This is another CFF movie worth highlighting. Kids just can't keep out of troubles, and this film portrays such a kid very well. The acting is just great.
It would be rated 5 or 6 out of 10 for a regular movie because some parts of the plot seem unconvincing. But such flaws are often found in this kind of films. So, as a CFF production this gets 7 of 10 from me.
I've never thought I'd post a review of a Russian movie here, but here it is. As the saying goes: never say never. Apparently, there are gems in this country's cinematography.
This film is about reminiscences of one's youth. One can recall precisely what has happened when they were young. One can come back to the place where this happened. In three years, or even in a decade later. However, one can never return exactly what has happened.
Why? There are many reasons. A "return" suggests that the person and the the things or people the person wants to return to have been separated, have evolved independently for some time. On the material side of life, there's always a possibility to catch up - basically, just to accept the physical changes that took place in lives of the separated parties.
However, on "spiritual" level it's almost never possible to get in sync with a person or a thing left behind, abandoned for some significant period of time. This is because our mind is driven by our memory, the things that we learn interactively, the situations we happen to be involved in. Being separated, we face different challenges that prompt different reactions of our mind. One can hardly pass to another person all the cognitive experience they've gathered through their life. And as such we start to "think differently", to not understand each other.
Basically, this film teaches us to always keep up with people who we think we love or care about, be they our relatives, or friends, or whoever we think we want to be in touch with. Watch the movie with English hard-subs here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g37N3eoQ9s):
Traditionally, there are actors who sort of overact, e.g. the house buyer, or the mother of the protagonist. I think that this kind of acting is exceptionally good for theater performances, but it simply doesn't suit movies well and rather ruins them. That's why I dislike Russian cinema in general. Other than that, the movie is a well-played classic coming of age drama.
At first glance, this movie is full of mad characters. A brain-damaged guy overcaring for animals so much that he kills almost all of his family in a car incident on a trip to a zoo just to save a life of a deer. Afterwards his brother starts to hunt animals and collect their skeletons at his home until he's forced to become a butcher to tame his insane hobby. Then a priest who ate his own wife. And a few other personages with similar deviations...
Nice people aren't they? After a friend of the ex-hunter starts to kill people in order to spice up meat products at their butcher shop, the plot seems to go way far from sanity and common sense. You may begin wondering what the point of the film actually is?
Don't be mistaken here. A popular today (esp. in modern Asian cinema) genre of trash-horror doesn't apply to this movie at all. Neither do bare 'drama' or 'comedy' as specified at IMDb, in my opinion. I'd call it a black Scandinavian comedy. Maybe even a black ironic Scandinavian comedy.
So what's the irony, anyway? As I see it, the message is simple: there's not a single sane person in this world. Everyone is crazy in one way or another. To a smaller or larger degree. And this movie, being an act of art, simply utilizes hyperbole to present the idea.
How could one live in such a crazy society? Watch the movie to see how it resolves. In a nutshell, we just have to put up with the fact and accept people as they are. We should remember that we ourselves can look insane in other people's eyes. And that's OK.
To my surprise, both brothers mentioned above have been played by the same actor - Nikolaj Lie Kaas. I didn't even realize that until I watched the movie and took a look at the film credits. Wonderful performance, in my opinion.
An artsy guy experiencing insomnia finds inspiration in dreams about naked women's bodies while he works nightshifts in a supermarket. I guess I've just told you the whole storyline in just one sentence. :) Blame me not, since the most interesting part of the movie is in the details, but the story itself is as stupid and absurd as stated above.
Actually, apart from camera work (worth noting that some of it resembles that seen in Vertigo (1958)), there isn't much to mark. Perhaps the most important part is how this movie depicts the process of creating art. An artists has to virtually freeze the time to make out features of a person, a place, a circumstance, or whatever else they want to devote their piece of art to.
While looking through the features, the artist chooses either beautiful and perfect, or bizarre and weird ones. Finally, these features are layered on a "canvas", perhaps undergoing through hyperbolization, metaphorization, or some other sort of transformation. I put the word "canvas" in quotes because the process applies to any form of art actually, be it paintings, literature, or, say, music.
Note that there's also a short version of the movie: Cashback (2004), however, it doesn't carry the same amount of meaning as the full one. Basically it looks simply like a short comedy. Although some people may start with the short film first and consider it as a teaser for the full version (that was my case, actually.)
From now on I officially love Technicolor! That's amazing to watch a color movie shot in 1930's. Especially one that depicts a yet earlier period. Looks like the life back then hasn't really been as black&white as we usually see it on photographs from that time, huh? :)
According to the Wikipedia article this technology has started to go mainstream in 1920's, so there's a lot of color movies from the beginning of the XX century. Although many are lost, those remaining are surely must watch!
And regarding the story itself, let's not forget what Mark Twain said about his book:
Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in.
One room. Two men. And a 90-minute dialog between the two on the topic of belief in God. Why? Because one of them has just attempted to commit a suicide, and the other one saved his life.
So what is life? Why to live one? How to live one? Should the Bible be a guide, or does the history of the world teach us a lesson? What's pain and what's happiness? What's darkness, and what is light, and after all, is there this light all around us actually? These are the questions discussed.
The movie is a dramatically acted philosophical dispute on a controversial topic. I enjoyed watching it, and can see why people often rate it as 10 of 10 (see IMDB rating stats for this title.) However, I think it's a bit overrated.
The problem is that the movie lacks any innovation on the topic discussed. I couldn't find absolutely no new arguments from both arguing parties. There's no unexpected turns in the discussion. After having watched it, you may find yourself being even more convinced in what you believe (or don't believe if that's the case.) Yet it's still interesting to watch and re-think some of your views and principles.
This is a beautiful exploration of the question "whether our life is a coincidence or not" which I've mentioned in my recent review for Ikiru (Living) (1952). And a possible answer to it.
Watch the movie in two parts from YouTube in the "Read more" of this post.
The movie tells a dramatic story about two people searching for a brighter future in a foreign country. There's a lot in common between the two: the same blood, the same genes. And as such, they're both similarly cruel toward their family when/after they leave.
However, there's differences as well. Mirush moves to Norway and wants to start a new life. He believes that Bekim, his father, remembers him, thinks about him all the time, and is going to help his son. Basically, Mirush expects to be literally fed by his father. Or, at least he wants to turn the situation into that state. After all he's just 15 which sort of explains this.
On the contrary, Bekim relocated to Norway long time ago. He had to start his life completely anew and forget his roots all together because otherwise he wouldn't be able to stand all the difficulties that obviously arise when a foreigner comes to another country illegally. He wouldn't be able to reach the level of independence and prosperity that he managed to acquire. And afterwards he had to protect this level further integrating into the society of his new home country.
Soon Mirush's naive hopes shatter on the severe reality. However, his extreme cruelty in the final episodes of the movie exceeds all reasonable expectations. The question remains: is that in his blood, or emotions were just running wild? The title of the movie (which is literally translated from Norwegian as "Blood Ties") suggests the former...
I've watched this movie before, maybe even twice. Yet I've decided to watch it once again. The plot is very common for crime dramas: criminals, cops, and guiltless people in jeopardy. Gosh, haven't we seen that cocktail on our screens million times already?
But what's exciting about this particular movie is the acting. Especially that of Brad Renfro who plays Mark. It was a surprise for me to find out that this was his first role ever, and he hadn't had any acting experience before. And that when he was just 11 yo! Some time ago I've also watched The Cure (1995) with him, and he was acting superb there as well. It's a pity he passed away so young in 2008 because of "accidental" heroin overdose...
A funny thing is the southern accent of some actors. Like saying "hai" for "hi", or "whai" for "why". Also, the movie contains a number of funny scenes, like Reggie's mum: "Nice to meet you, Mark!" after he shuts the car's door and kicks it, and then walks away, or Mark: "Well, I'll just go get hit by a truck and come back."
As I mentioned the movie itself is quite common and doesn't carry any deep thoughts. The plot is full of unrealistic coincidences and situations. I would generally rate it as 5 of 10, but the acting makes it all!
