Change Your Image
loleralacartelort7890
Reviews
Kevin Smith: Sold Out - A Threevening with Kevin Smith (2008)
I was entertained, but the third was not as good as the first one
I have been a fan of Kevin smith ever since i saw Dogma. Since I've seen all the films he made, including the live-shows: evening with Kevin smith 1 and 2. So when i heard a third one came out i was very happy.
I got the DVD a month ago and personally i was pretty entertained. It is a must for all Kevin smith fans. But i have a few critical points: I think that the parts about Kevin smiths dogs and the part about Bruce Willis was pretty cool. But it took TOO MUCH time of the overall show. Talking about Kevin's dog and Bruce Willis bald head was almost 95 % of ALL the show. The parts were funny. But the editors of that show should have used MUCH more time on all the small talk and small things that was SOOOO FUNNY in the first one: an evening with Kevin smith 1.
But they could have made the third one ALMOST AS FUNNY as the first one. They could have done this by INCLUDING THE EXTRA SCENES.
In the extra/deleted scenes Kevin smith answers questions in a few minutes, and he gives information that i was VERY glad to receive. Did any of you know that there actually was a Clerks TV-series planned, and that the pilot actually was filmed? That was golden information. Kevin Smith also gives great information about his visit to the Battlestar Galactica set and a funny answer about a possibly "DOGMA 2". That was the most interesting information in "an evening with Kevin smith 3".
I bought the DVD to get information, as the ones i found in the extra material. But instead I've got a one-man show by Kevin smith about Kevin smith - which is funny, but it gets old.
Nuff said
King Kong (2005)
It could have been a great movie, it is just TOO long
When i first heard that Peter Jackson was to make King Kong i was thrilled. Then i saw the film, and i was a little disappointed. The movie was very well made and beautiful shot and conceived. But it is just 3 hours long. You don't have to use 3 hours to tell a very simple story, which King Kong is.
The first part of the movie, the first hour, takes place in New York and the ship destined for Skull island. Most things in this part of the movie we do not need to hear. All that and why they need to go to skull island didn't have to be told in that way - using precious time. Instead of telling this semi-useless story about Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) wanted to become an actor and Carl Denham (Jack Black) being in money-trouble, then they could just start the movie in the ship. Carl Denham not being in Money-trouble and that he has hired Ann Darrow as an actor for a nature-movie (30ties style) on an unexplored island. That would cut about 40 minutes of the movie, and make the storyline more simple. They could also cut 10 minutes of the time on the island. They should also have cut that threesome story with King Kong, Ann Darrow and Adrien Brody's character out of the movie. That was just a waste of time.
The story is very simple, it does not have to be told in 3 hours. 1 and a half hour would do fin, or 2 hours.
When King Kong is smashing airplanes on the Empire State Building i was repeating "KILL THE BIG MONKEY ALREADY" over and over again in my head. And i know many felt the same.
The movie is well made, but it is just simply too long.
Alexander (2004)
Mediocre - could have been a lot better
when i first heard about this movie i was thrilled. It really sounded like it would be one of the greatest movies ever. But when i saw it, i was disappointed.
I will make this as short as possible: this movie did not work very well because Oliver Stone turned a very complex historical character more complex and added a more complex storyline. That is the main flaw of this movie, and why it did not do as well as you could expect.
Alexander the great and his empire and conquest of the world is a very complex historical piece. This would be hard to translate to the cinema. Oliver Stone then adds a very complex childhood and father-mother scenario to the film. In its own, this would be a very cinematic piece. But when it is added to a complex storyline and a complex main character the movie kinda falls apart. The whole part of Alexanders Bisexuality is also a thing Oliver Stone could have toned down or just not included in the story. It combined with all the other complex element makes for a movie, which is not that well suited for cinema. This movie should have been half as long. It should have been centered around the conquest of the world, and not Alexanders bisexuality.
The battle scenes, music and pictures are very beautiful and well made in this movie. This movie could have been so much better, if they had just made a VERY simpler storyline and much simpler characters. Oliver Stone could then just have included the cinematic release on the DVD only, and released a simpler version of the film.
That is my critique. I was disappointed. This should have been an epic war-movie, but it became a weird art-movie instead.
Futurama: Bender's Big Score (2007)
A fine comeback, but not as good as it was
When us Futurama fans first heard of this new line of Futuram-movies, we where thrilled.
The Animation series we loved, brought back to life.
The Beginning of this movie was not like how the original series was like. The beginning of the movie was all about the Futurama-staff being self-righteous about being canceled, and then brought back to life, because Fox wanted some money. Though i didn't like the start of the movie, i accepted it.
The story then brings us to some Aliens who tricks all people into giving them all rights. This leads them to the biggest discovery: that a code for time travel is found on Fry's butt. Then the Story accelerates. Suddenly there are many versions of some of the characters, and the story line gets quite complex. But that is OK, because in the end, that kinda tricks you into not seeing an obvious character being another character.
Honestly i really much of the time travel in the story. The only thing i didn't like was the political aspect of the movie, the pro-Al-Gore-Thing. Not that Al Gore isn't a fine politician, and wouldn't make a better president than the guy who was elected, it just that this movie should also be funny in a few years. And then current political agendas in USA really is not that funny in animation - it is just tragic. But aside from the left-wing element, then i found the rest of the movie to be quite good. But not as good as i had hoped for. But the movie is certainly forth the money i gave for it, and advise all Futurama fans to buy it, but i do hope that the future Futurama Movies will be better. They could make them better by making the story line less complex. But other than that the movie was well made, and i enjoyed it.
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
A fine powerpoint presentation, but it is not a movie
This is the powerpoint presentation that made Al Gore famous again. But that is what it is: a powerpoint presentation. Nothing more. It does not deserve an Oscar or a Nobel peace price.
The main idea behind this "An Inconvenient Truth" is that Global Warming exist, and that it is man-made. Though i think it is OK that Al Gore made this powerpoint presentation, then it is very wrong of him as to claim that it is a scientific fact that Global Warming exist - because it just isn't.
The main pretext for the theory of Global Warming to be true, is that the climate of earth has always been stable, until modern man destroyed the climate with big factories and CO2-emissions. All agree on that.
But the thing is that the Earth climate has never ever been stable. A couple of thousands of years ago the earth was engulfed in an ice age. Before that Ice Age, the earth experienced a hot age - a time when the temperature was way higher than today. This is all scientific fact - go read about it in you local library. Before that "hot age", the earth experienced another ice age. Before that Ice age, the earth experienced yet another hot age, and before that yet yet another ice age.
The pro-global-warming Al-gore fan would then postulate that man-made CO2 was responsible for those ice ages and warm ages. But that just isn't true. Modern Man with all the factories and cars didn't exist back then, and yet Global Warming happened. How does that fit with the Prophet Al Gores theories of that all Global Warming is caused by man? Fact is that the Climate of Earth have been changing from hot temperature to cold temperature all the ages in which earth has existed. The Earth have experienced much warmer weather in the past, when the amount of CO2 was way lower than it is today (research this, it is true). All these amounts of evidence against man made global warming just shows that man made CO2 does not have a significant impact on the climate of earth.
Global Warming happens, but it is not the result of man made CO2. Other factors play in to this scenario as well. Most notable must be the sun and cosmic rays. Do we humans really think that our climate is unaffected by the immense powers of the universe? Hell no! Try to read about this theory. One notable scientist, whose work on this you should read, is Henrik Svensmark. Read some papers by Henrik Svensmark, and you'll find that Global Warming happens, but it is not caused by Carbon-dioxide (CO2), but the cosmos.
It is fine that this "movie" got attention. But why did Al Gore get a Nobel Peace Price??? That is really not good. Peace Prices are given to people that actually MAKES PEACE! The Nobel Peace Price shouldn't be given to the maker of a powerpoint presentation.
World Trade Center (2006)
A fine movie
When i first heard that Oliver Stone was about to make a movie about 9/11, i was horrified. I was afraid that he would turn that into one big conspiracy theory film, like he did with "JFK".
But i was surprised. Oliver Stone did not make a 9/11-movie based on conspiracy theories - Oliver Stone made a 9/11-movie based on reality.
Then about the movie: it can at some point in the story line be a little boring. Especially when the two cops lie in the rubbles of WTC. But the scenes before and after are some of the most intense scenes Oliver Stone have made since the 80ties. You really feel compassion with the wives and families of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno. Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña does a remarkable job by bringing these two characters to life. The whole rescue, the people just turning up at Ground Zero is really portrayed in a very compelling way. I like this movie. I had thought it would be terribly, but i was surprised that it turned out very well.
Its not the best movie ever made, it is not a masterpiece. But i do think it is movie most people would enjoy.
Nissebanden i Grønland (1989)
A fine series
This is what is called a "Christmas calendar" in Denmark. It is a series, which only runs at Christmas. 24 episodes. One episode each day from December 1st to December 24th.
This is "Nissebanden i Grønland", a classic for any Dane who was born in and around the 1980ties. Its all about this gang of "nisser" (a form of leprechauns or Santa's elves), who have to travel to Greenland. Its also about a mystery of a fallen star, which can give the owner magic powers.
The episodes aren't that well written. Its things you have seen in so many other series before. The same moral-lecture.
But it still funny to watch, at least for nostalgic value. Its all in all a very fine series. But nothing more.
Zeitgeist (2007)
It's just not true
This movie Zeitgeist has very quickly had a fanatically following on the internet. The people who believe in it feel that they have shared a discovery of some big secret. A secret that tells us, that all religions in the world are part of some massive conspiracy, for some people to rule the world. Sounds like a book by Dan Brown. And actually this whole movie is much like the world of Dan Brown, where facts and fiction are often the same.
Do you people really think it is possible for this ONE person who made this person, to have discovered this secret, while all the millions of religion-scholars (past and present) who research religion daily have overlooked it for thousands of years? Do you really think one person without an education as a scholar in religion to have found a secret where millions of scholars, priests and imams have overlooked the obvious? Of course not.
This movie is false. I am an atheist, so I should believe in this, because it tells that all religions are false. But the movie is just like Dan Browns "The Da Vinci Code" full of conspiracy theories that people would like to believe in. But like "The Da Vinci Code", Zeitgeist is also just based on undocumented conspiracy theories and brainless speculations. Just because one religion shares some traits or numbers of some "gods" or "prophets" does NOT mean that they are part of some conspiracy to control the masses. Use your own thinking. If you manipulate facts long enough, and take enough facts about the given religion out of context, then of course you'll find a connection. I could also by using the same methods of Zeitgeist, find that Harry potter is part of some Babylonian religion, along with Ghostbusters. But that doesn't mean it's real. If you look long enough then you will find connections, but connection that were never there, and are only coincidental. Just because the number 12 is found to be holy in many religions, does not mean that they are all part of some conspiracy. Stop the paranoia!
Why do you people always think that all things happen for a reason? They seldom do. Just because Religions emerge doesn't mean that they are part of some conspiracy. Just because idiotic wars happen, doesn't mean it is part of some grander plan and conspiracy.
People simply just want to believe in conspiracy theories, it's a new religion. This movie is just the latest book in the conspiracy theorists bible. Evidently pure logic can debunk all the false claims of this so called documentary. And just to mention it again: this movie is just made by a single person, an amateur. It is simply not creditable that he can research and prove things that thousands of people that worked with the same things for countless of years cannot acknowledge.
Stop the paranoia. Stop believing in documentary-films, just because you can find them on the internet.
Loose Change: Final Cut (2007)
It has been debunked
The movie Loose change tries to prove that George Bush planned 9/11. But all the claims in this movie have been debunked. Sorry fantasy-lovers, there is no conspiracy about 9/11. This movie has been debunked by Popular mechanics, BBC, History Channel and many others. Let me mention some of them.
Dylan Avery (director of Loose Change) claims that airplanes could not have brought down the WTC. Avery claims that controlled demolition brought down the towers. But this is simply not true. It is true that fire from airplane fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steel of the World Trade Center. But that is not a valid claim. Any Structural engineer would tell you that fire does not have to melt steel, to make the building collapse. It only has to weaken the steel so much, that the building gives in, and collapses. Steel weakens and losses half its strength at 600 degrees Celsius. Fire from Jet-fuel burn at 1000 degrees Celsius do your own math, of course that building collapsed because of the fire from jet-fuel. It burned even hotter than the 1000 degrees Celsius, because the fire also consumed plastics, paper and wood, so that the fire got even hotter. All the metal-cabinets and other metal in the building melted from the intense heat, which resulted in the melted steel you see in some footage. Also: if explosives where used, then they would have been registered in the seismic recorders in the city but they weren't, because no explosives where used. That been debunked, next myth.
The movie Loose change very arrogantly claims that all calls made from the airplanes used by terrorists on 9/11, all where faked by the Government, using voice-modulators. This claim not only insults the people who lost loved ones on the airplanes, but it is also a false claim. Dylan Avery Claims that, Cellular Phones in 2001 could not possibly have made such calls from that altitude, thereby "proving" a government conspiracy. But the thing is that almost all calls made from the airplanes on 9/11 where all made from air-phones, NOT Cellular Phones. Dylan Avery either is too incompetent to mention this fact, or he deliberately lied about it. Air-phones are connected by wire to the airplanes communication which is reliable. That is one of the main claims of Loose Change, and yet it is so easily debunked. The few calls, from cell-phones, that were made, where also very quickly cut off. And anyone who believes this cell-phone theory really lacks common sense: if the government had planned all that, and did modulate the victims' voices, then the Government would have had to spy on the victims, for weeks before 9/11 - to get their voices recorded. The Government also had to use really good actors to listen and play the victims over the voice-modulators, because a family-member would know, if the family member on the airplane did not use the same manner of speaking as before 9/11. This voice-modulating conspiracy theory is simply so stupid and false, that I can't understand why people would believe such nonsense. But then again: people do like X-files. That been debunked, next myth.
Another claim of Loose change is that World Trade Center 7 was also brought down by explosives. The reason that this conspiracy theory exist, is that a TV-station filmed WTC7 collapsing from a great distance. From a great distance it actually looks like a controlled demolition, but it just weren't. Loose Change claims that WTC7 was used by CIA as a control-centre or bunker, to control 9/11-attacks on New York. And that the Government afterwards destroyed WTC7 to cover up its involvement. This is the most stupid claim ever made by any conspiracy theorists. If the government did have a control-centre in WTC7, then it would be really stupid, no: RETARDED, to blow up the building in front of the world. Any commander in the world world not blow something like WTC7 in front of the world, when you had just carried out the biggest terror attack in history you had just gotten away with it, the most stupid thing you could do was to blow up the building. If there was something in WTC7 that could prove a Government conspiracy, then they would just simply remove it. Also: WTC7 was on FIRE. It was hit by debris from when WTC1 and WTC2 fell. There are tones of photos that show WTC7 on fire. Also: almost all of the buildings around WTC1+2 where damaged on 9/11. Almost all of them where removed or was destroyed. WTC7 was not destroyed by CIA.
Stop spreading these false conspiracy claims. They have all been debunked by big media-concerns like BBC, History Channel and Popular Mechanics. Also Tieck out: 911myths.com and loosechangeguide.com There is no conspiracy about 9/11 get on with your lives!
Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001)
No one knows the real facts!
The fact is that USA DID go to the moon. Why: USA brought back moon-rocks. That is hundreds of pounds of rocks from the moon. And it is a fact that they all did not come from the moon: they all came from the same planet. This is because the internal isotopes of basic elements of the rocks are of a kind that could NOT have been created by the earths crust. Seriously: don't you CT's read, go to college and ask your professors?? I do. These rocks could not have come from Meteors, because they are of the same material and have no signs of recently been burned. All these rocks have after wards been distributed all over the world, for all sorts of independent scientists to have made analysts on them. Thousands of scientists, who all came to the same conclusion that they all came from the moon. So it is very unlikely that the Apollo-missions where faked. Because there is no other way NASA could have got hold of so many Moon-rocks. Prope-mission would only bring back too little, and people know what mission that every single rocket is sent to do. NASA landed on the Moon - deal with it.
Also: if the Americans faked the moon-landing, then why didn't the Russians reveal it?? That is the point that reveals that CT's don't think out of the box. They all make it seem that all things only happens in USA. But as a European i have a different perspective. Before every single launch into space, all space-agencies have to tell the military of the opposing site that it is not a missile fired against them. Because the Apollo-rocket would have the Radar-signature of a ICBM on the Russians Radar-screen. And here is the thing that reveals no moon hoax: The Russians monitored that a Rocket fired from USA, fired out of the Earths atmosphere, left the earth, and a smaller craft came back some days after. The same happened with all the missions. If the Apollo missions where faked, why didn't the Russians reveal it to the world?? It was the Cold War, for Petes sake!
Also: there were reporters in NASA's control-center, during the mission. The Astronauts did speak with the NASA-controllers Live, and did things live. Reports have said this since. So it could not have been a tape.
PS: Do you know how many people should have been involved in such a conspiracy?? Thousands!
Loose Change: Second Edition (2005)
Conspiracy Theorists live in denial
Most of these 9/11-Conspiracy Theorists think that USA, Jews or India planned 9/11, to blame it on the Muslims - do harm Islam, or to start a "war on Terror" (to get more power and oil). What a great idea.... for a movie. Because it would be a great plan, if it could be executed without anyone knowing.
9/11 happened, and the conspiracy theories was there - from the start. Many conspiracy theorists believed that USA or others planned 9/11, even though they had not examined the subject - it was their prejudge, that USA or Jews are behind every bad thing happening in human history, from the biblical-flood, to the plague in the middle-ages to finally 9/11.
The thing is that conspiracy theories WANTS Jews or USA to be the one responsible - and they fit one-sided facts and witness-testimony into their theory.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are not scientific of nature - but political.
Conspiracy theorists, when they are making their conspiracy theory, starts with the conclusion and then works his or her way from there. What ever fact nearly fits the theory are made to fit, no matter how much they have to manipulate.
Conspiracy theorists would never exist if they wanted to listen to people, beyond themselves. Conspiracy theorists only believe in them selves, or kindred spirits, they are like religious fanatics. They don't want to listen to other people.
These 9/11-Conspiracy Theories all have logical explanations. If only the Conspiracy theorists had the brains or will to do their own research, and listen to other people. There is a logical explanation for all the 9/11-Conspiracy theories. Just look here: 911myths.com But I know that 9/11-Conspiracy theorists will never look at the site, only because they want to keep their prejudges that Americans or Jews are behind every evil act in the history of the world, including 9/11.
About 9/11:
If USA planned 9/11, then why haven't a single person from the Police, Fire fighters, NSA-, FBI, CIA, Military, Air-traffic-control-people, most of the house of representatives, demolition-experts, Scientists, rescue-workers and the whole Bush-administration squealed and told the world about the largest mass-murder in modern American History? Why haven't someone revealed this great secret? Because an attack of that magnitude, on its own soil, would involve thousands of the governments own people, and these conspiracy theorists tell us that all these thousands of people had no ethical-problems with keeping the secret of this mass-murder.... Conspiracy theorists live in a fantasy-world.
USA did not plan 9/11, all logic and reason speaks against it.
Also, if the USA planned it, then why did they use 19 men from Saudi-Arabia??? Would it not be more clever to use 19 Iraqies, Iranians, Afghans or maybe even North-Koreans as patsies??? If people from Iraq would had been in the airplanes 9/11, then the "war on terror" would have been more easy to justify. And if this USA-Shadow-Government planned 9/11, then they would not have used 19 Saudies.
USA, Jews or India did NOT plan 9/11, get over your childhood-fantasies conspiracy-theorists!
Sane people, please click onto this site, it will answer all questions about the 9/11-conspiracy theories:
911myths.com
Flash Gordon (1979)
Good, really good. And I'm NOT a fan of Flash Gordon
When I was a kid there was not many animated shows on Danish TV (I.E. I am from Denmark). The only thing that was on, was classic Tom and Jerry, Disney and Scooby-Doo. And ever since I saw those animated shows, i've been in love with animation - but I never could seem to get enough.
Then suddenly I was at the supermarket "Bilka" in the city of Aalborg, there me and my bigger-brother received a VHS-tape of "The New Animated Adventures of Flash Gordon". We got home an watched it. And I was amazed.
The start of the series was so cool and intriguing. It started with the classical score/music of the beginning....... Man - I can still remember the theme in my head. The animation is so classy in this animation-show. It is really good. The creators of the show have also done so much out of the music and sound of the story. The sound-scapes was on of the best at the times. The story was so imaginative and well-told. The art-work of Mongo (I.E. the planet the story takes place on) is so vividly drawn, thought-of and animated. I can't give this show enough phrase. It is SO good.
If I have not seen it back then, and saw it today, then I would probably give it 8 out of 10.
But I saw it back then, so for nostalgic reasons, I have to give it 10 out of 10 - Nuff said.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001)
All conspiracy-theorists are in denial
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.
And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.
But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
911: The Road to Tyranny (2002)
In few words: Very poor workmanship
I finally got around seeing Alex Jones 911: The Road to Tyranny, which a left-winged friend of mine, told me was very revealing. This left-winged friend of mine, I must tell you also believes in UFO's and that CIA created LSD and AIDS to get rid of opponents but he is a great guy none the less. The first 30 minutes of" 911: The Road to Tyranny" I was appalled. I really believed in the so-called facts of the documentary. But the documentary quickly fell apart after that. I have never seen a so bias a filmmaker as Alex Jones was in this documentary. Alex Jones carefully chooses the evidence and totally ignores all the tonnes of evidence that speak against his own cause. Further more: all the so called "evidence" can easily be read in another fashion that is: his entire conclusion can very easily have been misread, because it is based on very few and very easily disputed evidence. This "documentary" is just too political, to be considered neutral or have anything to do with the truth. Alex Jones is simply way too bias in his theories and the way he work. Alex Jones deliberately ignores and lies about certain facts about all facts that just in a small way could compromise his political statements against George Bush and USA. The rest of the documentary is very laughable Alex Jones does time and time again deny undeniable facts, over and over again, very low-quality job you could say. Alex Jones have taken the few small things that could support your theory, and then you twisted them in a very political way, to fit your own theory People like Alex Jones are ruining the unwritten rules about documentaries should be neutral and non-political. I will never trust a documentary again: thank you Mr. Jones, thank very much for ruining a good and until now neutral genre. I personally respect Michael Moore and his documentaries they are at least bound in reality.
I can sum this political "documentary" up in a few words: Very poor workmanship.
Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove (2000)
Very bad documentary good fantasy story
Once again Alex Jones has shown that he does not live in reality. Once again Alex Jones shows his discontent with everyone who does not have the same opinion as him. In this "documentary" (though it is not a documentary, it is in fact fiction) Alex Jones accuses the top Men in America of being part of ancient cults who are trying to rule the world. Never have I heard anything so laughable, besides in fiction, therefore this must be fiction - it was simply classified wrongly as a documentary. It can only be fiction because none of the so called "evidence" is believable. Throughout the whole "documentary" I thought it was fiction. But Alex Jones kept saying that it was fact then it dawned to me: Alex Jones meant it, he thinks it is real. First I laughed, then I got afraid, cause what if people actually believe in such lies, and then I saw that people on this fabulous site actually believes in all his documentaries, and I screamed as high as I could. But then finally it dawned to me: the people that watch his documentaries are the people like "Fox Mulder" in the TV-series "X-Files" - they want to believe and then I said to my self: "Ok, good for them". It is not my role to take people that believe in Alex Jones' documentaries out of their fantasy-world. The world is what you make of it. And if you want to believe the lies that an evil cult is taking over the world, then it is fine with me, if it makes you happy then live in the fantasy-world of Alex Jones.
But as a documentary it is poorly made, and it is "documentaries" like this that are ruining the notion that documentaries should not be bias. But it was fun to watch, as long as kept you head in the reel world.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Great entertainment though it is not a documentary
First of all let's get it on paper: Bush weren't the cleverest president the USA has seen. Bush is not the most popular president in the history of the USA (actually he must be the first President to have been elected with minus votes). And the war in Iraq maybe wasn't as just as first thought (let's face it: Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction). The 3 point above Michael Moore looks on pretty fine. But after that the documentary just evolves into a hate campaign against George Bush.
Between the lines Michael Moore says that George Bush more or less planned or knew of which is a lie. Let me present the evidence; let's first go back in history. In the 1970ties president Nixon had to resign because he ordered his people to break into the democrats' headquarters in the Watergate hotel in Washington DC (the so-called Watergate-scandal). It took a single man to bring down Nixon (deep throat). Nixon fell because of a burglary then think of it: Bush should, if Michael Moore is right (which he isn't), have planned or known of 9/11. Logically Bush didn't do any of these things, and neither did any the American Government. That would have been exposed very quickly THAT IS A FACT. Al Quaida planned 9/11, and Al Quaida planned it alone, that is a fact. If you believe that Bush or some one other in the US-Government planned 9/11 you must logically also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot and that Elvis lives that is a fact. Michael Moore insinuates that Bush and Osama Bin Laden worked together: Because CIA helped Al Quaida, Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to beat the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980ties. Michael Moore does more or less say that because they worked together against the Russians, then they must logically still work together (feel free to laugh at Michael Moore's lack of intelligence). Let me give all you people an historical example that it is a stupid theory: in the star of the Second World War the Russians and Germans worked together: they developed tanks and tactics together at the Russian tank-school at Kazan, Russia. Later they worked together to smash Poland, and do war crimes together. Then suddenly in 1941 Germany attacked Russia, in operation Barberrosa. Germany smashed most of Russia until 1942/43, when the German 6th army was defeated at Stalingrad. Then Russia went on the offensive and destroyed most of Germany until they captured Berlin in 1945. If you believe in the rhetoric of Michael Moore's documentary the Germans and Russians had planned all this. Look how illogically this entire thing about Bush planning 9/11 sounds? It is a lie. Only unintelligent people believe in what Michael Moore says, that is an undeniable fact!! Now that we have proved that Moore is wrong in most of his political bashing against the Bush-administration, let us move on in the film. When he wants to make the political point the US-army is bad and its soldier are stupid, and its leaders stupid he uses a good, and well proved, propaganda technique. He interviews the most stupid American soldiers (and you can see that Moore (or some one else) have made the soldiers say it) and then clips it together with gore footage of blown up, and probably, innocent Iraqi civilians (mostly women and children). With that Moore draws a contrast between the evil and dump US-soldiers and the weak and innocent Iraqis Michael would have had a great career in the 1930ties Nazi Germany (his propaganda is very well made). Then he moves on in his bashing of Bush. He interviews some journalist or self claimed expert on Afghanistan. Michael Moore asks him how long it took for the US-army to come to Afghanistan after 9/11 it a little under or over a month for the regular army to take over Afghanistan. And then the two men agree that if they were president they would be in Afghanistan within a few hours. In that moment the whole documentary fell apart. Michael Moore reveals that he doesn't know anything about military tactics. The whole strategy about Afghanistan was NOT to just jump right into Afghanistan by then getting the whole country against the USA. Secondly it was also a Special Forces war THAT IS A FACT. All the Special Forces linked up with the northern alliance (who did fight against the Taliban), to fight the Taliban, and let the Afghans them selves fight and take over the country. Thirdly: it takes time to organize the Army, the Air Force and the Navy to make a strike and invade a country on the other side of the world. Fourthly: it also took time to secure all the diplomacy. Michael Moore ignores all these FACTS deliberately he knows that they did all they could to destroy Al Quaida and capture Osama Bin Laden, of course he does. Moore ignores all the evidence just to bash all that Bush stands for. He lies deliberately to discriminate his political adversary (Bush), like Joseph Goebbels did in Germany in the 1930ties. Michael Moore chooses the evidence that fit his theory, and then he ignores all the piles of evidence that speak against his bashing of Bush.
But I must say that it is a very entertaining movie though it is not a documentary. It is not a documentary that is a fact. Fahrenheit 9/11 should not be labelled as a "documentary" but as a funny and political bashing of President Bush.
My advice: watch it and laugh, just don't believe in anything it says.
Le monde selon Bush (2004)
Poorly made documentary
This so-called documentary, if you can call it that, is named: "Monde selon Bush, Le". This documentary is nothing but boring facts/lies and accusations against the American Presidint George W. Bush. The french director of this so-called "documentary", had an opinion about Bush before he made the documentary. The the French director chose facts and lies to fit his own opinion about Bush - the reel facts, that supported Bush was of course erased from this "documentary", because it did not fit in the french director's political agenda. The evidence about Bush not winning the 2000 election is justified in this documentary (Kerry's 500,000 more votes than Bush is hard to look away from), but after that the so-called "documentary" falls apart. The so-called facts (which I personally really do not believe in) are ludicrous. For example the so-called "facts" about Bush's father (former President) and his grandfather's connections with Nazi Germany are just SO laughable and laughable, that I think I became dumber just by listening to it. The whole "documentary" is wrong and ludicrous. And you can clearly see that the French director has an political opinion (he hates Bush). This is not a documentary, it is just pure hate and political propaganda against Bush - no more, no less.
Other than that the documentary is poorly made in comparison to reel documentaries like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 - which is a well made political documentary.
All in all: Don't watch this poor workmanship.
1 out of 10 - Nuff said.
Varn!ng för Jönssonligan (1981)
A good Swedish movie
This is a good Swedish movie - though it is based on a Danish movie. But to put it into perspective we have to go back in film-history: In 1968 Erik Balling and Henning Bahs created the Danish Classic Olsen-Banden (which Varning för Jönssonligan is loosely based on). The movie became a very big success. It became such a big success, that the Norwegians copied the movie in 1969, and claimed it as their own creation - even though they had not created it, Erik Balling and Henning Bahs had come up with the story. But as always the Norwegians nationalism kicked in and took the honour - even though you can see on this wonderful site that Erik Balling and Henning Bahs have credit for coming up with the story, which the Norwegians tend to forget. The Danish original and propably also the Norwegian copy Olsen-banden became such a success that Sweden wanted a Olsen-banden of their own. The Swedes contacted Erik Balling and Henning Bahs and they came up with some stories for the Swedes - which from they could create Jönssonligan. But unlike the Norwegian copy of the Danish creation, the Swedes made Jönssonligan more different and more Swedish - which I like. In 1981 the first Jönssonliga-movie came: Varning för Jönssonligan. And that was good, and it was very different than the Danish one - though the Danes Erik Balling and Henning Bahs came up with the story. The Swedes managed to twist the movie-mythology in their own good way.
Like it.
8/10 - Nuff Said.
Olsen-banden overgiver sig aldrig (1979)
My favorite Olsen-banden movie
My all time favorite Olsen-banden movie: Olsen-banden overgiver sig aldrig (1979). This Olsen-banden movie was always different. The movie starts out the same way as all the others; Egon gets released from the Prison in Vridsløse. He has a plan to steal some money from some rich people. Benny is enthusiastic about the idea. Keld is not, because his wife (Yvonne) does not like. But the manage to manipulate her to accept and embrace the plan. On this first half of the movie, Olsen-banden overgiver sig aldrig looks like almost any other of the 14 Olsen-banden movies. But now the similarities ends. Now the Olsen-bande is going to Europa-parlament to steal their money back. The second half really is good. But as all Olsen-banden film, the gang gets scammed as always. They have to travel back to Denmark. There they have to steal the money from a meeting of ministers of Europa. To do this, the gang steals a m-41 walker bulldog tank from the Danish army, and rolls it up to the meeting, steals the money, and gets away. Though the gang never wins in the end, the finale of the movie really is good - bringing a tank into the movie really was a surprise, a good surprise. That is one of the most memorable finales in all of the Olsen-banden movies. If your are Danish: watch this movie. 8/10 - Nuff said.
Flåklypa Grand Prix (1975)
It is Norwegian when it is best
This is the best and most original piece of pop-culture from Norway ever. I love this movie. It is unique. It is a doll-movie. The motor-race in the movie is really good and well filmed. The dolls are well-made and filmed very well - with stop-motion. All the inventions and mechanics in the film are very good designed.
It is a work of genius - I love it.
The whole start is good. The music in the start starts it all.
If you are from Scandinavia: watch it.
If you are from the rest of the world: also watch it.
I love this Norwegian film WATCH IT
10/10 - Nuff said.
Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (2005)
It's all about hate-mongering or money
This is an awful and appalling "documentary". The so-called director of this "documentary" does not have a neutral standpoint about America. If this should be a documentary, the so-called director - whatever his name is - already made up his mind before he began researching. That is not how you make a documentary. Therefore this "documentary" is not an documentary at all, and should be classified as a comedy instead. It is fine to question George Bush's motives. But to grasp the most implausible conspiracy theory and claim that they are a fact, is false and dump - even though the so-called director has no proof of anything in this so-called "documentary". The conspiracy theory in this "documentary" is as plausible and believable as theories like man didn't land on the moon and that Elvis Lives. If you want the truth, then first read some of George Bush press material, then see some of Michael Moore's documentaries (which are documentaries). Then make up your own mind - not listen to the nonsense of this "documentary". This "documentary" is so flawed, that there is only one explanation to it: Money. The so-called director of this "documentary" must have recognised that there are a lot of creepy people out there, who are prepared to believe anything. He must have seen a market for all the spooky-Mulder's out there. Therefore the director is either a dump Anti-American and a hate-monger or a very clever businessman.
Les mercredis de l'histoire: CIA: Guerres secrètes (2003)
This is in its simplicity: anti-Americanism
The director of this so-called documentary has a long history of being anti-American and anti-Bush. Not that there is something wrong with that, as long as it is well-documented. In this French director's documentary about the moon-landing (operation lune), he used a lot of manipulation to make it look like the Americans faked the moon landing. I don't know if they did this, but the French director didn't prove anything - he used actors to play ex-CIA-agents, government officials and alike, and he used these to say that USA faked the moon landings and killed all people who knew about it. Then this French director supposedly "proved" this by having well-known politicians, from that time, admit it. This was politicians like Richard Helms and Donald Rumsfeld. But the French director of that and this documentary lied: he feed the politicians different questions, and used there answer on a different question. It is pure manipulation. This French director also used this technique on this documentary. The French director says he does this in the name of justice, but he lies: it is in the name of anti-Americanism - that is a FACT. There is nothing wrong in proving CIA and George Bush's guilt: Michael Moore has done so in a respective way - this French director has not.
Don't watch it.