12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Irresistible (2006)
Nothing new to see here - move along, please.
25 October 2010
If this movie would have been made 20-30 years ago, it would probably have been received pretty well.

Problem is, this is 2010 and for the last 20 years, the Americans have been spitting out these classic thrillers with such haste that the development of new ideas can't seem to keep up. This movie is Australian, but that's no excuse to copy a bad Hollywood trend - especially not when you've convinced otherwise solid actors to participate.

Everything in this production screams a lack of originality. The beginning with Sophie being a bit off is the only part, which is a bit interesting until 15mins in, the movie turns into the exact same thriller we've seen before. I would have mentioned a bunch of examples, but they slip out of my mind as soon as I leave the cinema or stop the DVD player.

Alright for a TV-thriller and halfway entertaining if nothing else is on and the internet is dead, but absolutely not good enough for a DVD/cinema release.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Circle of Pain (2010 Video)
90 minutes of pain
18 June 2010
I was allowed to screen this, and I don't consider that a privilege.

This movie is as bad as fighting movies comes; yes, even worse than Dead or Alive.

Standard plot. A righteous hero with personal problems, who is forced to fight and must regain all his past skills by training and fighting scrubs before stepping into the ring against the evil guy at the end. Of course his trainers are his best friend and an old dude.

Horrible acting. The actors and lines are better in most soaps. It's hard to say if it's the script or the actors, since both is really really bad. Horrible writing combined with terrible actors doesn't exactly create Oscar winning dialog.

Towards the end, we get some soft-core pornography without any context at all. Normally a sex scene adds to the plot or story of the film or its characters. These just seem like they were forced in there because fans of action movies expect it or because the producers had to fill in some blank tape ("hey we got 10 minutes to fill, why don't you fool around a bit and we put it in somewhere?").

The fighting? I didn't care much for it, but then again, I'm not a martial arts fan. With characters this badly written and actors not doing a great job, I lost most interest in whoever would win the various fights, and a small bit of me hoped that they would all loose. That would at least give the movie a moral of fighting being uncool.

It gets two stars since I remember having seen a worse movie - I just can't remember which. As entertaining as getting drop kicked.
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
6 June 2010
A few days ago, I chose to see this without knowing what it was about. I generally just thought that I was in for a regular Jim Carrey movie, but boy, was I surprised.

The heart of this movie is bursting out through its light and enjoyable exterior. Steven Jay Russell (Jim Carrey) is amazingly charming, dedicated and - in a way - honest. He cheats, steals and cons his way through the movie, but his only goal and purpose is to be together with his newfound true love. What can be more honest and righteous than that? A funny movie, which never gets dumb. To create intelligent jokes with Jim Carrey in the main role playing a weird character might sound impossible, but it works. He does a perfect job and the support of the sensitive and naive Phillip Morris (Even McGregor) tops it all off.

The fact that the the love story is between two men is never really focused upon, which makes it seem so natural and believable. In most movies centered around a gay love affair/relationship, the problems of being gay is the center, but not here. Here, it is merely a love between two guys, just like it is for so many people around the world, and it is never portrayed awkwardly or used to create conflicts for the characters.

This movie must be one of the most overlooked movies compared to its grand quality. Brilliant!
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Robin Hood (2010)
From great to mediocre to terrible
16 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the first half, enjoyed the next fourth and shook my head in disbelief the last fourth of the movie.

The story of an England in peril, the portray of the northern barons who both feel alienated and abused by the king is really well made. It's a great and interesting take on how England (and most of Europe) was around 1200. The beginning siege of the small, French castle supports this with it's feel of everyday life as fighting, eating and drinking. The story of Robin hustling himself to knighthood and a handful of riches is great too, it gives the tale a new, interesting spin. The character of Lady Marian fits the new tale very well, and I like her older portray as well as her blind father. Basically most of the actors are doing a great job, and where they aren't, I would more likely blame the writers and Ridley Scott.

A general mistake of the movie in my opinion is that the scenes are simply too small to be believable. In Nottingham we never really see anything else than Marian's home and the town center. At the castle siege at the beginning, it seems like a very small setup too, and we never really see a huge, English army. Just as the beach battle at the end seems very small compared to it being the epic clash of the movie. We don't really see any huge scenes of proper proportions of London, which could have been great. We mostly see the inside of Tower, the courtyard and Robin delivering the crown to the queen.

The movie starts taking a bad turn when Godfried - the new evil servant of John - starts harassing northern England with his 200 Frenchmen. The character Godfried would fit better in a Jean Claude van Damme type of movie and the whole happening of him tossing about northern England in ten minutes of film makes it a bit hastened. England was covered in woods and northern England wasn't easy to get around in. All in a days work, aye? This haste of story line seems to go on for most of the rest of the movie and destroys the interesting political plot and serious portray of an England in ruins. References to the original story have also been forced in so they seem a bit out of place (i.e. the Sheriff of Nottingham has no role other than being nasty to Marian and get beaten by the French).

A last mention would be the long list of history inaccurate things. To mention a few: The costumes Robin and Marian wears when inspecting the town is more like 1600+ outfits. Prince (king) John claims to be appointed by God in the end of the movie, but the Diving Rights of Kings weren't introduced in the 1200. The beach battle; rascals on ponies using sticks to fight down veteran French soldiers, Robin wielding an anti-plate armor hammer while no one bothered to bring any plate armor, the French vessels (!!!), the tactics of charing down to the beach instead of shooting down the French, the French not scouting the area first (what happened to the guys lighting fires on the beach?) and so forth...

My guess is that Ridley Scott were cutting the movie together and saw that the only really good part was the beginning and desperately chose to stretch it to the first half of the movie. In my humble opinion, the movie went from a 10 in the first half to a 6 when the story started rushing and to a solid 2 during the beach battle.

Too bad, the movie had potential.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
4 January 2010
Romantic dramas tend to be very long and kinda dull. I came across the outlines, which was basically : "someone time travels unwillingly and the movie focuses on the effects it has one his daily life and relationship with his wife". This sounded so weird that I just had to see it.

The story is so heartfelt and touching with it's realism in the odd plot of Henry time traveling. The strong and sensitive Henry and his dreamy, artistic wife are both played perfectly.

What really took me away is that you don't really get to see much of Henry's time traveling. It's hardly even important where he goes, and I'm sure he most have experienced a bunch of stuff that would make for some action-packed breaks in the movie. But they're not included as they're not important to Henry's world and the core story: the relationship and Henry's family life. Time travel is such a huge plot to put in a movie, but they've managed to keep it as a mere side dish. Brilliant!

Watch this if you feel emotional and/or need to have a little cry.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Misfits (2009–2013)
Go Britania, Go!
21 December 2009
Brilliant! People seem to refer to Heroes when talking/writing about Misfits. This isn't valid as Heroes is a very different series. Misfits is about some ordinary late-teenagers getting super powers - Heroes is about Hollywood characters receiving superpowers and saving the world by being superheroes.

The storyline of Misfits is twisted and clouded. Until now no one seems to be using their powers for anything weird and they still do their community service. I like that. They're not suddenly super heroes and nothing fancy is going on.

The more I see of British "telly", the more I love it. The budget is smaller, the realism is more important and the various series seem to be shorter with focus on quality instead of ability to survive a buck load of seasons. Go Britania, go! As the Brits would say: SPOT ON!
100 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rich Kids (2007)
Awful acting, untrustworthy story, but entertaining
18 December 2009
This is a weird movie. Some of it is good and some is utter terrible.

Good Stuff: The halfway documentary style with the fake interviews is great. Makes the story much more believable and realistic. I also likes the flash backs and how it slowly tells the world of the young people in the movie instead of having a steady flow.

Bad Stuff: The acting is really horrible at some points. I'm not going to be the one to tell if the director or actors are to blame, but something went wrong. Another bad aspect of the movie is that this isn't believable at all. This is NOT how the world works, and NOT how the young people at Charlottenlund live their lives. Maybe they want to because some people are empty shells of young adults when they're 20, and especially north of Copenhagen, where this is supposed to be happening.

All in all an OK movie. If you can get passed the terrible acting by some of the people in it (like half of the main cast and most of the supporting actors), you'l probably enjoy it. However, if you haven't seen Kids, watch that instead. It's ten times better and much more realistic. However, it's about poor teenagers and not these over-class people.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Seen before story, but still a funny and sweet story
11 November 2009
A fun comedy that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The story itself is a very classic fairytale of someone who is at the bottom of the social list, but suddenly gets all that he/she wants. It's seen before and not a very creative storyline; however Ricky Gervais has put in a lot of creativity.

Ricky Gervais is perfect in this role, but he's a little too comfortable in the lovable looser role with deep insights to his surroundings. His three big hits as a main character after The Office has been almost the excact same character: Extras, Ghost Town and The Invention of Lying. He does it perfectly and with a Babel tower of charm, but it would be nice to see him in a different role.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie, regardless of it's flaws. It has a very mellow and calm mood, which works very well.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
According to Jim (2001–2009)
Selfish deadbeats aren't funny
28 September 2009
All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.

And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.

The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.
23 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hope & Faith (2003–2006)
This degenerates American comedy
23 May 2009
Writing and acting of this quality belongs inside Pandora's box. The jokes are as bad and clean as on Full House, and the setup for them is so fake it hurts watching. People might like the goofy Kelly Ripa as Faith Fairchild character, but honestly, it hurts to watch middle aged women act like stupid children in order to make them seem funny. Her sister, the responsible one, isn't any better. She exemplifies the type of woman, who've never realized who she is, and never achieved any of her dreams expect the one of a house, a husband and some children. What a sad example of role models.

Parring up a stupid and a boring person doesn't really make great comedy - it's just an easy way out for a lot of boring morales without impact and for a bit of lazy attempts at slapstick comedy. All seen before a long time ago.

America; you've brought some good comedy to the world, but when you make things like this, you really start lacking behind the European countries. Please don't export more of this, just keep it to yourselves.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good and comfortable scifi/action movie
21 May 2009
The colours and scenes are surprisingly good with high depth on the blue and red colours, while the rest is in almost an old brownish black/white theme. This tends to look a bit like a Sin City kind of theme from time to time, and even though some of the backgrounds are as fake as Paris Hilton, it makes it look good. Considering the budget; the effects, lighting, editing, etc. was highly above what could be expected.

The plot and story is nearly non-existing, but honestly they're only there to entertain and for the heroes to have a purpose. This works out alright, since the movie isn't trying to become more than it is. Could have been cool with a bit of twist, though.

Acting is mediocre, but more isn't really needed in an action/scifi movie like this one, and it's acceptable for our archetype heroes and heroins.

All in all an entertaining movie, but don't expect a deep story or fancy morality. It is what it is.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tumbleweeds (1999)
Predictable and uninteresting
3 August 2008
This is one of the most predictable movies I have ever seen. From the first time we meet each character everyone who have just seen a couple of dramas before this one, will be able to tell their exact part of the story, and why the character is in it. The story itself is so classic and worn out that it almost hurts. Again, you can foretell everything in it - nothing new here at all, not even a new type of character or interesting side plot.

I guess the movie's audience is housewives in souther USA, and it might hit that target group pretty well. But to all others: Stay away, you got better things to spend the time on.

A waste of time, and I guess I can only blame myself for watching the whole thing because I was too lazy to put on a DVD instead.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

Recently Viewed