Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Film: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Release: 1982, theatrical
Starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Ricardo Montalban
Directed by: Nicholas Meyer
Previous in the series: Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Next in the series: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: While undergoing an inspection of the Star Ship Enterprise, the aging Admiral James T. Kirk is called to an emergency situation concerning a scientific project simply known as "Genesis". However an old and very capable foe is lurking in the shadows.

Hans' thoughts:

Critics log, Star date -308846.50745180104. Subject is the second installment in the Star Trek cinematic franchise. After a lukewarm reception of the original movie, the creators seemingly decided to appeal more to the already sizable fanbase of the original series as opposed to make a more main stream picture like the predecessor. Ironically, this movie would prove to the most critically acclaimed of them all and a great jumping on point for newcomers to the franchise. Set roughly in the distant future of the 2200's, Star Trek features the continued exploits of the crew of the S. S. Enterprise, in the main series on a mission to explore uncharted territories in outer space. In this movie however, James T. Kirk now promoted to the status of Admiral has long since left the captains chair and is celebrating his birthday in somber mood. To lighten up his spirits he decides to make an inspection round of his former ship when he is thrown into a dangerous venture concerning powerful revolutionary science and the revenge scheme of Khan, a genetically modified super soldier created in the 1990's. 

If that all sounded a bit complicated to you, have no fear. The film does a remarkable job of bringing everyone up to speed and while some of the terminology might be mostly understood by fans of the original series, the film features classical concepts of aging, revenge and obsession. In the role of Khan we have Ricardo Montalban. He plays a very quiet well-spoken man who only few times feels the need to raise his voice at all. You can just feel the seething hatred he harbors for the main character every time he encounters him. But somehow there's also a great deal of mutual respect between him and William Shatner as Kirk. There's a lot of parallels to classic literature in the film, particularly that of Moby Dick by Herman Melville. Khan shares the obsessive vengeful nature of Captain Ahab throughout the film, to the point of almost letting his emotions get the best of him at times. He's a man that has lost everything and is blind to compromise. The delivery of his lines are just so intense and the nature of them lies closely to almost Shakespearian.

On the other hand we have the cocky William Shatner as James Kirk. While he is more gloomy in this picture than normally he certainly hasn't lost his flair for wit and fast thinking in pressed situations. Kirk has seemingly taught himself to grow up and acknowledge that he won't stay young and spry forever, but his journey in this movie is more about coming to terms with it. While Khan seems to lose everything around him, Kirk is through the looking glass and reliving old thrills from his time as the captain. By his side as always he has Mr. Spock played by Leonard Nimoy and Doctor McCoy played by DeForest Kelley. Actually most of the classic cast of the series has reprised their roles and it's like they never left in the first place. They're all spouting off science fiction terminology like a second nature while keeping their characters well-known features intact. This is despite that the last season of Star Trek the original series was aired in 1969 and this movie came out in 1982. That's over 20 years of absence from a role.

Visually the film is gorgeous, it features new redesigned Star fleet uniforms which more closely resembles that of an army, with the rank of characters shown by stripes and stars rather than the color of their shirt. These costumes feel like they could be worn by an actual fleet rather than the more casual look of the uniforms from the original series. On top of that, we also have some really nice looking sets, simplistic at times but since most of the movie takes place on the bridge of a spaceship it makes sense in context. When the characters do depart to ground level operations, we have some fairly imaginative settings. The most visually appealing part of the movie however, is the exterior shots. For its time the effects are pretty goof, these are some of the best VistaVision model shots of space ships I have seen this side of the original Star Wars movies. Damage to the ships were all hand animated and even though it's outer space there's some great looking colorful shots in there. This, combined with the new original score by James Horner absolutely goosebump-inducing. While Star Wars is certainly the more approachable franchise movie-wise, a lot can be said for the sheer amount of skill in the execution of this film and it's highly recommended for anyone who loves the genre.

V For Vendetta (2005)

Film: V For Vendetta
Release: 2005, theatrical
Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Directed by: James McTeigue
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the mid-21st century, Britain has become a fascist regime. One night on the 5th of November a reminder to remember a heinous plot is set to never be forgot.

Hans' thoughts:

Very vigorously would valuers of vindictive revolutionary vendettas value V for Vendetta for its volume as a vector for vocal web-users. Re-written and re-visited by the Whachowskis, it ventures wondrously within the very vague vicinity of the victorious and the virulent views of it's reviewers. The video relies the comic book verses regarding the vaudevillian vindicator which wears the visage called V visualized by the recitalist Weaving. I was be-wondered by the ventures victory in verifying the vexing wonder of V. . Vies a vie, it explores the reason for wearing a disguise whilst fighting crime - not as much as in Watchmen where it's the very vestige of the writers work though still very represented in some form. 

The visuals verily wear the visage of revolutionaries, while relying wisdom regarding the role of the victim compared to role of the victimisers. One again the Wachowskis flaunt their vigor for visual violence. while verily the recitalists realize the roles remarkably. Phew, Okay. I'm sorry. Enough of that. To anyone unaware the original introduction of our main character V features a very well written piece of dialogue with wordplay using the V-sound. Out of all the actors I felt Portman in the role of Evey lacked a little bit of energy and it seems as though she just kind of goes along with whatever happens to her, no matter how cruel it is. For the purpose of the story, Portman certainly does a well enough job that it doesn't distract too much however it's hard to not see it whenever she plays off of charismatic actors like Stephen Fry or Hugo Weaving - Weaving is of course given a momentous task as his face is never actually seen and it falls to the cameraman to accurately convey what the character is going through in any instance. That's of course helped a little bit by the fact that the character of V is supposed to be more of a symbol than an actual character. Most interesting to me was the journey of Stephen Rea in the role of the  police detective Finch as he uncovers more and more about the state of affairs in future Britain and the truth behind the government.

In the villain department, John Hurt makes a very threatening Big Brother-esque villain. Being shown on a giant TV-screen throughout most of the movie his knack for monologue and tone of voice shines through. Likewise does Tim Pigott-Smith pose a threat as the head of the state police known as finger men. However it seems like he channeled Dick Cheney of the then current Bush government in America. There's a lot of snarl and down to business temperament portrayed even when we're just looking at his face. V for Vendetta is above all a very beautifully shot movie and at times it distracts from the at times only half-hearted crime mystery tucked in between the plot-lines. Whether the mystery portion was more fleshed out in the original comic I unfortunately don't know as I've not read it, however it's safe to say that like with the movie adaptation of Moore's other famous work Watchmen, details were left out in favor of focusing on the underlying morale and point of the story. As it stands I can at least recommend V for Vendetta for a very captivating story, some masterfully done shot and the Wachowski staple of excellent action.

Fargo (1996)

Film: Fargo
Release: 1996, theatrical
Starring: Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi, William H. Macy
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A man wanting to cheat his wealthy father-in-law out of a large sum of money plans a fake kidnapping scheme that goes horribly wrong.

Hans' thoughts:

Written, Directed, Produced and Edited by the phenomenal Coen Bros. we have Fargo, the story of what too much greed and do to you. Conman and car salesman Jerry Lundegaard finds out he needs a rather large sum of money and so he arranged a fake kidnapping of his wife so he could get money out of his wealthy father-in law. To do that he hires two crooks, Carl Showalter played by Steve Buscemi and Gaear Grimsrud by Peter Stormare. Everything seems to go fine, but when the psychopathic Gaear shoots and kills a traffic patrol officer followed by a likvidation of witnesses the two kidnappers are now at the receiving end of a manhunt. The officer in charge is the kindhearted, highly pregnant detective Marge Gunderson played by Frances McDormand. The film is a lonely one, while all the characters have people they interact with on a daily basis throughout the movie, they all ultimately end up alone in their key moment of the film. Marge Gunderson is a happily married woman, but when she finally catches up to the bad guys she does so completely alone. Jerry Lundegaard is also finally captured alone, and the two crooks that become the driving force behind the event of the film all ultimately meet their fates on their own in some regard. 

Gunderson, our main character, is almost a Christ or Maria character. Being kind and forgiving to everyone she meets she never displays anything that remotely looks like a dark side. She's a lover, not a killer and she simply cannot comprehend the kind of darkness that defines so many of the characters in the film. This could very well have been a very bland character, if not for the excellent performance by McDormand that makes this character seem infinitely believable - like the way a child would see their mother. Kind but firm. A lot of the shots of the film are done from very far away, in the infinite cold landscape of Middle-America where the film takes place. Large empty sceneries with singular characters walking through a very empty world. The snowy environment makes us focus directly on the action, while also providing a sad empty atmosphere. In stark contrast, you have most of the scenes with Marge Gunderson be in company with someone else, either questioning people for leads on her case or being home with her husband. All these shots, with the exception of when she's at the scenes of darkness like the chases or the crime scenes, have warm indoor colours. However all of the police character treat the murder much less dramatically than you usually see in these kinds of stories. Saddened by the loss but with a professional restraint and objectivity - they're at their workplace. It's a very nice change of pace from what you usually see in the genre where characters will become personally involved.

Completely polarizing from Marge you have the silent giant Gaear Grimsrud. Gaear is a taker of life instead of a giver and while Marge will likely make kind idle conversation with other characters Gaear is a man of ultimate materialism. He doesn't interact with others except when completely necessary and he clearly has a very cold darkness inside of him, comparable to the unkind snowy landscape that surrounds the movie. The one that suffers the ultimate punishment however is the movies tour de force, Jerry Lundegaard. He's almost comically tragic in how everything just goes wrong for him at every turn, the same can be said for Steve Buscemi who's in tip top shape doing what he does best in the role of Carl Showalter. He's a fast-talking unlucky man that like Grimsrud takes pleasure in materialism but doesn't stop at the little things. While Grimsrud finds pleasure in a TV-show and a small dinner, the despicable Showalter wants everything that's best in life, women food and alcohol. Some of the best moments in the movie comes from Buscemi as everything just falls apart around him in what should have been an easy bit of money. 

Fargo is not for everyone, the films main driving force is it's celebration of the simple things and it's intimidating atmosphere. It may feel too slow for audiences used to more actiondriven stories about remakable people. For the rest of us, here is a sweet story about a mother-to-be trying to comprehend the significantly darker world around her and her little family. 

An Adventure in Space and Time (2013)

Film: An Adventure in Space and Time
Release: 2013, TV
Starring: David Bradley, Jessica Raine, Sacha Dhawan
Directed by: Terry McDonough
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The new head of drama at BBC Sidney Newman wants to implement science fiction in an empty 25 minute spot. To produce the new program he promotes his former assistant Verity Lambert, and the young indian Waris Hussein is put into the directors chair - both of them the first of their kind they face numerous challenges in an industry dominated by middle-aged male traditionalists.

Hans' thoughts:

Made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, the longest running science fiction on television, BBC has released this dramatised version of the events surrounding the creation of the program up to and including William Hartnell's departure from the series as the first Doctor. Starting in 1963, we're introduced to BBC as a highly traditionalist institution: Our main character is a young woman promoted to a leadership position at a time where such a thing was pretty much unheard of. If you've seen the 50's drama series Mad Men, you know what kind of environment I'm talking about. Middle-aged and Older men in leadership positions who scoff at anyone who doesn't belong to their own group. Her director for the series is the young Indian Waris Hussein, and together they pretty much represent the young generation that would become more and more commercially relevant in these years. Unfortunately the dramatic potential for their struggle to actually put out the series feels very lightly brushed over. It is touched upon that they would run into a number of problems, departments not taking them seriously, horrid shooting conditions and other such things but instead the movie shifts focus to the actor playing the Doctor and hurries to go over some key moments from the years where Hartnell would have the role. 

Fortunately they have a very strong actor actually portraying the late Hartnell in the form of David Bradley. Most people will remember Bradley from prominent role as the nasty janitor Argus Filch at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter films or his supporting cast role as the perverted Walder Frey in the HBO fantasy series Game of Thrones. Both are very off-putting characters and it only speaks to the man's talent how polarizing his portrayal of Hartnell is to the others. He shows definite, strong and believable range here not seen very often even among the most famous of actors. I expect even non-Doctor Who fans will find something to enjoy in his performance, because while the movie definitely plays on it's role as "The film we're watching until the 50th anniversary special" it also more than stands it's ground as being a well-written dokudrama about the major changes the sudden rise of awareness from companies on the teenagers and kids audiences would have on business practices and programmes. 

Being an insightful story about the creation of that wonderful alien in his big blue box aside, it is overall very well-done period drama for fans and non-fans alike. Everything shot on the set looks like you could have travelled back in time to the era it took place, and of course it has nods to some of the most iconic villains and aspects of the show. Between heartbreaking moments, really good acting and just a good story this is was a treat to watch all the way through.

Vertigo (1958)

Film: Vertigo
Release: 1958, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window

Description: A newly retired police detective with a crippling fear of heights is talked into shadowing the wife of a wealthy shipbuilder for the sake of her safety - and falls in love with her in the process.

Hans' thoughts:

Dealing once again with his core traits, we have the Hitchcock film Vertigo. Possibly one of the strangest additions to his filmography, Vertigo maintains a very strange balance between your average romantic drama, and an odd crime/ghost story. I don't how much I actually "got" this film, at the surface it seems like a straight up crime drama starring John Stewart as the stand-in for your average person - as he has done in so many other Hitchcock pictures. However the story is about him being hired to follow a woman whom is believed to be possesed by a ghost, and we are quickly wrapped up in the city's local history and actually a pretty good story. Then, by the halfway point, the story makes a major tonal shift. It goes from being a "what's going on" mystery to being a romantic drama, and then once again by the final act of the film, we go through yet another tonal shift into something very dank and depressing. It kinda follows the three major steps of young love: The first discovery, followed by the period where they're wrapped up in being lovey dovey and then finally, the depression following the break-up. It's made a point from the get go that our main character has a crippling fear of heights. 

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

However that fact doesn't really come into play in the movie before the end of the first act. For a period, the audience is actually sort of "coaxed" into forgetting that it was a character point at all. Instead we're following the focus of our main character, whom besides his fear of heights is pretty much a blank slate. Of course as with all Hitchcock characters, he has a very fleshed out background, some would say perhaps unnecessarily so. We are given chunks of information in throwaway dialogue that has no bearance on the plot at all, but to it's credit it does make some of the lines seem a bit more natural (Why would anyone only talk about things that are extremely important?). James Stewart as well is, unfortunately, far from his best in this film. He seems either extremely typecasted or extremely bored with the movie, not straying too far from his performance in any other Hitchcock film I've reviewed for this site. I actually forgot which Hitchcock movie I was watching for a moment, thinking I had popped in "The Man Who Knew Too Much" by mistake. 

In this film we actually have two female leads, one is pretty well written and has some funny lines. The other is the one we spend most of the movie with. That sounds harsh, but it actually annoys me that we saw so little of the characters Majorie "Midge" Woods, played by Barbara Bel Geddes.  Of course as was custom for female characters written in the 50's, they both swoon over our main character. But whereas Geddes' character actually has grounds for doing so, the romantic sub-plot with our other female lead played by Kim Novak kind of comes out of nowhere. I sound bitter, but I had much preferred if this film had taken a completely different route than it ended up doing. There's not much to the love story element in the movie and yet it almost takes over the picture from the halfway point onwards. Leaving behind great potential for a mystery. It actually comes to the point that the final tonal shift of the final act comes completely out of left field. However, the devil is in the details and I admire how much work was put into each type of movie that's in the film. The tonal shift isn't just in the plot, no EVERYTHING about the film changes. From the way the movie is shot, to the use of sound. The First and latter halves of the film feels like two completely different films. That's to be heavily applauded.

I don't know why, and I feel terrible for saying this but I just didn't care all that much for this movie, it felt like a rushed version of what could've been a truly interesting examination of either one of these three major plot elements. Between the ghost mystery, the psychological aspect and the love story either one of these could probably have been good movies either on their own or only combined with one of the other parts. As it is, none of the parts really come into their own because of a lack of choosing to go down one particular road with the story and it turns out to be a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". It's not a problem contained to this movie however, not knowing what to focus on in a movie is actually comparatively a very modern problem. Take, as an example, the third Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie that suffered highly because of the large number of major enemies and plotpoints that were scattered throughout the film to the point that it just didn't come together for a satisfying conclusion. The same can be said for this film, the ending came out of nowhere and it feels like the writer either didn't know where to go with the story next or realised he had hit the running time for the piece. 20 minutes of wrapping things up would've been a welcome addition to the film. There's just a lack of confrontation after the big reveal that leaves a giant gap in the film.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Film: Miller's Crossing
Release: 1990, Theatrical
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: link opens in a new window
Description: The advisor to a prohibition-era crime lord becomes the only person holding back an all out war between the competing families.

Hans' thoughts:

1919-1933, the consumption and dealing of alcohol is prohibited throughout the United States of America. Ironically, the men and women who were involved in creating the now notorious underground bars and smuggling passages has since then become national folk heroes. Like so many other movies, there is "Miller's Crossing" - a straight up crime drama following men with more vices than can be counted on a hand. Our hero is Tom Reagan, a classic mobster with ties to an Irish crime family that runs the city he lives in. He's considered one of the top advisors, second only to the boss himself. It's said that he's "always got the angle" on what is going on around town. Of course that isn't as true as it would first seem. While our main character certainly seems self-confident and always on top of things (played excellently by Gabriel Byrne) it quickly becomes apparent to the audience that he might have bitten off more than he can chew. He's a character that's been seen before, reminiscent of main characters from detective noir films. He's very much a "man's man", keeping his stoic demeanor in the face of a life threatening situation and always with a quick line to throw at others. This is also where we see one of the main qualities of the Coen bros., if I had to pick only one thing they do well it would be their way with words. 

Now a short admission is in order, I have not seen all that many Coen Bros. movies. This is not because I dislike their movies or because they only dabble in genre's that fall outside my personal preference. No, instead it simply wasn't in the cards. Watching this movie, I can certainly see what I've been missing out on. Between memorable characters, funny lines and just plain beautifully done shots I cannot believe I didn't wise up to these guys sooner. Gangster movies set in this era is one of my favorite sub-genres. I love the way they talked, the look of most of these films with the pinstripe suits and the tommy guns, and I just love how folksy the silent respect between even notorious crime lords were - according to these kinds of movies at least. If you were hoping for a super realistic look at prohibition-era crime syndicates, this isn't the place to look. This very much rehashes the tropes of the genre. This isn't to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, in fact I'd say this is one of the best crime syndicate movies out there. Our main character of Tom Reagan is also a bit more relatable than that of The Godfathers' Michael Corleone. I say "main character" and not "hero", because while Tom certainly tries to prevent a war in the criminal underworld, there is not much in the way of good deeds in his repertoire. The man has a end game, and it seems like he may be a bit more ambitious than he first lets on. What exactly he's actually up to during all this is of course up to you to find out by watching the movie.

Our other characters are pretty good as well, there is no one in the film that I would characterize as the "main villain". None of these people are good guys and everybody is in for themselves in the end. The actors all do a terrific job, but I wouldn't feel right if I didn't mention the very minor but memorable appearance of Steve Buscemi as the nervous fast talking Mink. He talks so fast in the one scene he shows up in that it was actually kinda hard to follow what he was saying, though I am pretty sure I got the general idea. As for our female lead, I'm sad to say there is not much to her. She seems like your average 30's femme fatale who does bad things to get along in a man's world. This is not to say that she's not interesting at all but she does come off as a tad too generic and one-off, which is sad when you think about how good the writing is in almost all other areas.

Jon Polito as Johnny Caspar

Our two crime bosses in the movie are played by Jon Polito and Albert Finney. We don't get much face-time with Finney as most of the movie takes place in the Polito camp, but what we see is pretty good. Finney's character gets one of the movie's few action scenes and it is very well done, from the sound work to how well the events are strung together Finney really makes an impression, like Buscemi, in spite of how little we actually see of him. Polito plays a much larger role in the movie, and for what it's worth I found him funny as the character of the up and coming boss Johnny Caspar. Though I have to say for whatever reason, and this might be the comic guy in me speaking, I couldn't stop picturing him as a new take on the Batman villain The Penguin. His methods are very akin to the character and had it not been for Polito's character being a lot more dignified it would have been an almost perfect live-action adaptation. I very much doubt that the Coen bros. had the Gotham City crime boss in mind when they wrote the character, but I just feel I have to put it out there.

The plot of the movie is, unpredictable to say the least. Every time I thought I knew in what direction the movie was going a new event comes in and changes the goals of our main character, if only temporarily. One moment the movie seems like it heading in a Romeo & Juliet-esque direction and the next everything is about something completely different. Unlike the main character of Tom Reagan, the audience is never let in on him "knowing all the angles". He seems to be able to predict most of the events that are coming long before they do and when he's actually surprised - so is the audience right along with him. You never know what the characters are going to do because unlike so many other movies you are never let in on their secret plans or their actual motivations. Things happen just as they would in the real world and it seems at times like we are right there observing it from a safe distance. We're also left completely in the dark about certain things, what is the name of the city? What is the last name of one of our crime bosses? What exactly is the balance of power in the city? We're never told that because we don't need to - focus is kept quietly on following things from the eyes of our main character and nothing is mentioned without it sounding natural in dialogue. From the Fox logo, the very first sound we hear is that of ice cubes in a whisky glass and from then on we are shown a tale of a life in the criminal underworld during the prohibition. 

Frankenstein (1931)

Film: Frankenstein
Release: 1931, theatrical
Starring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, Boris Karloff
Directed by: James Whale
Next in the series: Bride of Frankenstein
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The young genius and heir to the Frankenstein baronial title, Henry, has secluded himself with his work. Far away from prying eyes. His highest ambition to give back life to the dead, he steals corpses in the night.

Hans' thoughts:

Released at the heels of Dracula and arguably the most popular of the classic Universal Pictures horror line-up, Frankenstein has become one of the most imitated monster movies of all time. From the scientist/hunchback dynamic to the childish demeanor of the monster itself. When people think of Frankensteins monster these days, the look of it is almost always similar to the monster design from this movie, it is just iconic. Rightfully so, for this is to this day a really good movie and honestly one of the best ever made. People who has not even seen this film know of scenes from it and can make at least one quote from it. It's just that much of a powerhouse.

Normally, this is credited to actor Boris Karloff who portrayed the monster. I can see why, he manages to turn the monster into both an imposing and sympathetic creature. Held back by the world around him and treated cruelly despite of how calm it starts out. My personal favorite performance of the movie however is that of Doctor Henry Frankenstein himself, Colin Clive plays the doctor and boy does he do a good job, through the first part of the movie he is obsessed with his work and he pulls a face of pure desperation and insanity, it's so intimidating yet unpredictable that it's stunning, you can never really tell what kind of lengths this man has gone for the sake of his experiments.

As for the other actors they all do a decent enough job, mind you however that this was just after the silent movie era and you can tell that some of these actors mimic more convincingly than they talk - probably originally trained for theatre. By that I mean that some of the supporting cast is unfortunately really stiff in their delivery, case in point is the female lead who just isn't interesting to look at, however I will give her credit for being a frontrunner for the scream queen characters.What more can you say about this version of Frankenstein? From it's well thought out sets to some of the most quoted lines in history Frankenstein from 1931 has turned out to be one of the most well made movies to this day, the even more interesting part is that it still holds up even more than even some movies released much later.

Casablanca (1942)

Film: Casablanca
Release: 1942, Theatrical
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Directed by: Michael Curtiz
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the early 1940's, hundreds of Europeans fled to North Africa to catch the plane to Lisbon, where they could fly to America and escape the horrors of the second world war. The last stop on the route to Lisbon is unoccupied French Morocco. Our story takes place in Casablanca, where a man's café plays host to neutral ground.

Hans' thoughts:

One of the most quoted movies of all time, the story of Casablanca is one of love, loss, and self-sacrifice for the greater good. We meet our reluctant hero in the city of Casablanca, in this time a place where money talks - and not much else. As large as the scope of the movie is, illustrating major points about the second world war, most of it takes place in a café not much bigger than a tv-set of today. Most of the score of the film is therefore diegetic, being played beautifully by an onscreen band and pianist. Historically, the movie presents the viewpoints of people who lived with hearing news about the war every day, and curiously in that regard, Casablanca was invaded around the time the movie was made and released.

Part of the appeal of Casablanca is the cozy center of Rick's Café, the main turning point of the movie. Outside in the rest of the world, everything is hell breaking loose but the café is like the little place where the people of it's day could find safe haven, regardless of politics. Our reluctant hero Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, is the owner of the café. He has certain principles and he tries his best to be neutral in every regard - even women. As far as the hero's journey goes, Rick certainly seems to go through a couple of the steps. When he is given the opportunity to fix his crisis, it is with much reluctance and by the point of no return he has completely pulled up his roots from everything he once knew. It's not all dark though, as much as Rick is a struggling character he also has a certain charm about him, this is because of the writing style of the Epstein bros., who gave the movie a slight comedic angle making Rick and his peers masters of sarcasm.

The female lead of the story, played by the lovely Ingrid Bergman, is a woman who has had the naiveté of her youth stolen from her much too soon, and the complete mess that is the relationship between her and Rick is one of the major driving forces behind the tale. She's confused about every decision she takes, but loyalty is a major quality of hers to say the least. As for the way the movie is shot, it plays it safe. This was originally made as dime-a-dozen romance movie so it wasn't an ambitious project by anyone involved. However, somehow they have managed to make the back-drop shot method still work compared to modern movies. In case you're not aware, the back-drop method is the way of having actors in front of a projected video working as a backdrop. It's a simplistic method but it gets the job done and the lack of color certainly helps in terms of not making the change in quality too jarring.

Casablanca is a timeless tale, as much as it is based around the ongoing war few can not admit to relating to the drama in a good old fashioned triangle-romance. What makes it interesting is that it might as well have ended much differently, which would have made the story trivial and without much substance, however a mix between the nature of the age it was made, combined with changing the writers 4 times have made the movie more of a "best of all worlds" mixed bag. The movie has goofy recognizable characters, a simple plot, but at the same time it also allows itself to try and fully explore all the elements of the story. From the battle between two music numbers in the bar, to the ambitious flashback to the lovers' time in paris to the off-the-wall endning about sacrificing your own happiness for something much greater then yourself - this story tells a tale of a man who lost his way and found it again. Humphrey Bogart played the man Rick in such a way that he is today the prototype for the reluctant but good at it's core hero. Much like Han Solo or Indiana Jones would be in the 70's and 80's or Eddie Valiant would be in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

While the movie was not shot very ambitiously, the same can not be said for the lighting. Throughout the movie, Director Mark Curtiz has chosen to play a lot on Shadows, making the movie a study in Negative space, much like the Noir genre and the Sin City comic books would be inspired by later. Indeed, one could make the argument that the lighting of Casablanca, combined with Rick's charm would be a prototype of modern iterations of superheroes. 

Citizen Kane (1941)

Film: Citizen Kane
Release: 1941, Theatrical
Starring: Orson Welles, Dorothy Comingore, Joseph Cotten
Directed by: Orson Welles
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: An aging billionaires last word becomes the axis of an investigation into his life.

Hans' thoughts:

Citizen Kane, a movie heralded by many as the greatest achievement in cinema. Even today, people are talking about the movie as the best - giving films like The Room the subtitle "The Citizen Kane of Bad Movies". The film is a cautionary tale, Kane himself a man that has made himself into one of the wealthiest men in the world, living in a mansion called "The greatest monument to a single man since the pyramids". Curiously named Xanadu, a palace built from self-indulgence that would since be nothing but rubble. The name is most likely picked deliberately, as it mirrors the tale of Kane himself. The movie is certainly something else from most other films - loaded with symbolism to a degree that most would have to take repeated viewings to pick up on. The shots are also beautifully framed, using the banality of a doorframe to great effect several times in the film. 

All that set aside, I must admit that the film hasn't aged all that well. Character writing has come a long way in the years since then and I don't feel that most of them were all that redeeming. Perhaps this is because of the person I happen to be, growing up in a socialist family I probably don't appreciate the kind of mentality required for making this movie work. To me, this movie is about Rich people talking about other rich people and how they did some bad rich people stuff in their rich people lives. But honestly, there must be some core thing I'm not seeing here. The movie seems to attempt to convey the notion that some people would just be better off without certain advantages. For audiences, the big guessing game is what made Kane himself turn into a worse person. Whether it was his upbringing, his ambitions or those around him that turned him into what he is, is anyone's guess.

Interestingly, the movie is shown through the eyes of a young reporter. Walking from person to person asking about the life of Citizen Kane. This almost makes the movie into a casefile from a psychology class. While it may not have been the original intent I assure you that a man with such knowledge could find at least a couple of theories that fits with the life of Kane. Whether it's the historical references, the symbolic imagery or just plainly the well-written drama - Citizen Kane deserves recognition as one of the great movies, if not for all time then at least of the era. Made in a period just after the Great Depression and released in the second year of the second world war the movie gives us a time capsule of the zeitgeist of the years in which it was made and later released.

Acting wise the movie is great, Orson Welles himself playing Citizen Kane is the highlight of the movie. Managing to show the anger and overzealousness that the man contains. He blames his silver spoon for his personal shortcomings "You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."  Other actors do a good job as well, in particular that of Everett Sloane playing Mr. Bernstein. Playing the character as a humble yet joking man - like all others his old age has made him wiser. The actresses on the picture, was unfortunately nothing spectacular. Perhaps held back by a script that made the characters they played very one-note.

No matter how it has aged, there is no doubt that if you love film: This is one to watch. Fundamentally changing what movies were all about while telling a dramatic story of a mans journey through greatness and fall through the eyes of his peers.

The Lion King (1994)

Film: The Lion King
Release: 1994, Theatrical
Starring: Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones
Directed by: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Prince of the lion pride, Simba flees his homeland when he's tricked into thinking he killed his father.

Hans' thoughts:

Walt Disney Pictures has always been a powerhouse for crafty animation, family friendly storytelling and wonderful music. It's main source of recognition being it's animated adaptations of classic tales in a musical format - most following the same recipe but all somehow managing to be of high quality. Their biggest success is arguably The Lion King, being the highest grossing traditionally animated feature-film of all time.

Now the Lion King is a bit out of the ordinary from it's animated predecessors. First off, it's not based on a fairy tale or even a story normally intended for children. No, The Lion King is an adaptation of sorts of Shakespearean theatre, as well as influenced by biblical stories. The film takes place in Africa, meaning the animators and background artists stood before the momentous task of capturing the beauty of the continent - and boy did they deliver. In the opening musical sequence alone you know that you are in for a grand experience - The song "The Circle of Life" setting up the spiritual premise of the story along with the now iconic sunrise shot and later Rafiki holding the baby Simba over Pride Rock to the climax of the musical number makes that single sequence perhaps one of the most perfectly composed opening sequences of modern animation. 

Now, this movie is of course not all good things. Unfortunately the protagonist of the movie, the young lion cub Simba a bit two-dimensional and actually most of the lion characters are not all that interesting. With the obvious exception of our main villain Scar, one of the great Disney villains from the era. He does pander to a trope though, the sinister yet androgynous male villain - used in other Disney movies such as Pocahontas and Robin Hood. However, Scar is a character oozing of charisma and while his motivations may be shallow it doesn't take away from enjoying his presence on screen along with him having one of the best musical numbers of the picture - a fun fact though, Jim Cunnings had to stand in for Jeremy Irons who were the main voice actor for Scar. Irons had lost his voice singing part of the song, I really have a hard time distinguishing Cunnings from Irons though and that I applaud highly. The break away characters from the film was, as you may know, Timon and Pumbaa. Serving the purpose of lightening the mood from the drama of the story with some well-needed comedy from the protagonists side. Most of the comedy up till that point has been provided by the Hyenas who were villains and the bird Zazu, who's dry wit may only have worked for the adult audience.

I have to commend the animators part on the characters, you can almost see the acting style of the voice actors oozing through the characters they portray, this is especially apparent in the case of Zazu portrayed by Rowan Atkinson and the female hyena Shenzi voiced by Whoopi Goldberg. The animated characters do a lot of the work for voice actors so it is nice once in a while to see the two blend together so well. Another great animation feat was the computer generated stampede in the middle of the movie, I think everyone who's seen this as a child can picture this scene in their minds without even having to re-watch the movie.

Of course you can't really talk about this movie without mention the musical number "Can you feel the love tonight?", while actually not my favorite number of the piece (I prefer Circle of Life) there is no denying the greatness of this song. This song uses the music stylings of Elton John and Tim Rice coupling it with instruments traditionally used in African music. This goes along with the main score done by Hans Zimmer almost completely with african instruments. The song appears in the movie in two versions, during it's main sequence in the actual films sung by the actors playing Nala and Simba along with a choir and again during the movies credits with the main verses sung entirely by Elton John himself. 

Lion King is one of those movies that just work from top to bottom, somehow the creators have managed to add just the right ingredients to make a true animated ever-green. A spiritual tale of karma, along with a classic coming of age story with loss, love and taking responsibility for one's actions. The Lion King ended up being the high point of what is now known as the Disney Renaissance, an era started by The Little Mermaid and ending with Tarzan. An era all filled with great films in their own right, along with the former biggest Disney success, Beauty and The Beast.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Film: Wreck-It Ralph
Release: 2012, Theatrical
Starring: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch
Directed by: Rich Moore
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Wreck-It Ralph is the villain of a arcade game called Fix-It Felix Jr., on the 30th anniversary of his game console, Ralph starts reflecting on his role as a villain and vows to change

Hans' thoughts:

In the 1980's games were at a very different place than it is now. No, literally, home gaming was only just showing up so everyone were going to these mystical places called "arcades". I doubt a lot of kids today even want to go to one of these but to the people who grew up in those times, this was were you spent your allowance. If you had any. I'm from 1990 myself so around the time I was old enough to have enjoyed going to an arcade they were pretty much gone. So why am I telling you this? Well, because even though you may never had set foot in an arcade, you can actually relate to this story. This story is very much like Toy Story in that it's "what happens to the toys at night when the kids are sleeping" but also a bit like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, in that it has a lot of cameos from well-known franchises. Characters like Zangief, Q*bert and Kano all show up in this movie. For a short time anyway.

Thankfully however, this movie does not turn into "spot the character" as it could have. Instead of turning into a marketing ploy it actually has some compelling characters of it's own, playing in a pretty exciting story. The story is a pretty adult one, even if it is targeted towards kids. After 30 years of doing the same thing every day, the game villain Ralph goes on a soul searching journey to find out what it feels like to be a hero, if only just for a little while. Unfortunately, without it's villain the game he comes from can't really function and it stands in danger of being unplugged - the equivalent of armageddon in this universe.

Ralph is played like a very mellow person, he has a temper for sure but most of the time he just seems like he is the straight man to all the other characters antics. He's the audiences eyes after all, and he doesn't take anything too seriously. I have to admit that it took me a little bit to warm up to him, unlike the character Vanellope. Vanellope is most likely the popular character from this movie, she's a sassy little smart-ass who just wants to live out her greatest dream. Fix-It Felix is a very nervous guy like Ralph, but unlike Ralph he's also very conformed to the world he lives in - then again he's never really met any trouble and when he finally sees Ralph breaking out of character he has a hard time dealing with it. The last "main" character is the female officer from the game Hero's Duty, Calhoun. She's the stereotypical hard-ass female who just needs to find love again to warm up to people. All of the characters are archetypes for sure, but it feels appropriate since they're supposed to be characters defined by their role and their programming - a very meta comment about the state of character writing in the videogame industry.

Animation wise the movie is great, this could very well have been a Pixar movie judging by the quality but it's made by Disney's main studio. Being smooth as ever but as a nice homage to classic video games, some of the characters move in "jumps" like say, the bartender at the game tapters. On that note, seeing some of the classic video game characters reimagined in this artstyle was a nice little treat on the side. 

Wreck-It Ralph shows a lot of love for the subject material and it has some genuinely nice original content as well. The music is "digital" as it should be, and the meta gags combined with some pretty well done dramatic writing for a kids film just makes it all the better. 

Asterix versus Caesar (1985)

Film: Asterix Versus Caesar
Release: 1985, Theatrical
Starring: Roger Carel, Pierre Tornade, Serge Sauvion
Directed by: Gaëtan Brizzi, Paul Brizzi
Previous in the series: The Twelve Tasks of Asterix
Next in the series: Asterix in Britain
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When an overly ambitious recruit in the Roman Legion kidnaps the chief's niece and her fiancé, Asterix & Obelix are sent on an adventure to bring them back

Hans' thoughts:

In most of the Asterix movies, the roman empire is presented as sort of stock villains, being an all encompassing force that either controls or works with the main villain of the story. This is one of the stories where the Romans are actually the main event, being a constant source of peril throughout the story. 

Asterix Versus Caesar is actually an adaptation of two Asterix books, Asterix the Legionary and Asterix the Gladiator. The story takes most from Asterix the Legionary (though tweaking it), as the kidnapped ones in this case are Panacea and Tragicomix. In the original story, Tragicomix was actually drafted for the Roman army and sent to Africa, whereas the whole kidnapping part comes from Asterix The Gladiator, where the Romans kidnap the bard Cacofonix. Why they decided to mix these two particular stories together I don't know, other than the whole rescue mission angle the stories actually don't have all that much in common.

While this movie certainly doesn't do the source material any favors, rest assured that it's definitely a fun movie. The wít and charm of the comics are attempted here, with varying but mostly positive results. I also have to admit that this is the only Asterix movie I've seen where Caesar actually seems threatening. He's a threat in the other stories to be sure, but unlike most other stories he's not used that much for comedic effect. In this movie, the lack of presence during most of the movie, the idle threats followed by chuckles and the fact that he's got a pet panther running around just made him into such a sinister looming figure.

Overall though, this movie could have been so much better than it turned out to be considering the strong source material. A lot of the smiles of the comics are gone, as the movie has been given the "adult treatment" trying to make the audience take the movie more serious than they probably should. The best comparison I can come up with is the extreme change of tone between the two last Sam Raimi Spider-man Films. It's just too focused on a sense of drama that, in reality, doesn't have a place in this series. There are scenes where we follow the captives, and most of the time you will want the movie to go back to Asterix and Obelix instead of seeing Tragicomix being a stoic hero. There's a reason his name is what it is.

After this movie, Asterix would go back to have more focus on the comedic aspect of the series, the next in line being Asterix in Britain. As an experiment, this is a nice little movie but I have to admit that the fact that none of the other animated Asterix movies tried to focus on the "drama" that the series had a pinch of potential for makes me happy. It's hard to bash this movie, but I feel that most of that comes from the nostalgic value this has for me.

All in all this is one of the weaker Asterix movies, though still leagues ahead of some of the worst. If you don't really have a fondness for Asterix, you can give this a pass without missing out in much.

American Splendor (2003)

Film: American Splendor
Release: 2003, theatrical
Starring:  Paul Giamatti, Shari Springer Berman, Harvey Pekar
Directed by: Shari Springer Berman, Robert Pulcini
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Harvey is a world-weary, sarcastic man with a failing second marriage and a sore throat when everything comes crumbling down around him, wanting some sort of outlet for his day to day annoyances, he starts writing comic books.

Hans' thoughts:

American Splendor is fun movie. The main character, Harvey Pekar, oozes of sarcasm and world weariness in such a way that it actually adds to the movie's charm. We follow him from just before he starts making comics, till after his struggle with a serious illness. All the while the movie is occasionally interrupted and narrated by the actual Harvey Pekar. The first thing that pops out when you watch the movie is the style. The movie is made like a comic book, having tekst boxes and bubbles occur every now and then for comedic effect. The weird time skipping style of interrupting the movie with a short presentation by the actual person being presented also gives the movie a cozy feel, like you're actually hanging out with the people this movie is about, hearing their tale. It also cements how well represented the people in the movie actually are, giving others than Pekar himself a chance to say something directly to the audience. The movie is of course somewhat based on the comic book of the same name, American Splendor. It's an autobiographical comic book where the characters in the comic are people the writer actually met and interacted with on a daily basis. Making this movie also a fairly personal piece. 

What I like this movie most for, is the way it presents it's characters. It makes a point saying that just because you aren't a fictional character, it doesn't mean that you don't have something that makes you unique. Not in the sappy way, but more in the way that yes - good character writing actually comes from writers basing it on their own interactions with actual people. The movie is about how interesting normal life can actually be, and as the characters state countless times: In real life, everything doesn't end up hunky dory. There'll always be something worth complaining about, all you really have to do is learn how to deal with it. 

A bittersweet film yes, but a funny one as well. Taking a lot of things that people may take for granted and putting them in the spotlight. Granted, this form of comedy is not for everyone. The atmosphere may be too simple and quiet for people used to more over reactionary forms of storytelling. Thus, this movie doesn't have a major goal the characters have to achieve, some high tragedy they try to overcome or even really, all that much in the way of an ending. But that's what's so good about it, it's honesty. To a lot of people, life is nothing but a series of happy and sad events, that doesn't mean it's meaningless though. This is what this movie seems to convey, to me at least.

Spartacus (1960)

Film: Spartacus
Release: 1960, Theatrical
Starring: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, John Gavin and Tony Curtis
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 73 BC, the slave Spartacus is bought by the owner of a gladiator school. However, when a slave starts revolting during a battle in the ring, Spartacus becomes inspired to lead one of the most legendary uprisings in ancient history.

Hans' thoughts:

When Kirk Douglas was denied the role of Ben-Hur, he decided to spit in the faces of the team behind it with his own ancient era epic: Spartacus! Made in a time where Hollywood movies where not only long, one of their main selling points was sheer spectacle this colossus of a movie must've been one of the most expensive movies of it's day. No surprise then, that Douglas hired a young (at the time) unknown director to steer the movie. I'm of course talking about Stanley Kubrick: A man whose directing style would later become one of the most recognizable in the industry. In this movie however, he is kept very much on a leash and he later moved to have his name struck from the movie - though his efforts never bore fruit. Indeed, his name has title billing on my personal copy of it.

Spartacus is a beast of a movie, 3 hours and 17 minutes in length (including overture, intermission and entr'acte) it is quite the overtaking for modern audiences to actually decide to sit down and watch this thing. One might ask if it was entirely necessary to not make the aforementioned three things merely an option rather than the standard on the blu-ray release. But I digress. Actually, in spite of the movie's very long running time, it seems well spent. There's not a single scene that I would've removed.

Watching modern movies for the most part, it's astonishing how much care and detail was put into movies at the time. The sets are HUGE, and much care was put into details that most people probably didn't even see. Things such as making the sets actually look like they were made out of marble. A lot of credit also goes to the outdoor locations, as the beautiful settings combine with an incredible number of walk-ons in costumes makes you wonder about how much patience the director of photography and his crew must've had to pull this off. 

Speaking of photography, it is very refreshing to see the amount of color this movie has. Where as many movies today rely on filters and lighting to help actors convey the emotions to the audience, this movie leaves all the work to the actors signifying (perhaps not on purpose) that the world around doesn't turn dark and gray just because you happen to feel bad. Instead, we have a great bombastic score to help with the connotation on the visuals of the movie. 

Acting wise we have a lot of big names running about. Kirk Douglas as the stalwart Spartacus does a good job to show a man who has seen mostly darkness in his life but nevertheless is able to gather the strength to fight back. Honestly, the movie does a very good job of portraying the legend of Spartacus, bittersweet as it may be. Also, you should probably refrain from using this movie for history studying, as it is less than accurate. Indeed, while most of the names for the characters are taken from real people, they lived at different points in time. Marcus Licinius Crassus died in the 50's BC whereas Gracchus, his rival in the senate in the movie, had died much sooner in the 120's BC. Meaning the two men never met in reality. 

Speaking of Gracchus, I'd like to highlight Charles Laughton as MVP of the movie. Playing an awarely corrupt, yet reserved senator. He knows he has a lot of vices, but doesn't hide by the main villains claim of ultimate patriotism. Instead wanting to enjoy the pleasures in life, while doing his job unambiguously. 

The weakest actor in the movie, though still very talented in her own right was Jean Simmons as Varinia, the female lead. This is mostly due to her giving completely into the damsel in distress persona. Not trying to add a little fire to a character who was probably written that way in the screenplay. I know that you can't do much against a screenplay and a director, but certain deliveries of lines could've been tweaked in favor of the characters apparent independence. 

Overall I'll say that I was very impressed with this movie, However the long running time and the bittersweet tone of the movie combined with a slow build-up may bore modern audiences used to a more fast-paced version of entertainment. For the rest of us I say: Dedicate an afternoon to this movie, you will likely be entertained. Perhaps a bit richer for the experience.

Drive (2011)

Film: Drive
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring:  Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A young man works as a stunt driver and a mechanic. On the side he makes extra money as a getaway driver for criminals.

Hans' thoughts:

This is one of those movies that I had to force myself to sit through, Not because it's bad but because this is a very slow movie. You get the atmosphere of driving home in the dark, the radio only playing low beat music and everyone in the car being way too tired to tired to strike a conversation. Or if you're on your way home alone from a night out with friends, sitting in a mostly empty bus. That kind of feeling. I really couldn't explain it better than that. 

Explanations are actually something this movie doesn't spend a lot of time on. If you don't pay attention, you might miss out on vital information. It takes the notion of show don't tell way too far in my opinion. It is indeed, not a movie for the masses. Relying heavily on it's soundtrack, on the lighting and the expressions on the characters. In that regard, this is actually a great movie. But alas, it is an art piece and not something I would recommend for the sake of mere entertainment. It would go well in a media classroom, or in front of someone who already has a vested interest in film.

There is something to be said for the plot though, it tries it best to go against conventions and be it's own thing. What at first seems like an artsy remake of Transporter turns out to have so much going for it. Again, if you're actually into movies as a vested interest instead of just idle entertainment. This I imagine, is a movie that's divided critics and the wide audience pretty clean cut. Of course, being more artsy than for general audiences isn't a failure. There a plenty of great movies that 'normal' people wouldn't give 5 minutes of their time. However, I feel that explaining away lack of entertainment value with "this is not for these certain types of people" would be me failing as a critic. Is it a good movie? Yes! It's great! Actually I would call it a modern masterpiece. But there is not much enjoyment to be found here, and that is a fault - intended audience be damned.

The Conspirator (2010)

Film: The Conspirator
Release: 2010, Theatrical
Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline
Directed by: Robert Redford
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 1865, The young attorney Frederick Aiken is given his first case - defending one of the accused conspirators of the murder of Abraham Lincoln, and a plot to kill his vice-president and the secretary of state.

Hans' thoughts:

These last few years, the Civil War and every subject surrounding it has been a popular thing to put on the silver screen. Among others were three separate Lincoln biography movies (two of which were purely fantasy), a cowboy revenge movie about slavery, and this. This movie quickly sets a somber tone, the first ten minutes are the conspirators to kill the president being rounded up, and an reenactment of the death of John Wilkes Booth in a burning barn (yes, that actually happened). Our main characters are the young attorney Frederick Aiken, just returned from fighting in the civil war as a captain on the side of the Union and Mary Surratt, the only female accused.

In a way, this movie reminded me of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It had the same basic premise, a critical attorney is made to defend an accused that seems guilty by any stretch of their imagination but becomes more and more turned to believe the client is innocent while both parties learn something about themselves in the process. The movie even had Tom Wilkinson running around, making the connection even harder to abstain from. Actually, recalling every movie I've seen about attorneys, this was pretty formulaic.

The tone of the movie, as well as the injustices the characters face makes it hard not to make the connection between the events of the movie and the aftermath of 9/11, with a lot of civil liberties being set aside for the sake of revenge in war times and the atmosphere that was in the air in the time. Indeed, the kind of atmosphere that shows up after every massive tragic event. People make up their minds about the ones involved, demonizing everything without knowing the complete picture. A subject matter the Danish movie The Hunt also tackled recently albeit in a much darker and emotionally draining way. This is of course, free association. But the connection definitely feels accurate.

However, by the standards of these types of movies this was executed perfectly. It presented the historical events that was the movie's subject matter in a simple but compelling way, teaching about the reality of the case. If a bit preachy at certain points. The movie is just historically accurate enough to not suck out the entertainment value of the film. I'd wager a lot of people could get curious about the events after watching this movie - so in that regard, it does it's job. As I said though, the movie can get a bit preachy at points, making the other side of the case seem almost cartoonishly evil at points. This movie has a message to tell, and at times it can get a bit desperate to make sure we get the point.