Reviews

17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Space Thing (1968)
2/10
Low budget AND immoral values
12 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
"Space Thing" is bad, very bad and not so bad it's good. It's just bad, starting with the fully unimaginative title. This was the Golden Age of written scifi, but of course the first sci-fi movies were invariably made by those who knew nothing about it.

Okay, how is this more bad? Wellm the set up has no link to the rest of the movie: A man reads about the Many-Worlds or Many-Universe theory, aka the Multiverse for short, but then he DREAMS he's an alien? That's a wrong use of the Multiverse Theory, which is about subtle variations which lead to big differences and outcomes, like, what if Jesus got killed at birth, or Napoleon, or Djenghis Khan. Or what if the Native Americans colonized Europe.

Just looking at the episode in space on it's own: Of course the production values are atrocious, the budget was under 30K? But they seem especially bad, the crew sits on glorified BAR STOOLS, the special effects featuring space ships all show them wobbly on their strings, they are the worst ever. Asteroids are cotton balls, but clearly so. The costumes are equally bad, the men wear standard issue medieval shiny things, and the women some sort of bathing suits, which leaves NOTHING to the imagination, a leeeettle subtlety would have been nice.

When one the men goes out explore the "asteroid" they landed on, he wears a fully closed space suit, but he talks to the ship via a walkie talkie ..... OUTSIDE his space suit!?? Just gluing on the antenna onto the helmet would have been an easy and cheap fix, which would have save the scene from ridicule.

And subsequently the women go outside in .... beach wear, so no space suit, without anyone saying "the atmosphere is non-toxic, there's breathable air here"??

The sex scenes are not very appealing, the women are half decent, especially Merci Montello, but the men are all ugly, hairy and fat, they have pot bellies. It's where the movie is at it's most immoral because they are very gender unequal: the women all undress fully, but the men never ever drop their pants, so the love scenes are always with nekkid women and half or fully dressed men.

Also, the alien comes to the ship and immediately views the crew through a repressed Midwestern-values lens? In the end, he can't deal with all the sex, so he blows the ship up.

It also promotes a rapist trope, the captain starts out as a proud lesbian, eager to claim that men are both evil AND terrible lovers, but at the end, just a few slimy remarks of the male alien about how pretty she is, are enough to get her in his bed? WHAT!?!?

This suggests the myth which non-gay en told themselves in that era: the only thing a good man needs to "cure" lesbianism is flattery. Or whatever.

The gender inequality is further underlined by how the actresses all had to be bare footed in the outdoor scenes in the desert, while the men all wore shoes. Was this some sort of a "we can run faster, while the women can't" thing? Perhaps. But it shows that the women in 1968 had no power, no say in how to do their jobs whatsoever.

The only redeeming thing this movie has is that it has a scene where 3 women play 3 dimensional checkers. And how they did the credits, which is exploitative but also creative and a bit fun.

2 oth 10 (added 1 for 3D checkers) The Melancholic Alcoholic.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good frog in boiling water hides as an engaging thriller
28 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
On the surface, this is a thriller about gig worker Emily (as in: the lower classes) with a gigantic student loan debt of 70K dollars, and an assault conviction, ensuring she won't ever get a decent job. One day she's offered an opportunity to do credit card fraud: 200 dollars for one hours work. From that point, she gets deeper and deeper into the criminal business.

But the film has deeper layers, it also shows how she, through an unfair justice system gets the mill stone of the assault conviction around her neck, when she was trying to get away from an abusive boyfriend. And when she finally sees the way out via a job, she actually studied for, she gets held back by the fact that Big Corp in America has the power to demand unpaid labor from anyone. They got that power via bribing Senators, changing laws so workers have no say whatsoever. The working class are wage slaves, pure and simple.

Then again, most viewers, reviewers and Americans do not even see the problem. They are like frogs in slowly boiling water, who don't notice the gradual temperature rise and won't jump out, until it's too late.

They've been brainwashed from birth to accept this as their lot and all poverty is 100% their own fault, lucky breaks are handed down from God. Meaning, rich people are picked by god to be rich, and it's useless, even blasphemy to resist that. This is the same what Iran says about women: Allah made you a 2nd rate person, accept that.

7 oth 10

The Melancholic Alcoholic.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A run of the mill version of Elephant
16 December 2020
I wanted to watch this one because of Michaela Mann, and I didn't know what it was about. After seeing it was Uwe Boll directing i was a little surprised to so many reputable and excellent actors: Moss, Prochnow, Muldoon, Fletcher, Will xXxX and Paré The movie is clearly about Columbine, just like Gus van Sant's "Elephant" is. However, HoA lacks the quality and artistry of Elephant. And also, it lacks guts, given the conclusion at the end when the reporter DARES to blame computer games for school shootings rather than bullying and availability oof guns. Europe has just as many computer game players, Japan has extreme bullying, neither has a smidge of the American school shooting numbers. So, this movie breathes mediocrity: it's a dumbed down version of Elephant, a straight and very predictable flick. The actual horror is unintentional and comes at the end when several school rampages until 2002 are listed and their death count seem insignificant compared to the rampages in the 2 decades after, Florida, Virginia tech, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Breivik and Dylan Rooff
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Starcrash (1978)
3/10
close encounter of the non-cloth kind
25 May 2020
Between the gratuitous skimpy outfits of heroine Stella, and the stupid lines like "by sunset I shall rule the Universe" when it's clear the writer has no clue aabout tthe difference bbetween universe and galaxy, this is a film that hovers between"so bad iit's ggood" and just plain bad. I'm afraid tthe balance goes to the latter, despite the colourful cinematography. 3 / 10 The Melancholic Alcoholic.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
MacGyver: Ruler (2017)
Season 1, Episode 17
2/10
No actual Dutch people were (ab)used for this episode
24 October 2019
So, this is a fairly standard, boiler-plate, run-of-the-mill TV episode of every American action comedy TV series ever made. Talking to actual Dutch people, they let me know that this was a horendous portrayal of Amsterdam and the Netherlands. Literally NOT one scene is taking place in Amsterdam. Not ONE actor is actually Dutch. The head of Dutch intelligence is Norwegian, his assistent is South-African but I would bet not even of the group that descends from the Dutch. The Dutch cop is from the Bronx. The way Eaton pronounces "Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst" is atrocious, which means they didn't even bother to have a language coach, they probably used Translate Google or something. The scenes look like they were shot in Canada or whereever and the flag at the Dutch Intelligence HQ was not from the Netherlands but from Luxembourg, a neighbouring, yet a whole separate country. Some streetsigns were okay, but the number plates on the cars were not Dutch. And all cars had a non-dutch country sticker.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vanished (2016)
1/10
Even for fake-christians, this is very bad
18 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I mean, come on! This is just really very bad: 1. The twist at the end depends on some wild-eyed ReichWing conspiracy theory that the UN is "out to get us white christians....for our money" I mean, that's far fetched, even for reichwingers these days. conservatives are anti-UN because they racist think it's ONLY about white Westerners giving money to dark skinned Africans. The UN is an organisation which has been VERY good to the USA, and it has a veto.

What's funny is that the movie want to make itself look sane by making the circle-the-wagons guy look bad, by attacking a believe that many reichwingers have: the government is out to get you, so you better arm yourself to the teeth.
9 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Racist lines!
12 January 2017
I was quite offended by the racist lines uttered by Knud (Lars Kaalund). Why is necessary to use the N-word here? Are the Danes such big racists? They do have a big racist/anti-immigration political party, which gets around 25 percent of the votes. Luckily, in the English remake, they didn't repeat that. No doubt, the longer familiarity of English society to black people has something to do with that, and Denmark doesn't have that at all. Still, I think it's appalling to leave such lines in, where it clearly doesn't serve any purpose, not in a romantic comedy. The movie was completely spoiled for me. Would they've been put in when it wasn't a black adoption, but a Jewish one? Guess not.
1 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Black students NEVER EVER hold offensive parties like this
16 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Watered down message still will surprise many whites.

How come it's ALWAYS whites www.brobible.com/sports/article/ black-face-powder-puff-high-school-football/ (remove the space) who do these things, and always claim innocence afterward? "Oops, sorry, didn't know that mocking slavery would be hurtful to you and terrorize you" That's right, black-face parties, singing racist songs are TERRORIZING black people, which is why the KKK did it: to send the message: "you don't belong, you don't have rights at all, you behave or else we'll kill you." The recent Oklahoma racist chants, caught on video prove that this is not over by a long shot.

Never is it blacks mocking white suffering (because whites never suffered under slavery or the KKK), but it's always whites. How would whites react to blacks holding parties in Nazi concentration camp outfits, with loads of gas sounds, showers, ovens as props? The suffering of Jews in Germany is over, but the oppression of blacks in America goes on everyday.

DWP uses this phenomenon as a starting point to make the point that racism is alive and well in America, and now, segregation has permeated the North as well as the South.

DWP's line about how blacks can't be racist is clumsy, it's much better to say that blacks can't enjoy white privilege. This makes it much clearer to whites, who are massively uneducated on this. Or in denial.

And DWP's defense of the "Racism is over!"-hypocrisy by pointing at Obama is very, very poor. The right response to that is to ask: so if the Nazis had made a Jew minister of trade, while still gassing the Jews by dozens per minute, would that have been okay? One black president, golfer or Oprah doesn't make up for the 99.9 percent of doctors, lawyers and hedge fund managers who are still white. Or for the fact that average white family wealth&income is 20 (TWENTY!) times that of black families.

As a film, DWP is a well structured film, it mixes personal story lines cleverly with the overall message. The romantic part of Sam's storyline is a bit much, but is clearly done to appease fence sitting whites.

What's hilarious about all the other reviews is the whining about underdeveloped white characters, it's so, so hypocrite. Blacks haven't had a round character in the 110 years that film has been made, but as soon as the reverse is done, it's an outrage?? Gimme a break.
2 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
U.N. Me (2009)
1/10
No, it's NOT a mockumentary
13 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a shameless hatchet job on the UN, its only goal is to fully and utterly discredit that organisation.

It highlights two recent cases, the Food For Oil scandal, and the mass murders in Rwanda. On the backs of the victims of these cases it tries, but bitterly fails to make the following point: The UN is an Evil Organisation And Thou Shalt Never Give Them Any Money. And one should discredit all the good work it's done based on it's failure to act in these two instances. We should completely stop caring about the good work the UN has done in Eritrea, Bosnia and other places because it's an "inherently flawed" institution. Should we blame the WHOLE U.N.? Nooooo, we should only blame its poorest and most powerless members, Third World countries and such. Hint: so, NOT the Veto Powers America, UK and France. Nor any of the other rich nations, but only if they support Israel. So that's a no against Belgium.

We are asked to accept this, but it is flawed because: 1. It's silly and downright wrong to discard 60 years of performance based on two failed cases. 2. Blaming the failures on member states which have the LEAST power is kinda stupid, just your typical ReichWing anti-people preachings and a variation of blaming the regular conservative "blame the victim" strategy 3. Completely leaving out the role of the USA and the UK, out of everything, is, besides being logically flawed, also hugely underestimating the knowledgeability of your audience. Do they really think we don't know that the USA and the UK have veto power?

'Consider the source' is normally not a good argument to make, but in this case I think it's warranted, for two reasons.

a. Ami Horowitz is a (failed??) investment banker. You know, that set of people which brought us the global financial meltdown because of greed. Not exactly a glowing example of moralism. There's a saying about a pot, a kettle and calling it names, I forget.

b. Horowitz is NOT, I repeat NOT a Jewish-American, but he has an Israeli background. Israelis hate the UN, since it's hugely critical of Israels Apartheid-like occupation policy. (No, not saying it IS Apartheid, it's very much LIKE Apartheid)

I guess this comment won't make it past the IMDb censor, free speech doesn't apply when we're talking about Israel, I guess ....

The makers showed this at the IDFA, a documentary filmfestival in Amsterdam, because they thought they'd have a good time smoking weed while getting free room and board. Well, in the Talk and Meet sessions afterwards, they really got an earful from the European audience, which is of course not as gullible as their hillbilly target audience.

What's also flawed about this video, is that it's overarching theme is: The UN is inherently bad, but at the end they show some Charter articles which show that it's NOT bad ... Odd.

Finally, American rightwing criticism on an organisation which they don't even pay the contribution for (they haven't paid their contribution in 10 or 15 years)????

Can and should we really take such criticism serious???

No, no and heII, NO.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bush SUCKS. DICK cheney ... more
16 February 2008
Yes, my title is the essence of the film: Please don't kill Bush, because then we'd have cheney for president and then we'd really see how America would be run as a corporation. And completely without democratic rights or civil liberties.

Aside from war, this would be the most interesting political event that could happen on this planet.

That's why it's a good subject for a film. And this film IS good, with good acting unknown actors.

The repercussions of a presidential would be devastating: The economy would plummet, but most likely and more importantly, the Americans wouldn't hold back (or rather: hold back even less) and might go nuclear after this one. And I think they wouldn't nuke China or Russia or some other country that would benefit from political chaos in the USA, nor would the Middle East be the target, since Iran would use dirty bombs, but most likely a nation in Africa, which cannot defend it self with some form of WMD, and has no resources.

For that matter, if you have a business that would thrive on chaos, killing Bush would be a smart business move.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Looking at the surface only, not surprisingly the Americans hated it
31 October 2007
Most of the reviews I've read about this film, are negative, full of disdain. Oh wait. Correction: Most of the American reviews I've read about this film are negative! The Americans, en masse, fail to catch the subtle references to the Bush-era: - The father-son tack, how the son is a moronic brute and a sadist while the father is a smart brute. - The elephant, symbol of the ruling USA party, is portrayed here as a symbol of fascist nepotism. - The "Hearts and Minds" phrase, not subtle at all. Still, most missed it.

Some even miss the character development in Joe completely, describing all movie characters as totally flat.

Most of the US reviewers label this movie as "pretentious", clearly in a pathetic effort to pander to the half-intellectuals of the Midwest. To soothe them. "Oooh it's pretentious", if there was ever a word signaling defeat more, I haven't found it. So, hey Midwesterner, yes it might be a critique on your country but it's a burger-and-coke-ignoring piece of pretentious crap, so feel free to diss this film.

And yes, while some some themes are not new (power corrupts, extreme left is as wrong as extreme right), this is something that is especially relevant today when the worlds strongest power is sliding down the slippery slope towards some sort of theocracy.

Lots of critics seem to enjoy making fun of Joe, by wondering why he's willing to endure the torture?!! Joe is the one figure who stands up for democracy, the classic selfless Hollywood hero, who doesn't squander his ideals, yet the New York Times deems him "a priggish masochist"!!? Wow, talk about IMMORAL to the extreme. The leftist slant in mainstream media has definitely disappeared for good from the NYT.

Also, criticizing the most obvious and superficial traits of the film shows that they miss the hidden meanings, as mentioned above, of the film. And Edwards was so kind to make an overt statement about that, by letting one of his characters say: "I am always looking for subtext"!! Oh my effing God, how can you then miss this? Baffling.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's not the film but it's reception
25 July 2007
While this film in its concept is certainly interesting, it is the reception of of the film in which lies its greatest value. The whiny/johnny reb-racist/southern/Nazi/Neocon reaction I mean.

Their main complaint is that the South would not have ruled the North. HAH. Never in history had a conquering nation just given up the loot. They would for sure have installed a puppet government AT LEAST.

Their second complaint comes down to "the history of America would've been radically different under CSA than USA" Yeah rrrrright! Take Russia for example: Under the Czars, Lenin Stalin Gorbachov, or Putin, they all wanted access to warm water harbours. Similar constants apply to American Foreign Policy. Also the CSA would have felt the need to control Latin America and the Pacific.

Lastly, they play the victim here, which is an ENORMOUS CHUTPAH!!! Not only were they the tormentors and torturers and oppressors, but now we gotta feel in some sorry for their whiny collective ass?

Puh Leeze.

Great film, not appreciated enough, and not advertised enough.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battlestar Galactica: Occupation (2006)
Season 3, Episode 1
9/10
Subtelity is over-rated
21 June 2007
This episode is a not-at-all subtle metaphor for the fighting in the Middle-East. It's all about Americans, Israelis, Palestinians and maybe Iraqis. Of course it is similar too the WW2 occupied Europe dilemmas but the M-E connection is more direct. It's kinda brilliant though, portraying the Israelis and Americans as Cylons! As cold, uncaring robots! The makers must've have thought: "If this pisses the Israelis and Americans off to the point of steely resolve, well how much worse can it get for the Palestinians? In the mean time, here's something to enjoy." The humans are now the suicide bombers, This episode shows all sides to a story of occupations, there's the evil collaborator, Baltar, the good collaborator, Gaeta, the resistance movement, with the dilemma of using suicide bombers nicely split between hardliner Thigh versus moderate Roslin. Even the Cylons get some dilemmas thrown between them, should they pound hard on the resistance or appease them a while longer? (So it's not all bad, you Yanks! ;-) ;P )

The dilemma of collaborating and thus having some influence versus not cooperating so as not to be "tainted" by the oppressors, is of all times and places and was very real in the WWII. For example, the Dutch Royals fled to London, while the Danish didn't. The latter cooperated with the Nazis to some degree but it is said that this saved a number of Jews. The Netherlands, on the other hand, had the highest proportional number of Jews delivered to the gas chambers, including Anne Frank. There's no real connection there, but still ...

This dilemma is also reflected in the plight of the one soldier ('Jammer')joining the Cylon Police, which he thinks is a good thing, humans being policed by humans. He might've been right but he ends up being used by the Cylons and has to commit atrocities to humans.

Great episode, and it is a testament to deplorable state of affairs in the USA that one commentator here, expressed disbelieve that this episode was not censored in the USA. He just expects ANY anti-Bush statements to be censored, even if some are a fictional TV show. Bush (i.e. Karl Rove) was probably very wise not to mess with this episode, since it would've raked up a storm of protest ...
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
May 6th (2004)
1/10
Movie nicely demonstrates current Dutch double standard and successfully feeds on ultra-right fear-mongering
24 April 2006
You've got to hand it to him, the movie has succeeded in it's attempt. The movie was made as a monument to the embodiment of the Anti-Moslemism: Pim Fortuyn. Don't be distracted by the goal on the surface, which is to suggest that Dutch secret service knew about the murder and let it happen. The ulterior motive of this movie was to create a more anti-Moslem, anti-foreigner, anti-immigration sentiment in the Netherlands.

The effect of this movie (we can't call it 'film', it's too bad a plot for that) can still be felt today. Nowadays it's very popular to take the p|ss on foreigners in the Netherlands. Not just the man in the street does it, politicians do it even more so. The ultimate success of this work is evidenced by the fact that the country's most popular politician is extremely harsh towards foreigners, pounding on them relentlessly every chance she gets (She wants to extradite Iranian homosexual men to "gay-friendly" Iran with the advise to pretend they're heterosexual! Being homosexual is a capital offense in Iran).

I have to agree with others that technically and plot-wise the film is below par. The acting is not that bad, but the significance of this work lies in the political message. It's often said that Fortuyn, despite all his shortcomings, woke up the silent minority, and that he lead the masses to the ballot box. If all he did was wake up the racists, the xenophobes, the anti-immigration crowd, please let these people go back to sleep again.

Another flaw of this movie is the part about the Demonizing: the movie suggests that Fortuyn was Demonized, and thus, left-wing politicians are morally responsible for his murder. This is also known as the 'He Started The Fight When He Hit Me Back'-defense, or put more succinctly, Hypocrisy. The movie supports Fortuyns double standard: it's okay to say the most heinous and harsh things about Moslems, but when Fortuyn is criticized for that by left-wing politicians and even those from the center, all of a sudden they're accused of Demonizing??!
8 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Evelien (2006– )
Superb acting on all sides
30 March 2006
This is a very well done show, with superb acting on all sides. Shot on recognizable locations in Amsterdam, it reflects (sub)urban North-Western European middle upper class very well: the Eastern European nanny, the gay couple with adopted Third World son, the Hilton hotel affair. etc. Van Kooten portrays the modern ditsy housewife very well, a Dutch Ally McBeal if you will (but far from a clone), with excellent stupefied expressions on her face when her perfect little life veers off-track once again. Worth mentioning are the two child actors, of which the older sister, Sterre Herstel, acts even slightly better than the great Olivier Tuinier (who seemed to have quit acting, not unlike Haley J. Osment), but doesn't have to carry a whole show of course. Naomi van Es isn't that great but adequate. She's promising however and should be able to get by on looks anyway in the future, if all else fails. Directing and script suit are a big help for those two, in any case. All in all, very nice dramady, perfect for the target demographic, women from 20 to 40.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gattaca (1997)
10/10
Most beautiful film I've ever seen
16 January 2006
This has got to be one of the best films I've had the luck of seeing. The art-direction is simply stunning and is up there (even if different) with Dark City, Casshern, Azumi, and more such films.

The acting is superb, the actors look so stunning and clean cut, wow! Uma out does herself. Of course, music is haunting and well balanced, it's no wonder Micheal Nyman works so much. Although the story is not that impressive, it doesn't need to be, it would have distracted, and the theme was adequately sympathetic. The yearning for a better life and the simultanously putting of the motifs 'nobody's perfect' and 'everything seemingly perfect is flawed', totally works for me.

Everybody should see this one, and not only Ethan's fans, even if he's very cool. Great film!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Casting is quite bad
15 January 2006
I have to agree on the horrendous casting and the script as well, directing could've been better. The biggest mistake in casting was the Klinkhamer Gerben Zonderland mismatch! Gerben Zonderland should have been cast as Father Klinkhamer and vice versa. Maarten Spanjer as Gerben Zonderland looks much and much too old, while Klinkhamer looks too young. Ester looks too old, certainly with that huge bust! This is supposed to be an 11-12 year old girl!?! And they don't look like their characters either, as were drawn in the books. Neither were the twins, but that's forgivable, it must hard to find twins who can act, are the right age and resemble the book drawings. But I have to say that story and directing were worse. And such drama of the Esther character being orphaned 3 times! This is uncool for a children's movie. Why did he have to die? Other less dramatic, melodramatic solutions were possible. It looked like a Dutch classical movie, very bad. And just when we thought Dutch film had come of age and was professional .... Very big miss and they've really ruined one of my favourite childhood books.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed