Big Game

I saw this movie with my wife, she was jiggling all the time,i had 2 dusins of good laughs, even though there are so many actual fact flaws on geography and politics. the plot is fine and the acting ok but most of all its damned good fun and impecable special effects and explotions,so dont hesitate watching this,its childish but great entertainment even for an old grumpy guy as me.

Looking at the other reviews, there seems to be a miscommunication about what type of film this is.

So this reviewer will be crystal clear: from the moment film first went into the camera, this project was intended a family/kids film destined to appear on cable channels all over the world either on a Saturday matinée or in the after-dinner hours.

Aside from Sam Jackson (whom I have been calling in my reviews since the 1990s "the most overexposed actor in film history") everyone else is second tier B movie material.

This is not die-hard "puberty edition." This is about fathers and sons and everything else is secondary to that.

So, now that we are crystal, it is really not bad. The effects are good, the bad guys are convincing, and even the action scenes work well.

Above average kids flick.

Big Game is mainly about the US President, played by Samuel L. Jackson, rescued by a young boy who is on a hunting mission, which lead the two into an unlikely bond and soon face a band of terrorists. That strange yet magnificent idea easily sums up what you're going to get in this movie. In concept, this is supposed to be Finland's take on the old school Hollywood action movies. It sets in a life of local deer hunters around a preposterous action movie plot and the movie just embraces the silliness, and without any pretension, this results to one of the most delightful experiences one would get in a dumb action movie in a while. And even for a B-movie (if that's what they claim), there is so much impressive achievements to look around, which sometimes the film felt a little too smug about it. But this film offers more excitement than what this rather simple plot suggests.

And just like what the classics do, it begins with tons of exposition, to fully establish the characters and the plot. But instead of being about some regular guy who gets mixed up with a tough situation, we get a kid who already seem competent to the job, but haven't fully earned his skill and experience, yet. It takes long enough to get to the real action, but the real shining moments here are whenever the two misfits interact, trying to bear with each other and contradict with the ridiculous choices one of them makes for survival, in a naturally comedic sense. While the threat still involves some risks and violence, this journey is all lighthearted. The heroes are basically just running around, choosing some crazy ways to escape from the bad guys as adventurous as possible. There's another side to this which takes place in Pentagon where the government officials are searching for the President. These scenes don't offer beyond than serving exposition and reveal needless twists, but isn't as exciting as the actual adventure.

People may still clamor this as a B-movie, but even for that impression, every visual and scale actually look more impressive than most Hollywood blockbusters today tend to offer. It looks heavily CGI-ed and people usually point out the flaws of the aesthetics, but here it's just beautifully bright and shiny that it never really matter if it's real or not. It simply polishes the supposedly dumb as schlock action, which might have lead the direction to somewhat slow the pace for style and swagger that sometimes becomes dragging, but the images brought a huge benefit, anyway. The performances are just delightful. No one might have done it better as this President than Samuel L. Jackson. It may sound like a punchline at first, but then he eventually manages to give something engaging to this character, and of course, Jackson does what he does best. But the actor who really steals the show here is Onni Tommila, who happens to be the the real action hero among the duo. Aside of excitingly pulling off warrior-like instincts, he also manages to get invested to the character's arc and comedic moments. The ones who play the villains stay campy as they should, and there is a surprising amount of other great actors here who aren't nearly as memorable as its stars, but they did their job solidly, anyway.

Big Game is a lot of fun, with a variety of amusingly odd ideas that come off great for a mindless action experience. But the best parts are really when the two heroes are together, trying to fit in from their unlikeness. I guess the only major thing to complain now is there should be more. It's not like that is going to make this a masterpiece, but it does left you wanting more, like we want to see more of these characters and explore more absurdity that this journey can come with. I mean, there's a scene where a fridge, where our heroes are hiding, is rolling down into the waterfall, with Samuel L. Jackson's character paranoia adding up the pricelessness of the scene. And that's just one example of what makes this movie delightfully adventurous.

I can't understand all the haters out there hating on this one. It brings the cinema back to life the way other gratuitous movies like Armageddon, Goonies and The Rock did. It's a mix of Spielberg and Roland Emmerich. It's big, it's fun, adventurous and endearing, total adventure escapism, the way good movies should be. The cinematography is beyond astounding, and 1/2 the acting is really good. But, 1/2 the acting is really, really bad unfortunately, especially Samuel Jackson and his entourage. I kind of feel bad for Samuel Jackson in a way. It's only been recently that I haven't wished for or expected him to say some pulp fiction gangster lines in every scene. Somehow he looks depressed in this movie. Maybe because he can't say some bad-ass gangster lines? I would kill to see a pulp fiction spin off of his character, maybe roaming the world like Cain from Kung-Fu and, like the A-Team, doing good things and saving people. Or, glorious abandon, his pulp fiction character meeting up with the A-Team? Only in my dreams.

...in this relatively small budget Finnish* action adventure movie starring Samuel L. Jackson. (It's a small budget movie in Hollywood standards - with measly 9 million dollars (8,5 million euros) - but manages to be the most expensive Finnish movie today.)

(SIDE NOTE: No plot is discussed in this review - because you can find the plot summary elsewhere (look up), also because I don't think the plot of the movie is really important in this case.)

Big Game is unapologetically old school (that school being founded in 80's Hollywood) in it's aspirations. There's non of the grittiness and wannabe-maturity or seriousness of recent Hollywood action movies targeted at younger audience (like Hunger Games, Man of Steel etc.). There's direct references to 80's Spielberg movies like E.T. and Indiana Jones, but the movie it resembles most is Cliffhanger, the mountaineering action from 90's starring Sylvester Stallone. It's no coincidence since Cliffhanger was directed by the first and so far only (but not for long, seems like it) Finnish-born Hollywood action director Renny Harlin, and the writer-director of Big Game, Jalmari Helander (whose second feature film this is), Finn himself, was a young man dreaming of becoming a filmmaker when Harlin had his heyday in late 80's and early 90's with movies like Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger, and Harlin was a big deal in Finland (and I guess in Hollywood too) at that time (not so much anymore).

Big Game is a love letter to the movies of Helander's youth. Usually there's certain amount of self-consciousness in backwards looking projects like this, but Big Game is no parody or ironic postmodern pastiche (or something). Helander takes it seriously (without being too serious). Yes, it's predictable, clichéd and formulaic but at the same time heartfelt, joyous and mostly fun (also relatively short with 90 minutes with no really dragging moments), and part of the fun comes from being familiar with the tropes the movie plays with and the willingness to embrace them earnestly**.

It's a film made by someone who watched Hollywood action movies as a kid and played the scenes of those movies in forest with his friends with sticks as machine guns*** and Big Game is direct continuation of that kind of childlike attitude to movies. It's not a film for the more jaded viewer who wants to be surprised with something completely unseen before or who wants "believable" action or more mature or gritty touch from his/her action and adventure movies. Helander made a movie that he loved watching in his childhood and that's both the strength and the weakness of the movie. What are your feelings towards these kinds of old school action movies and whether you are willing to embrace the cliché and take a more childlike perspective to the movie will probably determine whether you will appreciate Big Game or not.

I personally thought it was fun to watch, even if it didn't bring anything really new to the table (in fact it found the old leftovers and served them with fresh dressing). Movie like this could be really stiff and boring if done poorly (it has actually pretty impressive action scenes with such small budget), or armpit-fartingly tryhard and unfunny (Snakes on a Plane), but thanks to the cast - especially Samuel L. Jackson ("Get these *beep* terrorists out of these *beep* Finnish mountains!)**** and young Onni Tommila whose unexpected relationship carries this movie through the more cliché-ridden landscapes - and the earnestness of the director, it managed to breathe some life into the already-done-to-death tropes of the genre and gave the world what it didn't know it needed: Spielberg-flavored Renny Harlin!

6/10 (little above average, fun to watch)

*Co-produced with UK and Germany and shot in Germany, with largely German crew.

**Clichés are not clichés (used too often) without a reason. Usually they were effective and cool the first few times but later became overused and too familiar. In a movie like Big Game you sort of have to be willing to see the original power of the cliché and let go of the impulse of trying to outsmart the movie. In short: it requires a childlike perspective. (Of course every bad movie would seem better with childlike, i.e. uncritical, perspective, so forget what I just wrote and see for yourself.)

***DISCLAIMER: This might've never happened, but it feels like it.

****There actually is no mountains in Finland.