Reviews written by registered user
Fluffis

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

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
34 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Still bad., 9 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this a couple of days after it came out in Sweden (My review from that time seems to have disappeared), and I thought it really sucked. I decided to tune in on an airing of the movie on one of the more public channels here in Sweden... It still sucks. The science is iffy (the parts of a DNA strand are NOT called chromosomes, chromosomes are made up of DNA), and the relationships play on just about every cliché out there.

*** Spoiler *** Tim Robbins' Death is really badly done. Why the hell didn't they just form a chain of grapples, and bring him in?

The less said about the ending the better, but this has to be said: A friend of mine described it as vulgo-Disney, and that's the best comment I have heard about it. It is soooo bad!

*** MAJOR SPOILER ***

Don't get me wrong; I like the basic premise about the ending (being evolved from aliens... pretty cool thought), but it's performed soooo heavy-handedly, with an alien crying to give a visual cue: "You are supposed to be awed here!" (Basically a big neon cue-card with a huge arrow pointed at it.)

*** Spoiler ends ***

Credit where it's due though: Strong performances almost all around. Armin Mueller Stahl seems to phone his in, but the rest (Robbins and Sinise stand out) are overall very good.

Visually beautiful... but that's about it., 27 July 2004

Let me start out by saying that I think this movie is very atmospheric. That is, when you actually see a scene longer than 1 minute. (Slight exaggeration.) The problem with the movie is that it does not really stand on its own. I have read some criticism of PoA, and tried to do what one suggested: not to look on the movie as a book-to-screen adaptation. This is no mean feat, since the book is actually the best one in my opinion. Trying to look at it in any other way than a book-to-screen adaptation proved impossible. You need to have read the book to understand what the flippin' heck the are doing.

This movie takes place over a whole year... It feels like a week, disregarding the seasonal changes. There is no real feel that they are in fact at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, which the first two installations delivered.

The actors are doing what they can, and the Weasley twins are getting to be a lot better. It is too bad Cuarón does not seem to want to give anyone any meaningful screentime. All the characters seem to be supporting players -- and yes, I mean Harry as well. Then we have to ask ourselves who they are supporting. If I was of a nastier disposition, I would say Cuarón's ego... Oh what the heck, I'll just go ahead and say it. It is never a good thing to put so much effort into making something look stylish that you forget to put in the story... at least not when the story is basically what you have. This is a story read and loved by millions! Why take almost all of it away? Even as someone who has read the book a couple of times, it seemed choppy and incoherent. The story of PoA in the guise of a detective story: "'Welcome to the manor'... 'Call the police! The countess has been murdered!' ... 'What's all this then?' ... 'The butler did it.' The End." Not very fulfilling/interesting, right? Fill this out with sweeping landscapes, dark corners and uneasy moods. Still not enough, is it? Solution: We need to set a mood, to establish relations, understand characters, and why they have changed (if they have), and last but not least: Establish the MOTIVE! All this was more or less forgotten in PoA and if not forgotten, truncated almost beyond recognition.

It is all very well to talk about artistic license and how good the movie looks. That does not alter the fact that this is a confusing, albeit stylish, mess that is, more or less loosely, based on a work called Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by J.K. Rowling (who I think should take more interest in what is being done with her work).

Why? (a summary of Reloaded and Revolutions), 6 April 2004

Why did the Wachowski bros. make Reloaded and Revolutions? MONEY! I fail to see that there would be any sort of need to tell a story, because the story becomes heavy-handed, full of holes and extremely dull. The action is passable, but nothing really exciting. The dialogue is simply laughable. The most pretentious tripe I have seen in a long time. All these clichés, which I assume are supposed to be homages to other movies... they are just so unnecessary! Why not try to write something that is actually NEW?

I'd advise against paying to see this movie, and Reloaded. It's a waste of money. By all means, go rent/buy the original The Matrix. That one was actually worth it.

27 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Complete drek., 15 January 2004

This guy is a fraud. If you watch closely, you'll find that he doesn't come up with anything person-specific, he lets people think that he has. He says something, and the person interprets it. In one episode I just watched he asked "Who works in a correctional facility" and this woman says that she does. If nobody had answered that they did, Edward would have tried to fish for anyone who had died who had, if that hadn't worked, he would have started getting even more vague until he got a response.

Besides that, I have read a testimony from a professional debunker (the name escapes me) who got a place in the audience, and described how the audience were sitting or standing in close proximity of the studio microphones before the show, often talking about the people they were hoping to come in contact with, also a mini-bus arrived on the lot with six or seven people in, who later sat down in the audience... spread out, not together. Once in the audience they did not seem to acknowledge one another at all. The stuff he cannot get out of the people more or less speaking into the microphone, or the planted people, he cold reads. It's not that hard.

THIS IS NOT FOR REAL, FOLKS!!! John Edward is a con-man, and should be treated that way.

Watch the episode of Southpark called "The biggest douche in the universe", and get a second opinion.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Judgement day. *some spoilers*, 9 August 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the end... my only friend, the end.

This is the best end-of-the-world movie I have ever seen. It has everything. The hero who desperately tries to get himself and his loved-one out of harms way, impending doom, people going crazy, getting drunk, you name it.

There have been complaints about frustration, and that this makes Miracle Mile a bad movie. The thing is: It is meant to give you that feeling, so in fact it is a very _good_ movie. Do you really think people would act rationally when they realise that all the people in the world have about 24 hours to live? I know I'd freak out.

SEE THIS! It's great!

Solaris (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
How can a 99 minute movie be this slow?, 25 July 2003

Oh, this is a pretty good movie. The original far surpasses it, but it is not bad. There is a reason that Tarkovsky's version is slow; it's almost 3 hours long. It doesn't detract anything from the movie. But when you make a movie that is 99 minutes, that feels like 3 hours, something is wrong.

The thing that made me feel that way was the infernal mumbling.

It seems that Soderbergh feels that to make a "sensitive" movie, people have to mumble every other sentence. Hint: It can make the conversation hard to hear, and make the audience miss things.

Visually very good, reasonably well-acted, though George Clooney seemed to be doing a remake of his dialogue with the seriously ill Alfred in Batman & Robin, coupled with the 6th Sense "I see dead people" dialogue, for most of the movie.

I can't fault the plot. It is as good as it was when Tarkovsky made it, and indeed when Lem wrote it.

Enter the Matrix (2003) (VG)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Total cr*p, 21 May 2003

Actually one of the worst games I have ever played. Seriously!

Graphics are cr*p, Gameplay is incredibly boring. The only thing saving this game is the sound. Good voice acting, great music. Even the much-hyped bullet-time is incredibly bad! What it does is slow the game down to 15 frames per second.. that's right!

1.5 out of 5 (the .5 for the sound)

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Incredible, 8 May 2003

This movie is beautiful. It is a true fairytale. I fell in love with this movie, and I think that most people will. Miyazaki is a true master of the craft.

I just wonder, from seeing some of the comments here, which version the people who did not like it have watched. I've heard that the version released in America, dubbed (and I think subbed as well), is very different from the original, in that the focus of the translation has shifted. It is more concerned with the relationship between Haku and Chihiro. Bad translation could also be the reason for any "confusion", because all (well.. almost) of the movie seemed very clear to me, both when it comes to character development (yes, it's there... in abundance! Chihiro in the end is far from the same person she was in the beginning) and storyline.

Versus (2000/II)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Oh, this is very cool!, 26 April 2003

There is a story. Listen to it when they talk about it. Then it's your choice: try to work out the plot (I actually think you can be rewarded for it), or just sit back and enjoy a stylish, over the top "Zombie-Yakuza-Hack'n'Shoot" movie. It is totally hilarious, and the acting may sometimes be a bit too over the top, but remember: it's all in good fun! There are plenty of laugh-out-loud sequences, deriving from small things, as a zombie being spun around and losing his direction, and the scene where one of the bad guys is starting to figure this whole "dead people waking up"-business. The hero is not a very nice person, but man-oh-man is he cool! There is a lot of cool dialogue, and the fight scenes are top-notch.

See it, if your in the mood for some good, unclean, unwholesome fun!

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A modern masterpiece (May contain spoilers), 21 April 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie represents something that is not real. It is fiction. The premiss is, however, real. If there was a show on, where you got to follow a young man growing up, and living his life, there would be a LOT of people watching. Some people WOULD more or less put their lives on hold during significant moments of the show. This is the sheer brilliance of this movie. And rest assured: This movie is very, very good. A friend recently asked me what movie is my all time favorite, and I answered "Casablanca." A modern movie is harder to come up with. This one could qualify.

There have been arguments that a show of this kind would not be followed, if it were real life, with audiences being fickle. The thing is that the show changes. Christof (fantastically played by Ed Harris) has thrown in all kinds of things happening to Truman (Will we ever see Jim Carrey better? I don't think I could take that in!), nothing majorly life-altering, but subtle changes, which keeps up the dynamics of the show.

And come on! If you don't think that people could get that involved: Just look at stuff like Big Brother. For some reason, people seem to want more. People want things that can help them take their mind off things. People WANT to watch "perfect" worlds. Otherwise shows like "Beverly Hills 90210" and games like "The Sims" would not exist. "The Sims" is, more or less, your own little Truman Show.

As for "people putting their lives on hold" to convince Truman that what he sees is real... It's called acting, and I think they would be paid pretty well.

All in all: this is what producers of "reality shows" do to the participants on a daily basis. The participants emerge (from a Big Brother house or similar) only to see that the producers have done exactly whatever they want with the participants' lives. In essence, a lot of the people who go into a "Big Brother" house, are going to have their lives wrecked. The producers can do exactly anything they want, in that respect.´

I truly hope that this is not something we will ever see. The problem is that we are moving towards more and more extreme reality shows. I just hope someone pulls the plug.

****** Major spoiler!!!! Contains the ending of the movie!!!!!!!******

What is actually the most chilling aspect of the ending is the two security guards, who simply switch from watching a person whose life has been led by someone else, to saying "So what else is on?" This gives me the creeps, because this is as close as you can get to modern television "moral." Truman's life, after having been watched for over 30 years, is worth nothing more than the press of a button.


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]