Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 8 of 27: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
266 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

The first 30 minutes of a movie, 2 January 2001

If one made a better movie out of this one, this film would be the first 30 minutes of it. As it is, Shyamalan stretches a good short story to almost 2 hrs and makes it worthwhile only with his excellent direction, a well-written script and memorable characters.

Just as in his previous film, "The 6th Sense", Shyamalan demonstrates his ability to power-up his scenes with almost nothing at all - no crying, no shouting, no running around. Some sequences in this film are very powerful, and the most powerful of them all is the one left out altogether: the train crash. Calm moments are the most disconcerting. The characters seem pretty dull at first, Willis just seems to stand around looking really confused most of the time. But the awakening to the fact that he is unbreakable, who wouldn't be? Jackson's frail comics collector is strange and esoteric, bordering on crazy. Shyamalan is a talented director and writer, and this movie is good. But I get the feeling that he rushed to make this film, and that the haste has crippled it somewhat. First of all, like I mentioned above, the entire movie felt like the first 30 minutes of something bigger, longer, better. Maybe a part one in a trilogy or something. Second, the nifty little details that were so abundant in "6th Sense" are almost completely forgotten or overlooked here. It's as though Shyamalan decided to shorten the process and cut some character development and some trivia. And the film suffers from it - it is not anywhere near as interesting as "6th Sense".

There's a twist, too, but this one is not very surprising (especially if one has read ANY kind of super-hero comic at some point in life), and seems a bit desperate. But what really sinks the ending are the completely unnecessary explanatory texts that appear, revealing what happened after the story ended for the viewer. I don't understand the need for that kind of self-mockery. It doesn't help the story, it doesn't add anything interesting to the flow of the plot and it certainly feels like a desperate move or some unimaginable sort. I'm not just talking about "Unbreakable" here, I don't understand the need for this in any film (except maybe true stories).

I really don't think that Shyamalan "did it again", since the contrasts between "6th Sense" and "Unbreakable" are very stark, and the quality of the former is far beyond that of the latter. But Shyamalan is clearly a talent to be reckoned with. He just has to top his debut, which will be very, very difficult. A challenge, you might say.

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Now, THAT'S quality, 2 January 2001

Looking for a porn flick but don't dare to rent one because the clerk is a girl? Longing for grotesque silicone breasts that look like weather balloons? Don't really care whether the plot seems to be added after the film was shot? Grab this one and run home. But, I must warn you. If you want even the slightest glimmer of intelligence, wit or good taste to appear for just a second, you'll be disappointed. This film has absolutely none of it.

Snatch. (2000)
Seen it before - but it's ok, 2 January 2001

"Snatch" is almost exactly the same movie as "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels". The similarities are so great that it's almost like watching the same film with a different cast. But it's ok, because this one is just as equally funny.

The two leads scheme to get their hands on fat wads of money, but as the plot thickens, they just want to get out of it alive. In "Lock, Stock..." there's a bunch of young, witty blokes who want to earn big money but in the end just want to live through it all. There's a criminal leader of a spectacularly brutal kind who just wants everything his way and has underlings that carry out his wishes to the fullest. In "Lock, Stock..." too. A couple of smart but completely worthless small-time crooks are put into the plot to add a pivotal but seemingly meaningless (and funny) part in the whole criss-cross of events. That's almost exactly like in "Lock, Stock...", with the notable difference that the crooks in the latter are seriously stupid. The plot is advanced by a series of coincidences and strange twists that accelerate into a blur of weird events and finally comes to a halt just when it can't get much more insane. That is also exactly like in "Lock, Stock...". And then there's Vinnie Jones, who is not merely exactly like his character in "Lock, Stock...", he _is_ that guy, he just has a different name and a bigger gun.

But, like I said, I don't really care. Both movies are very, very funny, and extremely entertaining to watch. It is excellently filmed and cut (or should I say "mixed"?), and some shots are just breathtaking. The details, like the dog swallowing the squeaky toy or "the fact that I have 'Desert Eagle point five-oh' written on mine", are just so insanely funny, it doesn't really matter that Ritchie seems a bit stuck in a loop. Why change a concept that works? But let's hope that he can do something about it to the next time, or it _will_ get repetitive.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Absolutely brilliant, 2 January 2001

Comparing Guy Ritchie to Quentin Tarantino may have its perks, but I'd prefer not to. The only similarity between them is that they depict the lives and times of low-life criminals in a humorous way, and that they both have a real skill in writing plots with many twists and turns. However alike their writing is, there is nothing similar in their directing. While Tarantino is sometimes painfully slow and contemplative, Ritchie is fast, violent, witty and music video influenced. And there's a time for both. But for sheer fun I'd go with Ritchie.

"Lock, Stock..." is insane. At some points, the story is almost believable but don't hang on to that - it quickly becomes a twisted, weird, fast-moving and funny, FUNNY mess of a plot where the casual and unintentional interactions between the different gangs and individuals almost become hard to follow. There are some scenes that alone make this movie worth watching - the sequence when the cannabis-harvesting loons shoot at the gangsters trapped in the steel cage with a soft air gun, or when the OD-chick suddenly comes alive with the machine gun. Hilarious, stupid, insane and fast-paced. Humor or the best kind. The cast couldn't be better, even Sting is pretty good the few moments he appears. But Vinnie Jones really tops it - not so much for is acting skills, but more for his character. Brutal and by far the smartest of the lot, he drags his little son around the messes that he makes, careful not to let the boy hear any profanity.

A great film, and one that I certainly will watch again and again.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A seen-it-before, 2 January 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Nothing new here, except that it's de Niro who plays the hard-ass father, and that, it seems, would make it enough for this film to be better than others of exactly the same kind. No, it's not. It's just a way to get to retell some old jokes and some stupid situations, and in the end it sorts itself out (and don't insult your own intelligence and call that a spoiler).

It's funny, of course. Some things are actually quite clever (I like it when he spray-paints a cat to make it look like the family cat), but there's nothing new to the basic idea. Even de Niro was a bit dull to watch. The worst part of it is that Stiller seems to be in so many of those movies...

Love Fools (1998)
One of the best Swedish films ever, 2 January 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(Major spoiler included)

The sheer genius of this movie is overwhelming, the performances of the cast is beyond any criticism, and the range of emotions that this film so accurately convey are absolutely fascinating. With simple means and an eye for the life in small Swedish towns, this film outshines pretty much everything made by giants like Widerberg and Nutley. Torsten, a Swedish teacher with a passion for poetry and for a certain Viviann, is in his 40s still a virgin. To add to his confusion, he is inordinately shy and pretty much a coward, writing anonymous but beautiful love letters to the woman of his dreams. Meanwhile, Viviann (who is completely oblivious of Torsten's feelings), dates Glenn, the local police officer, who is in turn married to Viviann's co-worker Berit. When Viviann is raped, Torsten gets blamed after having stumbled drunk though town, shouting her name like a maniac.

What makes this movie so great is the very ending, which I'm going to describe here, so if you don't want to know anything about it, please stop reading now.

After all the misery that Torsten experiences (he is fired, gets beaten up by kids lead by Viviann's son, and his home is vandalized), it is a great relief to see him finally getting to score with Berit, who in a fit of rage after finding out her husband has raped Viviann burns down the house and leaves. She walks by Torsten's vandalized house, and enters. Torsten lies on his bed, feverish and suicidal. He is very cod after having fallen into the water, so she starts to massage him - which wakes his slumbering lust. The sheer brilliance of Brömssens acting when confronted for the first time with Berit's enormous bosom is enough to lift this film from the black and into the blue. His enchanted, overwhelming gasping at the sight and touch of Berit's breasts is just fantastic, making you forget all the misery and darkness of the movie.

My girlfriend and I walked out of the theater with great, wide smiles on our faces. Something dark and tragic shifted into something hopeful and absolutely beautiful. "So soft! So soft!" My goodness, it is amazing!

Barb Wire (1996)
2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A legend in its own right, 2 January 2001

Hahahahahaha, is this for real? Hohohoho hahahaha this is just too much! Hahaha...hoho...hehe...*sniff*

Well, now. I could just as easily say that it's not that bad, and point out that I at least got a good laugh when watching it, which is endearing to me. But you know, when something so masterfully stupid is filmed with one of the most over-estimated beauties of the world (I won't even mention her acting) and haussed so dramatically by the producers - well... I dunno. They don't even deserve my laughter.

Steel (1997)
23 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, 2 January 2001

Oh man, I don't believe this. Perhaps with the exception of "Barb Wire", I don't think I have watched anything that comes anywhere near this. When I come to think of it, "Barb Wire" is actually better than this, because I could laugh while watching it. This film is so bad it reaches a certain quality of lousiness only reserved for the very worst of bad ideas. I mean - Shaquille O'Niell in a steel suit with a super weapon made from the contents of a lost-and-found at the scrap yard? Please!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Worthless, 2 January 2001

I have tried to comment on this film, but for some reason the comments were never accepted. This time I'll be brief.

It saddens me that what could have been a great series of movies, starting out with de Palmas excellent first a few years ago, has quickly been spoiled by being handed to the least suitable director. John Woo has, if nothing else, proven that with a child's mind, anything can be made cheap, lousy and lame action of the kind one hoped never would rise above talents like van Damne and Lundgren. There is nothing special or original in this movie, just remakes (or rather parodies) of the ol' classic action themes. But what is worse is that Woo manages to add an incredible amount of cheesiness to his 2-hour slow-motion action ballets. White doves appear out of nowhere and some parts of the dialogue could be used as doormats at a kindergarten.

Lousy, awful, tragic. That's all I have to say.

2010 (1984)
31 out of 61 people found the following review useful:
If Clarke's a part of it, it's good enough for me, 13 December 2000

I measure sci-fi flicks after the amount of correctness and scientific expertise (with the exception of fun but brainless sci-fi such as "Armageddon" or "Starship Troopers"), and if something is good enough for Clarke or Sagan, it's good enough for me.

This sequel to "2001" is much less of a mystery and is not so tedious. It follows the book very well, right up to the fantastic ending that thrilled me beyond belief when I read it. I actually wish for the rest of the series to be made into films as well, especially 2064, which is a fantastic space adventure with crash landings on the forbidden moon, mentioned in "2010", a rescue mission and a chance to get a closer look at the biological experiment that the makers of the monolith have undertaken by "lighting" Jupiter, the failed second star of the Solar System.

A good film, no more, no less, and though overshadowed by it's infamous prequel, it is a tad easier to watch.

Page 8 of 27: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]