Change Your Image
rasmushistoriker
Reviews
Dracula 3D (2012)
It's been overlooked that the relation between the characters is interesting
The dubbing, the casting, the acting, the effects, the goofy score. It's worse than you think, even if your expectations were low to begin with.
But there is one element that's fairly interesting, that makes it a damn shame that the execution was so abysmal: A lot of the characters share more than a little history. In this version, Harker isn't a guest, but Draculas librarian. The Renfields character knows Draculas bride, Tanja, before she turns into a vampire. In turn, Tanja is set up as a real rival to Mina Harker later. Yes, Draculas bride does have a name and an agenda. And instead of unnamed gypsies, Dracula has a strongman working for him (as well as a pact with a few other citizens). Lucy is a piano teacher, and when she turns into a vampire and kidnaps a child, it's not just a child - but her own pupil. Going further, Dracula believes that Mina is his dead wife (it seems to be going into "The Mummy" territory here), and van Helsing knows Dracula from a previous encounter. Of course, most characters are killed off effortlessly in the last act. And that's where the movie disappoints the most: It sets out as a character-driven Dracula movie, and then it suddenly comes to an abrupt end.
Hundraåringen som klev ut genom fönstret och försvann (2013)
Flawed, but still enjoyable mix-up of Forrest Gump and The Perfume
A hundred-year old man gets mixed up with drug money and a band of misfits, whilst he recalls a life full of exploding stuff. It's a kind of story almost entirely based on humorous coincidences, and a long line of wacky side characters, including a whole lot of famous world leaders. You can compare it with Forrest Gump, since the story is told very much in the same fashion, but also with the Perfume as well, since people tend to die around the old man. I have serious issues with this part of the story (the death scenes), for even though the acting IS superb, and the side characters all are amazingly well written, it still can be a very uncomfortable watch. There are some seriously disturbing moments, once you pause to think about the consequences of what just happened. The main character pretty much just blunders through his life, incidentally causing disasters (and occasionally miracles). It reminds one of Mr. Maggoo, only if people died from his antics. The main problem of the movie is, that it does not hit the right mark between the macabre and the cartoonishly violent. If you want people to laugh at the violence, you either stay away from showing blood - or you overdo it. So even though the story flows very smoothly, the tone really is all over the place.
En kongelig affære (2012)
No surprises.
You can either look at what it is, and what it isn't, and in either case, it's hard not to think of the missed opportunities.
What it isn't, is an attempt to accurately portray any of the persons, maybe with the exception of the king. They are characters. This goes for any and all "historical" movies, but in this case it's even more obvious, since the main protagonist (Struensee) and the main antagonist (Guldberg), are just that. Protagonist and antagonist, ideal and caricature, white hat, black hat. The reason this is especially disappointing, is that both of them, especially Struensee, were really very interesting humans - faults and all. Whilst the movies purports to feature both English, Danish, German and French, the movie has exactly one line in any of these languages, which is really disappointing, since it would have been interesting to show people the multilingual court of the time. Instead of showing us Struensee and Bernstorff as foreigners, we are merely TOLD that they are.
What it is, is just a very run-of-the-mill costume drama, with a predictable climax. As I said, the characters are either good or bad. Any and all opportunity of showing inner struggle, for example how Struensee wanted to do good, but ended up grabbing power for himself, is lost. The forbidden romance is simply justified here. The only character to encompass both good and bad is the king himself, swinging from rudeness and lewdness to being adorably naive and brave. It's such a shame that the movie could not have been about him.
All in all, the movie is wholly unremarkable as far as the story goes, which is really disappointing when you think of the actual story this is based on. I can't help but think: Is this really all they could get from this?
The Wild Angels (1966)
The characters don't know what they want - and neither does the writer
No one like Roger Corman has been able to get into the zeitgeist of any particular time, but that doesn't mean he comes out on top with every movie. This one, in particular, is not bi-winning, it's just a bi-polar mess. Does the movie glorify Hells Angels? If so, it definitely succeeds, with the iconic looking characters on their bikes. Does the movie vilify Hells Angels? If so, it definitely succeeds, with some pretty appalling (though not less famous) scenes of racist violence, rape and sacrilege. There's more to it, but long story short, their characters aren't complex - they're just written all over the place.
Peter Fondas character has a famous speech where he yells that he just wants the freedom to do whatever he wants to do, but by the end of the movie, it's obvious that he doesn't know what to make of it all! You can argue that it's actually a pretty clever point, and that it's deliberate that these unlikable characters can't live up to their own ideals. That may in fact be so - but I still can't shake the feeling that we were supposed to sympathize with them, but that it just doesn't work.