Mashitup Challenge Begins!

This is the first entry in what I would hope would be an ongoing series of mashup challenges that +Kosh Sarkar  +Mohit Bhatnagar  and myself are taking on. Strictly for fun. We each dabble in mixing music for kicks and thought we would share what we came up with with anyone who would like to listen.

The rules are simple: 
One of us chooses an acapella they like, and the three of us must use the acapella to create a song. No other acapellas can be used, but you are able to chop, mash and screw with the acapella as much as you want. 

The acapella for this round was my choice, and it was: 
Make It Bun Dem - Damian Marley and Skrillex

You can have a listen to the three mixes we came up with here:

BunDem: Mohit's Mix

Make It Freak Dem - Damian Marley : Kosh's Mix

Nuh Fallah (Don't Follow) - Wax Tailor ft. Damian Marley: Atul's Mix

I love how they are all completely different from each other! We had a blast creating and listening to the 
mixes and plan to continue this for... well... as long as we have fun with it! At the very best, you might actually like what you hear. At the least, it is an interesting artistic experiment (hopefully...).

Have a listen, comment, like, +1 and all that good stuff. Love it? Hate it? Let us know!

The Hunt (Jagten) Review

The Hunt (Jagten)

It has been a little while since my last review. I sort of hit a lull in terms of drive unfortunately. I suppose I was waiting for a movie I really wanted to scream about. Something that would make me get off my ass and write because I wanted everyone to know how stupendously awesome this movie was. I think I found that with The Hunt. A searing, uncompromising drama about a modern day witch hunt. I try to be as non-spoilery as possible, but some events of the film are revealed during the course of the review.

Lucas (Mads Mikkelson) works at a kindergarten school in a Danish Village. He is extremely popular with the kids at the school, playful roughhousing seeming to be a favorite activity for both the kids and Lucas. Through a series of complicated, subtle events, Lucas's best friends daughter Klara (Annika Wedderkopp) conveys to another teacher that something sexually explicit happened between her and Lucas. The situation spirals steadily out of control from this moment on. The rest of the film is an examination of how these accusations slowly destroy Lucas's life, and the innate level of paranoia and distrust that lies within all human beings.

This movie is not a mystery. It is not a thriller. Lucas did not do what he is being accused of. Period. I really liked that the movie destroyed all doubt, eliminating the suspense thriller aspect that other more conventional films take. This is an analysis of what happens to a wrongfully accused man and the film thrives on this focus.

That short introduction to the story is skipping over a lot of details. And really, that is what this movie is all about. The entire situation plays out with subtlety while foreshadowing a sense of absolute dread. Each of the events leading up to the accusation and later multiple accusations do not amount to much in and of themselves, but when combined in sequence and coupled with a crowd-sense of hysteria, blow the situation completely out of proportion. I would have to write pages and pages about the nuanced looks, dialog and physical interactions to even begin to convey how this situation came about. It is this subtlety and attention to detail that makes the whole situation alarmingly believable. There is nothing here that an audience can scoff at. These are real human beings in a real situation, and real situations are sticky, dirty and complicated. Because of this unnerving sense of reality, it is heartbreaking to witness the slowly worsening situation while Lucas feebly attempts to live his life, realizing he is completely powerless to stop it.

Which brings me to the linchpin of this entire film: Mads Mikkelson. His portrayal of Lucas is nothing short of brilliant. The character is not perfect. He has a marriage that seems to be broken beyond repair, and for reasons that are not really clear it seems he is working at the school as a way to sort of get his life back on track. But that's just it, Lucas is so identifiable. Mikkelson makes it so easy for audience members to put themselves in his position. And once you do that, this movie hits you like a ton of bricks. Mikkelson's understated performance is affecting in a way I can barely describe. This role could have easily been something more melodramatic. More yelling, crying, screaming and all the rest of the direct physical manifestations of the feelings of a man that is falsely accused of such a heinous crime. Instead, Mikkelson underplays it. He underplays it to the point where the audience wants him to lose his shit. Go nuts! Yell, scream, wave your hands in the air! Instead, Mikkelson sticks to the character. Quiet, introverted, and ultimately a man who puts up with way more than he should.

That is not to say that Lucas does not get a chance to cut loose a bit. A very satisfying moment in a grocery store comes to mind. But the scene that stood out for me was toward the end of the movie. It takes place in a church, where we watch Mikkelson and his best friend, the father of Klara, exchange deep, hair-raising glances that ultimately lead to one of the most emotional and intense confrontations in the film. The shots of Mikkelson looking over his shoulder were perfectly executed. Gave me goosebumps.

I want to take a moment to rave about Mikkelson (as if I haven't already). He has proven yet again that he is one of the worlds premier actors. This along with the Hannibal TV series and A Royal Affair (Thanks +Shaguna Khazanchi!) has solidified him as top talent. I would say "get this guy more work!" but, I enjoy the films he decides to take on today. I do not want to see an over saturation of him. I would prefer a few quality roles over many average roles. His projects seem to be a nice split between big pictures like (King Arthur, Clash of Titans, Casino Royale) and smaller personal films (Valhalla Rising, The Hunt, Pusher II). Keep an eye out for him, I believe he is the next big thing.

The depiction of the town and their reaction to the situation is handled with complete empathy. There are no villains in this story. Just points of view. The guilty conscience of Lucas's best friend Theo (Thomas Bo Larsen) is painfully on display each time he is on screen. He has known Lucas for years, but when it comes to your family, how can you afford to not take action? Can you truly afford to not be suspicious? Theo's journey in this movie is almost as tragic as Lucas's. The nagging doubt is physically present on his face and the audience can see that it is consuming him as the film progresses.

The ending of the movie is poignant without being schlocky, and delivers the films ultimate message: Lucas will never be fully accepted. He will never escape the accusations, no matter how much proof is presented in his favor.

It is this heartbreaking fact that leads me to consider some modern day parallels. I could not help thinking following as I watched this movie:

1) Salem witch trials
2) McCarthyism
3) Michael Jackson

There is a fundamental difference between the film and say, the Salem witch trials: Witchcraft was not something to truly fear. Sexual assault is. But my argument here would be that as much of a reality child molestation is, so was witchcraft to the population at its time. Communism was the same in the time of the Senator Mccarthy. And obviously the perception of MJ changed after the accusations of molestation were made.

It is only fair to highlight one of the other large differences here: Each of the 3 cases provide above involved ulterior motives. There was personal gain to be had in all three cases. Creating mass hysteria for personal gain is not a situation that this movie examines.

Having said that, each of the three situations do share one thing in common with the film: the destructive aftermath of the given accusation even when they were not proven to be true. Reputations were sullied, lives were destroyed and the ultimate price, death, was often the result.

In some cases it was death by their own hand, other times it was capital punishment. Regardless on the physical method of their demise, it is clear that the executioner of these poor wrongfully accused souls was in fact the accuser. The one that pointed the finger and made a false accusation was the judge, jury and executioner.

Michael Jackson is sort of the amalgamation of all of these situations into a single person. Much beloved by the world until accusations arose of alleged molestation charges. He was not convicted. The rest of his life was, to put it lightly, a mess. He was never seen the same way again. The media skewered his image, and on the eve of his return to the limelight, he died.

I am not going to pretend to know all the details surrounding his death, or the details of the molestation case (or cases it would seem) that changed his life, but it is a well established fact he was not convicted. Lucas was also not convicted. The Hunt is what I would call an ideal case study in that the audience knows that Lucas did not commit the crime. I realize there are divided opinions on how people feel regarding MJ. For the sake of leveling the playing field for comparison, I am sticking to the result of the court and defaulting to the judgement of the judicial system, not opinion.

It can be argued that the stress induced by the accusations led to, or were partly responsible for, MJ's premature death. I believe that the character of Lucas has a truly difficult life ahead of him, as do the people that care about him. It is conceivable that he may also suffer a similar fate later in his life. The ending of The Hunt certainly alludes to such an outcome. Given these parameters, Lucas and MJ are very much in the same boat: Accused, acquitted, but subsequently destroyed.

As you can probably tell, The Hunt has had a lingering affect on me. Technically, the film is very well put together. Acting, writing, and cinematography are top notch. The movie not only asks the tough questions, but is not afraid to charge head on into the potential answers. It is and uncomfortable yet satisfying viewing experience that will stick with you beyond the run time of the film. Most importantly, the movie is not a product of its time. Director Thomas Vinterberg has put something together that plays to the basic human condition. It is so real you can't help but get sucked in. As a direct result, this movie will play just as effectively now as it would in 30 or 300 years. Vinterberg has achieved timelessness by playing on our innate fears and prejudices.

I really believe this is a great film. Go see it.

And check out some other films starring Madds! He is awesome!

Melancholia

Melancholia


I first became interested in Melancholia after Lars Von Trier made some waves in the news when he spoke about relating to Nazis, and wanting to give Hitler a big old feel-good bear hug... Or something.

I caught a showing of it at the Angelika theater in New York, and after viewing it I feel surprisingly spry. For a movie called Melancholia, it left me in a rather good mood. But for all the wrong reasons. Let me try to explain.

The film opens with a lavish, flashy, all slow motion series of shots as the audience witnesses our world smashing into another (larger) world. While I wasn't completely enthralled with what I saw, I was not snoozing either, so all was well. The movie then begins the first half which revolves around Justine (Kirtsten Dunst) as she attempts to get married.

This entire first half is filled with incredible acting talent playing characters that are complete assholes. My primary problem with the entire movie in fact, is that everyone is so mind numbingly stupid, that I completely lost interest in the film halfway through "Justine's" chapter. This wedding is for Justine. As the movie progresses, it seems that it is no secret that Justine has a problem. Depression seems to wash over her, even in what should probably be her happiest moments. I remind you that this seems to be common knowledge, at least to the closest members of the family. Keeping that in mind, can someone explain to me why the hell everyone is so utterly disappointed in her actions during the wedding when they are all well aware of their condition? Did the husband-to-be, Justine's sister and her sisters husband contract some rare form of amnesia that kicked in while planning this ridiculously expensive, sumptuous event, for someone who they know will not act accordingly in that social situation thereby ruining the night for the rest of the dickheads they invited to the wedding? Justine's husband ends up leaving her. Surprised? As an audience member, I certainly was. He has been with this girl long enough to marry her, yet on her wedding night when her condition gets the best of her, he leaves her. Didn't see that one coming I guess? Well done!

Then we have Justine, who's depression is seeping through her fake smile, wandering around committing random acts of weirdness and debauchery. This whole "Adventures of Justine" section is a little more tolerable than the rest of wedding scenes. When Justine is alone is when the film is at its best. But even this section of the film is filled with acts so utterly random, I could not link them with any over-arching meaning. Maybe by the time I got to this portion of the film, I was so put off by the rest of the cast of characters that I was not trying hard enough.

It doesn't help that the cast is populated with actors I truly love:

John Hurt - Asshole

Stellan Skaarsgard - Asshole

Udo Kier - Wtf! Awesome! But still an asshole!

Part of what made the first half of the film watchable were these actors. At the same time, I think that seeing them play unintelligent characters with little to no motivation likely made the situation worse than seeing other actors that I was not as fond of playing the same roles. But in that case, the magnetism of these actors would be missing and I would probably would not have made it through the first half. Catch-a-22 beeyotch.

These acts of douche-baggery are completely unexplained, and kept me in a constant state of what-the-fuck-idness for the entire duration of the first part. Populating your world with unintelligent and generally unlikable people doesn't make you dread the end of the world, it makes you welcome it. That being said, films do not need to be populated with likable characters. Indeed, some of the most effective films and television series pride themselves on having distinctly unscrupulous lead characters. But the difference there is they humanize them to the point that the audience is always fascinated by them. Tony Soprano, and almost every character in Game of Thrones are clear examples of this. That connection between film and audience is completely missing here.

Immediately following the ridiculous first half of this film is the tale of Justine's sister and how she copes with the giant blue thing that is going to smash the little blue thing we live on. I feel that this half of the film could stand on its own. While it would still be mechanical in plot and delivery, it would have much less of an uphill battle to fight courtesy of the Part 1wedding segment ("Fuck you very much Part 1!" - Part 2). There are a few unintentional laughs to be found in the second part. Specifically  when Justine's sister cannot start any of the family's vehicles and dramatically goes off camera only to drive back into frame in a golf cart. There seemed to be some unintentional tension built while leading up to this specific moment that contributed to what I thought was a rather comedic punchline. I felt she could have easily came out on a skateboard or a unicycle, and the scene would not have lost any of it's comedic potency. Despite this, the second segment was effective, and the film's score and cinematography were outstanding. The end of the world has never looked or sounded more beautiful.

Melancholia tried my patience as a viewer. It seemed to try hard to make the audience not care. I nearly broke my two cardinal rules:

1) Walked out of the theater
2) Hate a movie

It takes a special type of film to even get me to approach breaking either of those two rules. I felt much like Justine, numb to the world established by the film. But who could blame her? Therein lies the potential genius of the film. Maybe the director intended to impose on the audience a feeling of complete... well... melancholy. For me at least, the film definitely succeeded.

When the big blue ball smashed our earth, others in the audience were sombre. I threw both hands in the air in celebration for one simple reason:

No. Sequel.

Black Death

I sort of stumbled on this film by accident. I had attended the Toronto International Film Festival once many years ago, to see a little horror film called Severance. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, which straddles the often un-straddle-able (hyphen abuse!) line between horror and comedy. Director Christopher Smith sort of dazzled me with some very unique visual flair during the course of some of the films more harrowing scenes, and left me wondering what else this director has done. Long story short, I discovered he went from horror comedy, to dark medieval epic with the unfortunately titled "Black Death".

Cool.

I say unfortunately because the title of the film makes it sound like some cheap straight to DVD exploitation movie trying to make a quick buck by having a heavy handed title. When I look at this title I don't think "Plague!", I think "trashy slasher horror flick", which this film is not. Honestly, I truly believe they could have come up with a better title. The one that stuck will most certainly turn people away. Maybe it is just me.

Anyway, I was already excited, but it wasn't until I found out who was headlining the film that I decided I MUST watch this movie NOW: Sean fucking Bean.

Bean's turn as Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings was the best performance in the entirety of the trilogy. And his death scene gets me choked up all the time... And then there is the fact that Bean is convinced that healing a stab wound attained from defending searingly hot woman's honor is done with a pint.

Having said that, the film itself includes a hefty dose of pathos during its little romp through the black plague. Religion and faith take center stage as "Black Death" examines how faith can both divide and unify and that the beliefs of people are not beyond manipulation for malicious purposes.

The story takes place during the time of black plague. Just this setting presented many fascinating questions from me, namely how would a populace understand why the plague was happening? It seems they would rationalize it any way they could. It is almost like anyone's theories are acceptable. Throw out an idea and it might stick! This is an incredibly dangerous climate to live in. Many innocently turn to god to explain the unexplained. Very quickly, sides are taken, stands are made, and suddenly, instead of banding together against a foe that is indiscriminate, we fracture and fall divided. I don't want to go into too much of the plot, since I was quite engrossed in the movie from the opening credits to the epilogue, but suffice to say the film is poetic. It will leave you pondering the many layers of religion, faith, and politics and how they can be twisted together to manufacture hate, prejudice and destruction that dwarfs the devastation of the "pestilence" in question.


Lets talk about Sean Bean. Here he plays a similar character to Boromir; a flawed knight. He plays the role with such utter conviction that the faith of Boromir Ulrich the Christian knight becomes quite unsettling. He's big, hes burly, he's got an awesome beard, awesome hair and an awesome voice. He is The Bean, and he is displayed in all of his gravelly, earthy glory here.

The main character's arc was satisfying. I bought into his delivery of some of the emotional scenes, especially the events of the end of the film. The acting ranged from competent to great, which is more than I can say for other films with similar budget and subject matter. 

The action scenes is where the movies low budget reared it's ugly little head. Kills are made with the actors facing the camera, which obscures the actual effects of slashing and tearing. A cheap, but effective little money-saver move. But, the film does has some very satisfying kills, which I would expect coming from the director of Severance. When central characters go in this movie... They go in style.

This is truly a great and honest take on how a population ruled by Christianity would react to a force such as an unstoppable, unseen viral outbreak. What all factions fail to see is that the plague stops for no one, and does not discriminate between the faithless or the faithful. Humans create their own rationale, and then destroy each other when the rationale is challenged.

Moral ambiguities run rampant through the movie, which is something I truly enjoyed. Overall, the film came as a bit of a surprise to me. While the action beats and gore are all present, it is also a thought provoking take on the views of various factions during the time of an un-explainable terror, and how those views destroy more than any plague.

Attack the Block

I just managed to catch a free screening of Attack the Block tonight in NYC at the Sunshine Theater, one of my favorite theaters in the city. It also happens to be about 2 blocks from my apartment (sick!). I was riding off a sweet buzz the film gave me, so I thought I would give it a quick write-up while the film was fresh in my mind.

I had heard some serious positive word of mouth about this movie for a while now. When I saw the poster and the original trailer, I couldn't help feeling that this is the type of film I loved as a kid. It is no secret that I am a sucker for a good monster movie. I have seen many disappointing monster flicks this year (Wolfman, I am looking at you), but I am here to tell you all that Attack the Block is a fantastic monster movie.

The film starts by introducing us to a set of what seems to be the most unlikable characters a film could possibly throw at you. These South London street thugs are not to be trifled with it seems, and director Joe Cornish tries hard to make that apparent. They are introduced via a shameless mugging of a helpless woman at knife point, which is rudely interrupted by a meteor that smashes into a car next to them. After a brief investigation, a cudly little E.T. pops out of the car and tries to maul the lead gang members face off. The gang, flustered, pursue E.T. until they corner and kill it.

Two things I noticed immediately:

1) This film wasted ZERO time getting to what we want to see. The E.T's show up in the first 5-10 minutes, with no pussy-footing about. This is a good thing.

2) These are not likable characters. This is a bit of a daring move. The audience does not like these characters straight away. It was an interesting opening and leaves a lot of room for the characters to grow as the movie progresses.

The action from there on in plays out fast and furious, with a truly masterful balance of comedic and horrific moments. Although audiences have seen these types of character arcs in the past, the growth of the characters is surprisingly believable in the movies short 90 minute time frame.

But, let's get to the meat and bones of the film. The aliens. The team that designed these aliens have put together one of the most effectively economic movie monsters ever created. The E.T.'s in this film are best described as a cross between the homicidal apes from Michael Crichton's Congo, and the werewolf from An American Werewolf in London :

+  = ? Maybe!

They have no eyes, and their fur is jet black. When I say black , I truly mean black. They are solid black, with absolutely NO variation. With no eyes, and color/light swallowing black fur, what the hell could make these things so interesting you might say? How about... fluorescent... glowing... teeth. Sweet baby Jesus... that looks AWESOME! The teeth are used throughout the film to endow the creatures with some sort of personality. When they are attacking, they light up with their mouths wide open. When they are stalking, they have their mouths closed which makes their glowing teeth look eerily like a pair of glowing eyes. When they die, the light extinguishes. Not only is this is a great tool for communicating to the audience that the creatures have some kind of personality, but it is also a great tool for creating suspense. I applaud this director for not going flash-cut happy on the action scenes. There are beautiful wide shots of the aliens creeping in on their prey, showing the audience silhouettes against the city- scape. I can't tell you how ecstatic I was to see a scene where a creature is filmed from a far distance, fully showing off it's approach, and holding on it until it springs. These types of shots show a surprising confidence in Cornish, who is not afraid to establish time and physical space and distance to create tension and allow the audience to truly buy into what is happening on the screen.

His confidence must have come from the creature designers. I am a huge proponent of practical effects in  movies. I can write a whole essay about this, but lets just say when something is CG, and it does not need to be, I get a little... vexed. I feel the greatest use of CG is to augment reality, to create something that cannot possibly be done via practical effects. I am happy to say that this film has found the sweet spot: The perfect balance of CG and practical effects, the results of which are beautiful. The creatures in the film have real-world weight. They smash things, claw at things but never ever to they feel what I can only describe as "floaty". Quite the opposite really. They are lumbering and sometimes even clumsy. The man-in-suit style practical effects breathe life into these creatures. The entire Star Wars Prequel Trilogy couldn't hold a candle to what was done in this film. The Prequels gave us lifeless, floaty, and most of the time annoying cartoon characters that gave the actors nothing to react to; and it showed. This film has a reach-out-and-touch-it reality that is backed up by incredible sound design and smart editing that leaves no audience member in doubt of what these creatures are, and what they are capable of.

The sound design for the creatures are also worth mentioning. Being an avid fan of monster movies, I have heard quite of bit of the soundscape that otherworldly, ethereal and fantastical creatures have to offer. Often the sound design is recycled. A lion growl here, a puma grunt there etc. etc. If you want to create something truly unique, memorable and frightening, it is just as important for the audience to be aurally bewildered as it is for them to be visually stunned . Some examples of this are:

1) Aliens from Aliens

I think this was a combination of 50 different animals, but all I remember was this horrible almost elephant-like trumpeting squeal that gave me goosebumps. This film has both the striking H.R. Gieger designed Alien, as well as the signature squeal that I will always remember

2) Jurassic Park

This film had more than one example, but the T-Rex and Raptor take the cake. I cannot possibly forget the first time I heard that T-Rex scream in the theater... it was both the most fascinating and frightening moment in my life.

3) Predator

Almost like a rattlesnake moving in slow motion, the methodical clicks and subsequent roar of the Predator is legendary.

4) Balrog from Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring

They created the sound of the Balrog by sliding two cinder blocks together. 'Nuff Said.

By the way, it is no coincidence that the genius Stan Winston created 3 of the 4 above famous movie monsters. His passing was a terrible blow to the practical effects industry. There are many more examples that I have to give, but I will likely write a whole other article on this later.

Attack the Block provides a unique sound for their monsters. This high pitched squeal sounds much like a husky woman's scream mixed with a chimpanzee. It is a unique sound that is menacing and adds tension to the already suspenseful scenes.

The monsters of this film are brilliantly implemented. The practical effects lead to an unprecedented level of physicality, while the sound design heightens the sense of dread. Both of these pieces come together in a beautiful visual and auditory experience that is sure to stay with audiences as the leave the theater.

This movie needs word of mouth. These screenings are meant to generate buzz. The movie deserves the positive feedback it has been getting. It also deserves more exposure. I would compare this film to one of my favorite monsters-run-amok movie: Tremors. Oddly enough, both monsters share the same "no-eyes" trait. If you have a theater near you that is playing the film either as a free screening, or during its limited release in July, please seek it out. You and your friends will have a great time at the theater.

I have more to say about the film, but I will likely include those as edits in the next few days. I just wanted to get this post up before the details of the film faded.

Valhalla Rising

My last post detailed two films that I was interested in watching solely based on the actor in the lead role. These also happened to be actors with great names. Valhalla Rising is no different. Continuing the trend of utterly cool names, Mads Mikkelson is an actor I had been interested in since I had seen him in Antoine Fuqua's re-imagining of King Arthur, where he played the Asian-influenced Tristam. The content of the Valhalla Rising was also something that immediately caught my attention: Vikings. Norse mythology, and by association, the Nordic cultures in general are topics of great interest for me. I love me a film with some god damned Vikings!

Just from viewing the trailers for this film, I could tell it was completely mis-represented. Because of this, I was almost ready for what I experienced. More on this after the main portion of the review...

I will try to sum up the film with an in-cohesive babbling of words and phrases:
Slow, deliberate, contemplative, bursts of violence, 30 lines of dialogue, beautifully shot, almost supernatural/fantastical.

If the above description confused you, do not worry: so will this film. It is at once the most beautiful and absolutely frustrating kind of movie I could watch.

Valhalla Rising is not for viewers looking for a concrete explanation of... well... anything. I would compare this in terms of pacing and plot, to Asif Kapadia's The Warrior. They are both metaphysical films about violence and faith. The difference between the films is that The Warrior is infinitely more accessible than Valhalla Rising. The Warrior tells an incredibly simplistic story about a man's turn from violence, and his road to revenge. It tells the story with landscape and movement, weaving a story using only a small amount of dialog. If The Warrior was a book that was light on the details, then Valhalla Rising is a book that gives you the introduction and the ending, and asks you to figure out what the hell happened in the middle, using fragments of scrambled phrases taken from the Bible and Beowulf.

Rising starts with an introduction of our "hero", One-Eye. I will let you guess why they call him that. One Eye is a warrior. He is being whored out to brawls that more often than not end in brutal death, which others bet money on. Oh yeah, and One Eye? He doesn't talk, and has no past that I could extract from the films dialog. And this is the first problem this film has: A main character with no dialog and no past to speak of (see what I did there?) makes for an incredibly hard character to connect too. You could argue that One Eye is not the focus here, and that the characters around him are the ones who the audience should be connecting too. If that is true, the film doesn't make it obvious, since a large percentage of the screen time is dedicated to One Eye.

That is not to say that is a terrible thing, given how striking Mads looks in the role. His One Eye is incredibly imposing, and embodies all of the physical attributes of someone with whom no one should ever fuck with. His (lack of an) eye, body scars and tatoos only further push to establish that One Eye has seen a lot (tehee!) of violence, and has somewhere along the line found that it is something he is good at.

Mads, as you may have figured, decides he doesn't like being jerked around and stages an escape, after which he and some other Christian Crusaders proceed to go on what seems to be the ultimate acid trip. That is the best way to explain it. The plot spirals into a series of incredibly mystical events, which lands the group in North America, nearly starving them all in the process. From here, things only get more psychedelic, with Native Americans showing up and and the band of merry travelers slowly losing their minds.

The film never really throws the audience a bone. As soon as you are coming to grips with an event that seemed almost fantastical, you are hit with another nearly inexplicable event that almost taunts you by saying "Try and explain THAT one!".

The near fantastical plot is completely counterbalanced by the down and dirty realistic look of the film. It is beautiful to behold. The film was shot primarily in Scotland, and is framed with an incredible eye for natural beauty. The film looks majestic. I saw this film in high definition, and truly feel that is the only way it should be experienced.

I originally thought it impossible that they ended up in the Americas, and was quite turned off by the thought. They start off by trying to sail to Jerusalem, in a small boat. The supposedly short commute turns into a harrowing never-ending descent into hell as they are thrown way the fuck off-course by what seems to be malicious mist. But as the movie trucked along, I grew to accept the fact that many of the events that occur are a mixture of real gritty, muddy violence and surreal moments, which include One Eye's prophetic dreams. The dreams are quite visceral, using this incredibly shocking red filter, which coupled with the fantastic cinematography, ingrained them into my memory. 

Let's talk about some of the violence in the film. First and foremost, the violence is quick and brutal. If you blink, you might miss it. I truly enjoyed the framing and filming of the action. My feelings toward the action scenes are similar to 13 Assassins in that the people in this film are truly trying to hurt each other. One Eye seems to have an unconventional "diving-chop" move that is so unpredictable and practical that I honestly believed that he could take on a group of 3 or more using this element of surprise. I got a full sense of geography and distance between the fighters, and the incredible landscape provided a dramatic stage for some of the violence that plays out.

The film does not hold back on the depictions of violence. Blood, gore, and innards are thrown about in a nonchalant fashion, but are not lingered upon. The violence is lean and mean; serving a purpose rather than being used as a dressing for gore-hounds. 

Oddly enough, the violence is about as sparse as the dialog. There are only a few scenes of action, and those scenes last only a short time. I did not mind this, since from the trailers, I was ready for this movie to NOT be an action film.

That was not the feeling that may others shared going into the movie. Take a look at the trailer for the film:

The trailer shows clips from every one of the brief action sequences. Although the trailer doesn't outright claim this to be a balls to the wall action film, it seems tailored to attract the crowd that would be interested in such a movie. The overuse of action shots in the trailer gives the false pretense that the film is focused on action, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Armed with only the add campaign, this movie likely played out to an audience that was not ready for the film they were about to experience. I can imagine as the the film progressed, the audience would grow increasingly mystified and even agitated by the films lofty plot and mystical nature.

I have already made the comparison of Valhalla Rising to The Warrior. Here is the trailer for that film for comparison:

The poster of the film (seen at the top of the post) however, was incredibly effective. It displays two of the films strongest attributes: the landscape, and the physical presence of the lead. I think I might actually purchase this bad-boy.

Valhalla Rising is a film that either captivates or aggravates the hell out of you. The lofty nature of the film makes it hard to make an audience truly care about any of the characters. But, as long as you are willing to take the plunge into rabbit hole, the experience can be rewarding. At once both a nightmare and a dream, this films descent into hell can be an incredibly engrossing experience, as long as you let go of the trappings of the average plot driven film and allow One Eye to take you on the journey.

Why Am I Excited: Skarsgård and Stormare

I just wanted to drop a quick post to show you all two films I am really excited to see starring two of my favorite character actors. And it's not just because they have awesome sounding names.

Small Town Murder Songs

Why am I excited?

This film is shot in Ontario, and Peter Stormare is the headline actor. I don't know about all of you, but I feel Stormare brings serious gusto to whatever film he happens to be in. Even though he seems to be relegated to secondary roles in other big budget Hollywood films, the character he plays is the character that audiences remember when they leave. Some examples are (in no particular order):

•  Constantine
• While I consider this movie as a whole to be kind of a huge slap in the face to anyone familiar with the source material (re: Hellblazer), one thing I enjoyed watching was Peter Stormare's charismatic Satan. Delightfully morbid!
• Bad Boys 2
• I can't remember anything about this movie, which lends insight into its quality. Again, Stormare pulls through as the Russian mobster who delivers the most only memorable line of this film - "The Russian Grim Reaper is here."
• Armageddon
• While this goofy film is filled with cartoon characters of all types, Stormare again manages to whip out a little bit of dialog that I won't forget any time soon - "American components, Russian components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"

His gusto alone has made him a memorable character in nearly every movie he has been in even though he was surrounded by what would be considered to be "mega-stars". I am very excited to see a film in which the focus is on him to deliver in a dramatic role. Here is hoping for the best. 

A Somewhat Gentle Man

Why am I excited?

Stellan Skarsgard is the kind of actor that can actually get me to watch films that normally would slip under the radar. His mere presence generates interest from my end. I have admired his work in a wide spectrum of movies, big and small:

• Deep Blue Sea
• HA! This one is a doozy that I quite enjoyed. Skarsgard's doctor has the most memorable... dismemberment, and as a bonus his character introduction has him pissing into the wind. Comedy gold. 
• City of Ghosts
• This surreal Matt Dillon directed flick has Skarsgard delivering on the daramatic acting chops that have made him an international star. 
• King Arthur
• I may write about this movie later because I feel it gets an unjustly bad wrap. Antoine Fuqua's excursion into Roman occupied Britain was definetly a leap for the director, considering his forte seemed to be modern urban filmmaking. Despite that, I feel this was a very effective re-telling of the Arthurian Legend, thanks in no small part to Skarsgard's Cerdic, the underdeveloped yet entirely menacing Saxon leader. His mano-a-mano conversation with Clive Owen's Arthur before the final battle was particularly effective. His swagger and line delivery make this a memorable role.
• Insomnia (1997)
• The film that Christopher Nolan re-made has Skarsgard front and center playing a cop with questionable morals. His nuanced delivery makes his character at once despicable and sympathetic at the same time. I recommend checking this film out, you will find many of what seemed to be the most compelling plot and character moments from the Nolan film are lifted completely from this one. 
• Beowulf and Grendel
• I really enjoyed this oddball film. It took the complete opposite approach to both the mythology, as well as the method of film making that Robert Zemekis's motion captured Beowulf did. It told the story from Grendel's point of view, using make-up and the natural beauty of Iceland to its advantage. Director Sturla Gunnarsson (Icelandic names are awesome) crafts a story that is whimsical, savage and quite funny at times. Skarsgard's King Hrothgar is played with an air of desperation that allows the audience to believe that he is truly a man running out of options. His uniquely comedic delivery adds to the oddball nature of the entire film, which is what made it memorable as a whole. 

Peter Stomare and Stellan Skarsgard are actors that no one really knows by name, yet once a movie goer sees their faces, there is an instant recognition. As soon as recognition is established, exclamations of "Oh! he played this character in this movie, and that character in that movie!" seem to steadily stream from any movie-goers memory. Stormare and Skarsgard's ability to remain memorable amongst a sea of top talent is a testament to their acting ability, and that is why I am looking forward to these two films.