16 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
The worst film I have ever seen
26 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
You know what? Because this film is so god-awful, I am going to spoil absolutely EVERYTHING! Just to make sure that you never, EVER, see this sack of crap.

The story revolves around Theo, a fat pig of a truck-driver. I'm saying pig because he actually looks like a pig and is so fat that he's about the size of his truck. How this monster of a man could ever find a sweet, good-looking wife - let alone two - is entirely beyond me.

'cause that's the gist of it all. Fat Theo has a wife and daughter in Germany, and a wife and daughter (and another kid on the way) in Sweden.

The film in itself consists of endless shots of Theo driving his truck to the sound of some crappy western-song, except when something "sad" happens and you hear the song "Sad girl" over and over. The same sappy song at least 6 times or more!

The acting is horrendous and the plot entirely uninteresting except for the fact that the wives, of course, find out about each other - so what do they do? They accept it!? WTF!? Any reasonable woman would have cut of Theo's genitals, then burned them and shoved them up get the picture. But these two - both of them - are actually okay with this!?

So now we not only have a film that says bigamy is fine, no. What does Theo do when both wives now of the other? He gets frustrated over the fact that both of the call him on his cell when he's on the road. So, he does the only reasonable thing possible of course - he starts hitting on his hot colleague!?

Please do yourself a favor - don't EVER see this film. In fact, tell everyone you know to never ever see this film. Should you see a DVD of it on a shelf somewhere, take it down, stomp on it or just break it in two - the world will be a better place if you do.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Orphanage (2007)
15 August 2008
It has to be said - I'm never really scared. However, El Orfanato makes my heart pound in my chest, in sync with our heroines heart - but hardly more than that.

So why on earth would I give such a high grade to El Orfanato? The answer lies in my life-status so to speak - i.e. that I'm a father. 'cause, believe me, if you're reasonably young and don't have any children then this movie probably might not move you at all.

If you are a parent you will become completely emotionally involved and it's not impossible that your heart will be ripped to shreds.

The thing is - this isn't really a horror-movie. It's a movie about limitless, unconditional, love and the horrible agony that can raze your entire existence when the one you love is taken from you.

As you can probably understand I like this movie a lot. I like the fact that the main character is female (which is something Spanish films do often and well), I like that it takes it's time to build ambiance and unease. I even like the ending - in some strange way.

Go see this film - if you dare put your heart through it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Levande föda (2007– )
Food for shrill-seekers
2 November 2007
This is something as unusual as a GOOD Swedish horror mini-series. I liked it from the start. The first episode gives us a slow, but sure, build-up where we get to know the characters and also keeps us guessing what really happened ten years ago. The plot then slowly unravels over the next two episodes into a gory crescendo of a finale.

I liked the fact that the actors in this series were totally unknown to me, and that they delivered superb acting, what I liked even more was the fact that what lurks in the woods is something you have never seen before.

Low budget, sure. Maybe a bit of an ambiguous ending but still, thrills and shrills and scenes that will make you squirm in your seat. Just the way I like it.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fracture (2007)
A fractured script
4 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It really is a shame with all these plot-twists running about. Or should I say the hope of coming in with a twist at the very end. Here the best twist is revealed immediately, and trust me when I tell you that I'm not ruining the movie for you by saying this, 'cause they manage to do that for me - it would have been so much better for the movie if we had been kept in the dark as to the identity of the wife's secret lover. Instead they try to jam another, very lame, twist in at the end that just leaves a bland aftertaste. The acting, however, is superb. Anthony Hopkins is fantastically creepy and manipulative. Ryan Gosling manages to show how his character tries ever so hard to keep a lid on his feelings. Sure, this is an okay thriller, but it'll probably fade quickly from your memory.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Should have ended before it started
4 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
You know, I like a good superhero-movie when I see one. This isn't one of them. The reason being that the main plot point for this movie is flawed. Massively. Because - why would a being so omnipotently powerful like Galactus create a herald that can actually destroy him? And not only that - seeing as how the surfer can destroy his master - why hasn't he already done so? Then we would never have seen this movie and our lives had been better for it. 'nuff said 'bout that. If I have to say something nice about this movie then it's the acting. Everyone does a very good job with what they've been given. And it's always fun to see where and how Stan Lee pops up in all of "his" movies.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Will give you nightmares
13 December 2005
After seeing this movie you'll be very afraid of being woken at 3 am. And if you do wake up at 3 am...well, let's just leave it at that for now. I had never heard of Jennifer Carpenter before this movie. Now I think I'll be hearing a whole lot more about her, and seeing more of her as well. And well deserved it is - her portrayal of Emily is superbly scary and harrowing while at once you feel the terror in her mind at not being able to fight her inner demons. To be fair, all the actors are excellent. Linney's agnostic/mystic who tries to understand this strange thing called faith. Wilkinsons quiet, softspoken, priest and Scott's man of faith appalled by what has taken place. The movie elegantly shows the same stories from different points of view and quietly balances between faith and science. However, as I had expected, everything sort of leans over on the faith-side towards the end. It would have been nice if that had been left entirely up to the viewer. There are some genuinely scary moments in this film and you get a good look at what has driven Emily into madness/taken possession of her body. The climactic exorcism is of course the scariest part, the best thing is that they don't overdo it. Everything falls within what could take place if she was, or wasn't, possessed. A final word of advice - don't watch this right before going to bed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Descent (2005)
13 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I really like the element of surprise in this film. To begin with - that you get to follow a gang of ordinary, tough, women, and then of course what these women encounter in the dark, dank, cave. But that's about it I'm afraid (pun intended). Sure, I was scared at times but then it all felt so...silly...and a bit disappointing. I can sort of see where I think writer/director Marshall is going with this film but the trouble is that he doesn't get there. He gives us a hint about conflicts among the women but doesn't tell us just what these conflicts are about. It's only hinted at and that makes it harder to believe these women would turn on each other. And, come to think of it, why have so many characters? Just so more of them could die? That's just the thing. Seeing as how this movie ends it all feels so pointless. In my opinion a good horror-flick should have a point, a reason to why you should watch it, if so only to see how the bad guy is finally defeated. But this movie has absolutely no point and that's a shame. Don't get me wrong - it's not a waste of time and at times it's nice and gory, just don't expect anything more from it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Excellent in some regards, paper thin in others
1 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I sat down in the salon, at the grand opening in Sweden, not knowing a thing about this movie. It wasn't until one of the movies producers told us, the audience, what it was about that I realized what kind of movie I was about to see and - most important - that this is a story that had not yet been told on the big screen and that this was a story that needed to be told. I couldn't agree more, it's just a shame that this was the particular story that they chose to tell.

Parts of this movie is absolutely brilliant - the scenery, the cinematography and the actors. Oh, the actors! Michael Nyqvist, Maria Lundqvist and the young Topi Majaniemi are superb, utterly superb, it's in the script this movie fails and mainly on one pivotal point. In order for this movie to work you have to feel the anguish of young Eero, you have to feel his heart breaking when his mother sends him away to Sweden. And you do. But you also have to feel his heart breaking when he is sent back to Finland. This you don't do and that's because you don't get to feel the connection between Eero and his foster-mother Signe. When Eero and Signe first meet she doesn't want anything to do with him. She alienates herself from him, pushes him away. Towards the end she shows genuine love towards him, the thing is...I'm not aware of when this shift occurs. There aren't enough scenes in which we see them bonding. Suddenly they And this is where the movie fails.

Now, please remember what I said earlier. There are many things about this movie that are superb. The main thing being how the part of Eero is written and portrayed. A lot of films have a tendency to make children more mature than they really are, this movie doesn't make that mistake. Eero is a child and acts like one too. Not knowing why he feels the way he does he simply acts out his frustration in ways that a child would - not by sitting his foster-mother down and offering up wisdom befitting a 70-year old (which is all too common in movies such as these).

So, worth watching, just don't expect to get a wholly encompassing movie about what all Finnish war-children went through.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hide and Seek (2005)
The main plot point is flawed
28 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Let me first say something positive - Dakota Fanning and Robert De Niro are excellent, really excellent. I love watching the underlying frustration in De Niro's face, how he so hard tries to find the right words and methods to council his daughter. Prime acting Bobby! The problem with this film is the script and, as I said in my summary, the main plot point. And this is where I have to give away a major spoiler. THE major spoiler to be exact. Okay, besides the fact that it was fairly obvious that Dr Callaway was "Charlie", why in gods name does he want to kill everybody!? Sure, in a fit of schizophrenic rage he kills his cheating wife but why - why I ask you - does he want to kill his daughter!? His daughter even says at one point that the game she and Charlie are playing is "freak out daddy" or something along that line. In other words Davids dark side - Charlie - only wants to mess with David. So, again I ask you - why does he want to kill his daughter when he realizes the truth? Of course it's because the movie has to have some sort of climactic ending but I would rather have seen a struggle of the mind between David and Charlie - not this mess of a wrong turn. And that, I'm afraid, brings the whole movie down.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disappointing but still amusing
7 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I think that the main disappointment for me with this film is that it doesn't quite accomplish what Romeros previous films did. OK, let's face it - Night of the living dead practically invented the genre, Dawn of the dead told us what it would be like when zombies were about to take over and Day of the dead showed us what the world would be like when they had. So, in my eyes, Land is more or less the same movie as Day - only set in a different environment. And that's a shame. Romero doesn't succeed with this film in altering the story or setting enough to draw me into the movie. You might say I'm a fool to expect that from a zombie-flick, but that's just the thing. From Romeros earlier films I had come to expect not just gore but an involving story with hidden depths. The zombies have evolved, yes. But the story hasn't evolved alongside them. The remake of Dawn of the dead accomplished that, though. Re-Dawn gave us fast, furious and really really scary zombies. In Land they just...wobble around and I find myself thinking - how come they don't have time to mow them down? I mean - c'mon. They're just standing there! Shoot them already! And wouldn't you think that a barricade would be more than a paper-thin little wooden plank? Geez, that's just plain stupid. However, as someone earlier stated, Romero does love his gore and so do I. It's a lot of fun to see new ways of tearing up a human body. I recommend that you go see this movie for what it is. A new experiment in how to splat, splut and sploosh.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ominous, terrifying and absolutely superb!
29 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, straight of the bat - this is my kind of movie. I'm a huge fan of both disaster movies and sci-fi. And, as this can be seen as a combination of the two, I'm sold. Hook, line and sinker. The best thing about this movie is the absence of high ranking military, politicians and the (in sci-fi flicks anyway) ever present genius scientist. There are none in this movie and that's absolutely excellent. Instead we're hurled into events alongside the average Joe, in this case depicted by not-so-average Tom Cruise (who is excellent by the way). Spielberg has made it so that I got the feeling, the entire movie, that I'm actually there with him - like an invisible member of his family that he keeps saving from imminent death. Granted there are a lot of "near misses" by the aliens, on several occasions, but it never gets silly - it just increases the tension. I find two scenes extra interesting. First the scene where Rachel (Fanning) tells her father Ray (Cruise) about the splinter in her hand. Ray wants to remove it, Fanning simply says "When my body's ready it'll push it out". A key scene and line for this movie. The other scene is metaphorically interesting. As this movie reminds everyone a whole lot of 9/11 then it's not a very far stretch to see the aliens as terrorists. Even more interesting then that Ray manages to take one of them down by (almost) becoming a suicide-bomber. The only thing I can complain about, really, is that I thought the movie lost a lot of its pace when Ray and Rachel are taken in by Ogilvy (Robbins). Granted, Ogilvy is there to further push Ray towards the edge but the space and time the dank, dark, cellar-scenes take up is just too long I'm afraid. In contrast though it's eerily wonderful when Ray emerges from the cellar and looks upon the ravaged lands. The ending has been debated - I have absolutely no problem what so ever with it. In fact I find it totally in sync with the movie as a whole. When our planet was ready, it pushed the splinter out.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Joey (2004–2006)
A maturing show in many ways
4 January 2005
First off - this is NOT Friends, it will never BE Friends, it SHOULD never be Friends. These simple facts are probably also what most people have against Joey. I don't. I think it's 'Joeys' strength. Joey is a character we've come to love and respect during those past ten years, now that he's 'come into his own' a lot of the plot centers around him and only around him. This is of course the biggest change from that previous show, it is also absolutely necessary. For 'Joey' to work the character has to evolve, Joey himself has to mature and no longer only be the grown-up kid he has been. He is no longer the comic-relief guy who amazes us with his juvenile ways and amazing stupidity. He simply HAS to grow up. And grow up he will. To be honest, I too was skeptical after watching the pilot. But after I got over the facts that I already described in the first sentence of this comment, I just sat back and heartily laughed at the comedy displayed. Just remember these simple things - Michael isn't Ross. Alex isn't Monica, Gina isn't Rachel. Joey isn't Friends, Joey is Joey - and he's growing up. Be happy that you can laugh about it with him.
149 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hip Hip Hora! (2004)
Terribly true
24 September 2004
Maybe it's because I'm not a kid anymore, most wouldn't even consider me that young. In fact, I suppose I'm about the same age as the main characters father and his co-workers at the school his daughter attends and gets lauded with being a whore. It's probably also because my wife is a teacher and that I myself have done some temp-work, in any case this movie really captured me and made me feel very uncomfortable - but in a good way.

It's a movie that shows how easily things can go wrong and how hard it is to get rid of a rumour - no matter how untrue. It's also an image of the struggles of friendship. Both I and my wife talked long about the movie after seeing it, discussing who of the characters most corresponded to ourselves as youngsters, how we wish we hadn't been and how hard it is for "adults" to really understand their kids. The movie left us with the hope that we won't treat our kids the same way when they reach the critical age -that WE would be able to listen without prejudice and keep an open mind. This movie is a must-see for all teenagers and their parents, but not together. Teenagers separate, their parents separate. And make sure you have time for a long discussion afterwards - it's worth it.

A good solid movie with HUGE young talent in the leading roles.

It's even more unsettling when you think that writer/director Fabik has based events on her own experiences. Grade: 4/5
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
U-571 (2000)
Both stupid and interesting
16 October 2001
There are two ways to look at this movie, in which the first way gives you a movie that is entirely stupid and hard to believe.

To look at this as a war film is not a good idea, simply because the war-factor in this film is to improbable. The sub avoids a full barrage of hundreds (or so it would seem at one point) of torpedoes and depth- charges - all of which miss by inches. Now, this is simply not possible. You can't have 20 or so depth-charges that come within inches of the hull. One of them HAS to hit. It's simple mathematics. Had it been one or two that just missed I could have tolerated it, but not the extremely high number in this film. That factor quite quickly killed the suspense for me and just irritated me. Therefor, I suggest you NOT look at this as a war-movie, but instead as a movie about one man that comes to grips with what it means to be an officer. Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, no doubt about that, and his portrayal of the young lieutenant who is friends with the entire crew is solid. He also, very skillfully, captures his transformation into skipper with all that that entails - making critical decisions that mean life or death for the crew.

Other fortes in this movie is that you get a good sense of what life

must have been like inside the WWII beer-can-submarines. Too bad they couldn't make it fully realistic.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What is the point of this movie?
25 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Warning! This comment may contain spoilers!

It's almost sad to say this but this film really irritated me. This could, although, have to do with the translation of the title into Swedish. In Sweden the movie is called "A second chance", but has absolutely nothing to do with second chances. It's more about saying - Hey buddy! You screwed things up 13 years ago - suffer!

Other movies with a similar theme always give us some sort of closure, but this only maintains the fact that you have to get it right the first time, otherwise you've missed it.

OK, Nicolas Cage is excellent - as always, so is the rest of the cast, but the story only leaves you with a feeling of "Why?", and that several questions remain unanswered. For instance - what is the meaning of the bicycle-bell?

If this movie is supposed to be a "feel-good" movie - why doesn't it make you feel good?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Exciting, but slightly flawed
25 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I loved Jurassic Park. And Jurassic Park II. Therefore I was, naturally, looking forward immensely to Jurassic Park III. And I wasn't disappointed. At least, not at first. This movie is, like the two before it, an exilirating roller-coaster-ride that keeps you on your toes (or rather at the edge of your seat) for almost the entire length of the movie.

Except for mainly two things (Spoiler-alert!);

Firstly, the new, REALLY big dino, that chases them on two occasions is of course very intimidating. But the second time, when they escape it through the fence and it then crashes through this really really BIG and STRONG fence I thought "Ooooh! Woow! Great". But why oh why is it that it then can't break down a, in comparison, weak little steel door on a tiny little building? Weird.

Secondly - it feels like suddenly the budget for CGI was completely cut. I am talking, of course, about the ending. I was hoping for a clarification of what monster devoured the people on the boat in the very beginning, but no such luck. They make it to the beach, loads of army men storm in (the tention builds and builds) and then it's over. Instead of giving us a climactic finale, they just....make it. A bit sad.

Nevertheless, a movie worth seeing, if for nothing else amazing SFX and CGI, and of course to see a T-Rex get it's butt kicked.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this