Change Your Image
fisk-2
Reviews
Grindhouse (2007)
Horrid
Quentin stars a huge mish-mash of famous actors in this horror flick that sets out as something that reminds you of how poorly a movie is when it's directed to one audience, the average American consumer. To me, this is all that was wrong about "28 weeks later" compared to it's predecessor. No brains, just another one of these zombie flicks that remind you of that Rodriguez/Tarantino vampire series that rival this one.
From start to end it's a hymn to brainless tasteless action without any red thread going through the movie, shallow characters, braindead plot, and largely something that make the Hammer Horror films of old look like "The Godfather" in comparison.
I must be the wrong person to watch this. This movie is as entertaining as vomiting after eating too much pizza.
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
Grade A sleeping pill
I had such great expectations for this movie. Clint Eastwood made such an awesome job on his last movie, and I figured he would with this one too. But boy was I wrong.
The shots in this movie are repeated again and again, making it very repetitive to watch, and the asynchonous script makes it more confusing than interesting to watch. Especially as the same scenes (again) are re-used.
I don't know how many times it's reiterated in this movie: "I never wanted to be a hero", but it's said as many times as many of the same shots are re-used.
Clint Eastwood must think little of his audience, since he needs to repeat things so many times over. "Flag raising didn't mean nothing to him, but it sure meant a lot to them", and other clichés are repeated like broken records.
Then there's the length of the movie, it feels like something you watched in school during a boring history class, failing to get to the point. Or rather, repeating the same point over and over again, because the picture has little more purpose than to say anything beyond the obvious.
You don't care about the characters of this movie, despite they try to convey the typical sob-story of war-movies like this. Somehow drama has been taken out of it, and Flags of our Fathers has become the metaphorical equivalent of setting up a camera filming paint drying.
During the last part of the film, I feel like going to bed more than anything, because it does one thing good; make me want to sleep.
Poor Iggy, I collapsed sleeping while waiting for the end-titles.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Turkeys on a plane
This is such a turkey, bad acting, bad story, bad effects, cheap plot, and generally no dramaturgy or buildup. It's a classical B-movie that should've been straight to video, no questions asked.
One year from now, I guarantee you, no one will remember, or care about this movie, at all.
It all starts out cheap, you know you're watching a bad movie when the concept can be summarized in one sentence. There's nothing to look forward to in this movie, it won't deliver anything unexpected. It's plain and simple, and outright boring.
The only thing that doesn't make me give it a 1/10, is the fact that some stupid people get what they deserve, which add some comical value to it. Other than that, this should be avoided.
BloodRayne (2005)
People vote against Uwe Boll out of sheer principle...
Bloodrayne is actually not such a bad movie, it has some flaws in it's storytelling, and the dialogue at times is very poorly executed. But it is definitely not worth the low rating it has received by so many. Which leads me to believe that people vote against the director totally, and solely out of spite.
This 2.X rating has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, at all. It is actually an average movie, and actually better than eg. "Van Helsing", or the Dracula 2000-series, and only slightly worse than Blade.
I think Kingsley portrays the old vampire perfectly, and the other actors performance aren't so bad either. The environments are very excellently picked for the atmosphere, and the music in it is excellent.
With better photography, telling, and some more focus on writing a better dialogue, this could've been a lot better. It certainly has potential.
Oh, credit to Meat Loaf, who made an excellent portrayal of a slothfully vampire in this.
King Kong (2005)
Peter Jackson should know when to kill his darlings
King Kong is Peter Jackson's dream - in a way, he always liked this movie as a child, and now he wants to do it himself. Much like Lord of the Rings, the problem is that King Kong isn't much of a movie to start with. And unfortunately Peter doesn't manage to save that.
There is too much in this movie that makes it shallow, the characters are shallow, and most of the acting is rudimentary, at best. The way the lead characters make their decisions, isn't at all presented, or motivates the audience to sympathize with their choices. Which makes the experience more of a visual roller-coaster, than a movie driven by character background, story, and dramaturgy.
King Kong is, at most - visual and audio effects at it's best. For neither Jack Black's shallow depiction of the main director (which screams of a paraphrase of PJ himself), a nerd visionary with Ed Wood-vibes. Or Adrien Brody (the established theater script writer) manages to make you, at all interested in the first third of the movie.
The story is presented in a very hasty way, where it feels like Peter doesn't really care much for characters, or build-up. The way it's made, it feels like he's only interested in Kong, and doesn't really use his otherwise cinematic prowess in building up the atmosphere up to that. And even after seeing Kong, that's not much to give the audience any way.
King Kong falls even before it starts, really. To make, essentially Jurassic Park, with a love crazed giant Gorilla, in the first place, doesn't really scream: "Interesting!" at you. Peter really needed to kill his darlings with this one, and kept his love for this movie to himself.
Despite trying to give a reference to Heart of Darkness, and a couple of small homages to Coppola's Apocalypse Now, this doesn't really become anything other than a mediocre "Island of Dr. Moreau", "Jurassic Park"-esquire film. Why it has received so much audience positive feedback (and amazing IMDb-score) is hardly due to the quality of the movie itself. But the trust of the director.
Peter, I forgive you for making this movie. But if you make another side-step like this, you'll disappear as soon as I can say: "Kong".
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
An average movie
People have a tendency to mix hype+tradition with good film making. Had this been ANY other movie than STAR WARS, this ... mediocre thing would never have received the attention it has.
But now here we have it, millions of people appreciating a bad script, seriously under performing actors (due to worthless directing from a director who, at best, should be doing technical movies outside Hollywood).
There's no wonder why George Lucas wanted someone else to direct this movie - he's probably realizing that this is the flic that either would set "the record straight" (for what you will), however with boy-band-wannabe singers like Hayden Christensen in the lead, you know you're in for a real disappointment.
The story is thin, the twists that take place are illogical and most oftenly very poorly built up. You can expect situations where something just happens without any real explanation (in the movie at least, apologists have thousands of explanations of course).
I give this a 6/10 for a few reasons though:
1. This is the best of the first trilogy 2. Christopher Lee is one of the world's most wonderful actors. 3. Ewan McGregor lifts, what parts of this movie that would make you vomit into "acceptable" levels.
In the end though, this is a mediocre movie. Something that would hardly raise eyebrows without all the hype.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Overrated and boring
I know, I know... this is a classic, this is one of those you "should" rate high - I gave it a 2 out of 10, and both of these are because of the pretty scenery they've made for the movie.
I find the script, the entire "musical" quite boring, and really uninteresting. I was yawning after 10 minutes or so into the movie, and hearing the theme music for the 4012045:th time in my life didn't send the shivers down my spine as people keep saying.
I find the hours spent on this movie nearly totally wasted, except for the fact that, as I said - the scenes are nice, remind me a bit of Coppola & Polanski.
The rest is horrid.
Cellular (2004)
Terrible!
I don't know if I've seen a less entertaining or exciting movie, this is so full of clichés it's tiresome. It's an average crappy want to be a thriller-Hollywood-movie with a cast that overall has about the same acting capacity Ben Affleck has. And in case you do not realize it, Ben Affleck is one of the world's worst actors. Kim Basinger is so horrible, playing the "mother in distress" to the ability of Average Joe. The script is so predictable it's sad, and the implementation makes it about as interesting as watching an episode of Baywatch.
At least if David Hasselhoff was in it, you would have something to laugh at.
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
When movie is an art form, not a science...
Those who have seen this movie, and are left with derogatory remarks and blatant laughter display the farse of misinterpretation, ignorance and bitter failure to comprehend the intricacies of this movies construction. House of flying daggers is by no means as easily accessible as for instance the movie "Hero", in fact, I am not surprised that the audience that liked the previously mentioned movie, dislikes this one. What sad is not the failure to comprehend, but the way people miss the depths of this movie, for there are many complex structures, far beyond the ones people of western society, and tainted eastern society may peer into. And those who judge this as some rip-off of Gladiator, should study Chinese and Japanese traditional stories, House of flying daggers is by no means a new idea, no movies of today really are, they are all influenced by predecessors, and previous generations. For instance, watch Rorouni Kenshin, OVA, and you will find similarities, and, perhaps watching that, will you understand some of the complexities of this movie.
At the end, this is a subjective impression, and all my senses were pleased. Those who hoped to see a "cool Asian martial-arts-flick" were disappointed, those who appreciate the sweet taste of culture and art, rejoice, with a bittersweet taste left in the mouth.
Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars (2004)
It feels as if being enlightened by a high deity.
After just coming back from watching the six hour long watch of PEACEKEEPER WARS - I can barely contain myself, I feel as emotional as when I watched the final episode of the Lord of the Rings trilogy TIMES TEN! - I do seriously not know how to best describe these emotions with any clarity, so I will instead choose to portray it in something abstract:
It feels as if being enlightened, touched, by a high deity.
This movie, and the series behind it, truly is a MUST SEE for any person, whether they are a Sci-Fi-nerd, or someone who loves acting, and great character development. Farscape carries you through intense emotions, and the deepest of stories, that carries you through a world of experiences that are beyond the realm of your imagination, whence you have seen it all, you will feel sad, yet fulfilled - in a way that movies, only on the rarest of occasions, are able to convey.
Take my word for it, this is a journey of journeys.
Frogmen Operation Stormbringer (2002)
Not the worst movie ever made, but it comes close.
First of all, this is a movie with semi-realism, people actually die from bullets and on both sides. There's probably more "friendlies" dying in this movie than in any other U.S. stereotype-film.
The movie is pretty straightforward, there are some weak attempts at trying to write subplots (ie. the world's most dangerous terrorist manages to be a part of the Seal Team (don't ask)) there's also the occasional "My wife got killed by americans"-whine, and "America is a murderer"... really strong motives.
As for cinematography this is pretty bad, there are lots of jump-cuts, and there are some beginner's mistakes that make it look like a B-production. One thing that's pretty hilarious is that they've done a voice-dub when the seal-team is diving, I don't know, but when you're scuba-diving I find it hard to believe that you're able to speak in a radio, and the mindless things they say "Oh yeah!, I cut him", "I'm coming to help you guys" (when they're in the same cramped area.
The acting is really subpar, which considering the really vivid imagery of explosions tells of a costly setup. There's namely LOTS of explosions in this movie, the pyrotechnicians really had a great time.
Some of the shots show really expensive effects (ie. they drive a couple of trailers off a cliff, one blows up, another one goes under the water), they sink a really big boat, etc.
If you're really BORED and out of war-movies to watch, this can maybe (worst-case-scenario) be something to see. Otherwise, avoid it. Just fast-forward to the scenes with the explosions, and you might get 3-4 minutes of enjoyment from this.
ps.
The reason the rubber boat exploded, was because there was a case full of explosives in it.