Reviews written by registered user
Jos-5

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
19 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Unnecessary, 5 August 2003
1/10

Why do they make a kind of "the best of"-collection, with Tom watching old movies of himself and Jerry. And the ending in this film is the same as the classic "Designs on Jerry" (1955). Have they finally run out of ideas?

4 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Einar the Viking, 28 July 2003
5/10

Why do they stage viking battles, if the actors/stuntmen don't know how to fight? But except for the battles (or lack thereof) the movie give an authentic view of the viking's everyday life, even thou the costumes show that these vikings must be extremely successful.

But when the main conflict is uninteresting and the acting sparkless; I'd rather see "Den hvite viking" (1991) everyday to the end of time than see this one again.

Not bad, not good, just mediocre.

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
If you gonna see only one movie this year..., 12 June 2003
8/10

you shouldn't really see this one.

It's weird, maybe the weirdest ever to be made in Norway. But it got humour, edge, unique characters and many suprises (and a bunch of postmodern surrealism). You can never tell what happens next in this movie.

It is not the best movie I've seen this year, but it is absolutely a movie you'll remember. Kinda how The Evil Dead (1982) would look like if David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick had directed it.

If you want to see someone from the north of Norway behave silly you should really see this movie. I'll give it an eight.

X2 (2003)
The search ends here, 30 April 2003
9/10

I must admit when I heard Bryan Singer was going to the direct the first X-men I just asked why? ...why? He had made great movies until that point and now he should sell his soul to a franchise?

The first X-men was disappointing in general but had some treats for the comic-buff.

This time around, the search is over, this is by far the best comic adaption ever made. It follows the pace of the comic, the frequent appearances of different characters of the comic and the whole setting is just the kind of roller coaster the old comic used to be.

The casting (maybe except Scott Summers) is great, especially Xavier and Magneto. And some of the kids also looks promising.

Some of the minor Characters like Beast (Dr. Hank McCoy), Colossus and Kitty Pryde I really wanted see more of. Every mutant character in this movie do have a possibility of doing an own franchise, maybe with a crossover with their fellow Marvel superheros Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Hulk and Dare-Devil to name a few.

The Marvel Universe (great movie title) contains countless possibilities, we all expect that if Bryan Singer stays on board on this franchise this series will evolve (pun intended) to maybe the greatest comic-to-film-series ever. The third film will prove me right or wrong.

Attack of the Yoda, 16 May 2002
4/10

George Lucas is very fond of effects and it shows. And when the first two hours has very little action, but just a lovestory with bad dialogue, you start thinking, what am I doing here.

Then there is a war, and the series is back to it's former greatness. Lightsaber-fights not with one, nor two, but every jedi in the universe. Even Yoda lights his saber, and gives us the absolute highlight of the movie.

In episode I Jar-Jar broke up great actionsequences with stupid gags. This time around C3PO and R2D2 has teamed up again and interrupts some of the greatest Star Wars action ever. Uneccesary again, but more bearable.

The actors of the Star Wars movies have always had to work with bad dialogue. The actors in episodes IV to VI managed it better than the performers in these newest films with only Ewan McGregor as the exception.

Without the ending the film would get a rating of 2 from me. With the ending it manages to reach the area between 3 and 4. Not really bad, not great, not even mediocre. As pure entertainment: it works.

(Papa) was a Rolling Stone, 22 August 2001
10/10

So you have a difficult mom, that wont let you listen to the likes of Simon & Garfunkel (or worse) so what do you become? A writer for Rolling Stone magazine.

It's about Cameron Crowe's real life even thou some elements seem to far out to be the 100 % truth. But it's entertaining, funny and kind of original. And it gives hope to many Rolling Stone-wannabees out there.

An Academy Award™ for best original screenplay was awarded to Cameron Crowe and he deserved every inch of it. And since the acting also "rocks", especially Billy Crudup, Francis McDormand, Golden Globe winner Kate Hudson and the always great Philip Seymour Hoffman.

It's perfect, but it's not "This is Spinal Tap"

Rock on!

Aberdeen (2000)
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Something happened on the way to Aberdeen, 21 August 2001
8/10

The acting is good, the director is good, the script is ok, so it ought to be a good movie then. Some critics have mentioned that if this is a road-movie they should have met more essential people, I don't think so. It isn't the trip that's important in the film, but the growing understanding between father and daughter. The film succeeds in doing this but you'll sit wondering what the movie really was about long after the end credits are over.

Maybe that the relationship between parent and child bring out the best in people, or just that alcohol is dangerous for your health.

Even thou the movie is Norwegian the English dialogue works (because of the British actors perhaps) and I'd like to see more Norwegian movies doing this. Norwegian movies biggest fault is that the dialogue read right out of the script, no flow.

See this movie, and all other Moland films, you'll not be disappointed. (at least not much)

4 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Poetic but boring, 10 May 2000
6/10

French officers is prisoners of war in Germany during WWI. They never give up escaping, and gets transferred all the time. French poetic realism they called it. 60 years later we can also call it slow-paced and even boring. Well this movie ain't all that bad. And the last half hour is memorable. But the start introduces a lot of people that just disappears, and some of them are actually more interesting than those we follow lateron.

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Return of the Holly-Wood, 6 May 2000
6/10

Just to make one thing clear; this documentary is hysterical. To use Edward Davis Wood Jr.'s own words from his movies to tell his personal story is a good idea because he wasn't exactly brilliant in writing for the screen. The result: Approx one hour of Far Out dialogue. Totally enjoyable.

But it doesn't dig deeper into the person Edward D. Wood Jr. Tim Burton's Ed Wood showed great depth in his relationship to Bela Lugosi, this documentary only show us his relationship to angora sweaters. Enjoy it, but please don't belive it.

Dark City (1998)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Eerie, 16 December 1999
4/10

Dark, eerie science-fiction twist on the story of a man, John Murdoch, who wakes up with insomnia, accused of committing murder. He knows within his heart that he didn't do it and seek the reason why he is accused and reveals a fantastic story about aliens who can alter the environment with their mind. At first sight this was a fascinating and different movie from the director who gave us "The Crow". The dark "Blade Runner"-setting underline Murdoch's chaos and give us a special "The Wrong Man"-feeling. A mixture of The Wrong Man and Blade Runner sounds like its to good to be true, and it is. The 90s have given the special effects department more work than earlier and the last half of the this movie just becomes a effects-show. The mindgames are long gone. Now it's back to kill creatures for the visual enjoyment of it. It could have been so much better.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]