Change Your Image
Vorpa
Reviews
Jagten (2012)
Classic Tearjerker Cinema
If one liked Dancer in the Dark, Lilya 4-ever, Dogville or a similar movie one will definitely also like Jagten. If so, do not read further and "enjoy" an evening of tears. Else, don't be tempted by the interesting theme and the high scores and read some more.
Apparently Scandanavian cinema has developed a certain fondness of melodramatic tearjerkers in which perfectly innocent people are completely isolated by an all evil society. Problem with Jagten, and the other mentioned movies as well for that matter, is that every scene is artificially implemented to make as many people cry. Every object, every character has just one goal: make the story sad. Most of them to such an extent that it gets annoying. Even more annoying at that stage was the sobbing of people around me who seemed to be truly moved by what I simply found a shocking lack of psychological depth. The unfolding of events is so predictable and over the top that an interesting theme is denominated to plain entertearment as I would like to call it.
In my opinion a good script has the power to show sadness, happiness, love or some other deep emotion in those things that at first sight show no signs of sadness, happiness or love. The story that Jagten brings to the screen is so blunt and obvious that it does not need fancy acting, brilliant photography or any other cinematic effect to make it sad and is therefore a waste of such effects.
The Reader (2008)
The reader ... will be finished sooner than the viewer.
Normally I am not a fan of Kate Windslet. I keep getting haunted by atrocious drooly scenes from Titanic and the like. However I must say I am quite impressed in this case. She creates a fierce and at the same time tender character.
But that's about it. She appears to be the single interesting character in the entire movie. All side actors simply go away, have no meaning and form no true addition. Of course we have the male lover, but, this may be highly personal, to me they should have casted somebody else. This guy looks too dumb, too plain, too old and argues as an adult. No wonder Kate has to call him kid throughout the movie, he acts and looks like he's at least 17. Furthermore there is no difference between the young Michael Berg and the Michael Berg a couple of years later. Finally he has a German accent. This reminded me of these old war movies from the sixties where the Germans speak English with a German accent. Hence: annoying!
Besides a good Kate and an annoying David Kross (playing Micheal) the rest of the movie truly does not matter. The plot is extremely straightforward (but does go back and forth in time for no apparent reason, it is not like these flashback are revelations or anything). It is an endless road with numerous meaningless sideways. What about the boy's family? There is one scene in which they wonder where he was the past afternoon. How about all the other afternoons? What happened to the family anyways? Why put in a scene if these people don't seem to matter anyway? And am I suppose to truly feel that this guy loves her so much? What you need is not a dozen or so sex scenes, a group of cute girls that appear and disappear or an ex-wive, but an actor.
*** HUGE SPOILER AHEAD *** Why does she not tell she's illiterate? And how on earths name is a war tribunal unable to find out this sort of vital knowledge? To speak of it, the court is a farce. "I need a sample of your handwriting." Are you a judge or a prosecutor or a stenographer? And what use is the conversation between Micheal and his law teacher, another meaningless character, about this subject?
*** AND MORE SPOILERS *** And I could go on. In fact, I will go on. Why isn't the guy writing back, he is unable to open himself up to any girl now? Why does she starts a relationship with a kid in the first place, to forget about things? Why does she suddenly leave her apartment when she gets a promotion? To escape life? I don't want to have everything written out for me, there needs to be room for contemplation so to say and people make a lot of erratic decisions throughout their life, but too many why's and loose ends is definitely unsatisfying.
Now I could have forgiven the movie all these flaws and recommend it as worthwhile, but since it runs for over two hours that is not going to happen. Long movies are okay, but long mediocre movies are simply bad. Steer away unless you are a fan of Kate.
Verdict: 5
Baghead (2008)
DragheadÂ…. But don't be misled by the average rating.
The movie features a single shaky cam. This is not because the movie is independent, has a low budget or is part of some dogmatic dogma-movement. Well these three could all be true, but the main reason of a "shaky cam" is that it has relevance for the story, similar to a movie like Blairwitch Project. If you expect fast camera movement, multiple angles, supreme lightning and great special effects you shouldn't watch Baghead at all (and people should not devalue it because it doesn't look like the new Spiderman). So be prepared for primitive (but still quite amazing) photography.
Furthermore no one should watch this movie because of the suspense. The suspense is only a minor aspect of Baghead. From time to time it tries to scare you by being as real as possible. Occasionally Baghead succeeds in doing so. Although the average person would feel conned if I tell him this is a thriller or a horror. It is more close to a real life drama.
Personally I truly appreciate the endeavour to create a real movie without all the modern techniques. Techniques that so bluntly tell you you are watching something produced. There is no real score, no atonal violins at scary moments, no special effects and so on. Without this kind of tools a lot more weight is put on the acting and the story. The question then is: does the movie survive the lack of all these elements? Yes.
The acting is surprisingly refreshing. Although Greta Gerwig (playing Michelle) annoyed me from time to time. The story itself is not original but the characters are convincing, there are many interesting twists and there are reflexive side aspects to the story that lift it far above the average kind of "some people in a mountain shed getting scared" movie. Most importantly the whole movie has a natural flow without any scene feeling constructed for one purpose or the other. If you plan to watch this movie then watch it for the real and convincing manner it is brought to you, not for suspense or Hollywood skills.
In my view the colossal problem of Baghead though is the editing. It appears that all footage was neurotically and compulsory preserved in the final film. Quite often entirely predictable scenes drag on and on. Though they may look more real so to speak (for instance the scene where Chad is trying to hit on Michelle), they get one ready for bed immediately, no teeth brushing required. Especially the final scene is horribly slow and you can really hear yourself thinking: "get a move on all right!" In total the movie runs for about 2 hours. In general I like slow and long movies, but this one could really do with a 1:30 running time. It would not just be easier, faster and more accessible, it would have simply been better.
Verdict: 6
Untraceable (2008)
Untraceable, Unimaginative, Unbelievable, Unwatchable
The first few minutes really gave me the promising idea that i for once was watching a movie that took computers seriously. The police department actually runs Windows (and not some fantasy OS). However this idea lasted for about 2 minutes after which the same old ridiculous internet and hacking myth's are used again and again. For people without much background in computers the hack and click scenes are made into complete bore by adding useless technical details. For people with a background in computers the hack and click scenes are made into utter nonsense by adding incorrect technical details. I immediately longed back to movies not taking computer stuff too seriously. These movies, though less convincing, at least weren't so boring.
However the biggest problem with the computer part of this movie is that there in fact is none. The whole aspect of computers is completely unimportant for the plot. The same movie could have been made without all the technical details. The small pieces of hacking that do pop up, are in fact really superfluous (as is the whole movie in my view) and still highly unbelievable. Take for instance the scene were the killer apparently hacked into a car???. Furthermore there is nothing about this film that makes you feel uncomfortable with the age of information technology. Except maybe the fact that the police (rather than the killer) can (amazingly enough) trace your whereabouts in a matter of seconds.
So if you expect a nice cyber-crime mystery, turn right away. If you except a thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat, also turn away. Why? because there is:
1. No originality. Apparently the scriptwriter only had inspiration for new murder methods. Which is rather disturbing if one thinks about it. 2. No suspense. There are no significant plot twists. You can see everything coming from a mile away. All victims are as flat as a post stamp and what ever happens to them is not really the viewer's concern. 3. No unfolding storyline. All clues more or less run into dead ends. Hence for each killing it feels they just start over again. There is some profiling going on, but it leads to nowhere and is yet another superfluous scene in this movie. Witness and suspect interrogations are summarized in about 10 seconds. The necessary forensics, usually providing some clues in thriller movies, consists of the detective stating: "okay, get forensics in here." In the beginning the killers face is hidden. Not much later it is bluntly shown. Not that it matters because it won't give you the realization of: "Ahaaa that guy", or "I've seen him before...". Eventually they need the help of a signaling victim to finally come up with something. Which is amazing since the killer leaves more traces behind than a 1000 legged dinosaur. Especially this lack of story development gave me a hard time to keep concentrated.
The acting is mediocre, which might be simply because there really isn't anything to act. The leading actress seems to have some potential in my view but any potential she may have is again superfluous for this movie. There are simply no interesting personalities to be acted. We have the all evil killer that suffers from the usual trauma (hence explaining all evilness, of course, naturally, what else), a police officer with a daughter and no husband (nothing more to tell about that), who shows mild affection to another cardboard figure in the movie.
Finally the (too) obvious message about the questionable nature of horror and sensation viewers (me and you for watching this movie) doesn't kick in at any time in the movie. But that might just be because I didn't ENJOY watching a gruesome movie this time....
If you need any more reasons not to watch it, then just go watch it. There are plenty left for you to find.
Verdict 3/10