Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
The most inept filmmaking I've seen in years
2 June 2016
The very idea of transposing a story so obviously set in a machismo banana republic to America is idiocy on a level all its own.

But apart from that, I'm having trouble deciding which was more painful here: The amateurish writing, the cheap iPhone look of the digital photography, the incompetent editing, the dead-voiced rendition of Amazing Grace over the end credits, or the knowledge that Michael Biehn has fallen so far as to produce and headline in dreck like this.

The fact that I managed to sit through this mess should be testament to my tolerance level, as should the fact that I've given the film two stars rather than one, just because it has William Forsythe in it. Even he can't do anything with the ridiculous clichés he's given to work with, though.

I'm sure someone will tell me that I should watch the original to see a better version. But I'm not going to. If the second time around is this bad with the same director at the helm, how good can the first one be?
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Irreversible (2002)
2/10
No, it is not.
14 February 2009
Masterpiece? Don't make me laugh (though I could use it after seeing this shambolic mess).

The good: acting performances. The bad: everything else. Shoddy editing, lousy storytelling, inconsistent style... as an example, the use of the twirling camera sometimes indicates the (unnecessary) reverse-time jump, sometimes (especially in the first half hour) it's just (over)used, ostensibly to disorient the viewer. A grand purpose indeed.

Also, with a view to the storyline, there is no way Marcus would even have found out about Alex until the police showed up at his apartment. First, the rape happens a quarter of a mile away from where the party is being held - and in any event closer to the other end of the tunnel, so that's where the paramedics would pick her up. Why would the ambulance be parked right outside? Second, Marcus recognizing Alex is just ridiculous. She's on a stretcher with her clothes covered by a blanket, her face is a bloody balloon that looks nothing like Alex, and he's just snorted God knows how many lines of cocaine. Thus, the whole premise of the ensuing chase goes down the toilet.

And no, the reverse storytelling adds absolutely nothing to the story, as opposed to e.g. Pulp Fiction and Memento. This film's sole redeeming feature is the fact that it presents 15 minutes of prime material for rape-fetishists to post and download in their forums.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skrål (2003– )
Andy Warhol's future is now!
26 October 2005
"In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes". True, this tendency has become more and more of a truism in recent years, what with shows like Big Brother, Survivor and the like. However, this is the ultimate in reality TV: Take a child with no talent whatsoever and let him or her spend a day with a music producer, talking about his or her hobby and then "composing" a "song" about it. Let the producer sex it up with a catchy beat, scratching and sound-bites, and what do you get? A product which not even my usually uncritical children want to see and which would cause me to disinherit them if I ever saw them on it. Not that I would ever allow them to be involved in such blatant exhibitionism in the first place.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Rig (2003)
8/10
Quite good (Beware, lots of SPOILERS)
30 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In the realm of group-of-people-trapped-with-something-picking-them-off-one-by-one films, there has not been a lot of innovation since Alien and Evil Dead.

Not surprisingly, this film does not offer much you have not seen already (at least if you are like me and watch all the thrillers, splatter and horror films you can). Direction and acting could be better, but are satisfactory in most respects within the given limits.

Surprisingly however, this one hits the nail on the head in every aspect of the story.

The snags in this kind of story has always been these three questions: Why are they in the monster's lair, why don't they leave, and why do they split up? When these questions are not answered to my satisfaction, my suspension of disbelief fails. Then it is obviously just a question of producing a popcorn movie for 15-year-olds to snigger at and forget immediately.

But here, the basic premise works, and each question is answered logically: the ten protagonists are eco-activists who board an oil rig to stop it from being toppled. Farfetched as this may sound, it could happen, and I have no doubt Greenpeace activists entertained a similar thought with Brent Spar in those days. Since they need to find the crew of the rig (but expect no problems beyond being told to bugger off), they search the place, and when they find nobody there, they are in a fix, as their very presence is what prevents the oil company from sinking the rig. So they have to stay. (The "weather closing in" excuse preventing the helicopter from returning is ridiculous though, as all the exterior shots of the rig show calm weather with barely any wind at all).

In addition to this initial premise, the rest of the story (and the twist-in-the-tale in particular) holds water in a way I had not expected. A rare sight these days, when even Stephen King expects us to believe that local police suspecting a divorced husband of murdering his ex-wife and her lover will not even dig up his back yard fifteen feet from the house (not to mention the fact that as he lived in another state, it would become an FBI case with all the additional resources this would entail).
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Van Helsing (2004)
8/10
Alan Moore's ideas, none of his talent
18 May 2004
I actually liked Van Helsing. It's a wild rollercoaster ride. And as an attempt to make something more akin to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen than Stephen Norrington's abysmally bad movie version of Alan Moore's work of genius, it worked.

Unfortunately, it didn't have Alan Moore, who could have made the dialogue work too and the character motivations more interesting. But who cares - the action was what it was about, there was plenty of it, and I for one at times even sat in the cinema wishing for a RWD button to take another look at what actually happened here or there.

A final aside: Now that Alan Moore has opened the can of worms that is public domain reworking of classic characters, we will see plenty of bad instances of it in the future. It's the way of the world (or Hollywood at least), and Alan Moore will regrettably never see one cent of the bazillions of dollars generated from his idea. Well, Alan Moore will most likely do very nicely on his own anyway, what with America's Best Comics and all.

How many times was that? Four? Not nearly enough, so here comes another three: Alan Moore, Alan Moore, Alan Moore. The greatest writer in existence.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Acacia (2003)
7/10
Promising
7 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has an original premise, but ultimately winds up a little too confused about where it wanted to go. The storytelling, which starts off with fine, mood-filled, dwelling shots, veers off into a style more reminiscent of standard psycho-thrillers as the conclusion draws near. One scene in particular (*SPOILER*: the death of the father-in-law) jars with the visual style right up to this point and seems to mark a clear break in the narrative. The first hour is absolutely riveting, though, and I'll certainly want to see other films by Ki-Hyung Park.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Devil's Pond (2003)
9/10
Simple premise, beautiful execution
7 March 2004
A pretty straightforward basic idea fleshed out with good writing, excellent direction and effective cinematography. Fine performances from Tara Reid and Kip Pardue (truth to tell, I have only seen them in supporting roles until now and never actually noticed either of them before, but this tight story really shows them off).

I watch all the thrillers/horror films I can get my eyes on. And I've seen some duds the last couple of years. This one, however, is brilliant (though not as good as What Lies Beneath). Suspense, character development, a script that actually holds water(!)... Come to think of it, a review this positive from me has to be a mistake. Maybe I'd better watch it again in a couple of months to see if it was really that good. In the meantime, I think you should do the same.
32 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Some good ideas and a chilling end - Spoilers
5 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting something along the lines of The Ring or Dark Water with this one. The general mood, however, it much lighter and less claustrophobic, and the story focuses more on the plight of the ex-cop and the traumatic experience that cost him his job than on the haunted supermarket in which the film opens.

Certain story points are left dangling (eg. why was Yeong-min released? They still had his prints on the gun, which, as far as evidence went, was harder than anything else in this film).

In my opinion, the potential in the effects was never fully realised. There are no real shocks. Maybe this is because Kim Seong-ho himself expected to make a Ring kind of film, so instead of going straight for the jugular, he went more for the lurching things-that-go-bump-in-the-night approach. I for one would have liked it if they had used more won on the effects and made them really jump at me (and make me jump).

Still, the final scene and the chilling realisation of what has happened to Yeong-min is worth it all.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undead (2003)
The best zombie film in the last decade.
7 December 2003
I don't understand how they could leave this one out in the 29 October 2003 poll (or how a unoriginal turd like 28 Days Later could top the list).

Undead takes half an hour to get cracking at the flurry of ideas and visuals that in the end make it a much more refreshing experience than any zombie movie since Braindead. By then all the idiots with the attention span of a goldfish had apparently decided not to like it.

What a shame.

Oh, and by the way, Danny Boyle hasn't made anything worth watching since Shallow grave and Trainspotting.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fear X (2003)
What's the point?
5 December 2003
As I see it, this film, like 'Spoorloos' revolves around the climactic meeting and conversation between a killer and his victim's spouse. But whereas 'Spoorloos' had a clear message (Knowledge may not be worth any sacrifice), everything just sort of peters out in 'Fear X'. Still, cinematically, it's on a par with Tarkovsky (who, I'm sad to say, I consider the most boring director ever).

Not a bad film, but certainly not one which will make my top 100.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Three short films rolled into one, and none the better for it
22 October 2003
I sat through the bad acting and cheap digital-camera feel, intrigued to see how the three separate storylines would eventually come together. Surprise, they didn't! Apart from the fact that all the 'central' events in the film took place on the same day, they had nothing to do with each other... or with anything else.

What a waste of time.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
En som Hodder (2003)
7/10
Surprisingly well-made
1 October 2003
Engaging and stylish, moody at times. Great music and cinematography. Convincing performances all around.

Ultimately, however, the story fails to chew what it bites off in the first three thirds of the film, and the wrap seems a bit rushed. Not "Let's slap a Hollywood-happy ending on this" rushed, more like "Oops, we painted ourselves into a corner and getting out would take time, so let's just blunder out the way we just painted" rushed.

I haven't read Reuter's novel, so I can't say if it's faithful, but then, I never cared much for him anyway. Kim Fupz Aakeson writes much better and funnier stories.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Utter crap
26 June 2003
... and proof that you can make a killing by imitating something original (in this case Tolkien's LoTR and Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic) and pandering to the lowest denominator. In the music world, Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise", Atomic Kitten's "Be With You" and all the other current various-artists-factorymade hits are based on the same principle: rip the framework from an established success and update with empty calories. There you go, ready to eat and not much fear of indigestion.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rapid Exchange (2003 Video)
1/10
Blatantly unoriginal
15 June 2003
Like a cross between Air Force One, Cliffhanger and Lassiter, only without Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck (or any other real stars - I'm about to give up on Lance Henriksen), decent special effects or - well, basically anything worth watching.

Good music by Hans Zimmer and The Alan Parsons Project. The music actually written by Christopher Holden, however, pretty much reminds me of something left over from Dallas or Dynasty.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad, but I liked my own vision better
7 February 2003
I read the novel in 1994 and was blown away by its style. I don't remember ever having read a book that read so much like a film. And halfway through I had the perfect cast lined up in my head, at least for the guys. Matthew Broderick for the good guy, Kiefer Sutherland for the bad guy (and someone like Richard Kiel for the big guy). And so, who did they give those roles to? Needless to say, I went in with very low expectations. Surprisingly though after all that, the main characters didn't grind me that much. My main gripe with the film was this: why did they change the showdown? It was perfect in the book. And in most everything else, they followed the story to the letter (as far as I remember). If I hadn't read the book, I would just have thought 'OK thriller, entertaining and all, but not that fantastic.' But it could have been so much more!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maybe my expectations were too high...
9 December 2002
Frankly, I was disappointed. The storyline was farfetched, the dialogue was entirely artificial, and the direction and camera work certainly did not live up to the trailer. Too centered around 'grown-up' themes for the kids, but aimed too much at teens to be a hit with the parents. The basic flaw, I think, is that 13-year-olds are too narrow a target audience. But it probably pleased the older part of Bubber's audience.
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flawless (1999)
5/10
As Good As It Gets II
25 July 2002
Did anybody else notice the similarities between Flawless and As Good As It Gets?...Except, of course, that As Good As It Gets had better acting, more interesting storyline and theme(s), and was a much better film all round.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The funniest animated short ever
28 December 2001
Not only the best Tom and Jerry film, but the best animated short I've ever seen. The timing, the animation, the character expressions, the sound effects... Not one false note. This one leaves me in stitches every time.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
10 October 2001
How did they get John Savage and Malcolm McDowell to be a part of this mess?

A poor excuse for a story, lousy editing... well, basically, lousy everything. Usually, when I see a movie, no matter how bad, there's always one or two moments, or one or two elements, that make it worth the while. Not so here. There's absolutely nothing new in this movie, and all those familiar elements are put together badly - or should I say, not put together, rather jumbled into one big soulless mess.

Don't waste your time. It's bad, but not bad enough, I'm afraid, to make even me laugh. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Reality check! Great script, lousy direction.
23 October 2000
Let's face it: Two out of three times you leave the theatre thinking 'Man! They put one of Hollywood's top-100 directors in the chair, paid two fine actors 20 million each, spent another 50 million on special effects, and what kind of script did they choose? One written by a ten-year-old! How could 486 people have been involved in this production and not one notice the holes the size of football fields in the storyline?

This time, for once, it's the other way round.

Anders Thomas Jensen's script is sheer genius.

Lasse Spang Olsen may have worked in the film industry most of his life (more or less monopolising the stuntman business in Denmark), and Kim Bodnia may call him `the only director I've worked with who actually makes people feel good about their performance on set', but his direction is still amateurish. I haven't contributed anything to the goofs page on this film, because the technical execution of it is so blatantly flawed that I wouldn't know where to start. Maybe Spang Olsen thinks he's the only one who will notice (since he's a 'professional').

So Lars von Trier is a self-centred neurotic, and Ole Bornedal is a nitpicking ingrate (or at least he was before he was hit by parenthood). But they make great movies. Bornedal's remake of Nightwatch was bound to be a failure. Why mess with perfection? (Besides, Josh Brolin doesn't have one tenth of Kim Bodnia's charisma).

But with 'I Kina Spiser De Hunde', I just can't wait for the remake!
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Powder (1995)
Phenomenon a rip-off? Don't make me laugh! (and Masks...)
25 April 2000
Everybody mentions Phenomenon in their reviews of Powder, and calls Phenomenon a rip-off.

Powder is an OK film, but consider this synopsis:

A pale and gentle youngster is discovered after the death of his guardian. His unique abilities lead everyone to fear him, and as the film progresses and we, the viewers, become more and more captivated by his skills, enthralled by his innocence and gentleness, it becomes clear that eventually, he will have no choice but to to go back to where he came from. Because he's just too strange for this world, too different, too difficult for everyone else to accept. And he doesn't even get the girl.

What's the name of the film? Why, Edward Scissorhands, of course!

And they call Phenomenon a rip-off? Don't make me laugh!

There's a more interesting question here, though: Why is it that so many of the performances that really move us are those in which the actor is wearing some kind of mask? Think about it; Eric Stoltz in Mask, John Hurt in The Elephant Man, Johnny Depp in Edward Scissorhands - including Lou Gossett jr. in Enemy Mine might be stretching it a bit, but I've certainly never seen him better. And I could even mention Kyle MacLachlan in The Hidden: He wore a mask during rehearsals and barely moves a facial muscle throughout the film - and he's still brilliant. Might it be because the mask (or makeup) forces us to focus our attention on the acting instead, on the voice, the body language and the hints at facial expression that the mask allows us to see? And would the performance have been as good without the mask?

In any case, I pity anyone living in countries where 90% of such a performance (well, any performance, really) is thrown in the garbage can, when the film is dubbed.

How can you take a reviewer from Germany or France seriously, when you know he or she has only SEEN the actors and doesn't even know their voices?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fluke (1995)
4/10
Hankies? More like gag-bags!
19 March 2000
James Herbert's Fluke is great material for a screen version. One of his few non-horror tales (and in many ways more of a fairy tale than anything else), it has the potential of a great movie.

So what does Carlo Carlei do? He stuffs the film with slo-mo violin-choked scenes that clash completely with the moody and poignant promise of the opening scene (and Herbert's book as well) and leaves out the book's most hilarious scene with the cat and the old lady.

This could have been on a par with Babe. As it is, I'll add points for Eric Stolz, the dog and camera work (which is truly outstanding) and subtract just as many for Nancy Travis, direction and music - Yeech!
4 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed