Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

"Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" deserves a review as complex and long as its title, for which I don't really have the time... It's the third movie by Martin McDonagh after "In Bruges" and "Seven Psychopats", and what we have here is directly comparable with the previous. Still, if in the first we had a dark comedy with a dramatic ending, in the second the proportions were somehow equal, here the drama is much more present. You still get the same traces of dark humor, but the movie is much more harsh and credible despite many critics that I heard on the fact that there are parts of script which don't make sense. The story: A woman from a small town in Missouri, whose daughter is raped and murdered, decides after something like 8 months during which the local police didn't get any track to "counterattack" with a protest displayed on 3 billboards. The immediate result is the public dismay on her nerve of accusing the local sheriff of not doing his job in a context where the guy's sick with cancer and close to dying. Starting from this, the issue escalates, or to quote the movie: "All this anger, man, it just begets greater anger.".

The script, as weird as it might look in some places, is typical for McDonagh and excellently built reusing an "unknown author" motive seen from different angles, and typically coming as a surprise element. It's either revealing of something you don't know (spoilers: who paid for the second month of billboards, who burnt the first boards, or even who is the author of the murder) or revealing something you know but to an unknowingly character (other spoilers: who burnt the police station, or again... who's the killer). What else to say: Sam Rockwell, who for me seems to play pretty much the same part everywhere, here does the best of his career - and the part of the "ultra politically correct" critic who's blaming the movie for glorifying in the ending a racist person, is as stupid as the idea of "politically correct" criticism for an artistic product - especially given the context where we have a clear idea and message of "people can change". The camera work is not exceptional but there are some frames where you can remark a sort of finesse (an example: the whole throwing out the window scene). The score brings a "Coen Brothers" feeling, which comes naturally being written by Carter Burwell who's typically also working with them.

It's probably the most powerful movie as impact/sent message which I've seen in this "Oscar" season, despite or maybe actually because the comic approach on top of the drama part. Besides the above mentioned, maybe the very essence you're left with is the unpredictable human surprise factor = you can expect something bad from somebody good or vice versa, otherwise said, with isolated exceptions, there's not much white or black in this life, but many and diverse shades of grey.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

PS - extra big spoilers ahead: Some night when I couldn't sleep I made the mistake to look over a reddit thread on this movie, and as condescending it may sound it confirmed me again that the average IQ of the American public is somewhere... let's better not say. So, normally I'm not doing this, but in this situation I sort of feel obliged to explain some so-called stupid details in the script (leaving aside the fact that in a dark comedy you should not expect something 100% believable, but well, for the purists...): 1) how the hell can you have such a big extinguisher in your car with you? well... after your child is set on fire, maybe you do; 2) how stupid is that the local police doesn't investigate who burned their building? who says they don't? the woman had an alibi and she's temporarily spared, it's enough to skip this part in the movie; 3) BIG spoiler - the real killer issue: the movie doesn't have an ending/two people leave to kill some falsely assumed murderer/etc., etc. - I say that the movie has a perfect eding, but well, that's my own personal take on it - a) first of all the killer is the assumed one, despite negating the DNA evidence and his presence at that time in the country, it still all seems like a cover-up story - if you're paying attention there are at least three elements in the final dialogue between Dixon and the new local sheriff: the latter starts by saying to the first that he did a good job investigating in the context of him being fired and even if immediately after he denies the result; it's repeated for several times that "the commanding officer" offered a cover/alibi and more details are classified, apparently making the suspect untouchable; finally the one who leaves the badge on the desk is Dixon disappointed of the whole thing, not the sheriff who seems actually willing to offer him a chance of returning to work and b) even so, the ending is somehow apparently open, the two left to get their own justice not being 100% certain of what's next - the "shades of grey" ;) ...

In Order of Disappearance (2014)

... or "Kraftidioten" in the original version of the title, is another revenge thriller, as the last post, but this time in a different packaging having a consistent taint of dark comedy a la Coen brothers. I had before reviews for movies made in Norway, and unlike the more eastern neighbors these generally were too dry/cold to give a lasting impression. This time is one of the few exceptions ...

Nils Dickman is an immigrant from ... Sweden who made a career in ... driving a snow plow somewhere in Norway, reaching the level of winning the "man-of-the-year" title from the local community. This peaceful life is torn apart one day by a police call announcing his son's death following an overdose. And this brings a storm to Nils' life (no pun intended). Depressed and not getting how this happened since his son didn't do drugs Nils starts drinking, getting close to a suicide attempt. His wife blames him for ignoring their son's issues and leaves. But somehow in the end the truth is found ... (well, the movie actually starts with that) = the overdose was not a voluntary act but executed as an order of a local mobster involved in drug dealing. And from here, well ... "the revenge story" ...

It's not actually much of a story, but the movie is extremely well supported by the build-up of the characters and the acting. Nils slowly advances in the hierarchy of the local dealers up to the two groups controlling the area. And we have here a vegan sociopath obsessed by cleaning and terrorized by his former wife and an old Serb (played exceptionally by a Bruno Ganz mimicking Marlon Brando) who has the unfortunate idea to hire his youngest son as a mule. Basically all the dark humor comes from short interactions and from the weird situations placed in what seems to be a normal life context. It reminded me a bit of Martin McDonagh's "In Bruges" and "Seven Psychopats". That's pretty much what we have here too ...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Relatos Salvajes (2014)

The only problem of "Relatos Salvajes" (aka "Wild Tales") is that it's not a movie. It's six of them. A collection of shorts with a shared theme: revenge. Generally expressed directly, maybe with one exception. But even there the payback urge stays close to come out loud ...

The movie starts with an intro of about 10 minutes. Which is not really the intro. Is the first story in the set (the shortest one). And at the same time can be considered a sort of promo: "buy the rest" of "switch the channel". For me was more than enough to sell what follows. I would even say I liked it most out of the six pieces. And without exaggerating, it competes to the title of "best first 10 minutes of a movie I've ever seen". I won't give any spoiler about it or on what's following. Like I said, the topic is revenge, in plenty of forms and approaches: premeditated, spontaneous, favored by context, direct, indirect, ... I think almost everything is covered. Don't expect though something as complex as "Count of Monte-Cristo". We're talking about 6 shorts. Which, given the differences probably can't please in equal measure the viewer. Probably that's the "big" minus, which is obviously complemented by the plus that you'll enjoy at least one or two of the tales.

What was catchy for me in "Relatos Salvajes" is the wittiness of the script that stays consistent throughout the six pieces. Well ... in some cases you might get what follows from half-time onwards, but the ending is usually quite extreme, and you probably won't be able to anticipate it from the start. Besides that, there's also the genre. You won't be able to say what you're watching, but it's not something bad. Is it a drama or a dark comedy? The alternation is so well integrated that's transparent. And to make it more effective, the script is supplemented consistently by the movie making side. The editing is brilliant, and the sound the same. If you plan to see this, watch closely the re-encounter scene in story no. 3 and also don't miss the "highway soundtrack". It's something like a Tarantino scene there. Or in the last story, check out the storm in the back-end seen from the roof. Maybe all these are elements that might escape the eye, but show how careful is all this put together.

As said in the beginning the only problem is that we don't have one movie here, but six. As light spoiler, I did wait up to the end to be given a connecting line between the stories. I didn't get one. Except the common theme. Which, to reference again "Monte Cristo", doesn't seem in the end to have the same appeal here as in the classic approaches. You don't really get to feel very empathic with a character. Probably because every story serves also as cold dish the negative effect of a payback attempt. Or, somehow between the lines, the movie tries to tell you that in real life revenge is not an option :) ...
Rating: 4 out of 5

Den brysomme mannen (2006)

Busy month ... I'm gonna shorten the entry again, but at least now I have a movie option. "Den brysomme mannen" aka "The Bothersome Man" is a sort of dark comedy, with some surreal nuances a la Terry Gilliam, and which leaves a feeling of "unfinished" from one end to another ...

The movie has a pretty original start that's catchy enough to get you hooked for a while. After a short scene showing a man apparently jumping in front of a subway tram, the guy is presented as sole passenger in a bus which drops him in front of a hut in the middle of a wasteland. Where another guy ... after wrapping up a handmade "Welcome" banner leads the newcomer to his new residence. An apartment in a grey city, with people pretty much as grey, but apparently fully satisfied with their life. Well, for the new guy in town this doesn't seem to work. Ok ... enough with the details, or I'll end the movie.

I'll stick to the opinion that I'm on a total different wavelength than Norway's cinema. I keep trying periodically, but it doesn't work. If I remember well, the previous experience was "Hodejegerne" which I almost liked .. in the circumstances where the subject and the trailer were promising something certain for my typical preferences. Maybe my brain is just too wrecked these days to digest (again, in pieces, with breaks between) an attempt for an afterlife allegory, heaven vs. hell, or whatever was meant to represent what I've watched. I can't complain it wasn't original, but I can complain that it was as every production made there, just too dry for my taste.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Ravenous (1999)

Considering that I'm writing about the movie based on some far memories, I don't know how much I'll miss or not, and forgive please the (probably) chaotic order of the following. I hope I'll catch the essence though, since I've seen the movie around seven times throughout the last 13 years. Also, during this time I reached the conclusion that's a movie which either you like a lot, or not at all. I don't know if I've met somebody to tell me that it was "so and so", and if I would count the opinions for the plus and minus sides, they're probably evenly split. It's a horror, but with a less touched subject - cannibalism - handled in a context and in a way which maybe surprisingly make the topic more "digestible" :) (no pun intended). Because the movie goes a bit more far in essence getting beyond the surface theme. It starts that with the intro taken from Nietzsche "He who fights with monsters must be careful not to become one" which, ironically, probably remains the only part connected to his philosophical ideas that's not attacked by the movie. I actually should give credit for this insight to some blog entry I've read once, I don't know where, that was debating in detail the subject "Nietzsche vs. Ravenous" :). Because the movie, besides the horror nuance it's a fine satire on the human condition, and more specifically targeting the importance of life. Probably it doesn't say much what I've written until now, but I hope at least I managed to generate some curiosity to who's reading, so let me drop a couple words also on the subject itself ;) ...

The action is set at some point in the middle of the 19th century. Following the "bravery" shown during the Mexican-American war - to be read: hiding under a pile of corpses, and managing to victoriously survive an impossible situation - John Boyd (Guy Pearce) avoids getting sentenced for deserting by being advanced to captain and getting sent to fill up the army personnel detached on an isolated fort, somewhere in the mountains before a passage to California. So, with a moral like it would've been better to get killed in battle, he joins the group of seven inhabitants at the place - 5 army members and 2 civilians, each weirder than the other. During a cold winter night the fort's "calmness" is disturbed by a guy who's more dead than alive (Robert Carlyle), frozen, who after getting on his feet starts telling a grim story. So, we find out about a trip to California ended badly by getting lost in mountains, and topped by the hunger effects on the travelers group. Our frozen guy apparently escaped before getting to be the main course during the next dinner. The rest of the story, in the movie ;) ...

Besides the acting, which is superb in building up the characters, something to be noticed in the movie is the soundtrack - Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman, which is probably one of the best and in the same time interesting scores ever made for a horror. I would even say it's on par with the masterpiece you can hear in Hitchcock's "Psycho", although the effect it creates is totally different. Hard to describe, you need to see and hear it.

The horror nuance is probably given, besides the general dark theme, by the bloody scenes, which are plenty, but we don't have anything extreme (as in "Saw" to give the "classic" example). At least for me it's not a movie to generate nightmares or to make you jump from the chair. More, the satire and the comic (even dark and grim as it is) relax the movie almost completely in respect to the "terror effect". Besides that, as I was saying, the movie's idea is a bit deeper and revolves around the motivation for living (or the lack of it), the price for that, and why paying it. I'll refrain from getting into philosophy right now, especially since I don't have the movie very fresh in my head, but it's not a title to take easy just as entertainment. In particular, there are plenty of details, from the used symbolism to lines lost in the context when you see it first, but which you might discover at a second view. As example, the fort commander breaks nuts with some books (I guess) in the beginning of the movie and with his bare hands in the end. This is just something going on in parallel with some conversation carried. The sense connects with the character state and also with some lines at those given points in the timeline, and I don't think you'll normally get the nuts detail from the 1st viewing. There are more like this one. I don't know how much is from the script (Ted Griffin) but the directing by Antonia Bird was flawless. It's the only movie I've seen by her, and since I've found out that she recently passed away, I felt the need to give some credit for who, at least for me, gave the best horror of the '90s. For the reader .. you might hate it, you might love it, I don't know ;)

Rating: 5 out of 5

A soundtrack sample, on movie scenes ( or 4 minutes compressing all the bloody moments :) ) ..
The final scene (Warning ! = major spoiler, but it's the best clip quality wise that I found, although it doesn't catch much from the merits of this movie) ..
And a perspective on the movie from when was done by the people involved (unfortunately embedding disabled, so you need one more click) ..

Fase 7 (2011)

The difference from usual zombie movies is that here you don't have anymore the horror part = in this case "the infection" leads shortly to "(cough) .. I think I'm sick .. (double cough) .. I've seen flying U45XWS9C6QT2 .. MMmmm... me dizzy .. (triple cough) .. sAkJDS9mas .. bye bye, cruel world" without any other violent manifestations caused specifically by the disease. For who has already watched "Rec" (or "Rec 2" .. or "Quarantine" which is the U.S. remake), "Fase 7" is pretty easy to describe. It's an Argentinian production (so, also in Spanish to make it even more similar) in which you have pretty much the same "setup" - let's say at least 90% of it = a block of flats set in quarantine due to a virus (but a global one this time, not only in the building). So eventually it turns into that kind of zombie movie ... but without the zombies :). Normally the question comes (especially for horror lovers), so.. where's the fun then ?

Well, the thing is that "Fase 7" is not a horror. Or at most it could be qualified as a "social horror". Meaning that you'll get violent manifestations eventually. However, as said these aren't caused by the "zombification" itself, but by the psychological impact of the crisis situation on the approximately five neighbors (solo or family) who are living in the building. Which makes the movie to end up being somewhere at the border between a thriller and a dark comedy. The last part could start by simply describing the building cohabitants. First, we have the main characters - which are a young couple, who recently moved at the upper floor. He is pretty much a typical/usual/normal guy who was actually dreaming on moving far from civilization somewhere in the mountains, fact that coming from him is considered as a big joke by her - who is pregnant in the 7th month and affirming that he won't survive a week without technology. Their closest neighbor living at the same floor is an ex life insurance agent who apparently now has as main hobby ... transforming his SUV into an armored one (just to start with ...). Probably that's one of the reasons, besides the conspiracy theory paranoia, for which his wife left him alone with a young daughter of about 7-8 years old. Somewhere at a floor below, an old man lives alone. He seems to be the nicest/"welcome here" guy in the building being apparently a gentile inoffensive individual who's pretty much the only one trying to be friendly with the new arrived couple. At the lower levels we have two other guys with some family, passed through the middle age, and seemingly good friends despite the choleric character of one and the mild calmness of the other. Well, that's the main "configuration" of people who during the movie simply manage to transform the building into a veritable battlefront. "The War" starts mostly due to the actions of the two guys from the inferior levels who are strongly decided to move the old man from the middle floor into .. a quarantine in the quarantine invoking that he's sick. Obviously, the incoming lack of food, medication, etc (the classic element in this genre) has its impact in all of this and what's next. And in what's next we see how our "peaceful" guy from the upper floor gets drawn into a pretty tense situation while desperately trying to keep his wife unknowingly of the hell went loose among the other inhabitants, two steps away, just on the buildings staircase.

For me, the best part of the movie is the dark humor, pretty stylish (= "hidden" basically behind the action) about which I'm not going to say more and just leave it as a full surprise. Also as a surprise (at least a partial one) comes the end of the movie = who survives. After all that's the main theme, more or less serious - "surviving your neighbors" - the interesting part being that, incredibly, this proves to be a bit more difficult than surviving the epidemic outside the building. I won't get today into the technical part of the film, because I'm already writing on a hurry - but at least I should just point out the score (u can hear some in the trailer). Overall, it's a movie that can be (sort of ..) fun to watch but in which you also have sufficient scenes that may give you more food for thought.

Rating: 4 out of 5