There is a lot of hair going on in this film. I may or may not be overdoing this, but I must say: “Heavy Trip” has become appealing to me because of the unique charms of every man in the band and all the hair flipping.

Contrary to its title, heavy trip has taken me to places my imagination could only aspire to reach. The movie was campy but comic in a hearty way. The relationships showcased in the film were fragile, familiar and relatable, so much so that I just wanted nothing but the best for the main characters [the Impaled Rektum]. They were rockstars, yes, but their characters seemed innocent, passionate and so loving (contrary to their dark, leather clad looks) that as a viewer, you just wish they have a happy ending.

I must say, Laation and Vidgren have made good choices when it comes to comic timing and pop culture references. A particular moment that shone for me was that point where they came out of the water to find people ‘hanged’ on crosses. It was an exciting time during the film because you never really know if it’s true and what is about to happen. I never expected it to be this funny for a Finnish film, especially because I have never seen one, but “Heavy Trip” has this capacity to lift your spirits up. It talks, at least for me, of how the dreams you dream to achieve may not always come in the form you wanted it to take on but it will take form if you work to achieve it, and that’s all that matters.

The film was also eye candy to me. At certain points, like that time when Turo was on his bike and the camera would focus on him, it’s as if I am watching a video to some slow romantic theme and he is about to burst into song. This kind of minute attention to detail had me reeled in. And of course the long hair did the magic!

I also want to express my appreciation on how the film touched on sensitive areas of discussion like discrimination based on looks, origin or mental condition, as well as loyalty, love, and above all friendship. I could not have chosen a more fitting way to end the semester. In the end, “Heavy Trip” has become one of those films I think would be great to show to younger audiences to raise their hopes on their dreams, while keeping them hooked and eager to see what’s about to happen. That said, I will definitely watch this film again when I have time.

This film had me all over the place. Hans Weingartner made a great gamble when he used three idealistic people as main characters to a film called “The Edukators.” These kinds of films, almost like documentaries usually end up being didactic and obtrusive because they tend to tell the audiences what to do and what not to do explicitly. This film, on the other hand, utilized absurdity to bring out the very points they wish to be discussed critically. 

The three main characters we see, a group of friends going around and “punishing” people, are found engaging proactively on political activism. Viewed from the lens of funny, risky, and unabashed breaking of the law in the name of ideals, we see three youngsters living their best lives. That was until one of those bourgeoisie people whose house they were ransacking walked into them in the middle of the act. It’s as if they were deers caught in the headlight, getting a taste of their own medicine because they learn at that moment that they won’t always be right in their choices. At the moment, we see the camera move like it is one with the group in panic, which is interesting because it means the director knows how to make the camera act in sync with the scene. 

I may have also found myself out of breath following the subtitles [because I cannot speak the language] but I was still hooked by the rollercoaster of emotions that is this film. Aside from the political activism angle, which led to them having to isolate themselves in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, there were other perspectives utilized that made the film more compelling. Perhaps the best example would be the palpable tension between the three because of the budding relationship and cheating that happened between the girlfriend and the other guy friend. Funny enough, the old man who was supposedly the hostage, became so relatable because he ended up being a spectator to the mess that is unfolding before his eyes. It became problem on problem on problem for the three kids, which forced them away from each other for a while. Beat by their friendship, the kidnappers ended up ‘getting back together’ as a gang in forgiveness of each other. Their attention then refocuses to the hostage they have taken away form his home to ‘teach a lesson.’ 

Fascinatingly enough, the old man cooperated well in most of the things he was asked to do. He had barely any attempts to escape, probably because he knew it would all be over soon anyway. Although happening in a homogenous world, with the usual continuous and chronological narrative, the film had surprisingly made a huge impact on me as a person. That last scene made me think of the level of trust we have in our own system and politics in our own context. It also made ma ask myself how come the youth in my own context are not as idealistic and not as proactive in manifesting those ideals. Anyway, the film ended on a high note with that paper making me hope that the man had kept his promise to the youth. 

If I am to comment on this heck of an entertaining viewing experience, I only have this to say: Well done. 

“Raw” has left me nothing but dumbfounded. I am struck. I was literally at a loss for words after seeing it and to be honest, there were literally times when I would . As I saw the title, I honestly thought this would be some ratchet horror or thriller film but I did not know that I was in for a treat. The way the film was colored, constructed and developed gave off the vibe that it was like one of those local, indie films that you have already seen somewhere. But I have never been more wrong. 

It started out fresh and easy with an opening that portrays what it is like to be a vet student in that gory institution where Justine and her sister were studying. There was a lot of blood involved, which did not really sit well with my stomach. However, the film packed amazingly transitioned and devised jaw-droppers [especially that first time Justine bit off flesh from someone else]. This movie comes a close second to “Holy Motors” when it comes to shock factor. Because the film showcased something so absurd, that is the act of human eating raw flesh from fellow humans, I found myself laughing, cringing, and crying at the same time. “Raw” has made it possible for me to stick around watching a movie I am so utterly disgusted by, despite the many opportunities to do so. I think this movie is an experience in itself and becomes more enjoyable to watch when in groups. This is precisely because the movie really brings out the different ways people take in concepts as absurd as was shown in the film and how they respond to it. 

Justine, while showing animalistic tendencies as she suffered in pain, also packed so much sensuality to narrative. Throughout the course of the movie, I found that a lot of scenes involved human touch, interaction—push and pulls, attempts to resist temptation, and the many opportunities to succumb to their desires [or better yet, cravings]. It was violent in a way that Justine had to inflict harm upon herself just to be able to protect the people around her and not eat them or their parts off, which proved compelling to me as an audience. It speaks so much of the sacrificial pains we humans have to go through everyday because the very nature of our relationship requires us to experience so. 

The familial involvement also made an impact on me especially during that last confrontation scene with the dad, where he admitted to having an understanding of what his two girls were undergoing. Justine and her sister also showed an unmistakable bond in spite of their grave differences, so much so that the kind of forgiveness when given and asked of them, is the kind that has high stakes. Docournau did these female characters justice as she gave them very complex personas, instead of turning them into mere decorations. Now, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the way the film was shot., scored or colored. The camera seemed like an all-seeing eye, without being obtrusive. The characters unique and charming, but they hooked me enough to allow myself to appreciate their motivations and inclinations. Overall, “Raw” is a fantastic serve.

I could not have made sense of Vigalondo’s attempt to show the repercussions of playing with time until there were multiple Hectors on screen in “Timecrimes.” The film was set in what seemed like a timeless location. The characters featured were very ordinary people, a couple, living a very ordinary life in a quaint neighborhood. That was until we see the man sat on a reclining chair with his binoculars, looking intently at a distance only to find out that there is a whole new story unfolding right before his eyes. His curiosity leads him [and us viewers along the way] to follow and trace the steps of the shadow he saw through the lenses. The narrative is a bit slow-paced for me and I felt a level of impatience as I waited to make sense of what was happening and what was going to happen. Personally, I am not a big fan of how the story unfolded not because it was objectively unappealing. It’s just that the way the narrative was laid out brought me more confusion than interest. I would normally want to see films like these through the end but I realized I ended up watching and sticking around just to see the story through.

I would give props, however, to the actors. The performances were brilliant especially for the actor who played Hector because I could clearly see the difference in the way he portrays every version of Hector. There was a Hector who was eager to learn what was really happening, a Hector that seemed to me like a creep, a Hector that had just made sense of the repercussions of one’s addictive inclination to change one’s past actions through a device/machine. They all had their own worlds and so the story did not revolve a homogenous world, at least from what I understood. I have come to develop contrasting feelings to the way the women’s characters were developed and portrayed in the film. They were showcased as weak, dependent, victims of the choices made by the male lead character. I, for example, squirmed at how easily the young lady so easily surrendered to masked Hector’s commands [although I acknowledge that it’s hard to say no when a gun is pointed at you]. She could have resisted or done something but the way she acted turned her into an accessory in the story of the guy. The operator in the tower house proved pivotal in the film. To some extent, I considered him the voice of reason in the film, albeit there were moments when I found him to be didactic. 

Technically speaking, there is nothing spectacular of “Timecrimes.” It was shot in a way that film are ideally shot, the colors and the scoring of the film corresponded to the storyline, the setting was nothing out of the ordinary, and the sci-fi part [the time travelling part] was not peculiar. Genre-wise, it came off as a thriller with a hint of sci-fi. Again, nothing new or out of the ordinary when it comes to film, but overall I do appreciate the attempt of the film to highlight how a man’s choice has its ripple effects and there is definitely no way to go but forward [otherwise, it would be chaos]. After all, “Timecrimes” dwelt okay with unpredictability. 

T

To this day, if I’m being honest, there’s still a part of me that wonders if Trolls are real or not. That disclaimer in the beginning really confused me, because it said the footages recovered were actually true. I was hooked in the idea until I saw the [pretty decently] edited CGI trolls, where I started asking, are these footages really try or was the film staged in and stylized in a way that it looks like a documentary series of hunting down trolls. Apart from that, the film had a particular moment that pinches the heart. Hans, the guys who kills trolls, moved me when he remorsefully recalled how [because of the nature of his job] he had to kill women and children trolls—speaking volumes to the humans watching it. I am not a fan of shaky editing but for this film, I loved how the shots looked like they were shot by a cameraman, running, chasing and part of the story just as the protagonists are part of the story. It’s an interesting piece to watch and it gives humanity to something that we never would’ve thought we could pick some learning from—trolls. 

Holy Motors

To say that “Holy Motors” is a great film would be to undermine the wonderful experience that it is. This episodic tale of how a man transforms from a character to another has set the bar high for me when it comes to the films that I watch. Equipped with heavy costume changes and set designs, the film (although set in a homogenous world) seems to take you to another dimension along with the change of Mr. Oscar’s costumes. It was a thriller. I loved how each costume change feel like another movie on its own. I appreciated how meta the film is, as it seemed to showcase the difficulties, nuances and complexities of acting and cinematic creation in itself. I also personally loved the mysterious quality (i.e. the model’s non-reaction and chillness as Mr. Oscar, clad in prosthetics and tattered clothing, abducted him from the photoshoot) to it because it hooked me and kept me watching until the very last bit of the film. I appreciate the scenes that made me think and the parts where I couldn’t understand what was going on, because like I said in class I don’t you always have to understand everything in a film. In a way, “Holy Motors” opened my eyes to the extremes man could reach to portray and realize his artistic sensibilities and it resonated with me as a theater person. 

Goodbye, Lenin 

This could-have-been plain, old, boring historical movie, Goodbye Lenin, moved me to tears as it showcased the delicateness and fragility of human relationships. I am personally a sucker for films that dabble on topics such as family, personal ties and social reality. I thought the movie showcased all of it and integrated each aspect in a very subtle, unobtrusive manner. Some films on history would just feel so didactic, I wouldn’t want to watch it. But Goodbye, Lenin intertwined history with the personal narrative of a family—it showcased how much the transition from a communist society to a western-influenced society would influence the lives of families back then. The symbolisms, like the concrete sculpture of lenin being flown away by the helicopter just as the woman went out of the house for the first time AND that coca cola ad, were really iconic and strikingly comic. The film also highlighted the extremes people would be willing to go just to protect their family and be able to safeguard the lives of their own, even at the expense of truth. Additional complement goes to the colorization of the film. It was altogether a wonderful ride and I would watch it again just to be able to pay attention to the small details in the film. 

Documented to feel like episodes, “The Five Obstructions” took the experience of watching films to an almost cathartic level. Albeit a documentary film, the movie has shown an evident experimentation with the way it was created and to be consumed. Jorgen Leth was posed with challenging obstructions given by Lars von Trier. As a viewer, I did not know where the film was leading. At first it seemed like an endless cycle of von Trier giving obstructions, Leth creating an above average  version of his original work—seemingly to the disappointment of von Trier. I knew von Trier had some goal in kind in pushing Leth to his limits, as was indicated per episode. I, however, didn’t expect that this was going to be more than just filmmaking and that the film would affect me this much. I was rattled, abruptly snapped out of my immersion into the length of the film. As von Trier revealed through a phone call that his challenges were for Leth to realize it’s fine to not always make a perfect, flawless version of his work, I realized that this is true for all of us. I found myself empathizing with Leth in his difficulty because I too, often crave perfection. “The Five Obstructions” was a fresh offering as it not only broke the conventional way of making film, it also had an element of unpredictability to it since it is up to Leth to decide how the narrative will be wrapped up. It takes patience to watch such films but since it was filmed as if from a spectator point of view, it is inevitable to find interesting points and angles to talk about. 

Raw, honest, truthful. This is L’Avventura in three words, for me. The Italian film was easy on the eyes, just as its characters were. The meat of the film delved with the complexity and limitless capacity of love to push people to move, act, and bend in ways one would never have thought of. As someone who has never been in the position of Claudia, I found it odd that I am able to relate to her plight to a certain extent. It was unsettling. My objective self would think that the film is romanticizing cheating and diminishes the value of loyalty. However, I also understood where the two characters came from. It wouldn’t normally make sense to me how one would be able to forgive a partner who cannot say he loves her properly and fully, a partner who cheats, but after this, I now see how love is not as easy as we perceive it to be. Maybe it is possible to forgive someone despite the pain, if you truly love the person—and perhaps there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t even know, honestly. I can’t judge Claudia and Sandro. I can only say that they were honest in depicting love and that the movie unfolded ever so beautifully, that such sensitive topic became easy to consume with an open heart. Props to the writers and the actors. The 2 hours and 23 minutes of L’Avventura was quite an adventure indeed.

Persona still haunts me weeks after viewing it. The 1966 psychological film has a twisted way of arousing feelings and emotions from the viewer, almost similar [but not quite] to how horror films utilize images, sounds, and scene shifts. As I watched the movie, I found myself feeling on guard, anticipating a jump scare or a shocking event to take place in between the lingering silences and quietness of the movie. The film gave me a sense of anxiousness, making me feel like quitting the viewing while also making me anticipate what is supposed to happen next. The characters were so dynamic, especially the two female leads (the actress and the woman taking care of her). Their isolation highlighted the contrast of their personalities. The actress attentively and eerily listened, her silence deafening, while the other woman showed vulnerability so much so that I felt scared for her. The actress was unpredictable, her stares filled with secrets and dangerous, even sexual intentions. Meanwhile, the woman taking care of her seemed to be bending and adapting to the way the actress silently manipulates her into talking. It was mind-boggling. To be honest, I did not really make sense of the film in its entirety but it did make sense. To me, it’s ass if they were taking on ‘masks’—personas—that makes them think, feel, and act in very unpredictable ways. Technically speaking, the play of shadows and silhouettes in black and white stood out for me. The scenes were simple but the way they were framed and captured added to the psychedelic, twisted effect that leaves the audience clamoring for more. Personally, I do not like rewatching films, but this one is an exception for I feel like every time you watch it, there is a new meaning you just ought to discover.

153726