Magnus-83 Reviews

Titanic II (2010 Video)

Hard to enjoy while you're sober

[1/10 · 29 April 2020]

This is one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen more than a few).

The story is laughable. A piece of ice falling into the sea would cause a tsunami? That would move at the speed of sound? Yeah, let's pretend in order to enjoy the rest of this movie. The scenes are equally laughable. Sets built up by cardboard boxes and microwave ovens are actually meant to represent the interior of a modern ocean liner? That also happens to have walls made out of concrete? And a command bridge with no equipment and ordinary windows with Venetian blinds?

Add to that some CGI that looks like it was made with paintbrush on a 20 year old computer, and you have the essence of this movie.

I would like to commend on the acting, though. Well, at least some of it. No, we're not talking top notch, but unlike other reviewers I wouldn't call it wooden or stiff either. Just the fact that the actors managed to keep straight faces when having to work with the above is an achievement.

The Whisperer in Darkness (2011)

A pleasant surprise!

[7/10 · 21 March 2020]

Good movie. In some ways, a masterpiece.

The works of H.P Lovecraft are generally thought of as "unfilmable". In some respects that is true. First, they would appeal to such a small fan base that any major studio that would put some money into it would go bankrupt. Another reason is that Lovecraft, for all his imagination, wasn't really that good as an author. Many would disagree on that one. But that's the truth. A good novel, novella or short story need a beginning, a middle and an end. Lovecraft rarely delivered more than two out of three.

Anyway, The Whisperer in Darkness was a pleasant surprise. The script was good, the acting was surprisingly good, and they made a decent work with the cinematography. It is an independent movie and the special effects was what you could expect. But there were no obvious anachronisms. The props and miniatures looked real. The monsters looked like something straight out of a horror movie from the first half of the 20th century.

Shooting in black and white/monochrome added to the atmosphere.It gives the movie a "aged" or vintage look and feel, and that's the master stroke in my opinion. It actually do come off as an old horror flick from time to time.

All in all, it's worth watching. I've seen worse - especially when we're talking Lovecraft adaptations.

The Dead Don't Die (2019)

Great zombie flick, but it's not for everyone.

[8/10 · 26 January 2020]

If you want a regular zombie (ie "horror") flick. Don't watch this one. It's a comedy. And a great one at that, if you like deadpan humor.

You probably know the zombie tropes. People trying to survive an apocalypse with dead people returning to life and the number of regular live people dwindling - strength in numbers, shoot the zombies in the head, barricade yourself in a house with a steel door (and walls made out of paper), the zombies like to eat human flesh and/or brains, etc.

Sound familiar? OK, here be spoilers.

That's not what this movie is about. It pokes fun at those tropes. Some of the zombies don't want brains, they want coffee. Or red wine. Or power tools. And so on. Yeah, it does kill the immersion. At least for those who are actually capable of believing that dead people would come back to life, that is.

But as a deadpan comedy poking fun at the stereotypes in zombie movie making, it is a masterpiece.

Isabelle (I) (2018)

Premise wasted, but it could've been great

[3/10 · 22 December 2019]

When I started watching this movie, the premise seemed great. You know, a young couple moving in to a new home, and soon having their life ruined by some kind of supernatural entity. (Yes, it might sound familiar, and there is another movie with a title ending with "-belle" built on about the same premise.)

Unfortunately it was poorly executed. No, wait. Poorly? We're rather talking about sheer incompetence here. Not mistakes, but deliberately bad decision making.

So, here comes the spoilers. This is just one of all those movies built on the idea that one of the protagonists experience some kind of supernatural/demonic entity, while the rest of the characters don't. The female sees this, uhm, thing, but her husband don't. A well known movie trope - portray the protagonist as isolated in his or her struggle against whatever horror he/she is up against.

And that's the problem. It could've been built on the premise that the female protagonist sees this ghost (or whatever it's meant to be), while the male protagonist don't and subsequently doesn't believe in it. Yet, the dude (husband) goes off to see some kind of voodoo priest or whatever kind of hoodoo holy this character is supposed to be, to get some advice on what's haunting his wife. You know, the kind of supporting character that sees dead people and all that, and has answer to all the questions about how to handle the situation, but no help to offer at all. Yet the husband returns to his wife, believing that she's just going nuts, after being told by - and believing - the hoodoo holy that she isn't, and that there actually is a ghost out to get them. IE, in one shot he believes her, in the next one he doesn't. Come on, make up your mind, will ya?

And the ghost? Well, we get to see her up close in every now and then. Yes, up close. In full detail. That. Is. Not. How. You. Build. Suspense. Adding red glowing eyes with CGI to the ghost doesn't make it more scary. It just looks cheap.

With a more skilled director (as well as script writer), this could have been a great horror flick. What we got was some kind of high school project in film making.

Kommissionen (2005)

Well made and stimulating

[7/10 · 13 November 2005]

"Kommissionen" is a Swedish made-for-TV drama/thriller series about the events following a a terrorist strike against Stockholm, the capital of Sweden.

The story, in short - During a summit held in Stockholm a bomb is detonated close to the Swedish parliament. Resulting in a couple of thousand dead, as well as parts of central Stockholm being laid to waste. After a few days of chaos and turmoil, the government decides to form a committee with the purpose of finding those responsible for the bombing. This committee is populated by people from different political parties, with different backgrounds, occupations, loyalties, and so on. In short, a total mismatch of characters, but whose differences will be their greatest asset. That said, I'll leave the storyline, in order to keep from revealing too much.

The acting is good, as I would expect from a Swedish production. Likewise, the special effects aren't that great, something that I'd also expect.

However, what makes "Kommissionen" interesting is that it raises a lot of thoughts. It actually pinpoints problems that exist in Sweden of today, creates a few scenarios around those, and shows the viewer how it might turn out. Instead of doing it by the book by writing columns in newspapers and voicing off opinions in broadcasted debates, someone decided to make a TV series about it. For example, what would happen if someone decided to target Stockholm during an international summit? Well, probably what we just saw in "Kommissionen". And how would the society deal with this situation? Same thing, watch this show, and you'll get your answer. And so on and so forth.

Therefore, "Kommissionen" is in my opinion quite important, since many of us swedes are well aware that the society as well as our politicians in some matters needs to be roused from their complacency.

But, if you're not Swedish, or interested in Swedish affairs, i doubt this would be a very interesting show to watch. However, if you are Swedish, it wouldn't hurt to watch it. It might raise a few thoughts.

Troy (2004)

Well made

[7/10 · 28 October 2005]

I found the 2-DVD version of "Troy" in the bargain bin at a local department store. Since it only cost me the equivalent to a few dollars, I decided to buy it. And I was not disappointed.

Troy, as most of us know, depicts the Trojan War described in the Iliad.

First of all, I would like to make one thing clear - Neither the Iliad nor this movie are in any way historical documents. The Iliad is an old fairytale, whereupon this movie is based. To seek rational explanations for this and that is a waste of time. Consider it for what it is and has always been, a great and very entertaining fairy tale, like the Lord of the Rings is of today.

I'll proceed with the review. This movie is a "slightly" condensed version of the epic itself. And of course with the necessary touches of hollywoodization added to it. For good or for worse. Being made into a Hollywood movie is usually either the best or the second worst - being made into a Disney cartoon is the worst - thing that could happen to a classic story like the Iliad. But Troy actually manages to end up somewhere in between, which I find rather unusual.

As I wrote earlier, the story depicts the Trojan war, a result of the elopement or kidnapping of Helen of Sparta, by prince Paris of Troy. Troy was according to legends - as well as a few historians - a city located in what is today northwest Turkey. A city that by the standards of that day was considered large and prosperous. As well as damn near impregnable, with walls that couldn't be breached or scaled*. And since this war involved the greatest nations of the known world (at least according to the ancient Greeks), it was important enough to involve the gods themselves, who gladly gave their chosen champions a helping hand here and there, as well as taking every opportunity to back-stab their opponents when possible.

Unfortunately, every divine or arcane intervention was left out of the Hollywood version, that is basically an action movie set in ancient times. The reason for this is that the filmmakers wanted to make an accurate historical movie, and thus they left out the parts that were considered a bit too unreal to fit in. I fail to see the logic in that decision, though, since the Iliad IS in fact simply that, a fairy tale. Not a historical document**. Didn't they realize that? This means that this movie sometimes feel very real, and since the acting is top notch, some might find it disturbing. Especially since most of us knows how it will end. Throw in a lot of blood and gore, and there you go.

In my personal opinion, this was a really bad call. I mean, doesn't this movie really cry out for a sequel? No, I'm not thinking about "Troy II - Paris revenge" *duh*, I mean the Odyssey. But how could you make a watchable movie out of the Odyssey without the fairy tale part? Remove that, and you end up with a boring and probable box office bomb about some guy getting really, really, really lost on his way home from Troy.

The "fairy tale" bits'n parts that were left out aren't the only changes the script writers made. Although many of the characters from the original Iliad are represented in this movie - and by very skilled actors as well - there are some changes that have been made to their personalities, traits and fates. Some, like me, might dislike that, but it's just a movie anyway. And as I wrote, it is a bit condensed, especially the time-frame. In the Iliad, the Greeks spent ten years outside the walls of Troy, until they finally realized that their current tactics weren't working, and that they should try something new. In the movie it is a matter of weeks.

Even though the script writers and filmmakers have made a lot of changes*** to the story, Troy remains quite a watchable movie. Removing the fairy tale part and trying to make a historical movie was a mistake though, for that is what the Iliad and the Odyssey is - Ancient fairy tales that have survived through time, thanks to a literary genius in ancient Greece.

-----------------

* This happened long before siege engines was invented. They didn't even have iron back then. Metal objects were made out of bronze, thus it was called the bronze age. On the other hand, siege engines hadn't been of much use, since in reality it's likely that there never even existed walls and fortifications like those of Troy back then. Buildings were small, city walls were low, ships were short, swords were weak and soft, armor gave little protection, etc.

** We don't know if Troy ever existed. Archaeologists have found remains of at least one ancient city in that area of Turkey, not necessarily the actual city of Troy. Quite a number of fairly large cities existed around the Mediterranean sea during the bronze age, and most of them have been lost. In short, there are no conclusive evidence that support the claims that Troy have been found.

*** There are changes that are necessary to make the movie watchable. And there is always the possibility of improvements. At the same time, you should - as a filmmaker or script writer - ask yourself this question: Will I be remembered as a one of the greatest writers of all time in a couple of thousand years, comparable to Homer or William Shakespeare? If you feel that "no" would be the most suitable answer to that question, don't make changes that aren't necessary. And make no improvements.

The Bomber (2001)

A hyped paperback on the silver screen?

[5/10 · 13 September 2005]

A few years ago, "Sprängaren" was one of the most hyped and popular movies in Sweden. Just like the novel the movie is based on was when it was released. So far I have only seen the movie, and after the impression it made on me, I doubt I'll ever get around to reading the book. But I can't say for certain.

The story:

Annika Bengtzon* is a middle-aged female journalist working for a Swedish evening paper, "Kvällspressen", her articles covering a series of bombings in Stockholm, starting with a recently built stadium, meant to be used in the upcoming Olympics. As any good journalist (Or any journalist?), she starts digging around a little, making some interesting discoveries. Before long, Bengtzon has the undivided and most unwanted attention of the bomber. And that's about it, should I tell you more about the plot, I might start giving it away.

My opinion, short:

"Sprängaren" is a movie worth watching, as long as you don't have to pay for it. I would never rent it on tape or DVD, or go see it at the theaters, but it's worth watching on TV. But it doesn't even come close to the hype surrounding it. It is not the masterpiece it has been promoted as. Rather a quite mediocre thriller of the kind you could expect to find as paperback in a local supermarket, or at the railway station or airport.

My opinion, long:

One of the most evident weaknesses is in my opinion the predictability. Nothing really surprised me, so to say. No twists, no mysteries. To a fairly observant viewer, the identity of the bomber will become evident quite soon. But not to this supposedly clever and competent journalist? I fail to see the logic in that.

As stated, I haven't read the book yet. And it's likely that I never will - The movie didn't impress me. Especially not after the tremendous hype that surrounded it when it was made a few years ago. Without this hype, I might have felt differently. But as it is, it was a sad disappointment.

I believe that there are three reasons for the hype:

1. The author is Liza Marklund, an already well known columnist and journalist at a Swedish newspaper/tabloid. The novel itself was basically considered and promoted as a masterpiece before the final print. - Without the background Marklund has, and the subsequent connections she has within the Swedish media industry, would this novel even have been printed? Would it have received those high ratings if the reviewers hadn't been her colleagues and co-workers?

2. Colin Nutley directed it. Nutley have previously made a number of movies that I consider very good. "Änglagård" is one example, arguably the best Swedish drama ever filmed. - This is a different kind of movie, that might require another kind of director with a different background and experience?

3. The lead actress was Helena Bergström (Nutleys wife), quite an accomplished actress with a long and successful career behind her. - Bergström absolutely shines when she stars in more conventional roles, but maybe this isn't her kind of role?

Since we don't have any really accomplished novelists/writers in Sweden at this time, I suppose the hype was inevitable. The most popular novel was picked to make a movie out of, the most prized director was put in the director's chair, which of course meant Bergström in the female lead***. Leading to very high expectations.

----------------

Footnotes:

* Annika Bengtzon is a more or less fictional version of Liza Marklund, who wrote the novel this movie is based on. The letter "z" in the names are a kind of link between them, since that letter rarely is a part of any of those names, where it replaces the letter "s".

** "Kvällspressen" is a fictional newspaper inspired by tabloids "Aftonbladet" and "Expressen", the word "kvällspress" is a slang term for "tabloid" in Sweden.

*** No matter the movie, plot or cast, Nutley always casts his wife in the female lead. A Woody Allen-ish policy that at times annoy me, especially when I feel that there could have been more suitable choices.

Jason X (2001)

A bit of a sell-out, but nice anyway.

[5/10 · 16 June 2005]

Watching "Jason X" gave me the feeling that it was the most expensive Friday the 13th-production ever. It sure was the most glossy, at least.

Plot, short: In the beginning of the 21st century, the authorities decides to do away with Jason for good. As many have tried to kill Jason permanently in any way that are possible (as well as a few that aren't) without success, he's now to be contained instead of killed. A young woman manages to freeze Jason in a cryo-chamber. In the process, she also manages to freeze herself as well. A few centuries later, Jason and the young woman is discovered and picked up by a spaceship, and she is revived by the medical staff onboard. Jason, of course, awakens again, and goes for another killing spree.

My opinion is that "Jason X" is well worth watching, at least if you're a Jason junkie, like yours truly. It has all the necessary stuff for a true Friday the 13th-flick, like hot young chicks, big guy with a hockey mask and a bad attitude, and lots of blood and gore. But I also miss the camp-setting, the dark woods, the cabins, and all that you'll get in the older movies in the series. I really loathe any attempt to scientifically explain what Jason is and why he never stays dead - It shouldn't be explained. Jason's a blood-thirsty freak in a hockey mask, who mysteriously comes back to life every now and then. Period. And I don't like the attempts of portraying him as even slightly human - Blood-thirsty freaks in hockey masks aren't supposed to be human or even likable (in preferred order), just scary. But anyway, the sci-fi-setting was quite nice and different, and I suppose that true low-budget-horror-art like this can stand a few experiments with the setting. But anyway, the way I like it, a good Jason-flick should be about a psycho wearing a hockey mask and killing youngsters in the most gruesome and gory ways imaginable, and "Jason X" is. But it doesn't need any expensive CGI or SFX. Ketchup, melee-weapons and gardening tools are more than enough, I'd say.

Bottom line: Watchable, but not nearly revolting enough for my taste, and I give it 5 blood-smeared buzz-saws out of 10. Could be worse, could be better.

The Unknown (2000)

Not bad at all

[6/10 · 6 June 2005]

Plot, short version: "Det Okända" ("The Unknown") is a low-budget horror/suspense flick about five young biologists investigating the environmental effects of a forest fire in a woodland area in northern Sweden. After a couple of days and nights in a camp consisting of a caravan and a couple of tents, they discover something else... Or maybe it's more pertinent to say that something discovers them?

I like this movie. The actors/actresses are young, talented and believable. The setting and environment used for shooting this flick feels OK too - Although it was shot in a national park just south of Stockholm (Sweden), about a thousand kilometers from where the movie is supposed to take place. But most of us won't notice such differences, trees are trees to a city slicker like me.

This movie suffers from a unjustly deserved reputation as a kind of "Blair Witch Project-rip off", probably because it was released a couple of years after BWP. In my opinion, this is totally wrong. Yes, it is a low-budget production, and yes, it takes place in a wood. But I would personally demand more similarities than that to deem it a BWP-rip off. (Think about it, there are quite a few low-budget horror flicks shot in some dark forest somewhere.) If I'd make a comparison between those two movies, I would definitely pick "Det Okända" as the better one. The actors are more skilled and experienced, the plot feels more solid*, and actually comes to some kind of conclusion, although it won't conclude much. And of course, what's more entertaining than three hysterical youngsters in a dark forest? Well, five hysterical youngsters in a dark forest. ;-)

So, summan av kardemumman, as we say in Sweden, I give this movie 6 acorns out of 10. Not really a screamer, but not a dozer either, for that matter.

------------------

* With "more", i mean in the way that a tree is likely to be more intelligent than a rock, duh.

Hjärta av sten (2000)

Horrible!

[1/10 · 28 April 2005]

"Hjärta av sten" means "heart of stone" in English. To be frank, I consider this movie embarrassing to Sweden in general and the Swedish film industry in particular. And you probably need a heart of stone in order to stomach this particular flick.

The storyline isn't too complicated. A Russian hit man travels to Stockholm (the capital of Sweden) and kill someone. And ends up with a Swedish police officer, who recently returned from Russia, on his tail. And I guess most of us can figure out the rest without putting too much strain on the "little gray ones". Besides that, the movie is so cliché-laden that it sometimes felt more like a comedy than an action flick.

Now, a weak storyline doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is a total failure. Good acting and dialog can more than adequately compensate for a weak storyline. In case that there ARE good acting and dialog, that is. And that is not the case here. The dialog is shallow and borders on ridiculous from time to time, while the acting is downright horrible. Not even Allan Svensson, who I consider to be one of the most experienced and talented actors in Sweden (and most Swedish actors/actresses ARE good, mind you) manage to pull it off. (Well, he might have found himself lacking motivation, considering what he had to work with.) Singer Therese Grankvist show us why her place is behind a mike, and not in front of a camera. We also have the usual gang of Russian mobsters - They all look and sound the same to me (sweat pants/jeans and black leather jackets, and a crew cut), but that makes it more believable.

There are a few nice looking shots, though. But I'm not sure if the movie itself deserves any credit for that, since it seem to be stock footage.

The bottom line, this is a downright horrible movie. I can't remember watching anything so bad made in this country since "Sökarna" made it to the movie theaters some 10 or 15 years ago.

Wendigo (2001)

Combined horror/drama sans scares/storyline

[3/10 · 12 March 2005]

I watched "Wendigo" for the first and most likely the last time this evening. I actually had a few expectations before burrowing down in front of the the TV set, discounting the low ratings it's gotten so far here on IMDb.

But after watching for half an hour or so, I realized that "Wendigo" got the rating it deserved. It IS bad.

Synopsis: Big city photographer takes his family to a cabin in the middle of nowhere for a weekend. Big city family and small town folks don't go well together. Add to this that the photographer's son starts hallucinating about wendigos, creatures or spirits from Indian folklore. Then it all turns to the worse.

One of the reasons for my fairly high expectations is that the story and setting in my opinion is ideal for the kind of horror/suspense movies that I like. A good foundation to build a solid horror flick on. I like elements from traditional folklore, I like isolated settings, I like mysteries in the dark.

But... NOTHING ever happens. No pace, no action, no scares. Just a lot of nothing. About half-way through the movie there are actually some mystery/suspense starting to build up, and we get a crash course in the nature of wendigos. Then it's all downhill again.

After watching for an hour so, it still felt as we were in the beginning of the story. Nothing had really happened. With about five minutes remaining, the story had ALMOST gotten half-way, something had happened that could get the pace going. And then, "Wendigo" ends. With nothing.

Really a shame, as I feel that they could have done a whole lot more with this concept. The wendigo is well known since "Pet Sematary" (by Stephen King) went up on the movie theaters. But I somehow get a feeling that "Pet Sematary" is the reason for naming this movie "Wendigo" - People will recognize the name, and watch the movie expecting it to be somewhat Stephen King-ish.

The biggest flaw is all time wasted on pointless talk. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against conversations between the characters, but there are no purpose with the talk in "Wendigo". The movie is about 80 minutes long, and starts with a bunch of guys standing around a car stuck in a snow drift, arguing about nothing. For 20 minutes! A scene that could have been cut down to 5 minutes or less.

And it is followed of 20 minutes of watching a family looking around the house they will spend their weekend in. Another scene that could have been shortened down a great deal. Followed by a quarter of an hour of watching the family go to the local village to buy some groceries, and THEN we're finally let in on the theme of the movie. A lot of time wasted, in my opinion.

"Wendigo" is primarily supposed to be a horror flick, not a drama. Categories that are not easily combined into something believable or even watchable. Usually, you end up with combining the all weaknesses and none of the strengths. A slow-paced story that is hard to believe, that is.

Pro's: The acting is quite good. But good acting is just one part of a whole, and can rarely - although there are exceptions - compensate for a storyline found wanting.

To sum it up, "Wendigo" had the promise of becoming a great horror/mystery/suspense movie, OR it could have been a drama, had the supernatural theme been left out. But it didn't, because it tries to combine elements that don't work well together, resulting in a slow-paced and hard to believe meltdown.

To those of you who find something special about this movie - Sorry folks, I'm not going with it. Wendigo is plain bad. There are movies - that I happen to be quite fond of - that requires the viewer to think in order to understand, but Wendigo is not one of them.

I rate this flick 3 out of 10.

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991)

No masterpiece, but very enjoyable

[6/10 · 9 March 2005]

Besides having a title longer than the movie itself, "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man" also has a bit of a nostalgic value to me. I remember watching it for the first time some ten or fifteen years ago, after reading about it in a martial arts magazine, if memory serves.

Plot outline - Biker Harley Davidson (Mickey Rourke), aside with the bike-riding rodeo cowboy Marlboro Man (Don Johnson) and a few other small time crooks robs a money transport, which turns out to be a big mistake when they find out that they got more than they bargained for. And all hell breaks loose...

The story of this movie isn't too complicated, but it contains a lot of fighting, gunfire and explosions. Which seem reasonable, since it is an action flick, and therefore should be judged as such, and not compared to other movies with more solid and refined story lines and so on. And as pure action, it is great. Mickey Rourke does a great job portraying the biker who turns out to be a less-than-proficient marksman who couldn't hit a barn even with a sniper scope. Don Johnson does very well as a gun-slinging cowboy - especially since his weapon of choice is a .44 cal Desert Eagle, not the most handy or practical handgun on the market - who would fit in any classical western movie. Together they form a must-be-seen-to-believed duo.

To me, this is Rourke's finest performance on the silver screen up to this date - although I have a feeling that this one went straight to the video shelves - and Don Johnson does a great job too, even though I've only seen him in "Miami Vice" as well as a couple of other movies. We also see a young - and thin - Daniel Baldwin as the goon in charge, and Tom Sizemore as the mobster posing as a respectable business man, with Tia Carrere as his sidekick/secretary.

All in all, and as an action flick, this is as good as any other. Movies in this category often get rather low ratings, and in my eyes the problem is that they aren't judged for what they are, and not compared to other action flicks. Yes, the storyline could be summed up in a few sentences, but come on, that's what action is about - Action. Bullets flying, fists pounding, vehicles exploding. If I want to watch a good drama or thriller, I watch a good drama or thriller. I don't watch an action movie and then complain that it wasn't like any good drama or thriller.

I give it 6 out of 10 bullets.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Intelligent, complex and in many aspects unique movie from a promising director

[29 February 2004]

First of all, let's make one thing clear - Lost in Translation is not a movie for anybody. It's not predictable, it's not full of clichés. And this review is more about the crappy reviews that flood IMDB than the movie itself. Well, keep on reading.

To sum up the storyline, Lost in Translation is about two lost and lonely souls in the vast megapolis of Tokyo, an environment that could make anyone feel lost and insignificant. And, as fate would have it, sometimes a few of these lost souls will find a kindred spirit.

That's the core of Lost in Translation. Yes, it IS a comedy, as well as a drama. But not for anybody. This movie is obviously not too easy to understand for many of the viewers, since it's not as obvious and simple as hollywood-productions in general tend to be. It's still funny, but it's also subtle, intelligent and complex. And anything but simple and obvious.

Naturally, this means that some will hate it, because they don't understand it. Well, that's OK with me. Usually, I feel that there are way to few movies that appeals to those of us who have higher demands than Joe Sixpack, but here's for a change a movie that truly appeals to the demanding viewer. Some of us prefer to read books, while others find comics challenging enough. It's the same with movies.

To put it bluntly, if Lost in Translation would have stuck to the "standard plot" of american movies, the storyline would have been something like this: Bored middle-aged man meets bored young woman. Resulting in an affair, they divorce their respective spouses, and start over with each other instead.

But it doesn't, thankfully. Instead, we get a story about friendship across the boundaries of age. The characters are as different to each other as day is to night, yet they understand each other better than their respective spouses.

In three words: A great move.

I know, I've read a lot of this mumbo-jumbo (from those who didn't quite get it) about "wannabe intellectuals" and all that, that we who liked this movie only pretend to like it in order to show off, and not because we actually did.

Wrong. I say that this is a great movie and I mean it!

I've picked out a few statements from other reviews below:

• There's no good acting in this movie.

• The movie is badly directed.

And so on and so forth. I'm used to read "this-is-the-worst-movie-I've-ever-seen"-reviews here on IMDB. But I don't take those reviewers that seriously. Usually, the problem is that many reviewers don't understand that they might not be capable of telling good acting/directing from bad. Anyone can write a review here on IMDB, mind you... A good reviewer knows that there are many aspects to what you review, and nothing is truly black or white, but a shade of gray.

Besides, Lost in Translation is not THAT complicated, it's like your average novel, and shouldn't be to hard to understand, in my opinion.

But as someone said, movies primarily exists because a lot of people are either too lazy or stupid to read books, and I think that Lost in Translation partially proves that to be a fact.

The bottom line is that this is a great movie from a director that I personally find very promising, and NOT hyped and overrated due to her lineage, as some would have you believe. The acting was great, about what you could expect from a seasoned actor like Bill Murray, while the performance of Scarlett Johansson was quite impressive, given the fact that she's still just a teenager, but managed to pull of the role of a woman who are probably supposed to be in her mid-twenties.

Very watchable movie. At least, if you for a change like to watch a sophisticated, touching, unique and intelligent movie, instead of the usual garbage that's just like a million other movies.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A magnificient end to a great saga

[22 December 2003]

First of all I must admit that I was a bit worried when I went to the movie theater, fearing that the Return of the King would disappoint me as much as the Two Towers. Well, I was wrong, which I'll gladly admit.

"Short" (in the relative sense) version - The Return of the King is a great ending to a great saga, especially since it includes a lot of material that I was expecting in the previous movie, but that was left out in order to clear up space for Peter Jackson to use for a lot of the fighting scenes that he's obviously so fond of. If you do the infamous book vs movie-comparison, you'll see that this movie actually starts off about in the middle of the previous book (The Two Towers), but that doesn't mean that too much of the material from the Return of the King have been left out.

Instead, all that IMO actually counts in th storyline is there, and then some. Of course, this movie is not a 100% faithful to the original, but it is well within the scope, so to say. And of course the order of some events (as well as the framework for some of those) have been altered, in a way that will make the movie more enjoyable. Remember that watching a flick is in no way the same as reading a book, in fact there is quite a difference. I know that some die hard-fans of Tolkien complains about the details, but details doesn't matter that much in this case, what is important, though, is that the overall framework for the storyline is kept together, and if the wrong character says something to someone compared to the book, it's not of much performance, as long as the effect on the storyline isn't altered or ruined. And yes, the oh-so-tough war mongerer in the book who broke down and went bananas after a time breaks down instantly in the movie - Yes, that is also true, but in what way does that affect the overall story? It stays the same. So, in my opinion, Peter Jackson achieved a far better result with the Return of the King than the Two Towers, a movie that felt like nothing more than an action-flick with a lot of cheap fighting scenes to me.

"Long" version, along with some detail analysis and SPOILERS - What appealed the most to me in the Return of the King was the great effort put into making the details look good. For example, the siege engines used in the battle of Minas Tirith wasn't just the simple "hollywood-ish" rock throwers where someone pull a lever and sends half a mountain into orbit without one single clue to how the damn thing is propelled. In this case, they use actual medieval siege engines that in some cases proved superior to cannons (more accurate and better range) as long as into the 17th or even 18th century. You can (with a fair amount of perception) see the counterweight move downwards, forcing the arm upward, and finally the slingshot hurling the projectile into the skies. Grond (the mother of all big-motha[CENSORED]-battering rams) was another treat to my eyes, very faithful to the description in the book and looking even more imposing than my imagination made it when I read the Return of the King. And although it's name is never stated, you can hear the armies of Mordor chanting it while it is moved to the city gates and put into action.

Minas Morgul looked absolutely fabulous to me, about the way that I figured from reading the book (well, the Two Towers, that is), along with the unholy glow that illuminated the city. As far as I know, Minas Morgul is one of the towers that the title of the Two Towers refers to, while Minas Tirith is the second. One can only wonder why it never appeared in the movie with that name, though, and why Minas Tirith looked more like a medieval cathedral than an actual tower.

The amount of cheap dwarf-jokes have fortunately been cut down in this movie, something that I appreciate much, as I feel that it otherwise violates Tolkien's intention of showing the dwarf and the elf as equals, despite the fact that they are of different races, thus very different individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, and by their way of cooperating with each other become an almost invincible force. This is a fact that Peter Jackson or the screenwriter never realized, as the elf is shown as a superhuman hero without any obvious faults, while the dwarf is shown as a clown who makes a complete a*****e out of himself as soon as he appears in front of the camera - Bad call, New Line!

All in all, this is a great movie, and a great ending to a wonderful saga. In my opinion, this last movie saved a trilogy that started out great with the Fellowship of the Ring and then went rapidly downhill with the Two Towers but got back up on the track again with the Return of the King. I can't say for sure if it could have been done better or if Peter Jackson was the ultimate choice of director, but I know that there aren't that many directors around who could have achieved a better result.

I can recommend this movie to hard-core action junkies as well as the more intellectual Tolkien-fan who enjoys a good book.

Dogma (1999)

Religion gets what it deserves?

[3 May 2003]

I find it kind of hard to decide what amused me the most - Watching this movie, or reading the comments that are obviously written by religious people, who claims that "Dogma" is a poor movie?

To start with, "Dogma" feels a bit like it's one of a kind, at least you rarely come across movies that dare making so much fun of the church and christianity as a whole. Especially as an american movie, considering that the US isn't exactly known to be the most tolerant country in the christian world when it comes to religious issues... Something that is clear when you read some of the comments, as those behind them try to hide their religious reasons for trashing this movie behind less believable arguments, like "bad acting" (Sure, with "crappy actors" like Ben Affleck and Matt Damon to screw it up, right?), "bad plot" (No, "Dogma" isn't original in ANY way, or what?) and so on.

But if we all set our hidden agendas aside, and take a more objective and less discriminating look at "Dogma", most of us will agree that this is a good movie. The acting is way above average, each actor does a good job in making unbelievable characters seem believable. The plot is very good as well, as it makes a hardly believable story seem somewhat believable, giving the (secular) audience quite a few good laughs. The "excremental" is a schoolbook example of the originality that makes this movie great - Instead of having the more or less "conventional" demon with horns, wings, a scary visage burst out of a flaming hole in the ground, we are confronted with a walking pile of crap who crawled out of the john... (Kind of reminds me of one of my old school teachers, by the way...) "Dogma" is a fresh breeze among all these other dull, boring and oh-so-predictable movies about The End Of The World, the standard setting for most other movies with a religious theme.

It's just a movie. Enjoy it, or watch something else.

Judging by some of the comments here, I feel that there are far more important issues about "Dogma" than just acting and plot - Are you religious and feel offended by this flick? Then I'm sure you deserve it, one way or the other. That's what this movie is about, the hypocrisy among many religious individuals, who consider themselves to be so moral, god loving and above the "non-believers", but have a real hard time to practice what they preach. The cardinal is one example, when confronted with something that might as well happen according to the bible, he refuses to believe that it IS actually happening! So if you find "Dogma" offensive, you should probably blame yourself in the first place, for being too narrow minded and intolerant to accept any other ideas about christianity than those of your own. This, I believe is another important point that this movie has, there are plenty of people walking the face of this planet that pretend to be truly religious, yet unable to name even half of the ten commandments. There are many examples of this throughout history. Like the televangelism or various christian cults (using twisted and false interpretations of the bible), all in order to gain control over other peoples minds, and particulary their money, according to the situation of today. Or the crusades during the medieval time, as well as burning of presumed witches and other "infidels". The reasons never change, only the methods. And if you prefer christianity to be a source for strength and inspiration instead of a tool for oppression (as it have actually been in Europe during the earlier centuries), you'd better accept movies and stories that dare to make fun of the religion, or you might as well see your society turn into a christian version of Iran or Afghanistan, where tyrants use "the word of god" as a weapon against the freedom of the people.

If anyone is to judge the people behind this movie, that has to be god and none other! ;-)

Anyone who condemn this movie or its creators simply because of the religious theme should seriously rethink his or her life.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Exceptionally well made movie - But somewhat ruined

[5 April 2003]

"The Two Towers" is an exceptionally well made movie, acting, special effects and music are all at the top notch. It is probably the movie I've enjoyed watching 2003. (Yes, it I know it was released during 2002, but I always wait until there is possible to get a good seat in the theaters, and leave the camping outside the movie theaters to the geeks! ;-)) The scenery was stunning, as was the visualizations of the characters in the books, as well as the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I'm not by far as satisfied by the way Peter Jackson converted the plot of the book into a movie. There are a few changes that was made, although not all of them were bad, many of them somewhat ruined the story. Mostly these "bad" changes consists of scenes invented by mr Jackson himself, that have nothing to do with the plot, and was shown at the expense of some, more imporant scenes that had to be left out. As for example, the warg riders that assault the people of Rohan on their way to Helms Deep is quite out of line. I just can't figure out, did Peter Jackson wake up one morning, realizing that he thought it would be really cool to put orcs on big wolfs, and put them in a movie they didn't belong to? As those who have read the books probably know, there were no warg riders in the Lord of the Rings saga. The battle of Helms Deep were stretched from just a minor happening in the book, to the focal point of this entire movie. Quite naturally, a lot of scenes had to be left out then. And what is this with Osgiliath, were Frodo and Sam were brought? In the books, this was just the remnants of a former city, that had been abandoned when the forces of Mordor started to push against the people of Gondor. This meant that all references to Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith were left out of the movie, probably because of the lack of time or money, probably both. Thus, the audience missed the entire core of the story, as for exampe why it is named "The Two Towers" - Those are the citadels of Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul, towers that represent goodness and evil. Yes, that is correct, the name of this book doesn't refer to Barad-Dur and Orthanc. All these ways of showing Arwen is another way of wasting precious time; She shouldn't appear at all in TTT.

Another set of bad changes - Characters. Peter Jackson have by reasons unknown decided that the craracters in the book were to be changed. The most anoying to me is Gimli, who by mr Jacksons interpretation is supposed to be a kind of fool that we should all laugh at. Yes, he's short. And can't se over the battlements of a normal fortress. He is clumsy and crude beyond belief. All he lives for is drinking beer (subsequently burping, even in the presence of a king) and fighting. Well, as described by Tolkien, Gimli is one of the more majestic and adorable characters of the entire trilogy. And quite unique for being a dwarf, because of his deep with an elf (Legolas), a race otherwise despised by the dwarves. But this is obviously not good enough for Peter Jackson. King Theoden of Rohan have been degraded from the calm, wise and understanding regent of the books, to a grumpy, somewhat incompetent and violent "don't-argue-with-me-I'm-the-king"-type of character in the movies. After being "cured" by Gandalf, his first thought was to slay Wormtongue, and Aragorn had to intervene. Well, in the book, a soldier wanted to slay Wormtongue, while Theoden intervened and instead told the guards to give him a horse and let him go. So, in essence, that is what happened in the movie, so why do all these changes? Treebeard, the wise ent, picked by curiosity up the two hobbits in the book, eager to learn more about them. By Peter Jacksons interpretation, he only wanted to kill them, because he thought they were orcs. Why was this change necessary? Besides this, the ents decided, by their own initiative, to assault Isengard according to the book, as Treebeard (a.k.a Fangorn, as he not only lived in this forrest, but he also was the soul of the forrest and knew about everything that happened in there) had grown mad with the ways of Saruman. But according to Jackson, it took the cunning of two little brats from the Shire to convince the oldest living being in Middle-Earth (Treebeard) that he should assault Isengaard. Faramir, the younger brother of Boromir, was according to Tolkien the opposite of his hot-headed and bad-tempered older brother. He was wise and calm, and choose the way of the mind instead of the way of the sword. Well, not according to Jackson. Instead, he behaves like a blueprint of his older brother, seizes the hobbits, and brings them to Gondor.

I could go on forever, but I'll think I better halt here. I always expect some changes to the plot and storyline when a movie is made with a book as the foundation. Otherwise, it would probably not be possible to make something watchable. But what disturbs me about TTT is that most of these changes are totally out of line, there is no need or reason for the director of doing them! So why were these changes made? Why removing scenes that could easily have done, and replacing them with stuff that is totally out of line and that in fact does a lot of damage to the plot? Why change the characteristics and behaviour of the characters in this story, when they have already been outlined by someone who dedicated almost his entire life to create these stories?

IMHO, what Peter Jackson did is unforgivable. Yes, it is a great movie and very watchable. But remember this, the author of the Lord of the Ring saga is John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, not Peter Jackson or Frances Walsh. They probably don't understand that the plot of this saga is a lot more complicated than just a bunch of orcs, humans and elves that play hack'n slash with each other.

Other changes that I liked is the scene were Arwen stand by Aragorns dead body in the future, and then sits by his grave for quite some time, and finally walk off into Loth-Lorien - Although the movie never explains that it is were she's heading, as well as that's were she'll die, at her own wish. I think that scene was beautiful, and quite interesting to see in this movie, since the books never states what happens to the others after the ending of the "Return of the King". And it also explains why Elrond is so hostile to the idea of his daughter marrying a simple human.

This is a great movie. But make sure you watch it before you read the book if possible, otherwise you might be disappointed.

The Ring (2002)

What a horror flick should be like

[9/10 · 2 April 2003]

As a great fan of horror movies, I feel that the future looks promising for this genre. During the last two years, there are two movies in particular that have made an impression on me, "The Others" and "The Ring". What they have in common is the lack of excessive gore, something that otherwise seem to be the foundation of American horror. Instead, they are creepy and scary, ie they will terrify you, but they won't make you sick.

The storyline of "The Ring" in short: A young reporter investigates the events surrounding a strange videotape, where a few people have died a week after watching this tape. During her investigations, she watches the videotape, and immediately after receives a phonecall by someone, telling her that she have seven days left to live. This quickens up the pace a bit, and this reporter eventually uncovers what she believes to be the truth of this cursed tape - Case closed? No, there is a twist, you see... And that's about all I'm going to tell you, watch the movie if you like to know more. ;-)

In difference to some of the other reviewers that consider this to be a crappy movie, my verdict is that it is one of the greatest horror movies I've seen in recent years. A simple reason to disagree with them is this - Each and everyone with an internet connection and an e-mail address can write a review here on IMDB, regardless of experience, knowledge and judgement, and I know that writing reviews is NOT easy, if you like to communicate anything more than your own opinions and personal interpretations. Some reviewers claim that every movie they've seen is either the lowest piece of crap they ever seen, or the greatest movie to ever hit the market, with a total disregard for the fact that there is quite a span between "utter rubbish" and "finest piece of work ever done". It's hard to take that kind of shallowness seriously.

Thus, I rate "The Ring" as 8½ out of 10 - It's a great horror flick, but I don't think it's the best I have ever seen.

Others have complained about "The Ring" as being too much of a 6th Sense-ripoff, and claims that anyone who compares this movie to "The 6th Sense" is doing the latter movie a great injustice. Well, on the contrary, in my opinion - "The 6th Sense", although a good horror flick is far from as good as "The Ring", as it relies more on blood and gore (all the ghosts you see are either decaying, covered in blood and gore or puking) than horror, in order to scare you. Unfortunately, blood and gore equals to horror to a good part of the American crowd, but I believe Europeans have a little more taste than that. Covering everything with ketchup is a very cheap trick, and it don't work on me. Otherwise, "Black Hawk Down" would be the pinnacle of the horror genre. ;-)

The bottom line is this: If you like to watch a great horror flick with a creepy mood, some unexpected twists and a good deal of mystery, this is the movie for you. If blood, gore and excessive use of sound effects is what you like, I'd recommend you to watch "Pet Sematary", "Night Flier", "Terror on Elm Street" or some other splatter movie. ;-)

"The Ring" is a horror movie, no more, no less.

Titan A.E. (2000)

A masterpiece, in its own way!

[5 December 2002]

I remember a trailer for Titan AE being shown at my local cinema a couple of years ago, before the movie hit the theaters here in Stockholm. I forgot about it, and never got to see it on the big screen. Bummer!

Plot, short version: Reluctant hero embarks on a quest to save humanity from a bunch of bad-ass aliens.

I recently watched this movie, and my verdict is quite clear: A true masterpiece, in its own way. To be a bit more specific, I've never seen animations like those in Titan AE before. In my opinion, this is what makes this movie one of a kind. Flavor this a bit with some comic humor, fairly good voice-acting and loveable clichés, and you got the spirit of this movie.

I believe that most critics really hated this movie, and in a way I understand them. It's because Titan AE is an animated movie, and to many of us this indicates that the target group are teenagers, not adults. Although it is quite clear that the target group for Titan AE actually IS adults and not teens. Meaning that those who would probably love it didn't watch it.

The storyline is OK, the usual stuff about a hero emerging to save humanity, ie what we're used to in american movies. Not much to say about it, it works for Titan AE. Some critics claim that Titan AE is a piece of junk because of the storyline, and that it feels too unrealistic. Unrealistic? Well, duh, we're talking science fiction, right? Think about the logic in that kind of reasoning - Realistic science fiction, isn't that a bit like de-hydrated water? There aren't many realistic sci-fi flicks out there, for a reason. If they were to be realistic we wouldn't get much action. As far as I'm concerned, those who condemn science fiction-movies because of the lack of realism probably have something wrong with them, or have missed the whole idea with this genre.

My opinion is clear - This is a great movie, in its own way. If you want science fiction, nice SFX and a great soundtrack, this movie is for you. If a deep and complicated plot is your greatest concern, you should totally forget about science fiction. Complaining about lack of realism and plot in Titan AE is like complaining about the lack of lasersword-fighting Legends of the Fall.

Pet Sematary (1989)

Slightly overrated movie based on a slightly overrated novel by a slightly overrated actor

[16 November 2002]

As a teenager I used to read a lot of novels and short stories by Stephen King. They were good enough for a few chills, but I could never agree with those of my friends who considered (and still consider) him to be the greatest horror writer of all time. I guess we had different views of what defines horror.

To sum up the storyline of Pet Sematary I think just one or two sentences will do fine: MD Louis Creed moves to an adorable cottage close to an ancient indian burial ground (how original, seems like "ancient indian burial ground" is the core of most of his novels) in New England with his family, becomes haunted by the ghost of a patient he were never able to save. Then his cat, son and wife gets killed in the order stated here, and he bury them at this indian burial ground, bringing them back to life, or a state of half-life. Then he gets killed by his resurrected wife. End of story.

Of course, this is the storyline of the MOVIE, if you would read the novel you would soon find out that it is a lot more to it than this. But I guess this is what happens when you try to compress the plot of a 600-page novel into a movie less than two hours long.

The acting is IMO about average, with two exceptions. Dale Midkiff manages to turn the nice MD known from the novel into an almost emotionless robot, while Miko Hughes does an outstanding performance as the son. Considering that he was only three years old, I was amazed by his performance.

All in all, I think you should see this movie. But don't expect too much horror, neither the books or movies by Stephen King does a very good job scaring you. Instead there are plenty of "cheap" tricks used, like excessive use of gore and loud sound effects that will make you jump. Who wouldn't feel nauseated by watching a close-up of a tendon being cut with a scalpel? A ghost with half his brain coming out of a huge hole in the left side of his head? A zombie trying to rip off his own face? Or a young woman with her face cut to shreds and eyes falling out of her sockets? That is, IMHO, simple gore and not actually horror. And that is what Stephen King base most of his works on, to in either visual or written form describe what is happening. In the novel, he did a great job describing what a two year old baby that has been run over by a huge truck looks like. It's not nice to read it, but it's not particulary scary either.

But Pet Sematary is a fairly good movie after all.