Change Your Image
kevi_kevi
Reviews
Låt den rätte komma in (2008)
Let this right one in
Poignant. The first word that popped into my head after watching this film.
It left me thinking a lot afterwards, I wasn't quite sure if I liked it or not for about an hour or two, but one thing's definite in my mind during that period of time: it's a masterpiece. It doesn't matter if you decide to love it or hate it, at the end of the day it's brilliantly shot, the characters were efficiently portrayed, and the story line's just simply haunting. In some sense it's a love story in the purest form, that between two innocent beings, that surpasses age and gender; it's also a story about survival in a world where you don't fit in; it's a story about searching for the end of solitude; and it's also about fighting, be it for survival, or for acceptance or attention. It's a layered story that can be dissected and analysed in great details, and still be able to survive the scrutiny.
It's amazing how this film about the relationship between two pre-teens (around 12, 13 I think?) actually managed to portray a much, much deeper relationship with a much higher maturity level than that between two teenagers (yes, I'm talking about Twilight).
Read the book if the film left you confused, it does explain a lot about the background of the characters.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
better than expected
I've seen a lot of adapted versions of different literatures/musicals and most of them weren't that good, so I didn't have high expectations when I went into the cinema. I was wrong. I've heard Gerarld's singing in the trailer on TV, and it wasn't fascinating, so I didn't expect much when I went into the cinema. I was wrong. I thought to myself 'the only thing I'd get out from this movie is the exquisite and extravagant settings' when I went into the cinema, I was wrong yet again.
Plot? Undoubtedly fascinating. Settings and cinematography? Great and almost flawless. Acting? Some very good performances and overall very satisfying. So, I'll concentrate on the singing part.
Being a great fan of musicals and operas, I told myself from the beginning that the people in this film are all actors and NOT singers, so seriously I wasn't expecting a lot from them. I have to say I was stunned after watching the whole movie, I never expected them to sing so well. Even if their voices didn't quite reach perfection they were able to compensate it with the passions and emotions they expressed. I have to say even after listening to Michael Crawford for almost 10 years, I prefer Gerard Butler. Not saying that Michael Crawford is not a great singer, for he IS undoubtedly (I had his version of the Phantom of the Opera CD), but there's something raw, fierce, rough and ghostly in Gerard's voice, almost like animal instinct, which I find suited the character 'Phantom' more, given the tragic and lonely life he has led, being feared and rejected, these would naturally turn a person back to basic instincts, let alone a child. Gerard reminds me of the Phantom I've heard when I was young (around...10 years ago?), whom regrettably I never found out who exactly he was (the performance was in Hong Kong, anybody help?), with a rough and enchanting voice that expressed raw passion, something not unlike Gerard's singing...I was stunned, I was touched, and for many years I've tried to find out who that person was, without success, and somehow now I am able to see him in Gerard.
In some sense, Raol and Meg had better voices (more close to the 'perfect' singing voice, e.g. Ian Bostridge, Sarah Brightman, etc) than the Phantom and Christine, but they lacked the passion, the 'rawness' in their voices, they don't quite have the uniqueness that brings about impact on audiences' emotions like the Phantom. But I was pleasantly surprised by their performances and I was fascinated and captured.
Some people complained that Gerard can't sing, but hey, who said that Phantom had a beautiful voice? People whom are good singing teachers are not necessarily good singers themselves =P
Gohatto (1999)
rebellious (perhaps a bit of spoilers...)
a unique and thoughtful film...the characters were designed not to gain any sympathy from the audience, but just as a tool to reveal the most dangerous thing in human mind--desire. yes, a tool would be a good definition, since frankly speaking there isn't any love (or at least, true love) in this film, and all you can see is just pure lust. a 'cold' film throughout.
an impact in the mind and soul. what is love? what is homosexuality? is it really a taboo? whom did Kano really love? Okita appears to be the only 'straight' samurai in the film, the representitive of justice and calmness, the only one with rational thinking, but if he is really 'straight', why did he say that story in the end and say that he admires the love between the two characters? And why did Hijikata say 'Okita, it is not you who love Kano, it is Kano who loves you'? As you can see, this film might appear as a boring film at first (especially to those who are used to america's straight forward bang-bang-bang action films...), but once you get your mind working, you can find a lot of hidden treasures in this film.
once again, this film does not aim to gain any sympathy from the audience, rather, this film aims to impact one's mind. sort of twisted film, but that's the usual case in japanese films, and compared to 'the ring', this is much better and much more inspiring. think, and you will receive.
Secondhand Lions (2003)
thumbs up or down for Osment?
Straight to the point: yeah right the plot is predictable, but so what? We can also predict Finding Nemo! Who cares whether the ending is surprising when this is supposingly a family film? Ahem...undoubtedly, Michael Caine and Robert Duvall are brilliant...hm...interesting, very interesting...Michael Caine with a Yankie accent...anyways, they together make the film shine. Not saying that Haley Joel Osment is not good, actually he's quite brilliant as well, but I have to say that I was a bit disappointed at his contribution to the movie...not saying his acting is bad, just that his role didn't give him much room to develop, and that his character is actually NOT the most important character in the movie...a bit restricted, so overall he's doing good but not good enough. Hopefully in the near future he'll receive some powerful roles like those in Sixth Sense and A.I.. (But...to be frank, it's really very nice to see him in a happy film once rather than always seeing him in somekind of heavy, dark, gloomy or sad film...though the later might make him shine like a diamond...)It's always the heavy films that creates great actors, not light-hearted ones, so I don't blame Osment if he didn't seem to outshine Caine and Duvall in this film.
Caine and Duvall, everyone knows their powerful acting, but Osment's big time is yet to be seen. I definitely see talent in him, he's a rare gem, that is to be sure, but whether he'll turn out to be the biggest star in this generation (ie. those who were born in the 80s), the next Peter O'Toole or Paul Newman or Tom Hanks, is remained to be seen. Personally I think he'll get there quite easily if he keeps on his work and talent and personality and not being worn out by fame and fortune. So keep up the work n let 'em see your colours, Osment!
The Pianist (2002)
take this...partially spoiler
This is not an action movie, this is not a movie about heroes, this is only a movie about humanity. You know, HUMANTY! So what's wrong if the main character only struggles to keep himself alive? I bet many Americans would do so in spite of all the superheroes like Batman, Spiderman, Superman...What about Annie Frank? She's hiding as well! Though she was caught and was sent to the gas chamber at the end, but that doesn't even the fact that she, like Szpilman, was cheating death through hiding. This movie is not Schindler's List 2, so why should you expect the character to save the day? If you can't deny that if you were in that situation, you would have done exactly the same, why should you complain some other people doing so? The character was only a human! If you are unhappy about him not saving people or fighting against the Germans, what about Chopin? He didn't really fight as well! He fight through his music, so what's the big deal? This is a story of how to survive, not about some kind of heroism! If you can't stand seeing films about ordinary people struggling in unordinary times, please go to another cinema and watch "Daredevil" or something like that. This movie is about REALITY, not somekind of "Powerpuff save the day".
The Affair of the Necklace (2001)
well...
I watched this film because of its cast and is overall QUITE satisfied with it. "satisfied" in the sense that the director is not familiar with directing historical films, but is still able to portray believable and beautiful scenes, "quite" in the sense that the cast is not acting as well as I've expected. Swank is alright on the whole, but it seems to me that she's playing a "Girls don't cry" role (ie. emotionless). Walken is, as usual, creepy, which I guess is ok since his role is a somekind of voo-doo fraud. Baker is alright, quite believable, but I doubt whether a gigolo would have the nerves to stick with a married woman in front of her husband (is this a tradition of French royalties?). Pryce is perfect, a very unappealing, corrupted and annoying Cardinal, great job! As for Brody, he has brought liveliness and humour to the film, and as usual, a very charming character portrayed, though I don't quite understand what the director is trying to show us about his role: a drunkard? a playboy? a schemer? a keen swordsman? I don't get it, even though this character is one of my favourites in the film. I am really disappointed that he appeared so late and so little in this film. A peculiar accent as well.
Judge it as a historical film, 5/10. Judge it as a not-so-successful hybrid of comedy and historical film directed by a comedy director, 8/10.
The Pianist (2002)
take this...partially spoiler
This is not an action movie, this is not a movie about heroes, this is only a movie about humanity. You know, HUMANTY! So what's wrong if the main character only struggles to keep himself alive? I bet many Americans would do so in spite of all the superheroes like Batman, Spiderman, Superman...What about Annie Frank? She's hiding as well! Though she was caught and was sent to the gas chamber at the end, but that doesn't even the fact that she, like Szpilman, was cheating death through hiding. This movie is not Schindler's List 2, so why should you expect the character to save the day? If you can't deny that if you were in that situation, you would have done exactly the same, why should you complain some other people doing so? The character was only a human! If you are unhappy about him not saving people or fighting against the Germans, what about Chopin? He didn't really fight as well! He fight through his music, so what's the big deal? This is a story of how to survive, not about some kind of heroism! If you can't stand seeing films about ordinary people struggling in unordinary times, please go to another cinema and watch "Daredevil" or something like that. This movie is about REALITY, not somekind of "Powerpuff save the day".