Lynch’s first fumble (Episode 3, Twin Peaks)

No Comments

I had a discussion on the bad VFX yesterday on Reddit. My original question was this:

Having watched a lot of Lynch films lately, one of the things I’ve always appreciated is his attention to details. Somehow, this attention doesn’t seem to reach the visual effects of the new Twin Peaks – I wonder, why. Is it because he’s not used to using a lot of VFX – computer-generated visual effects, that is – or is there such a serious budget issue that even simple problems haven’t been fixed. Especially when married with extremely beautiful cinematography, this makes me wonder which one dropped the ball, BUF (the VFX house) or Lynch?

Those who have missed the most apparent ones, you might want to re-watch – for example, the body with severed woman’s head and man’s body just seems fake. Same goes with the head wound of the woman Mr. C shot in the head, the one whose husband got jailed for the murder of the librarian.

Later on, obviously episode 3 has loads of issues with the rooftop floating in space and several other shots in that scene. Later on, Coopers return to Earth also looks rather cheesy – but these effects are more in line with Lynch’s earlier work, maybe that’s meant to be a bit funny/double-exposure/old-school-TV-visuals -style? Also, Episode 2 has few easily-fixable issues like cameraman on the mirror, and Mr. C’s hand when he’s caressing the inner tights of the woman next door to where he shot the other woman in the head, you can clearly see his hand never reaches his private parts, although dialogue suggests it does.

Given today’s VFX standards, the fact that Showtime put all the required resources in the series, as well as gave all the creative freedom to Lynch, and knowing Lynch’s attention to details — these glitches and bad VFX shots are a bit of a turnoff, am I right?


Unsurprisingly, the fanboys voted the question down, but there was already some discussion happening there, and some pretty good points were made. It seems most of the people don’t find the what I call “bad VFX” bothering them so much, and even more, one pretty good answer came along, from user /u/hellsfoxes

I’ve spent quite a bit of time recently walking around modern art museums here in London, where they also have a lot of experimental video on display.

It really reminded me that this is Lynch’s wheelhouse and indicative of the approach he takes. Realism or even believability isn’t a goal for him in the same sense as almost every other filmmaker out there. Bad effects are as much a part of the tapestry and texture as say Michael Cera’s pretty ridiculous performance.

It all adds to the surrealism and absurdity at the heart of his approach. Every moment of bad CG and unbelievable corny dialogue juxtaposed somewhere else with frighteningly realistic horror or deeply subtle emotion. Lynch will absolutely sacrifice realism for a meaningful contrast of tones.

It’s certainly offputting in certain aspects but it’s absolutely part of the experimental video culture.

So, the closest relative to the VFX of Twin Peaks is not Game of Thrones, but rather a MoMA exhibition. Looking it from this perspective, it makes more sense. But having said that…

…There are still serious problems. Some of the effects even most of the redditors didn’t really buy, like the fake/CGI corpses and the terrible Disappearance of Doug -scene in episode 3. Which brings me neatly to today’s topic – Episode 3, the first time Lynch fumbles.

There’s so much that’s wrong with Episode 3, that I’d like to start with what’s actually good in it.

The episode begins beautifully from Nonexistence with an eerie scene in a room with a woman (credited American Girl), played by the same actress who played Ronette Pulaski in the original run. Cooper, who was tricked into nonexistence, finds what he believes to be the exit back to real world, and manages to leave the world of the Lodges – leaving his shoes behind.

Shoes have been a repeating element in Lynch’s Twin Peaks. We may remember MIKE inhabited the body of shoe salesman Phillip Gerard, and Leo, after being shot, became obsessed with his shoe. Now, Cooper leaves the Nonexistence, leaving his shoes behind – and reappearing as a tabula rasa of a human being on the other side. This all makes sense, if you think that shoes in Lynch’s mind represent personality, the real ‘you’ inside the shell. “Take a walk in my shoes”, as they say.

What’s probably the most shocking revelation of the new Twin Peaks is that we meet a new character – the third version of Cooper, “Dougie”. He’s a middle-aged real estate salesman in Rancho Rosa (Red Ranch) who uses his estates as a hideout to have sex with prostitutes. The question is: what he is? Why suddenly third Cooper, in addition to Mr. C and Cooper?

The answer is: he’s a decoy, created by Mr. C, to fool the Lodge Dwellers to pull him back into their world, instead of Mr. C – and he succeeds in it. Dougie disappears, and we’re left with the two – Mr. C, still alive and kicking in the real world, and Cooper, who reappeared to replace Dougie instead of Mr. C, and lost his shoes – personality – in the same. All that’s left is a mindless shell of a human who can barely speak, trotting around like a penguin in his spanking suit.

The setup, in simple terms, is interesting: BOB stole MIKE’s food, and escaped. MIKE sends Cooper back to Earth to get him back, but instead of exchanging Cooper to Bob, they mistake him for the decoy-Cooper, Dougie. So now, roaming the Earth are two different Coopers, and things are getting weird.

But like I said, there’s a lot I didn’t like in this episode. To start off with the visuals, although they are more like modern art than modern VFX, it still makes me wonder if it’s Lynch’s inexperience with VFX and inability to communicate it with BUF the VFX house that made so many things look so cheesy, in a wrong way. The worst truly is the disappearance of Dougie -scene, where Dougie’s head turns into black smoke and a badly composed golden ball bearing eats his existence.


The other thing is the actress of the prostitute. She has fairly big role, but she can’t act. Usually bad actors work in Lynch’s work, because they somehow are just rendered weird and otherworldly, but this character just seems amateurish. Same is repeated later with the female agent, Chrysta Bell, a singer and Lynch’s musical collaborator – and definitely not an actor. It’s rare to see bad performances in such large scale in Lynch’s work, so it’s a bit surprising.

And last, but not least – the comedy of the scenes is weirdly off. We have very similar sequences as we did in the original run of Twin Peaks, goofy and fun and crazy, and we even have the same editor Duwayne Dunham (Wild at Heart, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Twin Peaks pilot and Blue Velvet), but somehow, the fun doesn’t connect. The scenes become firstly strange and abstract, and later on, a bit awkward. It’s hard to say why so, maybe it’s because we’re lacking the suggestive music that used to be a trademark of Twin Peaks whenever something lighthearted was going on, or maybe it’s Lynch’s original intention – whatever it is, it feels strange.

But maybe that’s the whole attraction of the show: everything is a little bit off from what we’ve used to, and we just have to accept it and enjoy the show, because Lynch is taking us for the second ride, so let’s just enjoy it.



The Evolution Of The Arm (Twin Peaks, Episode 2)

No Comments


Everyone who has watched TV during the last quarter of a decade remembers two things from Twin Peaks – even if you didn’t watch the show – the Log Lady, and the dancing dwarf. The dancing dwarf, unforgettably portrayed by Michael J. Anderson, who didn’t return to the show due to payment dispute with Showtime. He played a a character called The Arm, who is actually the chopped-off arm of MIKE, the one-armed man.

One of the things I love about David Lynch‘s work is when an apparent, crippling limitation hits you – like the most important actor not accepting the paycheck and dropping from the show – you take it as an opportunity, not a hinderance.

Instead of writing the character out, you “evolve” it. So, The Arm is back, but he has evolved into what appears to be an electric tree with a lump of a talking brain on top. The new creation is both thought-provoking, mildly nauseating and somehow seems to be fitting the world of Lynch perfectly.

Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 10.59.59

What’s revealed early on in the episode is that everyone – MIKE and The Arm – are looking for BOB, because he stole something called garmonbozia, the pain and sorrow, fuel of the Lodge-dwellers.

This all may seem confusing, but think it in different terms: BOB stole MIKE’s lunch and disappeared. MIKE is worried as he’s getting hungry, and sends Cooper to get it back.

But then, things turn weird for Cooper. Just as he’s ogling the road to freedom for the first time in 25 years, the evil doppelgänger of The Arm appears, attacks Cooper and throws him into something called Nonexistence.

The careful balance of the Lodges has been altered, and someone is about to get hurt.

In the real world, Mr. C – BOB-infested Cooper – goes on a killing spree. Kyle Maclachlan dives deeper into the murky black waters of evil, and plays his role more intensively than I’ve seen anyone do in a long time: he’s a man on a run, driven by a strong survival instinct, and no-one’s gonna stop him. He’s heartless, cold and scary as hell. Lynch builds his character up carefully, giving ample amount of time to his scenes – and that’s the whole beauty of the new Twin Peaks, you never feel rushed, you never feel Lynch wants to throw you out of the scene and you’re always able to take in all the carefully planted details of each scene.

Promisingly, also, David Bowie‘s character is back – at least, in the dialogue level. It becomes apparent quickly that Mr. C has teamed up with the “long lost agent Philip Jeffries”, whom we met in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, played by Bowie. It’s yet to be seen what comes of this, since when Mr. C tries to call Jeffries, someone else answers.

There’s one thing that’s slightly worrying with the new Twin Peaks – the visual effects. Produced by BUF in France, the visual effects facility is indeed a high-end player, having worked with films like Independence Day: Resurgence and Blade Runner 2049, but Lynch is not used doing a lot of modern VFX, so maybe he’s letting BUF go a bit easy – many visuals are more like from the early 90’s TV than what one is expecting from today’s shows – double exposure style, jumpy disappearance effects and so on. It’s also possible many of the apparent bad visuals are intentionally bad, reminiscent from the Lynch heydays of Wild at Heart and original Twin Peaks run,  but when it comes to wounds and such “realistic” effects – like the body in the first episode, and the head wound in the second – it’s plain bad VFX.

The second episode walks towards the darkening skyline peacefully. It is, yet again, absolutely thrilling to see Lynch taking his time with the scenes, building the little weird moments between characters, and creating the threatening atmosphere with sounds, cuts in dialogue when nothing is said or even done, while sprinkling hints of the bigger plot.



I’m Back (Twin Peaks, Episode 1)

No Comments

It’s easy to get fooled by David Lynch. Things that appear extremely dadaistic, confusing and dream-like – Lynchian, as one might call them – are usually pretty clear in the end, if you’re willing to step into the world which Lynch has created for us, with laws you agree with. The world, where BOB roams the Earth, the dwarves dance and people talk backwards is no different from say Tolkien‘s world of elves, dwarves and hobbits fight the dragons. Once you accept these creatures exist,  it’s a world of magic where certain things can happen that don’t in our world, but simultaneously, certain laws are there to protect us – the viewer – from ridiculousness, disbelief and abandonment.

But where as Lynch’s magical universe of Twin Peaks is not unlike the one of the masters of fantasy literature, one gets easily betrayed by the “normal” world, the characters who, on the first glance, appear to be just the regular janes and joes. The locations, which are nothing more than just a typical hotel, an old guy getting a delivery of spades or an innocent conversation between a two people, may hold much more to be interpreted in them than would appear.

Twin Peaks begins calmly, from one of the Lodges – the extradimensional spaces where the spirits live. The Giant – now known as ?????? – tells now 25 years older Cooper to listen to the sounds from a gramophone. We hear crackling noises. Then, few mysterious tips – and Cooper disappears.

What follows is a tightly-written and extremely well-crafted ambience of threat that’s looming over several creepy settings – a dire looking concrete room in a skyscraper in New York, with a glass box in it, a colourful residential building in Buckhorn, South Dakota with a body in one of the rooms, and of course several well-known places such as The Great Northern Hotel, Twin Peaks Police Department and so on.


And we meet already a hefty set of characters, all of which are dauntingly interesting and life-like, despite being somehow very stiff and strangely behaving. There’s the student who has been hired to observe the glass box in New York, and his girlfriend. There’s the resident who acts somewhat scared in the presence of the police, and almost seems to recognize one of them. There’s the head principal of Buckhorn, who gets accused of a double-homicide. We meet deputy Hawk, Andy and Lucy, Ben Horne and his brother Jerry and Dr. Jacoby, too. And, of course, most interestingly, we meet the long-lost agent Cooper, who goes now by the name of Mr. C.

And that’s where the story really gets going – and that’s why we’re here, sitting on the edges of our couches all across the world. We want to know what happened to Cooper, the well-behaving, coffee-loving, sharp-dressing agent who – as we remember from the end of the first run of Twin Peaks – got inhabited by the spirit BOB.

Arriving with spanking new Mercedes-Benz down a dusty road, Cooper is now boasting a Nick Cave -type of a hairdo, raven-black, long and combed down behind his ears. He’s in great shape, only his face betrays the 25 years that have passed. Well, his eyes are full black, so there’s that, and Cooper’s old suit is gone – now he’s wearing a black leather coat and jeans.

From what we can learn in the first episode is that he’s been missing. We don’t know exactly yet what he’s been up to, but one thing is for sure – it’s nothing nice. He’s dealing with rather dubious folk, and he’s looking for something. Simultaneously, we learn that a spirit of some kind gets loose from the world of the Lodges. The glass box the student has been observing breaks up, and kills the loving couple. And then there’s a new serial killer on the loose – the body found from Buckhorn is a severed head of a woman, and a body of a man. And the Log Lady gives Hawk an important clue – something is missing.

Lynch meticulously lays down the basic setting, but does it in a way only a true artist does: enjoying the wickedness of his own imagination. He’s more precise than ever, he’s headstrong to tell the story exactly the way he wants to, and offers no apologies for those looking for a revival of what they remembered as a slightly weird teen comedy from the early 90’s.

In the first episode Lynch says it clearly: I’m Back. So, we better be prepared.



Return to Twin Peaks.

No Comments

You guys have no idea how much, how long and how eagerly I’ve awaited for the new Twin Peaks to arrive. In the last 25 years, I’ve seen the original Twin Peaks -run three to four times and watched my Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me -movie at least six-seven times. I’ve read Laura Palmer’s journal twice, I’ve spent countless hours discussing the inner logic of Twin Peaks with my like-minded friends. I’ve decided to become a filmmaker because David Lynch has shown me the light, although I’ve done my best not to try to imitate his work, only carry on his ethos of filmmaking.

I am the arm, and I look like this.

I’ve tattooed his face on my left arm, though I do hope I don’t have to chop the whole hand off like MIKE in Twin Peaks had had to. So, it’s reasonable to say I’m a Twin Peaks fan, definitely not the most hardcore one, but a fan nevertheless.

There’s few things to be said of the original series, before going to the 2017 Twin Peaks. I fell in love with the series like the rest of you back when it aired – I think it actually was the second airing in Finland when I really found it – but living in Finland, I had never seen the actual second season, the first 8 episodes I think, because the rest was never really aired in Finland until later, until I was much older and got a hold of it. Luckily so, it might’ve diluted my interest.


The first 8 episodes are pure magic. The following episodes are still dope, but around episode 14, the season goes sour. Lynch and Frost depart from the original show and the magic portal to the world of Lodges collapses. The episodes focus on making Twin Peaks to an outpatient care village rather than a real, believable, grieving community and the mystery elements are poorly handled. As Lynch returned for the last episodes, the show had the long-awaited shapening-up, but it was too late. Both the producers and the channel decided, rightly, to wrap the show in plastic and send it downstream right into our subconsciousness.

There, it stayed until finally beaching, 25 years later.

The Return. 

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 10.26.22

During the following weeks, I’ll break down my thoughts of every episode, separately.



We lost, by the way, you know…

No Comments

Well, the one thing everyone will remember from the Oscars is that… Moment.

So, as expected, La La Land gets the best picture Oscar… almost. Then, things turn weird. There’s a bit of a commotion on the stage as the producers are giving the final thank you -speeches, red envelopes are flicked back and forth, then the reality hits everyone: those giving their acceptance speech actually were not the rightful winners. It was not La La Land, but Moonlight that had won. They had given the announcers Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway the wrong envelope.

Suddenly, the whole stage is full of confused people holding Oscars, Warren Beatty giving a staggering explanation, host Jimmy Kimmel sort of hanging on the edge of things and the producers of La La Land taking charge of, and handling the extremely awkward situation with as much grace as possible, saving what’s left to be saved.

Americans sure know how to entertain.

But, really looking back at the Oscars, the award ceremony was actually a pretty damn good one. The true winners were the African-Americans, gays and the muslims. From Mahershala Ali‘s win as the first muslim to pick the prestigious golden statue for best Supporting Actor to Viola Davis‘ best Supporting Actress award, from White Helmets’ winning the best short documentary (the cinematographer not being allowed into the country) and absent Asghar Farhadi‘s win for best Foreign Picture with The Salesman, and finally Moonlight picking best script and -picture statues – the picks of the Academy were this time surprisingly heavy topics.

This means the Oscars are becoming a better representation of actually good movies. The fact that Moonlight, a film made with under two million USD on a topic that’s rarely even discussed about – gays in black community – won already speaks books about the search for the best film, not just the most enamouring one. Also, the diversity is becoming a norm, not just in theory but in actuality. The days of all-white winners, subjects and stories are in the past, and will be for quite some time.

Now, it’s time for the film community to stand up against what Trump is trying to make the new normal – the racism and the fear.

All in all, the ceremony was great fun, mainly thanks to Jimmy Kimmel’s extraordinarily cool handling of the whole show. While Justin Timberlake’s performance in the beginning was a bit dull, the Hollywood Tour Bus stunt was good fun. The speeches were nice – Viola Davis was strong and gripping, while Casey Affleck was relatively lame (in the fashion of the characters he likes to play). Trump and his politics had a full load of all kind of shit dumped on them, and while Kimmel and the winners were preaching to the choir, I’m sure the word got out: fuck you, Trump.

For me, the best moment was Kimmel’s note about Sweden, after La La Land’s cinematographer Linus Sandgren walked off stage with an Oscar. He said he was sorry to hear what was going on in Sweden just last week, hoping Sandgren’s family and friends are OK, in reference to Trump’s ridiculous statement “look at what’s going on in Sweden”. The bickering between Matt Damon and Jimmy Kimmel was also fun to watch, although I had no idea what it all was about and why.

Obviously, the biggest winner was La La Land, with 6 Oscars, but the real, true winner of the evening was Moonlight, of course because of the Best Picture Oscar, but also because of the cock-up. But the way La La Land’s producers handled the situation was really cool, so big props to them, too. And of course to Damien Chazelle, who, at 32, became the youngest ever Oscar-winning director.

Well, it surely wasn’t a dull show, and mostly great films won the awards – save Suicide Squad, which I think was a dumb film and a shit call from the Academy.

Here are my predictions and what I got right and wrong. Next year better, I guess!



The 2017 Oscar Winners Are…

No Comments


Well, La La Land – it goes without saying – is going to win everything. I honestly think, though, that the film sucks. It’s a film about white people and nothing in particular. It’s a soothing, numbing experience that takes us away from the world’s horrors for a moment and gives us a chance to dance into the galaxy like there’s nothing to worry about in the world. Like there wasn’t a war in Syria, a Nazi regime in America shaping up, immigrants drowning trying to get to Europe and inequality and racism becoming a norm again everywhere in the world. To top that, it’s also a musical. Some people love them, but not me.

But let’s, for  just a short, passing minute think that Oscar voters wouldn’t be so obsessed with the good old days of Hollywood, and would actually be interested in contemporary films that have the balls to discuss the current topics, have great, unforgettable performances in them, directed by daring directors who fear not go where directors haven’t gone before, written by writers who care about the world around them and dare to speak their mind, and films that look, sound and feel like nothing you’ve ever seen, felt or heard before.

I know, this is not what Oscars are for, but if it was, the list of winners would be quite different.

The best picture would probably go to Moonlight, a film that discusses homosexuality in black communities. Casey Affleck would grab the best male performance from his extremely precise work on Manchester By Sea, and Emma Stone‘s amazing audition scene in La La Land would stand above all when choosing the best female performance.

Supporting roles would go to Jeff Bridges at Hell or High Water – or even, if the Academy was really daring, to Michael Shannon from Nocturnal Animals – and Viola Davis for her fucking amazing work in Fences.


Barry Jenkins would grab the best director’s golden statue, and writing Oscars would go to Moonlight and Manchester By The Sea.

But, like I said, it won’t go down like this, unfortunately. La La Land will grab all the important ones it’s being nominated for, save maybe Ryan Gosling, who is merely a thin shadow of what Casey Affleck is a master in – you know, staring and doing nothing. Let’s not even get started with the craft Oscars, all going to La La for sure.

The actual competition this year will most likely be in Foreign Language film, to see whether The Academy fell in love with the German comedy Toni Erdmann more than with the Iranian drama The Salesman, and Documentary Feature, where they either go for the black history at 13th, or shed some tears to the poor souls of Fire At Sea, trying to escape the Middle-Eastern and African horrors to Europe.


Nevertheless, because Oscars are not about who should get it, but a game of trying to guess what The Academy prefers – here’s my gritty Oscar ballot, left here with a unsatisfied frown on my face. (Note 24.2.2017 – I’m still about to watch few of the contenders, so this might change, but I’ll update latest when the actual broadcast begins.)


Oh – and if you ask me, the best picture of 2017 was Manchester By The Sea, and the best actor and actress were Casey Affleck and Emma Stone.

Top Films

Top 10 Films of 2016

No Comments


The year 2016 was a terrible year, one that won’t be easily forgotten. We lost so many important figures – from Lemmy to David Bowie, Prince to Leonard Cohen, Alan Rickman to Carrie Fisher and so many others. Not only that, but the people, events and movements that gained power and notoriety made it even worse: Trump, Brexit and multiple terrorist attacks across the globe. Personally, it was a devastation as well – my brother Ville sadly passed away suddenly in December.

All this put together, it’s not a surprise the year wasn’t great in film, either. I actually had trouble picking 10 films I thoroughly enjoyed, but here it is nevertheless. Note, I haven’t seen films like La La Land and Manchester By The Sea yet, so it might turn out a bit different in the end.



The story of two society’s outcasts teaming up together to fight the world has never been this bleak, sad or frustrating. Rarely do I stop to really think the challenges the modern world poses on those not signed up for the digital revolution, but Ken Loach rubs it in our faces so hard it’s hard to miss. Terrific performances from Dave Johns and Hayley Squires, both relatively unknown faces, brought the gritty world of UK bureaucratic wasteland alive.



Another us-versus-the-world film, but with much brighter and positive, Captain Fantastic brought Arago… I mean, Viggo Mortensen to herd a hippie family who just lost their mother. Basically, it’s a road trip movie to the funeral, to be arranged by a stiff upper-class family of the deceased. Lively, sparkling and fun, yet guaranteed to squeeze bucketful of tears, Captain Fantastic left me happily smiling.



The world has truly gone mad: Trump is the president of USA, UK is no more in EU and the Germans make the best comedy of the year. Disconnect with his daughter leads Winfried to a desperate offensive into her personal life and to the invention of a fake persona with fake teeth, Toni Erdmann. The extremely long film, Toni Erdmann takes advantage of the time available and spends it with the main characters and the crazy events that take place in the world, and carefully convinces us that it’s OK to like, even to laugh at a German comedy.


A supplementary film to the 2014 Oscar-winning documentary Citizenfour is a dramatised account on events that took place, peppered with fictitious characters and scenes, but Oliver Stone‘s tough directing and  Joseph Gordon-Levitt‘s eerily Snowden-like performance make up for them. A solid techno thriller about one of the most important people alive today.


Looking for an absolution of the Hollywood, Mel Gibson makes an American war hero movie, but finds a twist never seen before: about a man who never shoots a bullet. Based on true story of Desmond Doss who wanted badly to become a medic but refused to carry a weapon is a cruel, rough WWII portrayal the next film, but with a bit bigger heart and message to carry around.


Olli Mäki is a legend I never heard of before the movie got made, but fell in love with quickly as portrayal of his personality, brought alive by Jarkko Lahti, made its’ way in the big screen. The under-stated boxing film is an exact antonym of American boxing films like Rocky, but the twist is brilliant: a boxer who falls in love. Shot in black and white, the film has been appraised for its’ humane qualities.

7: 13TH

Selma director Ava DuVernay continues her work on the black history, this time digging into the big, gaping hole in the US legal system that is the prison system, a legalised form of slavery. While made in a very American style with all the bells and whistles clanking and tooting to keep the the attention of the kids, the film reminds us that while US is so concentrated on fighting the racism by condemning the “N”-word, it’s actually not doing anything to the very problem itself.



While Ghostbusters is definitely not worthy of its’ predecessor in 1984, it’s a really fun and quite original, but definitely not without flaws. It remains to be seen whether the film makes enough dough to deliver a sequel, it’s not really looking like that, but there is much gas in the ladies still left. What resonates the most in the film is that it’s being made with loads of love and fun, real trust in the end result. It’d be shame if they weren’t given another chance just because Internet trolls did what they do best, bash women, and marketing team failed to swing the hatred to their advantage.


Star Trek (2009) was a great start new start for the beloved Star Trek franchise, but stumbled with the second part Into Darkness. Picking up the pieces left by Abrams as he jumped the ship to the Star Wars world, director Justin Lin managed to pull off a completely decent Star Trek movie, not a masterpiece but not among the worst ones out there. The “every second Star Trek movie works” -rule still applies.


Happy to be able to bring in a two mentions of a Finnish movie this year, Bodom managed to surpass all the expectations by being just a very well made teen slasher film with a script that actually worked. Fresh faces on the screen (Nelly Hirst-Gee is going to be a star!) and fresh energy behind the camera, Bodom was a good, original and damn beautiful horrorish, mildly slashery piece of entertainment.





Ghostbusters (2016) Review

No Comments

The stars have always been aligned wrong to the new Ghostbusters movie. Replacing the beloved classic’s all-male cast with all-female sounded like an unestablished gimmick rather than a properly-balanced decision. The first trailer gained several tonnages of shit from the Internet, and while the second did a bit better, the damage was already done. It unearthed the holy wrath of the fanboys and -girls, misogynists and Internet trolls – and although even the original cast was supporting the film, the marketing team failed to turn the tide on the expectations: Ghostbusters never had a chance of success.


But honestly, the only thing the film fails in dramatically is in not being the film we all love to hate – because actually, it’s quite good.

When remakes are made they are usually quite soulless VFX extravaganzas that have lost both the originality and the heart in the process of trying to update them to the audience of 2010’s. I’m looking at you, Robocop and Total Recall. Ghostbusters dares to go further, trying to find the new soul to the film in where the soul usually relies: director and cast. Choosing Paul Feig, truly the Ivan Reitman of the new millennium, as the director and going all-female allows the update to really bravely go where remakes rarely get to go.

Having said that, the film is very, very, very American-audience oriented – and that’s one of its’ downfalls. The super-americanized comedy will lose in translation in any other languages, and dubbing will be nearly impossible task to reach the same level of banter and dialogue, which marks so much of today’s style of comedy anyway, which will mean it won’t have a lot of chances outside its’ core market. Having being banned in China, even the Eastern money won’t save the fact that Ghostbusters is a film made for Americans and all the business it’s going to make will have to happen mostly in America.

One of the topics raised also on the Internet discussions are that it’s counter-sexist – in this case, meaning sexism against men. That is acknowledgeable, yes, but the funny thing about sexism is that it’s a door that swings both ways, and it’s refreshing to see a film where men are dumb, or cute, or helpless and in need of a damsel to save them from distress.

The main strength of the Ghostbusters is the quintet, and it works really well: Melissa McCarthy is stellar and really carries the movie in her shoulders and when it stumbles she refuses to let it fall, while Kristen Wiig takes the main role of the most relatable character. Leslie Jones is plain crazy and quite fun, but much-praised Kate McKinnon‘s character Holtzmann doesn’t really do the trick for me. Maybe she’s trying to weird out too much and comes across mainly annoying, or maybe I’ve seen that role being played much better by other actors in the past… Nevertheless, the only man in the Ghostbusters group is the dumb blonde Chris Hemsworth, who is on the verge of exploding to a supernova of his own charisma, but Feig has toned and dumbed him down enough to make him not necessarily likeable, but a good social commentary if nothing else – this is how female characters are usually in movies of this kind, and now the tables have turned. The only thing really missing are relationships: there’s no believable love interests or relationships being born in the film, and even the McCarthy-McKinnon lesbian couple tingle has been toned down too much to really deliver.

Cameos are mostly redundant, but blissfully quick. There’ Ozzy and three original Ghostbusters (yes, Bill Murray is there, but he’s not really that good…) and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and Slimer.

While Ghostbusters is definitely not worthy of its’ predecessor in 1984 (yes, it’s better than part 2, though), it’s a really fun and quite original, but definitely not without flaws. It remains to be seen whether the film makes enough dough to deliver a sequel, it’s not really looking like that, but there is much gas in the ladies still left. What resonates the most in the film is that it’s being made with loads of love and fun, real trust in the end result. It’d be shame if they weren’t given another chance just because Internet trolls did what they do best, bash women, and marketing team failed to swing the hatred to their advantage.



George Orwell’s “1984” and the power of doublethink in our current politics

No Comments

1984As a science fiction filmmaker, I’m always freaking out when the dystopian visions from different scifi writers turn from fantasy to reality either slowly or overnight. Having just finished my first time of reading George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, it’s obviously more true than ever. The “Big Brother Is Watching You” –idea of all-seeing, all-controlling government that monitors every aspect of your life is obvious when reading about NSA’s operations uncovered by Edward Snowden and more recently, Russia’s plan to openly start doing the exact same.

But what sturck me hardest on even more acute basis on reading Orwell’s magnificent science fiction book was the term doublethink – which seems to be describing quite accurately the current political toolkit on especially the right wing side.

Doublethink is – and I’m quoting Wikipedia here – the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

In other words it allows you to both accept that certain piece of information is both true and untrue at the same time, and just go about your life with this fact in mind. Looking at the political campaigns of late – the Brexit, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign etc. – the one thing in common is that they are based on lies and false accusations and constant flooding of disinformation, which is blatant and obvious. But the most characteristic behaviour is the voters’ will to choose to accept these apparent non-truths, simultaneously understanding that they are and can not be anything but lies, but still allowing them to lead their voting behaviour.

The master of doublethink.

And the politicians know this. Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and in Finland Timo Soini are using the people’s willing doublethink to push on, overtaking country by country and driving us into an Orwellian nightmare. The people have ceased to care of the truths, and are even defending the politicians for their blatant lies. This is what’s new – before, the politicians have lied to us, of course, but they’ve tried to cover the lies and when uncovered, they’ve lost the trust of the people. Today, the people say “I understand that this isn’t true, but in order for the world to become a place where I’m happy to live in, the lies are justified and I choose to believe they are true.” This is, in its’ very essence, what Orwell described as doublethink.


In the book, the main character, mr. Smith, begins as a government drone in a cubicle, fabricating the past to fit the needs of the future. One day, he opens up a diary and secretly starts writing his own thoughts – not those fed by government – on the paper. Those words breaks apart the doublethink lifestyle he’s been leading, a woman emerges in his life and the proverbial excrement is ready to hit the fan.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world has gone past the tipping point and nothing can be done to the world anymore. In our current, we’re not quite there yet, but moving swiftly towards it. If lie-fed cows like Brexit campaigners and Trump are allowed to lead, soon doublethink is not just a word, but a rule and anything contradicting it is thoughtcrime, punishable by not only death, but something even worse.

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four remains to be even more relevant than before. It’s a great read, not exactly easy holiday book (I took it with me as a poolside book to St. Martin, which gave it an interesting twist) but a thought-provoking and scary one. I’m yet to see the Michael Radford‘s film from 1984, starring stellar John Hurt, which I’m looking forward to very much.



Star Trek: Axanar – is Paramount committing a Fanicide, and why it doesn’t matter (to them)?

Fanicide is a term meaning an action or decision which leads to the abandonment by the fanbase. Fanicide happens either deliberately, when power- or money hungry entities make a call that completely disregards the wishes and needs of the fanbase, or indeliberately when trying to renew, change or modify the direction of the IP, or policies, but execute the changes badly. Famous examples are Star Wars prequels, Queen’s Hot Space -album and Finnish politic party True Finns decision to go to the government.


When we released our first film Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, I spent the next year every morning in fear when clicking open my email. I was awaiting the letter the producers of the fan film Star Trek: Axanar received yesterday: a formal charges by Paramount Pictures, the owner of the Star Trek IP. That letter never came, thankfully, and neither did it land on the desk of the producers of Star Trek: Of Gods And Men, Starship Exeter, Star Trek Continues, Hidden Frontier, Intrepid, Phase II or any of the other, countless Star Trek fan films.

When Universal, the biggest competitor of Paramount, picked Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning for distribution, we did go through the one-year trouble of changing all the rendered VFX shots into original design spaceships, just to make sure there was no copyright infringements left when going ‘pro’ – releasing the film under the monstrous name Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning – Imperial Edition.

But why now? Why is suddenly Star Trek: Axanar being sued after so many years of tolerance from the IP owners? And will this lead into charges by Disney on all Star Wars fan films, which are an even bigger phenomenon? Lucasfilm tolerated, even cherished the fan films, but will it change now that Disney is in charge? Does it mean an end to the whole fan film – and possibly, on a larger scale – fan art culture?

I don’t think so. I think Paramount is pulling a massive asshole move in charging Axanar, and it might very well lead into alienation of the hardcore fans, but at the same time, I partly understand them and their actions.


The dilution in this case means the theoretical fear of the lawyers that in case they are not suing those using their trademarks and IP without their consent, they are not enforcing the trademark enough, and in some theoretical future day a judge might decide they’ve given a silent approval of the use of the trademark.

And they have approved the use of their trademarks for so many years now, as long as there has been the fan art culture around Star Trek. But now, as the business is getting too real from their perspective, they are forced to do such moves. The main reason is not that suddenly Star Trek: Axanar – produced with 1/150th of the budget of the actual, proper Star Trek franchise products – would surpass or take over their market share, but the fear that maybe one day Universal decides to make their own Star Trek movie, and when these  giants get into courtroom, they don’t want to give any possible opening for the competitor to strike back.

Alec Peters, one of the producers of Star Trek: Axanar.

Having said that, the producers of Axanar are quite vocal on challenging the Paramount studio quality with their products.

“While some may call it a ‘fan film’ as we are not licensed by CBS, Axanar has professionals working in front and behind the camera, with a fully-professional crew — many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself — who ensure Axanar will be the quality of Star Trekthat all fans want to see.”

The problem here is that there’s no moderation between a major studio and a fan filmmaker here, in the eyes of the lawyers at least. Ideally, there would be a legal exception which would defend IP owners from major infringements, but allow “unofficial” fan art being produced, even with a little bit of money involved in it.


The other “mistake” Axanar producers made was that they let their production become too professional, meaning there was too much real money involved (they’ve raised over $1 million so far from the fanbase using crowdfunding) and – also – too many a real actors casted.

The problem with real money is, I believe, that Paramount had defined a sweet spot, and when that had been crossed – meaning, over 1 million was being invested in the production of the fan product on their IP without their involvement – they would move to sue. Before this, all these fan films were made with quite small amounts of money – Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning was produced with 15k€, for example – but now we’re talking of real money, and raising over 1 million, Axanar people went too far in the eyes of Paramount.

But let’s be realistic at the same time. That 1 million dollars will be sucked into the production in no time, and probably the filmmakers will be even left with a debt after the film is done. Axanar will be released for free, so there’s not a lot of profit in it, even though they may be selling a handful of Blurays and T-shirts. This is real fan activity: from fans, who are willing to put years of their life and a lot of their own money into the production. What’s the point in punishing them? Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of solidarity when it comes to the IP worth of hundreds of millions…

Richard Hatch plays the role of Klingon general Kharn in Star Trek: Axanar

The cast issue has to do with the trademark dilution: when too many professional actors join the cast, a real confusion can happen between the official productions and a fan film. Instead of your friend, his hot girlfriend, your mom and brother’s jiu-jutsu -trained army buddy, Axanar has actual actors involved: Richard Hatch played Tom Zarek in Galactica, Tony Todd – a horror legend, and even actors who’ve played roles in the original Star Trek TV series, reprising their role on this one.

The lawyers are, again, worried to lose the integrity of their trademark when things get too professional. But still, it’s an overprotective act – we are talking about a product that’s being made with 1/150th of the budget of new Star Treks. It may be good, but it will never be mixed with the actuals.

Or will it?


Unfortunately, the hardest fact, though, is that Paramount or CBS don’t really need the old fans anymore. With JJ‘s help, they’ve renewed the whole series, introduced it to a whole new moviegoing audience who were 16-20 when the 2009 Star Trek came out. To them, the old TV series are ancient history, to them Star Trek is all about Zachary Quinto, Beastie Boys, cool motorcycle jumps and that weird hand sign which has something to do with William Shatner, or something like that, used mostly to prove that although I’m cool I’m still a bit geeky y’know. None of these people have ever even heard the name of Gene Roddenberry.

Previously, Paramount has been clearly worried about angering the fans, but the biggest service JJ did, in addition for a bunch of quite successful films, was that they were finally free of the old fandom and are free to build on a new one.

And that’s quite clear, looking at the new trailer for the upcoming Star Trek. Very little of Roddenberry’s legacy is left there. One might even say that the last, best hope for Roddenberrian Star Trek are nowadays the fan films, so for the sake of that bit of cultural history, they should be left alive.

When we made Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, released in 2005, it was a whole different world back then. Internet video was new. We became the first ever feature length film released on the Internet, the first ever feature length fan film and the first ever crowdsourced and -funded feature film. None of this had been made back then, and although fandoms existed and fan art existed, it never really became so popular as it did with In the Pirkinning. 

Nowadays, fan films are becoming and established art form, one which can not only entertain the fans, but also keep franchises alive through dark times. And right now, Star Trek is heading deep into an uncharted, dark territory, where no fans want to follow it anymore. It may be that Paramount needs Axanar more than it realizes.