Reviews

I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.

Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.

Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.

Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.

The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.

-SPOILERS, but really, if you've seen the trailer you've seen the movie- I haven't seen the original, but if it's even half this bad, I don't see why this version was even made. Maybe this was scary to some people in 1979, but this is 27 years later and we've seen better by now. If you're going to do a remake, at least add something original. This had a K-15 rating in Finland, so 13-year-olds can see it with an adult, but it's still a pretty high age limit (Silent Hill, among others, has the same one). I think most 11-year-olds have seen scarier movies than this.

The whole premise - for what it's worth - rests on creating suspense, but it's never there. I kept waiting for something to happen, but it didn't until the very end. The beginning seems promising with its carnival imagery and scary sounds; the idea of there not being a murder weapon, as well as the policeman being appalled, seems to bode well for the story. But these elements are never brought back. It takes a while before anything starts happening, and all the jump moments before the killer appears are really just fake: a cat jumps out of the shadows; a scary human form turns out to be a coat. It's called cheating the viewers, not creating suspense. If there's no threat, why should we feel fear? The attacks, when they finally come, fall flat because of no suspense in beforehand. The only cool visual image were the yellow birds indicating the glass of the indoors garden had been broken. But it didn't make me scared, exactly.

Now, at the end of the movie, you can hear TV reporters voice-over about the murderer. They claim he plays an "elaborate game of cat and mouse". Well, not so much. Making threatening phone calls is pretty standard. He only really makes about five of them, in most of which he says nothing. As soon as he's discovered as being in the house, he makes straightforward attacks at Jill and the children, and there's nothing clever about it. There are scenes that indicate he might be somehow supernatural - for example the scene where he bangs on the door and then there's no one there when Jill goes to answer it (cliché, I know). But then he's caught and tranquilized by the police, and even Jill could fight him physically. So is he really a supernatural evil or just a crazy guy killing young beautiful women? If it's the latter, I'd rather watch CSI for free and with just as much suspense, if not more. If the former, then why isn't he given anything exciting to do? The only supernatural part is how he gets into the house, which isn't enough.

Some people are saying it wasn't supposed to be horror, but a psychological thriller. I think that would require more from it. A psychological thriller is something like Silence of the Lambs. This genre requires a back story, well-thought out characters who are relatable, and a villain whose motives and personality are discussed in some way. It's not enough for a psychological thriller to relate the story of a teenager who gets scared, so scared she loses her mind. And if that is the only story, you want to do it well and make the viewer feel her fear, which the director and writer have failed to do here.

There's not back story to speak of. The protagonist is a stereotypical teenager whose boyfriend cheats on him with her best friend, so now she's mad at them. She has no personality other than "generic teen girl in horror flick". The murderer is given even less of a description. Who is he? Why does he kill? Is he even human? The writer obviously didn't care. The TV reporter's dramatic voice saying his identity "remains a mystery" seems to indicate that it's somehow more exciting that his identity isn't revealed. Well, it's not really. If he acts like the generic movie bad guy and isn't given any depth, he isn't interesting in any way.

So the question is: Why should we watch yet another movie about a young attractive girl being haunted by a male stalker? My answer: we shouldn't. There are plenty of better movies out there, so avoid this one.

I like some of Stephen King's stories. He can write a good story with lots of suspense and interesting characters. He can, however, also write tediously boring and repetitive stories that take forever to resolve. Sadly, Kingdom Hospital is the latter kind.

A part of the problem lies in editing. Every episode begins with an enormous "previously"-segment. I'm talking 2 minutes, even 3 in the last two episodes. Long "Next week" clips were served at the end, giving away any suspenseful scenes in advance. In addition to that, there were flashback sequences and 'new' scenes that were essentially repetition of what had happened before. It seemed that the episodes were 50 % filler and the whole show was a long teaser - "Just wait and see! Something exciting is gonna happen real soon!" But it never does.

There was no real balance between hospital vs supernatural plots. Every time something exciting happened, we'd cut to something boring and mundane. The hospital stories were dull, the Mona Klingerman malpractice story in particular. It took like 3 episodes to hide an anesthesia report, and what was the conclusion? Someone took a copy of the report. Oo, exciting.

The characters are also a problem. In 13 hours, we'd have plenty of time to get to know them and like them, but no one is given any back story. There are no conflicts between the characters, apart from Stegman vs. everyone else. Some of the characters are really only given a few lines within the 13 episodes. Fewer characters would have given the more important ones more depth. There are too many patients that we really don't know well enough to care about, and three "romances", but apart from a few kissing scenes, we really don't get to see these couples interacting either. The love plots seem gratuitous.

The actual "ghost story" is left equally vague and dull. The characters figure things out painfully slowly, and it's usually stuff we already know - "Your name is Mary!" Wow, only the most common name in the world. Get on with it! And then they stop the fire from happening in the past - with a fire extinguisher? What a disappointing conclusion. The bad ghosts are never dealt with or explained. In the end, they're still there to retaliate - which was probably the second season story arc that never happened because the show was canceled.

And the guard of life and death is - a giant anteater. This is supposed to be Anubis? It's a little difficult to respect a character conceived with lame CGI graphics and awful dialogue: "Ant-solutely delicious"? "I do you a solid, you do me a solid"? The latter sentence is repeated so many times that I started to wonder if Stephen King thought this is somehow an incredibly witty pun. I hope not.

And the names - Johnny B. Goode, Janice McManus, Jesse James, Carrie Von Trier? A crucified priest called Jimmy Chris? If the hints had been subtler, maybe it would have worked, but it's just too obvious. Way too many King references, too.

In the end, I was very disappointed in this show. I give it 5 out of 10 points - it was well made for what it was, but for the story, I give it a 2. You can do much better than this, Steve.

-SPOILERS-

This is a brilliant movie. The uniqueness of the plot surpasses even Being John Malkovich, which was my favourite movie before this. Everything falls into place: writing, editing, casting, music. The only thing that disturbed me was the ending, because I felt it was resolved a little too quickly. However, this is possibly the best stuff I've ever seen from Kaufman, and great work from Winslet and Carrey.

There are many different ways of making a movie like this(I could imagine the writers trying different strategies before coming up with this one). The timeline is very important. The true brilliance of the movie is in the time sequence. It can be very confusing at first, but it's also very intriguing.

There are many scenes where you are led to expect a more chronological narrative. In the beginning of the movie, when Joel and Clementine meet, you are fooled to thinking it's the first time they meet. Cue the opening credits and their breakup. When Joel is at the doctor's office, he starts talking about the first time they met; we see a film rolling, showing the party where it happened. You might expect to see their whole relationship in flashbacks with Joel as the narrator, but the flashback is cut off and we're back in the story. What you then see is their whole relationship in flashbacks, but in a REVERSED order, with Joel being aware of the procedure and trying to change the chain of events. He isn't narrating old events to the viewers, he is reliving them and trying to hold on to the memories as they are disappearing before his eyes. The result is a breath-taking chase through Joel's subconscious - somewhat similar to the one in Being John Malkovich, but more deep. At the same time, we see the "erasers" working at Joel's apartment and their relationship with each other, which also becomes somewhat surprising.

The movie deals with a lot of deep issues. For example, how love turns into hate; how the memory works; how you have to erase a person from your life totally when you break up, and a big part of yourself too. In the end, Joel and Clementine decide to fall in love all over again, despite the problems they had. It can be seen as a statement: even if love isn't easy, it's always worth living.

10/10.

• Spoilers, in case anyone really cares-

This movie is best characterized by the last scene: 100 tiny pictures of ppl hugging each other. That's just about what it was all along. A bunch of couples falling in and out of love, some of the stories very loosely related. Fragmented, difficult to follow, and none of the storylines were carried out properly. I suppose this happens when they have too many famous actors and actresses that all need a role in there somewhere. Rowan Atkinson, for example, got only one funny scene, although he's on the promo posters. They could have done so much more with him.

Somehow the film doesn't fit the genre. It's not really funny, and a romantic comedy should have "happy endings" for everyone. What happened with Keira Knightley and her husband's best friend? Did they fall in love now? So she'll leave her husband, well merry Christmas to you too. And Emma Thompson cheated on and Laura Linney stuck with an insane brother and losing the guy - not my idea of a feel-good movie.

As for the humor, it was really almost nonexistent. There were a few "cute" scenes, and I laughed heartily at Bill Nighy once or twice, but it seems the writers didn't even really try to make it funny. The jokes were predictable, forced and sometimes just plain weird (like the little girls wanting to hear Christmas carols - huh?) There was only one big laugh in the theatre during the whole movie. Didn't feel like watching a comedy. Bill Nighy as the aging rock star and Colin Firth with his Portuguese girl were funny at first, but both stories were watered down by the end. The "fat sister" thing was so predictable. They even hinted at it in the beginning of the movie!

Speaking of which, what's with all the fat jokes? They're ok in Bridget Jones, but here we have a normal weight girl being called "plump", and Emma Thompson comparing herself to Pavarotti?! Way to promote a healthy body image. Not to mention the characters who actually were fat. I wonder if the writers have weight issues?

Hugh Grant was, as usual, charming, but his storyline wasn't as central as I had hoped. Also, they shouldn't have brought in the politics between USA and GB. I get the Monica Lewinsky joke ("plump" girl kissed by US president), but it just didn't fit the movie.

And the appalling storyline about the little boy who falls in love? 11-year-old boys do NOT fall in love. And he just lost his mother but is much sadder about a girl not noticing him? Maybe if he were 15, and the mother had died a year ago, or something. I couldn't believe the airport scene. It's even older than "fat sister" or "friends are more important than success". Too many clichés for one movie.

I mostly went to see this movie for Hugh Grant, so I didn't expect too much, but I was still disappointed. This movie was just too shoddily done to really touch me in any way. 5 out of 10 points (3 for Hugh Grant&Emma Thompson, 2 for the content).

* Contains minor SPOILERS - although they don't really matter with a movie like this* It seems most people were disappointed in this movie. I expected to be, too, but I wasn't. A lot of Austin fans seem to have expected a new plot and I'll amdit that this was mostly recycling the old elements. But I think this sequel, although it lacked in originality and plot, was just as funny as the previous ones.

Sure, the plot is thin - even surprisingly thin, considering the other two movies had a coherent plot. The story doesn't seem important to the writers this time, it doesn't really proceed for most of the movie, it's just parodies and gags. That's ok, though, as long as they're funny. And for the most part, they are.

The beginning is hilarious. Tom Cruise as Austin, Gwyneth Paltrow as the girl, Kevin Spacey as Dr Evil and Danny DeVito as Mini Me? LOL!! It's so unexpected and well made. However, the Britney Spears cameo is disappointing and the musician cameos are just dull. All they do is play the keyboards. The whole Hollywood idea doesnt' really fit well with Austin Powers. Especially the ending seems to take some of the edge off the story.

Michael Caine/Nigel Powers seems unnecessary. The whole father plot is a bit weird, especially the ending. It seems like a good idea, but they just don't use the character enough. Nigel doesn't have half the charisma of Austin, either, although he seems to like women as much.

Foxxy Cleopatra was also a bit disappointing. After the hilarious first scene with the lip synching man - it looked SO weird! -, she fails to make a real impression. In fact, she does almost nothing throughout the whole movie. She just stands there and looks sexy.

Goldmember is a bad character. He's insulting to Dutch people, and non-Americans in general (why are Americans so xenophobic? Everyone has an accent, there's nothing funny about that). And he just plainly isn't funny. The mole thing - funny the first two times, but there could have been less of it. Fat Bastard is exactly the same as in the last film, and I always found him gross and unfunny. I didn't want to see him again. The sumo wrestling part was funny though.

The funniest character is Mini-Me, although I didn't like some of the scenes that made him act like a dog. Mini-Me as Austin is the funniest thing about the movie. Dr Evil isn't quite as funny as in the previous though, but still gets a lot of laughs.

I think Austin himself is losing some of his charm - in some scenes he talked in a voice that was too "normal" for Austin, like when he was visiting Dr Evil in the jail. Nothing groovy about that scene. Somehow it seemed that Mike Myers sometimes forgot he was playing Austin Powers. That's the impression I got anyway.

It seems no one else liked Dr Evil and Mini-Me's version of "Hard Knock Life", but I found it simply hilarious. It was so surprising! I think it was funnier than "Just the two of us" in The Spy Who Shagged Me. The Japanese subtitles joke was funny although it was a bit overlong, and I also liked the doctor's appointment scene. Some jokes, like the Japanese twins, were a bit dumb, but there were also some great puns(like the..eh..linguist one).

All in all, Austin Powers in Goldmember is as funny as the other two, although it lacks some of the originality and charisma. I laughed throughout the film, just some overlong scenes at the end seemed boring. There was a lot of gross stuff, but not too much in my opinion. I liked this, but I hope there won't be an Austin Powers IV. This is still a worthy movie and would be a good ending for the series. The next one might just suck.