A man called Otto (2022)

 So you take a Swedish bestseller (En mann ved navn Ove) made into a smash hit film, and you cast... Tom Hanks. That can't be bad can it? 

Let's take the good parts first. The original story is stellar, and the Swedish film captures it almost perfectly. The American film isn't entirely disloyal to either. There. That's the upside. 

Tom Hanks is of course an astute actor, and he isn't out of his depth here. But the problem is Rolf Lassgård did it better. Much better. I shall endeavour to explain. Hanks' Otto is depressed after the death of his wife, and this has made him grumpy. Hanks plays that as a bit of an homage to Walter Matthau's Max Goldman, though lighter on the comic side. Thankfully, as Matthau can't be topped there. Lassgård played Ove as a social awkward, who experienced life's joys much through his wife, and had his rougher edges trimmed by her. He did not really see the beauty of life without her. Hence he was misplaced, misunderstood and genuinely exasperated by his surroundings without her. The American Otto is a man with a temper, the Swedish Ove is gruff, but with an astute sense of fairness guiding him, as well as being generally extremely capable. That makes for a much better and more complex character. Hanks would probably be able to pull that off, so I blame director Mark Forster and the evil minions that re-arranged the script. 

For the problem here is really that Forster has taken a rather simple story, with very complex characters, and dumbed it down for American viewers. It's like marketers saw the original and thought: "How can we make this simple, and modern, enough for morons?" And ahead they went. The aforementioned changes are mostly hurting Otto, but they've done the same to all the characters. The support cast are all stereotypes of the worst sort, and bring nothing of anything. Jimmy (Cameron Britton) is the most useless of the lot, as he is so daft and moronic that when he actually gets an important scene, he has no credibility left to carry it.

Though Forster is rather loyal to the original content, he makes one extra blunder. Leaving the father more or less out of it. Otto's relationship with his father is pivotal to who he has become as an adult, and to his lack of ability to function properly without his wife. 

As this is an American versioned, the ending is abysmal and makes a mockery of all subtlety. But the source material is so good, and Hanks carries the film decently enough, so that when the driveway isn't shovelled one cold winter morning... You still care

6/10

Men in Black International (2019)

When you have a franchise that makes money, there's always a risk you at some time push things too far. That you move so far away from what made the original great, that it kills the franchise as such. If there are any intelligent people left on the universe, MIB International, is just that for its franchise. 

Let's try to start on a positive note, though. There is an aesthetic treat for the women in Chris Hemsworth. Unfortunately he's mostly obnoxious in every way but the funny ones. Hence bringing nothing but his looks to this film. Tessa Thompson is awful in a way I thought we'd be spared after Jake Lloyd. She's actually more frantic and daft than Shia in Transformers. And that, as he said, is saying something. There's hardly a single scene she's able to carry with any kind of believability. To have her in the same room as Emma Thompson would have been a shambles unless the latter had been so low on motivation. And since Hemsworth is so bad, and Tessa Thompson is  epically bad, their chemistry is non-existent. To make matters even worse, there isn't even a baddie worthy of mention.  

Tessa and her accomplices have no help from lacklustre directing and and utter failure in choosing a path. The first and third instalment were tongue-in-cheek (the second just shit), but they did have an adult tone. Director Gray seems to feel that if you can mix the original MIB with Lilo & Stitch and a bit of all modern ka-ching films, then all shall be well. So the tone of the film at times would fit a 9 year old. The problem is that the humour, for instance, is more fitted to teenagers. Only the dumbest teenagers, but still. Pawny is a perfect example. Coming in a close second to Jar-Jar in utter CGI uselessness. You have to be a complete film moron (or work in marketing) to develop that creature. 

The action sequences are mostly rip-offs low on creativity, quite astonishing for a film that doesn't have to adhere to current technology, gravity nor much else. Even the CGI is poor, particularly the scene in the desert. And the twists.. So daft it begs belief. If you want to make a cartoon, make a cartoon. Don't waste otherwise decent actors in buffooning around for two hours. 

So does it have any redeeming features? Well. Apart from Hemsworth's BEAUTIFUL car... No. It's almost as bad as Transformers, and as ruined by marketing as modern Star Wars. In short this is milking a concept of its very last drop of dignity. MIB now has none left, and will need Chris Nolan to rise from the ashes. This film is total nothingness on a huge budget, and it has no value other than being an example of how much can be done badly.

2/10

The King's Speech (2010)

Firth is off to a great start in the opening scene, visibly discerned by what's about to happen, and not noticing that everyone of his people can see it, thus trying to reassure him. Firth is a true old-school actor and excels at the opportunity of a role where he gets to work with the smallest details, as his face is front and centre. He does not disappoint. Whether struggling with expectations from his father or his people, or agonizingly reliving the worst parts of his childhood, this film is Firth at his very best.

But though Firth is truly excellent, Geoffrey Rush gives him plenty of help. That hard to point out quality some artists just seem to have, he possesses in abundance. His quirky self-assured portrayal of Lionel Logue a perfect match to the Duke of York's ill-tempered and frustrated figure.

The chemistry between two actors has centre stage, as it should. And they truly are remarkable in their best scenes. Particularly the epiphanies bestowed upon the Duke/King by the purposefully disrespectful and provocative Logue. 

Generally, the cast is astonishing. Some great names trying to make their mark on a film where the two aforementioned are given more or less all the juicy bits. Pearce, like his brother, talking with a particularly nasal voice during their formal speeches. More surprisingly, Bonham-Carter also comes out well in this close-up friendly film. She displays all the traits and expressions of a loving and supporting, yet worried, wife. There isn't really room enough for any of them, though. Both as a consequence of sheer screen time, but also the quality the two leads bring. As for Spall as Churchill, his role is so minor there is no real impression to make. 

As the war moves closer, as does the suspense of the film, and though it is a strange change of pace for just a couple of minutes, it doesn't feel unnatural or forced. 

Director Hooper uses his cast perfectly to demonstrate the disappointment and awkwardness that arises from the regent's lack of coherent speech in front of a microphone. And a big tip of the hat to him for making a scene where a grown man sings bad experiences from his childhood, making us all feel crestfallen for him. Firth's first speech in front of his cabinet is breath-taking as Hooper relies on total silence in a large, sombre room, with the wonderful music of Alexandre Desplat slowly building up. 

Despite the excellence of Desplat's score, Hooper's use of Beethoven's 7th during Firth's final exam is simply sublime. An awe-inspiring scene in every aspect. From a formal address to the people. Now, that is art. 

This film is a marvel to watch for slow and methodical acting after a perfect cast.

9/10

The Best Offer (2013)

One simply can, nor should, overlook the opportunity to see Geoffrey Rush and Donald Sutherland interact. 

Firstly, the scenography is stunning, putting Rush perfectly into his role. Mansion after mansion filled with priceless art, restaurants of the most immaculate kind, his wardrobe, and of course his auction house. Pristine. Whether it's the auction room itself or just the storage facilities. You'd do well to find a film with more meticulously chosen venues. 

Then there's the mystery. It starts off with little hints. One could imagine Rush's Mr. Oldman would take it a bit more in stride, but the character is a peculiar one. The mystery does evaporate as we move on, being replaced by the strange relationship between the highly successful Rush and the curious young woman behind the painting. 

Rush is his usual brilliant self. His growing infatuation slowing getting the better of him. As a method actor that excels at tiny details and expression, he gets to play a very wide array. But the mood of the film doesn't really invite a romantic notion in the viewer, and even less so how little we get to see of the object of his affection. Her erratic behaviour helps little in that regard, nor does the huge age difference. Hoeks plays her part very well, but her screen-time is a mysterious voice for half the time, and her transformation therefore feels less well-built than that of Rush. But perhaps that is by director's choice

The dialogue is naturally somewhat pretentious and of higher standard to accommodate Oldman and his hiding heiress. Higher classes will have long words. Though there is at least one hint in it all that's too obvious for the viewer, and definitely too obvious for Oldman to miss. 

Director Tornatore is at his best when allowing Rush his space, though he's also very apt at both creating an eerie atmosphere, and not half-bad at Lynchian quirkiness either. You do get the feeling he doesn't quite know where to go with his characters or the story as such. There are grand metaphors comparing love to art that are overly obvious (particularly the parts about forgeries) and many different threads. They do line up in the end, but unfortunately in the most lazy and tedious way. 

So it has some excellent acting, it does leave you wondering. But it seems my scepticism while watching was well founded. The main plotline and subsequent ending was just as obvious and lazy as I feared it would be.

And that was a disappointment

6/10

Short Cuts (1993)

Robert Altman always did have a way to build an amazing cast. And few better than here. But is the rest of the film worth it?

Director Altman wastes no time in showing us the fallacies of his characters, Tim Robbins' Gene Shepard a particularly big douche. Though he is giving up cigarettes, so I suppose he's partially excused. But not for hating his dog of course. Oh no, that's inexcusable. Generally, the men in this film are not very nice. 

As usual with Altman, all the characters are wholly or partly entwined with one another. In "Short Cuts" mostly either through an affair, or being the confidante to the person cheated on. Adultery and jealousy are the main themes, as even those not cheated on are paranoid about it. And those cheating on their spouses are insanely jealous at the spouses of the people they are cheating with. Not to mention everyone else, that they might be double-cheating with. Sounds exhausting? Well, not quite. Altman opts for slow pace and length (more than 3 hours), so there's plenty of time for all this to unfold. 

Naturally with a cast like this, and the best character-director of that time, everybody's good. But who really excels? Madeleine Stowe for one. Perhaps the female character with the most to work on in the script, though she does fade out towards the middle. Surprisingly, the most stellar of the males are Bruce Davison, trying to deal with a fragile wife and his comatose son, as well as his estranged father. The latter having lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria perhaps the best scene of the film, mostly due to Davison. And he hardly has a line in that entire scene. Another underappreciated actor was the late, great Chris Penn. Wonderful. 

Like a Bruckner symphony, you can feel Altman building for a crescendo. Every now and then he will toss you a little storm, but it always calms down again, while the build-up continues. You don't really notice it at first with his slow pace, but then it sneaks up on you, eerily. 

So there is ongoing conflict, plenty of nudity (mostly female, as was the custom at the time) and some of the finest casting of the decade. All topped with very realistically portrayed tragedy and some quirkery. At times it does go on a bit, and it is possible to get bored, particularly if you don't pay attention to all the details. But the crescendo does come, no worries. Later similarly used by Paul Thomas Anderson in Magnolia. And then. Life goes on. 

Oh, in case you wondered. The dog is fine

8/10

Marathon Man (1976)

Has there ever been a cooler and more random start to a film? Well, probably, but 2 old geezers ramming each others' cars on a busy street, screaming at one another until they run into a fire truck and burn... Pretty cool

A great thriller needs to be good at suspense, and this film certainly is that. It leaves little hints and drops a thought into the viewer at just the right time, to get you to the edge of your seat. A rather forgotten art, unfortunately. And to perfect those moods, the uncertainty, you need a few smart surprises. And some very good actors. 

Hoffman is naturally solid, as is Devane. Scheider is very good. Though the real treat here is Laurence Olivier. Such attention to minor detail, and so good at displaying just enough to make you sense something, without fully understanding it. A wonderful gift for an actor in a thriller. And you will struggle to find a more meticulously fiendish foe. 

There are plenty of scenes with violence, all kept uncomfortably realistic. And some just gruelling. Director Schlesinger taking his time in the build-up to make it all the worse. Generally, Schlesinger sets a slow and methodical pace. A perfect fit for Olivier, and for most of the film.

The who-fools-who is not much better than decent, but that's mostly due to the decades of mediocre thrillers that were made later. Schlesinger also takes a risk by leaving a lot a loose threads for a while. Almost too many as you fail to see any connection. But when they come, it's apparent he has a plan behind it all, to a very impressive extent. Yes. Even the 2 old, angry drivers. 

The suspense is at times absolutely riveting, and the script not at all bad. But the protagonist is much less interesting than the villain (though his final scene is very good for him), and quite obscurely involved in a story where everything else is connected. So it's not perfect. But it is good. And it was brilliant when it came, before thrillers were a dime a dozen, using and re-using all the tricks in the bag until they were worn out.

7/10

For the Boys (1991)

The narration starts in present time, with a pretty straight-forward story about getting two (very) ageing stars together at a reunion-concert. Then you get the obligatory cut-backs to their stories as they were, leading up to the main even. Thus meaning James Caan looks old where he's supposed to be young, whereas Bette Midler is (badly) made up to look old in the present, and can barely pull off being young in the past. 

Caan and Midler are front and centre for most of the scenes, and they do have a great spark, particularly on stage. Midler never was a great actress, but this film plays to her strengths as she gets plenty of time on a stage, in front of a big band, revelling in the awe of a full room of sailors. Caan is mostly her side-kick, as perfectly captioned by the poster for the film. Arye Gross has the mishap of playing the non-character turned essential through coincidence, as Midler's chauffer in the present. He does so with due diligence and produces enough warmth to make you care about Midler by exposing her not too well hidden soft core. Other than that, all actors are basically extras. 

The run-time here is almost two and a half hours, but as mentioned the present-story isn't worth more than 5 minutes, and the flash-backs are generally longer than necessary. Hence the length of the film is mostly shoddy editing. Though generally it's lacking in priority as director Mark Rydell prefers to tell a little about most things, refusing to make the necessary choices to give it a good flow and keep the audience entertained at all times. 

Apart from the great chemistry between the leads, this film does offer an array of emotions and it does them well. From the filled hangars of soldiers, to the fear of death in war, the pain of loss, and the tediousness of growing old with the highs (and lows) of your life behind you. 

So it's a nice film, but it could have needed a more disciplined hand on both editing and and directing. Perhaps the star producing wasn't such a great idea. But the final scene is gorgeous, and the last words magnificently sentimental, alone worth the watch.

6/10