esbenpost Reviews

The King (2005)

What a sadistic movie...

[2/10 · 21 April 2007]

Watching this movie really made me sad. I did not feel sad on behalf of the characters however - but on the behalf of the movie itself, its corrupt values, and its sadistic goals. The recipe of this film is this: take an all-American Christian family, tear it apart, watch it suffer and die, and leave it in its grave to decompose. End of story. Nothing else. The film does not care in any way about the people it portrays - we do not at any moment feel sympathy with anyone in it and do therefore not share their suffering, but instead simply watch it from a distance - which is what sadism is all about. I don't know if anybody gets off on this - I do not, I just feel sad that a movie as this can pass on as art and that not even my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, can see through its rotten morals. "The King" tells us that the world is a dark and evil place, that people are dark and evil, and from the moment we meet the Christian Pasteur and his family we know what is going to happen: the movie is going to take a deep and dark revenge upon them for their false ideas. I have long gotten used to christians being portrayed like they are in this film - as judgemental fanatics, holier-than-thou republicans, world distant freaks and born-again losers. I can easily forgive such a (false) view if a film has heart, but this film hasn't. If you want to see a satanistic film (satanism in fact tells us that love is false and hate is real), go ahead and watch it, but if you enjoy it, well, you really should start worrying about yourself.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

My basic thoughts on this film

[23 September 2003]

In America, WWS got good if not great reviews and was viewed upon as a realistic war-movie with a heart, set in the Hollywood tradition (read for example the Roger Ebert review). In Europe the critics were a lot more sceptic about the movie, they saw it as badly timed propaganda, filled with clichés and unnescessary violence. Personally I find myself in-between. The question I asked myself when I saw this movie is: what makes a hero, and under what circumstances is it allright to make war-movies as this which are plainly NOT anti-war. In WWS the message is clear: what makes you a hero is fighting for your comerades (be they American or North Vieatnamese) and your country. So - were the soldiers of Nazi Germany heroes ?? Can you be a hero if you're fighting on the wrong side ?? Today I think most people feel that the US Army's presence in Vietnam was unjust. The south-vietnamese regime they were fighting for was no worse and no better than the north-vietnamese they were fighting against. For the soldier though, this didn't matter. He was, as the movie states, fighting for himself, and his comrades. But for the viewers watching the movie, this SHOULD matter. WWS is not an anti-war movie. It gloryfies armed combat. But combat itself is not glorious, and dying for your comerades is - if it's not in the service of a just cause - meaningless. The both scary and fascinating thing about WWS is that it COULD have been about Nazi soldiers, or north Vietnamese, and it would still have had the same pathos and the same message - which is, again, not about right or wrong, but self-sacrifice.

Antitrust (2001)

Horrible waste of time - spoilers here

[2/10 · 19 June 2002]

Five minutes into this movie you realize that you have seen it all before. It is BOILER ROOM. It is THE FIRM. And it is THE DEVILS ADVOCATE. And there are NO new elements here. Except for the all-to-clear Bill Gates-allegory. Conpsiracies are always good stuff for movie-making, but why does it have to be so extreme ? Boiler room is a good movie, because it - for a while at least - seems realistic. In Antitrust everything is wrong. How realistic is it for example that your boss pay an impostor to be your girlfriend in order to make you work harder and control you ? I'd give it 1, but the soundtrack is OK, so 2/10.

State and Main (2000)

We are not amused

[4/10 · 10 June 2002]

"State and Main" is another film about Hollywood's lost innocence. It is very well acted, but not very funny, and it constantly reminded me of Robert Altman's "The Player", which basically is a good film about the same subject. Watch it instead.

The Battle of Sutjeska (1973)

Richard Burton as communist leader Tito

[6/10 · 21 May 2002]

The film takes place in 1943, when the Germans make a last effort to destroy Tito and his partisans in the Balkan mountains. The battle scenes are pretty well made - although it's clearly the same 5 or 6 fighter planes that keep attacking the partisans throughout the whole movie. The movie's weakness is the characters (!) - the partisans are all heroes who die in the arms of their friends and lovers, and the Germans are all Germans as we know them from so many Hollywood films - speaking german with an evil nazi accent and only thinking about vengeance and destruction (they might as well be zombies or vampires!). We never really get to know anybody, apart from general Tito who is portrayed as a saint (he was still alive when the film was being made) by Richard Burton, the only star in the film. It is refreshing to see a WWII film where it's not american G.I's slaugtering nazi's. The heroes in this movie are communists with red stars on their caps fighting for their country. Too bad it's such a poor script, there is a lot of goodwill here, and it could have been a very exciting and different film about the dark years of Europe.

Historien om Kim Skov (1981)

Simply the best

[1/10 · 19 April 2002]

Skummelkrat must be mad. This is the best movie ever. A danish "gone with the wind" with spectacular action scenes and a story that just blows you away. We all carry a little Kim Skov inside us - a shy, misunderstood country boy who just wants to find love and approval. Seeing "Historien om Kim Skov" makes you wiser in so many ways - and stronger, too. I watched it back in elementary school. When the movie started, I was a boy. When it ended, I was a man. It is one of those rare film that has the power to transform you and make you aware of who you really are. If I should point at one weak thing about the film, though, it must be everything that happens in it. And yes, the actors too. Otherwise it is just brilliant. A clean 10 out of 10.

Hærværk (1977)

Not a bad adaption

[7/10 · 25 March 2002]

"Hærværk" by Tom Kristensen has always been a favorite book of mine, but I have always avoided this film because I thought it would be an anti-climax to watch. The book is about a literary critic who discovers the dark and destructive sides of himself - and drinks himself senseless in a vain attempt to reach the bottom of his soul and all social criteria. This doesn't seem to be a very good foundation for a movie. Furthermore it is made in 1977, and the seventies is not a golden era of danish films to say the least. After seeing it I must admit I thought it was pretty good. This mainly because of the actors Ole Ernst and Poul Bundgaard, who delivers some fine performances - Poul Bundgaard, as "Den evige Kjær" - especially. It also recreates the atmospheres of Copenhagen in the thirties - unemployment, jazz and constant rumours of revolution. 7/10

Armageddon (1998)

The horror - the horror

[1/10 · 13 March 2002]

This movie is definitely on my top 10 of the worst movies of all time. The beginning says it all - Bruce Willis is the "master-driller" who is now working on an oilrig. He is not an educated astronaut, yet he is naturally chosen to an assignment in space. ?? He then finally agrees to do the one last job. We have seen this in a hundred bad karate movies and in a hundred bad crime-movies. The hero who finally agrees to go on the last mission. Sometimes cliche's are OK. But here it all turns parodic, because all the cliches are taken so seriously. Do yourself a favour: read Roger Ebert's review in the Chicago Times. He says it all much better than me.

Bamboozled (2000)

Scary

[6/10 · 8 March 2002]

Being white, and european, I'm not really sure about the point of this movie seen in an american perspective. But as a european it really opened my eyes to a strange fact: if your only knowledge about black America comes from television, you WOULD really think, that all afro-americans were gangsters, rappers or Urkel-like comedians, that is: stereotypes. You very rarely see an american show, or movie, where a black american is portrayed as a complex human being. And that really IS scary.

Wonder Boys (2000)

Made me think

[7/10 · 8 March 2002]

I guess the question this movie asks is: is it possible to live an unispired life, and still make inspired art ? Grady Tripp, clearly, has lost track of both his life and his art. Just as he has stopped making decissions in his life, he has stopped making decisions in his literary work, and he can't seem to be able to distinguish what's important to what's not. James Leer - the character played by Toby McGuire, on the other hand, has everything Tripp lacks. Everything he says and does probably is a lie - but isn't art, when it comes down to it, all about lies ? And isn't a great artist just a great liar ? I usually don't like movies, or books, about authors and their pains about finding inspiration. Those kind are written by authors for authors, and I always feel like screaming: "GET A LIFE!!" whenever somebody gets lost in his og her own author-esness. But the point of this movie seems to be exactly the same, so I can easily live with almost all the main characters being somehow connected to writing and the main theme being inspiration - in life AND art.

Me, Myself & Irene (2000)

Jim gets another 20 mio - but what do WE get ?

[4/10 · 8 March 2002]

A truly mediocre flick. The Farrelly's have never been my cup of tea - they remind me too much of old college-comedies or even Police Academy - but I thought Jim Carrey maybe would be able to lift at least some of this movie himself. He has done it before and seem to have built a career on making movies, where he is funnier than the actual movie itself (Not a lot of actors can do that. Imagine The Truman Show with Adam Sandler...uuuuuh) Me, Myself and Irene has a couple of good scenes in it - I liked the first 15 minutes or so. But all in all, there isn't even enough comedy to make a 25-minute sitcom. It tries to be funny, then tries to be thrilling, and tries to be funny again. It TRIES way too hard. Somehow I feel I should be a Jim Carrey-fan, but I find it hard when he keeps on making movies in the "Cable Guy"-category.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

Simply truly great

[8/10 · 8 March 2002]

I must admit: I couldn't finish the book. Maybe because I couldn't really relate to the poverty in it. It didn't really make an impact on me. When I saw the movie, I was stunned. All the things I have read suddenly came to light. Not only because of the great actors (Emily Watson is particularily great) but because you almost feel the rain, the wet streets, the hunger of the dying children. It is amazaing, that people in Europe have lived like this not more than 60 years ago. Alan Parker is a genius, simply.

Stalingrad (1993)

Could have been better

[7/10 · 8 March 2002]

In Vietnam, the USA lost about 60.000 soldiers over a period of 10 years. In Stalingrad, Germany lost 250.000 men i 75 days. The battle of Stalingrad, no doubt, is the bloodiest and most fierce battle in the history of mankind. And still, there has been made only two big movies about it: this one and "Enemy at the gates". Compare to the number of Vietnam-movies, and you'll see, that something is missing here. "Stalingrad" tries to capture a bit of the carnage as seen through the eyes of four german (not nazi, of course) soldiers. It doesn't really succeed. If you take a brilliant Vietnam movie like Apocalypse Now, it gives a much more vivid picture of what happends to ordinary men under extreme conditions. That is what war-movies should. Not just roaring battle-scenes, screams and explosions. But the way humans act, when they are confronted with something they cannot absorb. "Stalingrad" tries so hard to show the horror of the war, but since its characters are as one-dimensional and shallow as they are, we never really experience, what the ordinary german landser must have experienced in the cold, doomed city. If you want a good personal account of the war on the eastern front, read "The forgotten soldier" by Guy Sajer. If you want good history, reed Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor. If you want a good war movie seen from the german perspective, see "Cross of Iron" instead.

Cross of Iron (1977)

One of the best (anti)war movies ever

[9/10 · 4 October 2001]

If all your knowledge about WWII came from the big screen and Hollywood movies, you would get the impression that the second world war mainly was fought in France and the Pacific Ocean, and that the russian front only was a minor happening. The truth is, that 9 out of 10 soldiers in WWII fell in Russia, and that Germany and the German army was long defeated at the time the allied troops landed in Normandy. The question of course is: why hasn't there been made more movies about the war between Hitler and Stalin ? And the answer is: because Hollywood needs bad guys and good guys, and the war in Russia was fought between nazis and communists, who were all bad (or so it seems). Or in other words: the truth just is'nt good entertainment!! In the Cross of Iron Sam Peckinpah has made an astonishing honest and realistic movie about what it was like to be in the front line of the bloodiest war of this century - if not ever. And he shows, that war at the end of the day never is about the ideologies, strategies, the generals or even the head of states - in this case Stalin and Hitler - but about ordinary people struggling to survive. The fighting scenes in the movie are just as brilliant as in f.ex. Saving Private Ryan, and the story is much better, more realistic and without spielbergs obvious flaws. There are no heroes, no saints in this movie. The main character is the war, and what it does to people. In other words: forget The guns of Navarrone, Where eagles dare, The heroes of the Telemark and all those horrible Hollywood movies about how the English and American saved Europe from Hitler (they maybe saved Europe from Stalin - but certainly not from Hitler!!!). Watch the Cross of Iron instead. In my opnioin it is Peckinpah's best, and maybe the best war movie ever. 9/10

12 Monkeys (1995)

Good plot destroyed by mediocre actors

[7/10 · 14 September 2001]

If you like Terry Gilliam films, you'll like this one too. Although I enjoyed most of it I must admit I find it hard to believe, that it has it's place on the top 250 of all time. Actually I found big parts of the movie destroyed by really bad acting from Bruce Willis and ESPECIALLY Madeleine Stowe who always seem to play these kind of confused, hysteric characters you end up hating after 5 minutes. Brad Pitt is terrific though, maybe the best role of his career, and he prevents it all from going down the drains. The story is really good and there's a lot of very interesting scenes portraying the mind of James Cole on the edge of madness. All in all a good flick, but it has it's flaws, most notably the acting. 6/10.

Blow (2001)

Nothing new

[31 August 2001]

The first half of the film is really bad. Here it comes across as a tame imitation of Goodfellas, Boogie Nights or even Donnie Brasco. The last part is remarkebly better, but still the characters are just too one-dimensional to really engage the viewer. If you want to see a good film about drugs, go see Traffic. If you want a good movie about a life of crime, watch Goodfellas (again). If you're a big Johnny Depp fan, Blow probably won't dissapoint you - he plays really well but it just isn't enough to make a really food movie.

Kundun (1997)

Sick of saint-stories

[3/10 · 9 March 2001]

I was extremely disappointed of this movie. When you try to make a movie, that's supposed to be realistic or documentary, you have to stick to the truth as tight as possible. And then I'll have to ask: does Scorsese really see the Damai Lama as a divine human being ? Someone incapable of failing ? I don't mean to be racial about this, but if this movie had been about a european or american white male, it would have been killed by the critics for being too black/white and much too saint-like in its portrayal. The truth about the tibetian story is, that the chinese aren't just demons and the tibetians not just defenseless innocents. I don't know the truth about the Dalai Lama as a person, but he can't possible be anything like this. Unless he really is a god of some sort. I doubt it.

Boogie Nights (1997)

The Goodfellas of porn

[7/10 · 31 January 2001]

It is obvious that Anderson has looked deep into a lot of Scorsese-films before he made this one. Like Scorsese, he has shown himself able of doing something that's truly rare in american films: he has made a movie, where everyone is a bad guy, and still you watch it. From the beginning it is clear, that it is going to be a "rise and fall"-type of film, and I think the biggest fault of the film is, that the "rise"-part is too long. Sure it captures a lot of seventies-atmosphere, but at length it gets boring, until the last part of the film finally saves the day. The anarchistic end of the movie is in many ways a parallel to that of Raging Bull - the star who - no longer a star - refuses to realize, that he's finished. Overall, this is a god movie, that could have been great, if it had been about half an hour shorter. 7/10

Unbreakable (2000)

overrated film

[5/10 · 9 January 2001]

I don't understand the overall praise for this movie. I'm a fan of both Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson, but even though they do their best they cannot save this one from mediocricy. First of all it seems to me, that the movie in too many ways is just a repetition of the sixth sense - the same atmosphere, the same music, the same use of camera. The difference is, that the sixth sense was really scary - whereas this one is trying so hard to be scary and shocking, that it simply has to fail. Look at the story - a man find out that he is really a pokémon. And that's all that happens. Worst of all is the ending which is REALLY a drag - why the semi-documental reports of "what happened afterwards" ? Is it based on an authentic story ?

If not for the actors, and especially Jackson, this one would have been really bad. See the Sixth Sense once again instead.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Now THIS is bad

[1/10 · 14 December 2000]

I hated this one. Everything's wrong - from the very start, where the astronauts have a garden-party where they get drunk the day before they go into space. Yeah right! The characters are one-dimensional, the story is just plain stupid and even the effects fail to impress. And the point of it all ??? Well, tell me this: if the riddle of life on earth can be answered: it was created on Mars - where did the life on Mars then come from ? Oh please - don't make a Mission to Mars II to try to explain. I've had enough.

Galaxy Quest (1999)

Another boring sci-fi

[2/10 · 14 December 2000]

I went to see this movie because of the good reviews, and I was extremely disappointed of what I saw. It's actually a very good idea that lies behinds it all, but in the end the movie turns into parody itself. You have to be seriously hooked on the genre to like this one, and it really just emphasizes the fact, that the artisticly good sci-fi movies seem to belong to the past.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

5/10, good beginning, bad end

[6/10 · 12 December 2000]

I really liked the first half of this movie. It starts out as a surreal road-movie, and there is a lot of strange effects and general weirdness (like the "I love Mallory-sequence) to give the violence a kind of an ironic twist. But later - after Mickey and Mallory is captured - the film turns into just another plain actionfilm a la Rambo vs. the world. It's really a shame that Oliver Stone didn't finish the film as he started it, and all in all it seems to me that the "point" (if there is one) is lost during all the shooting and screaming. If Natural Born Killers is anti-violent, so is Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.

Good Will Hunting (1997)

A genius kid from the streets conquers Harvard..

[3/10 · 11 December 2000]

I must say I really found this film very over-rated. First of all the story isn't even remotly credible. How can a street kid without any education solve mathematical puzzles that even professors at Harvard University can't work out ??? Albert Einstein is mentioned several times in the movie as a parallel to Will Hunting, but don't forget that Eintein said, that to become a genius, you need 2% inspiration and 98% transpiration. What makes it even worse is that Will not only masters mathematics but history, literature, chemistry etc. as well. To me, Will is much too much of a Superman, and I couldn't identify with him in ny way. I really believe that you have to strive hard to obtain knowledge and education, and the genius myth that lies behind this film I find totally ridiculous.