As you may have noticed, I’m always searching for the perfect horror film. Last weekend I saw four horrors that were all very different from eachother. The first one was Pulse.

Pulse, directed by Jim Sonzero, had such potential. The concept of the film is utterly frightening; blood thirsty ghosts infiltrating our world through the networks of your very computers, cellphones and televisions. A bit Ring ish but nonetheless it has potential. The special effects on this baby are also gorgeous, even if all else fails they provide at least a decent scare.

The complete lack of storyline is what bothers me most about this film. The director would not be able to do any actor justice in this film because he seems so excited (like a kid in a candystore maybe?) about the scary bits that he completely forgets he has actors to direct and characters to showcase. Scary movies are not scary because the special effects are good, they are scary because the actors are. One facial expression can make for terror, and in that context, Pulse is a joke. I don’t even remember who was in it, and it’s probably not even worth looking up because you’ll barely notice anyway.

The green schmere that is supposed to be the screen does not help. It is supposed to enhance the viewer’s experience Japanese style, but if you paint a donkey green it will still be a donkey, not a stallion.

The thing I am sure has annoyed everyone who’s watched this film is the screenplay. How can you write a screenplay that consists of 80% ‘general scare scenes’ that add nothing to the plot? It’s just ghost after ghost after victim after victim, and they all die the same, some a little uglier than the last. And the writer wasn’t even creative about those scary scenes. People die in the same apartments, from the same media. At one point you’re shouting at the television “DON’T FRICKIN’ GO INTO THAT APARTMENT! COME ON!” everyone seems to want to go there - alone. Yeah, right.

Could have been great, now it’s just gross for no apparent reason.

It wasn’t filmed yesterday, but worth one last review nonetheless. “Six Shooter” is the short film that won writer/director Martin McDonagh his Academy Award for “Best Short Film”. I dare say that dispite its Academy Award and it having been released over two years ago, relatively few people have seen Six Shooter. Simply because not everybody has access to it. Which is why I want to bring it to your attention.

Should you watch Six Shooter if you’re not into violence and strong language? Probably not. Unlike its recently well received bigger brother “In Bruges” (McDonagh’s first feature film), Six Shooter does not give the viewer the time to back up the in-your-face honesty and brutality of McDonagh’s work with true deep sentiment. In Bruges’ langage and violence (which, by the way, in my opinion was really not the big deal people have made it out to be) is more forgivable because it holds characters you get attached to and a storyline you have to respect. Six Shooter is too short for that - too short to make up for the brutality. But nonetheless if you think you can handle it, watch it, because it clearly holds Martin McDonagh’s writing and directing spirit as much as its big brother. I refer to these films as siblings for a reason - I found it difficult not to see them as two plants in the same McDonagh garden. Just as Tarantinos will always be Tarantinos. But McDonagh, unlike claimed by most reviewers, is not Tarantino. He’s more sophisticated and moving.

Six Shooter is the story of Donnelly (Brendan Gleeson) whose wife has just deceased as he takes the train to Dublin across Ireland. He runs into a young man, which will cause a chain reaction of bizarre, cruel, shocking and black-humour-filled events. I won’t give away too much, it will only spoil it for you.

The humour McDonagh uses is perhaps even more sophisticated than the humour in In Bruges, though I want to avoid constantly comparing the two. Six Shooter’s sense of humour is such a deep and dark shade of black that you end up asking yourself wether or not you should be laughing at what just happened. Not everyone will appreciate Six Shooter as a comedy, as McDonagh does like to balance on the fine line between comedy and tragedy.

The acting is solid, the story surprising and intriguing and the ending is all of those things combined. The film did not win the Academy Award for nothing, as it simply is a brilliant piece of work. There has been some speculation about the title of the film; does it simply refer to ‘a six shooter’ (a gun) or does it refer to 6 deaths? Discussions are going on as we speak and will go on for much longer, which I am sure amuses Martin McDonagh very much. Watch Six Shooter and see for yourself; gun or victims?

Title: Disturbia
Tagline: Every killer lives next door to someone.
Year: 2007
Genre: Thriller
Director: D.J. Caruso
Cast: Carrie-Anne Moss, Sarah Roemer, Shia LeBoeuf, David Morse
Rated: PG-13 for terror, violence and some sensuality

It has been debated many times what is thriller and what is horror. Horror is supernatural, thriller has suspense, horror is just guts and blood, thriller has a storyline. I think I’ll stick with the: horror is supernatural and sometimes groosome, thriller is suspense and based on reality. In that context, “Disturbia” is a thriller, but it’s better and more exciting than many flicks who call themselves horror. Thriller sounds almost too tame for Disturbia.

After Kale’s father dies in a car crash that he ended up surviving, his conscience suffers to an extent where he beats up a teacher for mentioning “wether his father would be proud”. He gets the legal consequences and is put under house arrest with ankle bracelet and all. As he sits at home he gets bored and starts to observe all his neighbours more closely for lack of other things to do. This is how he gets to know the beautiful girl next door Ashley, but they together also learn a thing or two about their mutual neighbour Robert Turner. Is he the killer the cops have been looking for?

Disturbia’s greatest strength is not giving you a scare like “The Grudge” does, it’s not in blood and guts like in Tarantino’s “Planet Terror”, and it’s not in supernatural suggestiveness like in “The Gathering”. With “Disturbia” it is all suspense. I can tell you now, the majority of the film is anything but scary. But the writer weaves a thread of terror through it so subtly, as you are waiting for something to happen. He even manages to make you believe nothing is going to happen at all, while you still need to find out for sure. The only weak point is the weak point that every thriller/horror has; the pointlessly nekkid women. I generally do not complain about nekkid women. But sexism gets old, and I hope someday a woman will make a fantastic thriller with lots of randomly gorgeous men walking around passively being sexy.

This is a thriller suitable for anyone who doesn’t like dead bodies and ghosts, but still wants a decent scare. They rarely make thrillers this decent anymore, and in my opinion little has lived up to the brilliance of the Hannibal Lector thrillers - all four of them. This one is not pure brilliance, but definitely a good watch. Though I could recommend you to not watch this when you are home alone or worse; house-sitting. Every killer has a neighbour… how well do you know your neighbours?

I picked this book up because three of my favorite authors, Mary Balough, Jane Feather and Eloisa James, had contributed cover blurbs.  I figured that if they liked it, there was a good chance that I would.  It’s always iffy trying a new author, but this one was not a disappointment.

The story centers on Lord and Lady Tremaine, Camden Saybrook and “Gigi” Rowland Saybrook, who have been married for 10 years, but who have led separate lives, on separate continents since just after the wedding night.  Certain events lead to these two volatile, stubborn people living together again and the chemistry is explosive.

This story is one of human nature, trust, betrayal and love. It is written in an interesting style, where the chapters go back and forth between “present day” in 1893 London and 1882 when the couple first met.   As the book goes along you get the background that resulted in the current marital situation, as that situation is changing itself.   And, to make matters more complicated, there is a side story involving Lady Tremaine’s mother, Veronica.

This is a book that you will not want to put down.  As with all romances, I knew that it would eventually have a happy ending, but it was not obvious as to who would be the one to come to thier senses first.  It’s the kind of story that has you in tears one moment and laughing out loud the next.  There are interesting side characters with thier own problems that directly add to the conflict between Camden and Gigi.  While you don’t like that these characters interfere with Camden and Gigi’s relationship, you can’t help but like and feel for them as well.

There is alot of background information that revolves around a changing world, the industrial revolution, late 19th century New York City etc.. that adds to the depth of the story.

As a debut novel, this book by Ms. Thomas is gem and I look forward to reading more of her books. The next one, “Deception” is due out in August 2008.

Title: The Gathering
Director: Brian Gilbert
Year: 2002
Cast: Christina Ricci, Ioan Gruffudd
Genre: Mystery Thriller / Horror

Finally, I thought last night as I went to bed, a film that actually scared me! The Gathering has its (big) weaknesses, but it is catching and creepy regardless.

Beneath the Glastonbury Tor, by horrible accident, an old church is found with a creepy depiction of the crucifixion. Shortly after that, American tourist Cassie gets hit by a car an looses her memory. Not remembering what she was doing near Glastonbury in the first place, she gets taken in by the family of the woman who hit her with the car. A series of mysterious events take place, and Cassie gets preminitions involving the creepy faces of the people watching the crucifixion on the old church’s wall. What is going on?

The plot is surprisingly amusing and the creepy bits are surprisingly creepy. Christina Ricci does a decent job with her acting, as does Ioan Gruffudd, both playing somewhat blankly at times but perhaps that enhances the creepy feel. It is not a must-see, but definitely one you want to see as a film fan or horror lover. Even if just for the fact that the film involves no saws and dead Japanese girls and still manages to thrill, like a proper thriller.

Personally I have some issues with the film, being a historian, but those are irrelevant. The writer of this film is unlucky enough to be covering a part of history I have researched thoroughly a year ago. I find the notion of suggesting there may be truth in this myth a little dangerous. Not only the idea that Britain held any trace of Christianity in the first century AD (religious myths, in my opinion, can be dangerous as it may justify people or simply wrongly inform them), but also the idea that this sort of thing is possible. The depiction of the people watching the crucifixion was a very fake Roman style of art, with a Medieval theme and neither have any relationship to the era and situation suggested by the film. It is just all wrong. People shouldn’t think there is any truth in the myth this film creates, because it is simply untrue. Both Rome and Britain were still pagan. The history of Christianity should not be a source of scaring and sensationalism, but something we need to be rationally informed about in this time of crisis between religions and nationalities.

But that is just my humble opinion, and it didn’t stop the film from being amusing. It is by no means art, but by all means properly amusing.

Title: Cassandra’s Dream
Director: Woody Allen
Cast: Colin Farrell, Ewan McGregor, Sally Hawkins, Hayley Atwell
Year: 2007/2008
Genre: Crime drama

I knew very little about Cassandra’s Dream before I saw it. For some reason, Woody Allen has a way of making me uninterested in a film. This is more my own flaw than anything else - one might say I’m a Martin McDonagh girl, and I like small and artsy-fartsy but only if it has balls. For some reason, stories about Allen’s films never struck me as my kind of thing. Especially after Woody contributed to the short but intense hyping of Scarlet Johansson. Actors who are being hyped rarely catch my eye, I am shallow like that. I liked Johnny Depp most before everyone decided he was the king of acting. I was anything but interested in Colin Farrell during the time he was being hyped. And Scarlet, a good actress and beautiful woman, was hyped by Allen as the next big thing - this turned me off.

Because I knew nothing about Woody Allen and Cassandra’s Dream, I was happily surprised by this film, and also just generally surprised. Personally I think it is weak journalism and lazy writing to base a film’s quality on another film, but I couldn’t help but see the similarities with In Bruges - dispite the fact that these films have nothing to do with eachother and if they have anything in common it is a brilliantly talented Colin Farrell giving a touching performance.

Ian and Terry are two London brothers (includes Cockney accents) with their own financial problems and dreams. Terry (Colin Farrell) has a serious gambling problem, going from being very rich to being in debt 90.000 from one day to the next. Ian is a restaurant manager with big dreams. Like proper working class lads their focus is on financially bettering themselves. Dispite their two very different personalities, both have a somewhat odd relationship with money. When one day Terry gets himself into gambling debts so deep that his physical health is actually at danger, Ian gives him all his savings and the brothers end up in a critical financial situation. Thankfully they have a very rich uncle. But the very rich uncle this time expects a favour in return, one that will work their consciences and show that murder can turn people into both wrecks and monsters.

Dispite some reviews claiming that McGregor’s and Farrell’s accent wasn’t entirely believable, I found their accents to be very good. Possibly because I am not from London, but nonetheless I couldn’t help but carefully listen if the Irishman and Scot ever slipped in their accent, and they never did. Besides their accents, their acting is solid and moving. Farrell has the advantage in this film, playing the very vulnerable Terry. Surely there will be very few girls in the audience who wouldn’t want to comfort Terry when he is upset once more. But Farrell’s strength is not in his comfortability or his cute face, and you have to give him credit for this. This, along with In Bruges, is the proof that he is no longer the so called bad boy he once was hyped to be. He is simply a very good actor who holds his own with the likes of very serious and critically acclaimed directors and actors.

McGregor as well as the ladies in their supporting roles really deliver as well. This film never lacks credibility in my eyes and that is what makes it a good ride regardless.

Allen, however, does show weakness. Mainly in the cinematography department. There are plenty of times when you might think he could have made the shot more beautiful or attractive. Either way he does right by the actors, giving them all plenty of time to become three-dimensional characters that end up moving you more than you expect during the first half hour. The film’s similarity with In Bruges may be striking to some, but it is simply not reason enough to hold anything against anyone. Beside the fact that Allen’s and McDonagh’s (In Bruges) style are completely different, Colin Farrell’s two characters may be in similar situations but are very different. Ray in In Bruges being more comic, Terry in Cassandra’s Dream making you pitty him rather than laugh at him. Both are very touching characters in their very own right and it was about time that Farrell got his chance to show off his talent.

Overall, Cassandra’s Dream will not be for everyone, but will be worth the gamble. Just make sure the stakes aren’t too high - not everyone will be able to stomach Allen’s style and writing, and this film deserves better than to be money lost in a bet.

Title: Voodoo Moon
Genre: “Horror”
Cast: Charisma Carpenter, some other people

You may notice how my basic description of the film above is lacking. That is simply because I am not only about to save you time, I wanted to save myself some time as well.

Do not see Voodoo Moon unless you are bored out of your mind (preferably to an extent where you would find Spice World The Movie the best film ever), or ready to make out for an hour and a half.

There are movies you enjoy, and then there’s the ones you sit through. This one you sit through. I am sure fans of the casted actors will disagree with me (after all, I’m sure there’s your regulars who will adore anything), but this thing… it lacks a plot, it lacks decent acting, it lacks emotional realness, it lacks in the cinematography department, it lacks in clarity and it lacks most of all in fulfilling its genre’s promise; I’ve never in my life been less scared of the film and more scared of the next sappy line.

If you do find a reason for seing this, which I doubt, make sure that you are into one of the actors or just very good at following vague plots and unexciting storylines. I did not mind staring at Charisma Carpenter for an hour and a half, and I always keep up even when everyone else is lost, so I managed to sit through it; but that’s as good as it gets. I had to explain to my mum, who watches a lot of movies, every 10 minutes what was going on - and even if I did know, I didn’t even know what it meant exactly.

Last but not least Charisma Carpenter wears Catholic clothes - she doesn’t even show off her figure. That is not the Charisma I know, and certainly not the one I like.

 

Title: Blood & Chocolate
Tagline: Temptation comes in many forms.
Year: 2007
Genre: Fantasy, Romance, Drama
Director: Katja von Garnier
Cast: Agnes Bruckner, Hugh Dancy, Olivier Martinez
Rating: PG13

Vivian is a werewolf. Not the kind we’re used to, though. She belongs to a big ‘pack’ or family (very mob like) of people who are secretly werewolves; not bound by the moon, they can transform whenever they like, but they keep low profile to avoid being hunted. The werewolves of this pack come from all over the world, hiding out in their last refuge: Romania. They are very into “their kind”; pack leader Gabriel keeps them safe and underground and tries to continue the species by picking the right brides. Of course, stubborn, rebellious, I-want-to-be-normal Vivian is his preferred choice of partner, but she just wants to have a normal life and has no message to pairing for the sake of the species. She works in a chocolate shop (hence the whole “chocolate” part in the title) and tries to be normal. One day she runs into Aiden, an American writer, and they fall in love. However her family isn’t so happy about her dating a “meat boy”, and neither is Gabriel. What follows is a struggle between who she is and who she wants to be. It shows how fear of other species or races can be destructive and how dating the wrong boy could get your cousin killed.

The cover of Blood And Chocolate promises a horror fairytale, maybe just a horror or perhaps something exciting in general. The film disappoints.

Especially the first 30 minutes of the film are, pardon my harshness, a joke. Not only does it hold a high chick flick percentage (family has expectations, girl doesn’t want to be like them - including arrogant cousin and a wreck of a mother), it is also a failed attempt to make werewolf people seem normal. It is so clear that Vivian is supposed to be a normal girl her age, but she’s too emo for it. It’s too stereotypical and predictable. What follows is a Romeo & Juliet like escapade, not leaving you entirely bored but in quality simply not good enough to be called memorable.  Everything is cliche, from the camera angle and shots to the characters.

Add to that some stunt animals that make Lassie look like an expert. Trained wolves were used for shots where they ‘walk towards people in a threatening way’, ‘chase prey’ and pull at people’s clothes. They even have to fight eachother at one point. As an animal lover I found it difficult to watch. Wolves are to stay in the wild, they are beautiful creatures, and they are not on this Earth to be in crappy, Lassie-like shots for a film that may take away the werewolf stereotype; but still portraits them as maneaters. Why can’t they just eat rabbits like normal wolves, if they can be people like normal people during the day?

More than that, the werewolf references in the people who are them are crappy. Apparently, being a werewolf makes a person able to jump around a lot. It gets on your nerves when the characters just jump up and down walls for no reason.

There are some good things in this film, though, that need to be noted; and the happy ending is not one of them. But the moment Olivier Martinez enters as a true character, it gets more believable. His broody presence makes the failed chickflick more of a fantasy/horror story, but he seems to carry the believability the entire species on his character. Films like “Underworld” may not be top knotch either, but at least Underworld had a horror-fairytale atmosphere, and it is only Olivier Martinez who brings this in “Blood and Chocolate”. Another compliment should go out to Hugh Dancy, for being such a fantastic treat for the eye. I happen to know Hugh Dancy is a good actor, but if I didn’t this film would have convinced me that he - like Orlando Bloom - mostly has a heartthrob element to offer. It’s not that his acting in this one isn’t good, it’s just that the character doesn’t do him justice at all.

Those of us with an active imagination will find the last half of the film satisfying enough to realize the story and cast had great potential, the rest of us will probably wonder what the hell Katja von Garnier was thinking. This film doesn’t just lack testosterone when it needs it, it doesn’t do its cast and depth justice. Only rent when bored out of your mind.

Title: Bernard and Doris
Genre: Drama
Director: Bob Balaban
Cast: Susan Sarandon, Ralph Fiennes
Year: 2007
Distributor: HBO

If you like your movies plane, easy, fast and normal, this is not the film for you. If old women having sex with young tattooed men, Irish men wearing women’s clothes and unclear motives or suggestive shots don’t work for you - don’t bother watching this. Bernard and Doris is one of those films you need to enjoy or just not watch. I for one loved it.

The story is loosely based on the story of tabacco heiress Doris Duke and her shy butler Bernard Lafferty, who inhereted a great deal of her fortune after she died. This story is not one with a plot, a conclusion, or even a clear message or moral. Rather it is a story that portrays the relationship between Bernard and Doris. Doris is extravagant and impulsive, sleeps with heaps of young men, makes impulsive decisions, and lives her life believing everyone sees her money rather than her. Bernard is a shy, introvert butler who seems to be fascinated with glamourous women. The story begins as he starts working as miss Duke’s butler. He seems fascinated with her lifestyle, adjusts completely to her, but has an alcohol problem. This is not your average crystal clear lovestory, and at no point in the film do Bernard and Doris have an actual romantic relationship. Rather, Bernard turns out to be the only person Doris trusts in her restless and somewhat empty existance. When one night he is there for her when she needs him, she asks “What do you want from me?” assuming he is just another man who is after her fortune whose love needs to be bought. He answers, very honestly, “I just want to take care of you.”

If you want to see Ralph Fiennes in a dress, this is your chance. They didn’t quite choose the most flattering dress (personally I would have rather seen him in a shade of red or even white), but oh yes it is a dress. He also wears big earrings and quite a bit of make-up at that point. The explanation for this is something that I feel is left to the viewer. Bernard seems fascinated by women like Elizabeth Taylor and like Doris, and it seems he has the urge to dress up, but it is only when Doris encourages him that he actually does it.

  Actors Susan Sarandon and Ralph Fiennes are solid in this film. There is not a glimpse of a moment they are not completely in character, and it is heartbreakingly believable. Their characters seem to fit like gloves - but then again all the characters these great actors play seem to do so.

So if you’re ready and in for it, give Bernard and Doris a shot. No mysterious surprising plot, no spilled out moral judgements, no lessons to be learnt - just people living and loving as real people do rather than as Hollywood characters do.

Refreshing and daring, and I praise the actors for taking on such roles. No doubt in my mind that there are many people out there, like me, grateful that Ralph Fiennes stands up and plays a character who wears women’s clothes without explaining himself.

Title: In Bruges
Tagline: Shoot First, Sightsee Later
Genre: Black Comedy
Director: Martin McDonagh
Cast: Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Jordan Prentice
Production Company: Focus Features (Universal Pictures), Blueprint Pictures, Film Four

In Bruges opened the 2008 Sundance Film Festival in Utah, resulting in reviews of which the majority was positive. Director Martin McDonagh is also the writer, and has earned credit winning an Oscar for his short film Six Shooter (also with Brendan Gleeson) and plays such as The Beauty Queen of Leenane and Pillow Man. In Bruges is his feature debut. However actors Farrell, Gleeson and Fiennes are doing anything but delivering a debut performance - with films on their names such as Phonebooth (Farrell), The Gangs of New York (Gleeson) and The English Patient (Fiennes), they come with their baggage of expectations and at times even typecasting.

In Bruges is the story of two hitmen (Farrell and Gleeson) sent to hide out in the picturesque, historical town of Bruges (it’s in Belgium) by their boss (Fiennes). I can’t give away too much about the plot, it would surely spoil the experience for you. The film covers their three days in Bruges, where they meet colourful locals (played by a.o. Clemence Poesy and Thekla Reuten), wrestle with their consciences and come to terms with the reality of life and death. Ray, the younger hitman played by Farrell, turns out to have screwed up his first hit in London, which is why they were sent to Bruges. Ken, played by Gleeson, has killed before and is more at ease with himself and what he does for a living than Ray is.

Martin McDonagh may write comedy, but the comedy is deep black. You cannot forget you are watching killers - yet you also cannot help liking them. Ray’s almost childlike innocence and completely impulsive but well meant comments make you fall in love with the character instantly. Ray hates Bruges. He could not think of a worse place to be, and he will remind you of that throughout the film, through the very last second of the film. Ken, on the other hand, enjoys the sightseeing. Being less naive and disarming than Ray does not make his character any less likable. And then there’s gangster boss Harry, who is merciless and cruel and clearly needs some anger management - but he also shows sides that make you realize he is not just your average bad guy.

The actors, all of the leading men (dispite the fact that it is only in the last half hour that Fiennes shows up), completely nail it. You have never seen them like this. All in their own way cast against type, you completely believe them. Colin Farrell is a highly underestimated actor, and after this film nobody can ever doubt his talent again. Many reviewers manage to slap him with the hand they are petting him with at the same time, by saying he is ‘finally good’. He has always been good, but in In Bruges he is barely anything short of perfect. You will love him, it’s a promise. Brendan Gleeson may still be playing the sensible man as usual, he is also a killer, and acts it out in a completely convincing way. He has great chemistry with both the other actors and seems to bring out the best in them, making their comedy (which is an element mainly brought by Ray and at the beginning also Harry) even funnier. Fiennes is fierce and perfect as Harry Waters - while having played bad guys before, this is new. His psycho-killer in Red Dragon and even his Amon Goeth in Schindler’s List belong nowhere in the category of Harry Waters. He manages to squeeze in his funnies very well, but you never forget how intimidating Harry is.

The score and cinematography are complimentary to the wonderful acting, as both Carter Burwell has adjusted the score perfectly to Martin McDonagh’s beautiful picture painted. Oh and before I forget it, another mention should go out to Jordan Prentice, who does a great job, is hilarious and proves in In Bruges that his acting is worth so much more attention than his height.

Are there no flaws in this film? Of course there are. I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you. The flaws are not worth the mention, and they certainly don’t overshadow the brilliant quotes from the film you will forever keep in your heart. I can write them down for you now, as many reviewers have - but they won’t tell you anything, just like they didn’t tell me anything before I’d seen the film. The superb actors bring the brilliant lines to life in such ways that black on white print just won’t do.

Overall, In Bruges is a breath of fresh air in the increasingly dull landscape of film. As the production companies start waging all their promotion hopes on big blockbusters such as 10,000 BC and even small films seem to become a repetative habit of addressing so called taboos, In Bruges is just very damn funny and entertaining and heartbreaking. You must see it.

Title: Return To House On Haunted Hill
Year: 2007
Sequel To: House on Haunted Hill
Genre: Horror
Rated: Rated R for everything you could imagine

Uh-oh
There are three ways to watch a horror film. You can be scared to death, you can be entertained or you can be bored. American horror tends to cause the second or third effect for me, I only get scared with Japanese horror. It is because of that I decided to rent Return To House On Haunted Hill. The first film, House On Haunted Hill, had been quite boring in my eyes, but I wanted to give it a shot. Even if it is a sequel.

If you like…
This is everything you’d expect an average American horror film to be. Dead people stalking you, seing people die in the strangest ways, female characters that are so shallow they are an insult to our sex, male characters that are so testosterone filled and proud to be driven by their penis that they are a compliment to their sex, at least five sex scenes, naked women, large breasts, and some more dead people. If any of this scares you or offends you, I suggest you don’t rent this film. I personally can’t see the harm in it. Well, I can see the harm in the overculturalized ‘cool’ gun use and physical abuse rather than in the naked breasts. But don’t worry, this film isn’t a Tarantino or a soft porn or even a mix. It’s just a scary movie.

The strength of simplicity
The strength of this sequel would have to be the fact that you don’t even need to remember what the first one was about to have a good time. When I popped in this dvd and the opening credits started, I knew I’d seen the first film but had no idea what it was about. But during the opening credits you are reminded once again; there was a psych ward, doctors who abused their patients, patients who abused their doctors, a cursed house and lots of dead people. That’s the bottom line. It’s wonderful because there’s not a lot of thinking to be done. Though there was one point where I had to think really hard because apparently the big-breasted college girl who was sleeping with her professor was also promising him the world because his heart seemed broken when she turned out to be working it with the bad guy. Sorry, did I just spoil it for you?

It wasn’t me - it was the house, I swear.
The best thing ever about horror films would have to be that the one or two main characters survive and leave a house full of corpses behind, and they don’t seem to worry for a second about the fact that they have their blood all over their tight t-shirts. What will they tell the cops? It wasn’t me - it was the house. The house also seems to have a good sense of drama; instead of just crushing everyone when they’re together in the main hall (save yourself the effort and do it all at once, I would say), it waits for someone to be stupid enough to wander off. I like houses with a sense of drama.

Storyline
As a film, watching it objectively, is it good? Hell no. If you take the quality of film very seriously this will hurt your eyes. Camera angles and shots are cliche, the mood setting is over obvious (flickering lights, old elevators, and it gets dark whenever convenient), the storyline makes very little sense (at one point the filmmakers are trying to make you believe that the characters have conflicting interests… when they just don’t) and it is obvious that the filmmakers have waged their hopes on the sex scenes attracting viewers. But that’s okay. Apparently being scared shitless makes you horny?

The characters lack depth and their motives are a mystery most of the time, the actors show very little depth or acting ability (besides Erik Palladino who nails it) and most of all relatively the film lacks moments that are actually really scary.

Conclusion
The conclusion is as messy as the rest of the review; if you like horrors you’ll like this one because it’s so lame it’s entertaining. If you hate horror, don’t watch this because it’ll probably scare you. Hey, I even got scared at one point. I have a deep rooted phobia of larger bodies of water, especially if there’s fish or corpses in it. And there was one scene in this film where I can honestly say I could have shit myself. I didn’t just give away the entire film did I? Well, that’s what you get with complicated horror plots based on breasts and testosterone.

Alison and Ben couldn’t be more different. She is a hardworking journalist with a spot on an entertainment show. She is single and lives ( not exactly sure why) with her older sister and family. He does something very vague with a website he and some friends are creating and spends most of his time drinking beer and smoking pot.

One night they both go out. Alison has something to celebrate and is in the mood for sex. So is Ben but he is not exactly in demand. They meet by chance and one thing leads to another and the next morning they wake up in her bed. After an awkward breakfast together they split of. Chances are they’ll never meet again.

But two months later she finds out she’s pregnant so she contacts him. What follows is an eventful pregnancy. Alison and Ben start to like each other. Then they get into a big fight but when her delivery is due he is there for her and in the end scene they and their baby drive home presumably to a future together.

It’s all very by the book, predictable but still charming. Katherine Heigl has a knack for comedy and she is endearing as the reluctantly pregnant Alison. Seth Rogen is believable as the not overly ambitous Ben who still wants to do the right thing.

What makes this movie though are some side-characters, like some of Ben’s colorful friends. There’s sort of a running gag with one of them having to grow a beard because of a bet! Also there’s a funny role for a not overly enthousiastic gynaecologist ( in the extended version there is a very funny feature regarding him) Paul Reiser deserves a special mention as Alison’s brother in law who yearns for some time for himself.

All in all nice entertainment. Forgettable yet funny while it lasts!

The movie starts out ( quite literally ) with a big bang. A big attack on a compound for Americans in Ryad, capital of Saudi Arabia. The attack is shocking and even more so when a big bomb goes of once the police and ambulances have come to the rescue. Than we see a briefing at the FBI headquarters. Peter Fleury knew one of the agents who died in the blast. He vows to go to Saudi Arabia against all odds. ( the state-department and Saudi Arabia are against it ) By manipulating cleverly he manages to get 5 days for a team to go to the Middle East. The team consists of Peter Fleury (Jamie Foxx) himself, explosives-expert Grant Sykes ( Chris Cooper) forensic expert Janet Mayes ( Jennifer Garner) and ..( well it’s not exactly clear what his job is)  Adam Leavitt ( Jason Bateman )

Once they arrive in Saudi Arabia they find themselves babysitted by a reluctant arab colonel Al Ghazi ( Ashraf Barhom) Initially he won’t allow a real investigation by the Americans but soon the Americans convince him that it’s better for everybody if he lets them help. Soon they pick up a trail. There’s a big shootout and it seems the case is closed!

However on their way back to the airport to depart back to the US the convoy is attacked. Terrorists manage to kidnap one of the team-members for publicity-purposes. The rest of the team goes out in hot pursuit to try and save their colleague from a horrifying fate ( beheading )

Apart from the breathtaking beginning and the ( even more ) breathtakingly finish this is not really an actionthriller. It’s more like CSI Saudi Arabia. We see the complications for Americans to work in an arabic country. We see some bonding between the Americans and their Arabic counterparts.  We see parts of the investigation. Then, all of a sudden the tone changes.  The last twenty minutes are very exciting ( if you don’t mind the logic or rather the illogic of some of the actions) There’s a big gunfight in and out an appartmentbuilding. We see the preparations for a beheading. There is a very nasty fighting sequence with Jennifer Garner ( with some help from Jason Bateman).

So now about the logic of it all. Well, first of all it is not very likely the terrorists will grab one hostage and leave his colleagues unharmed. They were all in one car and basically helpless. Than they lead the team directly to their headquarter. Than there is a wild shooting-sequence but the Americans are hardly scratched. The only one who dies apart from the bad guys is the sympatethic colonal Al Ghazi.

Does this mean the Kingdom is a bad movie. Not in my view. I quite enjoyed it. It doesn’t have a lot of pretense. It is what it is, a thriller in an exotic setting.  The acting is pretty solid with Israeli actor Ashraf Barom shining as the reluctant baby-sitter who bonds with Peter Fleury.

In the end scene it becomes clear that both sides are really only driven by one human desire! Revenge!

Who? Sheryl Crow
What? Detours
When? 2008

There are many ways to like Sheryl Crow’s music - Sheryl has shown many faces, opinions and styles over the years. Oftentimes you can tell from your previous favourites wether you like the newer album or not. Where her earliest albums seemed to have country as a main influence on her pop, she later turned more rock and then went over to a sort of sunny Americana style. Where her older songs were about being short of cash, self-esteme or love, and about ways she found to live with them or live in spite of them or even get rid of them - the latest albums have become more and more political pop. I think it is safe to say that no Sheryl Crow fan likes all of her albums equally, nor will fans ever agree what her best song is because of the many styles and feels. This is always what was so supreme about Sheryl Crow - different levels and different sounds didn’t ever stop her from touching the listener. The strongest thing about her music always being her lyrics.

I can’t lie; I’m a “Difficult Kind”, “If It Makes You Happy”, “Anything But Down”, “C’mon C’mon” and “Run Baby Run” kinda gal. The songs with balls, words you’d never heard before as if Sheryl had invented the words or at least as if she was the first one to address the feelings they indicated. Not the overdone rock-chick, not the lovesick country gal, not the bouncy pop princess - honest, relatable music.

If your favourite songs resemble my list, “Detours” is probably not your favourite album. If Wildflower was in your opinion her best, you will love this album even more.

The songs on the album are very personal to Sheryl, that is obvious. They address the Bush government (and how it sucks), her high profile break up with Lance Armstrong, her battle with breast cancer and the adoption of her son Wyatt. All very moving, big events in Sheryl’s life - the songs can be expected to be equally moving. Right? Think again. The album, unfortunately, sounds more like Sheryl’s personal therapy than anything that can be personalized by a listener. Sheryl Crow seems to have grown somewhat tame over the years! Change is natural and I don’t want to burn her on changing. The problem is, still, that her music is becoming less and less relatable while she grows older and evolves into a stronger self.

She criticizes capitalism - something that is noble and big, and in which she might well be right, but nonetheless you come to think that this is a consequence of luxury. She didn’t mind capitalism when she couldn’t pay her taxes in “Can’t Cry Anymore”. She also criticizes president Bush, something that I don’t find a very appealing move. Dispite the fact that I am anything but a Bush fan, I have rarely sat in my car thinking “Hmm… I wish I could play a song about how the president sucks to pass the time!” It sort of makes you want to say; get over it. And her suddenly enormous focus on politics will not remind you in any way of the The Globe Sessions’ Sheryl Crow.

The second half of the album is more about her personal life, leaving the politics behind. She sings about a diamond ring not meaning anything - obviously referring to her broken engagement to Lance Armstrong. The lyrics to Diamond Ring are less than impressive, to say the least. She moves on to singing about how she dealt with her breast cancer and about adopting her song Wyatt. Perhaps the people who’ve grown at the speed of Sheryl Crow will relate to this album - all the others probably will not. It already became very clear on Wildflower; Sheryl’s sound changes along with her life. Where Wildflower seemed mostly a love declaration to Lance and the world, this album is all about Sheryl getting through hard times and big changes. But not general ones - these particular ones. They aren’t songs you can put on your list for any day, they are not songs you can grow with and can keep relating to. They are, as I said, more like Sheryl’s therapy than like her earlier music which was therapy for the listener.

Enough about the lyrics, let’s talk about the music. For this album she’s gotten back together with the producer of Tuesday Night Music Club. You can very clearly hear this. Tunes and effects and sound feels from that style come back on this album. The sound is smoother than Wildflower’s sound - much smoother and easier to listen to. The music is good.

Overall, Detours is not like her past albums but really not that bad either. It is obvious that Sheryl is an amazing and talented musician and you have to give her credit for doing what she does so naturally. However, this is an album you will want to play while doing something else. There will rarely be times in your life that you will feel like specifically and carefully listening to one of the songs off of Detours. Unless of course you are often at a point in your life where you break up with your fiance, adopt a baby, battle breast cancer and hate the president. You have to give her credit for that. But music-wise it just doesn’t make for classics.

Alexander Defended: The Final Word
Though the third and last cut of Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” was released last summer, I still feel it is time for one more review. One last review - a different review. Over the past three years many people have written many things about Alexander, but very few have in their reviewing also taken a stand against the unfair criticism that this film and its leading man have had to endure. In this review I hope to make people aware that even when it comes to Alexander things aren’t black and white, and that if they haven’t seen this one or have but are open to seing the last cut - they should.

Theatrical Cut, Director’s Cut and Final Cut - qu’est-ce que c’est?
You are probably wondering; why three cuts of one film that not that many people liked in the first place? There is a good reason for it. All three cuts are essentially different, and even if you hated one of them you are bound to at least have a favourite amongst the three. The Theatrical Cut (TC) was made for theaters and makes the story of Alexander the Great relatively clean cut (for such a complicated, long story) - the story is chronological and there is a clear implication of Alexander the Great being bisexual or homosexual. The Director’s Cut (DC) has less “gay love scenes” and is less chronological, featuring some flashbacks. The Final Cut (FC) is the whole thing, only again in a different order; this time it is anything but chronological - it also gives the character Bagoas a bigger role.

The Short Cut
For those of you who are not farmiliar with the story of Alexander, or who fell asleep for some reason while watching one of the first versions, here’s a short cut. Alexander the Great lived from 365 BC to 323 BC and was Macedonian - his father was King Philip II of Macedonia. Philip conquered Greece and after he was murdered left his small empire to his son Alexander. But things weren’t as easy then as they are now in Buckingham Palace. Alexander was Philip’s son by his first wife Olympias who was described as ‘barbarian’ - a dark, ambitious woman who had a less-than-romantic relationship with her king and did everythings he could to get her son on the throne. When Alexander does get the throne, he goes to conquer all of Asia Minor and also Egypt, going as far as the Hindu Kush. This would be a big thing nowadays - imagine this happening in a time when people didn’t have quick communcation, media or experience exploring other countries. He was revolutionary and Alexander’s important role in the making of our modern day world cannot be denied. This is why his story is important - but it is also mysterious, given the fact that there are some questions left unanswered. Who killed king Philip? What drove Alexander to greater achievements than anyone? What the hell dude?

Enter Oliver Stone
This is where Oliver Stone comes in. With the help of highly respected historians and experts he starts the journey of making Alexander’s story into a film. However, the film wasn’t appreciated. Millions went in, and the millions were only earned back just now after three years. This does not excite producers.

Critics hated this film from the moment it hit its first screen. Everything was wrong with it - they could not come up with a single good thing. Which is strange, considering Oliver Stone is not an amateur, his cast was made up of stars and the story is a legendary one. What went wrong?

What Went Wrong
Many things went wrong. The main criticism of the American critics was actually on the fact that Alexander (Colin Farrell) was suggested to have a homosexual relationship with his oldest friend Hephaistion (Jared Leto). This they could simply not appreciate - as if Alexander’s homosexuality made his success less believable. Very, very low. Secondly there was criticism on the accents, wigs and all other shallow things that require imagination and the ability to relativate. Yes, Olympias (Angelina Jolie) has a strange accent, so what, it didn’t stop Meryl Streep with her farm in Africa, did it? Yes, Colin Farrell had some freaky blond hair every now and then - if we’re gonna be shallow about this why don’t y’all focus on the fact that he also takes off his clothes? He could take off his clothes and be bald (uh-oh) and I would still think his hairdresser did a great job. Use your imagination already! The critics with an even smaller will to give this film a chance complained about the fact that Angelina was ‘too young to be Colin’s mother’. Ya think? Sharp. Maybe that’s why she isn’t his mother and they’re acting she is for a film only.

But the cruelest and most harsh criticism fell on the leading man’s abilities, Colin Farrell. Colin has recently won a lot of respect all over the filmworld with his new film In Bruges, but they sometimes are still backhanded compliments saying “how much better he was than in, say, Alexander”. Me telling you the following probably won’t work if you’ve already made up your mind, but Colin is worth the shot; he was good in Alexander. His acting was good, solid. He was Alexander. He put his heart and soul into it. Just because people cannot live with the fact that Alexander The Great wasn’t some butch sexist pig, doesn’t make Colin a bad actor. There, I said it. Moving on now.

The Final Cut
What makes the FC worth watching? Well it is simply the best cut of the three. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, it puts less stress on Alexander’s traumatic childhood and softness (for all the homophobes out there), it starts off with an action packed battle scene and takes you through Alexander’s journey in conquering the known world first and foremost. His past becomes a series of flashbacks, making it more acceptable and less dominant. Yes, the FC is longer, but also probably more digestable for everyone than the first two cuts. You start to truly understand Alexander’s motives, the character gets many more dimensions, Colin’s talent shows some more, Oliver Stone’s vision shows some more - the whole thing just makes a damn lot more sense. If you hated the first one you saw, you should try this revisited version anyway. You may never grow to enjoy the story of Alexander the Great (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the abilities of the director and cast! Do remember that), but at least you will be able to see that this film never was the shipwreck that people claimed it to be. It is a strong, touching, important, genius film and nobody could have told Alexander’s story better than the two men who were so brutally stabbed in the back; Oliver Stone and Colin Farrell.

Alexander deserves to be defended, but more than anything you deserve one last chance to start enjoying real legends and get your head out of all that damn fiction. This story is real - and it’s great. It’s Alexander The Great - at his best.

This is another book in the “Argeneau series” and in my opinion, one of the best.  In this book, Marguerite Argeneau is involved in her first case as a private investigator. She is on the trail of clues as to the mother of Christian Notte, another immortal.  Marguerite not only finds out the identity of Christian’s mother, but she finds a whole lot more.

In Sands’ vampire books, the immortals are descendents of the residents of Atlantis.  Atlantis is described as an isolated and scientifically advanced culture that had figured out a way to add “nanos” to a person’s bloodstream to help them heal and stay healthy.  Obviously the nanos went alittle overboard, resulting in forever youthful immortals.  A handful of these people escaped when Atlantis fell.. and now have lived on earth, among mortals, for centuries.  The Argeneau clan is a very close knit family with Marguerite being the “matriarch” of the whole bunch.  She has four children and brought up a niece and a nephew ..and she looks out for the welfare of all of them.  Sometimes to the point of meddling, but always with a positive result.  Now in “Vampire Interrupted” it’s Marguerite’s turn to experience love.

The story begins as Marguerite, her partner Tiny arrive in London to begin the search.  They are soon joined by a few members of the Notte family.  When and attempt is made on Marguerite’s life, the group realizes that they have two mysteries to solve.  Christian’s father, Julius Notte, has refused to tell Christian anything about his mother.  After barging in on Marguerite and Tiny in bed.. and hearing about the attack on Marguerite, Julius decides to join the group.  He promises Christian answers if he’s allowed to go along.   In the course of the book, they travel from London, to York and eventually to Italy.

What I like about this book is that there are some real surprising twists in the storyline that you don’t expect.  The characters are mostly people that you already have “met” and liked in the other Argeneau books.  The storylines are all somewhat “connected” and chronological, however, each book can be read as a “stand alone” as well.

Marguerite and Julius, as well as Christian and Tiny, are all characters that you quickly care about and want to see happy.  There are some very touching scenes late in this book that will bring a tear to your eye.

If possible, I suggest reading the other books in this series first, but even if you don’t.. this book is one not to be missed.

Vampire Interrupted
Lynsay Sands
March 2008
Avon Books

It is not difficult to find MTV’s “A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila” at least somewhat entertaining. Either you are seing something you have never seen before and you can’t stop watching because of it. Or you are seing something that you have seen before but never on tv so you cannot stop watching. The outline of the show is simple; it’s a reality dating show, the contestants competing for the love of one bachelorette. The catch is that the bachelorette is a bisexual and the contestants are a group that is made up of 16 straight men and 16 lesbian women. You can’t help but be curious after endless sequals of Outback Jack, The Bachelor and other reality dating shows - this is bound to be different. And it is.

A Shot At Love has some extremely strong points that I absolutely must stress, but it also has the predictable flaws every dating show seems to have. I will get to the flaws later.

My first word must go out to praising both MTV and Miss Tila Tequila (who got famous for taking off her clothes and singing on occasion) for opening the conversation about bisexuality. It seems that too often acceptance talk is about homosexuality, and bisexuality is mostly associated with either ‘phases’ or threesomes. Being a bisexual myself I often feel that people don’t acknowledge bisexuality as an equal sexuality to the other two versions. Men think it’s hot because it will get them a threesome, girls think it’s just something that some girls try to get attention. Tila makes more than clear in this show that she is not about to share her girls with the guys - even if the lesbians would never be interested in the first place. Tila does not have threesomes on her mind, and equally she shows that she is truly interested in these women and not just out to get the guys’ attention.

Another strong point of the show is its diversity. The contestants will win your heart in a split second because they are all such characters. There’s the ultimate lipstick lesbian, Amanda, who is gorgeous and tall and looks like Pam Anderson and shows that lesbians can be feminine, sensual and strong and tough at the same time. There’s Dani, who is a girl but can easily be mistaken for a boy - she has breasts, she wears a bikini, but still you’d be torn if you had to figure it out for yourself. The show doesn’t just make Dani out to be a butch, it shows that Dani is a person and not an image, and shows how she and Tila truly bond. Both these women open your eyes to the notion of what exactly we all think a lesbian really is.

The show also showcases the very honest reality; oftentimes lesbian women are not interested in bisexual women because they have been left for men by them. But enough about the girls, let’s talk about the guys.

The guys’ reaction to Tila’s confession that she is bisexual is hilarious and confronting at the same time. Tila explains that she is bisexual and that the women who are also in the house are actually lesbians. Still the guys try to hit on the oh-so-pretty but oh-so-homosexual girls. Comments throughout the show are made about ‘joining in’ and of course the guys are also a rainbow of different colours. From a frat boy to an Italian who makes goofy jokes that not everyone gets. They are shown confronted with Tila’s bisexuality, with the gay girls and most of all; all contestants are exposed to intersexual competition. This is very new for tv. Though the show has proudly bapised itself ‘the ultimate battle of the sexes’, though Tila goes into it saying she ‘wants to figure out wether she wants to be with a guy or a girl’ (it’s never that simple) - the show brings its viewers to some interesting conclusions. Perhaps the most important one of them being; bisexuality is falling in love with people, not genders. Finally.

However A Shot At Love has a strong downside that kind of made it all so much less meaningful. The main downer being the fact that Tila ended up not dating the show’s winner (a guy, by the way) at all. He claims to never have heard from her after the show, and not even getting her phone number. And guess what? Season two is coming up. Combining this fact with the crucial fact that the show features a lot of making out (both hetero but also girl on girl), you’d almost think Tila is doing this to get a career boost. What enhances this idea is the fact that somehow she always managed to keep the numbers even; when there were four guys in the house, there were five or three girls. Neither sex ever got the definite majority, and this makes me suspicious, since it makes it look as if it was tried to keep both sexes in the running for the sake of ratings.

Overall, from the viewpoint of a real person and bisexual, this show is a good statement, but one that fails to back itself up solidly. Maybe season two will bring us a better shot at love.

English Title:  Forbidden Games

Directed by René Clément

Starring Brigitte Fossey, Georges Poujouly

 

It begins like a child’s fairytale.  A mother’s hand turns the pages of a book while the sad and lovely guitar solo “Romance” plays.  There is a fade out to a scene in the country - pastures, a long stone bridge, and then it all goes horribly wrong.  The bridge is packed with Parisians escaping into the countryside.  Nazi planes strafe the ground from above.  The crowd panics.  A mother chases after her small child who runs across the bridge after her puppy.  The father follows after them.  The planes come again and the parents are gone, the puppy mortally wounded, but the child survives.  Just how the little girl survives and how she copes with this incomprehensible tragedy is the core of René Clément’s masterpiece.

 

The film follows little Paulette (Brigitte Fossey) as she breaks away from the crowd and meets a farm boy, Michel (Georges Poujouly), who brings her back to his poor family and begs them to take her in.  Michel and Paulette become inseparable and their instant, fierce bond is tenderly portrayed.  Michel becomes her champion and protector and Paulette clings to the only person she can connect with.  When Paulette’s puppy dies in her arms, she and Michel bury it in an abandoned mill.  There begins the heartbreaking and horrible game they begin in order to comfort Paulette.  They create an animal cemetery surrounding the dog’s grave with dead moles and mice and insects.  The crosses are stolen from the parish cemetery.  At first, Michel finds the dead creatures, but soon he is killing them for Paulette. 

 

This tender and disturbing film moved me from the first frame to Paulette’s last heartrending scream for her mother.  The performances of the young children (Poujouly was 12 and Fossey 5 years old at the time of filming) are two of the best ever captured on film.  Clement treats them sensitively, but without sentimentality.  There is no deliberate tear jerking, no mawkish moments.  The scenes with the two children alone are real and uncompromising.  Paulette is manipulative in her grief.  Michel is her willing accomplice.  They are robbed of their innocence, their childhood and I wanted to weep for them.

 

I finally broke down and bought the Criterion DVD of Jeux interdits after giving up trying to find it at my local Hollywood Videon or on On Demand..  The transfer is superb and the special features include interviews with Clément and Fossey and alternate “bookend” scenes for the film.

 

After long careers that sometimes met for a project or two, both Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have gotten the well earned respect from the masses. I dare production companies to release Depp’s old films again, and they will make twice as much as they did, say, ten years ago. In Pirates Of The Caribbean, portraying Jack Sparrow, he showed to be not only unique and talented to a bizarre extent, he also for the first time got the amount of praise he deserved. Where Tim Burton’s work only caught on to goth and punk loving teens once, there is now the profile of a dark master - who incarnates brilliance in the shapes of The Nightmare Before Christmas and Sleepy Hollow. Other names involved in Sweeney Todd’s high profile film version are Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen. Not the least, either.

And it is because of their track records that it is so hard for me to believe that I actually did not enjoy this film at all. The majority of the film critics rave about this film, calling it - surprise - brilliant. I read their reactions only after the film and couldn’t believe what I read; had they really been watching the same film as I had? Did I forget my sense of humour at the door, perhaps? There is one thing you can’t accuse me of - being prejudice against it. Having always been a big fan of every party involved, I could not see how I would not enjoy this film. And yet I didn’t. Why?

The explanation, for me, lays in a number of things. The first one being the musical element. I must name this first, because I have never been a person to enjoy many musicals. I find musicals to be the opposite of Tim Burton, and that is exactly what is wrong in my eyes with Sweeney Todd. I am not sure if there is a middle way between Tim Burton’s dark fairytales and The Sound Of Music, but if he ever attempted to find that middle way, Sweeney Todd surely is the result. Suddenly bursting out into song was never something I could appreciate, but against the background of Tim Burton’s alternative and moody art, it is even more repulsive to me. The characers in A Nightmare Before Christmas sang, too, surely, but they were funny.

Which brings me to the second flaw; it wasn’t funny. I never saw the musical on stage, but I hear it is supposed to be funny. Call me stuck up but I really could not find what was so funny about Sweeney Todd. Inbetween Johnny Depp’s repetitively similar broody looks and the cutting up of people, I believe no true jokes were made. I caught myself laughing out loud twice. The first time was when Sasha Baron Cohen simply showed his face (because that is all he needs to do), the second time was when the constant singing became so annoying I just started laughing every time someone burst into song again. Maybe the humour was supposed to be in the absurdity of it all, but it wasn’t all that absurd to me (besides the spontaneously bursting into song) - especially since all actors simply took their characters way too seriously.

Which leads me to my final point; the characters. What you see on the Sweeney Todd poster is exactly what you are going to get; a Tim Burton setting, Johnny Depp looking broody and angry. But that’s all the depth you’re gonna get. The perfect example for this is the song where Sweeney sings about how his knives are his friends. You hear him singing it, you see him looking broody, but you just don’t feel it. Why are these knives his friends? They have a past together, surely, but anyone could tell me that. Make me feel it. I didn’t feel a thing throughout the film, and I didn’t feel any sympathy for any of the characters. Which makes the bursting into song even more annoying, and the humour even less understandable. Instead of making the audience feel connected to his characters, Tim Burton seems to distance them from his characters to focus on the look for art’s sake. Yes, he made it look like a Tim Burton film. No, I didn’t feel a thing. Maybe next time less attention to singing (perhaps by hiring actual singers or people trained for musical), less attention to making it look like it’s his, and more attention to making it accessable.

In the world of Sweeney Todd it might be extremely funny to cut people up, but I don’t particularly enjoy cutting up these masters. I have high respect for Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and all the others - but it’s not because of this film. Depp is always a solid actor, and I will never say that he didn’t do well. The same goes for all of them. The flaw of this film is not in its makers being good or bad, it is simply in the whole of it. All parties do good, but they have all made better end products than this - which is why it puzzles me that this should be the film that gets Johnny Depp an Oscar nomination. He has done films in which he was equally good or even better, where the film actually wasn’t just a certain way for that certain way’s sake. I assume pretty soon he will get Oscar nominations for getting out of bed.

I am ashamed to say that I don’t know all that much about the history of Spain. I knew general Franco had the country in his grip up until the mid-seventies but that’s about it.  Than I watched this little spanish movie. It’s the story of a young revolutionair Salvador Puig Antich. In the early seventies he joins the anarchist movement against Franco. He starts robbing banks and publishing pamflets against the regime. One faithful day he is trapped by the police and caught. A policeman is killed an for that Puig Antich is convicted with capital punishment. The evidence was shaky and untill now it is still unclear if it was actually Puig Antich who was responsible for the death of the policeman.

We first see the arrest going awry. Than we see the story as told by Puig Antich to his lawyer. We see his ( show ) trial. Shortly before he is sentenced a high-ranking Franco-loyalist is killed. When Puig Antich hears about this he tells his guard, Now I am dead too! He’s right.

Than we see his last hours. The visit of his sisters. The blessing by a priest. His last walk! His horror when he finds out that he will meet his death getting strangled. He really is no hero. His last words are basically, Oh, this is bad! This sucks! How much more human can he get?  The lead actor is Daniel Bruhl. He is a great german actor ( Goodbye Lenin ) He captures the spirit of Salvador amazingly.  Streetwise but still a bit naive, not a hero but someone who believes in a cause and pays the highest price for it.

Little did he know that his execution and funeral spark massive demonstrations all over Spain which will eventually lead to the end of the Franco-era and a more democratic future. I am not sure he would have cared. I think he’d much rather had lived.

Highly reccomended! Not fun to watch but interesting and captivating.