★ 2 / 10
**An American oddity made by Finns and set
Filipe Manuel Neto
**An American oddity made by Finns and set in Finland is still an American oddity.** Hollywood has already used us to films where the sacrosanct figure of the…
**An American oddity made by Finns and set in Finland is still an American oddity.**
Hollywood has already used us to films where the sacrosanct figure of the President of the USA is the target of the most barbaric attacks, bloodthirsty enemies and a thousand and one terrorist attacks. Frequently, the president is sufficiently capable of extricating himself, with the indispensable help of his military and secret agents. Sometimes, however, he becomes something of a damsel in distress. This type of film is very pleasant, especially for the American public, as it appeals to the most basic patriotism and often places the USA as a kind of pivot of the West, a great defender of democracies and champion of freedoms, ignoring all sorts of atrocities what the US has done against other countries to defend economic and political interests that have little to do with democracy or freedom.
What this film does is essentially take one of these films and place it in Lapland, a region in Finland that ordinary people only know because it's the land where Santa Claus lives. And it could have been Santa Claus to come to the rescue of the troubled president... but this time, the life of the champion of freedom is in the hands of a Finnish child, armed with a bow and a quiver of arrows. A small hunter who knows the forests, the sounds of hunting, the techniques to survive, but who will have to face a group of armed men.
As far as I know, it was the first Finnish film I saw, even though it is a co-production in which the USA bet a lot and which is almost entirely spoken in English. Directed by Jalmari Helander, a director who managed to go international and bring a bit of his country to the path of international cinema (we lack men like that in Portuguese cinema), it was a fun film that would have been better if it had more scenes in Finnish. I don't know if the majority of people in this country are fluent in English, like that boy, but such fluency in a foreign language – even if it is the most international language today – seems to me not very credible in such a young boy. And it would be good if this were the only unbelievable situation here, but unfortunately the film is full of moments where plausibility goes out the door.
I liked the work of Samuel L. Jackson. He is an extremely competent actor for all sorts of action characters and has an extraordinary charisma that he puts to good use in the film. Despite not being, exactly, the protagonist, he assumes a certain protagonism in the story, not allowing himself to be captured without putting up a fight and without resistance, and establishing an excellent collaboration with the young actor Onni Tommila. The two actors are, to put it mildly, the only ones that deserve a special note. We can still add Ray Stevenson, but I felt several times that the actor seemed to be struggling with the material he was given, and Jim Broadbent doesn't have much to do here.
The best thing about this movie is that it's fun to watch, especially for anyone who likes American-style over-the-top action movies. It's full of action scenes, exaggerated and heroic moments, and that makes it able to entertain us. Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good movie. It's not. It lacks intelligence, it lacks logic, it lacks scenes in which we are able to see the real Finland and not the French Alps, it lacks visual and special effects that are really credible and worthy of the name. Finally, it lacks a soundtrack that is less presumptuous and strident, and more harmonic. Sibelius probably revolved in his grave when he listened to this film's soundtrack.
Read full review
★ 6 / 10
Cliffhanger meets 80's Spielberg...
kepotaz
...in this relatively small budget Finnish* action adventure movie starring Samuel L. Jackson. (It's a small budget movie in Hollywood standards - with measly…
...in this relatively small budget Finnish* action adventure movie starring Samuel L. Jackson. (It's a small budget movie in Hollywood standards - with measly 9 million dollars (8,5 million euros) - but manages to be the most expensive Finnish movie today.)
(SIDE NOTE: No plot is discussed in this review - because you can find the plot summary elsewhere (look up), also because I don't think the plot of the movie is really important in this case.)
Big Game is unapologetically old school (that school being founded in 80's Hollywood) in it's aspirations. There's non of the grittiness and wannabe-maturity or seriousness of recent Hollywood action movies targeted at younger audience (like Hunger Games, Man of Steel etc.). There's direct references to 80's Spielberg movies like E.T. and Indiana Jones, but the movie it resembles most is Cliffhanger, the mountaineering action from 90's starring Sylvester Stallone. It's no coincidence since Cliffhanger was directed by the first and so far only (but not for long, seems like it) Finnish-born Hollywood action director Renny Harlin, and the writer-director of Big Game, Jalmari Helander (whose second feature film this is), Finn himself, was a young man dreaming of becoming a filmmaker when Harlin had his heyday in late 80's and early 90's with movies like Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger, and Harlin was a big deal in Finland (and I guess in Hollywood too) at that time (not so much anymore).
Big Game is a love letter to the movies of Helander's youth. Usually there's certain amount of self-consciousness in backwards looking projects like this, but Big Game is no parody or ironic postmodern pastiche (or something). Helander takes it seriously (without being too serious). Yes, it's predictable, clichéd and formulaic but at the same time heartfelt, joyous and mostly fun (also relatively short with 90 minutes with no really dragging moments), and part of the fun comes from being familiar with the tropes the movie plays with and the willingness to embrace them earnestly**.
It's a film made by someone who watched Hollywood action movies as a kid and played the scenes of those movies in forest with his friends with sticks as machine guns*** and Big Game is direct continuation of that kind of childlike attitude to movies. It's not a film for the more jaded viewer who wants to be surprised with something completely unseen before or who wants "believable" action or more mature or gritty touch from his/her action and adventure movies. Helander made a movie that he loved watching in his childhood and that's both the strength and the weakness of the movie. What are your feelings towards these kinds of old school action movies and whether you are willing to embrace the cliché and take a more childlike perspective to the movie will probably determine whether you will appreciate Big Game or not.
I personally thought it was fun to watch, even if it didn't bring anything really new to the table (in fact it found the old leftovers and served them with fresh dressing). Movie like this could be really stiff and boring if done poorly (it has actually pretty impressive action scenes with such small budget), or armpit-fartingly tryhard and unfunny (Snakes on a Plane), but thanks to the cast - especially Samuel L. Jackson ("Get these *beep* terrorists out of these *beep* Finnish mountains!)**** and young Onni Tommila whose unexpected relationship carries this movie through the more cliché-ridden landscapes - and the earnestness of the director, it managed to breathe some life into the already-done-to-death tropes of the genre and gave the world what it didn't know it needed: Spielberg-flavored Renny Harlin!
6/10 (little above average, fun to watch)
*Co-produced with UK and Germany and shot in Germany, with largely German crew.
**Clichés are not clichés (used too often) without a reason. Usually they were effective and cool the first few times but later became overused and too familiar. In a movie like Big Game you sort of have to be willing to see the original power of the cliché and let go of the impulse of trying to outsmart the movie. In short: it requires a childlike perspective. (Of course every bad movie would seem better with childlike, i.e. uncritical, perspective, so forget what I just wrote and see for yourself.)
***DISCLAIMER: This might've never happened, but it feels like it.
****There actually is no mountains in Finland.
Read full review
76%
TOMATOMETER
· 89 reviews
34%
AUDIENCE
· 5K ratings
5.4/10
37.4K
•••
Thx Freeman / YTS Good movie 6/10