User reviews

This is the second Aki Kaurismäki film I have seen.The first one was 'The Man Without a Past. After enjoying that a lot, I decided to watch the other movies of Kaurismaki, because I believe he is very good in expressing the 'life' through the simple daily life events or talks. When I watched Ariel, the first thing I noticed was, as in the previous movie, the characters don't speak much, but when they speak they are concise and to the point. The relationships start very abruptly and different from what is normally expected, but all of them end up being loyal and caring. With the beginning of the journey of the miner (Kasurinen) to the south by a convertible car, the movie also starts to present its comedy, romance, action and drama. Kasurinen keeps his calmness through all that happens to him and in the end he achieves his goal. I can recommend this movie to those who like details .

This 1988 feature from Finland's answer to Jim Jarmusch is a deadpan shaggy dog comedy charting the downfall and redemption of an unemployed mine worker, over several tentative episodes constructed not unlike a series of false starts. It begins, initially, as something like a road film; begins again as a romance; then begins yet again as an underworld crime drama, before finally ending in what could be just another prologue (which would make the entire film one large, elaborate tease). Kaurismaki's wayward hero is, like the scenario itself, pleasantly reticent; there's something undeniably disarming about the way he simply drifts from one predicament to another, even if the total effect makes each scene difficult to recall in detail afterward. It may not amount to much, but after a summer full of over-hyped, mega-budget, wannabe blockbusters Kaurismaki's economical humor is hard to resist.

Synopsis: A good looking young guy inherits an old Cadillac convertible in Finland and the roof won't go up. He has no family or friends and has no work so he goes and looks for a better life or at least a way to survive. He is self sufficient and shows very little emotion in what life hands him. Luckily he isn't afraid to find work where he can but for some reason doesn't stand up for himself when wrongly accused of a crime.

Basically in my opinion it is about two people who are very lonely and find each other in a sad, cold,unfair world but you never hear them complain. The actors don't seem to be acting but are just every day folk. If you want to see something completely out of the ordinary then I highly recommend you see it. I recorded it off of TCM channel and watched it twice in the same day then I saved it.

When I first saw Ariel, at the beginning of the Nineties, maybe three years after it was first released, it blew me away. At the time I had gone through a long streak of awful "alternative" movies, the last one having been Atom Egoyan's "The Adjuster"; I was totally depressed and fed up with cinema in general since all the movies around seemed to be either generic Hollywood block busters or equally generic "intellectual" time wasters -- "The Adjuster" being a perfect example of the latter category. When I left the cinema after having seen Ariel, I had tears of joy in my eyes, thinking: "thank god, I do not have to give up going to the cinema after all". Ariel is exactly the movie I wish I had made, very cool, funny, stylish, engaging, romantic, hard core, subtle. I have seen it many times since, it has become my all - time favourite, desert - island movie. Of course there are other good movies around, but few which match its quality, and none of them changed my outlook on cinema the way Ariel did. Other Kaurismäkis movies I have seen and loved are "MacBeth", "I Hired A Contract Killer", "La vie de bohème", "Tulitikkutehtaan tyttö" ("The Match Factory Girl"), "Juha"; the Leningrad Cowboy flicks were OK, but not really my cup of tea.

Anyway, I have a small anecdote I want to get off my chest: shortly after seeing A I was talking with a couple of co - workers about movies, and one of them said: "the other day I saw the best movie ever, it's called Ariel, it blew me away, I haven't washed my eyes since", etc. I thought, wow, I would have never thought that she would like that movie, but there you go, truly good movies just have a universal appeal. Only years later did I find out that she had been talking about not Kaurismäkis' masterpiece but Disney's "Arielle -- The Little Mermaid". ;-)

There's something that seems deeply contradictory to the very nature of Kaurismaki's stuff - cinema which at the same time invites the viewer to pay closer attention while shunning him with his trademark apathy and deadpan humour. His characters appear hard, untearful and unselfpitying, their sentiments hermetically sealed behind glacial walls of Finnish unfeeling, yet behind the expressionless mask burn desire and pathos, the truly human stuff. It is not about negation, though it may seem so at first.

Everything Kaurismaki worked towards in his career up to Ariel is brought to a glorious, brilliant blooming here. Composition, shot selection, framing and lighting, everything clicks together to form a cinematic language that threatens to burst at the seams with meaningful restraint. Restraint in which silence communicates. His mastering of the craft so much perfected that dialogue becomes largely irrelevant. There are few lines and they appear to be utilized as a stylistic manner, short and delivered with deadpan unaffection, more than exposition.

Indeed Ariel is a movie mostly told in a visual manner, built upon scene by scene, in a steady and hypnotic succession not concerned with reaching emotionally draining highs and lows as much as with building an unbreakable rhythm of its own. And so it does, to the point that a 69 minute movie appears to last much longer, without outstaying its welcome.

Further stabilizing his position among my favorite filmmakers, Aki Kaurismäki has crafted yet another masterpiece with "Ariel", a hilarious and heartbreaking love story that chronicles a life both destroyed and saved by crime.

Like he beautifully accomplishes in most of his films, Kaurismäki mixes dry humor and brooding melancholy in a realistic, natural manner. The atmosphere is layered with realism, but also playfulness. The story is layered with sadness, but also comedy. Kaurismäki masterfully translates all of the comedies and tragedies of life to the screen, populating this interpretation of the human experience with unconventional heroes and some of international cinema's most unexpectedly kind hearted characters. Kaurismäki humanizes those who would often be looked upon as despicable criminals in a way that makes me root for them more than I would for any superhero. This is not your conventional, mainstream Hollywood film, but it still remains entertaining and accessible. It is a quiet character study that blossoms into a love story, a black comedy, and a bleak crime drama all at once.

Refreshingly small scale Finnish dramedy about a lonely man whose luck goes from bad to worse when he's unfairly imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit right after forming a genuine connection with someone/possibly falling in love.

It's a brisk watch at 72 minutes. Definitely not fast-paced, and doesn't seem too worried about plot. I find that's a bit easier to handle when the runtime is slim, as is the case here.

It's got an odd sort of tone where it's a little comedic but also quite bleak, and the two kind of counteract each other to make something relatively breezy, despite the sad subject matter. It's hard to put into words, but judging by this and Le Havre, director Aki Kaurismaki has an undoubtedly unique voice as a filmmaker.

It's not a style I get fully sucked in by, but I appreciate it for feeling unlike much else out there. This is the kind of movie that's pretty easy to watch, thanks to its simple story and brief runtime, to that makes it easy to recommend to anyone who's intrigued by the premise.

Something of a small masterpiece, Ariel is reminiscent of Robert Bresson's L'Argent and Werner Herzog's Stroszek in its restraint and progressively doleful turn of events. But cheer up! This is not your ordinary mellow harshing Euro fare. Yes, there is unemployment, yes there is suicide, yes there is great injustice and inhumanity. It would be dull to only speak of a film's pleasing, peaceful moments, and they are to be found here too. You get the whole symphony here, handled with a light touch and delivered in a neutral, understated fashion.

This film won't assault your senses, but subtly it will begin to work its charm. This arises through the minimal dialogue, expression, and simplicity of the mis en scene. As with most minimalism, small details and moments accumulate at story's end, which creates a very rewarding effect. Kaurismaki understands the power of evenhandedness and understatement. I hope he charms you as he has charmed me.

I saw my first Kaurismäki movie (Man Without a Past) a year ago and have seen and now own most of them. I love them all and watch them over and over, but Ariel is one of my favorites. The dark humor and irony is great, with all the usual elements of suicide, big, old American cars and cool music throughout, ending with the very appropriate "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in Finnish. All of Kaurismäki's movies demand every second of your attention or you will not "get it" and every time I watch one again, I notice something else. As to the gloom and doom, my Finnish friends tell me not to believe that Finland is truly as depicted here. :-))) I love the relationships: not gushy or fake, but faithful and just plain sweet. It seems much is understood without words and that's the way this movie is.

A new trend has emerged in world cinema which consists of portraying marginal characters from small towns who are unable to make better lives for themselves.It has been appreciated both by critics as well as ordinary film lovers as they are fed up of imaginary tales about urban centers which are nothing but an eyewash.Many filmmakers from Europe have explored this trend in their films in order to give audiences worldwide a realistic dose of humanity coupled with realism.Ariel is one such film directed by maverick Finnish director Aki Kaurismaki whose films have always made a point to portray harsh socio economic realities of Finland.Ariel is a film with universal sense of purpose as by depicting human mobility,a challenging film about a primitive human instinct has been filmed.Aki Kaurismaki shows us how his protagonist Taisto Kasurinen battles all odds to gain love,respect and trust in his difficult life full of unexpected challenges.A curious element that must be noted by an astute viewer about Ariel is that it is not at all a thriller film although rapid succession of events might suggest such a plausibility.There is a place for every possible genre in Ariel.We see comedy,drama and thriller all at the same time interspersed with natural beauty of icy Finnish landscape which has been popularized due to films by Aki Kaurismaki and his equally charismatic filmmaker brother Mika Kaurismaki.

A very odd movie. None of the characters, not even the young boy, express emotion. Not joy, not sadness, not fear, not anger, nothing. Not even in the face of tragedy or life changing events. I have never encountered that in a movie and cannot account for it. It was like Stoicism ratcheted up to 10. But the real issue I had with the film was its brisk narrative (the movie is a mere 72 minutes) and its low entertainment factor. It possesses a few humorous moments like when Mikkonen discovers how to put up the top on the convertible in his dying moments. But overall it was a disappointment, despite its art-house austerity. I was tempted to give it a 4/10 but settled on a 5. The extra point was for its weird, but fascinating no emotion thing.

Did anyone else immediately think of The Little Mermaid after reading the film's title or was it just me?

The Match Factory Girl is the only other film I've seen from Aki Kaurismäki and, while I wasn't quite sure what to make of it at the time, this film helped me to get a better grasp on his style of dark and deadpan comedy. In the first 15 minutes, Taisto loses his job, his father commits suicide, and his entire life savings are stolen from him. And that's only the beginning of his troubles! While Robert Bresson has a similar style of depicting characters suffering/being hurt repeatedly, both directors are able to depict this without wallowing in misery. From a stylistic standpoint at least. Throughout this film and The Match Factory Girl, Kaurismäki mainly focuses on the reactions, or lack thereof, of the main characters. Taisto is stuck in a low-paying job, he's constantly on the move, and it's unlikely he'll ever dig himself out of his rut. In spite of every adversity he goes through though, he emerges from them seemingly unharmed. Which isn't to say he's devoid of emotions by any means (his dreams of finding a better future are made clear at a few points in the film), but that he's no longer 'impressed' by them. His misfortunes, though they clearly pile up and weigh on him, are an everyday reality for him. One scene, for instance, shows Taisto lying on a beach while his jeans and leather shoes are resting right smack in the water. It's a weird and uncomfortable position to rest in for sure, but he had already been through much, much worse at that point, so what's the big deal of getting his clothing wet? Given this, one could watch the film and laugh at Taisto's misfortunes, but I would argue this misses part of the film's point. Because Kaurismäki also displays a great deal of empathy for his struggles. He's stuck in the lower class, has little hope of improving his social status, and (like most people, I would imagine) wants to live a good life. Except bad decisions and misfortunes constantly ruin his dreams time and time again. Regardless of whether you've experienced the same misfortunes as him, his dreams and worries are all too relatable to not feel sympathy for his plight. But Kaurismäki never goes overboard with this since Taisto's stoicism prevents the film from dipping into sentimentality. I imagine Kaurismäki will be an acquired taste for most people since the contradictory elements of his style won't gel with everyone, but I think the tonal clash between the onscreen misery and Taisto's stoic reaction throughout it pair very well together.

In this movie, the second chapter of the "workers" trilogy, Aki Kaurismäki cunningly mixes social drama and hard-boiled gangster film with impressive results, creating an opus that's both deeply touching and cruelly funny - often in the same scene.

The film revolves around Taisto Kasurinen (Turo Pajala), who comes to Helsinki in search for a job. He manages to get something to do at the docks, and also embarks on a relationship with a single mother. Naturally, being this Kaurismäki, good things don't last that long: Kasurinen is framed for a crime he didn't commit and sent to jail. Once there, he starts planning his escape with cell-mate Mikkonen (the consistently good Matti Pellonpää). As it turns out, escaping isn't that hard; it's not getting caught again that causes trouble...

I've always liked Kaurismäki's films for how they show people who are on the edge of desperation, and still find the strength to move on. It's the kind of movies we don't see that often (the only other director I can think of who tells these stories is Ken Loach). This time, he adds shades of crime comedy (Kasurinen and Mikkonen meet some bad people and end up in some awkward situations), with a couple of scenes that are among the darkest, and at the same time funniest, he's ever shot ( one of the film's best sequences anticipates Pulp Fiction by six years).

And let's not forget the ending. Without ruining anything, I can say the beautiful conclusion contains a famous film song - in Finnish!

Truly priceless.

I watched "Ariel" as the second film in an Aki Kaurismaki double feature that I recorded off of TCM. The other was "Shadows in Paradise." Both films are very similar in tone and locale, but I liked "Ariel" a bit more, and my understanding is that this is the first Kaurismaki film to enjoy worldwide fame, so clearly I'm not alone.

Like "Shadows..." it's an offbeat, very dead pan comedy, and I mean VERY dead pan. Like as in a certain personality or someone in a certain mood isn't going to even realize things are supposed to be funny. I imagine Kaurismaki might be an acquired taste, one I'm not sure I've entirely acquired myself yet. I enjoyed both films but they didn't leave me hankering to watch other Kaurismaki movies or even other Finnish movies for that matter. Finnish movies are just so....what's the word?....weird, and I have to be in the right mood to enjoy them, a mood that doesn't come around all the time.

Grade: A-

"Ariel" is a film that is apparently brilliant according to some reviewers, so I expected something other than what I saw. What I saw was what seemed like a crime film that starred zombies. Zombies?! Yep...or at least they had the emotional range of zombies. NONE of the actors showed any emotion...none. It was as if they were the living dead or had been lobotomized--and I bet you never knew you needed to see a film like this!! Sadly, it was not a comedy...so the zombie thing didn't work for me.

The film begins with a guy telling his son that life stinks. Then, the father calmly walks into the bathroom and blows out his brains. The son has no reaction to any of this. I think that this was meant to be an absurdist film. By 'absurdist' I mean a brilliant and sophisticated comedy that is simply too brilliant and sophisticated for 99.98% of the population to understand or enjoy. And, I guess I am just one of those stupid troglodytes who couldn't get the genius that was "Ariel".

I could talk more about the plot, but frankly the plot was irrelevant. Everything that happened seemed to make little sense nor did most of the people's reactions. And, since I didn't enjoy a single minute of it, I won't bother to discuss the bizarre meeting with the meter-maid, the 6 year-old who greets the leading man with a Luger or any of the rest of this weird (and not in a good way) film.

If you actually like this sort of thing, try watching "Buffet Froid"--a French film that makes even LESS sense than this one. It, too, is too smart for us mere mortals.

Director-screenwriter Kaurismäki seems to portray a way of feeling that defies circumstance. The protagonists see contentment and adversity without glee, remorse or recrimination. There is an unspoken lesson. In relating to one another the protagonists do not require validation, offer explanations or make demands. Main character Taisto faces the coarsest of the coarse amicably without fawning fearfully or retaliating reactively. Another character, the boy, is intelligent, quiet, never doubts, has no complex puzzlement about loyalty. What is remarkable is that none of the foregoing is typical of a real, live modern person: most of us spend thousands attempting to reach such a state of grace.

I came to know about the Finnish master director Aki Kaurismaki from an article I read some days ago.When I checked out on his movies,I found them interesting all the way from the synopsis.So I decided to watch it.As I am having a copy of Ariel ,which was the second one in Proletariat Trilogy i started watching it.It was really a new experience for me from the usual clichés of a movie.Yes,I admit this movie too had clichés,clichés of one obtaining a new road for his life. The movie started off with the shutdown of a mine.Feeling tired off his own life,after advising his son Taisto,an old man commits suicide.When he came to know that nothing left for him to live in that place,the chain -smoker Taisto left the place after taking all his money from the bank account in his father's car.After that Taisto had to be with what the society had for him.He then passed through a robbery,romance with a divorced woman having a child ,then jailed for an unaccountable reason .But he had something in that world for him.That's how he came across Ariel.Ariel was a symbol of hope and happiness.But reaching there was extremely difficult as he had to face losses and the hard times he had to face. Some might feel the acting be emotionless.But believe me,I think Kaurismaki was trying to make understand everyone that while creating a movie of drama genre,there is no need to be over emotional in one's role.Instead if one goes through such a situation in real life the character won't be acting his emotions.Instead they would be in an emotional,nothing -to-live for style.The emotional content in this movie is very clear when Irmeli asked Taisto to be with her all her life ,the last words of Taisto's father before committing suicide and his friend's death wish. Every scene ends up with a darker frame which clearly states what the director was trying to tell through this movie.A movie without much dialogs.But they are there when needed.It's a good watch for a movie in drama genre.My rating for this movie is 8/10!!

A coal miner was wrongly jailed where he determined to escape and leave the country with his only partner.

One of the sweet movies where fewer talks, more actions. I love the director very much. The director has very unique in his own style, which can not be easily followed. His movies are all in the same technic. Fewer talks.

I love the country, Finland. It's beautiful.

Contrary to what happens in La Vie de Bohéme, in Ariel there is not much to amuse the viewer. The characters are dramatic (one of them even commits suicide, almost on stage) and the plot is almost tragic. However, as is characteristic of Kaurismäki's work, the drama is so gratuitous and silent that it is pathetic, taking on an aesthetic and philosophical character that informs almost all of the director's work.

Ariel, for its almost epic plot, for its fluidity, for the decadent beauty of the scenarios, even for the triumph of optimism after the protagonist's long crossing of the desert, deserves to be highlighted in the whole of the Finnish director's work, although it can equally be argued that , in essence, is a typical work of the same.

Undoubtedly, but even among the typical works there are those that are anthological. And this, for me, is one of the most balanced and attractive in Kaurismäki's career.

The second part of AKI's "worker" trilogy is actually similar to the story told in the lonely shadow of heaven, but it is obviously more fluent and interesting. This trilogy of Archie has one thing in common, that is, they are all the bottom people's yearning for freedom, and practice it, which adds different charm to this series of stories. The first one is the man's eldest brother, and the second one is very interesting.