9 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Hollywood at its best
9 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie really highlights the problem with Hollywood. You have a decent book and Hollywood really butcher it. There are so many details in the book that are left out for no apparent reason other than perhaps to deliberately make the characters seem less human. And they've added stuff that is really poorly written. Add that together with a cast that are more for selling tickets than they actually make sense for the characters and you end up with a really bad movie. Granted, some of the actors do a fine job with the script they've gotten. This is akin to those bad remakes that Hollywood does over and over again. Don't see this movie, spend the money on the book instead.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could have been a lot better
26 April 2016
The movie doesn't do the book justice. I believe the adaption could have been done a lot better. The movie leaves out a lot of crucial scenes that explain why the main character behaves the way he does. The script is also plagued with a problem that is common in Swedish movies. The fact that the dialogue becomes too theatrical and not ringing true.

Generally I felt that the acting was sub par. This is somewhat related to the problem with the dialogue; you feel like you're watching actors rather than characters. However, Bahar Pars, Ida Engvoll and Rolf Lassgård were the exceptions. They all did a pretty good job in my opinion.

However, although I felt the movie lacking in a lot of areas, the story is pretty good. But I recommend reading the book before seeing the movie, as the book, in my humble opinion, is a lot better.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ringer (2011–2012)
Beautiful and great concept. But sloppy.
2 October 2011
After watching the three first episodes, I'd thought I would write a short (p)review. The pilot is basically used to set up the premise, and while it lacks the beautiful polish of the following episodes, it really kick-start the series. And I can forgive the few shortcomings of the pilot.

The following two episodes were beautifully produced (if that's right word) and Sarah Michelle Gellar is perfect in her role. The series also have that hard-to-put-your-finger-on-and-even-harder-to-achieve feeling. I kind of got a "Cruel Intentions" vibe. But just as with Sarah Michelle Gellar, it's a more mature and confident feeling. It's really great.

There's, in my humble opinion, just one flaw with "Ringer". But it's a flaw that could potentially ruin everything. The problem is that while the concept is great, Sarah Michelle Gellar is perfect and the production has that great feeling, the writing seems very sloppy. There are so many inconsistencies and plot holes that I get frustrated. The problem is basically limited to the thriller part of the writing, almost as if that writing was forced in by accountants rather than delivered by the writers.

And if it continues down this path, I think it's going to backfire and ruin everything. This is, of course, only my speculations, but I think that the thriller writing must up to par with the rest. Whether it be a problem caused by money counters or that the "thriller writers" are too junior or have to little resources. Otherwise I think that this series will collapse, and that would really be a shame.
40 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's a Hollywood carbon copy of an already excellent film
25 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First off, this movie is not bad. Not all all. The problem is, however, that I despise this kind of movie making. I can understand the scenario where you see an movie or read a book which has already been made a movie, and think - I can do this better. Or I see a different angle. Or whatever creative idea it might be. This movie though, is not that. This movie is made by accountants. It's a carbon copy of the movie "Pour Elle", only in English. Basically it's the most expensive subtitles in the world.

So I strongly recommend that you see the original instead. It's even a little better since the American version forgot one crucial scene and added a scene that has no reason to be there except for looking good in the trailer.

Once again - see the original (Por Elle). It's better and that way you give credit where credit's due.
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wow, bubble gum horror done right....
3 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This being a movie written by Diablo Cody set the bars quite high, and I was surprised how good it was, especially since I'd seen the low average here at IMDb. First of all, this review contains SPOILERS! This is a horror comedy with a razor sharp script and beautiful music video footage. A lot of the latter part of the movie feels kind of like a Rammstein video - in a good way. But the thing that I like best with this movie is that it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. It doesn't take itself too serious. I suppose that you could compare it to 'The Faculty', although I'd say this one's a lot better. But the movie that I think is most appropriate to compare it to is the eighties movie 'Heathers'. And I believe that it's a fair comparison and that 'Jennifer's Body' is just as good. So if you like 'Heathers' you should definitely see this. If not, you might as well give it a miss.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Flock (2007)
Acting: OK, Direction: OK, Story: Ludicrous
31 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.

Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.

The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.

But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.

So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the greatest bad movies
15 July 2008
Going in, I imagined a low budget comedic adventure flick. It turned out that was exactly what it was. However, what I hadn't expected, was the fact that the movie dared not to take itself seriously. That together with the low budget - and it's low budget - made it hilarious. The fact is that it seemed to me that they actually tried to make certain parts look more low budget than they actually had to. It had a lot of the look n' feel of the old 60's Star Trek episodes, as well as the old cheesy 70's action flicks that Quentin Tarantino loves so much.

All n' all, this is a must see. But at the same time, it's important to realize that this is not an Indiana Jones clone, despite looking only at the main plot, that's what it looks like. This is a comedy, plain and simple. It has it fair share of written comedy, but its brilliance lies in the way they've used their low budget and the fact that they didn't take it seriously.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Playa del Sol (2007–2009)
Swedish comedy at its best
16 June 2007
I watched the DVD version of "Playa del Sol" yesterday and 'though I'd heard good things about it, I was surprised of how good it was.

First off - the cast. The only ones of the actors I knew who they were, was Henrik Hjelt and Mikael Tornving, both I knew from stand-up-comedy-type-shows like "Parlamentet". I knew they're both funny, and have an excellent 'stone face' when delivering their lines. I'd almost never seen them in a real movie or series and didn't really know what to expect. It's obvious that they're comedians before actors, but they both handle the acting quite good in this series. The three other actors - Saga Gärde, Richard Ulfsäter and Josephine Bornebusch - I'd never heard of before, but they handle the acting excellent. I also think that this is one of the things that makes the series so good, that the acting is up to par. Bad acting can spoil a good script faster than you can say Steven Seagal...

The main character Mårten (Henrik Hjelt) has the perfect life. He and his girlfriend are about to get married and he has the good job at 'Shine', a travel agency/organizer, and is about to join the board of directors. That's when the fact that he's never actually worked as a travel guide is disclosed, and instead he's sent to Gran Canaria to gain his mandatory experience at one of their hotels. The people working at the hotel are the beautiful Sandra (Saga Gärde), the kooky Linn (Josephine Bornebusch), the not so bright Steffen (Richard Ulfsäter) and their boss Tommy (Mikael Tornving).

What makes the series so good are two things. First and foremost - the characters. All the characters are well written and while Mårten and Sandra are somewhat "normal", the other three are weird and funny. Yet they are believable and consistent, which, at least in my book, is really important. The minor characters, unfortunately, isn't really at the same standard. But it doesn't damage the series that much due to the good acting of the main cast. And Richard Ulfsäter is nothing but fabulous as his character, which is very similar to Joey in the series "Friends" and "Joey", and he actually steals the show from Henrik and Mikael.

Secondly, the script is pretty good. Due to the fact that the entire series is set in a hotel it's easy to relate to "Fawlty Towers", but of course the script isn't this good. It's pretty easy to find flaws and the credibility isn't always what I'd like. But the fact remains that it is better than most TV series. You can find elements similar to "Coupling", which, at least until the first three seasons, I believe to be the best TV series scripts ever written.

So, if you like "Friends", "Coupling" and/or "Fawlty Towers", I would recommend you to see this.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Low quality but not bad
13 December 2000
I can agree as far as that the movie is no high quality movie, and you have seen most of the story before. However, what this movie has is a bunch of really cool actors. They're not very good actors, and they can basicly only play one role - but they're cool. So this movie makes up the shortcomings if you look at it the right way.

You don't always know what is going to happen. There is no actor in the movie that really stinks (since almost all roles are played by actors that might not be the best, but they've all got lot's of experience). The action is ok but no more than that. There are a lot of Quentin Tarantino Reservoir Dogs rip-offs but it doesn't seem so bad since they're usually in scenes starring Michael Madsen. So I recommend this movie, it's a lot better than some of the bad blockbusters.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this