Change Your Image
MidoriFiore
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again
Swedish Horror Films: The Complete List
Viking films!
Reviews
Cirkeln (2015)
The misadaptation of the Circle
This is not as much of a review as in investigation of the failure of the film the Circle. While the commercial failure can be partly blamed on the bad timing of the release of the film and the misguided marketing campaign, we should not ignore the bad word of mouth as well. Despite excellent reviews and a lot of positive reactions from the fans, there where many fans and non-fans alike that where not impressed with the final film. I have tried to understand what exactly happened and made a few conclutions.
To brielf as possible explain the plot: 6 young witches have been chosen to save the world from demons. Said demons has sent out an assassin to kill the witches to prevent them from foiling their plan. The witches must discover and eliminate the assassin before he get them.
There is certainly a lot to like in the film. The casting of the six leads is on point, even of some look too old. Each one gives a stellar performance were I really have to nitpick to find something to complain about. This really comes down to how isolated lines are performed which I can assume is due to unclear editing/direction. Speaking of which, there are a lot of inspired cinematic solutions in the film. A stand out is an early introdutional montage of the main characters. At times there is spellbinding cinematography and the music by Benny Andersson is amazing. The needle drops are pretty neat as well and I've found my self listening a lot to the soundtrack. The regular sound is pretty good too, especially when you saw the film in the theatre.
But as much as I enjoy the acting of the young leads, I can not say anything nice about the adult actors. Ruth Vega Fernandez (who plays the Principal) is probably the worst offender. Every line she says is spoken with the same tone of voice and like the is reading lines off a board. This is only made worse by the younger (and more unestablished) actors give it their all. And for every inspired choice in the direction, there are several others that are just the opposite. Two central scenes where the plot is explained has the characters grouped together with some basic reverse shots. This becomes especially frustrating when even the book had more interesting staging of the characters: In the scene where Ida has her first vision, the book actually describes the leads standing around her in a circle, which would have made for a really nice visual. In another scene the Principal is supposed to to explain about the Demons, she is just sitting and talking for several minutes. We get no visual reference for what these demons look like, which makes them cinematically harmless. One might point out that Sauron was also an invisible villain, but both the books and the film adaptations actually does show him in various ways. And we also have his proxies in the form of various creepy henchmen like the Nazgul, Saruman and the orcs who makes his threat tangible. Since the demon's assassin is mostly seen as a brief vision in a hallway it does really make the threat seem remote.
The editing is also lacking. Several scenes could have been cut down to tighten the rather slow pace of the story and there are brief moments that could have been cut completely. That could not have saved the film from it's greatest flaw which is the script.
Now, I don't know how many people have pointed out that the large number of characters in the film, excluding the leads, and sprawling story would be better suited as a tv-series than a film. If there is something I can add to the mix is that I feel that the discussion if the Circle would make for a better tv-series than film is not a relevant question when it comes the the success of the film as an adaptation or not. What a tv-series has is time and time is not the issue of the film. It's how it's time is used. Already within the 10 first minutes of the film, we have several examples of how the film focuses on the wrong stuff. In the introduction montage, we spend much more time establishing the relationship between Vanessa and her boyfriend Willie than Rebecka and her boyfriend Gustaf, despite Gustaf having a way larger impact on the plot than Willie. Willie has roughly three times the total screen time of Gustaf, actually. The film just has so many pointless scenes wasting time that could have been spent elsewhere. Several scenes happens in a different order than they do in the book in a way where they lack the narrative impact they have in the book. One glaring example is a key scene where Minoo is kissed by a boy in the streets. In the books Minoo believes said boy has killed one of her friends. However, in the film this scene happens before Minoo is given reason to believe he is the killer. And there is the issue of having six leads.
I for one does not think this could not have worked, but the screenwriters had to be more clever about the way they set up the characters. In reality, there are actually four leads, with two of the chosen witches only being fleshed out in the second novel in the series. Given, not all of the witches survive I would have suggested on focusing on three of the witches in the the first half, treating Minoo as a peripheral character like Linnea and Ida, until she has to step into a leader position later. Given how much Minoo get's to do over all in the film, which is a problem in of itself. We hear a lot about how the witches has to co-operate, but most of the leg work is done by Minoo. This even starts to come at the cost of the characters, including Minoo. Despite being shown as a socially awkward person without friends, Minoo is the one who takes charge right away and attempts to bring the witches together. Would it not be better to have another witch do it at first? Perhaps one of the ones that die, so he death motivates Minoo into action?
Given how half of the witches have almost nothing to do that is important to the plot so the writers start to hand over plot points from other characters despite it not making sense. Given that Anna-Karin has no impact on the central conflict due to adaptational changes, she is given Linnea's resolution of being captured by the assassin. In the book Linnea is captured due to impulsively deciding to take on the assassin herself instead of co-operating, something that is well established in the book. In the film Anna-Karin is captured under circumstances so unclear I had to watch the film three times before I understood what was happening. This is coming from someone who figured out the unilinear structure of Arrival 40 minutes before the actual reveal. It actually turns out the assassin transforms into Minoo and tricks Anna-Karin. Given how Anna-Karin and Minoo does not really have any meaningful dialogue with each until after said kidnapping, it does not really have the same pay off as the book.
Speaking of the finale, the way the witches discover the identity of the assassin in the film is ridiculous. In the book Minoo uses her reasoning and deductive skills to make an educated guess who it is and tricks the assassin into revealing himself. In the film? Minoo recognizes how the assassin strokes her ear. Given Minoo does not seem to have much experience in such matters (despite being played by the winsome Irma von Platen) I can't really buy she would even think it was off.
The Circle is a novel that requires a sharp script to work as an adaptation and capture the magic of the book. Unfortunately, the film is instead undisciplined, unfocused and most of all frustrating. They were on the verge of greatness, they were this close but failed were story telling matters the most: The very telling of the story.
Bödeln och skökan (1986)
I'm Twelve Years Old and What is This?
To say this is different is an understatement from the ages. As far as historical films in Sweden goes, you have the very theatrical films of the 50's and 60's and the mostly very stiff and valium-based films of the 2000's and 2010's. Then there is this.
The story follows a nameless smith who is visited by three bandits played by the boss from Evil Ed, Jonathan Lionheart and infamous Swedish actor Thorsten Flinck. The bandits force the smith to melt down some stolen silver when the reeve and his posey, played by Per Oscarsson & Kjell Bergqvist, attack. The bandits flee and the poor smith is dragged off as to the headsman to be beheaded, despite his innocence. But when the headsman rapes and kills a female prisoner in a drunken rage, the reeve anoints the smith the new headsman. His first gig is the beheading of the old headsman. Satisfied with his new headsman, the reeve drops the former smith off at a brothel to spend his fee. At the brothel, the transsexual madame introduces him the new "asset" of the brothel, Ursula, who the smith falls in love with.
If we take the positive elements first, this has some of the strongest world building I've ever seen in a Swedish film. There is a constant presence of strange background elements and details the immerse you into the world of the film, the eve of the 18th century. A skeleton hanging outside the headsman's house, a drunk man cursing the whores outside the local brothel, corpses hanging from the city walls and the incredibly strange scene where a man does a breakdance on the execution block. The films was shot in Visby and at the outdoor museum of Skansen in Stockholm, which normally are scenic and idyllic. Here they are shot in darkness and smoke and looks like an absolute hellhole. Everybody except the smith, Ursula and the headsman's kind assistant, the knacker, comes off as a complete psychopath. The cinematography is fantastic with Hrafn Gunnlaugsson's signature flowing camerawork and editing doing wonders.
What really drives the film down is the atrocious acting and dubbing. At times it's laughable. Niklas Ek who plays the smith was clearly chosen for his expressive face, because every line he says comes off as unnatural. Ursula, played by Icelandic model Stephanie Sunna Hockett, was equally chosen for he looks and not her acting talents. She is dubbed unconvincingly by Inga-Lill Andersson. Kjell Bergqvist is terrible and overacts. The only actor with some dignity is Per Oscarsson who despite the bad dubbing for the only time in his career comes off as bad ass. That he manages to get his part to work despite all is a testament to what a talent he was. The pacing of the film is off too. The second half of the films really drags and it seems Hrafn had trouble extending the short story the film is based on into feature length. The 80's music is out of place, but the more period accurate pieces fit perfectly.
In the end, Bödeln och Skökan/the Headsman and the Whore/Middle Ages Now is a uneven but very memorable film which does not hold up to Hrafn's the Raven Flies or The Shadow of the Raven, but is well worth a watch for it's visuals, atmosphere and just bonkers content.
To the Wonder (2012)
Like a man at a piano
This film is like some sitting down at a piano, trying out different notes and chords. Each by it self is very beautiful. But the player is unable to play them together.
When we get to see the actors actually act, it's very well done. The small moment with Javier Bardem and the janitor is wonderful. Affleck throwing out Kurylenko out of the car is great. But there is not any context. Even the most beautiful chords become dissonant if they don't match. The prettiest notes not a proper progression to form a melody.
Some images like Bardem feeding a prisoner the eucharist through the opening in the door to his cell or Kurylenko clutching the arm of Affleck as they walk side by side in a park will stay with me forever. But as a whole, the film won't.
Svart cirkel (2018)
Lost in Brainland
I did not believe that Felicé Jankell could have starred in a worse horror film than Alena. But alas I was dead wrong.
The central conceit of Svart Cirkel/Black Circel is a great one: a vinyl which causes the listener to produce a ghostly doppelganger of sorts that whiches to replace it's original. But the exection of the story is simply terrible.
The cinematography and grading is ugly. Unusally ugly for a Swedish production. The "psychadelic" editing is nueasiating in a bad way. At one point there is a sex scene that was filmed in a way that made me feel sexually assaulted by Hanna Asp and Johan Palm. The story keeps bombarding us with concepts that rarely are sufficiently established. Suddenly two characters appear that are telepaths. I am not saying that it has to be completely explained but they and their power appears out of nowere in such a way that you are left completely confused. We get little to no establishing of these characters and their powers which make their appearence awfully convinient for the plot to move forward. Characters are as thin as paper. The dialoge they have to say is cluncky. Often the characters have to explain the plot as it happens, which gives us little to no tension.
The acting is... pretty phoned in. Felicé Jankell sleeps through most of the film. I think there was only one scene where she was intentionally supposed to behave as if on drugs. The Midfjäll girls from I Miss You make a reapperence as a victim of the vinyl and he ghostly double. I guess they where only because using actual twins would make shooting simpler. To be fair, the Midfjäll gives a pretty convincing performance towards the end, but it's to little to late. Christina Lindberg has hardly acted since the 80's. She acts like someone who has not acted since the 80's.
In the end none of the positive qualites outweights the negative and does not save this from becoming a complete and utter dud.
King Arthur (2004)
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot, it's a silly place
If there is any historical truth to the legend of king Arthur, it probably originates a romano-British warlord fighting the Saxons. Then we have to accept the centuries of exaggerations, mixing with other legends, re-writes to fit the times and so on. This is a still living tradition, because we continue to re-purpose and retell the story. Excalibur, for all it's faults, managed to get this point across pretty well. What the filmmakers set out to do here is to try to relocate de- myth the story and try to tell what might have actually happened. To bad they did not do that.
Instead we get an absurd and confused "historical" mess. Very well, at least it's sometimes necessary to salt history for the sake of a good story? Right?
I mean, the cast is great. We have Clive Owen, Stellan Skarsgård, Hugh Dancy, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Ray Winstone, Keira Knightley, Til Schweiger and Mad Mads Mikkelsen. What could go wrong? A lot. Sadly, these actor's has to work with a frightfully dull script. Clive Owen only has to stand around and hold speeches. Everybody keeps talking about what a great leader and warrior he is. He has no faults, makes no mistakes. He's just a flat character. Skarsgård walks around sounding like he just woke up and is bored by everything. The character of Cerdic comes off as a stupid evil character. Schweiger just snarls and glares. These villains are generic and duller than carpenter's thumb. As a supposedly historical film, it baffle one that the Saxon land in Scotland, north of Hadrian's Wall. Why? It's far from the closest part of the Saxon homeland and just plain dumb.
An why are the woads/picts/(scotsmen?) fight the heavily armored Saxons wearing leather bras? How is that a sustainable means of protection? Why are the Saxons not shooting back at the heroes when they are fired upon. They do have crossbows.
The cheesy music keeps pumping over the film, and is little more than noise in the background. It sounds like any other Hans Zimmer score. I could not tell which film it was from if I heard it on it's own. Through the cinematography is pretty competently done. And through many of the costumes are pretty unhistorical, they look pretty good for the most part. I liked Ray Winstone, even through gobbled the scenery I enjoyed him. At least he put some personality into his performance.
This is a dull, dull, dull and generic "retelling" of the story. Every other decade there is another Arthur-movie. Let's hope we get a better one. The characters are flat and dull, the story is unimpressive and boring, the music is forgettable and the script is dumb.
Viking Quest (2015)
Here comes the berserkers!
Through the vikings probably deserves some of the disgraceful film made about them, we as an audience do not. Well, to be honest, the film only has "viking" in it's name since there are no actual vikings in the film. Somewhere in (I assume) 8th century Scandinavia, two warring clans plan to unite through the marriage of the princess Tasya and the king Wolven. Tasya childhood friend Erick "the blessed" has the hots for Tasya, a feeling that is sort of answered, but not enough for Tasya to abandon her promised to be. Unfortunately, the dastardly Völsungs (no relation the mythological clan, but nice touch) frequently carries out sacrifices of princesses to the Midgard Serpent, Loki's dragon-seed. Since king Sigvat of the Völsungs has no children his soldiers nabs the princess in the process. Now it's up to Erick and Wolven to set their differences aside and rescue the princess.
It's the standard story. Nothing special, but can be a fun adventure for a Friday evening. To bad the film is so badly made. The fight scenes are under all standards for a film even of this budget. The editing does not even try to hide the baffling feeble choreography. Seeing that this is a low budget romp, some special effect failures are to be expected, but this film does not even try to work around that. We have a storm that is obviously shot in a studio. Guys, could you not even had intern splashing water with buckets? It's the driest storm ever! A little extra effort could have pushed it to an at least acceptable level. Is a little more effort to much to ask. Now, the acting is really uneven. But in the case of the leads I do blame it on the director and not the actors. Harry Lister Smith and Jenny Boyd are pretty convincing as childhood friends with a scent of romance. You can see that they do have some acting chops, they are just in a bad movie. Same goes for Oliver Walker as Wolven. Anya Taylor-Joy was in the sensation that was The Witch, but I have not seen that yet. But she is not very good in this film.
As stated above, the script is pretty standard, through there is a minor twist which is neat in it's own little way. Then the scenery is really nice. Mostly, the costumes seem to be roughly accurate. Most of the clothes, armors and helmets are pretty authentic to what I've seen in museums and books. That's not to say that this film is historically accurate. A high medieval castle is dropped in the middle of Scandinavia in the freaking 7th century and is painfully out of sync with the rest of the iconography of the film. Then, they have a male character called Hild. Talk about not doing the research...
If you are looking for a so bad that it's good viking film, Viking Quest is what you look for. Through not good at all, it's never boring. Like Troll 2 or Death Academy or any Ed Wood film, it's a charming bad movie. So grab your cowhorns, pass the mead and have a laugh.
La tête haute (2015)
Malony is Balony
It comes a time to take a stand. Not just for me, but for all of cinema. Malony is a horrible, cynical, opportunistic and dull affair. Malony is a trouble child an early age. At 16, he is shopped around different foster homes. His mother is in her 40's but played by a 28 year old actress, who looks like she is Malony's cougar girlfriend. Malony is failing school and sentenced to a youth camp after committing grand theft auto. His judge and his counselor does not want to give up on Malony and tries their best to get him some kind of education and possibility in life. Malony has skipped so much school that he will not be able to finish seventh grade - having already spent two years in every grade.
It's kind of hard to get a grip of the plot because it is more a series events than a story. Malony is a impatient, violent and completely unlikable character. Why people still wants to help him is beyond me. He is given tons of chances by the authorities and ends up messing them up every time. He flirts with a counselor's daughter and they end up in bed. But Malony ends up raping the girl. And for some reason, she falls in love with him. WHAT? The fact that so few critics have been bothered by this, deeply disturbs me.
A counselor get's Malony a job, but Malony just goes around and sneers and leers at the customers. He ends up kicking a table at a pregnant woman for no reason.
The acting from the lead actor is horrible. He overacts for president and country. Catherine Deneuve sleeps through her performance. I can honestly not remember anything about the other character's personality, except for the caricature that is the mother.
The message of the film is simple. Poor and stupid people should not reproduce, lest they will produce and even more hopeless generation. It's like a propaganda film by Dr Goebbles, mistaken by critics as a social awareness flick.
Trzecia czesc nocy (1971)
I have watched into the void and it's filled with lice.
I have watched into the void and it's filled with lice. The Third Part of the Night has been described as many things, but HORROR is the one word that makes justice to it. The one thing mostly remotely like it are the Silent Hills games and Come and See. At first I could not tell that the film was set in WWII, but when it became apparent to me, the riddle of the film also became apparent. Most of the film is actually a rather straightforward film, but the way the events are realized it becomes a surreal vision of the end of the world. I have trouble describing it other than a disturbing nightmare about the end of time. A furious debut of a filmmaker, possessed by the Gods of film, who summon a town beyond space, time and hope.
La cage aux zombies (1995)
Like John Waters directed Zombie 2
Like John Waters directed Zombie 2. Pierrot le fou remade by David Lynch as a april's fools days prank. Trash Humpers meets Burial Nights: Night of Terror. Does this seem interesting? Then this perhaps is a film for you. This is really hard film to review, since it's not supposed to be good. Now that is not an excuse someone can use to get out of jail card, but in this film it comes off like a surreal and really off-beat hodgepodge of voodoo, magic, transvestites and gangsters. Yeah, like John Waters directed Zombie 2. The acting is either wooden or over the top, and it it works for the context of the film. The music sounds a lot like the score of a 70's Italian zombieflick.
At times the film is really funny. There is a really clever visual gag at the start that spoof Carrie and made me laugh out loud. But most of the time it's plain weird. It's not good, but I can't accuse it of being boring.
Another WTF-film from the bowels of the internet.
Lokalvardaren (2014)
Blinded by the Light
After making countless shorts, Henrik Möller has finally made a his first feature length film. It's both similar and different from his earlier work. It has all the stamps of Möller's earlier films, but they are more polished and developed than before. With the exception of "Inviting the Demon", the films of Möller and his various collaborators have had an extremely rough and raw quality. He has worked with both surrealism and social realism and absurd characters and situations. All of that is present in this film. It all plays out like a sort of mix of all of Möller's previous work. The film is in black and white, with a few tints and splats of color. Some would compare it to Sin City, but to me it seemed more like a silent film that had been colorized by hand. The soundtrack drones with creepy synth music by Testbild and a horrific soundscape by an entire company of different sound designers. A quartet of cleaners that seem to be a mix between the losers from Malmö = Råttkådd and the psychopaths from Möller's animated films like Spritfesten, lumbers around the hallways. They are cleaning up excess dust that draw in "pests"; eldritch shadow people. Lina Sundén's Sara stalks around the halls of the mysterious facility in search for her missing daughter whom she lost in a custody battle with her husband (Patrik Karlson). She finds her ex-husband aged several years and a broken man. He wanted to make a documentary about a mysterious light in his workplace, ending up losing both another worker and his daughter. He and the mysterious janitor (Martin Jirhamn) offers her help to get her back. The facility is filled with odd and deranged people. The boss (Jenny Lampa) keeps a naked man as a pet, a man is seen moaning with a towel on his head and an angry cleaner (Möller himself) rants about Sara having to protect her eyes.
What sets it really apart from Henrik Möller's earlier films is the acting and characters. Not that that has been bad in the earlier films, but they were certainly more of people playing exaggerated version of them self and not really challenging parts. This time around, the four main characters, played by Sundén, Jirhamn, Lampa & Karlson, are well rounded characters with more dept too them than any Möller has done before. He and Jirhamn has really done a fantastic work on the characters which, even through I seriously doubted their humanity, seem very human. I must really laud the acting of Lina Sundén and Jenny Lampa who perfectly nailed their parts. Sundén vulnerability and courage contrasted against Lampa's menacing eyes where a perfect contrast. Considering all the horror films Jenny Lampa has been involved in, is she Sweden's first real Scream Queen? I would say so! But I must also say I was blown away by Martin Jirhamn. I've seen him in several of Möller's other films. Unlike the other actors playing main characters, he is an amateur, but he came of as really believable as the morally ambiguous janitor. It was not an easy part, but Jirhamn did it so well I have a hard time imagining another actor in the part. More is implied than shown, but we don't need more. It's all about Sara's search for her child and all it brings about. The tempo is rapid not a single shot wasted. Certainly one of the best Swedish films in the last decade and a must see for lovers of HP Lovecraft and the Silent Hill games.
Cannibal Fog (2014)
Sex taste better than God
Well... Jonas Wolcher made another movie. His first outside the "Zombiejäger-verse". And how is it? It's different alright. Jonas Wolcer has returned to the style of his shortfilm "Zombienoid". The "jittercam" and "Micheal Bay-on-PCP-editing" is absent for the most part. The film is more slow paced, like "Zombienoid". There is the occasional random nudity and fornication (where does he get the people for those moments?), sloppy editing, regular Vargman Bjärsbo, bad use of music, b-movie effects, a deep-voiced dark magician with a skull-face (here a rip-off of Papa Emeritus II, not a fan but still) and the usual synth score.
This film is much more experimental than Wolcher's other works and follows a porn- and sex-addicted (through sex addiction is not real thing per see) catholic named Micheal who gets a new addiction: the addiction to human meat. Micheal hooks up with a woman named Lotta in a porn-esque scenario but can't stand his rising hunger. Micheal was having pasta in a cheap joint when a assassin shot a man and his blood splatted onto the pasta (Micheal does not notice a murder happening right beside him). It ends him Micheal starting to eat folks.
What to say about the script and acting? The actors are really, really stiff. Linus Karlgren as Micheal is dull dishwear. Ida Karolin Johansson who plays Lotta is only there to look sexy and be a body for Micheal to penetrate. Malte Aronsson plays Albin and is not much better. Dull and unconvincing. There are no good actors in this film to put it simply. Lars Lundgren in a small cameo is OK. To say he is the best actor in the film does not really hold up. The script is just as bad. The cinematography does not hold up for 5 cents. The film drags and drag. The pacing is... No there is no pacing. The film is 30 minutes to long and there are a ton of useless scenes or scenes that could have been cut down. Wolcher really needs to study how to build a scene, because he has no idea how to do it.
And there is apparently a real cannibal at the end of the film. Classy.
Now you might be inclined to wonder why I am knowledgeable enough to compare Wolcher's different movies. Am I an acquaintance to Wolcher. The answer is no. The closest thing I've come to any contact is some replies on forums. I am loosely acquainted with a friend(?) of him and said friend(?) did not have many nice things to say about him. But I digress. What I am is one of the few experts on Swedish horror (I can only think of two other people). There is a lot of s**t when it comes to Swedish horror but there is a lot more good stuff than most people give it credit for. I do have education as a filmschoolar and worked as a critic and I've made and am still making movies and I've made it my dubious area of expertise to map this part of Swedish film history. Why? Because there are gems that need to be put more up front and even if there is mostly mediocre and really bad films in this particular category, they at least tried. Unlike most of the people that complains. Wolcher, you are the worst director in Swedish history, but don't stop making films!
Remake (2014)
Best Swedish Film of the Decade
I must be honest with this one. This is the best Swedish film of the decade. Other critics and my old peers at film studies will not agree with me and mention You, the Living (which is awesome), Let the Right One In (slightly overrated) or something like Sebbe (crap). But Remake is a masterpiece. While Ruben Östlund films peoples feet and complains that people do not watch his movies, Öhman and Gavatin creates a gut-punch of a movie.
Remake is a found footage movie without the horror. At times there are moments when the illusion is broken and it seems like the characters has adjusted the camera just to get a better shot or make a better edit. That's the only fault I can find with the film actually. The film is presented through Lisa's point of view. She is obsessed with documenting everything she does with a camera, even fights with boyfriends and sexual acts. It's as if she wants to record everything about life to be able to revisit those emotion like one would with a movie. She is returning to New York with her new boyfriend Martin, but when friction in their relationship turns up, she meets and starts to see the American Lucas (who talks like the Joker).
Really, I don't want to talk to much about the movie because I don't want to give away anything. I can just tell you to go see the movie as soon as possible. The acting performances of Henni, Hazlett and Wallström are the strongest I've seen in a Swedish film in years. What are you waiting for? Go see it now!
Terror i Rock 'n' Roll Önsjön (2001)
I love this movie!
Terror In Rock 'n' Roll Önsjön is Swedens first feature length zombie flick and I love it! In the 1940's, some Nazis try to create a super-soldier but end up creating zombies. They decide to hide the secret chemical in a Swedish lake but ends up in a firefight with Swedsih soldiers which ends with the death of the Swedes and the only surviving Nazi drowning while exposed to the chemical. In the 1970's, a bunch of teens decide to have a party at the very lake very the chemical was dumped. The rock music awakens the drowned Nazi who has become a zombie and the predictable mayhem ensues. In the middle of this is a sweet romance between a brat-girl and a raggare.
The film has a rich gallery of characters. Most of them, and most importantly the leads, are well played by the actors, most of which are complete newcomers. The film is filled with references to 1970's and 1980's films: the Nazi plot is a homage to the original Nazi-zombie flick Shock Waves. The script is not a masterpiece but it's pretty well written. The film's budget is low and it shows, but there has but there has also been a lot of effort put into this film and it shows as well! The film is funny charming and very entertaining. Warmly recommended!
Blodspår - Easy Action sopar igen spåren (2012)
Hilarious
A hilarious documentary short made for the DVD-release of the film Blodspår/Bloodtracks/Heavy Metal. We meet two members of easy action who tells us about the making of the film. One seems embarrassed over the whole deal while the other is very enthusiastic. We get to know that the actors where severed beer and performed drunk, how the band got involved with the production and stuff like that. The reactions of one of the band members while the other brags about his experiences on the film is simply hilarious.
At the end they thank Hard Rock Café for being able to shot the short there or else they would have to shot
Hundhotellet (2000)
Wonderful!
This film truly is a underrated masterpiece. Here Åhlin has created a wonderful little mystery movie for all ages. This not a kids film. Kids can watch it but it's aimed at adults as much as it is for children. Sadly, animation is considered a children's medium in the west and I see no reason for it to be so. But that does not mean children won't be able to enjoy this film.
The story is simple, yet very mysterious. Sture (and the audience) has no idea what is going on. It's basically a surreal comedy. It is funny as hell. The animation is cozy, the acting is fantastic and the script is great. No less than a masterpiece and a must see.
And you got to love the fact that a film that was marketed to children takes influence from and references Kubrick's The Shining and Polanski's The Tenant.
Vittra (2012)
Unoriginal but furiously entertaining
There is certainly both pros and cons about this film. First and first there are really some problems with the script. It's very unoriginal; it's Evil Dead in Swedish. It tries to do little new with the concept and shares it's basic premise with a dozen other horror films. The one original thing about it is that the villain is a Vittra, a creature from Swedish folklore also known as "vätte", that turns it's victims into zombies that it uses to kill and maim any person who intrudes on it's domain. There is also a old man who warns the protagonists and tells them about the monsters.
Another weird thing about the film is that the filmmakers seems to don't know how to film and direct a normal dialog scene. The film also has a scene where a character says "I feel so f**king bad", when there is not a single person around. Who is she talking to? The audience? You are bleeding from every cavity, it's not like we get it.
Then there are the pros. And boy the pros are good! In the first part of the film the acting is off, but once the real drama starts and the Wither attacks the acting gets really good (The film also has the advantage of having killed off the bad actors by then). Lisa Henni is the one that stands out the most, but Saxe, Almkvist and Wallmo are really, really good too. They have to work with big and difficult emotions like fear, sorrow and brutality and does it amazingly. I really like a brief scene at the end where one of the characters is almost unable to fight any more after the loss of so many loved ones. That is really the theme of the film. Lot's of characters loose their close and loved ones. Johnnes Brost is in the film for about 10 minutes but those are ten minutes you will remember. Especially when he draws his knife.
The effects are really good, with a few exceptions that fortunately does not take the edge of the film. The film is really, really violent. Heads are mashed with rocks, there is a really messy decapitation and early on a really disgusting scene where a lip is torn off. The wonderful sound design is the best I've ever heard in a Swedish film. The last part of the film is a real furious roller coaster and the last 15 minutes will have be sitting on the edge of your seat. The film goes on a bit to long but that is sort of nitpicking. Some character does some stupid things but when you think about it, they kind of makes sense from an emotional stand point.
In the end, Vittra/Wither is a real thrill ride that demands to be seen in a cinema with a good surround-system. You need Vittra. You need to see it in a cinema and be swept away by it.
I hope there will be a Vittra 2.
205 - Zimmer der Angst (2011)
What is real?
I had the pleasure of seeing this film at German Films Go North in Stockholm 2011 in 35 mm.
Some of the scares in the film are pretty tame, some clishé, some effective. The effects are not much to hang in a Christmas tree and the ghost looks terrible. The two things that make this film worthwhile is 1; the screenplay and 2: Jennifer Ulrich. Jennifer Ulrich is freaking amazing in this film and after seeing this film, Die Welle and Wir Sind Die Nacht she is now my favorite actress. She give everything to her role and it pays of. She is the force that keeps the film going.
That said I must comment on the other actors. Tino Mewes was OK, not the greatest actor around and his part was not too interesting but he was not bad in any way. Daniel Roesner was pretty terrible, it does not help that he looks and behaves like a douche. Marleen Lohse was just annoying. I found Inez Bjørg David as being pretty good and André Hennicke extraordinary sympathetic as the cop Urban. Julia Dietze of Iron Sky plays the ghost but is only in the movie for a limited amount of time in the film when she is not a special effect but she is almost as good as Jennifer Ulrich in her few scenes.
The script is pretty clever and sets up twists and turns but makes sure to set them up and that they perfect sense when we come closer to the end of the film. The ending is amazing
I don't know if this film will ever come to Sweden again but I will sure watch it in cinema again and buy the DVD.
Flickorna (1968)
Plot? What plot?
Watching "The Girls" at film school it struck me how confused and disorganized this film is. There is nothing wrong with confusing the audience, something Davind Lynch has showed us over and over again, but in combination with this film lacking plot, the characters being 2 dimensional and lacking any sort of characteristics and the all out confused nature of the "narrative" this film comes of as little less than a drug fueled, surreal mess.
Which is fine if the film is interesting. This film is not interesting. I have heard a lot of people calling it feminist. Maybe people call it that because the main characters are female and the director/writer is a woman. Well feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". In this aspect the film is not feminist as the women say they won't to break free, but in reality are quite dependent on the men. At the end one of the actresses say she wants a divorce but this does not come off as she does it to liberate herself and be equal to the men.
Syner (2009)
Swedish Terror at it's all time high
As far as scares go this films is above all other Swedish films. I have never seen a Swedish film or few other films at all that has even touched upon the levels of terror this film delivers.
The first story is by far the best of the three and the scariest. It tells the tale of a woman trapped in her apartment as strange zombie-like beings roam outside. This segment is just perfect. It's hard to comment on because it does everything right. 10/10
The second segment is a step down. While the acting, cinematography, sound and scares are all the right the story and theme is much lifted from Silent Hill 2. It's pretty close to plagiarism. Very good plagiarism. This makes me lower the grade. 7/10
The third story is not good at all. Not as scary or as thought provoking. 3/10
But in all the film is well worth the watch. Anyone doubting a Swedish film can be scary should see this film. And anyone else for that matter. This is good.
Hamilton: I nationens intresse (2012)
Shake the camera! Shake it baby!
If you like your movies with boring action scenes, undeveloped and uninteresting characters, a story that could have been applied to action-hero from Arnold to Stallone to Craig to Damon and a musical score with no personality what so ever then Hamilton is the film for you.
The movie opens grandly with an EXTREME closeup on Persbrandts nose. Persbrandt plays Hamilton just like he plays his famous Gunvald-character in Beck, only that this time he is more restrained. His "acting" is holding the same emotion through the entire film and hardly ever showing any emotions at all.
The only interesting part of the movie goes nowhere. It involves Hamilton having a traumatic experience with his girlfriend and was more interesting than the stock-plot of the film.
The villain was just your stock action villain with no personality at all. Actually, nobody in this film had a personality.
The photography was terrible, the camera was shaking like the tail of a rattlesnake in every shot and I never could tell what was going on.
Just plain bad.
De ofrivilliga (2008)
Pretentious
Ruben Östlund must be one of the most self important directors working in Sweden today. He is angry on Hollywood for making films people are entertained by. He wonders why his film don't speak to as many people as films about cowboys and aliens when his films are about everyday life. The answer is quite simple. Most people goes to the cinema to be entertained and Ruben Östlund's film douse not entertain. Entertainment can be achieved by many emotions, happiness, horror, sadness, thrills, chills and joy. The one emotion a director is never allowed to evoke in his audience is boredom. To bore an audience is the worst crime an entertainer can commit and Östlund commits this crime.
The scenes in this film is made up mostly of single shots showing scenes in the life of a teacher, two teenyboppers, an old man, a group of drunks and a bus party. All of them fall victim to the mechanisms of the group. This would have been interesting concept but Ruben Östlund's own pretentious ideas comes in the way. Like his moronic camera angels.
The camera angels are often filming really strange stuff like peoples feet or a car door. I hate to be the first to bring this up to you Östlund, but you are not Roy Andersson.
The psychology of a group is an interesting subject, but you can't make a movie with just that. You need context. Come up with a story to use as backdrop to your theme. The first two X-Men movies did a great job with this.
There is no plot nor character development. A film can make up for this in by brining up other stuff, like an interesting story but this is not the case of this film. Ruben Östlund summarizes the worst kind of filmmakers alive; those who don't care for their audience. Others like him are Micheal Bay, Uwe Boll and Kristian Petri to name a few.
Avoid this guy, because he deserves not attention,
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Bland
So despite having one of the worst trailers this year, topped only by the Breaking Dawn trailer I watched The Three Musketeers. It was must better than i thought it would be, yet that douse not say much. Constantin Films, a German company, are the people behind it. It's funded with German tax-money, much like how our Swedish tax-money are spent to finance crap by Lars Von Trier. At least Germans got jobs out of this film, but I believe that the money should be spent on a sequel to Wir Sind Die Nacht by Dennis Ganel rather than this.
Logan Lerman is bland and so Luke Evans and Matthew Macfadyen. Not much of an impression. I liked Christoph Waltz and Ray Stevenson who did a very good job with the material. Milla Jovovich walks around acting all sexy. It seems Paul W.S. Anderson is screaming: LOOK HOW HOT MY WIFE IS!!! At least Tim Burton tries to give Helena Bonham Carter something to work with. Gabriella Wilde and Orlando Bloom are terrible. I have never seen worse acting from Orlando Bloom ever in a film. Razzie Award here you come! Mads Mikkelsen has nothing to do for most of the film and it seems they tried as hard as they could to make him appear like One-Eye in Valhalla Rising so he would seem more dangerous. It did not work.
Oh, I almost forgot! Seemingly one the German producers insistence Til Schweiger is in this too. For a whole minute!
The action scenes where alright. Nothing special. The plot was ordinary. Nothing special. Faithful to the book? Sort of... I have seen worse, but I have also seen better.
The opening prologue could been cut. It would actually have made the movie deeper and the characters more interesting. Actuall character development. What about that?
Gränsen (2011)
How far can too far go?
While we Swedes have too endure boring drama films and drama films that pretends to be comedies it's always fun when something unusual pops up. Gränsen or Beyond the Border is one of these films. It follows a realistic and very possible concept of bored Swedish soldiers wanting to see some action and sneaks over the border to Nazi-occupied Norway.
For those who don't know, Sweden was one of the few unoccupied democracies left i Europe and everybody where expecting Germany to attack any minute. A couple of fresh recruits skies across the border and stumbles into the execution of a Norwegian rebel. In panic they open fire at the Nazi's and are captured.
One of the soldier's brother goes after him along with the stereotypical finish madman/bad-ass and two other Swedish soldiers. A Swedish colonel who is responsible for the soldiers send two marksmen after them to clean it up so he won't be held responsible.
There is a lot of heavy war violence, mostly hand to hand combat that end up in gory stabbings. It's in no way tame and one is very disturbing to see. There are some brief shootouts, the budget won't allow more thus we got stabbings instead. We are also treated with some very suspenseful scenes where our Swedish heroes tries to not be seen by the Nazis.
The end shootout is probably the coolest in a Swedish film and it ends with one of the most haunting, beautiful and horrific images ever put in a Swedish film. It's also interesting to note that the good guys in the end are made up of one Swede, one Finne and and one Norwegian. At some points in history these nations have been one and the same and now they team up against the Nazis. It's a pretty fun little trivia if you know your history.
In the end, Gränsen is a very entertaining Swedish film, I it's not too special from other war films save for that haunting image I mentioned but is worth checking out. More Swedish films like this please.
Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)
Disappointing
I've looked foreword for this film for a long, long time. The fake trailer was awesome, the real trailer was just as crazy and fun. This seemed to be a great grindhouse flick a la Machete. Much to my disappointment this was not good.
It was not far from awful. It lacked all the self aware irony that made Machete and Grindhouse so good. All the funny stuff from the trailer was there, but in the film it was not funny. There were not a single good performance in the flick. Not even Rutger Hauer, one of my idols was any good in it.
Hobo with a Shotgun had a brilliant concept that failed tragically. The direction, the script... They did not create the awesome flick this was meant to be. Usually I am very, very angry when I see bad films like this, but this just made me sad.
The character don't work, they are not funny. They are not cool. They are boring. How could a movie about a hobo with a shotgun be so boring?
The characters of the Plague on the other hand was the only thing that actually turned out good. They where in it too little but where very interesting. But that can't save the movie.
I suggest you go watch Machete if you want the awesome exploitation homage you might be looking for here, because Machete douse not disappoint.
Wir sind die Nacht (2010)
Not German Twiligt
Before I begin I will have address the fact that this film has been compared to Twilight a lot in reviews. This is film has very little to do with Twilight. Just because a vampire film has teenagers and vampires in it does not make it a Twilight rip. There where romantic teen- vampire flicks before Twilight( The Lost Boys, Near Dark). It's not an invention of Twilight.
The plot revolves around three decadent and wealthy vampire girls. They move around in Berlin at night in search for blood and pleasure. Their leader Louise(Nina Hoss), is also looking for that special lady, the one you want to spend your entire life together with. This special lady turns about to be dysfunctional youth criminal Lena(Karoline Herfurth).
Louise turns Lena into a vampire and introduces her to the life as a vampire, a life Lena enjoys at first until she has to deal with the disturbing side effects.
First I want to bring up the good things about this movie. The atmosphere is great and the cinematography in simple gorgeous. It's a real treat for the eye and we get lots of very slick and beautiful visuals. The most beautiful scene is Lena's transformation into a vampire when her inner beauty is set free.
Another thing this movie does well is the portrait of vampire life. It often happens in modern vampire films that you get to much of the good side of vice versa, but in best Interview with the Vampire style we get a balanced portrayal. Sure, immortality is great, you can party all night and never grow old and die but all the people you love will grow old and die while you stay the same. If you find a mortal that you really love you can't be with him because of risk you might kill him in the heat of the moment. This is portrayed very well through vampires Charlotte( the very talented Jenny Ulrich) and Nora( the lovely Anna Fischer) who are most well written and well acted characters in the film. Both of them have very heartbreaking scenes in the second half of the movie but I won't tell you more than that.
Other than that, the special effects are done well and the music is great. The soundtrack is filled with great songs that not only add to the atmosphere but works as a Greek chorus, commenting on the plot and the feelings of the characters.
Gansel's directing is outstanding. Following the "show, don't tell" principle he allows his actors to often do the most emotional scenes without dialog. Instead, the looks on the actors faces tells the emotional turmoil behind them. The effect is wonderful. One strange result however is that the word "vampire" is never mentioned. The movie is so good at making us understand that is does not have to.
The negative parts on the other hand is the romance between Lena and Officer Tom(Max Riemelt) I could buy that these people care for one another cause the film builds it up to that in a fine way, but that they fall in love? No, I don't buy that. It douse not feel like there is any hint at romance. As I said, it's oblivious they could and should care for each other but a romance seemed to be forced in by the producers. The relationship between Lena and Tom is to undeveloped for that.
Also, without spoiling anything, the ending was a bit rushed and could have lasted a little longer. It comes off as much weaker than the rest of the film. But it does not destroy the rest of the film.
There is not much violence. Most of it is off-screen deaths and dead, bloody bodies. There is a not graphic bite, but there is also one very graphic scene where Charlotte takes paper cut to a new level. That will sure to satisfy the gore hounds and is the best death in a vampire-movie since the lawn gnome-scene in Frostbitten.
Wir sind die Nacht does not really add anything to the vampire mythology, but has it's fair place within it. The vampires are beautiful, but deadly as it should be. Don't ask for originality( the only one you get is the fact that the girl vampires of the world have killed off all the vampire men), but expect a nice and great looking thrill ride. Wir sind die Nacht also has a great re-watch value which is always a huge plus.
The cinematography reflects the damaged characters. Just as they may appear glamorous they are really hurt inside.Torsten Breuer films the night scenes in vivid and spectacular color while the day scenes are shoot in a way that makes the light of the sun seem cold and the city of Berlin look dirty and not glamorous at all. When brought into light, we see what how tragic these characters are. There are no villains, just damaged people who needs love, but that is denied from them.
In 1979, Werner Herzog showed that Germany knew their vampires, and in 2010 Dennis Gansel shows they still does.