J*A*S*M

“A family dinner or a funeral… better the funeral, there would at least be one idiot less.” A remarkable Icelandic comedy that fascinated me mainly by how often it managed to surprise me, although after a few minutes I thought that it could no longer do it, that I was ready for everything ... A very likeable and incorrect flick.

I liked the first half hour and some of the moments by the end (for instance, bonding with the mother), the rest either didn’t bother me, or got on my nerves. There’s a lot of pathos and cheap emotions, but it was the suppressed emotions that felt more sincere than, for example, that insufferable Spielberg’s war horse. Technically, it’s your typical flawless Daldry, but these type of weeping, smooth dramas simply can’t make me jump in joy, regardless of how well they are made. The sensitive ones, though, will probably rejoice… :-)

S01E01-02: Oh well, I wasn’t expecting something so weak. The first episode of this series by Oren Peli (creator of Paranormal Activity), directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (director of the flawless Orphan), was utterly unconvincing and I’m afraid that there’s very little chance that it will get better, because if already in the first two episodes the characters feel so annoying, and the script so lobotomised, the project as a whole stinks. The found-footage format is pointless and unconvincing – in several scenes I couldn’t understand how and why they were filming with real cameras. It can be mildly scary at times – because walking with a torch and a camera through the corridors of a shipwreck or a jungle at night is already fundamentally scary and it can’t be ruined – but the rest is not worth talking about. A real fail so far, I think I’ll watch the remaining episodes just for the sake of it, if at all. 3/10

Pilot: I wouldn’t have rated it yet, but after seeing the wave uncritical acclaim caused by the pilot here, I couldn’t help but be surprised and I needed share my views, too :-D. In its first episode, Touch has the same negative symptoms that affected the later episodes of Heroes, from the same author (Tim King). By this I mean the initial premise of “the fates of people from various corners of the world are somehow connected”, but this time with numbers. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a stupid mystery, like I’m 33, have 3 kids, I live on the 3rd floor in flat no. 3 and today is 3 March, WTF? There must be something in there! That can’t be a coincidence! This will never make sense, the rules of that world will never be explained to the viewer, they will just stretch things for as long as there is any viewership. The other problem this series has from the very beginning is the behaviour of the characters. Basically, I can’t think of any (of those present) that in the pilot didn’t behave unconvincingly. The worst was, of course, the telephone conversation between an involuntary bomber and an employee of a telephone company, which is so laughable that it’s not funny anymore. The last, though personal, complain is addressed at the shiny yet sterile visuals. I’ll have to think a lot whether I will watch another couple of episodes.

I don’t like anthologies very much, especially when they are a mess, with every story different than the next… you may like one, another one will piss you off, and the overall impression is mixed; it’s hard to rate :-D. The Theatre Bizzare is such a case, with the score of each of the stories ranging between 3/10 and 7/10 (BTW, many of the stories are a lot less bizarre than the name of the film may make you expect), the resulting score is 5/10, but it says nothing. Overall, it’s a fairly likeable attempt at horror, but it failed to fully convince me. Try it at your own risk. /// The Mother Of Toads: 6/10 – Nice visuals, atmospheric, with a “monster”. /// I Love You: 7/10 – the best part for me, even though it’s a conversation in a flat. /// Wet Dreams: 5/10 – Savini’s horror version of Inception has its moments, but it felt too cheap overall. /// The Accident: 6/10 – A sad conversation about death, it has nothing to do with horror, but it’s nice. /// Vision Stains: 3/10 – Depressive, ugly, utterly unattractive for me. /// Sweets: 4/10 – Perhaps the most bizarre and weirdest story, but didn’t charm me, quite the opposite.

If you like American, low budget, indie horror stuff, I can wholeheartedly recommend this. Absentia is a very good movie that relies on two likeable protagonists, has a very well developed plot and an atmosphere that is pretty thick at times. I was scared, I was afraid. Mike Flanagan delivers a very good directorial job (it’s not even by chance amateurishly made, as I had read) and I’m already looking forward to his next genre films.

A very nice little film. It’s a fun, tense, undemanding (but not stupid) sci-fi snack that may look like a little brother next to this year’s upcoming sci-fi tentpoles like Prometheus, but, compared to last year’s In Time and Source Code, which are in the same category, Josh Trank, Chronicle’s director, delivers the best job. His film works simply far more smoothly in its universe. The found-footage format is at times as questionable as in every other found-footage film (why the fuck are they filming?!?!), but if you accept this, you’ll have fun. The climax is awesome. I went for a seven, got a seven, I’m satisfied. 7/10

If this film has even a little to do with reality, growing up in America in the 80s must have been hell :-D. Savage Streets is unintentionally funny, a trashy rape-revenge exploitation flick that shows exactly what I don’t like about 80s cinema. It has something to do more with, for example, the aesthetics of the characters than with the storytelling, but I can't help myself. Awful. Three stars because it looks really funny today.

Nothing that would make my eyes want to commit suicide, but far away from any horror fun. The type of film that will never get to the cinemas here, will fizzle out on DVD and then TV Nova will buy cheap to tout it as a new horror movie with superstar Christian Slater, but I don’t want to play the prophet. 4/10

2009 – Pandora. 2010 – the cyberspace of TRON Legacy 3D. 2011 – A Parisian train station. Three very different magical worlds and three reasons to pay a few crowns more of a 3D cinema ticket. In addition to the intoxicating visuals, Hugo captivates with its two child protagonists (such likeable kids is not something you see everyday in film – with Chloe is no surprise, but Asu was unknown to me) and its sincere love for cinema. As it’s clear from all the reviews, Hugo is a beautiful celebration of the beginnings of cinematography and it’s very easy to surrender to it. What’s worth noticing is that both Hugo and the silent and black and white The Artists are this year’s biggest Oscar favourites and they’ve received the most nominations. Both deal with a certain period that marked a turning point for cinema. Hugo focuses on the beginning of the century in France, and in particular the work of G. Mèliès, which was setting the trends at the time, and the turning point means WWI, due to which the epicentre of the film world moved to America. The Artist, in contrast, celebrates the American silent movies of the 20th century, and the turning point is sound. Both of them imprint the world into their format, where The Artist is a silent romantic comedy and Hugo is a fairytale that uses special effects to bring the viewer into its (3D) world (and that’s why you must watch it in 3D). Almost like Mèliès A Trip to the Moon, init? :). It’s interesting how it came together this year…