Reviews written by registered user
PeterRoeder

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

Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
222 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

300 (2006)
After re-watching this I wanted to write a review, 21 August 2012
4/10

I saw this again and it occurred to me what a disaster the whole subplot with the Queen and all that is. That story is not in Miller's original comic book and it really is quite horrible in the movie. It is quite a shame because if that had not been there it would have been an excellent movie. It is a bit like with Watchmen: Some of it is OK, and some of it is a total disaster. I would like to see a cut of 300 where there was only the good things. It is really quite a shame that a pointless subplot that has nothing to do with the battle has been cut into the movie. Anyway, that is what I wanted to say. I think it is a good movie but I would not want to watch it again because it is only like 50% of the scenes that are good.

The Grand (2007)
Pretty funny, 22 May 2012
5/10

Although this movie is no "Rounders" it does give a pretty good view of poker. The characters are interesting and the poker is pretty precise. There might have been some more about poker and less silly jokes. A few scenes could have been cut out of the movie. Really, I found the poker very interesting but didn't find the characters that impressive. Anyway, it's nice to see a movie that one can learn something about poker with. I really don't have too much to say about this movie other than that the poker was pretty good in this movie. The movie is from 2006. A lot has happened since then and it sums up poker until 2006 pretty good. I didn't find it funny or anything and I watched it because of the poker, and it really is worth watching if you want to learn about poker. Pretty good movie actually.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Down by flaw, 22 May 2012
1/10

Like many other people I'm into Jim Jarmusch because of Down by Law. It's like Bret Easton Ellis. Who would have heard about him if not for American Psyscho? But what has Jim Jarmusch done since Down by Law? Dead Man is a terrible exploitation of William Blake understanding nothing of what Blake has done. Broken Flowers is absolute crap. Ghost Dog is pretty good, but even that does not pay enough tribute to the Hagakure. Now in this movie The Limits of Control he seems to have entered a world of Koyannisquatsi and David Lynch but nothing happens and the symbols signify nothing. If I wanted to look at some ugly guy for two hours (the main character in this movie) I would not watch a movie. I would go to the mall or something. David Lynch is brilliant at making profound imagery and symbolism (symbols) that make sense mixing dream and reality but that just totally does not work in this movie. It's quite sad actually that things have gone that wrong for Jim Jarmusch that he now makes absolutely crappy movies like The Limits of Control. If he makes another movie (I don't know if this is his newest movie actually) I will probably watch it because there has to be something about the director of Down by Law but apparently it is hidden away very deeply and very difficult for him to get it out and just be anywhere near to the brilliance and genius of Down by Law.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
What is this?, 16 April 2012
5/10

I'm watching this and I thought eh I'll check into IMDb and see the reviews and the ratings because I didn't get it. There's like no suspense in this movie. Sure Al Pacino is great but hey come on what is this about? It just doesn't make any sense and I'm not terribly excited about how it ends. I'm amazing Al Pacino didn't have anything better to do than stuff like this. I don't even know what to write in this review. I just wanted to tell the readers of IMDb that I'm perplexed about this movie. Write me if you have a good comment or something on it. Yeah, well, I'll watch now to see how it ends. Hope it will at least make some sense because what I have seen of it has not.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Interesting but like a weak Twilight Zone episode, 5 January 2012
7/10

This movie really makes all the mistakes that a Rod Serling or an Alfred Hitchcock would NOT have made. I don't want to give any spoilers but the issue here in this sci-fi area is about information. Who knows what about what? And it really does not add anything to the plot here the way it is done. It does not add anything to the suspense either. It just makes us wonder: "Why are the characters pretending they don't have information of what is going on?" It would have been much more interesting if the VIEWER did not know what is going on. But this cliché about the main character not knowing who he is, identity, etc. is just not working at all in this movie. The movie has other qualities though, and it is really like a Twilight Episode. One of the weaker episodes though.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Endless Boredom, 21 November 2011
3/10

This movie starts out as a great Hitchcock thriller similar to Vertigo or something, then escalates into endlessly describing the life of the married couple. I'm writing this before the movie has ended, and maybe there's a good ending but quite honestly it is not worth it sitting through scene after scene of superfluous story-telling. Quite honestly, that is why Hitchock is such a master. Because he understands how to create suspense and never to leave in a single, indifferent moment in a movie. The movie is called "Endless Night" (A Blake quote: Some are born to sweet delight / Some are born to endless night). But just coming up with a few good things in the movie and then showing a lot of stuff that never should have been in it is not the way to make a good movie.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Boring, 14 November 2011
5/10

*This may contain spoilers*

I thought the scare at the end was really good. Good ending of the movie but the rest is really boring. I've seen all three now in the cinema, and while the first is fairly good, the second one is stupid and this one is just plain boring. People in the cinema were talking with each other and not paying attention. There are some good scares and creepy moments, but it's a bit much to wait 90 minutes for a powerful conclusion. That's just not what I think a good horror movie should be like. OK, it's quite funny and everything and they can deliver the goods. It's just why does it have to be so boring and stupid? It's like the setting is great but this movie concept just has too many flaws.

1408 (2007)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Pretty much crap, 12 November 2011
4/10

This is a typical horror movie of that period. The mind-frame of American horror at the time was to not make scary movies and this movie is not scary either. Obviously the Swedish director knows nothing what so ever about the horror genre which is also obvious from the director commentary on the DVD. This movie is a joke. Cusack does a great job, but the only scary scene in the movie is towards the end with Samuel Jackson in a car. All things considered, these are the kinds of horror movies that makes horror not worth seeing. Sad thing is one can almost sense that they try to get all kinds of other genres in it, even bragging about it, how it is "funny" and how it is "good drama" and good "character-building" but the horror element is totally neglected.

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Excellent, 29 October 2011
10/10

I'm not a big fan of the Tintin comic-book but this movie is really excellent. More like an Indiana Jones movie really it grips the viewer from start to finish and you leave the cinema feeling uplifted and better about humanity. Both Tintin's dog and the people in this movie are better than people in real life and that makes it a splendid story. I'm not sure where Hergé got his storytelling drive from but he sure was an excellent storyteller. In another review a user said that the story has been changed but that seems fairly useless to say because the movie does not claim to be an adaption of one comic-book but rather to be based on the whole series. Moreover, the story is quite good, I think. Naturally, it would be logical to adapt Tintin to this modern-day martial artist Bruce Lee/James Bond type of character but actually this is not the case. In the movie he remains the Tintin we know and love from the great comic-books.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Amazing, 29 September 2011
10/10

This movie is great. It is one of the best fantasy horror-movies I have seen for a long time. It takes place in the great Norwergian nature and the special effects are very good. The actors also do a good job. Obviously inspired by Blair Witch Project it takes a "documentary"angle on the whole subject and in terms of horror and fantasy it is really very interesting. It reminds me a bit of the old great series about a pair of brothers searching for their lost brother in the Norwergian nature. The fact of the matter is that Norway has some of the most spectacular nature on Earth, and although the fantasy and horror elements are great, it is very inspiring to see the nature footage in this movie. I think this movie will be enjoyed by horror, sci-fi and fantasy fans all over the world.


Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]