reinholdfilm Reviews

Antichrist (2009)

Von Trier Masterclass

[9/10 · 21 May 2009]

First I have to make a comment to cynibun from United States who wrote "And if you look at the previous reviewers they are from Denmark, where the director is from. Perhaps you have to be Danish to appreciate the horrific torture pornography, who knows??... Americans have more sense thankfully, and do not call everything art simply because the director is foreign." I have no idea why it should matter where the other reviewers are from. That has nothing to do with "Antichrist" as a film. Some like it and some don't, no matter what country they are from. If I don't like an American film I don't go out and bash on reviewers from America and then state that Danes have more sense - what's that all about? Sense of what? Personally I don't think it makes much sense making movies like "American Pie" or "Hannah Montana", but hey, they produce the films anyway - maybe because they have more sense. Hannah Montana makes a LOT of sense... And you don't have to come from Denmark to like "Antichrist" (though it is a very constructive statement), I'm guessing there is one or two people from Russia or Poland who likes the film also...

Back to Lars Von Trier and "Antichrist". First of all - I don't know why everybody keeps saying this film is a gore fest. "Uhhh it's so brutal, violent and extremely gory". What? Okay, there's more blood than in "Hannah Montana" but if "Antichrist" is a sick and gory film, I don't know what you would call films like "Ichi The Killer", Naked Blood", "Inside" and "Audition"? There is more blood/gore in "Se7en" than in "Antichrist" (or maybe the same amount), so I don't know what all the fuzz is about... Anyway... I loved the film!!! When I left the theater I didn't know quite what to think, but it grows and becomes better and better. It's a fantastic work of art, the cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle is amazing and the whole feel of the film is both beautiful and scary at the same time. Willem Dafoe is at his best in this one.

I guess you have to have an open mind when watching this. The film does not give any answers and is rich on symbolism - guess one could call it "experimental horror-drama". Lars Von Trier is back in his hypnotic visual style and mindfuc*ing storytelling, and this is where he is best! Not a film for the mainstream audiences, but I recommend it if you have an open mind and want something new and different, and have (almost) as much sense as Americans.

Eye for Eye (2008)

So this is it....

[1/10 · 4 April 2008]

So, this is it - the long awaited feature debut from the praised filmmaker Kaywan Mohsen. And what a film! It's got it all - bad acting, bad script, bad cinematography, bad lighting, bad editing, bad voice over, bad structure. You get it all in "Eye For Eye" If this is the future for danish film and cinema, I'm heading for the exit door. How could anyone, and I mean anyone, ever even think about supporting this project financially? This is the worst film ever to come out of Denmark, and I can't recommend it to anyone.

"Eye For Eye" is about K who lives in Århus, Denmark. He finds out that a girl he knows (or actually only met once at a party) has been raped. Sp he and two of his wannabe-tough guy gangster friends finds the rapists and make them pay for what they did to the girl. After that he all of a sudden realizes he doesn't want to be a gang banger anymore, and then the film ends.

WOW!

There is nothing new in this film, a scene is directly stolen from "Irreversible" (the scene at the gay bar), the script is filled with holes, is very poorly written and has no structure what so ever. The cinematography is far the worst I have seen for a long long time. I would say the cinematography in "The Blair Witch Project" is Oscar-material compared to this mess. The editing is definitely NOT done by a professional, and the color grading is just something I still wonder about - what the hell happened there??? This is all homemade ego-video and no one can call this mess film-making.

Rocky Balboa (2006)

The streets of Philadelphia

[9/10 · 18 January 2007]

Finally, after so many years of waiting, it's here! ROCKY BALBOA! I have always been a huge fan of Rocky - especially the first three films, so I have been looking forward to this film for a long time.

After watching it - when the credits rolled over the screen to Conti's now classical Rocky-score, I felt good - really good! I was satisfied. ROCKY BALBOA is a great film about a great man and it goes back to the roots of it all. Some elements are missing though (Adrian) but I learned to live with it half way through the movie. Sylvester Stallone is back in his "character-for-life" and does it perfectly. He IS Rocky. Adding Little Marie and Spider Rico from the first film, could have been a bit dangerous, but surprisingly, it worked out fantastic. The friendship that evolves between Rocky and Marie means everything to the film, and is a real pleasure to watch. Thumbs up! To me, it seemed that Rocky and Paulie is not that close anymore - they seen to have some sort of distance between them, that I can't really figure out. Maybe it's because of Adrians death, maybe Paulie is just too distant to the viewer. We could have gotten closer to him and his friendship with Rocky - I don't know.

There are things I am disappointed about. The whole training-sequence is happening way too fast. All of a sudden he starts training, and Duke (Tony Burton) is all of a sudden in the film - no introduction. Another thing is the whole look of the film. I had hoped they would have gone "back-to-basics" and shot it "Rocky-style" - like the first film. Slow, dark and less colorful. That's one of the things I LOVE about the first two films - the whole visual style. But this new film is very modern in it's colors and the final fight is shot MTV-like with a lot of fancy visual effects. That's disappointing to me. They should have gone back to the original in my opinion.

All in all - Rocky still rules, and Sly has made a really great film that he can be proud of. No doubt about it! ROCKY BALBOA is a great and powerful movie, that especially Rocky-fans will love! Go for it! It ain't over till it's over!!!

Pusher III (2005)

Ends with a blast.....

[10/10 · 9 December 2005]

Well, well, well. What can I say? Either you love this film or you hate it.

I'm not going to write about the story - it's been done already I can see. All there is to say about this film is, that in my opinion, it's fantastic!!! Do NOT expect a high-octane action flick. You'll be very disappointed. It's more of a slow, quiet drama, with a main character that's SO fascinating, you can't take you're eyes off him. Zlatko Buric is so good in PUSHER 3. The end-scene/shot says it all - I can watch the film over and over again just for that scene/shot. The whole film is in that shot! Beautiful!

The PUSHER-trilogy could not end better, than with PUSHER 3. So, just watch it, experience it, see it, hear it.

Betonhjerter (2005 Video)

Danish film with good intentions - not good results!

[1/10 · 21 June 2005]

Yes, this is a debut feature film! Yes, this is extremely low-budget!

But, that is not a valid excuse, for making a movie as bad and poor as this one!!! Only one good element in this film, and that is Michael Zile's own cameo role - he's actually pretty good here. Beside from that it really stinks! Sorry folks, but that is a fact!

The story/script is messy, filled with plot holes, many loose ends, written with no dramatic sense at all and very poorly written dialog.

The camera-work is far the worst ever and so is the sound. There are moments in this film where you can't hear a damn thing. The sound man is credited at the end of the film - I wouldn't have dared to be credited for such a lousy and awful job if it was me!

It's shot in full-frame on DVCam (video) and they haven't even tried to give this film a "filmlook"in post-production. It's so easy now a days!

Even the title-design is damn ugly (if you can call it a design?)

All the technical aspects of this film is far the worst I have ever seen. Clearly no one involved in this film have any idea how to make a film....AT ALL!!! This film only took eight days to shoot - perhaps they should have used eight more......seriously.

The actors are all amateurs. Some directors have success with the use of amateurs (like in Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER II), but this is just awful, and it may even make you laugh. I know did. I wouldn't call them actors, and I wouldn't call this a film - this is a home-video, and everyone would be better off NOT watching it!!!