Behind every Psycho there is a great woman

Hitchcock (2012)

As I'm a huge Hitchcock fan I'm of course excited about everything related to him, so I was waiting for this one with maybe a bit too high hopes. I've read the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello which I saw was the basis of this movie's script. The movie merely scratches the surface of the problems that went into making Psycho (1960) and focuses more on the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma Reville. That's not a bad thing as a movie just about the production of Psycho would be only good for the fans of it, now it's quite an universal story about love. Then again as a fan I would have hoped a bit more insight on the production as now this movie skips through it so fast that it kind of gives out a wrong impression on many aspects of it. What I would have liked to see more was the cultural impact the movie had, as it wasn't just a huge box office hit, it really shook the whole movie industry and changed the way people saw movies. But I guess it didn't really fit in after all, then again I wouldn't have minded watching another 90 minutes after the movie's premiere and even about the making of The Birds (1963). Anyway I liked quite a many things about this movie, first of all the cast is great. This is an actor driven movie and that's certainly well in hand in this one. Anthony Hopkins does a solid job as Hitchcock and at times he looks and especially sounds strikingly like Hitchcock. But it's Helen Mirren who steals the show in this one with an absolutely brilliant performance as Alma Reville the wife in the shadow of the master of suspense. Another one I need to pick out was James D'Arcy who not only looks exactly like Anthony Perkins but also gives a stellar performance. Too bad there's not much room for his character so he's left with very little screen time, which was the problem with Scarlett Johansson as well, who was great as Janet Leigh for the short time she was there. Even on the smaller parts were cast brilliantly, like the “Karate Kid” Ralph Macchio as the screenwriter Joseph Stefano and Kurtwood Smith was a perfect pick as the censor.

The acting was not the only thing that worked, I really liked the witty Hitchcockian comedy in it as well. It shows that the director Sacha Gervasi and the screenwriter John McLaughlin are fans of Hitchcock's movies, there's so many witty remarks for them that I lost count. From framing shots and directing scenes to the dialogue the whole movie was quite Hitchcockian. I also really liked the music by Danny Elfman, which sounded like an homage to Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. All in all this is a very good love story which did leave me wanting a bit more insight into the making of a masterpiece. But in the end it didn't matter that much as otherwise this was a great movie.

82%

The unknown superstar

Searching for Sugar Man(2012)

Sixto Rodriguez is a music superstar, bigger than Elvis or The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, but the weird thing is that he's only that big in South Africa. Rest of the world has no idea who he is as he made only two albums in Detroit at the beginning of the 70's which didn't sell at all and he was soon forgotten. That is except in South Africa where he became a legend and as no one there knew anything about him except for his music rumors started to spread and soon became “known” facts. One of those being that the man is dead. Two South African fans decide to find out who he was and what happened to him. The story in this one is actually quite brilliant, words like amazing and incredible would seem like an understatement. However this is not a brilliant documentary. The problem is how it's constructed. The biggest twist to the story comes around the half way of the film and after that it actually sets more questions than answers them. I kind of understood that they wanted to leave a bit of mystery around the character, but still there were so many juicy topics they could have covered more deeply. So in the end I was at the same time amazed but yet disappointed. Amazed about the story but still disappointed about the structure and focus of the documentary. Technically I didn't find anything wrong with it, it looked good even though there were quite a bit of old amateur video material in there as well, but it fit in there very well. Also it was very “approachable” as in easy viewing even if you're not a huge music fan and if you are then you will get even more out of it. I have to rate this as a good documentary even though it was somewhat poorly made direction wise.

75%

A bloated history lesson

Lincoln (2012)

This was like a short excerpt from a history book blown into epic proportions for blockbuster movie values. I'm wondering what's the reason behind this movie, it doesn't bring any new views or opinions on the matter, it just tells it as it was. Sure it's a huge event in the history of that country, but for me as a Finn I don't have that patriotic urge to love a movie like this. I already knew the events and I just kept wondering what's the point, isn't reading a history book for 10 minutes enough so you need a two and a half hour spectacle to get the point? And I really don't mean that historical movies are bad, they are great but they either need some new perspective to the events or some kind of an development arc to the story so we would see where it started from and how it got to the end. Especially uninteresting is the way it's filled with political jargon, sure some people might like that but for me it got rather boring. I also wouldn't have minded a movie about Lincoln, he's an interesting character, but that would have needed a wider timespan, so we could have seen what made him the man he was, not just the few weeks around the vote and those couple of speeches everyone has heard many times before. And don't get me started on the racism issue, this movies message to it is like Mr. Mackey from South Park saying "Slavery is bad, mmkay?" I'm guessing people love this movie because it's bad not to, especially if you're American. Well I most certainly didn't love it, but it's not totally a bad movie.

The acting is brilliant, Daniel Day Lewis is amazing as always and Tommy Lee Jones surprisingly good as well, but the best in my opinion was Sally Field. She didn't have any of these momentous lines most of the actors had, sometimes even in the same scene, but still her performance even outshadowed Daniel Day Lewis at times. And that takes some serious skills.

Also it's technically quite brilliant, even though I do have some complaints on those departments as well. One thing which is just plain criminally wrong is the praise Janusz Kaminski gets from the cinematography of this movie. Now sure, mostly this movie looks gorgeus, but really this is like a half assed swing for an artist like Kaminski, there's even plain mistakes in this one, something I haven't seen in ages in big Hollywood movies. For example the introductory shot of Thaddeus Stevens struck my eye as there were 2 quite bad mistakes in that one, first of all the eye light on Tommy Lee Jones shakes a bit during the dolly move and worse yet the camera shakes as the dolly move stops. I do understand why they used that take as Tommy Lee Jones gives out a stellar performance on that one, but still that's just amateurish, and Kaminski got an Oscar nomination for this movie. Give me a break. And speaking of the Oscars, this movie will most likely clear the table, the Academy is mostly American after all, some of the nominations are spot on. But in addition to best picture and cinematography, the music nomination is quite a miss. I mean John Williams is great, but really the guy has been basically making the same freaking song for years. All of his scores from the past couple of years sound the same, hence he should definitely not get an Oscar.

This movie was worth the watch mostly because of the cast, it's kind of like an acting lesson, too bad the story around it was rather dull and that makes this just an ok movie.

55%

Friendship breaks any boundary

Intouchables (2011)

This has now become the most successful non-American film in the history of the movies. I saw it earlier last year and while making my top 10 list I was even trying to fit it in there, but eventually it got left out, but only barely. So what's it all about? A rich quadriplegic hires a small time crook from the slums as his caretaker. These two seemingly unmatching people then develop a strong friendship. That's pretty much the story of this film, but there's quite a bit more to it in the form of warm hearted drama and genuinely funny comedy as well. The problem of this movie is that it's a bit too safe and a tad too pre-calculated to push the right buttons. I mean sure not every movie needs to be edgy, but this movie tries to be gritty and realistic at times, but it's all in a safe way, like there was someone constantly telling you “don't worry, we will be soon through this tougher subject matter and everyone will be just fine, oh hey lets laugh a bit so it'll go easier”. And the part about being pre-calculated, it's quite formulaic and actually similar stories have been echoing in the history of the movies for ages. Now that's not all bad as this movie tries to bring a new, seemingly fresh, touch on things but still you have that feeling that you've seen this all before. The problems don't end there as my friend pointed out this movie is actually a bit racist. As she put it “the black man is depicted as this kind of wild monkey who gets tamed and learns the bliss of white man's capitalistic world“. I don't really share her opinion, but I do understand where it comes from, it's partly the fault of the overly safe nature of this movie.

Now I guess I made the movie sound bad. But it really isn't, that's the beauty of this movie, it plays on feelings so nicely that you don't really even care if there's something wrong with it. You're willing to look past it's shortcomings and let it dig out a few tears and laughs from you. The cast is great and the direction solid, not a thing to complain in those departments. The cinematography was quite Hollywood-like apart from a few scenes which looked a bit out of context from a stylistic point of view. In the end it's a great feel good movie which has some problems, but you won't mind that much as it will make you a bit happier.

79%

A soul trapped inside a shell

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

Even though I read about this when it came out I didn't see it until now. It's a true story about the editor of Elle magazine, Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric), who gets paralyzed and can't move anything except his left eye. Yet his brain functions like it should so he becomes trapped inside his own body. He needs to learn an excruciatingly slow way of communication with the help of an assistant reading out letters and him blinking on the right one. Using this method he writes his memoirs, just by blinking his left eye. Now that might sound like a boring movie, but really this is far from boring. It's a strong statement on life itself with a captivating and emotional story. Now the basic idea of a man realising that he has wasted his life and not appreciated the things that really matter is quite old, but still it always works. And that's not all this movie has to offer, there's a lot more to it as we see a man who had everything only to lose it in quite a horrible way. But the movie doesn't dwell in pity, it's quite a hopeful survival story as well. I didn't really like all of the things in this movie as at parts it went a bit too syrup for my taste, but mostly it stayed in the right mood. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is simply mind blowing, this is one of the most beautifully shot movies I've seen in a long time. Also the cast is just stellar, even the smaller parts are played to near perfection. So it's a very good movie in many ways and a strong drama well worth watching, even though it does lose it's momentum on a couple of occasions.
80%

Nothing unites a country like a violent sport

Invictus (2009)

I've tried to watch this movie twice before, but both times had to stop it because something else came up. Not that the movie would have been boring or anything like that, I just had bad luck with it. But now I finally got to watch it all the way through and I'm quite glad I did. This is a Morgan Freeman show, he does a superb performance in a role of his life. As Nelson Mandela himself said he couldn't think of anyone else playing him than Morgan Freeman. Add to that Clint Eastwood as a director and you're guaranteed a very solid drama. Matt Damon did his part as good as he could, but he really didn't have much to go with, except playing rugby. And there is the problem with this movie, it's a biopic, but also a sports movie and at parts they really don't mix well in terms of the drama. The strongest scenes of the movie involve Morgan Freeman and are outside the rugby field. Especially the final game with all it's slow motion work got at parts even unintentionally funny in it's overly cliched way. But none the less this is a strong drama and a movie well worth watching. Bit less sports could have done this one wonders.
79%

Russian history by Hammer

Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966)

Fifth movie from the Hammer Collection tells the story of the Russian monk, Rasputin. History books can be tossed to the campfire, this movie follows only entertainment values not actual facts. But that doesn't matter much, what would you expect from Hammer anyways. Christopher Lee steals the show here, he himself consideres this one of his best performances and I really agree. You can almost see him enjoying the part after the muted Dracula, Frankenstein and such, he really gets to let it loose and does it brilliantly. Unfortunately there's not much else brilliant in this one. The story is what it is, Rasputin drinks, dances, takes the ladies, heals a few people and tries to hypnotize the Tsarina to get control of the wealths of the country. The movie looks good and doesn't get boring, but still it's missing a bit too much sense to be fully entertaining. Luckily Christopher Lee saves many of those duller moments. For fans of Lee this is a must see, others can basically pass it. The DVD had a good picture quality, no subtitles and the only extra is the trailer of the movie.
58%

The stuttering king

The King's Speech (2010)

I wasn't supposed to like this movie. Every year there is at least one stock drama in the Oscar nominations. A movie that is just a basic drama, moves you when you watch it but leaves nothing to go home with. Like for example last year was The Blind Side (2009), a movie that makes you wonder why would this mediocrity be nominated? Well I thought this would be the same, a stock drama, and went to watch it with very low expectations. Turned out it wasn't. I actually really enjoyed this. A movie about a Brittish royalty who has a speech disorder and needs to get a speech therapist to help him out didn't sound interesting at all. To my surprise it was and time basicly flew so fast I was wondering that this was a short movie when the end credits rolled. And it wasn't just fast consumed entertainment, it also left me something to think about. The cast is quite great and can't find anything to complain about the technical side of the movie. Now is it worth 12 Oscar nominations? Not really. But it's still a very solid little drama and definitely worth watching.
84%

The beauty of beating people up

The Fighter (2010)

The problem with movies about boxing is that they are quite similar to eachother. Sure some are better than the others and yes there might even be some new angles to the old storyline but still it's quite overly drained subject already. This was another gritty realistic true story, kind of like so many before it. And even though there are some new and even somewhat fresh views to the matter, it's still the same old shit, so to say. That means that the story wasn't the carrying force for this movie, but the cast surely was. Absolutely brilliant performances from pretty much all of them. I'm not surprised at all that they are clearing out the actor awards, they surely deserve them. Superb job. But other than that unfortunately I don't have much good to say about this. The main thing that bugged me in addition to the not too fresh storyline were the montages. I mean come on, montages with music which portray the time passing are a bit old already and this movie had a lot of them. I counted at least four of them. Four montages in one movie is just ridiculous. But I don't want to bash it to the ground, it's still a solid drama and the cast makes it a very enjoyable experience worth seeing. So I'll give it the credit for that.
73%

Not your usual survival story

127 Hours (2010)

In 2009 Danny Boyle was the most raved about director in Hollywood after clearing out the Oscar table with Slumdog Millionaire (2008). So I was surely interested in seeing his next project. I have to say I'm quite surprised, I bet he had tons of offers to choose from, some most likely huge films, but he decided to make this little story about life. It's basicly a survival story where a man gets trapped in a canyon and tries to get out. He fights for his life and his sanity, but that's not the main point of the movie. The main point is life itself. This is a quite stunning movie, beautiful to look at and thought provoking. James Franco does an ok job as the trapped man and manages to carry the movie while it focuses solely on him. Biggest problem of this movie is that it's quite predictable. Spoiler ahead so just jump over the next sentence if you want to keep quessing what will happen to the man. Maybe it would have been better to leave out the "based on Aron Ralston's book" part from the titles if you want to keep the audience guessing wether he will survive or not. Anyways minor things as the visual style, the mood and the underlying message are so brilliant that it's surely entertaining, no matter how predictable it is.
84%

A revolutionary life

I saw the first part in theatres when it came out but never saw the second one. Decided to watch them both in a row as they are kind of a one big story. Got the double edition DVD at a bargain bin, but I'll still review them as separate pieces as that's how they were originally released.



Che: Part One (2008)

Not going to take any stance on the subject matter and how accurate the movie was. There are people who praise the guy and people who say he was nothing more than a murderer, so I'll leave it to just that. So the movie is very character driven and the revolutionary war is almost just a side plot while the movie focuses on the people. That's of course a great approach for a drama, but it also creates a bit of a dilemma. As the character is portrayed as quite one dimentional, pure righteous man who does no wrong and always comes up with a solution to a problem, it tends to get a bit boring. Sure he has his weakness in the form of medical condition, asthma, but he never gets any dilemmas, he never makes a wrong decicion and never needs to face the consequences. That's a huge part of making people more human. That aside, Benicio Del Toro does an amazing job at playing the man, brilliant performance. While the main character is quite one sided, luckily some of the supporting characters are a bit more versatile and create a lot more interesting moments than the main man himself. The story is quite a usual story about a small man rising to be larger than life. Steven Soderbergh's guerilla moviemaking style fits the movie surprisingly well and the mixed styles supported the story quite well. In the end it's a somewhat solid drama which at parts strugles to keep the interest up throughout.
69%



Che: Part Two (2008)

Where the first part was quite straight forward with a very one dimentional character, this is a bit different. Things don't go as planned and the character gets a bit more depth to it. The story continues where the first one ended, after the first war we follow Che to Bolivia to another revolutionary war. Things start over and at start I got a bit scared that this would be just like the first part, but luckily it manages to bring something new to the table in form of depth in the character. The cast is again quite brilliant and the style remains the same so nothing more to add to the first part. Good continuation to the story.
81%

The grandfather of heavy metal

Lemmy (2010)

I think pretty much everyone knows who Lemmy and Motörhead are, no matter if you're into metal or not. He is one of the, maybe even the most, influential man in heavy metal. And for me as an old metal head he is no stranger. But that's where the problem with this documentary is. It's quite superficial most of the time only stating the facts many people already know. Lemmy is by far the most interesting character in the world of metal music so I really think there would be a lot juicier stories to be told than what this documentary portrays. The few moments we get to see behind that suit of armor of a cowboy hat, black attire, and custom made leather boots are the best this documentary has to offer. Too bad they are quite few and far apart. If you don't know who Lemmy is this documentary is just for you, to people familiar with him this doesn't give that much new.
50%