Reviews

Good: Craig in his fifties (the first Bond being YOUNGER than me was quite shocking personal notice in 2006) still appears more battle-hardened than wrinkled, and Seydoux despite her impossible role (almost continuous tears & suffering) behaves and looks desirable enough to go after for.

Else: 1) way too familiar action with "climax at a mega-installation facing the unfair odds" -plot (Bond vs. 50 heavily armed men); 2) the overall amateurishness of those assembly line opponents keeps on stunning; 3) the new 007 is absolutely horrible, both by her demeanor and character-wise; 4) Bond's implausible unwillingness to ask more about that child's origin; 5) ridiculous comic book figures: young latina cutie is suddenly a super agent, young white grinning CIA-boy is suddenly a traitor, Russian chemist is ugly babbler from start to his pathetic end... and 6) what really happened after the main villain had rescued little Madeleine from the ice? What comes to Russians being once again the main opponents, I believe even Putin is secretly satisfied - being one of those bitter and rejected 'Blofelds' who still wants to play with the rest of the world from his mega-installation...

Old man (Antti Litja) has lived all his life in the Finnish countryside, without any benefits of modern society worth mentioning (he got his first radio in the 1960's!!) and now alone too since some time ago the missus walked out of the house after a minor dispute and then later as her health deteriorated was committed to senior home. But when Old Man injures his leg one day even he must agree that there's no way he could manage by himself and thus has to move at least temporarily to live with his son's (Ilkka Forss) family in the Helsinki suburbs. When Old Man arrives only the daughter-in-law (Mari Perankoski) is present for a time being, and very soon her initial slight suspicions about the arrangement turn out to be an understatement to say the least...

As everyone else in Finland I too rate our great veteran-actor Antti Litja very high up there, but unfortunately the tour-de-force performance gets muddled by the impossible character - even by comic standards - he's forced to play here: God knows there are a thousand stupid phenomenon from which to choose in the modern world, but here 'The Grump' has been made so totally devoid of reality that his ranting never has anything to give to anybody. He only comes across as a senile hick. And this fact is even furthermore emphasized by his eager but constantly failing actions as a helpful citizen, so what was really the point here plot- and message-wise, anyhow?

Actors do what they can with the material they got I guess, still especially Forss' (The Son) terribly written character is a downright disaster. We are also led to believe that in the house owned by SALES EXECUTIVE (=daughter-in-law) there is no means to make regular coffee even for quests'/clients' satisfaction... Except that Old Man finds a coffeemaker HE once gave them as a present from a closet (still in its package) but don't seem to know how to use it! By the way, when that old lady left him where on earth did she go at first? Etc etc.

Yes yes it's a comedy, and so funny too I laughed exactly once out loud: in the scene concerning crossword puzzles. Despite the fact it was as stupid as anything else in this another waste of potential opportunity to make a decent Finnish picture. But even stupidity can't make a clockwork orange me 'grumpy' anymore, just more numby.

After every Oscar Night I really get the urge to see all these awarded and nominated films, even if their topics (family life, Facebook, dancing...) are not on the top of my interest list. Of course in principle it's still not so much about the issues but the handling of them. And I'm sorry to say but when I started watching this movie in question my expectations dropped even more when I found out it's directed (and written) by a woman, having been repeatedly disappointed by this "feminist" approach what comes to difficult relationships and human emotions in films like "Woodsman", "Priest", "Sleepless in Seattle" etc. Unfortunately this movie turn out to be no exception. Let's just concentrate mainly on the character problems:

On their first phone call "spermdonor" Paul doesn't at first get it when his daughter Joni mentions her two moms like an everyday thing. Are we to believe that she isn't used to explain their family's situation more accurately to a stranger by now? And why is it that these two otherwise so easy-going and straightforward lesbian ladies have so much trouble to discuss about important but everyday matters like sex and alcohol with their teenage kids? So much that they even have to arrange a special "panel" to have a "serious talk"... You'd expect when 18-year old Joni comes home late from a party some teasing questions like "HOW drunk are you?" or "still a virgin"? But nooo, a court hearing again... It's a bit stretch also that in every aspect perfectly normal looking and behaving 15-yo son's ONLY friend in the average looking Californian neighborhood is a retarded punk. He even likes to play team sports!

Lesbian parents are fine, this whole natural angle with organic food processing and recycling and whatnot is fine, interracial (and even -sexual) relationships are fine. It's all fine to me, but I still don't think that even if some things are nowadays much more accepted than before and people's awareness have grown, those things have become at the same time as general as this film seems to suggest. I still would have liked to know more about the prejudices this family has to deal with society, moms at work and kids in school? And how about everyone's personal history? Was it Jules' first heterosexual affair with Paul since... ever? How could it happen in the first place? What really was the reason for kids loving Paul not to have a family of his own (the issue is touched but never fully explained)? And what is poor Paul's, who never really does anything bad to anybody, destiny at the end? Seems quite harsh and unfair if his role in this family is now irreversibly ejected. And finally: this film was promoted as "comedy-drama". Even while there is every now and then some spirited and good humored dialogue, that makes no comedy. Should not even in women's vocabulary.

It's hard to say if this isn't the most intolerable Finnish movie ever, the competition is very close. Admirable effort to be sure. The plot: fat man (Samuli Edelmann) with ponytail drinks and screws, on occasion he jumps around naked with no purpose; in a nutshell he acts all the time in a totally unpredictable manner and what he says doesn't most of the time make any sense. The catch is that this man is a priest! But wait a minute... so is virtually every character in this movie! One of them gets fired because he drinks TOO much but I guess Edelmann is compared to him an angel because he is despite all considered to the position of bishop! Edelmann's pretty wife is also a priest but still he can't abstain himself from cheating her with another female priest. Who has nothing to say about it afterwards. She becomes pregnant of course. She has nothing much to say about that either, just admit the situation. The background of the story is a city of Turku, but nothing is done to emphasize local color nor no-one speaks with that very distinctive accent they have there. Futile to ask, but just how believable is all this?

So in the end everyone is happy as a one big family around bishop Edelmann, they are celebrating something and Edelmann's old & half-crazy father-in-law starts for some reason to howl annoyingly as hell. Which actually ends this mess quite suitably, after all.

This sort of a British version of Altman's "Short Cuts" (1993) is lightly brisk and totally intellect insulting romantic comedy, exactly the way a movie should be I think when it's targeted by precision for Holiday season and women, elderly and "those boys". I was, actually, already willing to stop watching this nonsense after the scene where cute Keira Knightly is getting interracially married and soul brothers and sisters begin to destroy The Beatles from the church balcony. (I don't hate black people, I just don't like to see them ruin the gems of the western culture!) In addition, the new PM Hugh Grant, judging by his behavior, simply couldn't have any previous experience of politics whatsoever, etc etc... The only achievers are always pleasant Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, as is Bill Nighy in his deliciously vicious and cynical aging rocker role. But even their contributions get lost in this over two hours and a hundred speaking parts mess. The worst torture awaits in the end, last half an hour or so, of which I doubt any normal male aged 15-60 is able to get away without diabetes... A couple of interesting cameos: Rowan Atkinson in his small role as a clerk in jewellery store is quite funny, actually, but Claudia Schiffer as a "gift from heaven" makes you wither in pain once again. Final message for all involved: some films are made with heart, some with balls, but you always need brains too.

On the other hand, that's exactly what we ought to do as "ever-developing" human beings. Every one of us yearns for peace, unity, friends, love... And look how far we've got, nothing has changed except at some point we did lost our fur and fangs. Werewolves are in fact gotten ahead: they don't kill their own kind. (Well, at least it's not suggested in the movies of the genre.) Someone might think I give this sort of film too much credit and meanings, but it's affected me so much over the years that I must have at least some werewolf-blood in me...

This is so much better film in every possible category than An American Werewolf In London, that it's absolutely beyond me how any horror-fan could think otherwise; while in the latter the dream sequences are also very good and the moments of carnage in the end memorable, even those pale in comparison. And what comes to humor, the acting, photography, mood, and ESPECIALLY the horror scenes... it's a clean sweep. AAWIL's worst problem still is the mishandling of werewolf-legends: full-moon is needed but silver-bullets are not. So it's like shooting a rabid dog in the end...

Howling has it's tongue-in-cheek-approach in many ways of course too, but comedy never gets in the way of real horror. The jokes are directed mainly for film-buffs as inside-ones, many of them requiring several viewings to get. And those werewolves: there are hordes of them and they are COOL. Once again, compared to AAWIL: the key transformation scene (the wolf virtually bursts out of this roaring mad-killer-Eddie) truly rocks while in the other it's a joke. Nicely done but still.

So how come this classic rates only 6.4 in IMDb? Well, first of all one needs brains, sense of humor and maturity to fully enjoy it, unlike the garbage in the style of The Hills Have Eyes etc. (6.8!!!!). Then I've always thought that, although this was in my knowledge kind of phenomenon in its release year, people have forgotten the movie. AAWIL has a cooler title and always had more recognizable covers, posters and so on... therefore while everyone even today seems to have at least heard about AAWIL, no-one has seen The Howling. What an unfair world. But, now, I started this commentary by mocking the less than perfect mankind, didn't I...?

This is a good movie, and surely is right up there among the finest prison/concentration camp depictions which almost ALWAYS have at least competent quality. In my mind I compare this genre to "submarine"-films: confined space, lots of guys under constant threat, therefore drama and tension easily created without much sweat (ha ha). But also with obvious problems in providing something new. The same situations and characters are presented just from here to eternity, and I rest my case with this movie in question as follows: despotic warden, sadistic guard/s, evil fellow inmates who want to kill/rape you but also few trusted friends (along with that one old timer and his inevitable sad ending) and finally escape by the main protagonist who of course has been convicted in the first place based on false accusations or at least something not-so-bad crime.

So what's so special here? 9.1/10, come on... Maybe the same tricks worked here as in that other Stephen King's hit-penitentiary-drama "The Green Mile", i.e. manipulative scenes and quickly identified cardboard characters. Or maybe the majority of movie-goers consider what they're watching at face value and never mind that "I've seen this all before"-feel. Or maybe they haven't or just have a lousy memory? Yes I admit, I'm something of a cynic. But I also believe I'm able to spot an truly honest effort when I see one. Probably that's the reason why I consider the grandpa of them all, Mervyn LeRoy's 1932 "I'm A Fugitive From A Chain Gang" as the all-time best prison-flick. No film-snobbery here, as I hope you'll agree when you see this true classic.

First problem: this could have been quite shocking and groundbreaking movie in the 1970's, not after the decade of splatter, gore, mad slashers and all kinds of overwhelming violence, the 80's. And of course especially not after the first film-version of the Thomas Harris' book "Red Dragon", aka "Manhunter" by Michael Mann, which intensity and credibility is in a whole different level. So there was nothing exceptional happening on the screen to me when I saw this even back in 1991, being of course much more dated now. Sure, the majority of moviegoers bought this whole, at least partly due to being the one serial killer- horror-movie that also women could understand and relate to through the main character.

Second problem: I've had this little rule of my own how one can quickly define a director's talent while watching a film. I'll do it by close-ups, especially of the faces. The more close-ups the worse as they lose their effect. Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Steven Spielberg, Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick... they all use them only temporarily, on the right occasion as they should be. Then there are these guys who cherish those facial close-ups in almost EVERY scene like Tony Scott or Renny Harlin, which is, annoyingly, Demme's way of depicting major confrontations in "The Lambs" too. When Hopkins' or Foster's face fill the screen, either delivering or receiving, there's nothing frightening or emotional to me. It's manipulative and ridiculous, destined to be followed by all kinds of mockery spoofs and rightly so. It's soap opera. In the last resort, and to make the problem worse, the interplay between characters just isn't that intelligent and challenging as everybody and his sister seems to think.

Third problem: Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster are widely regarded as one of the best actors in (movie) history. I don't agree. While they're no hams either I still find them to be on top only in the category of "mannerism". Which is a little odd because judging by many many interviews I've seen over the years they are clearly quite intelligent persons. Particularly in this movie, they're are SO self-conscious in every scene. They are not talking to each other, they are talking to that scary middle-aged lady in the aisles. And what really is so special in Jodie Foster's performance? She behaves all the time perfectly normally and logically (why in the first place someone even WANTS to see a 'vulnerable' woman as an FBI-agent is beyond me), so how come Lecter-Hopkins has that unusual interest in her? And being a true female police, she almost screws up busting that serial-killer by making wrong decisions in every turn in the climax... Many actions are too unbelievable compared to reaching for realism in many other levels.

I don't mind that much about this movie's success in the box office and not even it's undeserved but ongoing status as sort of phenomenon, but those five main Academy Awards for only the third time in Hollywood history was incomprehensible. Even just considering "serial killer"-depictions, this is somewhere 6th or 7th best in its genre on my list. But so that leaving you all "Lambs"-lovers with more positive feelings I have to admit there is one good, clever and truly exciting scene after all: Lecter's escape. Glimmers among the rest of the garbage like a shiny kitchen knife....