15 Reviews
Sort by:
Mitt (2014)
Nice but mostly surface
1 February 2014
Mitt Romney seems like a nice man, and that pretty much sums up what I got out of this documentary. But apart from that, I didn't feel like I really learned anything.

If the object was to make Mitt seem human, it does do a good job of this, but as far as providing an insightful look behind the curtain it falls short. There is a sort of a discrepancy between the use of "one cameraman/interviewer with his hand-held camera" signifying bare honesty and how often the scenes seem set-up and "for the camera". Ultimately; this means that it often comes off as a bit disingenuous, and that you're only scratching the surface, rather than getting to know the deeper truth about a man and his political life.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Cut Above, really?
12 May 2008
The tagline is A Cut Above, and having seen the first one, I will disclose right now that it certainly is a lot better than the first. Yet being lengths better than Nora's Hair Salon, still doesn't make for a genuinely good movie, but fast approaching the acceptable. I say, if they keep improving the quality like this, then by Nora's Hair Salon 3 I might actually have an upside down frown ... too positive? Better make that Nora's Hair Salon 13.

But good and bad things, well let's start with the good.

If IMDb was so superficial as to make a list of combined hotness in a movie, no doubt this would get a very high ranking. There is a plethora of sexy in this movie, due to the level of attractiveness spearheaded by Tatyana Ali and Stacy Dash, but also kickers in Christine Carlo and Brandi Burnside (god daughter of Bobby Brown... I wonder how she got the part?). Too bad acting isn't determined via attractiveness, but it has to be said that neither Tatyana Ali nor Stacy Dash suffer from bad acting. Actually... it's not that bad.

I think to genuinely appreciate this movie, you have to have seen the first. If you have, you will automatically become delighted how much better this is in comparison. The first was by all means one of the worst movies ever made, whereas this one steps everything up a notch in a positive direction. Let's not get carried away, it's not good no doubt about that, but I didn't hate it. I felt it was bearable to watch, and there was even two times I almost chuckled.

Now the bad things, brace yourselves.

Bobby Brown ... oh, Bobby Brown. Bobby Brown is portrayed as the man in the business, with the fame and money. I suppose the most pimp thing he is on record as having done, is turning Whitney Houston into a crack addict and deleting her career. So that would be the bad kind of pimp, and not the Jay-Z "brush that dirt of your shoulders" kind of pimp. He has some unnecessary rapping, which he sucks at, and then there are the times he has screen time for acting, which he also sucks at. In conclusion Bobby Brown sucks in this movie. To tell you the truth, I wasn't a fan of Bobby Brown before, and this movie didn't give me even the slightest reason to become one.

As mentioned before, the acting in general isn't going to win any awards soon, yet doesn't mean that it's not rare to see worse acting, and as usual light years better than the first.

I suppose a movie needs to be categorized in a genre, this is why this is labeled a comedy. Some may argue that struggling to be funny even once, let alone twice, it's a gross case of mislabeling. Then again, what else would you call it? I'm sure no label would actually make it better. Another thing, which is in fact funny, is that for a movie using the word "drama" ever so often, it surprisingly lacks any itself. It's predictable and the various attempts of story lining some drama and adding a little suspense, proves a miserable failure. You could walk out on this movie from the the first second to the 80th minute and 24th second, and not feel you are somehow missing out or wanting to see how it ends.

Having seen the first two Nora's Hairsalon, and complaining about them - you bet I'll see the third too, when it comes out. Heck, this is so much fun, maybe I'll even fund it, just to have something to complain about. May I suggest calling it: Nora's Hairsalon 3: The Extension (now wasn't that a clever pun?)
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
As a generic action flick it passes, as the Die Hard 4 it fails
1 July 2007
The Die Hard dynasty is the definition of the heroic anti-hero. John McClane is a hero by accident. He is forced to be a hero, not because he is inclined to be one.

This is why I, and others, distinguish between Die Har 1&3 and Die Hard 2. And without telling to much, I now put number 4 in the series in the latter category.

I'll tell you why.... John McTiernan had the right take on it, and you see it in both the 1 and 3. He doesn't treat John McClane as a hero, he treats him as an ordinary guy, albeit a bad-ass type of ordinary guy. This is what makes Die Hard ultra cool. - Bruce Willis kicking ass and cracking jokes. If you hit him he falls over, bleeds, but gets up again, retaliates ending in fatality, and a snide remark.

Number 2 made him too much of a generic hero, and Live Free or Die Hard aka Die Hard 4.0 has a bit of the same problem. John McTiernan made a balanced gourmet (action)meal, in the proper serving size. 4.0 struggles with the same as you do, when you try to recreate the meal you just had. You liked it, so you make a double portion, and because you liked certain elements, you add extra of that. And the result of that is always the same, it's OK, but not as good as you had, because it's out of proportion and after gorging on it, you suddenly feel you've had too much, spoiling it all a bit.

Although John McClane in 4.0, is very vocally underlined as not being the heroes hero. The rest of the movie portrays him as such. Everything is a little bit extra, and little big bigger, and a bit more explosive. Sometimes you wonder if the director was thinking, "and then here it would be nice with another explosion, maybe John bleeding a bit more".

Live Free or Die Hard goes a long way with the template and the pedigree, but because of it's eager to give a little bit more of everything, it stops short of giving the same cool feel as the John McTiernans.

As an action flick though, it's exciting and keeps you entertained most of the time. It does get a little long towards the end, and some of the mushy elements, gets well... a little too mushy

All in all, it's worth seeing, and you should take a hide during the summer to do just that. Because Bruce Willis is good company. Even if you do miss the John McClane of the past millennium.
35 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Platinum (2003– )
A Shortlived, But Actually Quite Good
10 June 2007
You rarely see "black-shows" that aren't sitcoms. Platinum is one of these rare but good non-sitcoms. It evolves around a rap record company, and portrays the difficulties of working with troublesome acts, cutthroat competing companies, and everything else you associate with the rap industry.

You might argue that e.g. it's only realistic in a rap-video that every woman is full-bodied vixen, and not in real life. But forgive it its faults here and there and don't let it ruin the entire picture, because it doesn't fall for relying on stereotypes to make the characters interesting and recognizable or use of overly shallow plots garnished with hip hop glitter of which you've grown use to from watching music videos.

In my opinion it's really a shame this show didn't get extended. It was quite entertaining, and would have made for great TV, would it have continued and been allowed to add thicker plots and full bodied side-stories.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing Shy of Genius
17 November 2006
Following in the lines of ground breaking "Anti-Comedy"-Comedies like The Office and Extras. Teatret ved Ringvejen takes the art of converting an uncomfortable situation into a comedic one to an extreme.

This show offers almost no comedic relief, but builds up tension and doesn't really stop for an entire episode. You would think that it would be excruciating to watch, and not much to laugh at. But taking advantage of the very human reaction of responding to embarrassing and uncomfortable situations by laughter works on a whole new level. The mechanic itself is using odd, but not unrealistic, situations. Building up things for the characters just to take them away.

But to be really good, such a construction has a threat; it depends on the actors making it believable. Luckily the actors deliver a job so well done; it could be a study case in the most difficult art of delivering feelings and thoughts with use of minimum visible effort. Overall the acting is close to sublime.

Teatret ved Ringvejen is a brilliant satirical comedy, and that's without even being a comedy.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
See it two times times...
28 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
....Because if you do, you'll find out it does not get better the second time. While watching it the second time I felt a slight tinkling sensation in my throat, which has to be described as latent nausea due to the quality of the movie. But I also had a slight but continuous pain in my gut, from actually having spend money on this.

Everything is still cliché. And you might be thinking, oh well a little cliché doesn't have to be excruciating. But it is, oh but it is when it's cliché in a cliché way carried out in the form of a cliché of clichés.

The story is still so bad and boring it would be hilarious if it didn't irritate one so much. Everything is so obvious that you're constantly thinking, oh yeah I remember knowing that would happen the first time I saw it. There is no drive, no sense of direction, actually there's no sense of anything, of value at least.

The acting does not get less irritating. You're still thinking, I know these actors aren't top a-list, but still, they're OK and decent at their trade(and even in certain parts quite magnificent) but it must be the script and the direction that pulls these people down to a level of performance that would give elementary school drama teachers the need to misuse their underpaid salary on Xanax and Prozac.

So why would anyone(read; me) spend their money on this movie. They will if they need their head examined, and I would say the money would be better spend doing just that. - So why did I do it? Let me confess, I have a thing for Tatyana Ali, and apparently I'm weak enough to buy her movies when they come out. Objectively she does give an OK performance considering the movie, but not overwhelming. And even her performance taken into consideration, it isn't reason enough to spend money on this movie.

Lesson I learned from watching it the second, I still shouldn't have bought it, I still shouldn't have seen it, and my life would have been enriched much more from seeing the progress of paint drying.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not good - overrated - and that's just my vote
25 July 2005
Why did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.

Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.

This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.

Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.

Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.

The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.

The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say "we need to tell this, and we need to tell that". There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.

To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brilliant and Cool - a mockumentaric road-'movie'
23 December 2004
When I first saw this, and didn't know what to expect. I had seen the promos, and it seemed odd that two danish men would travel to the United States and independently try and raise good-will for George. W Bush. The whole situation seemed odd, not only since very few Danes are in favour of Dubya, but also how it all was portrayed.....strange.

When I finally saw the show, I must say I was very pleasantly surprised, as it turned out to be one of the most entertaining and incredibly funny documentaries, well mockumentaries, I have ever seen. The whole show seems like a mixture of Louis Theroux's weird weekends and Sacha Baron Cohen's many characters (Ali G, Borat etc.).

The Two Danes mainly visit Republicans, and shall we say very colourful republicans. The two guy are incognito as being deeply conservative, and as I mentioned before, at first you don't really know "are they real?", therefore making the people, they talk to, really stand out for the not so finer things in life. When the two talk, they just play along with the republicans. But what the republicans don't know, it is with intend to getting them wound up and say something awful. They do it really well, so no wonder they don't suspect anything.

This way of making documentaries by almost acting as a Trojan horse, and soothing the targets instead of going right up in their faces with tough questions, is often better and more effective in getting information and the right comments, as the message gets clearer when people aren't forced to answer what they think, but just say them(OK, sometimes almost lured to). Jacob and Mads master this very well, they always try and get their interviewees to be more rabid by being more and more rabid themselves.

As each minute passes you feel even more mortified and laughter filled by how the whole thing just evolves.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bullitt (1968)
Atleast I finally got to see it!
23 March 2004
Have you ever wanted to see a movie, because you heard to much about it. Well this was the way I had it with Bullitt, people had told me it was great and I should see.

Funny thing, you expect so much of a movie, when you hear so much and many times you have too high expectations about and to become a bit disappointed about the outcome, because the movie was good but it didn't really live up to your expectations.

I finally pulled myself together and bought it on DVD, just to check it out.

I may tell you; it's been long time since I've been so pleasantly surprised. Bullitt has what you want, it's fantastic - It's so COOL. Steve McQueen is The King of Cool, I finally found out why he is nicknamed such. I loved the feel of the movie, how it was build up, and the distinct way it's conducted. The famous car chase: Incredible, finally a car chase, which knows what it wants. As said in the "documentary" featurette, it's focus on reality. The car chase, proves this - I can see with this is the one that made the foundation to all the modern car chases.

Bullitt has shot itself into my Top 10 :-D
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sleepwalker (2000)
Give it to the Swedes to make good thrillers.
4 December 2003
I had noticed a commercial preview for this movie on TV4, since I'm danish, TV4 is one of the few swedish channels I can get by satellite, this is why I'm thankful TV4 send this movie.

The movie in itself is fastpaced some places, and yet slowed down in others for dramatic effect(and it works), it was shown in swedish with no subtitles, and I think this the only way to watch such a movie, and since Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian people rather easily understand each other, it was no problem keeping track. I must say, I think this movie fully live up to the high standard set by the Beck movies. Really worth watching
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very Moore-ish
2 March 2003
I have long time been a fan of Michael Moore, and when I heard that this praised movie would premier in Denmark, I was thrilled (to the point I had stomach ache the last 2 hours before the screening). I had great expectations, and I was afraid that it wouldn't live up to them....I was pleasantly surprised.

For anyone who likes the revolver-journalistic style of Moore, this is a 2 hour feast. A usual Moore uses the old saying "exaggeration promotes the meaning" to bring out the meaning in things, the great thing about this, is you have to take an interest in the areas covered and know a little about as well, then you can lean back and be entertained by the razor blade of information, we call documentary.

It is a joy to watch how "an ordinary guy" Michigan, who really takes an interest in the society he lives in, by putting topics on the edge. This is rare, especially within American journalism. The way he does it, shows his great love for the country and his willingness to take a critical stand, which equal to the "ordinary Joe" who actually cares, only difference: Michael Moore has a camera, a microphone, and a large devoted audience....
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Ring (2002)
30 November 2002
I hope the obvious sarcasm wasn't wasted on anyone. I ordered a ticket for the "Premier Surprise", which had the tag line, "massive hit in USA", hoping it was 8 Mile a friend and I took the deal.

After 5 minutes I wondered if I could get my money back (from the small talk around me, seemingly I wasn't alone in that thought). From the boy, who is a clear "Sixth Sense"-rip-off to the heavily inspired filming and cinematography from Blair Witch, this movie was a huge disappointment. I admit the "Horror-genre" has it tough, it's now easy making one that's critically acclaimed, but I have found out it's all about feel and mood. Films like "The Shining", "The Exorcist", and "The Kingdom" have that great creepy feel, which, even if you don't get scared, just shows the best of genre, and is a joy to watch.

The Ring doesn't have it. It made me laugh a couple of times, when being to thick to take serious. I voted it 3, because I have seen worse horror-flicks. But the hopeless copying of other films, and a plot full of holes and errors can't swing it up to more.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hr. Vinterberg & Mr. Bowie (2002 TV Special)
5 November 2002
Quite as the headline says, this show is quite interesting. Not just that these two men are important artists, but how the old musician and the new director can connect on level where they forget all about predetermined questions. And moreover how two mastdons in each their area can have so much mutual respect.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Beowulf (1999)
Worst Movie Ever, better watch it
3 April 2002
As the title indicates, this movie is probably the worst movie ever made. This is why you don't know if you should love it or hate it, it's rather ambivilent relationship. There are just so many things wrong with this movie I don't know where to start, but the more you see of this the more tragic-comic it becomes. This movie is so uninteresting that no matter how much you prepare, you always wind up commenting all the bad things, or simply just talking about something else(best seen with friends, nothing like badmouthing a movie with your loved ones). I know i said that i don't know where to begin, but yet I try: Bad acting(Lambert should have stayed in the 80's, all the women was hired because of their breasts, and yes there is the token black guy), Lousy effects(did anyone say Nintendo 8-bit), Idiotic script(well the line "Cut her loose" kinda marks the spot, makes you laugh), and finally that damn techno music, it's simply annoying.

Gotta love it(well hate), just see it. It's actually worth seeing how bad a movie can be.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best movie ever.
2 April 2001
Ever wondered what movie is the best in the whole wide world. It's easy if you decide to watch The Celebration or Festen as it's called in danish.

Maybe Dogme95 could scare you because of the rough movie style, but do not be alarmed. Even if you don't get kicks by dogme95(hey some of us do)the movie in it self grabs and does not loosen it's grip untill it's over. But Festen will always be in your memory, brilliant lighting(there is none), actors and mood. It is all so perfect that even Steven Spielberg had announced that he would make dogme, but only the true dogme95: Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, Søren Kragh Jacobsen and (i can't remember the last guys name). But at least three of them masters the movie making of gods.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this