Tag: Swedish

This film was watched as a part of the Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF). And the King Said, What a Fantastic Machine has its Seattle Premier on Sunday, May 14 2023.

Because trailers nowadays for the most part have no chill, and decide to give away the entire story, I always try to avoid them to the best of my ability. But when you go to movies, they throw them at you before hand, quite rude. It is rare to find a trailer that is exciting without telling you a whole lot about the movie, and that is true about And The King Said, What a Fantastic Machine. So go ahead, give it a look, its fun. I am technically going to give away more of the film in here just by describing it than the official trailer.

What kind of documentary is this about? Well, clearly it is about the camera, and movies in some level.

And sure, in one way, it is telling the history from the first time an image was taken from light particles onto paper, onto moving pictures, and more. It tells of significant events in history, not just when and where they occurred. But why they occurred. What was the output.

What was the whole point of a camera? Well, a scientific tool to record what was in front of it.

But, what about what is around it? What about other angles of reality? What is the purpose of this image, or moving image, and what are they hoping to invoke into the viewer? Are you being deceived?

Yes, I know what I was doing with this screen grab. So did she.

Honestly, the tone of the trailer matches the movie perfectly. It isn’t just a long history, then silly videos. It is specific moments in time, spread throughout the film, to bring up important changes in the camera and what people did with it. Including deception. And knowing what the image taker looks like in weight of tragedy. Because someone has to be there, to click the button, or at least, some device.

Now, this documentary isn’t here to judge you. Or to declare TikTok the enemy of modern society. Or anything like that. It is just noting the events, and noting things recorded, and what people have done with the cameras, and why. The goal of the documentary is to make you aware of these things and really, to implore you to think of these things.

A little thinking about your viewing habits before just zoning out never hurt anyone.

And yes, in fact, it was very weird to watch this in a film festival, my 6th movie in 2 days in theater, with a lot more planned. A movie that is…anti consuming video content? Is it anti-consuming content? Honestly, the questions asked from the film I don’t think try to force you to go to a specific outlook. In fact, your current life situations with these objects might affect the way you take the message from the film. Are you being attacked, are you being enlightened, or are you being informed?

And I love a documentary that convey these feelings, with mostly footage already made, and pieced together in a specific way. Now, why did the directors piece it together in this way? Great, great, question.

To be an effective satire, the audience has to understand what the film is satirizing. So if you told me I was going to be watching a movie that satirizes modern art, I might have changed my mindset going into The Square.

I don’t know shit about modern art, or modern art galleries, or modern tuxedo affairs, So I wouldn’t really understand when it was being made fun of. I mean, on the surface, one might just go and assume this is a normal art film about quirk art people, not going for some deeper meaning behind the whole thing.

Oh well, it is long, and it is Swedish, and I don’t have enough Swedish films on my site. I will take it.

Life is like piles of grains of sand.

Things are about to get weird for Christian (Claes Bang), who up to now has been living a modest, yet successful life in Sweden. He runs a modern art museum, meaning they have to constantly be on the cutting edge of new and modern art. They are constantly seeking new sources of funding, new ways to advertise, and ways to stay relevant in the modern world.

I mean, you’d think everyone in Sweden would care about art enough to just go to their place every new exhibit. But maybe they aren’t as hip as we thought.

Their newest exhibit is called, The Square, with the statement, “The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations.,” as its punchline. It is about being nice to strangers and the homeless. It is not sexy or controversial. So when it comes to a new advertising campaign, they decide to go with an outside group who decide that they need to turn this nice idea into a controversy. To make a viral video anyway possible.

And sure, that will backfire. But that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with Christian.

Also starring Elisabeth Moss, Dominic Moore, Terry Notary, Christopher Læssø, and more.

This man most recently played Kong in Kong: Skull Island.

The Square was definitely an experience and a hard one to really describe. At almost 2.5 hours long, it was about a lot of things, and a bit about nothing at all. It was about a man who would have a lot of hard experiences, some seemingly ironic given his supposed stances on life. A story about getting harassed by a kid. A story of lost items. A story about trusting strangers who will turn on you in a heartbeat. And a story about art taken to an extreme and a public unwilling to break away from their comfort zone.

The biggest moment comes from the scene in the second picture, which would have played out like a horror story if it went on any further. You don’t have to understand modern art in order to understand what the director is saying about that scene, in relation to the message of The Square. However, it turns out it was based on modern art as well. It was based on Oleg Kulik, an eccentric artist (read, asshole?), who imitated a dog as part of art and bit people.

Bang does good as our lead, looking the part of a man who we want to root for, but who makes strange decisions that question our own goals. Is he an asshole, is he down on his luck, or is he really a good guy? It is really hard to tell, but he is definitely a coward.

The Square is an experience, it is not for everyone, and it will be remembered in the future as a really weird film.

This year for the Oscars, I was able to see 0 out of the 5 foreign films before they were announced. Yeah, yeah, I suck. And for the most part, I decided I didn’t even want to review them all if I saw them, only if I liked them enough to feel inspired to write.

Which brings me to A Man Called Ove. Which I clearly loved. A Swedish film, originally called En man som heter Ove, based on a book, it was surprisingly nominated for TWO Academy Awards. The obvious Best Foreign Film and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Whoa, a double threat.

I have started to learn the Swedish language, technically. I mean, I did some lessons on Duolingo. So Sweden and I already have that connection going. This film is going to be the beginning of a beautiful film relationship, I can tell.

Ack! Kids in the relationship so quickly!

Ove (Rolf Lassgård) has lived a long and potentially lonely life, so now it is time to end it. He is just angry at everything in the world. He lives in a small community in a house alone. And people these days just cannot seem to follow the rules! There is a small road outside his house where driving is not permitted, and people keep driving there, for instance.

And just when he is finally ready to end it all, a family moves in nearby. A Persian woman, Parvaneh (Bahar Pars), pregnant with two kids, and their husband, a Swedish man. They keep bothering him, needing assistance or other things. Just as he is trying to off himself, watching parts of his life flash before his eyes, they get interrupted or he gets let down by faulty equipment.

Can’t an old man just die already?

But soon he gets too involved with the families around him again. He gains responsibilities, he has things he must take care of, despite just wanting to be with his wife again in the afterlife. Oh yeah, he was married. And they have a few tragic events in their life as well.

Can Ove finally get to move on in peace?

Also starring Tobias Almborg, Ida Engvoll, and Filip Berg as young Ove.

First the kids, then the cat, then the other kid, then the gay kid. What a to do list!

A Man Called Ove gives me everything I want in a movie. Appropriately timed flashbacks, tragedy, an emotional connection, a cranky old man, annoying neighbors, and proof that old dogs can learn new tricks. Okay, okay, those are all very specific to this movie, but I still enjoyed it a lot.

Lassgård was able to carry this movie mostly with a grim look on his face. And you know what, the viewer will most likely agree with everything he complains about, despite everyone else in the film thinking he is being ridiculous. He is a strong actor, and the guy who plays his younger self does a good job.

I did find myself a bit annoyed at some of the neighbors too, they did bug the shit out of him and he had every right to be angry.

I don’t have much else to say on the film, outside of it being entertaining, a nice comedy drama, and a well acted romp out of Sweden.

I have to type it out at least once, so here I go.

The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out a Window and Disappeared (whew) is a movie actually recommended to me sometime last summer. Except it was a foreign flick and I had no way of watching it. But it has a lot of acclaim over in Sweden, and I like Sweden so I hoped I would like it too.

Hell, it is Sweden’s third highest grossing film of all time. Right after The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played With Fire. I have no idea how much money The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest made, but I assume they all hated it as much as I did and it wasn’t actually third before this.

Seemingly out of nowhere though, this movie was nominated for an Academy award. No, not for foreign film, and not for cinematography. It was nominated for Best Makeup! It is competing against Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant. Technically I shouldn’t be surprised because those two films were nominated for everything, I just expected a bit more diversity.

Oh well, let’s see what this very specific movie title is about!

Look! There he goes! Disappearing out of a window! Now you know!

Allan Karlsson (Robert Gustafsson) is old. He is about to turn 100, and thus, our man with the plan. Well, plan isn’t true either. His plan is to get away.

You see, Allan is cooked up in a nursing home, because he was found unsafe to be living by himself after he used dynamite to blow up his chicken coop to get a fox. So he jumps out of his window and goes to a nearby bus station, with only a bit of loose change.

However, some angry skin head (Simon Säppenen) comes in and tells Allan to hold on to his bag while he hits the toilet, because the suitcase won’t fit in the room. Just as he does, the bus arrives to take Allan to the middle of nowhere. So Allan takes the suitcase with him.

And what happens is a brief adventure, where Allan runs into a very diverse group of people, some violence, and of course man hunt to find him from the local authorities and a biker gang. At the same time, we learn about what Allan did throughout his long life in a series of anecdotes. Anecdotes!

Also starring David Wiberg, Iwar Wiklander, Jens Hultén, and Mia Skäringer.

What a ragtag group of so-and-sos.

Let me save time. Did you like Forrest Gump? This is the Swedish Forrest Gump. Sure, he isn’t mentally slow, he just lacks a lot of formal schooling. But he goes around the world, joins the military, and becomes a big player in a lot of events over the last 100 years. He meets Stalin! He helps with the Manhattan project! And more!

The good news is that the stories of his past are only 35-40% of the film. The rest is of him being 100 and doing his little adventure thing. The cast of characters are diverse, the situations are funny, and I didn’t know how it will end.

It was nominated for best make up because our main actor, Gustafsson, is not actually 100 years old, but they made him look super old for the film. He is only 50 ish, and plays Allan through all parts of his life outside of being a little kid. So it is pretty good. I just wish, again, the category was a bit more diverse. The other two films will win enough awards. So I hope this one pulls off the upset.

A pretty good movie, probably a really good book. And hey, Sweden everyone. Sweden.

last movie of the Millennium series! The other two reviews are here and here.

Is The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest the ending to a great work, or the third addition to something that probably went on wayyy too long.

Apparently she has gone back to her “scene” ways.

There is seriously NO reason to watch this movie without the other two first. What they hell is wrong with you (hypothetical person attempting to do this thing)? But just in case, my plot outline is going to be very general.

After the events of Film 2, Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) is in the Hospital, with bullets and stuff in her. So is her dad. An attempted assassination attempt on both of them.

Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) still wants to protect her and gets his sister to be her lawyer for the trial. They want to prove that she has had a life of abuse, both from her father and “the man”, leading her to do certain actions. Like blackmailing rapists instead of going to the cops, and trying to kill her dad in self defense.

Assuming they free her of all charges, can she finally “move on” with her life, and become a normal girl?

And why does she think this is the best outfit to wear at court?

To me, personally (and I remind you again, I didn’t understand why the second one was made) don’t understand why this one was made either. It felt like the “what happens after the show” stuff. I need more details there. Lets say you are watching Psych or something, and by the end they catch the bad guy! Usually by them admitting to it (which is good evidence). That case will probably STILL go to trial, as the person will be all pissed off. They then have to go through a lengthy after process, and hopefully that person is eventually put in jail.

Does that part sound as interesting? No. Because we have already seen all the proof, and know what the final verdict should be. They don’t show that stuff because it would be boring.

Well, that’s what the third movie felt like to me. Sure, some other stuff happens too. It better, since it is 2.5 hours long! We find out a little bit more, but the justification for the movie doesn’t seem to be there.

In conclusion, I don’t see the big deal guys.

The Girl Who Played With Fire is the sequel to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo in the Girl Who Has Long Titles, trilogy.

This one doesn’t have an American version yet, so I won’t put Swedish in the title. Heck yes!

She looks more normal in this film. Well, in this scene. Others she looks just as weird.

So this movie takes place a year after the first? I think so. Year is a relative term. Since the last movie she only a had a year left of having a guardian, but in this movie, guardian seems to still be a problem. I didn’t like it, seemed force, mostly because it seemed like Lisbeth said the same exact shit as the first movie, and it was just unnecessary. So that bugged me.

Michael Nyqvist still plays the detective dude. This time instead of focusing on rape, they are working on sex trafficking. So kind of rapey. I guess.

Talking about the plot of this seems silly. You would only watch it if you’ve seen the first movie, and unless you hated the first one, the plot summary wont convince you to watch this one. So what does this one have? Less rape, as I said. Plus more lesbian sex. Also long lost family members, set ups on crime, and some more computer hacking. But that is about it.

Personally, as just a movie, I found this one to be kind of a mess. Maybe its the transition between book and novel, or mini series and movie? But it was just hard to follow. A lot of stuff was assumed.

Like they assumed Lisbeth did the murder because of some fingerprints? A lot of weird shit happened in this movie, and most of it seemed to come not from the main sex offender plot.

This might have been a deleted scene from The Warriors?

The only reason I am giving it the “one watch and thats all you need” rating, is because acting wise they did pretty good. But me understanding the point of the movie? That was low. Wouldn’t want to watch it again. I can at least see why there would be a third movie after this, based on the ending. So that is a plus too.

2 out of 4.

This is for the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, not the newer one, and definitely not the Swedish book.

Got that? I am already tired of writing out the title.

I kept putting this off, not because I didn’t want to watch it, I just didn’t want to watch a bunch of long swedish movies, and read subtitles. But hey! At least the Blu-Ray versions all have English dubs. Great. As long as I don’t stare at the mouths, I am good to go.

Michael Nyqvist is the main dude, and just lost some court case. He wrote an expose on some famous guy, who took him to court over the alleged facts and won. But instead of trying to appeal, he kinda just blahs out. He then (I really cant see how this happens) gets hired by this old dude to research and look into a death from 40 years prior.

My guess is because he is a research journalist, so the guy wants him to do research?

Noomi Rapace plays “that girl”, and works for some security company as a private investigator, and is hired to follow Nyqvist. There is also this other story about her having a guardian still (I think she is supposed to be 17 then?), and it is very rapey.

Rapey? Yeah. Rape appears a lot in this movie.

So much rape it will make your head spin.

Anyways. They eventually team up, find the truth, fix the problems, and everything works out. Kinda.

It was definitely an interesting, if not weird. Acting was good, and it was disturbing at parts. Nudity, for those who like that, but not “sexy nudity”. I think there were lot of different themes and sub-stories that appeared in the book, but were only lightly touched upon in the movie. Half-assing stuff like that irks me. Putting things in movies just because it was in the book, but not as fully as it was in the book. Appeals to those who read the book, but angers people who like to consider the movie to be its own thing (well, me? And no one else maybe).

So as just a movie, it was pretty decent. But had too many smaller announces that bugged it for me. Ending was kind of weird too. Didn’t understand everything after the first “conclusion” of the movie, and it felt weird by itself. Oh well.