Change Your Image
anders-olsen80
Reviews
Hvordan vi slipper af med de andre (2007)
Overall a good low budget movie with a harsh, but not entirely off message.
We have a group of actors that know each other quite well, which means that they interact in an uncanny natural way. We also have a story that deals with a very real problem. Should the lowest and laziest be allowed to drag the rest down, or do we need to raise our expectations and demands? The satire is very much on point, and it works because it is far enough off that it works - it is still laughable. The humour is dark and as it should be, but probably not what non-Danish viewers will get right away. The production could have been better and less cluttered, and the audio is not done right. Obviously they wanted it gritty, but this just strikes me as if someone in audio production did not know what he/she was doing. The biggest let-down of this was not the film itself, it was its lack of promotion. It was non-existent at the time of the release.
Shôgun Iemitsu no ranshin - Gekitotsu (1989)
A must-watch!
Another one in a line of beautifully crafted Asian movies. Brilliant cast, brilliant direction, and well written. Like other movies such as Farewell My Concubine, this is a real treat for anyone who likes quality Asian cinema.
It has a well balanced amount of drama and humour, but also some well choreographed action, which again is part of this style. I will not dwell too much of the plot itself as it is better to just watch the movie. However, the movie is not very predictable, and its characters are very three dimensional with both likeable characters, some great anti-heroes and brilliant villains.
Don't wait, give it a watch.
The China Syndrome (1979)
Far from realistic, and mostly anti-nuclear propaganda.
Now despite the low rating, I like this movie. I think the cast of Jack Lemon and James Karen is brilliant, and that's what really saves this thing.
Both Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda is so cringe-worthy in their hyped-up attempts to promote their personal views on nuclear power. Sadly, this means that what could have been an entertaining and good disaster movie, because a silly and dimwitted attempt of warning the public of imagined dangers. Are nuclear dangers imagined? Of course not, but the China Syndrome goes so far to lecture people about what happens in case of an incident or possible accident, that nothing realistic is left. The TMI accident is the perfect example. The China syndrome is virtually impossible, and they mix and match theories as well as reactor operating principles to make their "idea" work. This movie have some of the worst memorable quotes designed to get the anti-nuclear point across such as "Scram the SOB" etc.
Watch this for what essentially is. A well shot disaster movie that takes a lot of liberties and only contains a handful of well cast actors. If you want to get a proper understanding of the issues of nuclear power, look elsewhere. To quote Edward Teller. "The most dangerous force at the time of this movie, was Jane Fonda and her nonsense.".
500 MPH Storm (2013)
Disaster
I rarely rate anything at one star. Everything has one single redeeming feature - until now. This does not. This is the pure movie garbage.
Don't do it, it's that bad.
The Irishman (2019)
Great but...
Great move from a story perspective, but I think it's important to stress that the story is mainly fictional.
Firestarter (1984)
So close, and yet so far...
It could have been great. It's an awesome story with a good cast. Unfortunately, the movie took it upon itself to really dumb it down. It was needless to make the changes in the story to make it fit - it was lazy. The lead casts and supporters do a pretty good job in fact. The main issue with this movie is the lazy way the makers tried to make the plot work.
Freedomland (2006)
Don't bother. Not worth your time.
I want to do this briefly.
The whole plot is empty and two dimensional. It's boring and cliche from start to finish.
As for the acting. If Julianne Moore had not been in it, and made what looked like some kind of effort, I would have given it one star. Had I gone to a theater, I would have gone out half way through, and demanded my money back. Sam Jackson is down right awful from start to finish. Over-acting not to mention awkwardly clunky delivering his lines. While I don't think it's her fault, as it was how her part was written, she spends the movie screaming from start to finish, and you end up just wanting to throttle her.
All in all. An absolutely rubbish movie.
The Mummy (2017)
Absolutely no good
Just came home from a night in the theater, watching this garbage. In retrospect, I did not expect much - especially considering nut-job Tom Cruise was in it.
Honestly, this is not worth a lot of writing. It's 2 dimensional, boring and unoriginal. I have zero idea about why they did this.
The only saving grace? The tickets were free...
Night of the Twisters (1996)
Okay little tornado flick, but really annoying cast.
An okay movie for a day where there's nothing better to do, if you're into twisters.
It's not a very realistic movie, but a least it does not go as much overboard as Twister or Atomic Twister, which are ridiculously unrealistic. The plot is enjoyable and in many aspects not that far fetched - as in how could things look if there was a multiple twister outbreak in a small town. The twisters themselves are of course a bit Hollywood'ish. They can do things a twister normally can't do, and they look somewhat artificial. That being said, they're still pretty neat and fun.
Now the worst part, and this almost ruins the movie. The main character "Dan" is the most obnoxious jerk on two legs. Always snide, rude, arrogant, constantly condescending towards his friend Arthur and whiny if things don't go his way. If it's a case of over-acting, the squeaky annoying voice or just a trait of the character, I don't really know. But he bugs the crap out of me, and everyone I know who saw the movie. The father Jack is portrayed as a Pacer-Dad, who would like to see his son become a great athlete. That's all fine, but was it necessary to make him a confusing combination of a jock, high school football coach, bench athlete and macho hardware store owner? It's all just too much. Other than that, the characters are pretty likable, but very two-dimensional.
Don't expect anything great, but it's worth a bag of crisps on a rainy day.
The Stand (1994)
OK, but not sure what to think.
I like the story, read both the original and the extended version.
I like a lot about it. For a book-to-TV thing, it's been done with respect. It's a bit like The Shining mini series. It follows the plot and works pretty well. However, I don't understand the cast. I like 2 people in that cast, and none of them are main characters. I've always been a fan of Shawnee Smith. She does an excellent job as the mean spirited nymphomaniac. Like in the Saw series, she has a penchant for playing unstable persons. I'm also a fan of her looks. The other character I like, is Ed Harris as the general. When it comes to the other roles, their looks, voices and so on, does just not work for me. Granted, I read both books first, so naturally, I created my own images.
But all in all, worth a watch, and if you have read the book(s), have a look, it's OK.
Jekyll & Hyde (1990)
After 20 years.
Well, after not having watched this movie in about 20 years, I finally did again. The original story has always been my favorite by far. I read it first time when I was 7 years old, and have read and watched just about every adaptation since. While this thing takes some artistic liberties, when it comes to the plot and story, it works very well. It's not however flawless. While I'm a huge Caine fan, this is one of the times where he's overdoing it, big time! Besides that, the addition to the plot, actually makes the characters rather 2D, it lacks character development, even when it comes to Hyde. There's very little info about Jekyll's experiments and research, which is also a shame. It's very worth watching, but don't expect a classic masterpiece like the '1931 adaptation. It is however way better than any of the other adaptations, especially to two horrendous 2006 and 1941 adaptations.
World War Z (2013)
What the heck did I just pay to watch?
I almost felt as doing like Stan and Kenny in South Park's "The Pssion Of The Jew", when they went back to Mel Gibson for a refund after watching The Passion. Marc Forster,,, you owe me money! What an absolute piece of garbage. I'm a huge fan of the Zombie and horror genre, and what a ripoff this thing is. The acting is lame, Pitt is just dumb, and the rest of the cast just drags along for the ride. The most insane part of this junk, is that they "lamed it up" so to speak, in the most classic Hollywood fashion. They went for a large audience and made a PG-13 Zombie flick!!! Typical Hollywood, all about money and no thought about quality. I've been watching Zombie flicks for years, long before the Zombie-craze even took off back in '96. This is an embarrassment to not only the Zombie genre, but the whole horror genre as well. I like it when Brad Pitt does a good job, then he is really good, but what the heck had he been smoking on the set of this thing? C'mon man get with the program!
Avoid unless you like to be bored, ripped off, or just don't give a rats azz about good Zombie movies.
Fat Man and Little Boy (1989)
Boring, slow, silly and incorrect beyond belief.
Wanted to write a review, since I watched this movie last night for the first time since the early '90's. I was so disappointed. I've been reading a lot about the Manhattan Project, since it and things regarding atomic physics has been a bit of a hobby of mine, since childhood. I'm a huge fan of Newman, but that was wrong casting beyond belief. While it was common knowledge, General Groves was a very strict and stern person, I've never come across any information that portray him as a Patton-like "classic military hard-ass". He was quite a sensible person, who carried a great deal of respect around him, but he was also a person capable of showing this respect towards others, IMHO, this movie and Newman completely miss this, and portray him as being a bit of an arrogant a-hole. The entire story surrounding the Project is so flawed and thin, it beggars belief. Oppenheimer, or "Oppie" was, as others have said, a very complex person. This film portray him, frankly, as a bit of a clown. The entire romantic plot is just down right stupid, and does not ad a single thing to the film. It only manages to slow it down even further. It does not help, that John Cusack is rather annoying is his role as well. The lack of historic characters, like Fermi, Szilard, Einsteim, Neddermeyer, Teller etc. makes it seem pointless. The way the entire screenplay is set up, as the usual Hollywood soap drama, puts the final nail in the coffin for this disaster of a movie. If you want to watch a good flick about the Manhattan Project and people surrounding it, watch Day One. It was made and came out the same year, and is a fantastic piece of film, where every single character and the story is nailed very close to spot on. A glitch here and there, which can only be expected, but very, very good. Why Day One did not become the popular one and FM&LB did, is only a testament to what is wrong with Hollywood and critics. IMO.
Taxi (2004)
Why did they do this again?
I can describe it briefly. After watching the intro and finding it was none other than the always annoying Queen Latifah, I thought "hippos cannot ride bikes" and "this is going to be a bumpy ride". The Luc Besson version from '98 in a funny and entertaining piece of film. This is neither. This is a sad case of Hollywood trying to duplicate the European style of filmmaking. That in itself is usually a bad thing from the start, but when trying to duplicate or remake a Luc Besson film, it's impossible. In usual Hollywood fashion, it is just too dumb and ridiculous, all the way through. The cast and the cars in the original movie was memoralbe and great to watch, this is just painfully stupid. Watch the original and save your time and money on this worthless, run-of-the-mill Hollywood junk.
The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)
Rubbish beyond belief!!!
Rarely, I give any picture one out of ten, but in this case, I had to. This is a classic example of new money, that feels like making a movie. Now, that's fine and dandy, but you need to know your limits. RZA, is as an actor, horrible. Some of us, remember him, from his brief, but painful to watch, stint in Californication. I had hoped that Tarantino could have helped save this picture, from itself, but unfortuantly no. RZA needs to understand, that just because you can pay the bills and are famous, does not make you an actor, director, writer or anything of the sort. This shows that making movies, takes experience and skill, and to be a good actor, training is mandatory. One can't help but thinking that RZA was surrounded by yes-men and the wrong friends telling him, that no matter what, it would be a great idea to do this.
Now for the picture itself, there's many other rewievs here, so don't want to spend too much time. Lucy Liu is OK, but the rest of the cast? Forget it. Russell Crowe's performance and looks, are down right ridiculous. The only piture that comes to mind as being as abysmal and puerile is Atomic Twister, it is that bad.
Put this thing away in some secret warehouse, a bit like in The Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and pray for this thing never to see the light of day again.
Desperation (2006)
Pretty good, but wrong cast.
Well, this is actually my fav King story. Not that I don't like Shining, Mile, It etc. there's just something about this one, I really like. As with all books, you put your own faces on the characters, which makes it kind of hard to say whether or not, a cast is right or wrong. In this case, I will pick 3 people out. First and foremost, Steven Webber. Not that I have anything agains him, but he bares no resemblance of the Steve Ames in the story. I don't want to get into a lot about it here, it simply makes no point. Read the book, you'll see for yourself. Cynthia Smith. Again, she does not bare any visual resemblance to a girl, that is described as Orphan Annie From Hell. In the book, she comes across as a bit naive, but sharp witted and humorous. Not so much here though. And that's a shame, she's a great character in the book, one eaaily connects with. The last is Tom Billingsly the Vet. He's a lot more edgey in the book than in the movie. I don't know why that switch was made. But that goes for all the characters I've mentioned here.
The rest of the cast fits pretty well, Ron Pearlman, should have played a bit more on the false sense of security and kindness Entragian originally uses.
The speed of the movie, I don't get. You don't see how the Carvers got there, you don't get the background story of what has happened over the last few days. Only short bits anyway. There's also made changes that generally don't make sense, both in terms of storyline and characters.
For what it is, it's an OK piece of made for TV film. But do yourself a favour, read the novel fist.
It's one of those
Saw VI (2009)
It's OK, BUT,,,,,,
Why does the traps in Saw VI have do be this unrealistic? A wonderful sthing about the previous movies, were traps with a good deal of realism. The worst case in Saw VI, is the final trap for William. Let's just say, that the director and writer did not contact a chemist, and neither seemed to have a clue about what would happen. There's a fine line between utterly cool and unrealistically silly. Saw VI is crossing this line way too often and that is a bad thing.
I do like the storyline, and the characters are fairly three dimensional. Very nice to see Shawnee Smith back again. Amanda Young is a fairly complex and interesting character.
Pretty good, but by no means on the level of Saw, Saw II and Saw III.
Scream (1996)
A reason to "SCREAM"
Well. This is about as boring as horror gets. The characters are unlikeable and one dimensional. One can't help but not feeling sorry, simply because they are that annoying. This movie can be a bit of a comic relief though. The stupidity of the teens, not to mention the police, is beyond belief. This in turn, actually makes it a little funny. The counterpart Scary Movie, is very similar and just as "scary". This is not scary, just rather telling of the "airhead teen cast". It is however, predictable and hollow. Every step can be foreseen. Good horror needs a hint of truth, even in movies dealing with the supernatural etc. This does not even manage this feat.
Don't waste your time.
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)
It's out of control and as bad as it gets.
This thing is beyond lame. The entire cast is about as unlikable and impersonal as can be, and the plot is as thin as the news on CNN. It's a huge problem for any movie, if the characters become annoying from the outset of the movie. This is partly due to bad acting and bad casting. The male lead (Jason Patric) is as believable as an action cop, as it would be to watch a 2 year old fly the Concorde. Sandra Bulldog is annoying beyond hope, due to the characters exaggerated amount of stupidity. The rest of the cast, is just bland and as memorable as a rainy Monday. The only two members of the cast that I find the slightest bit interesting are Christine Firkins and Susan Barnes. The plot, well, it's a ship out of control. The main problem with this is, that the director and producer did not take the time to make it believable. There are so many technical errors in this, it's ridiculous. They did not take the time to find out, how a cruise liner works and that way could have eliminated the ways of stopping the ship in a believable fashion. These technical plot holes just go on and on through the entire movie and ends with the biggest blunder ever. If you have any nautical knowledge and knowledge of ships, you'll find yourself covering your eyes due to sheer embarrassment on the behalf of the writer, director and producer. Ship wreck does not even begin to explain what this movie is, a nuclear blast is less of a disaster than this movie is.