Reviews written by registered user

6 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Crazy filmmaker decides cultural heritage needs pimping, 9 February 2016

This is the second so called 3D art documentary I have seen and it makes exactly the same horrible mistakes:

It turns fantastic painting masterpieces into cheap 3D playstation looking rubbish. Paintings have texture, brush strokes, light bouncing of them, THAT is what I want to see as realistic as possible, not this totally messed up ugly tech crap they throw at you unashamed of the culture rape they have just committed. You think you finally have a chance to get the perfect close-up look of the beauty, but in this you get weird distorted 3D versions of a flat painting. Who ever thought we wanted to see a 3D version or a masterpiece is crazy.

I'm here for the 3D sculptures, but we don't get a lot of time to watch those, for some reason they decided it needed a mediocre C level actor pretending to be a historical figure. This adds nothing, I could have done without any people, just a voice over. It adds nothing to see someone pretending this is some art soap.

This obviously is nothing more than a TV show presented as arty documentary, far too little actual art, horrible reproductions of the paintings and the stained glass. Another big problem with this is a lot of the 3D seem to be computer generated, made 3D in the edit. shots have a weird flicker, objects change shape and move around. It doesn't work when you fly over the dome and the top moves around. It is terribly distracting.

Their must have been a committee that decided to make paintings sexy for the masses and somehow it means destroying them and make them cheap tacky trash 3D versions. Please people, do yourself a favor, stop sexing up something that has stood on its own for over 500 years. We love those works AS THEY ARE! Why would you even consider re-imagining these paintings? This isn't bloody spiderman!

7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Horrible cheap B TV, 24 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The short version: Absolutely awful cheap low budget brain-dead wannabe pilot! The longer version: So SyFy has a lot of really good stuff, but this was just dreadful. Cheaply made with a horrible inconsistent script, plot twists you can see coming before the opening credits have finished. Not everything has to cost a "Cameron" budget, but at least bother to get you're own logic straight. Every minute of this B TV rubbish screams "let's not think about this too much, it's a comic so we can do whatever cheap cliché we like" The main character with its bleached beach-bum hair is pretty pathetic, the supporting cast is actually OK. But all the nonsense like taking a glowing hot ring out of a fire, cheap wire acts, the stupid fights. Awful, awful and awful. The whole 3 hours was probably made on the same budget they did a single Flash Gordon episode.

Here is a tip to SyFy: if you don't want to spend the money to get the quality it deserves, then don't bother.

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Very silly, very funny but probably to subtle for most., 3 April 2008

This is a very funny movie. Just finished watching it and can only say I was pleasantly surprised. It is full of little jokes, but unlike the moronic "meet the Spartans", these jokes are clever. Typical English wordplay and silly modern day parallels and plays on pretty much every cultural stereotype. It seems like this movie is full of strong fun roles for women and the guys just don't really count.

Italians speaka lika da pizzamanna.. its actually funny to see in a movie like this and Celtic warrior women looking for love in a very "special" way.

Considering the crap thats been coming out of Hollywood and labeled "comedy" its hard to imagine this one got overlooked.

Jumper (2008)
6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Jumping allover the story, 1 March 2008

This is one of those movies that grabs the imagination just by viewing the trailer. But leaves you bored and unsatisfied as if you just had a wedding buffet at macdonalds: confused why they went for such cheap content and unsatisfied because there was no real food.

This is one of the examples why a director like David camera is so good: he never lets anything happen that breaks the suspense of disbelief. The problem with jumper is that to many stupid things happen, to many inactions. It is just one cliché after another and you never really care about the characters.

Why would a 23 year old act like some 12 year old nerdie kid? Jamie Bell is good, Samual L Jackson is not, my guess is he has to act down not to blow christensen of the screen and his haircut.... its just a bad xmen joke. Is he related to storm or something?? The most typical proof of this movie being boring was the fact half of the row of kids in front of me started playing hide and seek halfway through the movie.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Movie of the year, 26 November 2006

Tired of popcorn snapping "big mac" movies that leave you half empty and hungry for some real brain food? Ever got the feeling spy kids VI is getting more attention in Hollywood then anything with substance? Well look no further.

Children of Men is a disturbing, captivating thrillride that leaves you wondering what the future is going to be for mankind.

Al Gore shows us that if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out, but if you put it in cold water and slowly boil it, the frog will stay: this is the boiling water.

It is beautiful, spectacular and most of all hopefull movie. There is a big message in this film, its not about the characters or any particular detail., even thought it is full of fantastic details. It is a film you should go see without as little preconception as possible. Thats how I got to see it, just thought it might be fun after seeing "inside man" and got the surprise of a lifetime. Caught by surprise I was sucked in completely for the first time in years.

In a way I think people should not read any reviews of films these days. Plots are so thin and build for such a shallow audience pretty much any word might give away whats going to happen.

But children of Men will not disappoint because it is not specifically about the plots, its about a feeling.

It is there to let you know we as humans have always got the choice: sit in a bar and smoke the world away or change it to make it the paradise we have been promised for ages.

If you are looking for a film that can stirr your soul, this is the one. If your looking for yet another cinematic cheeseburg: your better of with Rocky 39.

Troy (2004)
4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Troy: The Sufer dude and the Sun god, 16 May 2004

For sure dude this Troy movie is radical!

They say nobody made a movie about Troy because it was too expensive, they also claim it is the computer technology that made it possible. Shame, they could have claimed it's the perfect script or divine inspiration they where really waiting for. But like most blockbusters it's the technology that made it happen, not any artistic point of view.

Homers epic has a thousand echoes in our culture and understanding of people but this movie doesn't capture any of its hidden magic or mystery. Sadly I blame this on one person: Wolfgang Peterson the director, now I have always liked WP's work, Das Boot is a masterpiece, but Troy is nothing more then "the Bold and the Beautiful to sword and sandals". A cheap excuse to let surfer dude Brad Pitt pose in cheap skin scenes and have another run of computer fight scenes. Hey it worked for Lord of the Rings man!

The story is very complex and would needs a 6 hours movie to really tell the tale, but they put it into some soapathon format with a lot of cheesy and pretentious scenes which are suppose to give you all the excuses.. sorry I mean clues to fight each other.

The success of gladiator was probably the reason people thought it was a good idea to make a movie like this. But they forget that movie was a success because it had a whole story to tell and a brilliant director who stuck to what he knew and used effects to compliment the story. Troy is just another series of massive fighting scenes where effects are supposed to substitute content.

The first two hours are boring and used to put a series of uninteresting passion-less scenes on top of each other. It feels like the screenplay was written by some kid with no real life experience because it's missing a heart and soul. It's sad to see such a great epic being turned into nothing more then a soapathon. If anything this movie pretty much destroys the legend of Troy and turns it from mythical into a cheap load of clichés.

So how are the actors?

Brad Pitt as Achilles doesn't have the intensity or the looks to be a believable son of the gods. The obvious mannerisms he uses to look broody and complex only make his face look like a trained chimp with no real direction. Considering the fact I have always liked his performances ever since Thelma and Louise, this is a real disappointment.

Eric Bana is pretty good as Hector, he plays an interesting character and makes you believe in him as a prince and man of honor. I'm glad to see the movie industry didn't give up on him after the pretty cool Hulk flop. But even his performance can't really save this movie.

Orlando Bloom as Paris is just a nightmare and should have been tarred and feathered for this role. The poor guy was completely out of his depth in this one. You do not believe for one second that two superpowers will go to war over the stupidity of this teenager. There is no life or passion coming out of him, no real desire for Helen. It's just a cheap fling with another mans wife, he is pretty much to scared to strut his stuff, like the character he is playing.

Sean Bean as Odysseus is pretty good but then again he is a proper real actor :P

Peter O'Tool is a bad joke in this movie which is a shame and once again I blame the director. Having the master play it down just so he doesn't run of with the entire movie, which is what he usually does.

Diane Kruger as Helen of troy just looks and acts like just another pinup and not a woman of such beauty and desire she would lead you into battle and the destruction of an entire people.

Brian Cox as Agamemnon is as evil and nasty as always and in his own way perfect. But it does make you wonder, where the Greeks nothing more then a bunch of brute barbarians who looked like they are right out of braveheart?

Rose Byrne is pretty good as Briseis and makes her falling in love with Achilles one of the few believable parts of the movie. Its funny but her scenes with Brad Pitt are the only thing that makes this movie sort of interesting even thought its only for 10 minutes out of 3 hours or so.