Reviews written by registered user

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

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

The Thing (2011/I)
2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Different time different movie, 29 October 2011

Last night I had the pleasure of catching the premiere of The Thing at the local cinema. I admit I had my doubts about the new film, but I was surprised.

The original The Thing is a really great movie. It's intense and thrilling mood keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. I've seen it several times and think it's one of the best horror/thrillers. Still today, 30 years after it premiered, it's still a must see of the genre and the effects are still good. So naturally as a fan of the original I was excited and very skeptical when I heard they was making a prequel.

The 2011 version of The Thing is a prequel to the original 1982 John Carpenter movie. An American grad student is recruited by Dr. Sander Halvorsen and travels to Antarctica to a Norwegian research base to help the Norwegians excavate some kind of unusual creature.

Let's admit it; We've all wondered what happened at the Norwegian base, that led the Norwegians chasing a dog across the ice in a helicopter. On the other hand the original is so good that we hate to see it remade.

So, how was it? Well, it's not the original, and thank God it's not trying to be either. This film does not share the intense thrilling mood. This is more of a horror film that plays on goo, boo and scary monsters than a psychological thriller.

The actors deliver a pretty good performance. While the original had no female characters this one has a strong female lead as the protagonist. What is the most satisfying, however, is seeing the strong Norwegian cast. All the Norwegian characters are played by Norwegian actors. Now, as a Norwegian myself I remember how hilarious it sounded when the "Norwegians" in the original spoke and we all know how stupid it looks when Germans, French or what ever speak English to one another. In this film it was great to see Norwegians being Norwegian and interacting not only in their native language, but also in a Norwegian manner. Having Norwegian actors means more than just having native Norwegian speakers, it means having people act Norwegian as well and in this film they do. As a Norwegian this is great to see! As for the story, it was pretty much the original story, with many of the same elements. It was just done a bit different and with different characters, but the specific story elements such as devising a test and locking people up in the shed was there. They did do some things different, but story wise, this film is in essence a remake of the original which was a bit disappointing. They could've made the story differ more from the original. This made the movie feel a bit like a remake, but it was done in a different way and it didn't seem like they tried to directly copy the original. What I really liked was that the thing acted different. It was not so hidden, it was out in the light and more openly attacked people, where as in the original it stays hidden. I liked this because it gives the thing more character, shows intelligence and a development from this prequel to the sequel. I felt I got to know the thing it self better, which I kind of liked.

We need to mention the effects. The original was praised for it's effects and while there are a bit more CGI in this, it looks good. Noting looks over the top, poorly done, or fake. It just looks good. A lot of goo and great monsters that looks horrific! All in all liked the new movie. It had great acting, it was scary, had good storytelling and just took you for a ride. Sure it's not the original and can't be compared to it. And I don't think it should. It should be compared to other movies in the genre. It's a horror movie and as such it's one of the better ones I've seen in a long time!

4 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Very entertaining, 14 March 2007

I'm a fan of both X-Files and 24 and I found this movie very entertaining. OK, sarcasm aside, I'm not saying these guys are wrong or right. I'm simply saying that as a documentary this film is sloppy and pretty much just propaganda.

First I'd like to look at this film as a documentary and not involve the debate it's part of. To put it simple; it's propaganda. As a documentary this film is sloppy and bad. The film makers have one thing in mind; to present the fact as they see it suit their cause and try to convince and convert the viewer. Where as a real documentary would try to give a more objective presentation of all the facts, dig into the stuff and try to present various explanations and in cases of speculation leave that for the viewer to figure out. Loose Change does not at all present or theorize about any other number of plausible explanations for some of the phenomenas, but presents only one side of a story and does what it can to promote the film makers views and blacken the other side.

So much for the way of presenting the facts, but the facts, or rather lack there of, they present is far from concrete nor convincing. Their conclusions are based on poor quality pictures and TV images (not necessarily poor as in bad quality, but poor as you don't really see anything) and witnesses (which is known to be very unreliable evidence) rather than any actual hard facts.

It has some nice things to it too. There is a nice drive in the presentation and it keeps the viewer watching. The editing is nice enough, but over all is no technical wonder.

All together it's a horrible flick and more or less just propaganda. It does not at all work well as a documentary and has an amateur feel to it. However, because it works really well as propaganda and I imagine has a lot of people will be convinced by it I'll give it two stars. Because I'm no fan of propaganda in general I would not recommend this movie and I would advise anyone who watches it to look at it with a critical eye.

The only thing they actually manage to prove is that yes, the government is holding back information about certain parts of the events that took place, but that's not really breaking news. The only ones who are naive enough to believe blindly in the "evidence" presented in this "documentary" are the ones who are naive enough to believe the government would go public with everything. Of course the government will hold back information and details in a case like this. Not so much to keep it's own people from learning the truth, but to keep foreign and hostile intelligence from learning what they know.

Miami Vice (2006)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Nicely shot, story wise OK., 12 August 2006

I went to see Miami Vice on it's premiere night here in Norway. A quite interesting film I must say. First of all, let me just say it has nothing to do with the series. The name is just about the only connection between the film and the series. It's not a remake or a follow up, it's a standalone film. So, even if you liked the series, you can go and watch this movie without being afraid I'll destroy the franchise, cause it's hardly, if at all part of it.

Now, it was an interesting movie. Not so much story wise. It's another one of those shoot 'em up under cover detective style films. It almost seemed like they had too much story. Very much dialog and stuff happening all the time. I missed shots that build up the excitement. Things kind of ended before it began.

What was interesting about this movie was the way it was shot. On video, HD, with some really out of the ordinary shots. The use of gain was quite obvious and made a nice effect. Quite a lot of ultra close ups and shots totally out of focus. Not to mention the use of the depth of field letting things fall in and out of focus and hand held camera. Elements that give it a documentary-style look and elements of cinema mixed together. It turns out quite nice.

If this movie is going to be remembered for something and stand out in the crowd it's because of the way it's shot and the way it looks. It got some really good acting too. Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell does some good performances and the rest of the cast is not bad. As for the music, well it's OK. I was expecting some themes from the series to be played in a new version maybe, but that didn't happen. The score builds the mood OK, but is nothing special.

All in all Miami Vice is nothing like the series and luckily it doesn't try to be either. It's an OK film, but except for being very nicely shot and makes use of some interesting effects it offers very little new.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Still pretty much unexplained, 1 July 2006

A one hour show that tells three stories. Three seemingly unexplainable stories, each with proof of the paranormal. They'll be put to the test and judged Proof Negative or Proof Inconclusive. Only one will be judged Proof Positive.

The show chooses a variety of cases to present. Reincarnation, UFOs, chupacabra, lake monsters, ghosts, psychic abilities and more. It's interesting to watch and believable. However, at times it can be too much. Three stories are told in detail and less then one hour may be a little short time. There are a lot of information to take in and it's all coming very fast.

The show is OK. There is nothing really revolutionary about it. There is more focus on the stories then the actual testing of them and sometimes it feel like they've just taken the easy way out. They don't dig very deep or come with a lot of research and it's often just eye witness accounts that are tested. Sometimes I hardly feel they've gone deep enough to draw a conclusion at all.

As a documentary it works. They are good at telling the stories and go into details, but don't go into that much detail in documenting the testing. Only negative thing about the storytelling in that I feel they use too much effects and it makes it confusing to watch. When you get used to it after a while it's OK, but at first glance it can all look very confusing.

Proof Positive is an OK show to watch, but far from a must see. Even if you are really into the paranormal stuff it's not a must see. You may be disappointed if the things you believe in are not proved positive. But then again it's not easy to prove or disprove many of these cases. Witch is why they pretty much are unsolved and unexplained and pretty much are so after this show had a look at them too.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Just an action film, 25 June 2006

OK, so I sat down to watch this movie for my second time. Why? I was in the mood for some action.

John Travolta stars as a USAF Major who is planning drop of the nuclear bomb he's carrying for a test run and steal them. Unfortunately, his co-pilot and a park ranger was not part of his plans.

Let's start by saying this is a 100% pure action movie. Cheesy dialog, big explosions, a chick and impending doom. Who can possibly ask for more? The writing is OK. The plot is OK, but there are holes and less logical things. The dialog is fake and cheesy at times. The characters is nice enough developed, but there could be done more work here. There are some nice touches done in the writing too, I'll give it that. All together the writing is OK. Not the best, but in no way the worst either. The story was probably just an excuse to fly helicopters and blow stuff up.

The cast is very varying in their performance. John Travolta does a great job, in portraying his villain. He portray his character in an incredible way, and is such a bad ass. Christian Slater is not bad either, but not quite there. As for Samantha Mathis, we've seen better. Not all bad, but far from good. The rest of the cast is average. No one worth mentioning in particular.

The film is technically good. The cinematography is good. Some cool angles and stuff and all over good. The sound editing is nice and the special effects, well being an action movie you gotta expect good special effects and you get it. Big explosions, bodies thrown through the air, crashing aircrafts, bullet hits everything is there and most of it is well done.

One thing to notice is the music. Zimmer made a nice theme that follows the score through the movie. Very effective and combined with the visual, very cool.

What makes this movie get a five out of ten is all the minor flaws and rather bad story it has. It's far from a good movie. The good thing is, this movie does not try to be anything it's not. It's just a simple entertaining mindless shoot 'em up action flick and not trying to be anything else it's a good one at that. Then you take the cheesy dialog and plot holes and just don't care. If you're in the mood for action you got your movie right here.

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Funny and well made short, 2 June 2006

Meet a set of hunters. The best in their trade. As they learned from their fathers and their fathers before them, they track down and domesticate a very special prey.

This is a film with a nice twist. The story is good, but at times it is a bit slow. Well written with good narration, but not 100%. The build up is a bit too long I think, but then again the pay-off is good.

As for acting it's good. The narrator does a great job and the three leads and Father Christmas fits their roles perfectly and deliver a good performance.

The cinematography struck me as really nice. Very nice composed and well chosen shots. It's all very delicious to look at. Hat's off to Jean Noel Mustonen. Also I might mention the sets and costumes witch are really nice. They look good and create a really nice setting.

All in all a funny and well made short. I'd not give it a full 10, but it's a good 7, no doubt.

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Good written, not so good done, but certainly watchable, 1 June 2006

After seeing the rating here at IMDb and hearing the stupid accents on the trailer I didn't really have high hopes for this movie. Luckily it turned out to be much better than expected.

Meet Jonathan and Brenda. After given a hard time growing up they move to L.A. to pursue the American dream, only to find out all they who gave them a hard time in their childhood is still giving them a hard time and have found the dream they so desperately seek.

This is one of those films with a rather strong, original and out of the ordinary story. First off it's a story that many can relate to in one way or another. The film is well written with good characters and nice development. You may see where it's headed, but you don't mind cause there's so much to see on the way.

I would like to say that good characters are given life by good actors, but I'm afraid I can not. The acting is far from 100%. Worst is probably Christian Schoyen as Jonathan. His English is far from good and it's really annoying. Sean Young is OK, Danny Trejo rather good and Jeff Conaway simply good. A big surprise to me was Kristian Valen who did a much better performance then I'd expected and was among the better ones.

Alan Filterman does a nice job with the cinematography. Doesn't exactly qualify for an Oscar, but it's good enough. Nothing stands out as really good, but nothing stands out as really bad either. I didn't really like the editing. Some cheap and easy-way-out-solutions there and it could've been better. It's easy to see this is not the most experienced editor.

As for music it's simple, yet strong. I really liked the score as it brought out the feel and mood of the film very well. Bryan Galvez has done a good job there. They also use a lot of non-original music, but they do so wisely. They don't put too much focus on this music and mainly just let it run in the background and so they make the music fit the scene not trying to fit the scene to the music.

All in all Living the Dream is not gonna be one of the best film this year. If so something would be very wrong. Technically it's no wonder. It's below average. However, where this movie succeeds is telling an interesting and good story. That's why you watch this movie and this proves that it's the quality of the story not the size of the budget that decides if the will turn out good or not. I can't quite decide what rating to give it. However, my first response was 6 or 7, but ended on a 6 simply to say, this is as low as it goes.

Aurora (1998)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Why did I watch this?, 16 May 2006

Picked this up in a two movie DVD set for a buck or so. Didn't really look promising and as I started to watch the movie I was just glad it didn't cost me more! Low budget may be an excuse, but it's not a very good one. The worst thing about this movie is the writing. I can handle slow paced movies, but this isn't slow paced. Most of the time nothing really happens. Movies never makes me sleep, but this one came pretty close. While the idea in it self might be OK, the writing just doesn't cut it. There are not enough development of characters or plots to make this a good feature film. They just make time pass by all these pictures of the characters doing some walking some chit chat and stuff that don't add anything to the movie. With that said this movie might make a good short film.

As for special effects, really there's nothing special about them. They're bad. To be honest, they could have and should have cut the storm thing part from the script. As said before, it don't give the movie anything, it offers no challenge to the characters it's just there to look good. And it don't.

Cinematography, however is one of the best things about this movie. It's all over good, with some enjoyable shots. However, the lightning could've been better, especially at night. It looks cheep.

Production design, sets, locations and costumes also need some credit. It's not that bad. Rather nice actually compared other things.

The acting is OK. For a low budget movie they got OK actors. They say their lines loud and clear, but thats about it. Then again with lack of characters and action what else is there for them to do. Never the less a little more acting wouldn't hurt.

All in all this is not the movie you want to spend any kind of money or time on. This is a movie far down on you watch list.

Not bad, 16 April 2006

Frank is not the kind of guy who thinks too much about his health. Give him junk food and beer and he's happy. However, this lifestyle gives the inhabitants of Frank a hard time and when he catches a cold one of the white blood cells, Osmosis Jones, and a cold tablet, Drixorial, teams up as they believe there is more going on then just a cold. At the same time the mayor of Frank is doing what he can to cover it up as just a brief cold to avoid panic as the election is coming up.

Osmosis Jones is a clever little movie combining animation and real life to tell the story. While the story may be a little cliché with the girl and the dad and maybe a little simple. This film may not need more then that. There is also a very obvious moral in there; Live healthy and take care of your body. Maybe a little too obvious I think, but it is a kids movie.

The acting is great. Chris Rock is great as Osmosis Jones and Bill Murry is a good Frank. A young Elena Franklin is also very good as Shane, Franks daughter.

This movie is both funny and smart. I guess if you're a kid it offers a great tool in learning some basic stuff about the body's immune system. I guess the movie takes it's inspiration from the French animation series Once Upon a Time... Life witch did much of the same pretty excellent and has a story similar to that of the Norwegian Body Troopers. They've also been inspired to spoof and reference a lot of other movies too.

Osmosis Jones is a movie with nice animation and nice design. It has humor, nice characters and is quite enjoyable to watch.

"The Unit" (2006)
10 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining, but you've seen most of it before, 13 April 2006

Based on various comments here on IMDb I guess you'll hate this show if you're in the military. To anyone else, however it's entertaining.

The writing is OK. There is always technical and factual errors in a show like this, but it's fiction after all and as far as the storytelling goes it's well written, but still has room for improvement. Combining the stories of the home front as well as the front of the war it becomes interesting and more then just a "shoot 'em up show". As of yet, the characters have more to go on and hopefully they'll develop in the next few episodes. As of episode four or so this show suffers a great lack of characters. You still miss those down to earth characters you can relate to. Having little knowledge about the reality the show is based on I can't say realistic it all is, but it is believable enough. You buy most of the stuff presented on the show. Never the less it's Hollywood and you don't forget that while watching the show. Somewhere you've seen most of this before so this show offers really very little new.

While the show may miss characters this is not the actors fault. In fact the actors does a good job. Dennis Haysbert is an excellent actor joined by Robert Patrick. Also notably is Regina Taylor and Max Martini. The rest of the cast is OK. I didn't really notice them and when watching the second episode I actually asked "who's that guy?". They're given little focus and remains in the shadows of to the others.

Technically it's a good show with nice cinematography, editing and music. Well made effects and nicely executed action scenes.

All in all you're not missing out on something big by not watching the show. It's entertaining, but that's as far as it goes. Being early yet, this show might improve, but it will never be the show of the century. With all the other successful drama series this season I doubt if The Unit will be picked up for a second season. So, give it a glance now while it's still there.

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