18th Mofo Hall of Fame

Tools    





I don’t know, I just feel like your reviews and ratings just comes off as too shallow sometimes. I feel like movies have a lot too offer in each department and entertainment can come in many forms. It just seems so basic the way you tackle a movie and it often sounds like you write off a movie really quickly or because of very few elements instead of trying to look at the bigger picture or try to understand the different sides to it. I might be wrong though, but that’s just sometimes how it comes off to me.
I suppose it depends on how you define shallow. To me it seems that being subjective alone is enough to make rating/review shallow to you. On the other hand I rarely get anything out of reviews that are trying to be objective and purposefully push the person out of the picture. It's just two completely different approaches to movies.

About the reviews themselves. I'm not personally happy about many of them. At times writing them feels like a chore and honestly it shows. Especially with mediocre films I often feel like I don't really have anything to say and end up writing some generic crap I've written multiple times before. I've made plans and promises to myself about changing my reviews but I'm really bad at keeping those. I'd really like to get rid off all the technical stuff in my reviews (like ban the word cinematography which I tend to use way too much) but it's difficult to focus on how I feel if the film is like "meh, I guess it's OK".

So yeah, I'm sure that the image you have is well supported by my reviews. Whether me being shallow is the right conclusion of that, I certainly hope not. I'd say the issue is an equal part of me being lazy and we just having almost opposite ideas of how to review films. I don't write films off because of very few elements, I write them off due to holistic experience whether or not that comes across from my reviews.
__________________



Some great noms in this HoF, I keep popping in to see how they are going. The Square and The Florida Project are favourites of mine from the last few years. Great films.
That’s great to hear. And awesome to see you in here you are welcomed anytime!

I really enjoy this HoF too. I feel like the noms are really good in this one.



I suppose it depends on how you define shallow. To me it seems that being subjective alone is enough to make rating/review shallow to you. On the other hand I rarely get anything out of reviews that are trying to be objective and purposefully push the person out of the picture. It's just two completely different approaches to movies.

About the reviews themselves. I'm not personally happy about many of them. At times writing them feels like a chore and honestly it shows. Especially with mediocre films I often feel like I don't really have anything to say and end up writing some generic crap I've written multiple times before. I've made plans and promises to myself about changing my reviews but I'm really bad at keeping those. I'd really like to get rid off all the technical stuff in my reviews (like ban the word cinematography which I tend to use way too much) but it's difficult to focus on how I feel if the film is like "meh, I guess it's OK".

So yeah, I'm sure that the image you have is well supported by my reviews. Whether me being shallow is the right conclusion of that, I certainly hope not. I'd say the issue is an equal part of me being lazy and we just having almost opposite ideas of how to review films. I don't write films off because of very few elements, I write them off due to holistic experience whether or not that comes across from my reviews.
Yeah, your reviews are definitely a big reason to my comments, because if you didn’t review on a regular basis and never really posted your thoughts I perhaps wouldn’t be as keen to comment on all this.

But when having your own review thread and writing reviews on regular basis I personally feel like you should have more to say than just “it was good, it was bad, didn’t work for me” etc etc. That said I feel like everybody should have more to say when they enter a HoF. This isn’t the Rate Your Last Movie thread.

And no, being subjective alone is not enough to make it shallow to me. What makes it shallow to me is the absence of proper reasons or in-depth points and references and what not which then makes me understand and respect your opinion. Tossing the word hypocrisy around multiple times doesn’t give me much if anything...

I feel like reviewing films you have an obligation to at least go somewhat in-depth or at least make people understand where you are coming from. I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”. Well then tell me why, how, when etc etc. That’s what I want to know. The rest is just empty words with noting to them...



I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”.
Well, regardless of my own discontent with my written reviews they're not like that either. And also I think that The Square review isn't nowhere near my worst - it's pretty explicit on what's wrong with the film in my opinion. Using it as an example of bad review pretty much stems from the aforementioned "subjectivity is bad" parable.



Well, regardless of my own discontent with my written reviews they're not like that either. And also I think that The Square review isn't nowhere near my worst - it's pretty explicit on what's wrong with the film in my opinion. Using it as an example of bad review pretty much stems from the aforementioned "subjectivity is bad" parable.
Subjectivity is not bad lol. Is that what you take from all this?

Anyways, we won’t get further here. I’ve stated all that needs to be stated. That you don’t want to take it in and only partly answer me everytime tells me you either don’t see it or dont want to talk about. That’s fine.



I just watched Road to Perdition, I’ll try to get a write up by the end of the day.



Road to Perdition

My review of this is overall pretty positive.
Things I liked:
Acting... a real thumbs up in the movie. Tom Hanks and Paul Newman were (of course) amazing, and many of the other actors were really good as well.
I also really liked the structure. From the time of the murder to the end, we basically know the outcome... I mean, the title says it all... but the movie is so great at building it up to this moment, when we know it's going to happen but don't want it to.
The visuals were also really, really, good, and one a very deserving Academy Award for Cinematography. Some of the camera work was breathtakingly original and beautiful.

Things I thought were pretty good:
Rewatchability. I could definitely seeing myself re-watching it, which is pretty good... but, unlike movies like Pulp Fiction, which I've watched two nights in a row once, it may drag a bit in the second viewing.
The script was pretty good too, although it could have used some spicing up.
It was also pretty original, which I liked. Yes, it was a bit of a stereotypical revenge tale, but it was put together really well.
The themes were very interesting, and it seemed to be saying almost that violence and revenge is the true Road to Perdition, and once you are on that road, it is hard to get off of. Very powerful.
The film paced itself pretty well too, which I enjoyed.

Things I didn't really like:
The music. I can be very judgmental on music, and this one just didn't stick with me. Kind of generic and boring.

Rating:





The Florida Project is the story of a mother and her daughter living in a seedy hotel outside Disney Land...or it's the story of the manager of the seedy hotel outside Disney Land. It's a strange film in the sense where you don't really know who's story this is between Mooney, Halley, and Bobby. My biggest issue with the film is that you do wish that you could anchor yourself with one character. Each of the stories is a fairly different style of drama. Mooney is the coming of age subplot where she's a child and she's having fun in this somewhat terrible world. Then you've got Halley who you have somewhat of a character study of a reprobate and her story is interesting but doesn't seem to hit the right notes. Finally you have Bobby who is more of a man at work dealing with the obstacles of his life.



The conflict with telling these three stories is that they can feel uneven at times. And while I admire how Halley is humanized yet not canonized I do feel like her story hold back the film from getting any sort of momentum or traction. The movie isn't long enough to feel like an ensemble epic like Magnolia yet it's also feels like it drags during the first and second act.


i



So I just did the update that's 71 reviews out of 144 so we are almost at the midway point

Abandon Ship 8/12 (Citizen Rules)
Brimstone 8/12 (Pahak)
Bubba Ho-Tep 5/12(Miss Vicky)
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close 2/12 (Neiba)
The Florida Project 6/12 (Raul)
The King of Comedy 5/12(Yam)
The Little Stranger 6/12 (Siddon)
Perfect Blue 5/12 (Nathanial)
Road to Perdition 7/12 (Ed)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 8/12 (Ahwell)
Split 7/12 (Joel)
The Square 4/12 (MovieMeditation)



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close



A film on the surface that has all the right things going for it. But admittedly it's a long ways from being a good film. Here, the acting on paper should be great but it doesn't seemed used properly. As far as the direction goes, I know it's based off a book but it's definitely a messy concoction. I suppose I related to Max Von Sydows character the most. It should have been the little boy that we felt the most for but something felt a little cold about his character. I don't think Hanks or Bullock we're bad but they also weren't utilized properly for me and I would have liked to have seen some buildup with their relationship as well to make the film a bit more emotionally impactful. I liked that Viola Davis was in this as I always enjoy her in films.

I think my biggest beef with the film lies in the fact of the 11 year old gallabanting across New York City. It didn't seem legitimate for him to be doing this and especially for his mother to let him do this. I would just say that this film is pretty average across the board when it certainly could have been something even more special. I would have to assume that this will be quite forgettable, a shame due to it being about a 9/11 story.

-



18th Hall of Fame
The
Square

2017





Is it hip to be Square?
‘The Square’ is the title of the film, but it is also the newest art exhibition at the X-Royal Museum, which makes an effort to provoke people into acts of kindness or compassion inside a direct-opposite modern society. The story taking place in the cinematic ‘Square’ definitely reflects that of the exhibition ‘Square’, which is a fun and thought-provoking parallel and further enforces the saying that film is art and further the fact that ‘The Square’ definitely tries to reflect art itself. Life imitates art… but art also imitates life.

‘The Square’ is a lot like artwork indeed, where the film comes with more questions than answers and demands that the audience engages in the conversation about the issues it presents to us. It would rather want to embark on a quest to display and party examine – but without fully answering – the many social subjects and personal problems it puts in front of us. Like art it provokes, it stimulates, and it stabs at our mind with its razor-sharp satirical view on society and human behavior. So, like the exhibition says, you are also responsible for turning ‘The Square’ into something special, which then transcends its movie form.

Without your partaking, ‘The Square’ is either just one single frame – or twenty-four of them – with interesting people and exciting situations, thought, feelings and debates within – but missing the important element of participation, commitment and counteraction. You know what I like more than when a film brings up a great subject and then closely dissects it? When a film brings up a great subject and don’t. Being given the subject, but not the whole discussion or its conclusion, is the greatest gift in cinema. Nobody wants to be spoon-fed information, opinions and answers. The scale of presenting questions, discussing answers and coming to conclusions varies a lot from film to film. ‘The Square’ is one of those that stays mostly in the beginning of the scale, compared to the norm.Some people don’t like that. I do.

Director Ruben Östlund thinks outside the box in ‘The Square’, when it comes to storytelling, structure and stating facts, fiction and finding a clear way through it all. The movie is very much alive, and nothing is too small or too big nor too politically or morally (in)correct to be talked about here…

Christian’s story
The film opens with our main character, Christian, in an interview situation, sitting in the finest clothing in the cleanest room – not at all looking like the man he was just moments ago – waking up on a sofa next to yesterday’s leftover food. YOU HAVE NOTHING a sign claims behind him, part of the art attraction he is sitting in. But it also kind of reflects the story of our main character, which is about to unfold. He is a wealthy man, who dresses dapper and drives an elegant, eco-friendly electric car. But without basic humanistic values, all that is just empty nothingness and ‘The Square’ is partly a journey for Christian to come to realize that. He gets his phone and wallet stolen trying to help people seemingly in need. That said, he mostly assisted because of another person taking the initiative.

When he comes home, the fact of the matter takes a backseat to the almost farce-like approach to turning the story of the stolen belongings into amusement for others and later admiration for how technology has evolved over the years – talking about the problem rather than solving it and following the stolen items on a GPS-tracking screen is apparently more interesting than doing something about it or going to the police. There is just this whole absurdity of the situation not really being handled like a situation, which I find very funny. When they finally do decide to do something about it, they once again avoid confrontation or rational thinking by slipping a threatening letter down the mailbox of several innocent civilians, who also happens to be living in a poor part of town.

Christians story evolves in interesting ways from here, further enforcing his embarrassingly pathetic persona. Like when he receives money from scared, innocent victims of his letter, which he then gives to a homeless lady. He is a wealthy man, but thinks he does a good deed handing over money that isn’t his from a situation he himself caused. And the whole paradoxical thing about him “confronting” problems caused to him, but not confronting those caused by him, like later in the film, when this whole situation comes back to bite him. Only when the problem is literally on his doorstep and in his eyesight, he takes action or at least “tries” to. When he realizes what he has done and wants to call the boy and handle the situation, he goes through tons of garbage in his finest suit to find the letter he threw out with the phone number on it.

He confesses to the phone in a video message, which is still cowardly one could say, and furthermore he actually turns some admirable personal confession into political stuff at one point – backtracking a bit, saying one thing or act cannot chance the world, yet he handed out a ton of money (that wasn’t even his) to just one homeless earlier on and even asked a homeless man to help him look after his expensive bags of designer clothes, while he didn’t have a dime for that same homeless, when he was confronted just a minute before that. He definitely comes off as a hypocritical individual but that is the fact for many people and parts of society, especially the life he lives.

At a press conference, Christian decides to step down as curator of the museum because of a graphic, morally wrong video showing a little beggar girl being blown to pieces. That very same video he earlier commented on, saying they can’t censor themselves like that and they have to stand up for what they present and represent. Now he does the exact opposite. The storyline of his family doesn’t take up much time and some deems it unnecessary or incomplete. I kind of like the fact that it is so much a background thing, because it just reflects Christians situation. He doesn’t listen to or take care of his daughters, but in the end, he finally goes to a dancing tournament with them, which is their passion – this gets hinted at earlier on, when the girls arrive in dancing clothes to his apartment. Dressed in very loose and casual Sunday clothes, Christian then goes to the apartment building to apologize and do like he should have from the beginning…

Two scenes
There is a scene, where an intense discussion is going on between Christian and a woman, who he slept with one drunk night, in which you can constantly hear the creaking sounds of an art installation of chairs in the background. The scene has many layers, one of which is the general absurdity and awkwardness of the confrontation, in which Christian is asked to recall and retell the events of the night, while the prejudice and predominance of her approach and intention really gives you uncomfortable vibes. The background noise fits very well with the conversation going on, being just as annoying and repetitive, but also adds a tempo and follows the tension of the scene closely, coming to a climax at certain point, which also fits with what is being said in the conversion; like when he finally says “we had sex” the chairs comes crashing down. She really wants him to remember the night and think of her than more than “just another girl”. She continuously tries to bring him down and make him look dumb, saying he is only ****ing women for fun and how she isn’t a power-hungry hoe, yet when he comments on her looks and compliments her, she feels flattered and doesn’t stand by her own word.

Another great scene and one of the best scenes in any film that year, is the dinner scene with the ape man. Having a person portray the dawn of man and pursue the animalistic instincts in an environment that is the total opposite of that. The evolution of man in each end of the spectrum, creating an intriguing contrast on behavior and intelligence, but also just a fun one visually, with the bare-chested “crazy person” in the midst of the wealthy, prestigious faces at their fancy dinner party. How far can you go for the sake of art? When does a thing stop being art? When do you know? People are just sitting there, not sure whether it is all an act. It is a passive, hopeless, helpless lifetime we live in. But this “act” does bring out who we really are, separating the cowards from the heroes. One guy runs away, leaving his wife behind, another guy goes in to confront the “beast”, as the only one doing so at first, soon after seeing the husband/boyfriend of the woman being attacked also stepping in – but not being able to be the one to take that first step. Slowly but rapidly so after this, the rest of the crowd begins to step in. The whole scene is so uncomfortable and elegantly done.

There is also the whole comment on the art scene and also how one handles and respects art. Take for example, the two dumb men who wants to find a way of promoting “the square”, which can get people’s attention. But what they end up creating is rather attention for attention but without reason, since the latter disappears in the provocative imagery and conflicting reactions to the video. These two also represents youth in general and the whole social media nonsense and how so-called “business” people rarely even cares about the business they are in. On the way to present their idea, they rather want to make sure their hair looks good; focusing on the way they present themselves rather than the presentation itself. They also do rock, paper, scissors on who should do the talking, making it all seem less like passion and more like an obligation… less like interest and more like invest. I also loved how someone in the meeting mentioned “the ice bucket challenge” and when someone asked what it was about, they didn’t even know – the advertisement outshines what it actually advertises.

‘The Square’ talks about more than it can fit inside its four walls and more than I can fit in this review. I don’t know how to end this review and clearly Östlund had the same problem because his film is indeed too long. Maybe the same can be said about this review also. Well, art imitates art, I guess...


-



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
The Florida Project



This was a film that after my first time watching it I knew it would become a favorite of mine. I love the story and it has an authentic feel to it. I could legitimately see myself going on vacation and driving by a place like this wondering exactly how these people are making it work. The film never really centralizes who the film is truly about, and I like it that way. The three main players, Hayley, Bobby and Moonie are all given some chances to shine. All three are quite good performances. Willem Dafoe shines as bright as I've ever seen him do in any performance as the hotel manager. And he really has some scene stealers. His scene dealing with the pedophile was just purely great acting. He really feels authentic in his performance.

Also shining was Brooklyn Prince. It's a shame she couldn't garner an Oscar nomination, that's just how great I believe she did. She takes what looks to be a horrible situation she is dealt with in life and tries to make it seem as if there isn't a problem in the world. I like how her relationship with her mother seems like it is there yet it also feels like something important is missing. It seems like when Moonie isn't with her mother she is having more fun and that she hasn't a care in the world, similar to a child going from their everyday life to being in Disneyland.

The film is technically a gem too. I loved the setting that was used in the film. It seemed like a nice pick for a trashy hotel location and i loved the color that they gave the building, almost as if they were hiding how trashy the place really was by trying to build it up into being something unique. Lots of great camera shots too that used great lighting. Loved the overlook of Dafoe peering off into the distance from the balcony of the hotel while smoking a cigarette. Also Hayley and Moonie walking around while the sun was setting just looked beautiful. The direction of Sean Baker is something I will keep my eye on in the future as he did a magnificent job here putting all the pieces together and making a great film.

In the end, a great film that feels like a pretty good depiction on how some may have it better than others, although Moonie certainly didn't make anyone want to feel bad for her rather just kept playing with the cards she was dealt and was happy enough with it. Great film.

+



Bubba Ho-Tep

For how bizarre this movie is, it really shouldn't work, but I really enjoyed it. There are elements of nearly every genre (comedy, horror, fantasy, drama, etc.), and it's all fused to create a wildly entertaining story of JFK and Elvis Presley.

One could look at this movie and think that, deep down, it is about redemption of the soul, in that today's world values the souls of the young over the old, represented by the mummy taking the souls of the old without any restriction. However, I just prefer it as a good piece of entertainment, just really fun.

I did struggle with pacing... I felt that the movie couldn't decide how to pace itself, speeding up immensely at the end... I'm not sure how well that holds up.




Weird is relative.
Yeah, your reviews are definitely a big reason to my comments, because if you didn’t review on a regular basis and never really posted your thoughts I perhaps wouldn’t be as keen to comment on all this.

But when having your own review thread and writing reviews on regular basis I personally feel like you should have more to say than just “it was good, it was bad, didn’t work for me” etc etc. That said I feel like everybody should have more to say when they enter a HoF. This isn’t the Rate Your Last Movie thread.

And no, being subjective alone is not enough to make it shallow to me. What makes it shallow to me is the absence of proper reasons or in-depth points and references and what not which then makes me understand and respect your opinion. Tossing the word hypocrisy around multiple times doesn’t give me much if anything...

I feel like reviewing films you have an obligation to at least go somewhat in-depth or at least make people understand where you are coming from. I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”. Well then tell me why, how, when etc etc. That’s what I want to know. The rest is just empty words with noting to them...
I just read this and I have to say I consider it to be unfair to be critical of people's review style in these HoFs. I think it's enough that they're willing to join in and write some thoughts. It takes effort to do that, and sometimes it's hard to conjure up a piece of writing that doesn't simply repeat what everyone else was saying, because you happened to agree with them on some points.

My reviews are often short and concise as I did not have hundreds of words to write about the film. It doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.

I think it's cool when people write long, detailed takes and I enjoy reading them, but expecting everyone else to do the same as if this were a classroom assignment with a certain minimum of words to write... that would just take out the fun here.



I just read this and I have to say I consider it to be unfair to be critical of people's review style in these HoFs. I think it's enough that they're willing to join in and write some thoughts. It takes effort to do that, and sometimes it's hard to conjure up a piece of writing that doesn't simply repeat what everyone else was saying, because you happened to agree with them on some points.

My reviews are often short and concise as I did not have hundreds of words to write about the film. It doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.

I think it's cool when people write long, detailed takes and I enjoy reading them, but expecting everyone else to do the same as if this were a classroom assignment with a certain minimum of words to write... that would just take out the fun here.
There is more to it than what you just read here.

Many people here in the HOF has written short reviews, positive and negative, and I haven’t had a problem with those. It’s mainly pahaK’s way of writing that I find shallow and actually unfair to the movie he’s reviewing.


But I’d rather forget about that and move on. I may have overreacted too. It was some thoughts I’ve had for long and it just happened to really come down in relation to this with pahaK.



Many people here in the HOF has written short reviews, positive and negative, and I haven’t had a problem with those. It’s mainly pahaK’s way of writing that I find shallow and actually unfair to the movie he’s reviewing.
Or you could just be honest about it and admit that you have an issue about me giving 1/5 for your nomination. I've read the reviews in all HoFs I've been in and I strongly disagree that mine are so much inferior to everyone else's that they alone would merit such critique.

Every single time someone has had a complaint about me in HoFs has been after giving bad rating for the specific person's nomination. I can relate to that but it's getting old. Especially when the person first says my reviews are crappy and shallow and then replies to my honest self-critique with crap like...

I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”.
...somehow insinuating that my reviews are only that. I wouldn't mind you saying that you're pissed about me not liking your nomination but I do have an issue when you try to build an "objective" argument based on lies, hyberboles and strawmen. That's all I have to say about the subject.



Edit: I have kind of been an idiot in some places of this discussion. I shouldn’t have mixed two different discussions together either, trying to make it into one. That only created confusion and there was some strong feelings involved in one of them which bled too much over in the other.

I guess I let my anger and confusion of all this get on my nerves. I’m sorry for that. However much I disagree with your way of reviewing movies, words like “shallow” does more bad than good.

I guess the best thing here is to accept that’s just how you do it. Somewhere inside all this unnecessary discussion, all I really wanted was to understand your reviewing style and perhaps make you see films differently and in a more positive light. I read through your entire diary of 2018 and I got the same impression all the way through, good and bad reviews. But instead of discussion and support, it mostly became personal stuff mixed with simplified statements. That was stupid.


Sorry to everybody. I hope people realize my intentions were meant as constructive but came out as criticizing more than anything. I will get this thread back on track with a review of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close a little later.



18th Hall of Fame
Extremely Loud
and Incredibly Close

2017





Before going into this, I expected it would be one of those movies that would use a tragedy, in this case the fall of the two towers, to try and get me to cry for two hours. With ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’ that isn’t extremely wrong, though it is incredibly overexaggerated for the sake of getting the point across. I didn’t hate this nearly as much as I thought I would, but I did have a lot of problems with it, most of which resign with this type of film...

I’m not the biggest fan of films that take on a real-life tragedy and try to turn it into some sort of fairy tale, of not only sentimental and melodramatic proportions, but also with a dose of coincidental happenings and clammy charm, in the midst of a farfetched plot that always come together a little too perfectly. I don’t mind movies that turns something negative to something positive nor do I mind my movies with a dose of magic. But I wish movies about actual events had just a tad more authenticity, because picking up something so heavy and brushing over it so lightly is just oddly confusing to me and works against the story from the get-go.

But where the movie with the extremely long title does victor in way, is with the acting. The main character has Asperger syndrome, which is not always smoothly written into the character, but almost always delivered excellently by Thomas Horn, who unfortunately never pursued acting after this. He had several scenes, in which he impressed quite a bit for his age, though the script does feel rather pushy at times. In general, the script is pretty damaging for the film, which is a shame, because if the script would just let the characters breathe, there would be more to take away from this. But instead this very artificially constructed attitude makes every scene a confrontation rather than a consolation. I always sensed the intentions luring underneath and therefore feel hesitant to want it to get close. It feels like it tries to sell me something, and I just don’t buy it. I want it to interest me to feel invested, but instead it just irritates.

When Max Von Sydow entered the story though, I finally found something that worked for me as well as the story. His character doesn’t say anything, so maybe that is why I like him. He is interesting because he doesn’t feel intimating and he creates authenticity because of the simplicity of his acting. It is subtle and very controlled – by Sydow not the script. Everyone else doesn’t seem restrained like Sydow, more like they got a restraining order on them and aren’t allowed to step too much out of their cut-out characters and that is a shame. Tom Hanks seems cast because of his natural charisma and Sandra Bullock has this resting face-of-depression that works well for what she is supposed to be doing. John Goodman cashes a paycheck, while Viola Davis thankfully does have believability about her that works and feels pleasantly understated.

This film didn’t feel nearly as insulting as I thought it would. Hidden behind all the perfectly polished edges there is a story that is a lot rougher. A boy, who also happens to have to deal with something as tough as Asperger, loses his dad who is clearly the person he bonds with and finds comfort in. It is a story of loss, sorrow, secrets, confusion, trauma, tragedy and much more. The father, who always seem on top of the world, crumbles in front of his son as Oskar hears the distressing calls. The son, whose mental illness makes it hard enough as it is when he tries to cope and understand, while the mother has to deal with the loss of her husband, trying not to lose her son too. The grandfather, who feels a sudden responsibility and repressed guilt and the many interesting people that Oskar meets, each with their own stories.

These things sadly never get out properly or in the right way. It is one of two things, both of which are extreme cases… they are either never really in the spotlight, or they are in a light shining brighter than the sun, annoying the hell out of me for its blatancy. There are scenes of restraint and balance, but they are not many. There is something beautiful about this tale, but it is too flawed and fluffy to find a way into my heart or head. I didn’t love this, and I probably won’t remember it in the long run either, unfortunately.






Sorry to everybody. I hope people realize my intentions were meant as constructive but came out as criticizing more than anything.
Not a big deal at all from my perspective. It's not like you were attacking him severely. You had issues. He voiced his stance, you voiced yours. No name calling, no malice. All good, imo.