Skip to main content

The middle of nowhere is underrated.

The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared
(2013)

I gave up on Jonas Jonasson’s novel before the halfway mark. While the premise held potential (an elderly Swedish fellow getting into scrapes, interspersed with flashbacks illustrating his – relatively – Forrest Gump/Zelig charmed life in which he just happens to show up at important historical events), the prose in translation (or maybe Jonasson’s prose is accurately rotten) did not. The film version is pretty much an approximation of the book, as far as I got to anyway. Its central conceit carries The 100- Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared along  in blackly comic fashion, and it is affably eccentric albeit in a very studied way, but someone ought to have taken the novel as a jumping off point rather than diligently translating it. There’s precious little that’s fresh or original here.


Director Felix Herngren co-wrote the screenplay, so there merely adequate results are his by design. At times the comic rhythms click, as narrative punchlines are set up and pay off, but this is more thanks to Matti Bye’s quirky score than any zest imbued by Herngren and his editor. The plot wastes not time, but the director has little verve, as Allan Karlsson (Robert Gustafsson) escapes his old people’s home by the titular route and hops on the first bus out of town. It doesn’t take him very far because he doesn’t have very much money. That he knows about, anyway; asked to watch a suitcase by a particularly unpleasant skinhead who needs to relieve himself, Allan feels he has no choice but to board the bus with it. We later discover it contains 50 million krona, which of course means that the skinhead, and the gang he works for, want it back.


On his unplanned journey Allan meets various accomplices; Julius (Iwar Wiklander), a roguish type who lives in a disused station building; Benny (David Wiberg), who has begun numerous courses of study over the previous 18 years and has nearly become qualified in a great many areas (including zoologist, dietician, vet, pharmacologist and neuropsychologist) but finds it impossible to decide on anything definite); and Gunilla, who owns a circus elephant.


This is a tale of lucky coincidence, in which a web of synchronicities lead our heroes to fortunate fates; even the negative turns of events have silver linings, and the villains are hoisted by the own petards (and basic stupidity). Allan walks through unscathed, perhaps because he was scathed as a youth when a “racial biologist” sterilised him. Allan contrasts with Forrest Gump in that he is not wholly the innocent; there is a canniness in there too (although he seems a tad more gumpish as a young man).


It’s been suggested that Allan is a metaphor for Sweden itself; an apparently neutral (neutered) individual who nevertheless has a capacity for supporting wrongfulness through profound passivity.  Allan has a penchant for explosives, and is blithely indifferent to those on the receiving end of a blast. His mother’s advice that “Thinking will get you nowhere” means that he does not pause to contemplate or regret; he merely accepts.  Allan shows up at, and gets involved in, various conflicts (the Spanish Civil War, followed by making pals with Franco, proving a key factor in the success of the Manhattan Project, spilling his beans to Stalin, and then becoming a double agent for the Americans), but he has allegiance to no one but himself.


In the context of the picture, this untouchable status is a positive; Allan endures where others do not. Those with a passion, or a cause (whatever their motives may be), fall by the wayside, while Allan (“You have changed the world for the better” Truman tells him following the atom bomb test) carries on untainted. Depending on the requirements of the sequence, Allan is unaware and guileless (his lack of self-effacement with dignitaries) or dubiously adept (acting as spymaster). He also shows no remorse for his actions, which means he is probably some sort of benign sociopath.


The flashbacks are marginal, and too perfunctory in duration and execution to hold much in the way of satirical intent or comic momentum (Einstein’s idiot brother; really?) Whether one likes the film or not, Forrest Gump had a lot going on under the lid (much of it contradictory, but at least that makes it interesting). 100 Year-Old-Man is never much more than a tall tale told tolerably.  


The juxtaposition of our hapless quartet with a gang of pea-brained thugs yields fitfully amusing consequences. Allan Ford breaks out his cockney gangster act (see Snatch) to reliable effect, and there’s a mild-mannered police detective (Ralph Carlsson) whose most agitated moment comes refusing to mention a radio show’s sponsor; “And I have a policeman here” segues a DJ who has just played Message in a Bottle.


The 100- Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared is consistently so-so. It stands as the most successful Swedish film ever at $50m worldwide (don’t bother to Box Office Mojo it, though), but artistically it could have done with some with flair, someone to indulge the exaggeration (Sweden’s answer to Jean Pierre Jeunet?) and make it as heightened and off-the-wall as possible. And to really embrace the absurdity of the tour through history. Gustafsson is reasonable as the resolutely inscrutable lead, but he’s sunk under a ton of shockingly bad make-up. If you’re basing your film on a special effect it better be a good one. Gustafsson spends half the picture wandering around resembling Billy Crystal’s Miracle Max from The Princess Bride.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.