kss-3 Reviews

Robin Hood (2006–2009)

Poor acting or a children's series?

[2/10 · 28 January 2015]

For a BBC production I was surprised at the poor acting in this series. I watched the first 13 episodes, more to please the rest of the family than anything else really. Then I thought that maybe the intention of the directors here was to make a TV series for children.

Maybe the over-dramatic sheriff finds some interest among this group of viewers. Other roles too were more clichés, full of over-play, fake expressions, more so than anything else. Somehow I also believe the actors were not fully to blame here, for example Richard Arimitage has shown he's a good actor, for example in "Spookes".

Watching this series made me think about what children like to watch. I also saw that many of the actors were young. Maybe that is another "quality" for children. I cannot understand that this series appeals to those over 18, or maybe someone can enlighten me on this issue.

The Ascent of Money (2008– )

More critique expected

[2/10 · 9 November 2014]

Ferguson is good, very good at times. I have read several of his books and now I just watched this 6 episode TV series, "The Ascent of Money". There has been good and longer reviews in the NY Times and Guardian newspapers. Here are just some quick critical points:

1. You get the impression that all economic inventions (Smith, Law, Mattesson etc.) come from Scotland, which is at least somewhat of an exaggeration (Ferguson's home country)

2. Ferguson gives much time to one economist, Milton Friedman, but without much critique. Maybe he should not have worked for Pinochet, but in the long run it was good, Ferguson concludes. Allende is presented as a bad economist, a simple Marxist, nothing about US involvement in the coup.

3. There is no "too big to fail", no critique of the big banks, no critique of how banks control American politics through donations. George Soros get criticized, as a representative of Hedge Funds, but that is it.

4. Ferguson is jumping back and forth without reaching convincing conclusions in each part. Ex. The jump from history of money to insurance.

5. The presentation of the history of the welfare state is strange to say the least, grabbing on to one example, the Japanese, without discussion or even mentioning the start in Germany of the spread to Scandinavia.

6. You get the impression Ferguson is too fond of the wealthy, ex. Ken Griffin. In interviews with them we are very far away from "Hard Talk".

7. It is "the market which has gone mad" not individuals, not manipulators, not bad companies, with one exception, Enron. You get the impression Ferguson only attacks those who already lay down, or who have fallen.

8. "Chimerica" as explained by Ferguson does not really explain anything, it at the most a catchy word. Indeed he goes far to destroy it himself at the end.

It's a good series overall, but there are at the same time too many troublesome interpretations, strange selections and too much support of globalization and American status quo for it to be truly insightful.

Thor (2011)

What was wrong with the original manuscript?

[2/10 · 10 January 2014]

So, I decide to see the movie Thor, but with some hesitation. This is my own culture as a Scandinavian, so maybe I am not supposed to write a review, maybe I will just spoil it all. I will of course be critical.

When I grew up I read the Edda, so I know the stories of Norse Mythology well. This is also my first question, when you read the real stories, as they were taken down by my distant ancestors, what is it that make the writers and directors change them when making the movie? Is it because they were not good enough? The movie Thor reads like a five year old who was told the real stories but decides to vulgarize them. Or maybe it was due to bad memory, maybe it was on purpose.

The fact remains, they have taken a beautiful story and ripped it to pieces. It makes me sad because when people hear "Thor" they will recall all the wrong images. Sure, some ideas have been preserved, like some of the names and places, but just as many are made up and the whole conflict with the "Jotuns" have been turned into a simplistic black and white world. It makes you wonder, was this done because movie makers think that viewers cannot understand the real story, that it would be too complicated?

And then the whole connection with the present, it turns the figure of Thor into a freak-show. And the sword associations to King Arthur with the sword stuck in the ground. Can't Hollywood tell a story without mixing it with Anglo Saxon familiarities? When Jackson made the Ring at least he tried to follow the original book. It's difficult to understand how Branagh could put his name to this lot. It's all very embarrassing, from story to acting.

Saraband (2003)

The last film masterpiece? Quietness which speaks.

[10/10 · 9 January 2004]

I am by no mean qualified to give a full range analysis of the film Saraband by Ingmar Bergman, but would like to give my personal comments.

This may be the last great film as an art genre, as opposed to film as entertainment. In the early days of film directors where trying to please a reading audience. No living director has protected this heritage better than Bergman. He can still compete with the best authors of his time.

The quietness which surrounds this film, the excellent actor performances, the long footages of close-ups of faces, the first cello sonato of Bach (Saraband), the old man who is a bit like Bergman himself; all this makes the film a masterpiece. The dialogs hold great literary quality. Bergman and his film crew are able to show people who are inactive on the outside, but active on the inside; it is quietness which speaks! There is no time for trivial dialog in the films of Bergman: Here you will find people who talk out about the great tragedies in life. The composition gives you a feeling of being in a theatre.

Bergman is a living challenge to anyone who wants to take film seriously as an art form!