Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
I haven't been THIS bored in a long time
4 April 2005
I actually thought that "I Kina spiser de hunde" was quite a decent film and it had me laughing out loud a few times but "Gamle mænd i nye biler" is complete and utter garbage.

The acting is generally awful. Especially Nikolaj Lie Kaas was dreadful and had none of the edge he brought to his character in the first film which just made his performance flat. I've never thought that Kim Bodnia was a good actor and he pretty much proved that in this film because his acting is boring, lifeless and pretty annoying. Tomas Villum Jensen is alright but even his performance is barely a pass grade. Jens Okking is, as he is in a lot of movies, not used enough and thats a shame because he is quite a good actor. Iben Hjejle provides the only good performance in the film and thus she steals every scene she is in.

The story was just plain weird and nothing to get too excited about and the humor was for the most part misplaced and extremely stupid. In fact the humor was so stupid at times that I thought it was an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The action in the film wasn't very exciting. I couldn't quite put my finger on it but it just wasn't entertaining. The car chase was the only interesting action scene.

All in all a wasted effort and another pathetic Danish film to add to the list 3 out of 10
6 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nordkraft (2005)
7/10
A Very Decent Danish Movie
12 March 2005
I saw this film at a special pre-premiere screening and knowing that Danish film has taken quite a beating this last decade with a lot of really bad films ("Den eneste ene" and the "Kærlighed ved første hik" trilogy being excellent examples). It seemed to me that the Danish movie industry were only able to produce two kinds of film: crappy romantic comedies or dogme films. The dogme films can be quite interesting but they have just been produced in too large a number to remain interesting.

So my hopes were quite low going into the cinema to see Nordkraft (not having read the book either) but all my worries were put to rest very quickly because I was taken aback by the visual style of the film which is very interesting. Also the storytelling element of the film worked very well and the fact that the story is split into three is very appealing and interesting.

The characters in the film must be said to be the most important aspect of the film and luckily they work quite well. Especially Thure Lindhardt who plays Steso is very good because he is very good at making his character edgy and extreme but still believable. Signe Egholm Olsen is also quite good and works very well in suspenseful scenes. Of the three main actors Claus Riis Østergaard is the worst but he is still good don't get me wrong. One of the most powerful scenes in the entire movie is with Steso's father, Lars Mikkelsen because Lars Mikkelsen (who is a far better actor than his brother by the way) is such an incredibly intense actor.

The only thing that I feel pulls this film in a negative direction is the fact that it is afraid to be its own film. It borrows heavily on the visual style from Requiem for a Dream and in terms of storytelling and thats a shame because Nordkraft definitely has the potential to be its own film.

All in all a very decent Danish drama: 7 out of 10
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Geo sucks!
11 March 2005
This is by all means a very entertaining stand-up show with pretty good performances from nearly all.

There are a few who do exceptional jobs. Mick Øgendahl is very funny and keeps the audience laughing during his entire show. Uffe Holm is also very funny because he crosses the line at many times and surprises because of this. Mikael Wulff is equally funny but that is simply because he is the complete opposite of what you expect from a stand-up comedian. He speaks slowly and doesn't move around a lot and is basically pretty static. Anders "Anden" Matthesen is always funny even though his performance is mostly based on the song he sings.

There are people, however, who are so seriously unfunny it's embarrassing. Sebastian Dorset is extremely unfunny. His jokes are poor, his on-stage presence is poor and his timing is extremely poor. But he pales in comparison to the most unfunny out of the entire lot, Geo. He spends his five minutes acting like a freak, which can be funny if it is done right but the way Geo does it seems more like an insult to the audience because he is basing his comedy on being weird not on funny jokes.

All in all 8 out of 10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jane Doe (2001 TV Movie)
2/10
Why was this film even made
19 February 2005
Admittedly I've seen a lot of bad films in my time but this has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen. First of all the plot is really ridiculous and there is no apparent beginning and the ending isn't all that great either. The fact that there is no beginning proves that the director obviously thought it would be a good idea to push the viewer into the middle of the action to get the instant involvement but it only serves to confuse and annoy. Secondly the plot is way too complicated for its own good. The story has a lot of twists and turns and they are obviously there to keep the audience guessing as to what might happen next. However, again I must say that it only succeeds in confusing and annoying the viewer. People really aren't looking for a really deep, complicated storyline in a TV-action movie. Now as for the actors they are generally really bad. Teri Hatcher is completely uninteresting and sucks as a mother. I'd be really sad to have her as my mother. Rob Lowe who is actually a decent actor but he does some of the worst acting throughout his entire career. Trevor Blumas... well Trevor Blumas sucks. Not at a single time is he believable. He sucks throughout the entire movie.

All in all a really poor effort 2 out of 10
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
The worst science fiction film ever made
30 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw this film my expectations were high because I had actually liked The Phantom Menace contrary to a lot of other people and so as I got into the cinema and sat down and the lights went down I found that I couldn't wait for the film to begin.

At the end of the film I got out of the cinema and I had a kind of dry taste in my mouth like I had been cheated of something. I realized that I had been cheated of quality. In my opinion there are a few things/elements that make a film good.

First of all the actors have to be good and Ewan McGregor is a very fine actor and does his part but Hayden Christensen is such a terrible actor it actually made me long for Jake Lloyd (who played Anakin in the first movie). There was no depth in his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker and he didn't act very well with all the CG elements that are in the film so you don't believe that he is facing a big kind of bull monster. All you see when you look at his acting is a blue screen. Natalie Portman is equally pointless and is at no point believable. Especially at the of the film she falls out of a speeding airplane and then proceeds to get up and go of bright as a daisy. Furthermore her love for Anakin just doesn't seem real. Samuel L. Jackson who is usually a fine actor plays very badly in this film. This great actor is being reduced to swinging a light saber saying crappy lines and attempting to look cool. Temuera Morrison who plays Jango Fett is for lack of a better word boring. All his attempts to seem devious and cunning is ruined first of all by terrible facial expressions and secondly terrible accent. Christopher Lee provides an adequate villain but ultimately has too little time on screen to seem believable.

The second thing that needs to work is the story and I'm afraid to say that it doesn't. The characters don't seem to grow they are just there and the whole love story between Padme and Anakin seems out of place and often becomes way to boring and overly emotional. Nothing like what the relationship between Han and Leia was in the first films. The story seems to go nowhere often and even though things do happen the fact that the characters are static make it seem pointless. People will undoubtedly say that the character of Anakin changes but in actual fact it doesn't. At least not the way Hayden Christensen plays him.

In a big effects movie the effects have to work and some of the effects do work but most of them you can just tell they were done in front of a green screen and that negates the illusion. When you've seen films like Lord of the Rings you expect that the effects in Star Wars will be as good but they aren't.

All in all a dreadful attempt to revive what was once a great science fiction universe.

3/10 stars
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
What is it about people and old films
15 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I've read a couple of the reviews for this film and they are all stunning. And to all you people out there who love old films I'm sorry but this is a below average crime thriller. The film attempts to be really clever and attempts to keep the audience guessing but the twist is just so obvious. Of course the daughter was the murderer. The fact that the film is old does not make it a good film. The black and white is not the a quality mark. The film sucks on all fronts. As I said the plot is ridiculous, the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen and the characters are boring and completely uninteresting. The scene with the small children continues to make me laugh because even by the standards of the time for children that is really bad acting.

This tendency that old movies are great or classic is a general thing. Now movies like Casablanca or Citizen Kane I can understand because these films are classic but this piece of garbage, you have got to be kidding me.

I am told that the film was really provoking for its time and to that I can only say: I don't care! The fact that the film WAS provoking just proves to show that the film isn't any good today. As I see it for a film to remain good it has to be good now and forever. Examples of this could be Godfather or Alien.

I'm sad to say that Mildred Pierce did not stand the test of time and therefore my final grade is: * out of ******
4 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A perfect ending
7 November 2004
Extraordinary, brilliant, thrilling, beautiful and masterful. Some of the words that sum up this film. The Return of the King completes what has become the greatest film trilogy of all time. True the Godfather Trilogy is outstanding too and the (original) Starwars Trilogy was sublime and the Matrix Trilogy was stellar but they all pale in comparison to this trilogy which has become modern classics after only one year and one can already begin to look forward to the day Peter Jackson makes The Hobbit.

Well back to The Return of the King. This film is outstanding in so many ways it is hard to figure out where to begin. OK, the cast: They all play brilliantly though some better than others. I think Ian McKellen has been the most consistent of the actors in all the three films. He was without a doubt worthy of the Oscar he didn't for Gandalf the Grey and he was great as Gandalf the White but unfortunately the character of Gandalf isn't in the second for enough time to truly show his qualities. However, in the third film we get to see Gandalf the White much more than we did in the second film and Ian McKellen's performance (though not as good as in the first film) is sublime. He plays with experience and variety worthy of even the greatest actors. Also Andy Serkis, who plays Gollum, is pure genius. How he does the voice is beyond me and one kind of feels sorry for him that he didn't get his own real performance in the film. Viggo Mortensen plays well in this film as he did in the previous films but there isn't to much variety in his acting and I could imagine I would get tired of him if I had to look and listen to him for any more time than he is on the screen. Elijah Wood plays very well I'd even say better than in the first two films and his chemistry with Sean Astin is very good. Orlando Bloom doesn't say much in the film (fortunately) because he really is not a very good actor he just looks the part. John-Rhys Davies plays well in the third film as he did in the first two films and I was happy that they toned down on the dwarf jokes. Bernard Hill is also a very fine actor who plays his part and then dies when he has to. Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd play the characters who probably change the most during the films aside from Elijah Wood and they do so with humor and confidence witch makes them a joy to watch.

The effects in the film are probably the best I've ever seen and I think they are so good that they will be valid for at least another 50 years. Especially the Gollum character continues to amaze me.

All in all a brilliant ending to a brilliant saga.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Troy (2004)
9/10
An epic adaptation of Homer's Illyad
7 November 2004
This film is underrated. It deserves at least 7.5 but unfortunately that is not up to me. There are both good things and bad things in this film. Some of the good things are Brad Pitt and Eric Bana who are by far the best actors in the film whereas Orlando Bloom and Diane Kruger produce the worst acting I've seen in a film in 2004. When I first saw the film I thought that Eric Bana was the best actor in the film. However, when I saw it the second time I thought Brad Pitt was the best actor and the third time I thought they were about equally good. I think the reason I like Eric Bana is more because of his character than because of the actual acting. Eric Bana is a very decent actor but he is not brilliant. Brad Pitt on the other hand is a brilliant actor but his part wasn't as well written as it could have been. Orlando Bloom, however, is probably the worst actor to come out of Hollywood the last century. He exaggerates every emotion and the way he delivers his lines make him seem ignorant rather than sweet. Also the chemistry between him and Diane Kruger is dreadful. There is more romantic spark between Hector and Achilles than Paris and Helen. Brian Cox is also a very fine addition to the cast as well as Brendan Gleeson and Sean Bean. The effects in the film are good but they are not masterful like Lord of the Rings. All in all a good all round experience though not nearly as good as other in the genre.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The worst of what is ultimately the best trilogy of all time
6 November 2004
This film is one of the best films ever made. This film is almost as breathtaking as the first film but in the end the minor flaws it has makes it worse than the first film. What I consider to be the biggest flaw of this film is the character of Gimli. John-Rhys Davies is a wonderful actor and I do not blame him for the way the character turned out. I blame it on the directing (shame on you Jackson). Being that Merry and Pippin are not as much in the second films they were in the first they could not act as comic relief. Thus the choice was made to make Gimli the comic relief. While the things he says are both funny and well timed it becomes to much by the end. A second flaw that pulls the film down a bit is the fact that they deviated too much from the original book. The Theoden character is very different in the book as is Faramir. These flaws were probably necessary to make the film but the hard core Tolkien fans such as myself were disappointed to see Faramir drag poor Frodo and Sam to Osgilliath which is only mentioned in the book but never seen. This far I have only focused on the bad things in the film but there are very great film historic moments as well. E.g. the battle for Helms Deep is aside from the battle on Pelleanor Fields the greatest film battle ever conceived on screen. The acting in the film is generally on a very high level. Especially Ian McKellen and Viggo Mortensen do very well in the film but also John-Rhys Davies and Elijah Wood are very good. Aside from the fact that their roles were not as well written as they could have been Bernard Hill and David Wenham do very well. The effects in the film are flawless and on a higher scale than in the first film and the attention to detail is overwhelming. All in all a worthy sequel but ultimately the worst out of the three.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Actually the best of the three
4 November 2004
What many people fail to realize, being blinded by the splendor of the third film, is that this is actually by far the best of the three films. Don't get me wrong the other two films are near flawless films but The Fellowship of the Ring IS the best. Allow me to elaborate. The Fellowship of the Ring contain some of the best acting ever to have been caught on film. Especially Ian McKellen and Sean Bean do exceptionally well. Even Orlando Bloom does alright by his standards but that's probably just because he looks very much like an elf with the blond wig and the blue contacts. Ian Holm and Elijah Wood do very well in the film. Another thing that makes the first film better is the effects. Now I know that a lot of people are going to say that there are far more special effects in the two following films and yes there are more blatantly obvious CGI-effects in the second and the third film. However, the effects in the first films are far more refined and subtle and ultimately far more believable because you never notice they're there. A third and probably the most important aspect that makes this a better all-round film than the other two is the fact that it is far more true to the book than the second and third film and for hard core Tolkien fans as myself that matters a great deal when you see the films. This is of course my own very subjective opinion about The Lord of the Rings films so if people do not agree with me that's fine.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Titanic (1997)
1/10
probably the worst film James Cameron has ever made
21 October 2004
I don't even know where to begin, there are so many flaws mistakes and general errors. Hey I know how about starting by saying that the script is absolutely dreadful. Nothing happens for three whole hours. After an hour you just sit there and wait for the ship to sink already. I couldn't help cheering when the ship finally sunk. OK I admit there are a few good scenes in the film. For an example at the end of the film someone falls down and hits one of the propellers and makes a kind of dull "bong" sound when he does it and then starts spinning rapidly in the air. Most of the effects are alright but the general acting as well as the weak and boring story makes this the worst big budget film ever made perhaps aside from the Harry Potter series. All in all 1 out of 6
33 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Everything that has a beginning must have an end
14 April 2004
Well

This film is probably the most underated film in a very long time. True Gloria Foster's perfomance as the Oracle will be missed but the new oracle is pretty decent too. Yes it is also true that Keanu Reeves is terrible but these small errors don't cover for the fact that this film is nearly as good as the first one and by far better than the second one. The biblical references are generally very good and clever and the action seems to have reached new levels. The Wachowsky brothers used a new technique with them taking longer shots during action sequences and the effects are mindblowing.

All in all 9.2 out of 10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Matrix (1999)
10/10
Neo (the One) must recognize who he is to save humanity
16 March 2004
This film is the best film ever made. Yes the Lord of the rings trilogy was better than the Matrix trilogy but as a single film this is the best ever made.

There are virtually no flaws in this film. Keanu Reeves who is usually a very shallow and superficial actor is surprisingly well casted. Joe Pantoliano is good, Carrie Ann Moss is also delivering the best acting of her carrier. Lawrence Fishbourne does a good job as the super believer Morpheus. However the real star of the film and still (I think) the best villain of all time, Hugo Weaving. He has already become a cult actor simply for his performance in this film.

This is actually two films in one. On one side it is a deep philosophical movie and one the other side it is a kick-ass action movie with the best effects of its time.

All in all ********** out of **********
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this