Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Not worth your time
25 November 2012
If you are going to make a movie with a plot like this you will need a very good script, some very good acting, a brilliant director, and some logical coherence to make it worthwhile. Then it could end up as a good or even brilliant movie. Too bad The Butterfly Effect has none of the above and therefore fails in every possible manner.

The script is trite with a lot of unbelievable inconsistencies. I can accept the premise of alternative stories based on what happens in the past. But people just don't turn into completely different (cliche) personalities just based on whether an event (however disturbing or "significant") happened or not.

The acting is all over terrible. Ashton Kutcher is a mediocre comedy actor, an he is totally unconvincing when trying to do serious acting. Some actors, like for example Jim Carrey, have the talent and skill to be both comedians and serious actors, but even he would have struggled being credible in this mess.

If you want to see a good movie that messes with your mind in a similar way to how this one _tries to_ to do it, I'd rather recommend Donnie Darko, Mullholland Drive, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Seriously folks, it is great, but...
28 September 2008
Pros: Great direction Good story Great acting Great special effects

Cons: Too dark and "serious", it is based on a comic book, goddammit, it is not Dostoevsky! The movie was either too long or too complicated for me, because I was really having trouble following the logic in parts of the story in the second half of the film. Jack Nicholson is still the best Joker. Ledger was good and creepy as a real psychopath, but I found Nicholson's Joker to be more innovative, and much more fun to watch.

Conclusion: don't believe the hype, it is nowhere near the best movie ever made, but absolutely worth watching all the same.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best sequels ever
13 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The first Back to the Future is in my opinion one of the very best in its genre. Of course it was such a huge success that there had to be a sequel or two. Predictably, Back to the Future Part II was not anywhere near as good as the original. Back to the Future Part III on the other hand manages to match and even maybe surpass the quality of the first one.

In this movie Marty travels back to 1955 and meets Doc (just seconds after Doc sent him back to the future in the first movie) to tell him that he (Doc) is stuck in 1885 because of a time travel he took in 1985(!) Marty then has to go back to 1885 too to warn Doc that he is about to be shot in a few days and therefore has to come back to 1985 with him (Marty). The idea of a time travel to the Wild West is pretty amusing, and here the opportunity for fun anachronistic situations is well taken care of. For example, when Marty has to come up with a name for himself, of course the first one that springs to mind is Clint Eastwood. "What a sissy name is that?" one of the bad guys remarks. And the scene where Marty has to dance to avoid being shot in his feet and starts to moonwalk is just hilarious.

I think in addition to the humor, what makes this movie so watchable is that great care is taken to make the Western environment convincing. Also the story is pretty exciting and not totally predictable as is often the case in this type of movies. The acting is first class and the actors really seem to enjoy themselves.

My only complaint is that the ending is kind of a letdown, but other than that I could hardly imagine how the movie could have been improved. I have seen it at least three times, and saw it again for the first time in many years with my 10 year old daughter a few days ago. She enjoyed it a lot, but not as much as the first in the series. This was mainly due to the fact that she had problems with making sense of the story which is a bit convoluted for a child.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman (1989)
8/10
Best Batman so far
18 July 2008
I remember seeing this when it first came out and being totally blown away by Nicholson's performance as the Joker. Having seen him in the Shining (over-the-top performance, but scary) and The Witches of Eastwick (even more over the top, but funny), I wondered whether he could take this style of acting any further, and indeed he could. His performance as the Joker is easily the most hilarious madman I have ever seen on film. In fact, I have rarely laughed so much seeing a movie as the first time I watched this one. Maybe Heath Ledger is scarier in the latest Batman movie (which I have not yet seen), but I am convinced he is not as entertaining. I am not a big Burton fan, but I think the direction this time is good, Gotham is a well constructed nightmare city and the story is well told. I am not too keen on Michael Keaton ordinarily, but I think his role as Batman is one of his better efforts. All in all this movie is far superior to the disappointing Batman Returns, and also significantly better than the much hyped Batman Begins which is an OK movie but nothing more.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Prestige (2006)
8/10
absolutely worth watching... closely
15 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I finally, got to see "The Prestige" last night, and it certainly did not disappoint me. It is one of those movies that is just so well made through and through. The acting is overall excellent, the plot is very entertaining with so many twists and turns that it keeps you constantly guessing what is really going on, and the directing is almost flawless. If you have ever seen "The Usual Suspects" (which I recently saw for the second time) and liked it, you will probably like "The Prestige". They share a lot of the same qualities.

Most of the film takes place in late Victorian London. Interestingly, even though it seems like great pains have been taken to give a historically correct depiction of the period, the film feels very modern. Partly, this is due to the way the film is told, with a lot of jumping back and forth in time, forcing the viewer to make some effort to form a coherent story. (Not surprising for a film by the director of "Memento".) But also do the characters feel relevant and "up-to-date" for a modern viewer. Quite an achievement, since they don't in any way seem anachronistic in the Victorian environment.

The story revolves around the rivalry of two young magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jckman) both trying to perform the ultimate magic trick. In the beginning of the film they are friends, but due to a tragic accident, they become deadly rivals, and it becomes unclear what drives them the most, the want for one's own success or the wish to see the rival fail. Soon it becomes a struggle of life and death, both trying to achieve the impossible, namely to at least seemingly transport themselves from one place to another instantly. Angier thinks Borden is able to do this trick, and he tries every possible way to discover the secret. This leads to him seeking out the historical inventor Tesla (David Bowie) in Colorado, a scientist who may be able to invent the impossible.

Every time you think you have figured out what will happen next an unexpected twist happens, which takes you back to square one. Frustrating for some perhaps, but it keeps the movie interesting and challenging. The acting is overall very good, Michael Caine never does a bad job, Jackman and Bale are perfect in the lead roles (and this is from a man who always have had a problem with Bale), and David Bowie is entertaining as Tesla. (Although I am such a huge fan of David Bowie the musician, that I find it hard to give an impartial account of his acting.)

Of course, if you really sit down and think some of the things that happen in the movie through, you will conclude that there are quite a few things that are a bit contrived to say the least. However, this does not matter, as long as it all makes perfect sense while watching...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
My favorite Hitchcock movie
18 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Many critics and even Hitchcock himself think this movie is one of his lesser efforts, but for me it is his best together with "Psycho". There are several reasons for loving it: the acting is generally superb, the plot is very clever, and even though the directing is not as groundbreaking as in many other of Hitchcock movies I don't see how it could have been improved on.

Ray Milland plays the betrayed husband planning to kill his wife. His character is so charming and intelligent, that even though he is obviously a psychopath and his wife is stunningly beautiful and lovable, one almost hopes he will get away with it. Grace Kelly plays his wife, and it is one of her best roles. Anthony Dawson is great as the petty criminal who is more or less blackmailed into carrying out the murder. John Williams plays the police inspector with a combination of humor and cunning that is really hard to make believable, but he does it marvelously. Anthony Dawson is also good as the wife's lover, although he pales somewhat in comparison with the others.

I won't go into all the twists and turns of the plot other than saying that it is really quite elaborate, and one has to focus to grab all the details on the first viewing.

Although 95% of the action takes place inside one apartment it never feels claustrophobic or boring, which can be a problem for filmed plays as this is. This movie was made the same year as "Rear Window" and though the general opinion is not on my side, I would say that this movies is clearly the superior one.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great film based on a great book
17 January 2006
I remember this film made a huge impression on me when I first saw it in the cinema almost 20 years ago. I think I watched it three times in a couple of months. Recently, I purchased the DVD and my memory did not prove me wrong, the film is still great. It is a quite free adaption of Umberto Eco's novel, and if you have just recently read it, you may be irritated by all the deviations from the story of the book. But it is important to remember that to fit a 600-page, quite academic novel into a two-hour movie one just have to make adjustments. In fact, I have to admit that I think the movie is superior to the book. The book is very good indeed, but to my taste slightly too dry. The movie is perhaps more "shallow", but it has a totally unique atmosphere and an exciting plot. Sean Connery does one of his best, if not the best, role as a combination of Sherlock Holmes and a medieval philosopher. Very entertaining indeed! If you buy the DVD, the extra material is almost as interesting as the movie itself. The almost two-hour interview with the director Annaud is very inspiring, and he really comes over as almost a renaissance man. Very thoughtful, yet energetic and with a real purpose to his work. I remember when I first saw the movie, that I felt I had never seen any movie which so convincingly pictured life in the middle ages. When we hear about all the painstaking work that went into making the movie historically correct, this is no surprise.
52 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pleasantly surprised
29 January 2005
I just came back from seeing this movie in high spirits. It was one of those rare movies which manages to be both funny and touching at the same time ("Man on the Moon" comes to mind as another example). The movie is quite straightforward and does not break new ground in any way. But the story is good and uplifting (I wonder how much is actually true), the direction is good if not brilliant, and the acting is overall outstanding. I have had some reservations about Johnny Depp before, but here he is perfect. And the little boy who plays Peter; what can I say, the final scene just blew me away. I laughed out loud and was moved to tears several times during this film. Recommended!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solaris (2002)
8/10
Pleasantly surprised
16 November 2004
Tarkovsky's "Solaris" from 1972 is among my absolute favorite movies. In the science fiction genre I can only think of "2001" and maybe "Blade Runner" in the same league. All of these three movies are relatively slowly paced, with an emphasis on philosophical and spiritual questions rather than action and suspense. I must admit that I was rather unsure about Soderbergh's "remake". Even though I think he is a decent director, I have never really understood those who regard him as a genius. The fact that James Cameron is one of the producers didn't exactly calm me down. I often find his movies painfully shallow and silly.

It turns out that this is a very fine movie, indeed. Not quite on the level of Tarkovsky's, but not far from it. Tarkovsky's main emphasis is on philosophical questions, but Soderbergh chooses to shift it over to the love story, which probably makes this film easier to relate to for a lot of people, but also slightly less interesting in my opinion. However, it is beautifully told and overall well acted. Clooney does a very decent job as Kelvin. Nasthascha McElhone is fine as Rheya (although I have to admit that there is something about her appearance that I really don't like). But the most impressive acting is done by Jeremy Davies which creates a really strange character. If you manage to watch this movie to the end you may understand just why he behaves so strangely :-)
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed