Reviews by VierasTalo

District 9 is a very good film for fourty minutes. During that time it creates a very clever and inventive parallel to the apartheid that took place in Capetown in the 70s. During this time director Neill Blomkamp is clearly making a film about things important to him and to me atleast they transmitted from the screen as such. If District 9 had continued being such a personal picture for the remained of it's running time, it would have been stonking great. Alas, we get the last half of the film. It's just mindless action fun where aliens and humans get shot into bloody pulps via guns that shoot lightning. Had there been shurikens involved, it would've been more fun. However it still would've been complete and utter nonsense of a climax compared to the set-up of the entire flick. The nonsenical action and gory shooting that takes place for about 50 minutes of D9 makes the viewer feel uneasy over what had been previously shown. What the hell happened to all the great, personal nyances portrayed earlier? When did this turn into Iron Man on steroids? It's a shame that the film turns into action fluff, as it had a great deal of potential that it did eventually lose due to this sudden change in tone and content. It's still entertaining in the endgame, but it hardly lives up to the depth of the first half.

Sometimes being a clusterfuck of ideas, visuals and music is not a bad thing. A Clockwork Orange contains a manic pace, and the content it delivers during it's running time is astounding. It is perhaps one of the more or less uneven films of all time, jumping back and forth between gritty realism and realms of fantasy. However it is always a controlled lunacy. Kubrick never lets go of the strings he holds as puppet master to this cruel play. The bizarrely theatrical dialogue is always a bit out there, but never too much. Alex's journey has events symbolically and visually bizarre, but that might just be true some day. McDowell as Alex is twisted and insane, but only because he seems to have abslolutely nothing else to be in this world, as is evidenced by his perpetual and general uselessness after being cured from his "disease." A Clockwork Orange really is too many things in one movie, but it never felt overtly huge in content to me despite being so on paper. It deals with themes of growing up, govermental activities, our correctional system, medical facilities, religion, hope and many more all under a single roof. But as I said, Kubrick simply doesn't let go of this film. He always has everything under control, knowing exactly what he is doing and why. If this movie had been made by any other crew and it had as much content, it would be ludicrous and bizarre. As it is, it works as a testament to Kubrick's skills in filmmaking more than anything else. A Clockwork Orange is a film about everything aimed at everyone, but not nearly all of them will ever be able to embrace the full scope of it.

I don't think I need to explain why this movie is good. It has a fantastic script on occasion, and the film as a whole is very emotionally appealing and it makes the viewer feel most of the things the characters in the film are feeling. At moments like that, it is filmmaking at it's finest. However when it starts rubbing those moments into your face it really starts to loose it's steam. There are really only two issues I have with the entire film; first of all, the destruction of the nazi-iconography is a scene where we are obviously supposed to feel ashamed alongside the main characters. This feeling though... it simply does not transmit to my side of the screen. To me the entire scene is just an overblown punch to the face of every neo-nazi on earth. I don't think that's a bad thing overall, because they tend to be complete twats, but this is contextually in conflict with the message given in the end of the film of being everyone's friend. Why do the main characters just want to ignore and separate themselves from these people, and still make a great big point of being in good relation with everyone? It makes no sense. The other problem I have is the fact that everything is explained. At first I hoped they wouldn't explain why on earth Derek became anti-nazi in the jail, but I understand that some people wouldn't like that to be unexplained. But then there's the father-scene, that literally destroys any amount of speculation this film could've lead to. Kids, if you see a neo-nazi, he's not a bad guy, but his dad is. I mean that's a pretty fucked up message all around for a film supposed to be about their entire culture. I wished this movie would've had the balls to be more ambiguous, but no. It wasn't.

Here's a film that will leave you speechless. The rampage of Travis Bickle is one of the most unpredictable, yet best written stories of the 70s. The script is so surprising, that you never know what will come next. This is actually an easy thing to achieve; what is not easy is capitalising on this element of surprise by throwing the thing you least expect and still making it feel logical straight at your face. Taxi Driver does just this, and it's a masterpiece of film writing. All the segments in it seem to last just the right time, which can be credited to either the script or the directing. It's a damn near perfectly composed picture when you look at the technical aspects. It's also a very impressive whole, as it has no holes left in it after it's over. It does not explain itself all the way, leaving just the appropiate amount for the viewer to ponder about. It balances what it shows and explains and what it doesn't show nor explain, and it balances it perfectly. But, and you knew there was a but when I gave this a nine, the film is something of a mixed bag as far as our main character goes. He is child-like in nature, but an adult in heart. Yet he seems very schizophrenic for the entire duration of the film. Perhaps it truly is what Scorsese had in mind for the character, but I believe it occasionally hurts the movie as a whole. When you have him doing one thing first, then essentially acting the opposite in the next scene, the behavior jumps at the viewer as slightly odd in a way that made me feel uncomfortable and dislike the film slightly. Overall though, it is a nitpicky thing that probably no one else will complain about except for me, so you really ought to see this film. And also, it's a very stark thing to look at nowadays as the contrast between the DeNiro we see in the end really doesn't look like any DeNiro we have ever seen, and I say that in the utmost positive aspect.

It's a wonderful movie as well. I would usually have an issue with it if a film so outrageously claims that christianity is the one true religion, but I'll be damned, if a film does that then this is exactly how it should be done; in a way that will never offend a soul, done so casually that it's barely detectable. This film is just bursting with energy, great performances and a message that will be needed for as long as there are human beings walking this earth. It's all about appreciating what you have instead of longing for what once was, and Wonderful Life is also a fun character portrait of a man who is unrelentless in his generosity but never feels satisfied with the role he is given, until realising what he has managed to do in the world. Still, there are issues with this film. For one thing, for 1946 the editing is really horrible. This is visible during the bank scene late in the film, when a discussion between two parties have about five cuts in it, but the camera angle stays the same. Is is that hard to shoot a single good take? I also personally disliked some things we saw that felt very unnecessary when looking at the big picture; the "what if"-scenario feels like it goes on for too long, and I really think Valerie is utterly useless after the first scene we see her in. Still, it's a great flick that deserves to be watched by all of us.

I do like this film, really. It has a very good villain in Buffalo Bill, who really feels very sick and twisted, and I as a viewer really did feel bad feelings towards him. It's a rather black/white-way of doing a serial killer-story, but that's what I consider Silence of the Lambs to be: the culmination of the clichéd serial killer hunt. The thing it does differently though is that instead of visiting a low-life crackhead for information, the main character squeezes it out of another serial killer; Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins, is a very sly son of a bitch who is always looking for the best way for him to return to his cannibalistic ways. The film also handles it's female protagonist very well; she often takes not of the fact that she is a woman in a man's world, and we clearly see her determination in succeeding in this realm of men and big guns with nothing but a hidden accent and quick wits. However most of the problems with Silence of the Lambs aside from being a tad too clichéd and predictable come from it visually being from the 60s or something. Jonathan Demme, the director, clearly has a hard-on for the overt use of facial close-ups, and that's all we see during dialogue scenes in the entire film. This diminishes the intelligent writing and good performances a lot, making the film as a whole feel mored or less dated depeding on the number of films the viewer has watched.

It truly astonishes me how a film that is in all technical values this excellent can be so crap in it's content. This movie provides us a view of our world so pessimistic, disgusting and revolting that it makes me shrug. Fight Club assumes that every middle-class blue collar worker is some nutcase with pint up rage towards the society we live in and loathes everything within it. It assumes that inside every one of us there is a very, very large anarchy-adoring psycopath just waiting for the right leader. This is a view of the world I so greatly disagree with that it simply puts me completely off the entire picture. The script isn't structured very well either, as the film shifts midway through into a thriller from a dark comedy and that shift is very uneven, and makes the later half of the film so much worse than it needed to be had the shift not been so damn fast and sudden. In the end this movie is a fantastically acted and edited piece of linguistical, sardonic crap that seems to please male audiences with this promise of a barbaric lifestyle that is enjoyable to watch, but would be a bitch to live.

There are so few movies in this world that manage to immerse you completely into the situations it portrays. In general, the simpler the situation, the easier the immersion. And this film is extremely simple in premise; it has only two rooms in the entire film and 12 characters, and they pretty much just talk for the entire movie. This seemingly simplistic premise really manages to immerse you as a viewer to the events from the very first scene. The film is also exceptional due to the fact that had it been directed by anyone else than Lumet, it would not be very good. Any other director would've loved to put flashbacks to the events the jurors discuss in the film, or even make the final juror simply punch Fonda to the face in the end. Any of the changes that can be imagined for this film would've made it a lesser picture as a whole. This, I think, works as proof of the fact that 12 Angry Men is one of the few movies in this world to almost reach the term "perfect" as it's primary form of description. If you change it, it just isn't as good in any level, as evidenced by the horrid 90s remake of the same name.