lbk Reviews

Go for It (1983)

Awful

[4/10 · 27 November 2022]

I love Hill & Spencer from the Trinity and Nobody movies. So I go into this with much expectation and a lot of positivness. But oh boy, what a mess.

Bad plot, inept acting, abysmal directing, laughable casting (was massive teeth a prerequisite?). My spontaneous thought was, this is an 8th grade school play.

Both Hill & Spencer are seasoned actors at this time so why they accept participating is a mystery. Maybe it's not obvious during the filming to get an idea of the quality of the outcome? Or they got paid well? I feel bad for my two heroes for this mess.

I suppress the memory of this disaster; I want to keep on adoring Hill & Spencer for their good movies.

Walter and Carlo - Up on Daddys Hat (1985)

Inept

[2/10 · 30 December 2021]

It is impressing that the director succeeds in making the crop of the most well known Danish actors look like amateurs, fumbilng morons and school comedy wannabees. It is excruciatingly embarrassing.

Maybe it is unfari to point out one disaster but Ulf Pilgaard falls flat on the face in an inept hysterical performance. Fumbling is not easy done on film but this failure is beyond belief.

This film is a stain on the CV for a dozen of the most loved and famous actors and comedians in Denmark. I feel sad for them.

The Interview (II) (2014)

Bottom of the barrel

[2/10 · 10 December 2021]

I am so happy I watched this movie.

It is so bad and inept that it rates as my #1 all-time moronic movie.

Everything the characters do and say is not funny but moronic.

To top it off it relies on the two most moronic antics in movie production: 1 - verbalizing what is shown on the screen 2 - repeating a line to transform it into humor

Ref. 1 - Are American viewers blind? Why do American movie makers presume we don't get what we see if it is not verbalized and explained? Millions of dollars are spent on visual scenes but lo and behold, a character has to say what we just saw. Why not save the visual side? If they throw away the pictures and send the soundtrack as a radio play nothing will be lost.

Ref. 2 - Say a line, not funny. Repeat it and it goes funny. Re-repeat it and it is more funny, re-re-repeat it and it is very funny, re-re-re-repeat it and it is hilarious. And then explain the joke, so we, the dumb audience, get it. Jeeeezus.

This movie is made by 6-year-old minds for a 5-year-old audience.

The Jonsson Gang & Dynamite Harry (1982)

A very bad Swedish implementation of the ingenious original

[2/10 · 7 April 2020]

"The original is always better" is the standard war-cry in a re-making or transfer ... yes I'm aware. I grew up with the Danish original Olsen-Banden but was very aware not to judge this Swedish re-enactment compared to the original but on its own merits. Being a knock-off of the most successful movie series in Denmark there are high expectations though. I see many Swedish comedies and series and love most of them immensely. Jönssonligan is a disaster on every level. It is heavy-handed, amateurish, unfunny, forced ... everything is awkward. A school play when it goes wrong. The characters are not believable and uncharming, the music is cheap and uninteresting, the gags are not meticulously perfected in details as is the trademark of the original. Doesn't need to be the same but the perfectionism in the details is a must to make it work. The magic in the Danish series, which they were right to try to implement in a Swedish context and to Sweditize, is totally lost. What a shame, they got it all handed on a silver plate. Not even the walk they got right, the magic are the small steps the middle man do to keep in sync. But at least they kept the characters. The laugh of all times is when a producer in USA wanted to re-do Faulty Towers ... and wrote Basil Faulty out of the script.

Almost Perfect (2012)

Below average

[3/10 · 27 September 2015]

It's a harmless feel-good movie with no lasting impression or memorable highlights. Although packed with the best of intentions the movie is marred by hammy acting, a manuscript of clichés and teenager attitudes.

The actors are some of Denmarks best so the hammy acting must be attributed to inept directing by Hella Joof. Hella Joof is presumably very jolly and kind, an avid left-winger with all the correct attitudes, which comes across. It leaves room for no convincing edges, it's all stilted and awkward in the inept and politically correct way. Awkward is funny when it's convincing, this is generally embarrassing. Nicolai Lie Kaas is the master of awkward and what little actually works in this dud is due to his huge talent.

A shame about this inconsequential movie because Nicolai Lie Kaas is one of the best and likable actors in Denmark. But even the best ones are wasted effort once in a while.

The Expendables (2010)

Useless speed cutting

[3/10 · 30 December 2012]

What an imposing array of muscle superstars. It must be a sure hit! But ...

Lets set aside the normal parameters, script, dialog, acting, suspense, comedy etc. etc. Another parameter is ruining movie and TV production in general - speed cutting!

This film is a horrible example of poor filming and moronic cutting. The MTV dogma of stroboscopic cutting, no cuts over 2 seconds and ½ second cuts in abundance, is ruling. And it is so tiresome. It is so useless. The producer and director think they are hip and cool but they are in fact pretentious, conceited and lazy. Lazy because they can skip so much preparation when only ½ a second has to succeed in each shot. Speed cutting is the lazy directors fast road to fake action.

Speed cutting has taken over the world of film and TV and every producer/director is frightened to death not to be regarded as hip if they don't submit to the dogma. IT IS WORTH NOTHING TO THE VIEWER!

Paul (2011)

Unintelligent script

[3/10 · 24 July 2012]

The idea and the intentions are good. What a shame it fails miserably in the making. Not technically, the CG is superb, but the script seems like it was written by 8 years old boys.

The problem is that the script has nothing to offer but clichés. Spielbergs ET was childish and that's OK but the dialog and acting in Paul is infantile. I felt embarrassed watching Paul because the dialog was so unintelligent. Maybe there is a large audience for infantile clichés and I am out of touch?

No point in the movie is surprising, no attitude is beyond 3rd grade children. The dumbest passage in the movie is Nick Frost attacking Paul in the van. Any way out premise is fine, but human reactions and behavior has to be believable. This scene was plain dumb. How it could pass the quality control of a scriptwriter, a producer, a director and an actor (oh, some are the same!) is a mystery. The role played by poor Sigurney Weaver is so laughable that it is beyond belief.

In reality this is not a sci-fi movie, it's a mystery movie. The mystery is how such an infantile script can get $40 mio. to be made.

If the script had a run-through to clean out the dialog clichés, the hammy acting, the ridiculous postures ... it would have been a great little movie.

Apollo 18 (2011)

Very very good

[9/10 · 24 April 2012]

This is a very thought provoking movie. The documentary format comes across fine and gives a good impression of something that could have happened. The creepy feeling of being stuck on the moon and the slow frustration seems very plausible and that is the pivoting point. If you don't buy into this feeling then this movie is not for you.

I am amazed how this film has called all the burping beer drinkers out of the woodwork. I grant it that the those expecting a Rambo Fights Alien or Starwars 117 is sorely disappointed. This movie is for those liking Kubricks 2001 or Stanislaw Lens Solaris. It is slow, downplayed and feels realistic - that's the genius of this movie gem. This is an intelligent movie and it apparently puts off the bulk audience/reviewer craving a Hollywood has-it-all an-explotion-every-5-seconds drivel. So be it. I loved it!

The Wicker Man (2006)

Bomb remake

[1/10 · 8 January 2012]

How on earth is it possible to take an intelligent script with superb dialog once made into a sublime movie ... and turn in into a bomb remake? Everything is wrong. The dialog is childish, the acting hammy, the sentiments phony, subplots stupid, the gun-waving ridiculous, the explaining speeches excruciatingly embarrassing.

And for good measure the director throws in a shovelful of supernatural antics which turns out trite and awkward. Nicolas Cage is a skilled actor so how it is possible to make him act like a first year theater student is the real mystery. He has ridiculous outbursts of anger which must be due to misfired directing efforts.

On the small scale two pieces of dialog baffled me. The scriptwriter and the director must regard the audience to be incredibly dumb (only an American audience or worldwide?), unable to understand what they see with their own eyes. On the pier Cage makes every effort to look like he is searching for the girl and cries out the missing girls name. But Cage has to verbally assert to himself "where is she?". Oh dear! We, the audience, would NEVER have guessed he was searching for the girl from the clumsy acting alone. Why not dispense with the big budget of making a film when the dialog is ready made for radio? The second high-school cliché is the ubiquitous "are you OK?". If somebody let go of a wind they all rush around asserting each other "are you OK?". Why won't grown- up directors leave out these school theater clichés?

The final scene when the girls go pickup new victims is so heavy-handed and overly explained that it makes your toes curl.

If you see yourself as a normally intelligent person, then watch this bomb only as a study of inept directing. Otherwise get the original version!

Baltic Storm (2003)

Inept

[3/10 · 24 December 2011]

Oh dear oh dear. What a mess. The plot is good. The docufiction reference frame is good. The actors are top notch professionals. But the directing is pure amateur night.

The music score is as ridiculous as the direction, specially in the scene changes were laughable cutover fanfares reminds you of b-movies from the fifties.

(minor spoiler) The worst scene must be the Russian soldier getting an amateur fit and stalking like a zombie into the woods having a shootout with a laughably inept hit-man. When he is finally shot he makes a jump backwards himself to simulate the popular film cliché of being thrusted backwards by bullets. What a farce.

I am amazed that the great actors like Jürgen Prochnow and Donald Sutherland did not file a lawsuit against the release of this bomb. Listing all the inept scenes would make a list as long as the script. The direction is so inept that Ed Wood would have cringed.

Den sorte Madonna (2007)

What a waste of effort

[3/10 · 25 December 2009]

All the best actors in Denmark cannot save this stinker. The script is inept, trying to be funny. It comes across phony and heavy handed, it's amateur night.

Americans can make low intelligence one-liners work. Lasse Spang Olsen cannot. The action is contrived, like children's efforts to imitate what they see in American action movies. It is obvious the director is impressed with himself ... I'm not.

It makes you cry to watch top actors like Nicolas Bro, Morten Grunwald and Ole Thestrup humiliate themselves with this dumb script and dialog.

And the boy-meets-girl theme is so flat trodden that it competes with the one-liners to kill the film. Your stomach turns when the sticky piano theme spells out the point.

Danish film magic reaches high levels in Flickering Lights, Rembrandt, The Green Butchers, Adams Apples using much the same actors. Use your precious time on those masterpieces. The Black Madonna is an embarrassment in comparison.

The Fourth War (1990)

Laughable but one of the best movies ever

[5/10 · 1 August 2006]

The plot is absurd, the logic is absent and the running back and forth across the east-west border is laughable.

BUT - it's one of the greatest movies ever made anyway. Why? Because it got a view through correctly adjusted binoculars right! As 1 circle. NOT 2 touching circles.

Million dollar movies, close to billion dollar movies from Hollywood, can't even get this simple fact right and it annoys me immensely. The annoying thing is that directors can get access to so much money and are not intelligent enough to get it right. If they spend a hundred dollars more they could buy a consultant to tell them things like that! But the directors are too dumb! Amazing.

So a big HOORAY for The Fourth War!! The ONLY other film I remember that avoids this Hollywood dumb cliché is The Bridge On The River Kwai.

And that's not all folks. The Fourth War lets the Russians speak Russian. I'm close to tears with enthusiasm! In the Hollywood world where Germans, Russians, Chinese and every alien from outer space speaks American this is groundbreaking. I know that most Americans are too dumb to read subtitles (or rather Hollywood think they are) but it renders authenticity in wast amounts to a movie.

The ridiculous script is totally forgiven on these two grounds!!

The Waterboy (1998)

Very bad

[5/10 · 18 February 2006]

The annoying thing about Waterboy is that we endlessly get phony emotions rammed down our throats. And they are even heavily staged so you can't escape them by closing your eyes for a few minutes.

The ever reoccurring moral speeches are nauseating.

If you make a comedy, stick to the issue of being funny!

Humor with a heavy gravy of sentimental drivel is - not funny!

Another problem is Adam Sandler.

I go to his movies with an open mind.

But every time I end up with the conclusion, the guy is not funny.

He comes across as an amateur wanting to perform way beyond his talents.

Anger Management (2003)

The ending ends it for this one

[6/10 · 12 January 2005]

If it wasn't for the ending it would have passed as an average enjoyable film courtesy of Jack Nicholson. The plot is OK thought out but is never surprising or truly intelligent. We get a bit of Cuckoos Nest, a bit of Shining, a bit of Endearment, a bit of this and that but nothing done beyond soap standards.

Most impressing was the fat cat that could sit still for so long. At first I thought it was a prop. But I guess they fed the poor create so much it couldn't budge while shooting. The physical jokes are surely a riot for fourth grade children.

The ending at the baseball game is trite and nauseatingly sentimental, true Hollywood at its worst. What a stinker! It kills whatever sympathy was accumulated for this film until the final scenes. Why do American film makers grope the audience with such repulsive sentimentality?

Pinocchio (2002)

An OK movie was it not for the superfluous dialog

[4/10 · 7 January 2005]

OK for idea, OK for old Benigni as Pinocchio, OK for the heck of it. But what is not OK is a devastating flaw. They don't respect my adequate vision, they don't respect my intelligence.

EVERYTHING you see on the screen is verbalized. Take away the dialogue and you get the full experience anyway. This would have been a fine silent movie. Not one line of dialogue is not reading aloud what they depict. Mostly the characters are talking to themselves to make sure we, the dumb audience, get it and believe our own eyes. Or is this really a joke, a movie for blind people!? Gee Benigni, that's a good one, wink-wink! Or maybe the soundtrack was meant for radio broadcast?

This idiotic dogma of having the characters say aloud what we have just seen on the screen is ubiquitous in nearly every Hollywood trite flick and it was sad to see this from an Italian production. Maybe it was a courtesy to an expected American audience. I often wonder, is the broad American public audience really dumb and blind or is it the Hollywood industry that is stuck in a rud of condescension.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Tiresome computer game

[6/10 · 5 January 2005]

This film moves nothing. It's Hollywood humdrum done hundreds of times before. A little more computer graphics in this one - and so!?? You get every cliché not one time, not two times but 200 times. What a bargain! Why do I feel the action scenes are trite and tiresome? You have the big strong fearless bad guys coming in by the dozens and they are slaughtered like swatting flies. When they finally get one of our heroes, he doesn't even have the grace of dying in an orderly fashion. He takes blow after blow still standing and then linger on in I don't know how many last words and tear-jerking remarks. Yawn!! Heroes everywhere, please have the courtesy of dying before the audience is killed from boredom.

The plot is easy: heroes enter new game level, kill all bogies, heroes enter new game level, kill all bogies (repeat and count for yourselves during 3 hours). This is a glorified computer game, jump-kill, jump-kill, kick-kill, jump-kill ... ad nauseam.

And the romance, oh we musn't forget the romance must we? Vision the clever producer with a bit cigar leaning back in the chair getting the original brilliant idea: "we gotta have a broad in there, she gotta look gorgeous but what's she gonna do? Ahh, hell, doesn't matter ..." And when you have heard the characters "I-do-declare" for half an hour that's enough. The rest is tiresome. In another environment the acting would have been deemed hammy. Why this film is cried out to be the masterpiece of the human history I just can't figure out.

Westworld (1973)

Hard core story telling

[10/10 · 29 November 2004]

I think Westworld is a fantastic movie, one of the best I have ever seen. It is void of clichés, it is low key although strong, it comes across as utterly plausible. And this feeling of plausibility is the highest quality factor in a sci-fi movie.

No contemporary Hollywood billion dollars extravaganca crammed with clichés, lingering sobbing closeups, ubiquitous romantic side plots, inevitable hero-saves-child tear jerking, can make such a strong impression - all this garbage does not exist in Westworld. It is matter-of-fact in its progression of the story. Hard core story telling!

I have a strong feeling of Kubrick when I see Westworld and that is the highest appraisal in my book.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Spielberg out of his depth

[8/10 · 19 November 2004]

I have been wondering why this film didn't make it to the top. It was destined to be the new landmark in film history. The voting in IMDb is bell shaped with a top about 7-8. That's the publics definition of a mediocre film. Why? Nothing was spared. The cards were dealt for a film history event. Why did it fail??

Because Steven Spielberg was out of his depth mentally.

He ventured into a realm he does not have the talent to handle. Spielberg is the master of children's stories, crowd pleasers, cliché wallowing, tear jerking, emotional masturbating. He is the complete antithesis to Stanley Kubrick who is the master of intellect, innovation, originality. It is like expecting Santa Claus to master brain surgery. That does not make Santa Claus bad in his realm. It is just misguided.

I have a dream. Before this decade is over ... that there will be a film maker of Kubrick's stature who will do a remake of A.I. - based on intellect, innovation, originality.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

A cliché

[7/10 · 18 November 2004]

I wished so much to like this film. I ended up very disappointed. Was it a bad movie? No. Was it a bad story? No. Was it bad handling by producer and director? Yes.

The problem is that the depiction is pure formula. Everything reeks phony. Phony, phony, phony! It makes shameless use of much too obvious Hollywood standard tricks to stir up emotions. The bicycling routine, the desk out the window, the stereotype mannerism, the ubiquitous self referencing (the board game, the pen gifts e.g.). And the international Hollywood symbol of "crazy" is walls plastered with papers and photos. Yawn!

The acting is downright hammy. It suffers from the Hollywood illness: heavy handed hammering the sentiments down our throats, no elegance at all. And the dumbest Hollywood standard of them all: let the actor speak out what has just been acted out! When even the dimmest of the viewers has seen "they did it" the actors MUST say "WE DID IT". Right, yes, why take the trouble of showing it on the screen when you tell us anyway? Does American directors think the viewers are too dumb to believe what they see? Are they planning the soundtrack for broadcast as a radio play on the side?

An English project would have created a much more subtle, intelligent movie which would have explored the story and impacted so much harder. I can't help compare with Shine. It's a totally different movie but the same story. It's done with elegance. I am quite unsentimental by nature but the tears forced their way out when I saw that. This didn't move me at all, I just started counting the clichés to have something to do while the utterly predictable moved along ...

This is a totally overrated film in my opinion. Oscar? More than one?? Best picture??? They must be joking!

Elvira's Haunted Hills (2001)

Childish mess

[2/10 · 4 November 2004]

I was intrigued by Elvira when I saw the IMAX 3D feature. So I hurried to buy her films available on DVD. Mistake!

It was a pain to watch Haunted Hills. The acting is terrible, the script boring, the humor absent and worst of all the dialog is pitiful. It consists entirely of clichés hip to 10 years old children. The plentiful affected attitudes are also extremely childish. And why it is considered funny to scream whenever someone opens a door, sees an animal or turn towards another person is a mystery.

I started out 100% positive so is there nothing good to be said. I'm sorry, no! What a mess, oh dear, oh dear ...

Jail Bait (1954)

Fascinating

[20 September 2004]

Yes, it's inept directing, bad acting, illogical continuity etc. etc.

But it's fascinating! Everybody can do a cheap shot at Wood and repeat the degrading clichés but it is my impression that most people don't judge for themselves or play along for the ride. It's worth it. It is a fact that hallmarks of a "good movie" are: 1) it entertained you, 2) you remember it with enthusiasm. And it did both for me.

The music was so bold and different and had everything to do with creating the atmosphere in the film. I really liked it because I felt it worked for it's purpose. It gave the film it's very own identity.

I would anytime rather see an Ed Wood film than most of the Hollywood clichés poured out these days. I prefer Ed Wood for Steven Spielberg any day because you feel Wood does it for his own sake, not just to please the lowest denominator.

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

Brilliant! On par with Kubrick!

[10/10 · 26 July 2004]

Jacob's Ladder is a masterpiece. Nothing less.

It has a highly intelligent plot though not difficult or artsy and is void of cliches. It therefore confuses and aggravates many viewers and professional reviewers always wanting a standard has-it-all Hollywood outpouring.

It is so few films that leaves room for independent thoughts. Jacob's Ladder tumbles your mind the same way a dream of your own does. I have never felt this effect in a film so strong before. The images comes pouring in and your brain tries to make sense of it. Whenever you think you have a grasp it slides away again.

The brilliance of the progression of the story, twists and turns, and the final explanation, so obvious but elusive as real dreams are, makes it on par with the best of Kubrick.

Super Size Me (2004)

Vile

[22 July 2004]

This film proves nothing besides the fact that some people has no shame in their effort to make money and get known.

If you take literally ANY normal hot meal, even at the most posh restaurants, eat it three times a day in large quantity and sit on your ..., then you get fat. Any imbecile can figure that out. Why does this idiotic film get any public attention then? Because we love to see the big guys get beaten to a pulp. If a person or company gets big enough they attract persons like Michae Moore and Morgan Spurlock like dung attracts flies. They get their moment of fame by doing psykological terrorism. And the mindless masses eat it up just like all tabloid media draws on the lowest instincts of people: malicius glee, envy.

It's in fashion for americans to soil their own nest and the rest of the world that hates USA intensely for being strong and successful leaps in squeeling. This is the downside and price of free speech and let's keep it that way. But it also gives me the freedom to name those people for what they are, vile!

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Oh dear, what a mess ...

[8/10 · 29 June 2004]

It is so saddening that Steven Spielberg of all people had to make this film. And it is a mystery why Stanley Kubrick wanted it so. The sharp intellect and non-cliché of Kubrick is in complete contrast to Spielberg's soppy, sentimental cliché extravaganzas. The ending does away with all the cerebral handling of the theme of artificial intelligence and cooks a stew of Close Encounters cuddly aliens, fairies and resurrection superstition. Oh dear, what a mess! If you want brain exercise and uniqueness please see anything done by Kubrick and don't be mislead by the homage connection here. It is a complete waste of Kubrick's 15+ years of analysis, it deserves to be remade by a peer of Kubrick.

Brittle Glory (1996)

A gem

[10/10 · 17 February 2003]

A exceptionally fine balance between harsh reality and comic book magic. Excellent performances that really makes you feel what goes on inside the mind of the characters. No "cartoon" characters in this cartoon world but a believable mix of identifiable strengths and weaknesses in every person. All are crazy one way or the other but their heart wrenching emotions are totally yours. No sobby goo here - Spielberg, look, listen and learn!