Reviews written by registered user

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

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

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
DiCaprio's tour de force, 30 January 2016

Revenant *rev–uh-nuh nt*


a person who returns. a person who returns as a spirit after death; ghost.

There is a lot that can be said for the unfairness in Leonardo DiCaprio never receiving an Oscar, despite his tremendous performances in quite a number of movies. I have a sneaking suspicion that some people still think of him as the pretty-boy from Titanic and The Beach, and that is really a shame. Because DiCaprio is one of the hardest working actors today (he averages just over one film per year, ever since his breakthrough in What's Eating Gilbert Grape in 1993, and has as of today 36 projects listed as "in development" on IMDb… 36!). And not only that – he is one of the best actors out there, the man seem able to play almost anything, and after seeing him in The Revenant, I have come to the conclusion that Leonardo DiCaprio will from now on be able to make me buy a movie ticket based on his involvement alone.

The Revenant tells the (inspired by true events) story of Hugh Glass, an explorer leading a small team of surviving fur trappers through the vicious winter wilderness that is 1820's America, after they have been attacked – and most of them killed – by native Americans. On a scout tour in the forest, Glass finds himself standing between two grizzly bear cubs and their mother, and he is brutally attacked…

I will say no more, even though there is a LOT more that could be said, you will have to (and I encourage you to) see for yourself!

Let's get a few things out straight away. This IS DiCaprios film, he plays Glass and it is his story we get to follow. The pain, misery, fear, frustration and anger are all very palpable for me as the viewer. I can see it in DiCaprios face and I can hear it in his voice – what little he has left of it, after the bear tore out his throat. He embodies all the emotions to such a degree that I actually felt the freezing cold water and the snow, sitting there in the theater – dressed in my thick sweater. The camera is right there, in his face… His dirty, banged up, tired and determined face. This is a film about survival, about determination and about not succumbing to any sort of fate. It is also about revenge – but that is very much a secondary point. -This is DiCaprios tour de force, and there should be no hesitation about that.

That being said, I would not be surprised if Tom Hardys performance as John Fitzgerald is mentioned in as equal high regard. Hardy has always been a fascinating actor, who seem able to play everything from the leading man in romantic comedies (This Means War, 2012) to super villains in superhero-movies (The Dark Knight Rises, 2012). But what he does best though is play lunatics… The kind of trouble stirring lunatics that stand on the wall, screaming, banging their chest and rally everybody to get the revolution going! But if you look in their face, you can see that all they really want is chaos, violence and disorder. Tom Hardy is fantastic in this film, relishing in playing a character that you instinctively hate, already from the start! -It's in the eyes…

The Revenant moves seamlessly between intimate (and sometimes painful) closeups, to sweeping landscape shots, showcasing not so much the beauty as the isolation and the relentlessness of nature, interspersed with Glass' dream like hallucinations of his wife and child. The movie is shot using real light (as in no stage lights) and it has a very gritty and real feel to it – a style not unknown to director Alejandro González Iñárritu, who's breakthrough was the fantastic Amores Perros (2000). Making my way through the movie, after the fact, I find it hard to imagine anyone else, other than Alejandro, directing it – and certainly no one else other than DiCaprio starring in it…

-Make no mistake about it, this movie is a MUST SEE!

One last thing, because the scene where Glass is attacked by the grizzly bear absolutely needs to be mentioned! I have seen a ridiculous amount of movies where characters are attacked by large animals/creatures. Everything from acid spitting aliens, dinosaurs and toxic waste enhanced spiders to lions, tigers and bears – oh my. But the bear attack in The Revenant is the most horrific, panic filled and – for lack of a better word – REAL I have ever seen! I cannot remember blinking, or even breathing at all during that scene! When you go see this movie (and you REALLY should), it will grab you from the get go, and you will have forgotten all about the bear attack – until it happens, and then you will wish you could forget it….but you never will!

1 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Tarantino does Hitchcock..., 17 January 2016

The Hateful Eight is Quentin Tarantino's 8th film – and no there is no room for argument regarding Kill Bill 1 & 2 counting as one singular film, especially as the words "The 8th film by Quentin Tarantino" is seen during the opening credits.

His seven previous films all tries out (or tributes) different genres, he takes a stab at everything from gangster dramas to blaxploitation, via kung fu and western and many other styles, always twisting them to his own quite unique style. The Hateful Eight is no exception. It has a go at Sergio Leones love for long, slow shots, especially during opening scenes – and The Hateful Eight does just that, starts off with an incredibly long shot, going from extreme closeup (Leone again) to a wide landscape shot of a stage coach approaching through the blistering snow. All set to a totally AWESOME "impending doom"-score by master craftsman Ennio Morricone. That score though, hints at the other genre-of-sorts Tarantino takes a stab at with this movie. The Hitchcockian genre – if that could be called a genre. Because as soon as the stage coach reaches it's goal (a restaurant/bar/thingy in the middle of nowhere called Minny's Haberdashery) it turns into a mystery-thriller, where you are not sure of who is the bad guy and who is the good guy (or if indeed there are any good guys at all).

Set design, lighting and the overall gritty look of the film is stunning. Tarantino is perhaps known as a film maker, but he is in equal amount a stylist. He knows what he wants to see, and makes it so. And that is good, because The Hateful Eight combines the long slow takes of Sergio Leone with an Hitchcockian attention to minute details. It is quite interesting to behold…

And therein lies the only real problem I have with this film, that you're not really watching it – you're beholding it. This time around it doesn't feel like Quentin Tarantino made a film for an audience, he just made it for himself. His films are expected to have a few key ingredients; an obscene amount of usage of the "n-word", drawn out monologues (preferably spoken by Samuel L Jackson) and violence. Brutal, unflinching, over- the-top violence, including blood and brains splattered everywhere. Everyone is just sitting there kind of waiting for these things to happen…and Tarantino just can't help himself. It doesn't matter that the scenes doesn't really require all that blood, or – for that matter – that they are not even improved by it (rather the opposite), he puts it there anyway.

I'm not squeamish in any way, and the violence doesn't make me look away – or even flinch, but I do tend to find it boring if it has no purpose. Same thing with the long, slow – albeit artistically marvelous – shots. If they serve no purpose, they are simply something long and slow and pretty to look at.

In Pulp Fiction there is a long take where Jules (Sam Jackson) and Vinnie (John Travolta) is walking through the corridors of an apartment complex, talking about foot massages and weather or not they mean something more than just the massaging of feet. The shot is long – impressively long – as it follows the two hit men along these corridors. The winding camera and the fact that they are on the move almost the whole shot distracts from the fact that the conversation they are having is mostly pure nonsense. Funny every now and again, perhaps. But ultimately it is just two guys letting their mouths run wild, nonsense. The Hateful Eight has quite a few of these long monologues/dialogues, but it is combined with a long, borderline stationary camera, that does very little to distract you from any eventual pointlessness. It is pretty to look at, though.

In Django Unchained there is this long, drawn out scene of just total mayhem, right after Dr Schultz (Christoph Waltz) gets himself killed and Django (Jamie Fox) starts shooting…well, everybody. There's blood EVERYWHERE and people coming in the door getting shot and landing in a big pile on top of each other. One guy not dying from his first shot, or his second, or third or fourth and just continues getting shot – by Django and his own peers alike. There's so much blood the whole room changes colour! But it works, because it has a purpose! The purpose here – as in most Quenting Tarantino movies – is to entertain. There is nothing resembling tension here. Django is the superhero of the movie, and by that time you are no longer fearing for his life. He'll make it, because he's supposed to! The Hateful Eight saves up, building tension, and then lets the violence rip… Or rather let the blood flow. In spades! But the vast amount of blood isn't necessary. It doesn't entertain, or to put it another way, if you find it funny and laugh (and I did, at times) it means the tension is gone. Everything built up during the past two hours is now gone, and you are left with a final 45 minutes of pointless violence. You no longer care about the characters, and thus no longer care about the story.

Quenting Tarantino sells movie tickets on his name alone – and that is a HUGE responsibility. Granted, his worst movies are not at all bad, and neither is this one. It is, after all, beautifully shot, it has some really cool dialogue/monologue and a handful of really good actors doing a really good job. It CANNOT be bad! But it certainly doesn't rank anywhere near his best…

12 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Point Break - pointless..., 13 December 2015

OK, so last night was the annual Lucia Movie Night here in Sweden, where SF (Swedish Filmindustry) do their part to keep the kids away from the streets during Lucia Wake. They do this by having a drug- and alcohol free all-night event at their cinemas all across the country. For 295 SEK (app. $40-45) you get popcorn, soda, a few other refreshments AND three undisclosed previews of films yet to open in theaters. Where I live, in Umeå, they NEVER tell you the name of the movie beforehand. You have to wait and see for yourself when the title pops up on the screen.

You can bet everyone wanted Star Wars, but everyone also knew that wasn't going to happen.

The last film of the night, starting at about 05.15 in the morning, was this one, Point Break. I was all excited when I realized what it was (which was right at the start, when one character calls another character 'Utah'). But my excitement checked out and went home to catch some well needed z's pretty quickly.

The plot is somewhat different to the original, mostly the changes revolve around the bad guys and their reasoning for doing what they are doing, but also around the character Utah, and his background. It is also glossier (if you know what I mean), much of this is due to the 3D-effect, which is prominent and very much in your face - but also creates a feeling of nothing being done for real...something I know isn't true. A lot of the stunts were if not 100% real, then at least close to 100%. But the 3D makes it all look fake somehow... I tried removing the 3D effect occasionally - by closing one eye - and it really did look a lot better without it.

The biggest change from Kathryn Bigelows modern-classic-original however is the fact that this version doesn't make me care about the all! It borrows a few iconic scenes (most prominently the "angrily shooting into the air"-scene and the ending...sort of) and it makes no excuse whatsoever about cramming these images into the film. It tries SO hard to make audiences go 'Ooo, did you see what they did there! That is from the original that is!', but as this film is so infuriatingly inferior (say that quickly five times) it only makes me a little bit angry, that it didn't even have the guts to stand on its own two legs as a modern day action movie.

If you plan on seeing this in the theater, but have never seen the original, Make sure you do see that one as well! But in this case I dare to say it doesn't matter if you see it before or after you see this remake, because no matter what you WILL see that this is nothing but a cash in on on of the best action movies of the 90's.

Dave (1993)
Sweet and funny, 7 June 2015

A sweet, funny movie (the kind Douglas Adams would call "mostly harmless"), with a somewhat outlandish plot, that I'm sure is probably not all that far removed from reality - given the circumstances. Definitely one of Kevin Klines best. Sigourney Weaver isn't given much of a chance, what with her role being the lesser of the couple in focus, but she does do well with her part. For obvious reasons 'Dave' gets somewhat political, but all in all it seem to never actually pick sides, not to any greater extent anyway. Instead it rather seem to suggest that bureaucracy in general is an obstacle, a hindrance to really getting something done. Charles Grodin, in a smaller part, does what Charles Grodin always does best - shows up every now and then and brings the Funny.

InSight (2011)
11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Ya gotta see the whole thing..., 15 February 2012

...if you're going to justify judging it later on.

I actually DID see the whole movie, but not by choice - and had I had ANY say in the matter it would have gotten turned off before the 30 minute mark.

The acting was painfully bad, thus brilliantly matching the script! Messy and so illogical it created this brain-void where only apathy and disinterest could live! Normally I wouldn't even bother reviewing a movie THIS bad, but seeing as the only other two reviewers never finished it, I kind of felt that the following needs to be said: I saw the whole thing and, YES, InSight is EXACTLY as bad as everyone says it is - EVEN the ones that never saw more than 20 minutes of it!

188 out of 250 people found the following review useful:
A captivating piece of cinema!, 25 February 2009

The music lends a threatening aspect to the opening scene, where we in slow close ups – on and off deliberately out of focus – get to follow the opening of a package. Inside the package, post marked in Hong Kong, is a framed plant. The camera starts to move backwards, taking in more of the room and revealing Sven-Bertil Taube as the opener of the package. He holds the frame in his hands, lowers his head and slowly starts to cry.

Niels Arden Oplevs Män som hatar kvinnor is based on the first of Stieg Larssons three bestselling novels, meaning of course that it is basically guaranteed large box office numbers – but the expectations will probably match those numbers. Weather the film manages to live up to these expectations I cannot say – seeing as I am one of the probably only eight people who has not read Stieg Larssons books. But as a piece of cinema, completely removed from its literary origins, it definitely leaves an impression!

The music mentioned above, written by Peter Fuchs, is the first thing to register in the mind as something interesting… Something that make everything feel very serious. The impending-doom-score composed by Howard Shore, for David Finchers Se7en, springs to mind – and this only a few seconds into the film.

The cold, hard, uncomfortable reality – where the movie takes place – is populated by a highly recognizable legion of people straight out of Swedens acting elite… (Gösta Bredenfeldt, Lena Endre, Ewa Fröling, Björn Granath, Peter Haber och Marika Lagerkrantz to mention a few) …and they all seem to have been so thrilled to be a part of this project that they almost as one has taken their characters a step back, allowing the spotlight to be shone on the two main characters, who also get to drive the story forward; the reporter Mikael Blomkvist (Mikael Nyqvist), who is digging through a 40 year old murder case involving a well known corporation family with Nazi connections, and the 24 year old computer hacker EMO Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) that every day hacks Blomkvists hard drive, captivated by the puzzling evidence (or lack thereof).

Nyqvist gets the job done playing what is basically the lesser of the two parts. You instinctively feel sympathy for him, and sympathizes with him – even in his very first scene, in which his character is convicted of slander, and sentenced to prison.

But when the lights come back on in the theatre, and you gather up your half eaten box of popcorn and your coat, it's not Mikael Nyqvists understated but persistent reporter you will remember most…it's Noomi Rapaces leather-and-stud clad, tattooed, pierced, heavy makeup wearing biker chick, Lisbeth Salander.

Weighted by old wrongdoings as well as new ones, Lisbeth is covered in emotional scars, making her a very interesting character – that easily could have been a silly rehash, a Gunvald Larsson in leather. But Noomi Rapace bases Lisbeth in real emotions rather than clichés and hammy over acting. You can tell that there is a real person behind that steely gazed, unyielding face, something that make those parts of the movie, where we get to come with her through what must be some of Swedish cinemas most horrendous scenes, feel that much more awful. You almost can't help looking away, as she is abused over and over again…

The relationship between Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander is the only part where I felt the movie rushed things just a tad. But this is only a mild piece of criticism, as the lack of insight leaves the audience feeling that they, just like the character Mikael Blomkvist, don't know what to make of Lisbeht Salander.

Besides the two leads, I want to single out Peter Haber, who really got to show off his skills! He is obviously good for more than just playing the silly father of Sune or the annoyingly correct police Martin Beck.

I have, like I mentioned earlier, not read the novels by Stieg Larsson, and I have an automatic aversion towards Swedish cinema; which I usually find stiff, with acting taken straight out of the latest grocery store commercials. In other words, Swedish film has its work cut out trying to sell me anything. But, and I am not ashamed to admit this, I'm gonna go ahead and BUY!!!

In the narrow little world that is Swedish cinema there is a lot that one could – or even should – avoid. But this movie is not something to be ignored! So leave the kids at home (this is NOT a very pleasant film) and head for your nearest multiplex to take in of the most thrilling Swedish films in a very long time!

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Put down the slasher franchise and come out with your hands above your head!, 18 February 2009

I really wanted to be able to sit here and say that Marcus Nispel did it!

I wanted to be able to claim that he'd given this almost 30 year old, tragically stagnating series a much needed adrenaline boost.

That he had gone above and beyond the call of duty to bring new life to Friday the 13:th and Jason Voorhees.

But I can't do that, because this movie – to be completely honest – sucked!

Paramount numbered their Friday-movies all the way up to incredulous looking roman number eight, before they gave up and tossed the series in the garbage bin – where New Line Cinema, "the house that Freddy (Krueger) built", quickly picked it up and kept on going for two more, not very awe inspiring, movies.

So when Paramount, New Line, Michael Bay and Marcus Nispel joins forces to make an, amazingly enough highly anticipated, ELEVENTH attempt, I don't know why one should expect something better, something more or even something new… Because no matter what you expect it's probably to much.

It's like there is a formula for the chain of events in these kinds of movies – a strict pattern by which it should be sewn together – and everyone is just refusing to let go of it!

Part of the story lines in the three first installments in the series have been borrowed, twisted, manipulated and cut together, a bunch of tweenagers in the middle of the woods has been added to the mix and the alcohol, drugs, sex and naked tits has then been poured into the bowl, right up to the very edge. The most likely leaflet-thin script has then been filled with reasons to break the small group apart and send them to separate, dimly lit corners (I've never been able to grasp why a big guy like Jason can't handle four or five of them at once!).

-Do you really want to know the story? Does it really matter? Alright, but it's not worth your precious time… Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki) is in Crystal Lake searching for his sister, who went missing six weeks earlier – we, the audience, saw her getting attacked by Jason. Clay meets a bunch of Johnny Knoxville/Ashton Kutcher/Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan-wannabee's gathered in a cabin by the lake to – well, you know it already; booze up, get high and f**k like rabbits all night long… Or something like that. At which point the big guy obviously shows up (initially with a cloth bag over his head – but after a while sporting the famous hockey mask) and starts taking them out, one by one.

The movie, by the numbers, looks like this: 95 – the movies running time in minutes. 13 – the number of tweens in the movie (8 guys, 5 girls). 13 – the number of people Jason kills in the movie. 8 – the number of times Nispel has Jason towering up behind his victims. 4 – the number of people I shared the enormous theatre with. 3 – the number of topless girls in the movie. 3 – the number of times I looked at my watch during the movie. 2 – the surprisingly few number of sex scenes in the movie. 0 – the estimated number of times I will see this movie again.

This might feel like unnecessarily harsh criticism, and when I say that I'm just so tired of watching an endless string of generic kids stare stupidly into the dark and go "Hello, is anyone there?" one might think I'd choose to watch another flick. But I am, believe it or not, a big fan of the Friday the 13:th series, and somewhere I was hoping for a fresh start. I wanted to see an interesting – albeit not amazingly good – slasher movie. In short; I was expecting – maybe out of childish naivety fuelled by burning nostalgia – something more that the same thing over and over again for the (onehundredand)eleventh time.

I'll give Marcus Nispels Friday the 13:th what I consider to be a very generous TWO-star rating, in recognition of Daniel Pearls amazing (as always) cinematography…

-Michael Bay, Marcus Nispel. This is the police! Put down the slasher franchise and come out with your hands above your head!

16 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Eli Roth, eat you heart out!, 20 July 2006

This is tremendous movie-making, and it is, without a doubt, THE sh*t! It bases the terror on the simple fact that neither we nor the man sitting in the chair knows (or can see) what is happening around him. Is it a dream? Is it just a big hoax? ...Or is he in fact about to be tortured to death? Eli Roth tried to base the terrors in his foul piece of dogturd, Hostel, in very much the same emotions (spiced with over-the-top gore and naked tits) - and he failed miserably!

Coldo Serra's El tren de la bruja doesn't. I seriously thought my heart was going to give out several times. I was either close to hyperventilation - or not breathing at all.

I saw a subtitled version of this masterpiece at the Umea International Filmfestival (in northern Sweden), and I've gone through hell and back ever since trying to find the subtitled version on DVD, but alas I have had to give up. If you get a chance to see it though, for the love of all that is good - do NOT pass on it. El tren de la bruja is fifteen minutes of sheer, brutal and mindnumbing terror you will not want to have missed.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Imprint, Takashi Miikes MoH segment (review), 20 July 2006

According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!

Overkill (2004)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A glorious absence of sophistication!, 10 July 2006

That (the headline) is how comedian Jeff Foxworthy defines "redneck", but he might as well be talking about Branbomm Films Overkill.

Have you seen a really bad actionflick lately? You know, the kind where the bad guys can't shoot, where the heroes are dressed in high fashion, where sunglasses are frequent and where the big bad boss is suffering from a case of serious diarrhea of the mouth? I'm pretty sure 28 year old director Henric Brandt has been fed these kinds of films intravenously, and that there somewhere inside of him sits a tiny Michael Bay who longs to break free and direct jetfighters against a beautiful Californian sunset. But hey, what do I know?

Overkill is about a computer-disc containing who-knows-what, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that it by accident falls into the hands of two trailer-trash lowlifes, Per Värsh and Axel Wadd. They have no idea what to do with it, but soon find themselves the targets of a neverending stream of beige-clad hit men sent out by the president of the corporation B.R.O.T.T. (yes, that's right - it's C.R.I.M.E. in Swedish). The flying bullets and constant death threats doesn't seem to bother Per and Axel, but when the president of B.R.O.T.T. kidnaps Axels sister, Alex, it becomes personal - and the boys go to war!

Director Henric Brandt and photographer Stefan Bommelin are the two halves that is Branbomm Film. They have made a whole bunch of movies together. No-budget movies, the kind where you engage the talents of relatives and friends in something you shoot in your own backyard. The kind of movies that for the most part only amuse the participants and, possibly, their friends. Whether or not Brandt and Bommelin on August 1st, when the shooting of Overkill began, had any thoughts about reaching beyond their own suburb - I don't know. But that is what happened. Four years, four months and fifteen days later, without ever having met any of them, I'm holding the DVD-cover of Overkill in my hand. Bought from one of the biggest DVD-sites in Sweden (

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Overkill is a splendid piece of film. Because it isn't. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it's made with no money at all. Branbomm Films has spent 18.000 Swedish kronor - $2.400 - on it (but then again, that is $2.400 for three years of shooting carcrashes, explosions and manical shootouts...I guess one could consider it as close to no-budget film-making as it is possibly get - and still spend money). I'm not even going to sit here and tell you that Overkill is well-acted, because let's be honest - nepotism is what this kind of movie-making is all about, and everyone and his brother has stepped out to help Branbomm complete their film. Branbomm pays nothing for their talent, and no talent is (usually) what they get...

What I WILL sit here and tell you is that Overkill is fun. Hilarious even! Some of the stiff dialogue is outweighed by conversations that will have you in stitches. Peter Kirs, as professional(?) hit-man Börje, is one of Overkills two biggest assets. Through him the image of Börje becomes that of a man who definitely is a couple of cans short of a six-pack. Marwin Brandt, Henrics little brother, is asset #2. He plays the president of B.R.O.T.T. and does it surprisingly well. It is pretty remarkable to see an amateur-actor be so totally immersed in his character. Eyes, voice, body language - it is all there. He is definitely present in each and every one of his scenes.

The jokes, the bullets, the explosions and the car-crashes are all nicely woven together by Samir El Alaouis funky rockmusic. It feels kind of borrowed, but still stands on it's own.

Branbomm Films Overkill is not great. It's not exciting and it is lightyears away from being a riveting actionmovie... But, like it says on the cover, it is a no-budget tribute to the bad actionflicks of the 80's and 90's. Anyone that has even the tiniest interest in the art of movie-making should see this film. It is a project filled with days, weeks, months and years of hard work, and it is a fascinating look at how far $2.400 will actually take you if you are persistent enough. It's not a diamond in the rough, but it might just be a pretty nice looking piece of the rough. But any which way you look at it, it provides entertainment and selfdeprecating humour in a brand new (but dirty looking) paper bag. It doesn't try to achieve big-budget Hollywood, but it still delivers more than could be expected.

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