Reviews written by registered user
gangerolf-1

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

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

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
This is an exploitation film, including animal cruelty, but still very good!, 20 February 2010
8/10

When I was in my early teens (the first time I watched it, uncut) in the early 80's, I actually thought it was a, so called, "snuff" film. ...a film that actually show real killings of human beings. This was of course not correct, but since the movie was banned in Norway, and rumors went out of control, I didn't know better. Not good for a kid...

But, you should know that this is an exploitation movie!! This includes animal cruelty (killings) and sexual violence. If you can't live with that (many can't), DON'T watch this movie! The movie is made to look like a documentary, and therefore everything looks more genuine. The story is (very short): What happened to some explorers who went into the jungle, and second, analyzing the film footage they made. It's following this "horrible" footage we will see what happened to them. Not very good things, I can tell you.

As an adult, I have to admit that I actually like this, even though I could have lived without the obvious exploitation part. But, I guess, that is also what makes it so bone-chilling. ...that something has ACTUALLY been done "inhumane" in this movie, and not only "film tricks". Makes me think that; "Am I really so immune to violence and gore" to actually accepting to watch this? Sorry to say, Yes.

If you do accept watching this type of movies, I think you will like this one.

It looks "genuine", the directing is quite good (considering what the movies goal is), the acting is good to mediocre and the film quality is quite good (later releases).

Again, if you have ANY problems with animal cruelty, don't watch this (if the movie is uncut)! And (of course), do NOT show this to young people! Even though (when I was a kid) I thought it was a "snuff" movie (with the following nightmares), I think it still would have made some scares to my atheist "soul", not knowing it to be so.

This is not the worst exploitation movie made, not even close, but it is something in between. I won't name the movies that are worse... But I can say (in my opinion), that if you go further down this route (exploitation movies), the more "hurt" you can get (like watching the poor actors who stars in them). Then it's no longer "acting" at all, in my opinion.

For more info about the story of this movie, read many of the other reviews here at IMDb, or search the internet. I mainly want to; first, warn "exploitation-film virgins" (if I can call it that), and secondly, just say that I personally think it's very good (in that order)...

8 out of 10 stars.

House! (2000)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Don't like Bingo?, It doesn't matter!, 21 January 2010
9/10

I can count the number of times I have been on Bingo on one hand, and the times I did I can't say I got the big adrenaline rush. A room full of old and new cigarette smoke, stone-faced "elderly" players and dull colors all around. Except, when someone called "Bingo" a big grin came on their faces.

Guess what? This movie is like that... and I love it. Mostly spot on how it looked like when I was at the Bingo here in Oslo Norway maybe 10 years ago (when it was still allowed to smoke). OK, in the movie it's a grand big theater. Well, it used to be, before the owner had to turn it into a Bingo.

A new Bingo comes to town, and the old one needs to be saved. Not the most original "main" plots, but the how it's done, makes up for it.

The acting is great, the humor is subtle (but enjoyable) and it looks great. Well, well made should be the correct word. It's not pretty. Just look at some of the walls in the halls in the old theater.

Very enjoyable! 9 of 10

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Lord of the Flies, the modern version, 16 January 2010
7/10

The first thing I was thinking when watching this movie was that it was pretty close to the 1963 Lord of the Flies. That is not necessarily a bad thing...

OK, the script is quite different, in regards that it is set in a modern world and the reason for the combat (the main content of the movie). Still, everyone who have seen Lord of the Flies, will recognize how similar it is.

I like this version, even though the storyline could be better. Most of the acting is great, and even though these actors are young, they really give a good performance. ...and that's not easy, since this is a quite violent movie. To act being hunted, being the next one to be killed, to be the killer (as the only option), is refreshingly good.

As I mentioned, the storyline could have been better, or, hasn't been used to it's full potential (in my opinion). The start is OK, the explanation of "the game" is very good, the game itself is weak at best (many "stupid" turns), and the end a bit "typical".

The "gore" is great if you like that kind of stuff (like I do), and if you like a merciless killing-medley.

Wish more could have the guts and/or get the funding to create movies like this. Movies that is pure violent, horrific and TRUE, in the sense of how a human being would react in an environment like this. My favorite horror movies manage to capture this feeling.

7 of 10 is my rating. Good work!

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not the best, but yet, so good!, 9 January 2010
9/10

I have seen everything publicly released by Wallace and Gromit (well, by the creators), and have to say that Wallace and Gronit (the series of movies, or short movies) is some of the best of it's kind to date. This include "Hollywood" animations.

I grew up with the stop motion Norwegian movie Flåklypa Grand Prix (Pinchcliffe Grand Prix, in English), "Hollywood" animations, and some Eastern-European stop motion movies/shows, and for many years I found FGP to be the best of it's kind. FGP has been seen more times in Norwegian cinemas than there are Norwegians in Norway through the years, and that should say something...

OK, Wallace and Gromit; The creator Nick Park has hit the spot for me when it comes to animations, and that's final, today. Unlike "Hollywood" productions, it's not showing superficial characters (not even the "hero's", read Gromit). Each character has each own unique look, often a kind of off-the-wall, non-typical look. Characters I have learned to just love... Wallace has to be my favorite characters of all time. The impressions of his face is just fantastic, not only for this short movie. All of them...

This is English humor at it's best. Great stop motion animation and a quite good script.

It's not the best Wallace and Gromit movie, but considering the quality, I can't give it less than 9 of 10 stars. This is in comparison to the quality of the Wallace and Gromit movies so far. I think the quality is so far beyond most of the "Hollywood" productions that it deserves this rating. Even my favorite animation movie Flåklypa Grand Prix (Pinchcliffe Grand Prix) is passed by Nick Parks work, I am SAD to say.

I REALLY hope that this kind of quality and humor is preserved in the future, including the good looking production (vivid and dynamic colors). Why, Why, do "Hollywood" animations have to have so streamlined, "Barbie" looking, super-sweet and/or "He-Man" looking characters. Most of us have seen it before... Of course, the are some exceptions; Tim Burton's: Corpse Bride, for example (love the characters).

Final word. This is not the best of the "series", but still very good. If you can select yourself, start with (in my subjective opinion):

1. The Wrong trousers 2. A Close Shave 3. A Matter of Loaf and Death 4. A Grand Day Out 5. The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (full-length movie)

Enjoy :)

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
You should have done better Discovery!, 13 January 2009
2/10

This series consist of short-sighted ideas and poor scientific work and preparations. At least what we see/hear. It's embarrassing to watch at times. Maybe good TV, but little else. When compared to programs or series from (for example) BBC, it's like night and day.

Why the bad score? This isn't just a show, but an attempt to seriously come with ideas and solutions to help the earth. Just like in debates or articles, we should be extra critical (not the same as negative) to the content. If I had taken the production into account, the score would have been higher, but I haven't. This isn't Deadliest Catch.

When this is said, it's positive that Discovery (and others) put the earth and it's environment on the agenda. Just hope they do a better job next time.

Great show, but the episodes is too short!, 10 April 2008
7/10

I love this show! Here you can see how small, medium and large diners, restaurants, and so on, be built/created from the beginning to the opening.

You will see how difficult and demanding it is to get it done. Everything from money issues (often lack of), technical issues and staff issues are regular parts of the show.

Another thing I like about this show is that it often includes comments from food critics (or similar), both positive and negative, that make it a bit more genuine. You will also notice that "negative" sides, both from the owners, entrepreneurs, staff and investors, are included. It's not like a 30 minute commercial.

Most of the episodes is well made and a joy to watch. The only problem is that the episodes is too short. Projects like this is to big to be cramped into 30 minutes, and therefore I get the feeling that I could have gotten so much more. There would have been no problem to make this a one hour show.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Superlight version of Mythbusters!, 10 April 2008
3/10

Even though this show may focus on a more action based version of Mythbusters (I guess), it's pretty much the same thing. Even though Mythbuster have had (and still have) quite a few fouled myth busts, it still (by far) is a better show.

The cast in Smash Lab does not have the same charisma as those in Mythbusters, especially the "Scientist". Just like in Mythbusters, by Kari, she seem not that skilled and just is there to present events or technical stuff. Kari in Mythbusters though, still have charisma (but sometimes it looks a little fake). I would rather have seen someone like Scottie (from Mythbusters), who really showed that she had skills.

Since the cast is so boring, the tests don't get very exciting or interesting. And, since the tests them self is not that thought trough (much like Mythbusters), it don't give me much reason to watch.

After watching a few episodes, I just have to say that this show is quite bad. I will record the forthcoming episodes and check if it get's any better, but at this time, I don't want to waste my time on it. Sorry!

Ma-ma (1976)
7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A wonderful musical/movie for children (and adults)!, 28 March 2008
10/10

What can I say?... This is a unique musical/movie from the mid 70's, made in the eastern Europe, that I would recommend to everyone, especially children. It will touch them/you for life! It's not only fantastic songs (like the title "Ma-Ma"), that will stick in your brain for ever, there is also great dancing and skating that fit very well with the story. This is far superior to Hollywood productions, and so on.

The details of the houses in the village (and other scenes), and their originality, the great costumes and characters, makes this a joy to watch. Also, the use of lighting, colors, and special effects, makes it a visual gem.

The story is quite simple but very gripping. With the music, it's hard to not get a tear in your eye.

I watched it recently on Norwegian television with both children and adults. The children switched from hiding behind the sofa, being sad, to dancing around in the living room in joy. The adults (including me) started, almost at the same time, to sing or hum the title melody when it came. Even though I saw it the first time in the early 80's (I think), I still love it, and now I can really appreciate the quality of the dancing and skating, making it even better.

There were made at least two versions of this musical at the same time (not dubbed); One Russian and a English version. The English version is not perfectly clipped or synced (speach/sound), but good enough (originally).

The big problem today, is that the copies TV stations have is of poor quality (sound/picture), at least here in Norway. Also, they are in 4:3 format, and not cinematic like the original (widescreen). VHS copies (with English sound) is rear, and I don't think there is released a DVD version.

Here in Norway this musical is a classic. It was shown on national TV during the 80's until mid 90's, but have started again now (at Christmas time), and will probably do so the next years. That's the nice thing about classics, you never forget them, and you still want to watch them. Like this one.

If you haven't seen it, please do, especially if you have children.

I give it 10/10 because of the original English version. I will not reduce my vote because of the TV stations bad copy (and not cinematic/widescreen).

Nine Lives (1957)
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
One of many brave men in the Norwegian resistance!, 24 March 2008
7/10

This movie is a true story!

If you are a Norwegian and know your history, you know the enormous sacrifices ordinary Norwegians (sivilians) put them self through throughout the war, but you still may want to know more about Jan Baalsrud (search Wikipedia). MANY like him fought and died with the goal to free Norway.

Another well known Norwegian story from WWII, is the sabotage mission against Norsk Hydro, manufacturing heavy water, to be used by the Germans. Two movies was made:

Norwegian version: "Kampen om Tungtvannet" (1948). The actual saboteurs play the roles themselves. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040504/

American version: "The Heroes of Telemark" (1965). Starring Kirk Douglas. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059263/

For you who may not know what kind of people these movies is about, I will try to explain:

Norwegians has always been a proud population, and have always been known to fight for our freedom. We have our history with Denmark and Sweden, but that is another story. In WWII we were invaded by the Germans. It happened fast. But, we never would except this and civilians got together secretly, often called "Gutta på skauen", in English; "The boys in the woods" - The Resistance Movement", to start to fight against the Germans. Some did minor sabotage jobs and other went to England for further training, and bigger missions.

This movie is based on one of those people, Jan Baalsrud, who went to England for training for missions in Norway.

Directly related to this movie: He and many other Norwegian commandos was on a mission to destroy a German air control tower. Under this time they also tried to recruit for the Norwegian resistance movement. And, it's here the movie begins. One civilian they contact, betrays them, and contact the Nazi's. The mission fails because of this.

Jan Baalsrud survives the failed mission and must escape to Sweden (a neutral country).

This escape IS the movie, and he needs all the lives he can get to survive this trip (that's why it's called "Nine Lives").

It is quite a fantastic and horrible journey, and we get a insight on how much these people are willing to sacrifice (pain/death) to save this man. Jan Baalsrud himself, goes trough as much pain a human being can stand.

I will not tell the story, watch the movie. Just remember, it's a true story!

Verdict:

7/10 for the genuine performance. The movie is a little dated, but still quite watchable.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Better effects, but still prefer the 1953 version!, 24 March 2008
4/10

First, this is NOT similar to the first version (1953). It don't actually look like a remake at all.

The visual effects is very good, as expected from Spielberg (2005), and is/was (1953 version) a big part of the story. The title "War of the Worlds" should give some hints about what this is about...

Is this a better version? In the 1953 version, the "War of the Worlds" came much better through with the story, even with not as good special effects. It had a good story/script from the beginning to the end, even though I didn't liked what the ending was based on (God related....).

This version (2005) introduces the story by a announcer in the beginning to get us going right away. From this time everything happens like a stopwatch. The main characters (especially the father and daughter), happen to be at right time and place any time and everywhere. Not that much actually happens, but some drama is included to stretch out the time. Very little War, if that is what you are looking for. At the end, the announcer steppes in again and explains why the movie ended like it did. To use a announcer like this seem to me that the script was full of holes.

We don't get to know any of the characters that much (at all), and this includes why the aliens wanted/needed (I don't know) to start the war. And, how did the aliens, in the first place, get access to earth so easily?

As I mentioned, the special effects is good, but how it was filmed (camera/filter), was awful. The quality looks like my 3CCD home video camera. Dull colors, little depth and a excessive use of white (blurring the surroundings). The latter may be by using special filters, but I didn't like it at all. Some of the scenes was quite OK, but I constantly missed better directing (by Spielberg).

Verdict: Because of the good special effects and sometimes good acting, I give it 4/10.

If you haven't seen the 1953 version, see it, but don't expect so good special effects. But, it has a much better/different story.


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