insigniumdoomster's reviews

Hirtettyjen kettujen metsä is based on Paasilinnas book with the same name - the title translates to The Forest of the Hanged Foxes - and was released less than three years after.

The book itself was very popular and remains one of the author's most lauded books. The adaptation seems to have enjoyed less success, and there are several reasons why. It feels like a cheap home made 80's movie, and it was made on a low budget by a company that only released a short film and a documentary besides this. The two main actors were at least professionals with over a decade behind them each. Many of the others don't seem to have any acting background nor experience, this includes the director who only made another B-movie before calling it quits.

The story has something in common with Trainspotting in that the protagonist, Oiva Juntunen, is a criminal who is waiting for his crony, another very dangerous criminal called Siira, to be released from prison. Oiva isn't looking forward to Siira's release, not at all. On the contrary, Siira is quite a violent man and Oiva expects that Siira wants to kill him in his calculated fashion. You see, Oiva sits on three bars of gold, robbed from the Bank of Norway, one of which was supposed to belong to Siira. Another belongs to a third thick-headed crony nick named Sledgehammer, but this information is only found in the book. In any case, Siira (and Sledgehammer) served five years in prison for the robbery - (the book reveals that the three had planned and agreed upon this ahead of time, but the movie doesn't reveal this) - and now Siira's sentence is coming to an end. The thing is, Oiva has gotten used to a life in luxury by now and doesn't aim to give up any of what he sees as his gold. Siira isn't going to be happy to hear that.

So now Oiva hides out in the wilderness in Finnish Lapland, trying to evade both the law and Siira. Chance would have it that Colonel Remes comes upon him, a man prone to heavy drinking and who is tired of all the paperwork his job entails. Together they strike up a curious friendship and make a home there in the wilderness, soon joined by Naska Mosnikoff, a stubborn nonagenarian lady who is evading those who want to put her in a retirement home, and a feisty fox named The Five-Hundred Bill.

One could say that this is 'that' kind of comedy: Put mismatched people with strong personalities together in a small house and comedy will happen. This is at least how this film feels. The book is a tall tale of the Finnish kind, a tradition which Paasilinna upheld throughout his authorship, and which he was the foremost keeper of. A recent popular action movie called Sisu shows that it is perfectly possible to make films that belong to this tradition, yet The Forest of the Hanged Foxes adaptation fails in this.

The actors don't act much. The camerawork is below the standard for most B-movies. The sproingy synth track sounds like a frog that has gotten into Colonel Remes' liquor reserves. At times the film skips part of the book, which the result that some of the things that are going on doesn't make sense unless one also reads the book. That includes part of the ending. But there are parts with great slapstick, such as of Oiva chasing a fox in his underwear and wellingtons. And the sentimental feeling the reader got for Naska in the book is even improved upon in the film.

So, in short, the movie largely fails to be what it perhaps should have been, but still retains some good moments nonetheless, especially if you can see the humour in bad movies.

What Andy asks Hedwig in the third episode is perhaps the most essential question in this series. It can be paraphrased as:

"Who hurt you?"

All the colours of Eden hide the answers, and it's not only Hedwig who withholds theirs. Almost every big character does, and many others. The series isn't forthcoming either. In almost every case it's either revealed through off-hand comments or just hinted at.

Hedwig is the one that ends up missing one night and thereby sparks the plot of the series. The people of Eden, the Australian beach town which the series gets its name from, start search parties to look for her. Our part as viewers is to see the events unfolding through the eyes of the different people who saw her that day.

This doubles up as a study of the characters we get to follow. The aforementioned Andi, surname Dolan, is a famous actor with a drug problem, who is as lonely as he is good at keeping people away from him. Scout, who is Hedwig's best friend, who loves Hedwig as more than a friend, who Hedwig berates for not taking her along. Ezra Katz, the detective with a drinking problem, a sick mother, and who is said to have kind heart. Cam, the too-nice-for-his-own-good drug dealer who Hedwig places her trust in. Chief of Police Lou Gracie, who finds that love isn't always accepted, and many others.

Each of them are portrayed almost exclusively through the show-not-tell method. The observant viewer will get much more out of their characters, and consequently of the town as a whole, than those who approach the series more casually. As an example of the lengths the series goes to, make note of what Chief Gracie drinks. It's always water, and he is shown quite a few times doing so. Except in the single meeting he has with Detective Katz when he drinks a beer. Katz is a dried up alcoholic so this spite from Gracie shows just how he really feels even if he's otherwise cordial towards him.

Chief Gracie is also an excellent example of Eden's dark shadows. There is so much shame, particularly related to sex. Gracie is gay and if this was discovered then he would likely loose his job, likely more. His need for secrecy is absolute and with the norms of Eden being cult-like one could see why. In fact, there is much of what people say and do, especially their sense of morals, that seems to point in the direction of a cult. More than likely the town used to, or perhaps still does, house one. One that hurt the entire Eden at some point, and which we're now only seeing the echoes of. Perhaps this relates in some way to the title of the town and series?

Eden can be seen as a somewhat experimental crime series, colourful to the point where it touches on the psychedelic from time to time, which has vibrant and rich characterisations of the people in it, and whose beauty indicates that it's all a bad thing that happened in a dream. But the undercurrents, if one picks up on them, are darker than in most any other series. It's brilliant, full of carefully considered connections and dialogue, but also a series which has the potential to stick with you. It doesn't seem like most viewers pick up on it, but Eden should come with severe trigger warnings..

Scape is about a man named Morrowbie Jukes, who stumbles into a camp for the dead-alive diseased. The sick must not leave due to the danger of contagion and so they are put under guard. A single guard, who likes to hide in the forest and shoot at whoever tries to escape. The guard considers Morrowbie to be one of the inhabitants and so tries to keep him inside as well. Now he has to enlist the help of Gunga Dass, one of his former servants, to escape and get back to his wife.

The movie is based on Rudyard Kipling's short story called The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes, although with a few alterations. Now, Rudyard Kipling was one of the really great authors of the 19th century, and the early 20th century for that matter – come to think of it, ask literary analysts to list the twenty most influential authors of the modern age (ca. 1700 to ca. 1900) and I'm pretty sure Kipling will be mentioned at least in every other list – which means that Scape has to hold a proportionally high quality to live up to its origins. Alas, it does not, not by a long shot.

But before I go into my arguments of why Scape does not satisfy the strict criteria set by the short story, I should point out the limitations of its creators. Let's begin with the $50.000 budget, which is less than that of many low-budget splatter movies. With this kind of money you can't afford to do much more than to run around in the woods in costumes, and that is exactly what happens in this movie. The people behind the camera have little experience and the director/screenwriter has only made one movie previously – that one's a low budget horror named The Shiftling – and Scape does indeed have the feeling of an amateur production; despite this the acting was mostly good enough or better. In particular I'd like to praise the role of Morrowbie Jukes, the protagonist, as portrayed by Ben Furmaniak; people have gotten paid far more for far worse, and I am sure that he's talented enough to land roles in larger productions should he care to. The camera work was also surprisingly good for the kind of production this is. It won't be praised as a work of genius but the cameramen show that they have done their homework, with one of them actually ending up landing a job in Pixar.

In other words, this movie has qualities above what it should have had, all things considered. The problem is, it just wasn't enough to make the movie work.

My primary complaint occurs to me because it is a long while since I read The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes and so my memory of it was patchy at best. So I was hoping the movie would help me fill those gaps, but it did not. I had to pause after fifteen or twenty minutes or so and re-read the short story. Afterwards the story of Scape made more sense, though still not entirely. Now, when you have to read the story which a movie is based on to understand it then that movie has a fundamental flaw, but Scape takes it yet another notch for the worse. You see, they have changed the story in a few, yet profound, ways.

First of all, the original story was set in India while Scape is set in a forest along the Oregon Trail. This poses several problems for the story, the most important of which is the camp of the living dead, or 'the dead who did not die but may not live' as the story calls them. In India these camps did exist as a place to put people suffering from contagious diseases or who at some point seemed to be dead but then were revived. This has never been a normal institution in Oregon and so its existence would require some explanation; none is given. Another problem is Gunga Dass, Morrowbie's former servant who is clearly from India. What he's doing in 19th century USA is not accounted for. Other issues include the British soldier and the gunman, but to address them here would be too revealing as plot is concerned.

The background story of Morrowbie was also changed. He used to be a rich man, but now he doesn't seem to be. (Although the movie does seem to be a bit inconsistent with regard to this, so – who knows? – he might be rich after all.) And it used to be the case that he entered the camp while in a fever daze, while the movie just has him gathering wood and thus stumbling into it. But worst of all is that the movie does not deal meaningfully with these changes, it just drops it in there, and when you go to the story for explanations you'll find that it doesn't explain anything after all because it has been altered.

Finally, the movie throws in a Halloween-esque chase sequence where the appropriate tropes are misused, sometimes badly. The most annoying bit was the lack of intelligence in the characters. Every couple of minutes the chase could have ended, but then the characters would chose the worst alternative in order for the chase to go on; it's like watching Pit and Pat do The Hunger Games.

So, in essence it is the plot which ultimately lays waste to this move. It's like a broken vase that has been glued back together poorly, with mismatching bits added and gaping seams; it could have been lovely again, but in the end turned out in a ways where one regrets using up all that glue.

This is the official, licensed movie of Tao Lin's novel 'Eeeee Eee Eeee'. Let me repeat the words official' and 'licensed'. Okay, once more in capitals: 'OFFICIAL', 'LICENSED', as in having the movie rights as sanctioned by the author himself! I'm making a real fuss out of this, I know, but once – erm, if you ever watch this movie you're going to be in utter disbelief of that statement.

Why? Because this is an... no, the term 'amateur' does not suffice in describing this production. It's more like a rehearsal, I guess? Yeah, 'rehearsal' is a much better term. A rehearsal where no one, absolutely no one – neither actors, director, or editor – could be bothered to take the production seriously. Yet, at the same time it is more than a home video that somehow found its way onto Amazon's DVD-R publishing. Because it's the OFFICIAL, LICENCED movie adaptation of a fairly famous novel!

'Eeeee Eee Eeee: The Movie's cast are the employees of Queens Library, NYC. It seems doubtful that most of them even know what the movie is about and they are openly reading from the scripts. If they mess up their lines, they just go again without stopping the camera. Loud music occasionally obscure the dialogue, wigs fall off and are put back on during the take, Andrew's dog (in the novel) is replaced by a mechanical, barking toy chihuahua, and so on... The utter lack of anything connected to what is generally considered to be 'good' filmmaking is so in your face that it's impossible to take the movie seriously for a single second. The IMDb list of goofs needs just a simple copy/paste of the script, supplemented by the complete description of more or less every action taken during the whole film. This is incredible in the sense that you'll have difficulties believing your senses. - Oh! I forgot to mention the still backgrounds and the green screen... Maddening! But you get the point. Moving on.

How could this have happened, you ask? Why did this become reality? Well, Tao Lin, the author, is himself a filmmaker who started a production company named MDMAfilms (together with a Megan Boyle); the name was the obvious choice when making documentaries while high on MDMA, which is what they do, and filming everything with the camera on a Macbook. Lin is clearly an eccentric man, a very eccentric man, and somehow I guess this... makes the film seem more appropriate to his idiom? At least the film actually makes some sense when considering the book, but more on that in a bit. First, let us finally deal with the plot.

Andrew is best described as a socially inept person, often being compared to a people with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome. The movie does little to promote this view, but the novel is at least pretty firm on this point. He works at Domino's Pizza, has a dog, a friend named Steve, and a potentially fictitious girlfriend/love interest named Sara; he regularly talks to bears who invite him into holes, observe the doings of depressed dolphins, and, for some reason, the hamsters are sad. Joanna is also there, whoever that is, and she needs a ride home together with her pizza, resulting in u-turns. Makes sense, all of this, does it? Hm? No? Well neither does the movie. Neither does the novel, for that matter – or perhaps it does, just no one has been able to properly decode it yet.

The great twist to all of this is that this might actually be the perfect movie for the novel. Yep, you heard me. The movie might be intended to be exactly as poorly made as this! Again, focus on Andrew's lack of social comprehension. Then let's turn to the novel – which seems to be made out of several related, but not necessarily coherent short stories – because it at times makes a fuss out of Andrew's attempts at authorship. Not unlikely this is supposed to hint to that Andrew himself wrote 'Eeeee Eee Eeee'. Thus, making the film look like it was made by someone who does not understand the thoughtrealms of other people, might just be utterly brilliant. Yep, again, you heard me. This might be a brilliant movie!

So, there you have it: The worst movie ever might be better than one would expect. I'm not going to be the final judge of that, though. See for yourself if you like, and then decide. Just be aware of this disclaimer: May induce mental pain (from shocking disbelief) and hearing problems (others in the room will be yelling "what the [...]" repeatedly).

PS. My mind is now so far blown that I'm starting to see talking bears as well. PPS. Is it normal for bears to be named Toby? I hope so...

Seldom does one come across films that are as misunderstood and misrepresented by the critics as The Exorcist in the 21st Century. While nearly every critic claims that it states a for or against opinion on the topic, it actually wastn't supposed to do either. To quote the website dedicated to the documentary (theexorcistdoc.com): "The goal of the film is to delve into this mysterious world and let people decide for themselves what to believe." Whether or not it succeeded is a different matter, but I think that question could be answered by simply looking at the critics once more. Their (erroneous) claims of the intentions of the creators behind the documentary goes both ways depending on the mindset of the critic in question, thus forcing us to conclude that the film did as intended: The Exorcist in the 21st Century is placed on neutral enough ground that the critics see whatever bias their own biases allows them to see.

(There is, however, a likely reason for the behaviour of the aforementioned critics. Documentaries that try for an unappraising approach to a given subject are rare, very rare. It is likely that they were so accustomed to being fed someone else's opinion that they never expected this documentary to be any different.)

The concept combines the belief in the possession by malignant souls with the belief in a deity who permits their eviction. In other words there must be a possessed and an evictor. The sufferer is a lady named Constanza who says she has been infested with demons for fifteen years. To finally bring about an end to this she has contacted Father José Antonio Fortea, one of the few exorcists sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We are introduced to two very real lives, both of which are much to regular and everyday to ever tempt Hollywood, but then again most lives are just like that despite their occasional dislocations from the average.

The documentary ends with what everyone expects from it, an exorcism. This includes not just the sermoning and the opposition by the possessed in its simplicity, again as Hollywood would have presented us. Our mimicry, with the eyes in particular, are windows into our minds where our thoughts attempt to leak through, occasionally opposed, yet unopposed at other times, and once in a while there will escape an impulse from those bonds that attempt to bind it internally and then give us a glimpse of what is hidden deep inside. Unlike with Hollywood's simulation of life there are real lives behind the mimicry herein, and the richness of a life lived cannot ever be emulated better than reality itself can provide it. What I am trying to say is that this is perhaps the most important part of the experience of watching this film: The depth of the individuals involved and the following deeper understanding of those actualities which are linked to a real- life exorcism.

I see only one negative side of the documentary and that is the inclusion of a disagreeing commentator, although he is present but in a few brief occasions. It is defended with that he is a part of the Catholic Church and that his presence is there to give insight into the disagreements within the church on the subject of exorcisms. I felt that it conflicted with the social-anthropological nature of the overall movie by forcing debate rather than letting the debate rise within the viewer on its own volition.

In brief, I would recommend watching this documentary with the awareness that it was never intended to influence you beyond showing you what happened. I would also recommend ignoring the aforementioned commentator and focus on interpreting the happenings the camera captured, instead letting your own thought processes and curiosity lead your evaluations. On a whole I would claim that this is exactly the kind of documentary which is truly valuable when attempting to gain insight into the workings of exorcisms. Now that so many other documentaries have presented the pro/con debate in countless ways it is truly refreshing to see for oneself what all the fuzz is about.

In 1968 a book called 'В круге первом' was published, its English title was 'In the First Circle' (sometimes just 'The First Circle'), and it has since become not just widely acclaimed but accepted as one of the most important novels of the 20th century. Its author, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, was himself a prisoner in a sharashka (a Soviet prison for scientists where they were forced to ply their trade for the benefit of the state) and as such it is not far-fetched to call this an autobiography. With regard to this miniseries, it should hold the same historical accuracy as the novel since director Gleb Panfilov is assisted by the author himself. The author even insists on narrating it himself. This does indeed seem to be history repeated as clearly as by a photograph - well, except for the portrayals of Soviet leaders, which seem to be viewed through the lens of the prisoners.

The plot concerns itself with the inmates of Mavrino, a sharashka near Moskow, and also others who concern the place, Josef Stalin included. This place is labeled by Solzhenitsyn as 'the first circle', a reference to the topmost layer of Hell as presented in 'Divina Commedia'; in both places the inhabitants remain untortured yet eternally restrained in hopelessness and prevented from even glimpsing heaven. I do not think it unlikely that this is also an allegory for the Soviet state and its imprisonment of its own people.

The miniseries contain many characters, so many that I'm sure most producers wouldn't even dream of including all of them in such a small series as this. Yet, the huge gallery and their individual functions and sentiments are essential in what makes the novel into a great one - they provide a spectrum of viewpoints and opinions that all play a part in explaining why that small community functions the way it does, and how it relates to the greater Soviet - so Panfilov had to include them when the story was set into motion on a screen. Unfortuenately, a gallery of such size needs a good introduction so that the viewers can put them to memory, and here the miniseries fail. This issue alone makes the first two episodes into a laborious experience. Fortunately this is the series' only fault of note. Also, knowing the names of each individual is not really necessary; the series focus on their experiences, thoughts, and philosophies, and the lack of a name does not hinder the viewers perception of these.

The novel and the series are alike down to the very details. (The series does contain elements from the novel's original manuscript, which was censored before it was allowed to be released, and it remained censored until 2009; in other words, most who already have experienced the novel would have experienced the censored version and thus find the story somewhat altered.) Watching the series is of course a different experience than reading the novel, a visual experience does differ from a purely mental one, although the content is the same. Thus I would claim the series and the novel complement each other while each contains the whole story by themselves, therefore they can be equally well enjoyed together as alone. The experience is in any case as profound as can be expected of such an important work.