Reviews

Why do they make a kind of "the best of"-collection, with Tom watching old movies of himself and Jerry. And the ending in this film is the same as the classic "Designs on Jerry" (1955). Have they finally run out of ideas?

Why do they stage viking battles, if the actors/stuntmen don't know how to fight? But except for the battles (or lack thereof) the movie give an authentic view of the viking's everyday life, even thou the costumes show that these vikings must be extremely successful.

But when the main conflict is uninteresting and the acting sparkless; I'd rather see "Den hvite viking" (1991) everyday to the end of time than see this one again.

Not bad, not good, just mediocre.

you shouldn't really see this one.

It's weird, maybe the weirdest ever to be made in Norway. But it got humour, edge, unique characters and many suprises (and a bunch of postmodern surrealism). You can never tell what happens next in this movie.

It is not the best movie I've seen this year, but it is absolutely a movie you'll remember. Kinda how The Evil Dead (1982) would look like if David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick had directed it.

If you want to see someone from the north of Norway behave silly you should really see this movie. I'll give it an eight.

I must admit when I heard Bryan Singer was going to the direct the first X-men I just asked why? ...why? He had made great movies until that point and now he should sell his soul to a franchise?

The first X-men was disappointing in general but had some treats for the comic-buff.

This time around, the search is over, this is by far the best comic adaption ever made. It follows the pace of the comic, the frequent appearances of different characters of the comic and the whole setting is just the kind of roller coaster the old comic used to be.

The casting (maybe except Scott Summers) is great, especially Xavier and Magneto. And some of the kids also looks promising.

Some of the minor Characters like Beast (Dr. Hank McCoy), Colossus and Kitty Pryde I really wanted see more of. Every mutant character in this movie do have a possibility of doing an own franchise, maybe with a crossover with their fellow Marvel superheros Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Hulk and Dare-Devil to name a few.

The Marvel Universe (great movie title) contains countless possibilities, we all expect that if Bryan Singer stays on board on this franchise this series will evolve (pun intended) to maybe the greatest comic-to-film-series ever. The third film will prove me right or wrong.

George Lucas is very fond of effects and it shows. And when the first two hours has very little action, but just a lovestory with bad dialogue, you start thinking, what am I doing here.

Then there is a war, and the series is back to it's former greatness. Lightsaber-fights not with one, nor two, but every jedi in the universe. Even Yoda lights his saber, and gives us the absolute highlight of the movie.

In episode I Jar-Jar broke up great actionsequences with stupid gags. This time around C3PO and R2D2 has teamed up again and interrupts some of the greatest Star Wars action ever. Uneccesary again, but more bearable.

The actors of the Star Wars movies have always had to work with bad dialogue. The actors in episodes IV to VI managed it better than the performers in these newest films with only Ewan McGregor as the exception.

Without the ending the film would get a rating of 2 from me. With the ending it manages to reach the area between 3 and 4. Not really bad, not great, not even mediocre. As pure entertainment: it works.

So you have a difficult mom, that wont let you listen to the likes of Simon & Garfunkel (or worse) so what do you become? A writer for Rolling Stone magazine.

It's about Cameron Crowe's real life even thou some elements seem to far out to be the 100 % truth. But it's entertaining, funny and kind of original. And it gives hope to many Rolling Stone-wannabees out there.

An Academy Award™ for best original screenplay was awarded to Cameron Crowe and he deserved every inch of it. And since the acting also "rocks", especially Billy Crudup, Francis McDormand, Golden Globe winner Kate Hudson and the always great Philip Seymour Hoffman.

It's perfect, but it's not "This is Spinal Tap"

Rock on!

The acting is good, the director is good, the script is ok, so it ought to be a good movie then. Some critics have mentioned that if this is a road-movie they should have met more essential people, I don't think so. It isn't the trip that's important in the film, but the growing understanding between father and daughter. The film succeeds in doing this but you'll sit wondering what the movie really was about long after the end credits are over.

Maybe that the relationship between parent and child bring out the best in people, or just that alcohol is dangerous for your health.

Even thou the movie is Norwegian the English dialogue works (because of the British actors perhaps) and I'd like to see more Norwegian movies doing this. Norwegian movies biggest fault is that the dialogue read right out of the script, no flow.

See this movie, and all other Moland films, you'll not be disappointed. (at least not much)

French officers is prisoners of war in Germany during WWI. They never give up escaping, and gets transferred all the time. French poetic realism they called it. 60 years later we can also call it slow-paced and even boring. Well this movie ain't all that bad. And the last half hour is memorable. But the start introduces a lot of people that just disappears, and some of them are actually more interesting than those we follow lateron.

Just to make one thing clear; this documentary is hysterical. To use Edward Davis Wood Jr.'s own words from his movies to tell his personal story is a good idea because he wasn't exactly brilliant in writing for the screen. The result: Approx one hour of Far Out dialogue. Totally enjoyable.

But it doesn't dig deeper into the person Edward D. Wood Jr. Tim Burton's Ed Wood showed great depth in his relationship to Bela Lugosi, this documentary only show us his relationship to angora sweaters. Enjoy it, but please don't belive it.

Dark, eerie science-fiction twist on the story of a man, John Murdoch, who wakes up with insomnia, accused of committing murder. He knows within his heart that he didn't do it and seek the reason why he is accused and reveals a fantastic story about aliens who can alter the environment with their mind. At first sight this was a fascinating and different movie from the director who gave us "The Crow". The dark "Blade Runner"-setting underline Murdoch's chaos and give us a special "The Wrong Man"-feeling. A mixture of The Wrong Man and Blade Runner sounds like its to good to be true, and it is. The 90s have given the special effects department more work than earlier and the last half of the this movie just becomes a effects-show. The mindgames are long gone. Now it's back to kill creatures for the visual enjoyment of it. It could have been so much better.

Has it really been that long, well, I wasn't even born then but everybody know about the masshysteria created by these guys.

The movie: It hasn't dated at all, the musical numbers could still be musicvideo in 1999 and still be state of the art. Without the CGI thou. But the Beatles was always inventive in their videos. Strawberry Fields Forever anyone?

The music: I really have to hate the Beatles, to hate this movie, I don't so I had a jolly good time. But...

It's the script, or the improvised dialogue that really makes this movie great. John, Paul, George and Ringo give us on-liners without becoming comedians, they're just as funny as any ordinary men would be. You should really see this one, good music, it's funny and inventive, what more can you expect?

All norwegians do basically not like norwegian movies. Except for Flåklypa Grand Prix that everybody have seen. But if you look back into the archives you'll find this pearl. This is usually the only norwegian movie you'll read about in the film history. It's very unconvential and very modern. The narrator takes our side and ask the actors all the way. Thereby scenes become surreal and you ask yourself, what am I watching?

To make it short, it's great, even greater than the new french wave that came later that year. And I have never seen any movie similar to this. If you're going to see one norwegian film in your life, see this one.

Firstly a word of warning: Don't see this movie if you haven't seen The Wizard of Oz. This movie have some references to "Oz" that is quite unconventional. If you haven't seen it some scenes in "Wild" just become very strange.

Ok, the movie is strange and weird like most of David Lynch's work, but personally this is my Lynch-favorite. It's raw but beautiful. Cage and Dern make sense together, and in the end the whole movie actually makes sense to. Finally there is the excellent acting by Dafoe and Stanton which add up to two hours of postmodern excellence.

I can't really see how anyone can have any interest whatsoever in seeing this movie. A woman meets a man, he wants to play games, she too, but only until she realise what she's missing. She leaves, and that's it really. It took 9 1/2 weeks before Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) left John (Mickey Rourke). She should have left him after 30 minutes and ended our misery.

Stanley Kubrick was and is a master of filmmaking, so how could he fail with Eyes Wide Shut? The movie isn't boring, it isn't bad just totally uninteresting. The conflict isn't really a conflict, and there is to many scenes in the movie (usually with nudity) that could easily been left out.

How can I judge Kubrick's filmmaking. The creator of 2001, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Lolita, Spartacus, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Stangelove and A Clockwork Orange. I find all these movies great, but "Eyes" is missing something, maybe he have repeated some scenes once to many and thereby lost any sign of naturallity from the actors. Nicole Kidman is great the first hour thou, with her laughter-kick as an all-time high.

P.S. I recogniced Sydney Pollack's eyes under the mask.

Question 1: What makes a person kill another human being? Psychological incorrect would be the best way to make a summary of this movie. There's no common sense just the worst kind of animal behavior all through the movie. An adulterer is murdered. But the wife can't be with her husband after the murder. She finds herself a new lover. She wants her lover to kill her husband. No sensibility here just wanting, having, getting. This is called the peak of the french poetic realism, but question 2: Can you call this film realistic?

See this movie if you're interested in Renoir, Gabin or early Film Noir, but if you're NOT into films with deeper psychologic meaning just stay away. And tip 1: read the opening by Émile Zola it sort of explains everything.

Oh, this is just one of those boring social-realistic russian movies. That was what I thought before I saw this movie. But I had to reconcider radically afterwards. Forget The Thin Red Line, forget Saving Private Ryan, forget Platoon. Do you want to see a realistic and bizarre war-epic this is the one. Many weird moments but it all symbolize life or death, and the documentaric style often leaves you stunned and suprised. Oh, and if it was possible: Would you go back in time and kill Hitler?

I have read the book Sophie's World (in norwegian) and both the book and the film never go deep into the history of philosophy just bumps into it now and then. The worst part is that this is the good thing about the movie. (If it had dug deeper I'm afraid it would be boring too.) The acting (especially from the teenagers) don't work, thou Sophie get a "ok" grade. The sound-mixing is awful, etc etc. This is the most expensive movie in norwegian history but where the money went is really THE big philosophical question.

If you're expecting one of those happy teen comedies with no meaning whatsoever, you have to look elsewhere. This film wants to say something. Kind of Breakfast Club on the road. It's better than that one though; a young John Cusack showing us why he still are in the industry. And the underrated Daphne Zuniga glows as the significant other. If you're just going to see one teen comedy of the 80s; see this one.