Change Your Image
thniels
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Erna i krig (2020)
A cliché to compare it to the book, but...
Comparing movies to their literary origins is almost cliché and, some may say, inherently unfair. In this case, however, it does make at least some sense I think.
Erling Jepsen has made it his trademark to write absurd stories with a generous dollop of humour - Franz Kafka meets Dario Fo, as it were. "Erna i krig" (the book) is certainly no exception to this, which is exactly why I think the movie needs to suffer this unfair comment.
The book treats World War I, the identity crisis of post-Prussia-war (1864) Sønderjylland and social dysfunction in general, as one big absurd theatre linked by one unlikely event after another.
This is my main criticism of this movie. These wonderful impossibilities that drove the original story are completely absent. What is left is just a handful of depressing fates in a war long forgotten. A few sausage bribes and funny syllogisms are simply not enough. Add to that, that only a few minor links in Erling Jepsen's original chain of events made it into the movie and an almost cheapish ensemble-like crop of the original cast. All the characteristics that made the story work and (believe it or not) believable have been largely omitted.
Disregarding the book, it was a neat little movie, though. Particularly Ulrich Thomsen fit the Erling Jepsen universe of dysfunctional characters oozing insecurity. Everybody else was largely extras - even Trine Dyrholm.
The Andromeda Strain (2008)
Bela Lugosi wasn't in this one...
...but the birds all looked like they'd transform into Dracula at any time. In other words, the effects were absolutely unbelievably horrendous and, what is worse, never really *needed* if someone on the crew had actually read the book.
The 1971 version had a few unfortunate futurisms but managed to pull off the real horror of the story, namely the claustrophobia and panic of being doomed on account of a technical glitch. This new version is not only completely superfluous, it is so full of plot holes and logical errors, not to mention character mistakes that are so blatant that no one can possibly believe it. Supposedly the research team is in a hurry (to put it mildly), yet none of them seem to do any work; ever.
No, Bela Lugosi was truly missing from this film. Either that, or someone should make an upgrade of the 1971 movie and leave the story alone. Or... we should all simply just watch the original or, better yet, read the darn book.
When You're Strange (2009)
They came to see the spectacle...
While there is certainly a lot of interesting footage, some of it even of very high quality, the movie failed for me on one important point. It even says so, when the narrator laconically says: "They came to see the spectacle...".
This movie caters to exactly that; the spectacle. There are single, brief spots on a few technicalities. Most I assume all Doors fans know. I know, I did. Robbie Krieger brought up on flamenco and with an affinity for slide guitar. Ray Manzarek playing bass organ. Densmore being into jazz. Jim Morrison not reading music. That's it? Alas, that's it. Where is the band? Where is the music? What drove them musically? All we see here is Jim Morrison and his enturade. The spectacle. Well, we bloody well knew that already; after all it's been fifty years.
Can we get on with it, already, and get a documentary about the band. With all that newfound studio footage available, this to me was largely a missed opportunity.
The Silence (2019)
There are many, many things wrong with this movie. Where to start?
1) The vespas are simply not very frightening. Yes, they look like a scary monster from a children's book, but surely most people get scared by things that pose a real threat, not just bad looks.
2) The characters make one poor and uneducated judgement after another.
3) What idea is it that 'dad' supposedly has, when he opts to leave the car? Surely not just throwing a wrench about to prove a point that has been made several times already?
4) Why does 'daughter' have the sound on when chatting with Rob, her being deaf?
5) Checkov's Gun. Anyone? The movie is riddled with objects that are hinted at but never used. Even guns.
6) Why is there a drain pipe where there is no dike and why is it barred?
7) Why is the farm house fenced like a fortress?
8) If the country is collapsing, who runs telecom infrastructure? They seem to have internet absolutely everywhere.
9) Apart from them knowing sign language, what exactly is it that is supposed to make a deaf girl better at being silent?
10) Considering the vespas supposedly navigate by ear, their hearing is remarkably poor. They are able to locate power lines to perch on, but not detect screaming food.
11) For a city slicker, 'dad' is remarkably quick at starting the wood chipper. And why does he not let it keep running? As someone else noted; he could have saved the planet long before it ran out of power.
12) What's with the 'the girl is fertile' thing? Humanity hasn't grown barren. It has become food.
13) Who in their right mind would allow their deaf daughter to walk the dog, alone, in the midst of an apocalypse?
This list can be expanded to much higher digits than this, however, there are many movies that suffer from these traits and still work. Why? Because they have redeeming features. What does this one have against it, then?
1) Poor or even close to no acting. 'Dad' seems to say 'okay' *a lot*. 'They crusified a man in Mississippi' -'okay'.
2) Amateurish CGI (admittedly the slow motion scene in the rain, is very cool, though). Especially the Range Rover rolling down the slope is tear wrenchingly horrible, closely followed by the explosion shortly after.
3) Scene transitions seem purposeless. Nothing carries a momentum. Things appear to happen out of the blue.
4) The score is... well I don't even remember if there even was one. More like a series of sounds attempting to present some level of eerieness.
So, what did it show in terms of redemption? A new take on the suicide belt cliché. A cool slow-mo CGI scene.
Watership Down (2018)
Goes to show how powerful this story really is
When I saw the cartoon as a kid after reading the book I remember how oddly ambivalent I was; an oddly cuddly presentation of a basically very gritty story.With this version the fit was (or, rather, could have been) much better. There are some hair raising flaws but all in all this replicated the mood of Adams' work.
The flaws were many. The voice acting is generally sloppy; even ridiculously so at times. This is where the original cartoon excelled over this one. On top of that, the detail animation was far from perfect. There were scenes where the rendering was spot on and animation incredibly beautiful, particularly in the full shots and especially in those from above, not to mention Fiver's visions which where incredibly cool in their stylistic simplicity. In medium shots and close-ups there were many horrible flaws. The leash on the dog hovering ever so slightly above the ground, for instance, as it was sleeping.
The worst flaw, however, in my opinion was lack of ambient sound. There were a few insects and a few incidental noises, but generally the scenes sounded utterly dead.
The first cartoon showed an edge of sorts by using an almost Disneyesque drawing style, effectively contrasting the violence and despair. This version could have had its edge in the realism (rabbits, after all, are super cuddly) but failed somewhat. On the other hand, it told the story incredibly well despite these issues and I do think that Richard Adams' story really does shine here. If you haven't read it, do yourself a favour and get a copy.
Herrens veje (2017)
Story, acting... and then Instagram
Following the first episode of Herrens Veje, I think it is safe to anticipate an effective drama with both great acting and glimpses into the depth of the soul of man by proxy of the more or less devout family of ministers. The moral fiber we expect them to have makes for a great extreme in understanding our own.
These days where we have 4K television sets and HDR dynamic range, the café-latte-urban-gardener decision to use an Instagramish filter in colour grading is almost unbearable. The colours can be discussed - some like them, some don't. But the dynamics are terrible. At either extreme, luminosity washes out into a greyish smear. Aunt Annie may look cool in her filter-infected selfie but an entire TV series?
Skammerens datter (2015)
Hurry, hurry, let's get this one over with...
First things first: the books are fabulous... There! This movie - not so much. From here on it is easy to fall into the ubiquitous "the-book-was-better-than-the-movie-duh" trap, because this usually falls into the apples and oranges category. This is not what was wrong here. The books are immensely detailed and thought through. Nothing happens out of the blue and for no reason. In other words: there is a stringent plot course from start to finish with very little meandering. That seems to have vanished completely in the movie. If you know the books, you know *why* things happen. Why Dina does what she does and meet who she meets - in short; we get to know her very well and, just as importantly, her family. Here she apparently out of the blue befriends a drunkard assassin, a hard boiled armourer and a powder wielding mini-merlin, all willing to die for her for no reason whatsoever. Perhaps they mixed up the synopsis and the script when filming. One thing is certain. It is going to be immensely difficult to continue the story with gigantic build-up pieces missing.
As for the scenery mostly everything is spotless. Absolutely wonderful and for the most part beautifully filmed. And, by the way, the dragons are rendered verbatim out of the book as vile little buggers more closely related to primitive rats, albeit rather large, than the mercurial aerosol cans dragons are more often portrayed as.
Under sandet (2015)
A blot on Danish post-war history
A dark blot on Danish post-war history finally put solidly on record and irrefutably so at that. Or at least that is what one would have thought. Having lived many years in the exact place where this takes place, the hateful remarks made towards these German conscripts were not grabbed from thin air and can be heard even today. Even in the audience at the cinema, some 70 years after the fact, there were occasional crude remarks when the teenagers had their limbs torn off. War, however horrible, ends at some point; the innate hatred towards faceless representatives of the enemy is long lived and utterly unnerving to watch.
The sere landscape of Skallingen and Blåvandshuk makes for a beautiful backdrop to this fine and thought provoking drama. My only complaint was that the house where they are lodged, although correct for both period and location, appears too old fashioned, which may add to the feeling of something that happened a long time ago. There were more modern facilities in the area at that time, which would have been easier for us in this day and age to relate to. But that is nitpicking.
The Pillars of the Earth (2010)
An amazing story squandered
Shoehorning Folletts tome into this shallow, archetypal mini series, is inexcusable. There are a few actors here that shine (Eddie Redmayne, Anatole Taubman and Alison Pill for example) and some that have a history of shining (Donald Sutherland and Ian McShane) who don't and many that pass the screen anonymously (pretty much the rest of them). No one is given any chance whatsoever to unfold and show their character; everything is build-up climax slow-down build-up climax slow-down and so on and so on, underlined by a constant buzz of tympanies and strings to make sure we know that we are watching something dramatic.
Veronika Decides to Die (2009)
Beautiful film - mediocre acting
Bearing some similarities with "Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself" I was somewhat skeptic from the start but quickly realised this had something else to offer. Cinematography was beautiful as were the sceneries, but acting as a whole was terrible. Dr. Blake was really quite good and Edward showed glimpses of greatness but that was all. For someone sinking, Veronika showed remarkable composure throughout and the attempt to show the patients as the only truly sane went completely overboard and lost the subtlety that would have been so becoming. The underlying story is good but implementation simply didn't do it justice. And what is it with these "Victorian" asylums? Surely they *did* exist in latter days - but this weird fusion between modern day therapy and a 100 year old perception of lunacy is contrived at best.
Eragon (2006)
Read the books! The script writers didn't.
This is one of those movies that can really make me mad. One more movie scorning a brilliant piece of literature and one more movie to halt a great future movie. Which movie? The one this could have been had it had a script writer who could actually read and a director who hasn't lost his eyesight in some freak accident involving glue and a plastic bag. In other words: It will take considerable time before someone who can actually make movies are allowed to do it right, because it has already been done. Sheez! If it doesn't show already, the books are absolutely brilliant! They shine in a world of below par fantasy literature and should be in every fantasy loving person's book shelf alongside Lord of The Rings and Pullman's Darker Materials. The latter being another example of literary rape by inadequate and money hungry movie producers. There should be a clause in the copyright laws stating that if a movie turns out bad, it should be legal for others to disregard all copyright issues and remake it and do it properly.
Why this movie is extraordinarily bad has already been commented on in every possible way. There is no need to reiterate. But to be honest, I saw very few redeeming qualities.
Feardotcom (2002)
What a bizarre nullity of horror
I don't know what I expected nor what was within reason. One thing, though, that I do know is that this wasn't it! I have never in my life felt so disappointed about a movie. In fact, I cannot remember to have ever been so disappointed - not ever!
There is this to say: Feardotcom is a a thriller. Why, then, does it not thrill? Feardotcom is a movie. Why does it not move something? One would imagine that it requires a script to make movie; did this movie have one? I seriously doubt it. Plot, then! Nope. Plural - maybe. It does not have one plot but several and with lots of gaps between them, that is. Nothing coherent. No point. No suspense. No fear. No shock. No acting. Even the color grading was amiss.
Let's dwell on the script a bit, shall we? How did our protagonist link the 'doctor' to the first deaths? How did the Bukowski-wannabe know about a 'site' from hearing of his co-author's death? What's with the "look, the sun is out" when our heroine puts on the sunglasses she already held in her hand? Why do computer experts always say "I know" when they are being told they are... well... experts? When was the last time you ever heard about a pathologist casually sticking her arm inside someone's chest, dragging out a lipstick, matter-of-factly handing it over to a detective who exclaims something along the lines of "uuh, a clue" after which the other detective turns the note around and reads the address of the place where our victim was killed moments before she wrote the note, rolled it up in said lipstick and swallowed it (in the hope of this exact event would occur sometime in the future)? It does happen, I know, but not very often (I would imagine).
I Am Legend (2007)
How marvelous and how disappointingly sappy
Matheson's novel was, eh, novel in at least two senses: it devoodoolised vampires and tried to put some science into the mythical creatures' being. This book of his, by the way, was not the only one doing this. But that is another story. The movie honored this part extremely well leaving out only tiny bits. Where the movie fails blatantly and inexcusably is on the second point, some three quarters in: The point that actually made the book stand out...
*** here comes the a possible spoiler *** ...was our protagonist's status as a legend not among survivors but among vampires, effectively letting him become the Dracula of the story, completely twisting the sympathy the reader has come to get for him as it becomes evident that the vampires are the true heirs to the world.
Nice effects. Very (very, very) effective acting, I must say! But very little to boast about as the credits start rolling.
The Golden Compass (2007)
Enjoyable but much too compact
Philip Pullmann's books are true gems. Fantastic journeys into what could have been our world but isn't. What makes these books different is that they almost never degrade to explaining but almost always let the reader learn by deduction. This is where the movie fails first. It explains too much and it patronizes doing it. I accept that movies must sometimes turn a story on its head to adapt it to this very different medium - it doesn't, however, have to make this change to the story's heart and soul. The very thing that lifts Pullmann's darker material to a state where children and adults alike can read it at their own level.
Animation was slightly disappointing and some daemons looked weird and unnatural. But who knows what a daemon would look like. Those with "the ears" were cool - jazzy, even :-).
Ratatouille (2007)
Their finest hour
Bambi was beautifully drawn but failed somewhat on the story side. This one didn't, and it moved me just as much. The word plot makes no sense - this one had a story. Okay, a bit sentimental at times but it managed to stay away from some obvious pitfalls - I will not mention them - they will be dead obvious when you see them - or rather when you expect them and they don't happen.
Technically this is some of the finest rendering seen in... well sort of ever. It doesn't take away the cartoon heart of the movie. It is still an animated movie; also in style. But there are moments where you almost say "aha!"... "they are mixing..." and you realize they are not. Remy holds a piece of bread at one point... it was so beautifully done it was beyond description. Not only did it look real - it look downright delicious. The attention to detail is simply out of this world. Animation is smooth and lifelike mixed with a dash of rosemary... I mean with a dash of Tex Avery and there were times when the audience were flat with laughter over scenes that had nothing but wacky moves to carry the moment.
The movie of the year! It had it all! The only reason I still give Bambi one more star is because I have seen it so many more times than this. I have put Ratatouille on my wish list for Christmas and hope it will be out in due time. Then I might move it forward that last star...
Reign of Fire (2002)
Edgeless, pointless and ultimately plot less
What's the point of this movie? Action? Okay, you get a bit but not very much, really. Thrills? Perhaps, only there weren't any. Acting? Kidding, right?! A story, then? Well, most of the story was told in voice-over during the intro credits - not much left for the movie to build on. Pyro tech galore?! Not more than your average TV whodunit. Sci-Fi? Nope - they're trying for realism this time. Pretty girls being rescued by smashing heroes, then? Not even that!? I don't know what more to expect in a movie, other than mystery or drama or psychological depth and high brow stuff like that, but I definitely wouldn't want to impose such expectations upon this type of movie, so all in all it failed to deliver what one could in all fairness come to expect. No edge, no point, no plot - the only "full"-word I can think of to counter the "less"-words, is "awful" - and even that has only one "l".
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
I have this to say about the Guide saying that about the filming of the Guide
Mindboggingly hilarious! In the nicest meaning of the phrase as well as the worst. First of all the film does the book some justice but what it doesn't is bring out the story as well as the books do. "Hey"! Some would say. "Douglas was, after all, involved"! True. But he also wrote the fifth and absolutely uncalled for "Mostly Harmless" in his otherwise wonderful trilogy of four. That is no excuse for cutting down the story so much. Almost none of the explanations as to why our friends do what they do are present in the film. Why is "the button" so dangerous. I suspect most of those who haven't read the book(s) found that one particularly confusing. And the tea?! Why didn't Eddie do something? like, help Arthur (and be part of the plot)? Having The Guide pop up and explain for 1/3 of the film doesn't quite make up for this. Coming to think of it. The Guide popping up is sort of a novelty in a movie - isn't it? In fact I liked it a lot. But NOT enough to excuse the reason why it did so.
Now. The acting was good. Or rather, it was to the point. Well, it was acting as defined by Eric Idle and his chums. Not very good, but very very well placed and the lack of it humorous in its own right.
I bought it on DVD and will be watching it on and off for years to come. But it is hardly going to suffer the same wear the books have over the past almost 20 years. After all, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is a work of words. It is the unusual mastery of the English language that Douglas Adams put to print which makes the books so truly remarkable. So - not only will reading the books make your life richer and more in pact with nature, it will also help a lot understanding this movie.
Doomwatch: Winter Angel (1999)
If there had been a real doomwatch this would have been caught in the making
Okay, it had its moments. The plot, or rather the idea behind the plot was pretty good. The science talk seemed slightly more scientific than usual (Well, not being a rocket scientist, for all I know they could have been exchanging formulas for melted butter - but it sounded right in the first part of the movie). Some of the acting even appeared okay. But then it all ends. Introducing a computer wiz never actually doing any wizzing other than shouting commands at his homebuilt and amazingly awkward computer system. Hacking into what was clearly analog CCTV!? Not to mention camera angles requiring surveillance cameras literally all over the place. Why did Mr. Fulton send Luke through a hole but Teri over the fence instead? How do you get nuclear material into a tokamak without shutting it down? And then at last; a climax as exciting as a flat tire. No, this is definitely a colossal waste of even the dullest evening.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Where are the extras?
The Matrix was good. It had a fair amount of innovative effects put to good use on an interesting plot. It even had an inhabited virtual world. With Reloaded and Revolutions two things went wrong. The effects were less convincing, even though Smith was a load of fun, and there were practically no people in the virtual world - only Smiths, cars and buildings. Where's the fun in that? As for effects; sometimes they degraded to computer game quality - for instance: When Neo fought single opponents you could see him breathe and even lose his breath (poor physical condition would show more when fighting a zillion suits, wouldn't it?). In scenes where he fought many opponents and in particular Smith & Co., he was completely void of expression as was his opponents. He even lacked the poor shave otherwise characterizing his character. Talk about effects standing out like the proverbial thumb. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the completely ridiculous massive effect overload in the war scenes - please! Following up on The Matrix should've been forbidden by higher powers. And watching the trilogy in one sitting doesn't add to the positives, I might add.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
A disaster movie - quite literally
What is it with Hollywood? Why could this movie not have spanned a couple of years instead of a measly week? The catastrophe would have been just as big and the images just as spectacular, and both much more believable. What could have been a thought provoking warning simply degraded into the disaster voyeurism we had with similar movies from the late 70s and early 80s, minus the gory but often creative highlights. This, and a strange stereotype scientist apparently still alive and kicking in Hollywood today, makes this an impressive b-movie. The stereotype of strangely preoccupied nerds working in very small groups and utterly incapable of social interaction. Take a look around! To cement its status as a b-movie, we'll just add a bit of sunshine and patriotism at the end. Where's the bitter reasoning? Where are the morales? Where are all those things that sold this movie? And for technical quality, let's quote someone at the production stage: "Wolves? Where do we get 5 live wolves? Hey, we'll CGI them and no one will never know"! Even a bunch of hearing impaired retired alsatians would have looked more real! Oh, and a tiny bus blocking a cargo ship? Anyone care to calculate the inertia of 50,000 tons of steel at walking speed? Not a whole lot of believability there. Outrunning a temperature drop? Operating cell phones in a complete wasteland? Active gas lines? Cross-Atlantic phone calls? An insult. A bloody insult!
Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
Wonderful idea, yet not quite up to it
I can only concur that the plot is brilliant and actually very funny. But unfortunately even the brightest of actors were unable to keep a forced and swiss-cheesed script from falling apart. Willem Dafoe was perfect, not only by his appearance but showing that he can really, really act. And what a character der Herr Max Schreck had become! Hungry for blood as well as for schnaps. Schreck spotting a philosophical plot hole in Stokers novel was a hilarious moment in this film. John Malkovich and Udo Kier, however, were somewhat disappointing. Both are incredible actors and really should have been able to at least fake some sort of believability.
Well, despite some flaws, this is a very recommendable movie. If you haven't seen Nosferatu, go see it quickly and then see this one. If you have seen Nosferatu and like I, love it, then this is a fun twist on a legendary movie. i do, by the way, like Werner Herzog's attempt on the story better than the original Nosferatu, but that is an entirely different matter (as is the fact that Klaus Kinski should have staid out of Venice).
- Thomas Nielsen
Titus (1999)
Madness
Titus Andronicus is the strangest of Shakespeare's tragedies and the tragedy which most underlines the modern day observation that his tragedies are often comic and his comedies fairly tragic. Particularly the final chain murder has always made me laugh in the theatrical renditions and this one is definitely up to par. As for the rest of the movie, it is a mix of beautiful images, wonderful acting, rotten acting and failed attempts to surrealize an already surreal play. Anthony Hopkins is almost perfect as Titus, Colm Feore pretty good as his righteous brother and Jessica Lange intolerable as Tamora, while most of the rest range from mildly indifferent to pretty okay. As for Aaron in the shape of Harry Lennix he is actually quite convincing albeit not quite in the same league as Kenneth Brannagh who did the all time finest Shakespeare mischievery playing Iago in Othello. But Brannagh as a Moor would be downright laughable - so a compromise well turned out.
The modernisation of Shakespeare is in my opinion an impossibility. Some of his plays have a plot which makes a good basis for a modern production, but Shakespeare's absolute forté is his language and his linguistic jokes and acting in old English requires settings true to the play. That said, I think some of the scenes worked better in this surrealistic environment than they would have - scenes like Titus assembling his men for the shot at the Gods, or the messenger returning his sons' heads in a theater truck. That was novel.
As for the overall feel of this movie, only one word suffices: Madness.
- Thomas Nielsen
Yi yi (2000)
Quaint is becoming my favorite word
For this movie is indeed quaint. Everyday life in a world of everyday people, yet not an everyday movie. It is slow paced... well, dwelling actually. It has all sorts of absurdities but all left at the edge of the screen out of harms way. It has characters annoying beyond belief. It has characters almost unbelievably sympathetic. It manages to make us care for the main characters regardless which of these categories they fall into and more importantly it shows us that the clichés we are so willing to tag onto them simply do not fit once we know them. Okay, some are right-in-your-face type of displays such as a Japanese playing Chopin in a Karaoke bar, but still.
The only problem with this movie was a tendency to parallelize too obviously albeit not very convincingly; completely linking together the lives of all the main characters.
- Thomas Nielsen
I, Robot (2004)
I doubt
Not one bit true to Isaac Asimov's dystopian tales and in every other aspect merely disappointing. Characters are stereotype, too few to make an interesting world and for the better part poorly cast. The CGI effect, while occationally very convincing, mostly fail completely, even degrading to the point of the amateurish. This could have been a great movie but turned out to be another hit'n run production.
By the way, why is it that all film makers seem to think that car companies don't use car designers in the future?
Oh, and where did the cat go?
- Thomas Nielsen
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Ginger Rogers with at sword
First of all, this movie should never have been split in two. It can't be said in less words less a few adverbs and I readily subtract 1 point for molesting it so.
As for Uma Thurman she was nothing short of great but first and foremost she was believable. Not stunningly beautiful, nor out of this world gracious. Just plain real. And being that in a role like this is really something else. Not only must it require considerable talent, it also adds a depth to the character seemingly impossible considering the genre which is far from being realistic. As an odd aside, the genre best compared to is that of song-and-dance movies with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers not as one would imagine the tacky kung-fu movies of the seventies. I wonder if my grandma would like it?
Distinctly a Quentin Tarantino movie and a good one at that.
- Thomas Nielsen