empires" convinced me that he had become much more sympathetic and understanding in his depiction of the role of women in society. However this series reverts to the depressing and tired misogyny that inhabits most cinema and TV. I expected much better Mr Lynch. Women are reduced to the role of wife, receptionist, prostitute, girlfriend etc. However beyond this lazy stereotyping there are some truly unpleasant scenes that serve no purpose other than to demean women. I am thinking in particular of the scene in episode 2 in which Madeline Zima is offered up for our gaze in her nakedness and then destroyed in a nasty and mean spirited murder that belongs in some tawdry direct to video horror. Just because it takes place in an arty cube doesn't make it any less objectionable Mr Lynch. Even when a female character is a highly capable professional, Chrysta Bell as FBI Agent Tammy Preston, she is subjected to the sort of "let's look at her ass as she walks across the room" stupidity that I thought had died out with the passing of Sid James in Carry On films!

The plot/narrative contains no sense of purpose or forward momentum. I don't even know what the mock noir mystery is that we are trying to uncover in this series? Are we still trying to find out who killed Laura Palmer? Where Cooper is? What goes on in the Black Lodge? Or find links to some new message that damaging the environment is bad? Well who'd have thought that? – Trump aside obviously! The "surreal" episodes ( Luis Bunuel must be spinning in his grave at this travesty) are drawn out and provide no additional atmosphere or subconscious tone/mood to the piece as a whole. In fact they reminded me of those tired old Nine Inch Nails videos of the 90's. Or perhaps I am simply not attuned to the hidden meanings contained in interminable scenes of lumberjacks killing hotel receptionists in the mist. I would suggest that if seeing a young women subjected to the unpleasantness of eating a large moth triggered something in your hidden psyche then you need to grow up!

I just hope something happens in the final half of the season to transform this appalling mistake of a TV series because at the moment I would hate this desperate, ill considered drivel to prove to be Mr Lynch's final legacy.
54 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wiener-Dog (2016)
7/10
Only one wiener sausage was harmed in the making of this film......
28 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The films of Todd Solondz have little optimism or hope for mankind and reading some of the negative so called "reviews" on this site you can understand why! What a collection of morons!! No the dog wasn't really run over. Yes dogs do on occasions suffer from Diarrhoea. However believe it or not the film wasn't actually about the cute little dachshund, it was about the progressive void that grows inside empty hateful people and about those humans trying to fill that void with a dog.

If you were watching the film properly rather than sitting like a dummy waiting for a formulaic Hollywood story line ( maybe the dog would cure the kids leukemia, maybe the dog would help the script writer write a hit movie, maybe the dog would make the nasty old lady become kinder etc?) you would have noticed that the narrative of the film progressed from a child to a 20 something to a middle aged man to an old lady at the end of her life. You may have noticed the way the dialogue of the mother in the first section around sterilisation came back during the discussions about the couple with downs. You may have chuckled at some of the references to other film makers, to Damien Hirst, you may have wryly smiled at some of the books in the bookcase of Dave Schmerz's boss at the University etc etc. It's amazing how you can find enjoyment and pleasure in a film if you actually actively engaged your brain whilst watching the film rather than sitting there in a semi comatose state waiting to be entertained! If you had followed Solondz films you would have recognised some of the subtle references to his other films and some less subtle ones such as the return of Dawn Wiener. Then you may actually be qualified to appreciate the film rather than being the sort of clown who watched a trailer and thought the film would be a nice little movie about a doggy! If you expected a Todd Solondz film, the master of nihilistic black humour, to be some updated version of Lassie then I wonder what other strange uninformed choices you are making in your life?

I firmly suspect that this film wasn't aimed at people who have on their to see list "300 Rise of an Empire" ( honestly one of the negative reviewers really has that on his "must see" list!!). Don't accuse people who made the effort to appreciate the film elitist or art house snobs, we are just people who like to watch films that require active engagement not passive acceptance. At least the rest of you can be assured that if it wasn't for all of the misguided consumer dummies out there Todd would struggle to find people to base the supporting characters in his films on!

Not his best film but the man still has his edge, still has the pitch black humour and still speaks the truth about the human condition.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nina Forever (2015)
6/10
NIna For..........never.
19 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I felt that this was an interesting premise and I really enjoyed the first half hour of the film. However I have to admit that ultimately by the end I was left with an overall feeling of disappointment and missed opportunity.

The overall highlights were the scenes between the main character Rob, Cian Barry, and Nina's parents. Nina's first appearance is also striking but I felt the scene itself was too rushed and the build up and gradual indications that Nina was in the background could have been handled with greater subtly which would have created more tension. However after this excitable rush to reveal Nina the second half of the film drags so there are definitive issue with the pacing of the film.

In some instances the casting was also far from ideal. The actress who played Holly, Abigail Hardingham, was a very natural and engaging presence, hanging on in there with the relationship despite all of the bizarre difficulties because she wanted to appear "dark" and not "vanilla" and to be committed to her first real boyfriend (although in reality the actress is too pretty to have been "left on the shelf"). However Holly is given no back story and due to the underwriting of her character we become increasingly frustrated that the motivations of Holly become blurred in the second half of the film as her love for her rather dull boyfriend starts to become diluted.

There are two serious problems with the film. The first is the casting of Fiona O'Shaugnessy as Nina herself. The character as written and acted is a highly un-haunting presence. Nina as portrayed in the film is lacking in charm, beauty or personality. Her mocking baby like voice is so irritating that you'd have probably been glad to see the back of her not be so haunted by her to the extent that you couldn't move on from her!! Not to be ungallant but Ms Shaughnessy is also much too old to be playing the fantasy girlfriend role – more suited to the bitter divorcée! -and this unbalances the whole film.

The last half hour was a bit of a drag and the other serious problem, the "twist" ending of switching over the "curse of Nina " to Holly, was silly and felt tagged on. The Writer/Directors., the Blaine Brothers, should have had the conviction to retain faith in the subtext of people being unable to move on from a relationship.

If we had a much sweeter and charming Nina and a more grown up conclusion ( perhaps along the lines of Morettoi/Grimaldi's "Quiet Chaos" ) in which eventually Nina disappeared because the main character was able to finally move on we would have had a poignant conclusion and a more consistent tone to add to the humour and interesting premises. Instead the filmmakers resorted to immature gimmicky that betrayed the original theme of the film.

So maybe next time gentlemen make a film that has the conviction to respect people's intelligence rather than assuming film goers need juvenile sarcasm and a twist ending?
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So bad I had to open a window to let the smell out.....
6 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I had very low expectations for this film before watching it and sadly this rubbish even failed to meet those.

An appalling script completely lacking in a moral compass, subtext (imagine what an intelligent screen writer would have made of all of these orphans?) or clear motivations for the cartoon characters involved at the centre of the drama. As a result there was no tension and I didn't care if everyone was blown up at the end or not.

The editing was appalling with one monochrome setting shifting to another in a very flat and monotonous rhythm. The action sequences were really dull. When the cops ran at the baddies the fight scene was as intense as two old ladies squabbling over a cardigan in the January sales! The road chase sequence was like a choreographed run through in a "how to do a stunt" video.

The soundtrack music was a constant background burble that never actually developed into a theme and was as one dimensional as everything else in the film. Hans Zimmer's score was no match for the epic sweep of Danny Elfman's music in the Tim Burton Batman movies.

The acting was disinterested and good actors such as Ben Mendelsohn and Marion Cotillard were wasted in one dimensional stereotypical roles. Ms Hathaway may have been surprisingly good at belting out a song in "Les Mis" but here she is the least sexy Cat Woman ever. To be fair to her that is hardly surprising from a Director as disinterested in sex appeal and human chemistry as Mr Nolan ( this is the guy who even made Scarlett Johansson dressed in corsets in "The Prestige" seem a little ordinary!!). What should have been highly charged emotional moments such as Alfred leaving Bruce or the public realisation of the sacrifice that Batman had made in the Harvey Dent affair were thrown away.

The narrative was muddled, full of holes and lacking in tension. Just how did Bruce Wayne recover from a broken back, climb out of the pit and get back to Gotham on foot, with no resources at his disposal, from what I assume was somewhere like China in about 3 days? How did he get back into a shut down Gotham? As for the twist regarding who was Ra's Al Ghul's offspring – well it obviously couldn't have been Bane because we were told his disfigurement and subsequent medical treatment took a much longer timescale well beyond the escape of that character. So that twist was telegraphed and in that situation when dealing with a script as mechanical as this one you always look to the least obvious character so to see Ms Cotilard declared as the offspring was as easy to anticipate as the fact that she wasn't going to finish Batman off when she had the chance. All as boring and predictable as the supposed poignant finale at the restaurant in Florence which you just knew would be the outcome. In Hollywood films the pay off always has to be signposted!

Is this really the best we can expect for hundreds of $millions? A lame 140 minutes of nonsense followed by a final 20 minutes reliant on the same old tired device of a clock ticking down on the side of a bomb? Really??

Intellectually Mr Nolan has nothing to offer the intelligent cinema goer (IMDb describes him as being "celebral" – yes sure, to Homer Simpson maybe??!! ), emotionally he is clearly pitching his work at the level of a 14 year old school boy who's best friend is his X box and clearly on the basis of this dull waste of time and money he doesn't even have anything interesting to offer so far as technical film making is concerned.

That this rubbish achieves 8.5 on IMDb is a perfect metaphor for the mindless consumerism and rampant stupidification of the western world. Honestly if this does it for you then you really need to grow up and read a few non-fiction books about politics, economics or philosophy……….. and perhaps even get yourself a real-life girlfriend.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Li'l Quinquin (2014)
10/10
The laughter and tears of human existence
29 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
What a wonderful experience this was. I confess that I never thought that Mr.Dumont would be able to overlay his unique cinematic vision with humour but he has succeeded and I laughed out loud on many occasions. Yet even amongst what at times is a "slapstick" level of humour Dumont's humanity still forms the foundations of this film. To those familiar with Mr Dumont's earlier films the themes in Quinquin are consistent with his previous films – racial and economic tension that results in violence, good and evil and moral responsibility, Christianity, Islam and Pantheism, right wing politics, the media etc and a setting in the Northern France coastal and rural communities that will also be familiar from his earlier films.

At times "Quinquin" almost feels self referential from Mr Dumont's earlier work. Thus we have the tracking shots in country lanes from "La Vie De Jesus", the unconventional ( to say the least!) detective from "L'Humanite", the farming community from "Flanders", the religious conflicts from "Hadewijch" the pervasive presence of a possible evil force/the Devil from "Hors Satan" and quietly disturbing and unsettling moments of orifices, death and nakedness when we all lie exposed and ready to return to the soil.

The bizarre but oddly lovable Commandant der Weyden is incompetent but highly proactive compared with Pharaon de Winter's impassivity in "L'Humanite". Both detectives appear to be overwhelmed by the sadness of the horror of what they have witnessed. Both need the warmth of physical contact. In L'Humanite Pharaon hugs the killer as if to take away his guilt and in "Quinquin" der Weyden allows himself to hug his Lieutenant. Both need to feel the warm flesh of animals, Pharaon with the sow at litter and der Weyden with the horses. Both love/desire an unobtainable woman.

Again Mr Dumont makes use of disabled people in his cast but he refuses to be a hypocrite and treat these people with sickly sentimentality instead allowing them to appear as distinct individuals. With a large cast of unusual characters it feels to me as if Mr Dumont is asking society "what is normal?" We see the character Dany Lebleu spinning around until he falls to the ground ( an idea generated by the actor himself Jason Cirot – so much for exploitation!) but there are many scenes where this movement is mirrored by the supposedly more able- bodied. Mr Dumont questions our prejudices. Is the tantrum of the disabled child at the seaside café any more disruptive than the firecrackers that Quinquin and his gang regularly throw? Many people in a Dumont film have odd physical or character traits but these are accepted not exploited. Thus Quinquin has a hearing aid but this is never remarked upon and forms no part of the narrative. To Mr Dumont different is normal and normal is different.

The role that animals play in Mr Dumont's films are significant. We are all beasts, all part of nature despite our arrogance, despite our attempts to create a religious basis for our existence outside of nature but we are all "La bet'humaine". Surely it is not coincidence that most of the victims end up inside an animal? Ultimately there is no "killer" in this murder mystery. Mr Dumont refuses to blame the individual for the deaths in the film. There are motives such as infidelity, depriving someone of their inheritance, racism and so on but Mr Dumont seems to put the real cause of the acts within the context of an evil that overtakes people and causes their actions. The final beautiful scene of Dany looking skywards suggests to me that the possession has left him and the camera tracks away as the evil moves whispering across the fields in search of another victim to overwhelm.

Quinquin himself is our eyes. He shows the way that the violence of the past, the bunkers, grenades and bullets from the second world war, will overtake the young. Could Quinquin and Eve be the precursors of the tragic Freddy and Marie from "La Vie de Jesus"? There is an inevitability about the way that social corruption that will ensnare them and destroy the optimism of their love. The common flash-point for violence in both films is the jealousy towards people of African origin who are, as Quinquin says, "trying to steal our women". The humour comes in part from the very familiar Police detective duo tropes of speeding cars and helicopters, guns ( in this film fired aimlessly apart from a self inflicted death) and excited running across the beach/field to doggedly continue the pursuit but to what specific end we never know. Somehow Mr Dumont manages to strike a perfect balance between poignancy and the ridiculous, thus we have a scene where the overwhelmed der Weyden leaves a church only to be greeted by Lte Charpentier in full stunt mode screeching around the corner towards him with his car on two wheels.

Wonderful, surprising moments occur. Does "Spiderman" actually stick to the wall and climb it in the same way that Pharaon appears to levitate in "L'Humanite"? Or when Quinquin and his group turn up at the siege with faces inexplicably painted like Imps in a painting by Bosch. Somehow managing to be beautiful, funny, ridiculous and serious all at once, the film contains just about all of the major themes from love, death, relationships, politics, religion and good and evil. Mr Dumont is a unique genius who, like the handful of other true masters, has created his own cinema.
33 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now You See Me (I) (2013)
4/10
The magic has gone.......
11 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, a re-paring of Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg following the successful chemistry they generated in "Zombieland", a key role for lovable, modern day everyman Mark Ruffalo, support from saucy minx Isla Fisher and gravitas provided by the old pros Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman all wrapped up in the mind-blowing setting of modern magic. What possibilities and sure to be an enjoyable film? Well actually no! The film makes lots of references to "misdirection" and that in an entirely different way can be applied to the hapless Louis Letererrier a director who would block any street if he was assigned the traffic duty. Wooden acting, no chemistry, no atmosphere, no rhythm, the crowd scenes flat and lifeless, dull and clunky action sequences ( quite surprising from the director of the first 2 "Transporter" films ) and an overall inability to present anything but a glossy empty shell of a movie. I can only assume he must be able to come in under budget. The script is lousy too and Ed Solomon the genius behind "Charlie's Angels" and Boaz Yakin creator of a series of wholly underwhelming scripts, produce a convoluted mess that at no point is clever or thrilling. At the start of the similarly themed film "The Prestige" Michael Caine's character carefully outlines how a magic trick works and the structure of the film cleverly mirrors that introduction. This script rips off that concept but fails miserably to pull off the same "trick" and simply produces a lumpy unresolved hotchpotch of nonsense about the "The Eye", moral rectitude and modern magic. The script is full of holes and a failure to develop characters. Thus the twist ending is telegraphed from the beginning by the simple minded logic of applying the laws of "the least likely". The specific magical talents of the 4 Horsemen - is Isla Fisher a man? - are not incorporated into the subsequent capers - although at one stage I was sure that Woody Harrelson was using his mind control powers to silently signal to the audience "get me out of here". Most nonsensical of all just how does an FBI agent actually fund the 3 elaborate schemes in the first place? The principle actors, especially Jesse Eisenberg who has very little to do, look extremely bored, mirroring the expression of any intelligent person who had to watch this movie. What a terrible waste of talent and heaven forbid there is actually going to be a sequel……..just remember to suspend belief and active brain activity as you enter into the cinema and you'll all love that film as much as you clearly did this one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A little hope......
5 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Reading some of the reviews of "A Pigeon Sat On A Branch Reflecting Upon Existence" on this site made me despair for the state of humanity almost as much as watching the film. Several reviewers accuse Andersson of "racism" in response to the scene where the slaves have to enter into the infernal machine. In fact what this scene is presenting is a metaphor for the fact that the wealth of western nations is based upon the colonial and imperial exploitation and cruelty towards ethnic peoples across the globe, which continues to this day in sweat shops in Asia and in American owned fruit plantations in Central and South America. Andersson is encapsulating in a graphic and chilling way how black slaves were used to fuel the engine of capitalism. A couple of the "reviewers" operate so far down the IQ scale that they clearly do not even understand that films are "fictional" and so they accuse Andersson of showing actual animal cruelty. One of the intentions of the film is to show how far removed from nature we have become. Nature is shown imprisoned in glass cases as stuffed museum exhibits or when being subjected to the indifferent, cruel and pointless animal testing on what was quite clearly a model monkey. Then we also see the small glimpses of light amongst the gloom when people respond to the beauty of nature such as when the characters look skyward to the off screen cooing of the pigeon. We also see a couple on a beach with the oppressive city scape in the background quietly being intimate with each other and in this scene the dog is shown to be able to behave in a relaxed and natural way. Roy Andersson is a humanist and he is showing with sympathy, but also with much disappointment and sadness, the state of humanity. The two central characters are the salesmen Jonathan and Sam selling junk supposedly designed to bring fun into people's lives. As people have remarked a Vladimir and Estragon for our times, wandering within a desolate world with only the vaguest of purpose and the faintest glimmer of hope. Their "trade" and the products they sell a commentary of our times. So we have the vampire teeth, representing the superstition that is forcing the major religions to retreat to medieval attitudes and behaviours, the laughter bag representing the forced mechanical fun of our age, the dumb formulaic comedies with their never ending sequels and the "fun" of Springbreak and 18-30 holidays where the "highlights" are being drunk, producing lots of vomit and the opportunity to sexually abuse a semi comatose drunken girl. This is a reflection of a world where the success of Governments is measured by GDP, which is really a measure of how much pointless crap people buy, as opposed to a society where we measure happiness. When Jonathan attempts to discuss his true feelings or to discuss anything in philosophical terms he is told to shut up because "people need to get up for work", people reduced to mindless automatons. The mask of "one tooth uncle" is I think representing our disdain and mocking of the old and the different. Our duo are engaged in low paid work often amongst people who are in an even worse financial state than they are, trapped in the debt culture that fuels consumerism. The historical reference Sweden's chequered past and links with Nazism and demonstrate the lessons that history can still provide to us. Thus we have a scene set in 1943, just at the point when Sweden was turning from tacit support for Germany and starting to allow Jews from Norway to cross over into it's borders. I think that the scenes featuring Charles X11 are designed to show that the arrogance of empire is temporary. Charles was a brilliant military leader with at one stage the most powerful army in Northern Europe but like Napoleon and Hitler he was destroyed by a military campaign against Russia. Thus I think Andersson reflects that the great European empires gave way to the USA and now North America is in hock to China. Charles X11 the heroic, masculine leader of legend but what he really craves as a human is the quiet warmth and intimacy of holding the hand of a boy in a bar. Several commentators have remarked upon the bizarre almost Python-esque humour in the film but in a World where a government can bail out the banks, the institutions that created the financial crisis in the first place with their greed and incompetence, to the tune of 23 trillion dollars, or a sum that would have enabled us to develop cheap sustainable energy sources across the Globe, the only reaction can be to reflect on the surreal and nonsensical values of the world in which we now live. Homo sapiens have become a race of empty zombies reduced to mouthing platitudes about everything being" fine", a recurring motif throughout the film, where for ordinary people trying to make a living the daily reality is one of struggle and despair compared with the luxury and indolence of the wealthy. But are the pale vacant expressionless faces to be studied or are they really mirrors that our own faces will inhabit as we look into them? There are tears in Andersson's eyes from the sadness he feels and from the bitter laughter of recognition at the ridiculousness of the state of homo sapiens and what we have allowed ourselves to become. A species reduced to behaviour that enables it to steal from a dying mother or to a society that can ignore the dignity of a dead man and instead concentrate on consumer exchange. Yet as a humanist Andersson still needs to show that we are capable of retaining some vestige of humanity encapsulated in the innocent play of the children with the bubbles, another small glimpse of sunshine amongst the gloom. Some hope where very little remains.
56 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed