Reviews written by registered user
sarastro7

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

Page 1 of 50:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
495 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

6 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Incredibly bad, 22 September 2014
2/10

I love the '70s and I love science fiction, so I was actually excited about this movie. The joke was on me. While the production values are all right and there are even a couple of laughs here and there, overall the movie is a piece of crap. It really is. The first requirement of a story is that there IS a story. You know, a plot - a conflict that needs solving. And which produces some modicum of excitement and suspense. THIS MOVIE HAD NO STORY. We just follow some dysfunctional characters on a space station, most of whom are apparently there for no reason, and don't do anything. There was no shred of a reason for this story to take place on a space station, or for it to be in the sci-fi genre. Therefore, even with a few decent points of comedy and production values that are not awful, the movie can only receive an incredibly low rating by any discerning critic. As a result of the incompetent script, the characters were uninteresting and the "story" - or whatever you want to call it - was stunningly boring and at times painful to sit through. Add to this pointless and anachronistic profanity and other elements of sheer bad taste and utter nonsense.

So, if you're looking for sci-fi fun or good entertainment, please steer clear of this embarrassing and toe-cringing turkey. Life's too short.

2 stars out of 10.

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
An exercise in mediocrity, but with a good female lead., 16 June 2014
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a Dane I hate to say it, but most Danish movies are pretty bad. And what's perhaps even worse: a lot of Danish (and now also international) movie critics still give these movies positive reviews. This is certainly the case with this movie, which, while perhaps not especially bad, is certainly not especially good, either. But hey, Danish movies and TV shows are in vogue these days. With enough support and praise, these products of Denmark might well begin to get better in due course.

"When Animals Dream" is about a provincial fishing village, where a 19-year-old girl is beginning to find out about her mother's strange disease, which necessitates keeping the mother sedated in a wheelchair like a vegetable. The girl, Marie, has inherited the disease, and starts very (very) slowly turning into a werewolf. And SHE won't be sedated.

Sonia Suhl, a new young actress, is good as Marie, and a very good fit to play the daughter of Sonja Richter, who plays the mother. Lars Mikkelsen as the father is also fine. But the movie as a whole is slow-moving and laconic, giving too few clues about when and why things happen, and while well-produced in some ways, it is too obviously low-budget in others. The rest of the cast are not well-developed.

Now, the great stable of Danish film-making, which almost always ensures a project being financially supported by the Danish Film Institute, is social realism. This movie is stuffed with it, as well, and hasn't got that much werewolf action in it, which is a pity. If you're a genre fan, it's a little bit yawnsville. Or a lot.

There are two ways to interpret the movie. One is that Marie's turning into a werewolf represents a coming-of-age journey and sexual awakening. That's how mainstream critics understand this movie.

However, if you look at the movie in terms of the fantastic genre (which I believe is much more proper in this case), the artistic twist is that the werewolf represents true and beautiful human nature, which is being destroyed and actively suppressed in provincial dumps populated by repressed, conservative bigots. All things considered, though (such as how powerful the movie is, or rather, isn't), this is not a particularly original or progressive message, but simply a moderate one.

Sadly, even though I see a dimension to the movie that most of the gushing professional critics (that I've read so far) apparently do not, this is in my view still not a movie that goes much beyond tedious mediocrity. The story is too small, has too little to say and doesn't add anything substantially new to the genre. It has all the typical hallmarks of Danish movies, perhaps best exemplified by the sparse, ill-at-ease and artificial dialogue which sounds completely unnatural. Foreign audiences should be thankful that this is not apparent to them. Denmark is a small country, and we are so deeply suffused with Anglo-American culture that our own language is becoming unbearably stilted, especially in scripted drama.

Having said this, one must applaud the effort to make a werewolf movie in the first place, and while failing to arouse much excitement in this viewer, it's not a complete failure. Perhaps this director's next movie will be more interesting.

I rate "When Animals Dream" 6 stars out of 10, although parts of me incline more towards 5.

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Gorgeous drama, 16 April 2014
9/10

I saw this at the CPH PIX film festival in Copenhagen, and was very impressed. Although much of the story that is shown is speculative, it appears to be highly qualified speculation. Whether it reflects historical reality or not, it worked exceedingly well as an epic cinema drama.

As the title says, "The Beloved Sisters" is about the two sisters who loved Friedrich Schiller. Schiller himself is a kind of supporting character, as seen through the eyes of the sisters. The actresses who play the sisters are very good indeed, esp. the older one (Caroline), and it is expertly illustrated how they actually love each other more than they love Schiller.

Highlights include the scene where the sisters sit by Schiller's sickbed in the dark, and (as I interpret it) he can't tell them apart, and the reconciliation scene towards the end where Schiller stands between the sisters, and then discreetly moves away, allowing them to reconnect. Very powerful stuff.

I enjoyed this 171 minute movie immensely and can't wait to watch it again. Definitely one of the best experiences at the film festival.

My rating: 9 stars out of 10.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Disappointed., 15 March 2014
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a huge fan of Kristen Bell. She is gorgeous and intelligent and among the small handful of actors and actresses whose work I actively try to watch EVERYTHING of. As such I am of course also a Veronica Mars fan. But - and I've got a really big but (ha ha!) - I really only liked the story in the first season of the show. The overarching story lines in seasons two and three were not to my liking, and on top of this I never liked Logan. I never understood how Veronica could like him, apart from the fact that he's fabulously wealthy (which, if that's a major reason, makes Veronica a bit shallow, doesn't it?).

So, since the end of the great first season, in my view the show only got worse. I was excited about the possibility of a fourth season where Veronica finally left behind that damned high school world and became an FBI agent - THAT is something I wanted to see. But now, with the movie, we're just back to high school again. Nothing but a nostalgia trip for the fans of the TV show. I am in my forties, and I am incredibly sick and tired of high school shows and movies. There are SO many of them. They're everywhere. All the time. I effin' hate 'em. It's just the same vulgarity-steeped, cliché-ridden soap opera over and over and OVER again. Even if you were in high school when the TV show was broadcast originally, that's ten years ago. You should have moved on by now.

So, no, I didn't like the Veronica Mars movie very much. I wish Kristen Bell had a more worthy franchise to sink her considerable talents into. I wanted Veronica Mars to move on from her high school fixated life, but instead she settled back into it, giving in to pure nostalgia and forgetting about a larger world outside. That's not progress, and that's not interesting. It's being stuck in a rut.

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
The poverty of philosophy, 14 March 2014
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The apparent set-up of this movie is that, hypothetically, nuclear war is coming, and a class of 21 students must decide which 10 of them are most worthy of being saved in a bunker that holds only 10. This is then tried in three different iterations.

The visual dimension of the movie is great. Shot in Indonesia, there are beautiful locations everywhere and the entire movie looks really good. That's where the good news stop, because unfortunately the story and premise and set-up of the movie are all terribly executed. By the end, it is quite clear that the movie has no interest in philosophy or logic or how to make hard moral/logical choices.

In a SERIOUS situation, such choices would have to be made, but the message of the movie is that of privileged white people living in a Plato's cave, blissfully unaware of reality: "Ooooh, such questions are unsolvable! Every choice is as bad as any other! Wah, wah wah!" And the insufferable smugness with which the movie pushes this conclusion is just, well, insufferable.

When the teacher sets up the situation, two students (incl. the top student, who is clearly supposed to be right about everything) refuses to participate in it right off the bat. The moral of the movie being that such a set-up is unsolvable and meaningless, but any serious philosophy student (to say nothing of a serious philosophy teacher) would know that such a set-up would, in a real case of impending nuclear Armageddon, need to be accepted and dealt with. Being outraged about how emotionally offensive the situation is, is idiotic and precisely the wrong reaction. The whole point of such an exercise in philosophy and logic is to overcome that emotional outrage.

But the movie of course continues this way. Once two attempts have been made at a logical way of choosing ten people (one being an unpredictable "wild card", a.k.a. an easy way for the writer/director to cheat), and failed, the top student then takes charge and makes all the wrong choices; chooses all the ones least likely to survive, prosper and procreate, apparently because she has this thing for imperfections. It is completely preposterous, and while this bunch survives the bunker, in part because of the fine wine they have (*groan*), they also choose to kill themselves once they get out. It is preposterous several times over!! The movie is changing its premise as it goes, making the choices of the 10 be about the stay in the bunker ("oooh, it's all about the JOURNEY, not the goal!"), rather than the chances of survival after-wards.

And the final nail in the coffin is at the end, when it is revealed that the teacher has personal, emotional reasons for his entire thought experiment, AND we don't hear whether he even lets the students (who rebelled against his ideas) pass the course or not!

Ultimately, it is a movie which pretends to be about ideas, but is really about characters, and not in a successful way, either. Just about all of the interesting possibilities of such a set-up are completely dropped on the floor. As for the characters, they all have model looks, and two of the guys, politically correctly, are gay (with a third one being given gayness in one iteration of the thought experiment - with all these gay guys, why not at least one lesbian, now that we're being so PC?). It is a story that conforms in so many ways to so many youth culture clichés that the writer/director's claim that he made this movie to showcase young people's curiosity (about what, exactly?) rings awful hollow. The only thing this movie is good for, besides its visual spectacle, is to debate its myriad shortcomings in failing to accomplish what it presented itself as setting out to do.

Fail, fail, fail.

One of the moral views that is communicated very often in American pop culture is that sacrificing one life to save a bunch of other lives cannot be justified. Can NOT be justified. Because sacrificing one life is still murder. This is just the worst kind of pseudo-philosophical claptrap. It is completely obvious to any intelligent human being that you must always minimize losses. Choosing for five people to die instead of one (all other things being equal) is OF COURSE the wrong choice. But this movie perpetuates the former view, even as the top student herself (who also has this view) violates this principle in the beginning by leaving the teacher to die outside the bunker. So this movie offers nothing new of any kind, no shred of an idea out of the ordinary, conformist, vulgar American high school style of thinking.

It is a terrible movie, drenched, at best, in all-round mediocrity.

1 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Series started well, but by 3rd episode is just going thru the motions, 30 November 2013
6/10

First of all, people who like this show should try to get hold of the Swedish show "Real Humans", currently in its 2nd season, which "Almost Human" seems to be a derivative (though bigger-budget) rip-off of. Just saying.

The first episode of "Almost Human" was quite impressive. Lots of interesting themes introduced, and a long-running plot line which I hoped to see developed a bit faster than at a glacial pace. The 2nd episode was not quite as good, but deserves kudos for tackling the sexual aspect of hubots (oops, that's me using a term from "Real Humans" there).

Episode 3, however, is just passing time. Do we get any deeper into the A.I./robot theme? Negative. Is there any shred of development to the main plot with the terrorist group that Kennex's ex joined? Negative. Just some action with a twist ending that has no impact on anything! That's weak. By now the show has just settled into the same old groove that almost all TV shows quickly settle into: paaaaasssing the time slooowly without offering any interesting ideas or storytelling, lulling us to sleep with inconsequential tripe when we're actually sitting here waiting to be blown away by cool ideas, new angles and thought-provoking comments on present and future society! What is this apparent law that says writers can't put a proper amount of IDEAS and STORY into television shows? Man! I guess we just live in a world of clueless TV producers whose mission in life is to bore us the hell to death.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but it's the cumulative effect of having experienced this TV tendency time and time again.

A show about A.I./humaniform robots should explore what this technology means to society, and which other ways it has been implemented. Give us moral quandaries! Revelatory ideas! Edgy angles on this complex issue! Please. THAT's why we're watching. Not to see another Die Hard rip-off, which we've already seen a hundred and seventeen times.

Oh well, I'll watch a few more episodes. Who knows, maybe it'll pick up. Probably not, though.

Trance (2013/I)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Look up "convoluted" in the dictionary, and there'll be a description of this movie, 20 October 2013
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(Yeah, there are spoilers here, so don't read this unless you're seen the movie, or don't care about spoilers.)

I was saddened that the plot of TRANCE ended up being completely implausible. The biggest blunders:

1. Simon only hides the painting AFTER he's hit on the head, and THEN can't remember where it is? That's not how amnesia works. Or did Elizabeth have him under post-hypnotic instruction not to remember it? This was not specified. Also, the time-frame seems wildly off here. After he's hit on the head, he stumbles outside, is hit by a car, kills the girl (in broad daylight, on an open street in a posh neighborhood and no one notices), drives away to hide the body and the painting, and only then comes back for treatment for his head injury. WHY doesn't he get in trouble with the police over this long absence right after the theft?

2. Elizabeth has just finished erasing Simon's memory of her, in order to get out of an abusive relationship with him, oh, and then she tells him to steal a £25 million painting for her as a goodbye present?! That's hilariously crazy and completely unbelievable. She must have known that this could very easily get very complicated, as indeed it does.

3. The movie doesn't tell us WHY she was interested in that particular Goya painting; WHY it has special significance for her. We need to know that in order to understand her motivation.

And there are many other things I could criticize, all involving plausibility. A deeply insecure gambler with plentiful criminal connections happens to work at a classy auctioneer house? And after trying to foil the theft he is hailed as a hero despite the painting being gone? And then he happens to go see the exact hypnotist he used to have a relationship with, and then she happens to want in on the multi- million dollar crime, and then she starts a relationship with another violent guy despite having worked hard to extricate herself from one abusive guy?

And don't get me started on the sex and nudity stuff; most of it made very little sense and was poorly done (plotwise, I mean - no disrespect to the actors).

This movie, from now on, will stand as a prime example of *CONVOLUTED* storytelling, far outdoing ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (not a bad movie, but certainly a convoluted one). It tries to wrap its plot into shapes and angles that it doesn't really fit, in order to pull a fast one on the audience. And it gets TOO convoluted and is unable to unwrap itself in the end. It got away from the screenwriters and one day I hope they admit it.

A disappointment. 4 stars out of 10.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The price of revenge..., 3 October 2013
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Grandmaster is a good movie. I am a big fan of Asian cinema; especially Asian action cinema. The Grandmaster is not a typical action movie; in fact, you could argue that it's not an action movie at all. It will disappoint people who are just looking for fast-paced action. Myself, I have a foot in both camps. My consumption of Asian movie are predominantly action-oriented, but I also like the more philosophical, slower, slice-of-life and auteur productions.

What we have in The Grandmaster is a highly characteristic Wong Kar Wai movie; compare with 2046 and you're seeing almost the same movie. Even with the same actors in the key parts! And focusing on the same themes of having by-passed the chance to achieve a happy ending, and having to accept one's fate. My initial difficulty with this story was the rather unspecified vow that Gong Er took, never to marry and never to teach. What's the point of getting the skills back from the bad guy if she can never pass them on? But it dawned on me that the movie is a commentary on the revenge theme that permeates most other martial arts movies. Gong Er understands that revenge is morally wrong, but she can't suppress her passion for it. So she decides to go through with it on the condition that she pays a very high price for it: never to marry and never to teach. Letting these particular skills die, so they can't be used for revenge ever again.

So, although The Grandmaster in some ways reads like a thematic remake of 2046, it does actually also provide a meaningful statement on the martial arts movie genre - and it does so with beautiful cinematography throughout. The movie was, in some places, a little bit slow for my taste, and considering that many of the themes were the same as in Wong's previous movies, it did feel a little bit repetitive. None the less, it was a very good movie.

My rating: 8 stars out of 10.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A great show - a shame about the ending :-(, 2 October 2013
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Endings are hard. I mean, hard to write. To get right. If you try to do something different and unexpected, it's a huge gamble that is likely to go wrong, unless it makes some special kind of sense. The ending, remember, is what communicates the writers' point about the whole show; their judgment.

I liked the ending of "Lost" - for me, it worked on an artistic level. But shows that have criminals as protagonists are still a new genre, and the writers/producers apparently can't get past the moral judgment - past the idea that if people do wrong (even in such a thing as having too many wives - see "Big Love"), they should be punished. Generally, that principle is sound, but some people also deserve a second chance. Some people can reform. And in works of fiction there is most often a symbol scheme at work which means that the protagonist is not just a real and regular person, but an embodiment of a set of themes and representations.

"Dexter" was just about my favorite drama show of all time. Right up until the penultimate episode, it was deftly told. When in the second- to-last episode Dexter actually finds out that he is no longer a killer, I started hoping for a happy end. But of course I had predicted that, at the very least, they would kill off either Deb, Hannah or Harrison - to get away scott free, Dexter would have to sacrifice something. But they chose to have him react crazily to Deb's death, letting it overshadow the good things he had to look forward to. But abandoning his loved ones is no solution - when you start a new life, a new job, you are bound to get involved with people again; it's unavoidable. If he's just sitting around staring into thin air whenever he's not at work, he might as well kill himself. The moral is clear: he is in the equivalent of hell. And he chose it himself - maybe because he got "sane" enough to see that it was what he deserved. But it's only what he deserves according to old- fashioned and preachy values. Before Deb's death, he actually started to reform. There was hope for him.

But this ending showcases the problem with having "bad-guy protagonists" - you can't really sanction their actions, so you can't give them a happy ending (just look at "Weeds"). But the audience has been (kinda, sorta) rooting for this protagonist since day one! Does that count for nothing? The thing to do in a show like this is to show development, maybe repentance, even. Some sort of evolution of character. And so his ultimate fate should also be open and fraught with possibilities. Because he represents something different than what he appears to be. Dexter represents, to a meaningful extent, justice and righteousness. Reason, even. Misunderstood and having to hide, and going through a bunch of problems, but he does symbolize rationality applied to ethics, and there's no deep point in having him end up as he does in this final episode.

So, I thought that was a weird and somewhat nonsensical ending. But, everything that went before was pretty great!!

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Argh, so disappointing! Loved the first one, wanna forget this one., 31 March 2013
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a comic book collector, and love superheroes, although I never actually read the G.I. Joe comic. When the first movie came out, the reviews were so bad that I first decided not to see it, but a woman friend whose judgment I found reliable told me that it was very comic-book like and that I would probably like it. So I went anyway, and loved it. Last night I watched it for the fourth time, and it has me smiling and chuckling throughout! I enjoy it more every time I see it. It is very consciously high-camp, and its production values are precisely as slick and gorgeous as the recent Marvel Studios movies (Captain America, the Iron Men, The Avengers). I don't know exactly how much it references the comics, but I get a big kick out of the jokes that refer to action figures, like the mention of the kung fu grip, and "Duke wasn't born; he was government issued!" :-)

But mostly, it's the characters. In the first movie there are many distinctive characters who are all very enjoyable. In the second movie the entire G.I. Joe outfit is reduced to three people (well, plus Snake Eyes), one of whom (Flint) is completely anonymous and has nothing to do! All the slickness and sci-fi coolness is just gone. The box office page here at IMDb claims that the sequel had an (estimated) budget of 135 million dollars; if that is the case, this is the cheapest-looking big-budget movie I have ever seen. It seemed like all the money was used on Bruce Willis (probably 20 mil just for him), the mountain side sequence and the urban blow-up, with nothing left to make anything else look good, nor to craft a coherent story. The big blow-up had zero consequences; we saw NO reactions at all! It wasn't even clear whether the Joes knew what was going on!

In Retaliation, I found none of the characters compelling, with the partial exception of Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (whose survival from the first movie went unexplained - impaled and drowned; how did he live?!). Adrianne Palicki sure was eye-candy, but she didn't have that much to do. She could not compete with the amazing Rachel Nichols. I also missed Marlon Wayans. I am actually a big fan of Dwayne Johnson; he should have been to his generation what Stallone or Schwarzenegger were to theirs. But he has never succeeded in getting any properly great roles! He was pretty good in The Scorpion King, Walking Tall, and Doom, and I loved him in Be Cool, but besides those I have been bored and disappointed by virtually all his movies (still haven't seen Snitch, though). Not his fault; the fault of the projects he is offered. Sigh!

There is this Hollywood rule of thumb that, if the execs believe a sequel can gross 60% of what the original did, then they greenlight it. To my eyes, it seems like they must be using a goddamn manual for creating a sequel which has *exactly* 60% of the budget, 60% of the plot quality, 60% of the acting, 60% of the entertainment value, and 60% of the visual effects. It just feels so utterly and unashamedly commercial. And in this case, more like 40%.

Retaliation may have had more references to the comics, but the tone never felt anywhere near as inspirational and enthusiastic to me as in the first movie. But I must acknowledge that it did have some entertainment value. I liked the idea of the whole nuclear thing at the culminating summit (it was also effectively comical, for a bit), but I don't think it was played up to anywhere near its proper potential. So I'm sad. But grateful that we had *one* movie I can rave about.

4 stars out of 10 for the sequel. 10 stars for the first movie.


Page 1 of 50:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]