Seriously, I tried to watch this movie but had to wash the dishes and do the ironing at the same time to even attempt it.

The dialogue is third rate from the very beginning, the acting is atrocious, the film is so full of clichés and really obvious devices masquerading as something deep and meaningful that I felt insulted!

The ingredients were there for at least a half decent movie – the settings, some decent actors, interesting themes…but somehow the result was an amateur level script and pointless over stylised camera work.

Total rubbish. I’d fire my agent.

The third installment in the “Loser” trilogy by Aki Kaurismaki delivers pretty much what you expect after having seen the other two films.

The visual style again shows great love and nostalgia for the 50′s, the interior shots painted in lovely shades of muted red, green and blue. In this film the effect is slightly oddly juxtaposed as Kaurismaki shows alot of shots around the shopping malls and subways around central Helsinki, which clearly place us in the present day.

We get weighed down as we watch the loser protagonist trying to get ahead in life and the sparse dialogues with lengthy pauses and 1000 yard stares. There are moments of relief, like the glorious answer given to a girl when she asks the protagonist what prison was like. Although I think it only really works well in Finnish.

Not bad, but a bit tedious and obscure.

I’d seen this movie before, but I don’t think I’d quite grasped just how well it was shot. The cinematography and camerawork is truly amazing, it sets an incredible mood and tone for the whole movie, which raises it high above the level of the script (a bit like Miami Vice, altho the script for that really was shit).

Makes you want to drive late at night. Just not a cab.

I’ve been waiting along time to see this movie, and I wasn’t disappointed! I’m so used to seeing Zach Braff in Scrubs that it was odd seeing him playing a medicated valium case in this movie. However I really liked the movie, Indie genre for sure, with a great soundtrack to boot (including The Shins which I recently bought!). Natalie Portman does a great turn as the slightly oddball girl interest, and I thought Braff played his part well.

The subjects presented in the movie are quite sad, but somehow we never feel too bothered by them, but perhaps this mirrors how the character (played by Braff) feels – or doesn’t. But that’s because everything is underplayed in a very deliberate way, I like the mood and the way the characters relate to each other. Oddly enough I can’t recall how the movie ended..I think it was sudden :)

(ps. Click on the image, I installed lighbox!)

Caught this on cable again, and still thought it was a great film. I’ve never been a massive Cronenberg fan (not for any particular reason), but this movie had me gripped even second time around. It does have a curious mixture of absurd comedy, dark humour and violence, but I feel like it’s all held together by the underlying themes and messages.

Some people will hate this. I liked it, great movie for a Wednesday night. I’ve heard it described as ‘Bill Murray on Valium’, which is an understandable opinion, however that belies the strength of his performance. Looking for unconvincing, overdone emotion? Go watch a Tom Cruise movie, pal.

The movie is split up into little chapters which are all part of a simple story of one mans quest to connect with his past relationships and to see whether he has a son he never knew about, and whether he can find some extra meaning in his empty present daily existence.

And the pacing:yes, it is slow and very measured. But it is not dull. It would be easy to make this movie uninteresting. Yet Jim Jarmusch makes a movie about a guy sitting at home, his neighbours house, driving around to other peoples houses, somehow intriguing. Bill Murray puts as much emotion into the role as he can whilst showing as little as possible.

Not brilliant, but worthwhile.

Clints’ Oscar nominated film is certainly well crafted. The acting is solid, cinematography is impressively sombre and almost monochromatic. There are well crafted battle scenes but it is never overdone, as Clint focuses on the characters themselves so that we can feel sympathy for the soldiers caught in a doomed battlefront on Iwo Jima. Ken Watanabe is great as General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, whilst the best role has to be that of the reluctant soldier Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya) who, despite generally being seen as a coward, is actually one of the brightest, bravest and most humane characters in the movie.

Overall though I felt that the film was a little overlong or lacking in pace, given the heavy atmosphere and feeling of claustrophobia that you are drawn into. There were one or two brief comic moments that give relief, but it was not enough to prevent you from leaving the cinema feeling a little depressed. Perhaps that was Clints’ intention, given the outcome of the conflict and the fact that he probably wants to send out an anti-war message.

War – what is it good for? :)

So, had to go and see the most hyped up film of the moment, although I’d probably seen enough clips on utube already to assemble a mini borat movie myself.

From the start it seemed to me that some of Borats inspiration must have come from the satirical guide to the fictional country of Molvania. And just like the book, we laugh but then feel slightly guilty about taking such a condescending and derogatory stance on some Eastern European countries.

The movie moves on quickly to the scenes in New York and across to California, where Borat uses his clever interview technique ,which he honed to perfection on the Ali G show, whereby hapless Americans are tricked into saying things that reveal some very alarming, amusing and shameful truths about themselves.

Overall not a bad movie, but it is definitely more of a cringe and laugh nervously film than an outright funny, side splitting comedy.