Jiiimbooh Reviews

Show Me Love (1998)

TL;DR: Watch it!

[9/10 · 5 December 2024]

Agnes is a lonely teenage girl without any real friends. She's secretly in love with Elin, a popular girl in school. Elin is bored with living in a small town.

Before this, we were used to rosy depictions of teenage life. You wouldn't get a lot of cursing and underage drinking. Then a movie called F---ing Åmål hit the theaters. It dared to give a more realistic portrayal of being a teenager at the time. About the title, Åmål is an actual small town in Sweden. It's a Swedish language film, but I suppose cursing in English is cooler. For English markets, it had to be retitled as Show Me Love, after a song by Robyn we hear in the movie.

This became a mainstream hit in Sweden, which was unusual for a film about homosexual love. This was, after all, before Brokeback Mountain (2005). But it was most influential in another way: In the years that followed there were several tell-it-like-it-is teenage dramas made in Sweden, such as Hip Hip Hora! (2004). I see these as knock offs and don't find them as interesting.

You might have seen films about a nerdy girl or woman being into a popular guy. They never feel real to me. The story always seems to progress in an improbable way that only happens in movies. Show Me Love doesn't have the same problem. It feels like the events could unfold in much the same way in real life. By the end of it you have forgotten that you're watching a movie and you feel that you know these people. The characters have their flaws, but you sympathize with them-even with Elin, who can be both mean and annoying, because you realize that she's an already frustrated teen that is put in a difficult situation. It's easy to relate to the important characters even if you haven't been in the exact same predicament. There are plenty of things that you will recognize from your teenage years.

They found songs that fit the mood for different scenes, from Yvonne - Drifter capturing a feeling of angst in one part of the film to Broder Daniel - Underground almost giving you a feeling of invincibility in another part.

Although it's not a mockumentary they were going for a documentary look, which shows in the camera movements, but also in that it's rather grainy and sometime yellowish (from the older kind of lightbulbs). This makes the film feel raw and unfiltered. The audience at the time would get it, but to a teen watching today, it might make the film seem older than it actually is or very low budget. I think there's a risk that some young people will turn it off without giving it a chance, but if you keep watching for just a few minutes I guarantee that you will forget it and just accept it as part of the style. They changed the color grading of certain scenes on the Nordic Blu-ray and Netflix to give them a more neutral look. I honestly don't think it's an improvement. In my view they removed some of the atmosphere.

Younger viewers might think that this will be slow and boring because it's old. I don't think Show Me Love would be told at a faster pace if it was made today. Things are happening all the time. Films were actually relatively fast-paced in the '90s, and then became slower again after the Lord of the Rings trilogy became a success in the next decade (and films started getting longer running times).

Fashion changes. Technology changes. That doesn't change the fact that this film deals with topics that were relevant then, are relevant now, and will be relevant a hundred years from now.

I recommend this to all teens and all former teens.

The Substance (2024)

Unique, yes. Good?

[6/10 · 14 September 2024]

Demi Moore plays Elisabeth Sparkle, a celebrity who became famous when she was young and beautiful. Now she's older (but in good shape) and we will see what aging does to her career and self-image. With outside help, she creates a younger version of herself called Sue (Margaret Qualley), but she is warned that she has to periodically switch between living as the younger and older version of herself. She must not be late to make the switch!

To make this film they started off with a big bowl of drama, added a teaspoon of sci-fi, and a pinch of mystery. These elements work well together because everything is connected to the main story. At the end they added a whole bucketload of splatter à la early Peter Jackson (only they had a bigger budget and the effects were of course more modern.) This switch doesn't work so well for me.

I think they got the right actors for the parts. Besides Moore and Qualley I should also mention Dennis Quaid as the dirty, old boss. The cinematography was good. It had some weird close-ups, but those added to the mood of those scenes. The film had some body transformation effects that I liked, because it felt like something physical was on the screen. (The eyes were probably digital, however.)

Although I think this is in some ways a well-made film, I don't know who to recommend it to. Some will think the first three quarters of the film are interesting and appreciate that it takes its time to tell the story, but they might be put off by the ending. Others will think that the start and middle of the film are too slow and boring and might complain that we don't get any action until the end. I can appreciate different kinds of films, but it's distracting when you take a too sharp turn from one genre to another late in the film. For others it apparently works better, considering that From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) is a cult-classic, while I've always felt that it's two great films that were combined into one decent film.

If you're not too squeamish, and like strange films with some surprises this might be for you. Maybe.

Djävligt jagad (1995)

Move aside, Bergman!

[7/10 · 14 February 2024]

A group of campers inadvertently disturbs a gathering of devil worshippers and get hunted around the woods. They call the special forces who show up to help with the situation.

The reviewers claiming that this movie changed their lives are of course totally serious. Nah, kidding, this was not meant to be a thought-provoking film. You can tell a bunch of friends made it, because everyone on screen is the same age. The camera was likely a consumer grade camcorder. The high ratings are for the entertainment value and not because it revolutionized cinema or anything.

It's low-budget, but I wouldn't call it bad. It's made with a lot of (intentional) humor. It's like a Swedish Bad Taste with devil worshippers instead of aliens. There are some cool-looking practical effects, for example when people get shot, and when a guy's head is smashed in with a giant club. There are even several explosions (real, not digital). The filmmakers were quite creative, and I enjoyed seeing what action sequences they could pull off with the resources they had.

There is room for improvement. The story is as simple as it gets. Character development? Don't make me laugh. They don't always follow filmmaking rules, so someone walking to the left could be walking to the right in the next shot. However, despite, or maybe sometimes because it's shortcomings it will be great fun to those who are into low-budget or rare movies.

You can tell they had a blast making this. It's the crazy film you talked about making with your friends, but never got around to. What I learned from this masterpiece is that with the power of Satan, you can accomplish anything! Microsoft Paint might also help.

Now you are probably thinking you have to get the Special Edition 4K Blu-ray. At the time of writing the officially available versions are the DVD version and DivX. I recommend the DVD version for the higher resolution, but it's missing an opening short film included in the DivX version.

The Devil Bat (1940)

Entertaining horror flick starring Lugosi and bats

[7/10 · 15 February 2023]

A spooky mansion with hidden passages, Bela Lugosi as a disgruntled scientist, and killer bats. How could I have missed this for so long?

Let's start with the bats. Although this is a low-budget film, I don't think the bats look any worse than ones in other films of the era. My main complaint is that when they use a real bat for close-ups, it's out-of-focus. The horror sequences work reasonably well, even if they look dated now. Something I hadn't seen before is how the scientist (Lugosi) manages to make the bats kill for him.

The plot is silly sometimes. For example, when people start turning up dead, the sheriff seems to think it's a good idea to sit on the sidelines, while he lets two journalists he hasn't met before solve the case. However, since the tone between the horror scenes is pretty lighthearted it doesn't hurt the film as much as it could have. If you are looking for a serious film, this is not it.

Lastly, I thought the editing was creative in certain parts.

The film is a must-see for fans of that era of horror, but others might not be that impressed. If you decide to give it a try, at least you won't have to spend a lot of money. The film is now in the public domain is available from a variety of sources.

Dinotopia (II) (2002)

OK adventure with dinosaurs

[6/10 · 12 June 2022]

Yes, I know. It's a miniseries for kids, but some grownups seem to enjoy it. I have loved dinosaur movies ever since I saw Jurassic Park (1993) as a kid, so I decided to give it a try.

The overarching story is an exciting tale of adventure. Two half-brothers survive a plane crash. After this brush with death they discover an island where humans and dinosaurs live together. The brothers have different personalities and deal with this discovery in different ways. There are dangers ahead for the brothers and the inhabitants of the island, but I won't reveal any more about that now.

The story itself is great, but of course, it also matters how a story is told. About the script, certain things are just not explained. Maybe it has to do with limitations on the running time. An example early on is when the brothers take a bus. To get on they need a ticket. Presumably, if you need a ticket you need to buy it. They just get them from a man in a booth with no explanation. Would it had been so hard to just have someone lend them some coins in the local currency? No spoilers, but the ending was even worse to the point of being sloppy. I could see the screenwriter in front of me going: "Ops, I only have three more pages to finish this!" He would have needed half an episode.

Another important aspect in a series about dinosaurs is of course the practical and digital effects. For scenes in broad daylight, the CGI is not that impressive. It didn't look much better than a video game at the time. However, there were a few suspenseful scenes, in the dark, that mixed CGI with animatronics, and these worked much better. It's clear that great care had been taken to make the most of what they had in order to make these scenes as thrilling as possible. Of course, if you're mainly interested in realistic-looking creatures, you might as well re-watch Jurassic Park. Even if the industry had nine years to improve the technologies, you have to consider that Dinotopia is made for TV and Jurassic Park was a blockbuster, and had groundbreaking effects.

The acting wasn't always great, but wasn't what bothered me the most. Maybe it was because I half-expected it from a TV production.

I'm sorry I didn't watch Dinotopia at age ten, as I probably wouldn't have noticed the flaws as much. It's not terrible, but I suspect that the grownups who give it the most praise might be watching through a nostalgic filter.

I would recommend this if the following is true: You want something to watch with your kids. Your kids like adventure and/or dinosaurs. They can handle some scary sequences, but aren't yet ready for Jurassic Park. If you are looking for something to watch on your own, there are better options, even if you like dinosaurs.

Galactica 1980 (1980)

Not the great conclusion fans had hoped for

[4/10 · 14 April 2013]

**minor spoilers**

The original Battlestar Galactica's (1978) sequel/spin-off show Galactica 1980 (1980), about the Galactica finally arriving at Earth, was not a great success at the time, and watching it for the first time in 2013, I can understand why. There are some good ideas here and there, but also some very, very bad ones.

Starting with the characters, they are very one-dimensional. There is never any real disagreement between the good characters, and they don't seem to have many flaws. The good ones are 100% good and the bad ones are just evil. This makes them seem very much like just characters, and not like real people you relate to or care about. In the original series the good characters didn't always agree, and at least Starbuck could be described as flawed. Boxey returns, but as an adult. This is a good idea, except the character suffers from the problems mentioned above. We find out that his real name is Troy, and he has a sidekick named Dillon. A female reporter from Earth becomes a friend of Troy and Dillon. Boomer from the original series has a supporting role in some episodes. Adama also returns for the sequel show, as a regular, but his role of being the wise leader is handed over to the super-intelligent child Dr. Zee (played by two different actors.) There could have been an interesting conflict if there was ever a disagreement between the two, Adama with his life experience, and Dr. Zee with his extraordinary intelligence, but alas—Adama even says in "Galactica Discovers Earth" that Dr. Zee has never been wrong. Adama seems wasted here, which is a shame.

Despite the problems with the characters, the show nonetheless has an acceptable start with the sci-fi-war thriller three-parter "Galactica Discovers Earth." The fleet arrives at Earth in the present time (ca. 1980), but soon a time travel story follows in which the characters travel back to the Second World War. It at least kept my interest for all of the episodes. After this we have a change of tone, genre, and it would appear, target audience with "The Super Scouts" (two parts), and "Spaceball," which are family entertainment/silly comedy, with some sci-fi elements. In "The Super Scouts," the school ship is attacked by Cylons and has to crash-land on Earth, with Troy, Dillion, and the fleet's children on board. On Earth, the children pose as scouts, and the adults as scout leaders. (They have not made their presence known to us Earthlings.) This story has a message about pollution, with three of the children becoming sick from the water in a lake. Not shown or mentioned until "The Super Scouts" are the Galacticans' "super powers." Since gravity on board the Galactica is higher than on Earth, the Galacticans have some abilities like strength and being able to jump high into the air. This sometimes serves as an easy way out of difficult situations. I would be more comfortable with these abilities if they had been present from the beginning; this way it seems like too much of an afterthought (which I'm sure it was.) "Spaceball" is about a baseball contest. In "The Night the Cylons Landed" (two parts) Troy and Dillon quickly leave the kids behind as they go to investigate the crash of a space craft. This is a relief as the show can become more of a sci-fi show again, but it still has some of the silly humor. A story about racism follows with "Space Croppers." Although the kids return it's still not a bad episode, but not great either. I wonder if they were really passionate about making this story, or if they just wanted to make a story with a message that seemed important, because it seems like social commentary was mandatory in all of the episodes.

Saved for last is the fan-favorite "The Return of Starbuck." It's nice to see another character from the original series. With all of the cardboard characters, it's also interesting to have a character that, despite being good and likable, still has made some morally questionable decisions in the past (i.e. his womanizing behavior.) I like the first half the most, when Starbuck crashes and is trapped alone on a desolate planet. A group of Cylons also crash-land and break, and Starbuck, having no other companions, and no one helping him to survive, tries to repair one of them. This is the best 25 or so minutes of the entire series.

Galactica 1980 is much worse than both the original series, and the 2003 mini-series. (I haven't seen the episodes from 2004 onwards.) With all the different directions it took, you can tell that there were some different wills involved. All-in-all, I can't recommend it if you're looking for a good sci-fi show, but if nothing else, it's an interesting failure.

Wither (2012)

Impressive gore, but that's the best thing about it

[4/10 · 26 September 2012]

Some young people decide to party and spend the night in an abandoned house in the woods. One by one they are possessed by… something and the possessed start attacking the not-yet-possessed. We only get a semi-explanation for why and what's going on, but that's really all that's needed. It's not the most original story of all time, but it works.

This Swedish horror movie is like a modern Evil Dead with more realistic gore effects, but most else is sadly not up to the same standard as the old cult-classic. After an initial horror scene to set the tone, we get a superficial presentation of the characters and why they are going to the house. This part is rather boring. I understand that they want to set up the characters and story, but we get mostly uninteresting talking. No interesting stuff happening, no funny jokes, and no good buildup of what's to come. Regarding the dialog: the lines themselves are mostly realistic during this part. However, the delivery isn't always that realistic, but not bad enough to be funny.

The movie does get better once the horror begins. There are some creepy parts and excellent gore effects. Despite this being a low-budget Swedish horror, the effects are up to par with a modern Hollywood horror movie, so kudos for that. The acting even improves a bit. However, I was a little annoyed at times at the inconsistent behavior of the possessed. Sometimes they can't attack the humans fast enough, yet at other times they just stand there and look.

I would recommend this to someone who is mainly interested in seeing some nice gore.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1973)

Not a masterpiece but an interesting watch

[5/10 · 30 November 2007]

**MINOR SPOILERS, but considering that the narrative is pretty simple and straight forward without any real twist and turns I wouldn't worry about "spoilers" that much.**

After the box-office failure of his last movie director Bo Arne Vibenius wanted to make this movie as commercial as possible, which to him meant lots of sex and violence. We follow the story of a teenage girl, called Madeleine in the Swedish version, who is mute after a shocking event, a rape, when she was younger. A man called Tony offers her a ride after she'd just missed the bus to town. He seems quite nice even buying her dinner and inviting her to his home for a drink. But then he drugs her, injects heroin into her body until she is addicted and writes letters to her parents stating that she doesn't want to come back, and forces her to sign them. He then makes her work as a prostitute and pays her with heroin. After she refuses her first costumer Tony gets furious and removes one of her eyes, which explains the alternate title "They Call Her One Eye".

A very dark beginning of course, but Madeleine wasn't planning on letting Tony get away with all this. Instead she trains martial arts, shooting, and even fast driving. She bides her time perfecting her skills until she is ready. The movie up until this point is actually very good. We get a good motive for revenge and a good build-up to what's going to happen. There is only one thing to comment about: the hardcore pornography clips inserted into the sex scenes. The story about Madeleine being forced to have sex for heroin could have been a real depressing one. But not here. The only reason I could think of for Vibenius decision to insert these clips, is that he wanted to arouse the viewer. You have to remember that his intentions with this movie weren't that noble. He wanted to make a commercial movie and sex sells.

Either way, the build-up is still pretty good, but beside some cool camera angles, the revenge part is not. It's actually unintentionally funny for me. We get: overuse of slow-motion, classic '70s orange blood, enemies' bullets always missing our heroine, and cars exploding for virtually nothing. Don't get me wrong, the makers of this movie are hardly the only ones being guilty of using any of these things. However when it's all thrown together like this it's just too much for me. The overuse of slow-motion also slows down the movie too much during the fights. This is a shame with the good build-up and Madeleine looking very cool with her eyepatch and coat.

All in all I wouldn't exactly call it a good movie, but it's an interesting watch, especially since I've now seen both Thriller and I Spit on Your Grave (a.k.a. Day of the Woman, 1978), two of the most talked about rape-revenge movies from the seventies. Although the theme is so similar, they are actually two very different movies made with totally different intentions, and I'd recommend both of them if you're interested in movies in general and think you can handle it because these movies also have their place in the history of cinema, even if they aren't usually regarded as "high quality" by the critics.

Bo Arne Videnius wanted to make this movie as commercial as possible. Did he succeed? Well, it's his most famous effort as a director...

The Woods (2006)

Not bad, but not a masterpiece either

[6/10 · 17 June 2007]

A teenage girl gets sent to a boarding school. After a while she starts to see strange things happening. A supernatural "don't go into the woods" type of movie. The beginning is a bit similar to Suspiria (1977), but the ending is totally different.

Starting with the positives: The characterizations are better than in most horror movies and I cared more for the characters than I usually would in other movies of the genre. It was fun seeing Bruce Campbell in it, but I want to point out that he does not play Ash from Evil Dead (1981). This is a different character, but I think he does it well. The acting is good overall also from the other actors. Most things are good in the first two thirds of the movie. There are some creepy scenes that give you a feeling something bad is going to happen; few genuine fright scenes in the beginning, they are mostly building up towards the ending, a strategy that works pretty well. The problem for me is that the plot turns into a direction I have a little hard to buy even for a supernatural movie. I would have wanted a different ending and at the end I feel a little disappointed. Still maybe worth renting, if you're interested in seeing what director Lucky McKee has been up to after May (2002), but hardly a masterpiece.

Wedlock (I) (1991)

Disappointed, could have been better with a more futuristic feel to it

[4/10 · 4 June 2007]

Set "sometime in the future" the main character Frank (Rutger Hauer) gets sent into a new kind of prison. Everybody in the prison has a necklace, which is linked with another person's necklace. (Of course you don't know who this other person is.) If you get too far away from the person you're linked with both of your necklaces will explode. This is of course to prevent people from escaping. Compared to if the necklace was just linked to a certain spot inside the prison, the idea of linking the necklace to another person adds another dimension to it. You might be willing to risk your own life trying to escape, but do you really want to risk another person's life at the same time? Such a prison will not be set in the US in the present time of course. It would be highly controversial. That's why the believability of the plot relies on this being set in sometime the future, when views on moral have changed enough so that such a prison will become plausible. The problem here is that this "future" could very easily be mistaken for 1991, when the movie was made. This is a huge problem for me as I just don't believe that such a prison will exist in the US in the near future. I would have really wanted them to put more effort/resources into making it seem more futuristic. I guess this was a budgetary decision.

Even if you don't care about the plot being plausible, this movie has little to offer compared to other semi-low-budget movies of the genre. The action sequences and acting efforts are pretty average, and the script follows the Hollywood formula quite well, making any plot twists obvious. I'm a bit disappointed because it actually seemed like a pretty cool idea for an early '90s action movie. Maybe I'm a little nice with the grade 4/10, but I didn't want to be too harsh when the basic idea is actually good. I might be interested in a remake with a bit higher budget so they can set it further into the future.

I'd recommend this only for the die hard 1980s and early '90s action movie fans.

Sune's Summer (1993)

Great comedy! This is what a "family" movie should be like.

[9/10 · 27 June 2006]

This is one of the best Swedish movies I've seen. Most "family" movies promise to be fun for the whole family but this is one of the few that is able to keep this promise. Sune's family (made famous in the books by Anders Jacobsson & Sören Olsson) plan to go to Greece on their holiday but after a minor mishap at the travel agency, Rudolf (the dad, played by Peter Haber) decides that it's too expensive, so they have a caravanning holiday instead.

It's full of funny moments throughout. Many of those are thanks to Peter Haber who has rightfully received some praise for playing the role of the dad, but all the actors are doing a great job. Gabriel Odenhammar, playing the role of the younger brother Håkan, can also be seen in the popular sitcom "Svensson Svensson". Andreas Hoffer who plays the leading role Sune, hasn't done anything notable after this that I'm aware of, but he suits the role perfectly nonetheless. The famous comedian Robert Gustafsson ("the funniest man in Sweden" according to many) also has a small role.

Besides the funny parts the movie also has a sweet love story. Although there are lots of convenient (plot wise) coincidences the story feels more real than most American romantic comedies. It's really easy to relate to all of the characters which make the story feel more real and the funny parts even funnier.

I recommend this to everybody!

Super Mario Bros. (1985 Video Game)

What makes this game a classic

[10/10 · 11 July 2005]

I'm sure most people my age remember one or more situations like this: some guy your parents knew was celebrating his birthday and you went with your parents to the party. A lot of the other people also brought their kids and after a while you were all gathered in one room. You didn't really know each other that well, so what were you going to do? Well, the kid who's room it was had a Nintendo (or later Super Nintendo) or one of those pirated machines that played Nintendo games. The answer was: you played Super Mario! Everybody agreed that it was a fun game and everybody knew how to play it. It's simply the game of my generation.

But what made this particular game so important and well liked? First of all, at the time it arrived it was revolutionary – the first side-scrolling platform game ever and it was the game that made both video games and Nintendo popular. The story was good even if it was simple: You are Mario the plumber in the Mushroom Kingdom and you are on a mission to save the princess that have been kidnapped by Bowser. At the time this game was released they usually didn't bother to come up with interesting stories for games, so it's not like today when a lot of games have complicated story lines. It wasn't hard to figure out how to play, jump and land on an enemy's head and you will kill him, but it still wasn't that easy to beat. (Of course it's easier know that I'm soon to be 21 and have played it as many times as I have.) Last but not least, the music suited the game perfectly.

Something that to me is a sign that this is a good game is that it's still fun to play now when I'm almost 21, even though it was a game that was meant for kids (like all games that were released at that time) and the graphics are very out-dated. This is a game that a lot of people still play, it's been re-released both to Gameboy Color and Gameboy Advance. Of course a lot of people download it and play it on emulators – even though Nintendo doesn't like that.

For someone of my generation playing this game today is like re-living only the happy times of your childhood. When I played it as a kid I wasn't someone sitting in front of the TV playing a video game – I was Mario and I was on a very important mission to save the princess!

10/10