thepts Reviews

Inception (2010)

Nolan, the architect.

[8/10 · 25 July 2010]

Inception is one of those movies where 30% of the movie is spent explaining you the rules of the movie universe; we get to learn about "architects", "the kick", what happens if you die dreaming under deep sedation, levels of dreaming, self defense in case of people entering your dreams, and so on.

The main premise of Nolan's Dreaming is a set of "supernatural" assumptions of how the dreamworld works, much the same level of realism you'd find in the smarter superhero comics (like Neil Gaiman's Sandman). Nolan has set up rules of the Inception world for exactly the kind of movie he wanted to create. Much like the architects in the movie, he has given himself full power to shape the dynamics of this story.

I don't think you can talk about this movie without mentioning The Matrix. There are so many parallel aspects, even accidental ones (Architect, anyone?). You could say Inception is like a Matrix^2. The Matrix does, however, spend less viewing time explaining the main principle of the worlds, it has simpler and clearer principles, it has more quiet moments and a stronger arc. The Matrix also has some very strong, fascinating characters.

However, that said, what Inception definitely does better than The Matrix, is to pull off a better weaving of realism, "real" people and real drama. Nolan is so good at creating these solid, Godfather-like, photographic scenes.

The main similarity between Matrix and Inception, is how the open world lets the directors express themselves very freely. Because of this, both movies carry very personal signatures. And as such, they don't overlap; they are both good films in their own right.

Maybe from studying psychology, I didn't find Inceptions main rules of dreaming, "the subconscious" and so on, very appealing. I was a bit frustrated that so much viewing time was spent explaining these sci-fi dreaming rules. This "5 minutes for each hour" and "layers of dreaming where time was multiplied by each layer..", well. You get my point.

But still, despite these sets of silly rules, the movie really worked for me. It sucked me in, it pulled me for a ride through tons of different, wonderfully shot worlds, then yanked me back out again. I was on the edge of my seat and forgot time completely. And that's what happens when you have a quality director, one of our best of our time no doubt, playing by the rules he himself has made.

In conclusion: A movie that gives a strong "movie feeling". The fantastically woven multi-layered structure of it all, especially with the ending, is why I easily forgive the boyish premise of Nolan's Dreaming, and will come back to watch it again. 8/10

District 9 (2009)

District 9 delivers - is sci-fi back?

[9/10 · 5 October 2009]

District 9 is a movie set in Johannesburg, South Africa. The well known plot of the stranded extra-terrestrials being on the receiving end of apartheid and hatred, starts off this science fiction with excellent originality - and develops from there.

The main premise is that the aliens' learned and scientists, have died off due to unknown reasons. This leaves mostly the "worker class" of the aliens, an aggressive, stupid, egoistical breed. The animal-like behavior of these "drones" seems the main driving force for the lack of tolerance between humans and aliens.

Now for a little bit of criticism: I think the premise of this conflict between humans and aliens, should be explained more thoroughly. We don't really get any proper explanation for why humanity falls into the Nazi / apartheid trap AGAIN.

First off, we know that a million sociologists, historians and activists would be standing in line to protest this familiar genocidal scenario.

Secondly, later in the movie, Wikus - the main character - in a pressured moment, claims he "always considered the 'prawns' to be intelligent", revealing some of the prejudice against the aliens. This prejudice seems unrealistic. The aliens have a spacecraft that has hovered over Johannesburg for 20 years, without external power. They have advanced weaponry. Obviously, they have potential for high intelligence.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest, due to how excellent the rest of the movie is. The thing is, basically, this movie delivers. And not where you expect it to. It starts off as a documentary, and without revealing too much, it morphs through many other genres during the film. Throughout, it captivated me. I wasn't bored at any point.

Like other people have mentioned, there are no known actors - excellent. I am fed up with familiar faces. The setting is completely new - excellent. I am also, like many others, fed up with action movies set in the US. (Producers should take notice: Movies that dare to challenge the Hollywood setting, often do well!)

This movie was all over an excellent cinema experience, it captivated me through it's originality and drive. The inspired story reminded me of the intellectual science fiction short stories from the early 1900s. Peter Jackson is a brilliant producer, and Neill Blomkamp is an excellent writer/director. This bodes well for the future.

Rambo (2008)

Quality action, but nothing more

[7/10 · 27 July 2008]

This is probably one of the best Rambo-movies in terms of storytelling and filming quality.

I enjoyed this, no doubt, but you notice early on there is a lot of classic American action movie "formula" to it; building up the enemy as "the bad guy who deserves to die.. horribly", Christian people/Americans as the good guys, a hesitant "I don't want to fight" John Rambo, and finally, a cascade of effectful killings.

Some people here claim that there is a moral here, and that John Rambo is a guy with "strong moral values", that's more or less bullshit. This is a poor insight, to put it mildly, into the Burma conflict, and Rambo himself isn't really believable as the guy who is forced to be a killing machine against his own will. But as long as you accept these simple parts, it's OK.

The CGI is bad. Basically, you could spot the CGI in every shot. (simple particle effects when people "explode" - as they do a lot in this movie when bullets hit them. Also, wrong colour on the blood).

The movie is also very short. The running time says 87 minutes, but that includes almost 15 minutes of credits. I think this is a good thing for the movie. All in all, I was entertained throughout, I kept watching despite only intending to watch half of it. It was very cool to see the "hard mercenaries" realize that Rambo was more than "just a boatman". I think they could've made something more out of that!

Great action movie, but as a movie in general, pretty simple stuff. solid 7/10.

Curse of the Golden Flower (2006)

Fascinating movie-opera of rotting decadence

[7/10 · 13 January 2007]

Me and my girlfriend watched this in Guangzhou, China. It isn't exactly a feel-good movie..

It's hard to describe what this film does, without spoiling the movie. And that structure is it's strength. Suffice to say, this is a very strongly woven movie, a movie where direction and production are the stars.

And that is also "Curse of the golden flower"'s weakness. This is, after all, a movie. Moviegoers are used to seeing the full spectrum of a movie; varied scenery and ambiance, multiple stories, realistic characters, a realistic society portrait, and so on. Certainly, this movie has strong characters, but like the imperial court setting, they are puppets. They never change their directions, they are forced to play the drama. Most of the action happens on the same 3-4 scenes, with the same characters. Like an opera; stereotypic, but intensely dramatic and glorious.

That said, this movie had an effect on me, and as mentioned, it is very well crafted. Without a doubt, it shows Yimou Zhang's skills in his profession, and I do recommend it. But don't expect a "movie" in the classical sense, expect Greek tragedy or opera-style drama.

Free Jimmy (2006)

Cramped together

[6/10 · 13 June 2006]

Many nice stories and ideas here. Like the sami/lapp mafia, the elephant on drugs, the straight edge activists, etc. Problem is, it is all cramped together on too little time.

In almost every situation in the film, there's a guy talking, someone talking/whining in the background, and then there's some additional sound effect. This adds to the general feeling of lack of focus I'm going to talk more about below.

The underground cartoon this animation is based on, is GREAT, and one of the things it does best is character building. Actually, in my opinion, the cartoon has the best character building I have ever seen in any medium; book, film etc. This film however, is the opposite of that. Most of the lines seem rushed, both from the manuscript side, and from the dubbing actors side. I agree with another commenter here, both me and my girlfriend wanted to watch it in English in stead. The norwegian dubbing is just half-hearted and most actors don't attempt to find and build up the characters at all. Just reading lines and making voices.

As for the CG, some of it is great (the rocky brown autumn nature for instance), some of it not so good. What fails is mostly lighting and animations/dynamics. Some of the coolest graphics in the film are Christopher Nielsens own (hand drawn) animations.

I like the "untraditional" story curves a lot myself, problem is, this never finds a story curve of it's own either. It just stumbles past you, the scenes don't find their "form" in any way. The humor could also be better. It is really funny at one or two occasions.

As a general observation, "Free Jimmy" just left me feeling empty (?) and half annoyed. It felt unprofessional and just badly put together, radiating a lack of experience high up in the production hierarchy. On too many occasions, you can see through the seams of the movie, so to speak. And when people die, in stead of feeling something, you kinda go "eh, what was the point of that".

Luckily, "Free Jimmy" doesn't annoy everyone, especially when people pick this up as an unknown/underground production in some video store, in stead of watching it as a hyped up "expensive" film. I'm glad people are enjoying it and that the producers are getting money for this. For me, it was half disappointing.. just as it was half everything else.

Rise of Nations (2003 Video Game)

Still the greatest RTS in 2005

[7 October 2005]

Everything about this game, from the 18 (24 in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, the expansion pack) fully balanced (!) races/nations, via the economical, border- and military related upgrades, to the randomly generated maps (random islands, deserts, polynesia etc), is very close to perfect.

Unlike other RTSes, like Warcraft 3, C&C and so on, who to a certain degree boil down to starting up the economy and moving an army around - RON is, truly, a Strategy game, requiring thinking ahead and multitasking skills. It is also the RTS I've tried which has the easiest learning curve. Like with Chess, the fundament is simple and solid - and the gameplay advanced.

RON's humble approach to graphics is also perfect for RTSing. Excellent symbolics and icons, 3D wrapped into a slick 2D isometric universe, makes it very tidy, functional, and, well, RTS-like! Because of online bugs in the startup-period, similar unfortunate events, and not being made by Blizzard, the game did not develop a WC3-sized fanbase from the start. The strange thing however, is that the game somehow still kept a loyal fanbase for almost 3 years, with money prize tournaments and the works.

Regardless of its smaller following, RON is The RTS. If you like the genre, I really recommend you buy the budget-version of RON + Thrones and Patriots and give us a challenge online!

Dreadnaught (1981)

We couldn't stop watching!

[8/10 · 27 September 2005]

In a hotel room in Kunming, China, 2005, four western tourists were getting ready to go out for that day's restaurant round, then this movie was on by accident - and we couldn't stop watching! We actually laughed at the lame slapstick, the "lion dance" was terrific, the energy - as mentioned in another review - was perfect throughout! Excellent work.

Now I am at IMDb trying to check out this film, you see, we had to go 15 minutes before the ending to get to the restaurants before they closed, which was surprisingly hard to do with a random Chinese kung fu movie. We made sure to snap up the movie title, I'm going to watch this all the way.

Then I see here it's from 1981 - which wasn't expected at all. Very good film, might look like your classic low-quality run of the mill kung-fu, but believe me, this is a notch above the rest!

Alt om min far (2002)

A truly intelligent film

[9/10 · 27 May 2005]

I'll admit, I am an academic type, and this film brought to me a very interesting tale of a real transvestite, following the trail from his childhood up to late parenting, from his kids point of view. For me, this film was inspiring, and well, being the academic nerd that I am, it was "fun".

We actually ended up discussing observations during the film. For instance how Elsa seemed to have accepted the concept of "Esther" as an exciting concept and an extension of the manly in him; his decisiveness and courage, and how she seemed to be clutching to this version of it.

Also it was interesting to note how Esbens transvestitism posed two extreme paths: being the accepted male-female, where he was blissfully happy and was granted more attention, understanding and respect than many people get in a lifetime. And on the other hand, the misunderstood transvestite who felt hollow, misunderstood and abandoned.

As any psychologist will tell you, these extremes, and the demand and savouring of attention and respect, resembles narcissism a lot, but the self-humiliation of dressing in drag is of course the completely opposite of a narcissist's yearning to be "perfect".

The documentary also showed how Esben in many ways had moved more and more towards "Esther", and how he seemed to conceal and deny that this process was going on. Those were not man-breasts, and I don't think his "life-long project" was some idealistic work for accepting children, to put it like that. This was very cunningly portrayed by Even.

But here I go discussing again, what I was going to say with the above was that this is a film with truly intelligent people, discussing something very important for them, with real feelings and genuinely good argumentation. This human exchange, and the portrayal of thinking people with feelings, was very nice, and I'd say rare. Recommended documentary!

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Hilarious, underrated. Ouee-ouee!

[10/10 · 14 May 2005]

I have to say I had low expectations of this movie, I was not looking forward to seeing it, because I'd heard you "had to be in the right mood for it". Based on that, and the rather unfunny cow scene which I'd seen before (internet clip), I was pretty convinced this movie was going to stink and leave me cringing in my chair.

Turned out, I ended up laughing a lot throughout the movie. It has aimed at the "very silly" level of humour you've seen in Monty Python etc, then gone up a notch from there. I've been snickering all day thinking about the female character who goes "ouee-ouoee-oouee" every time she gets agitated. xD "Kung Pow" isn't perfect, but luckily the movie is only just over an hour long, a perfect size for this kind of humour. Recommended for those who prefer their humour served "over the top silly". You know who you are.

Constantine (2005)

Slaughters the comic book, but still a decent movie

[7/10 · 26 February 2005]

As the topic says, this movie does nothing to honor the original comic.. and I mean nothing at all. I guess this is old news in adaptation movies, that fans of the original don't like the adapted result, so I'll be quick: John Constantine is a shabby English guy, part caught in the 80s and 70s, wearing a worn, brown trench-coat. He doesn't spit words out like Reeves here, he's just tired and very very disillusioned. Wants to be the good guy, but hasn't always the strength or the courage. Yes, he does dabble with the Christian universe, but mostly with heathen religions. John is certainly no traveling, believing, catholic exorcist like in this movie. In other words, Hellblazer-fans, leave every hope of seeing a "LOTR-style" respectful adaptation behind you.

As for the actual movie, yes I could yab about how moments like a main character discovering his terminal cancer and another finding her twin sister dead (plus other subjects of life, death and religion) would require much better acting and less cliché. But why bother.. This is a good action and effect movie, that's all.

So if you tolerate those movies well, watch until the last part of this, and you might even find more rare movie content, which appeals to the less than casual moviegoer as well.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

The Matrix of love movies..

[10/10 · 28 January 2005]

Kind of a cheesy headline, I guess, but that's the feeling I had when having watched this movie. That is - not exactly the thought that this reminded me of "The Matrix", but a very similar sense of sensory overload, having watched a cutting edge piece of work, and at the same time having been touched by a great story.

Even though I've seen several Charlie Kaufman movies and liked them all, I never expected this to actually be able to take the concept of a "love movie" and mix it with the Kaufman-style of realism combined with his quirky, signature experimentalism.

Well what more can I say.. it's a good one, highly recommended. I'll definitively watch it again. C. Kaufman is like the big director of our time, enjoy it as long as it lasts..

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Good, but where are Spidermans poses and cocky attitude?

[11 July 2004]

First of all, let me say that Spiderman 2 is far better than the first. However, I consider the first to be very overrated, so that doesn't say much. Again with SM2, I feel I'm battling overratedness.. so excuse me if I get a little rough on it. >:)

The movie contains several gems; action-gems, emotional gems, humour-gems.. Peter Parker vs the two kids (you'll know it when you see it, brilliant), and there were a lot of heart-rushing action scenes. The movie has nerve all along, and you ALMOST don't get bored during the whole film. So why am I so ambivalent about it?

First of all: The CG is bad. Sorry folks. The CG is not near the quality of LOTR or whatever. Check out Spidey himself. Like many CG objects, he always seems a tad too light or plastic-y, he doesn't seem to jump or fall with normal gravity. Or Doc Ock's arms, although indeed nice looking, I never really got the feeling his arms were really stuck in his back. So, CG needs improvement.

The movie has a lot of emotional nerve, which is a good thing, and an important part of the Spiderman universe. This movie is about 80-90% drama (!), believe it or not. Only problem with that, it's carried by too many "hollywood-style motivation/emotion speeches". Yawn! One of Auntie May's went something like: Always follow your dreams, believe in yourself, there are true heroes, don't run with scissors, never abandon your hopes, bla bla bla. Hollywood filler chatter! MJ had similar lines; OBVIOUSLY artificial. Direction also needs improvement.

And Mary Jane, she's not ugly here, BUT - she's just not pretty. Her character's made up to be this model-style beauty, which she's not. She was in the cartoon, but she's not a beauty here. Now don't get me wrong, I love the concept of "normal looking people" in movies, but I hate people obviously miscast. Why chase a marriage-hungry dull girl like that, Spiderman? PS: MJs "ironed" 2000-style haircut never looked good on anyone, boy or girl. SO: Casting needs impr.... well, too late for that. (I realize you're married, Raimi, but DON'T miscast Felicia Hardy too)

The main problem I have with this movie, however, is where it slips most from the cartoon concept. We've seen CG and wire-battles so many times now, it's been done so good before, so why should we remember Spideys battles when we walk home from the cinema? Well. Spiderman's battles in the cartoon was all about poses, Spideys cocky attitude and brilliant lines when he was fighting the bad guys. It was original, it was fun. Where is it here?! The battles themselves thus become a little anticlimactic ("seen that before"), so they just crush a lot of stuff and make Spidey "almost die" all the time in stead. Comic adaption needs improvement..

Phew. Well, as I said; it's not a bad movie, but it's not quite up there as a top 250 movie either. That said, this movie does contain several gems, if you have a "girlish" girlfriend she won't be bored to tears by it - it IS highly watchable. 8/10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

LOTR-style atmosphere and no fake smiles! When's the next one coming?

[8/10 · 13 June 2004]

I don't know what people are complaining about; the feeling of "kiddie movie", with the fake, wide grins etc, is almost completely gone!

I think that's just the reason why some of the previous reviewers were slightly disappointed with this one, because it's now become a "real" movie. As such, it's inevitably compared to for instance Lord of the Rings (which it is clearly influenced by; Galadriels polyvocal temptation speech, for instance, and some more, is reused here). And, of course, in that comparison, "..Azkaban" is bound to lose.

Still, the new style of filming and the darker storyline finally gives us a "Harry Potter"-movie with a real, eerie atmosphere. That's good. The use of magic feels far more "real" this time (less fairytale, if you get my meaning). It's good to see that the story-telling accomplishment of Peter Jackson has rubbed off on other directors!

In the adaption process, I think the director actually tried to do a "LOTR" (= to make the movie good on it's own, AND get as much action from the book as possible), but it doesn't have as many minutes to tell the story as the "LOTR"-films had. Because of that, this movie just gets going from the beginning, and from there on, there's almost no time for "daily life" descriptions, it's all action and plot, the story-pace at max all the time. Which, I understand, is quite different from the book.

Although this movie wasn't perfect, I'm a bit intrigued now. I haven't read the books - at "Harry Potter"-movies I've mostly come along with my girlfriend (who has read the books).. but now I've really got a feel of the characters, and I'm really beginning to look forward to seeing how the series turn out in the end.

The Last Samurai (2003)

A gem let down by outdated Hollywood tricks

[7/10 · 11 June 2004]

This could've been a good movie, a really good movie, because the plot, the epoch, the nation, and the historic setting are all very interesting. I'm not saying this movie's terrible, but it's slightly disappointing.

My viewpoint: I thought I was going to see a thoroughly made historic action-movie with samurais. The movie does have quite a lot historical atmosphere, but the strongly forced hollywoodian touches (believe me) in plot and scenes brings it down in quality. Typically, you will have a point where the movie is believable and fascinating, then suddenly, one of those Hollywood touches crushes the atmosphere.

*slight spoilers*

You will easily see what I'm talking about for yourself.. There are certain classic Hollywood-scenes, like the worried boy maturely exiting the room in distress, then being followed for fatherly comfort and philosophical conversation - or the woman doing her chores when she turns to see her hero returning.. (why, oh, why...) And, classic Hollywood-improbabilities: In a strong hierarchy, everyone who skips the ranks will *always* be considered a weasel (like people who cut in line are despised in daily life), and so when a western samurai-slayer becomes best friends and strategic guide of the leader, none of the conservative samurai protest? Really..

This movie also bugs me a bit like The Beach did; a movie set in a multicultural scenario - where the good-looking American is the center of every foreigner's attention - and after a while, admiration - surviving everything and getting accepted and respected by everyone. Yay. :)

Again: I don't hate the movie! But it was obviously a gem that fell into the wrong hands: A good story to begin with, good performances by Tom Cruise, Ken Watanabe (Katsumoto), Koyuki (Taka, the widow) and also the people setting up the historical surroundings and costumes. However; horrible, horrible work by the director and probably also producers, for forcing hollywoodian improbabilities on it.. because of that, this movie; a heavy, prestige-filled, atmospheric story, didn't stand lasting >140 minutes.

Anyway, I really love movies with a good atmosphere, and there is after all more of that than there is Hollywood stupidity, so I'm going to have to have to give this 7/10.

Ed Wood (1994)

What a great idea to come up with!

[8 May 2004]

To come up with the idea that people acting in Ed Wood's movies would have lives that were far more unique and entertaining than the actual movies, is an achievement of it's own.

An example: one scene from "Ed Wood", where Ed Wood's team are filming in the middle of the night. They have got a bad "motorized rubber octopus"-prop without the..um.. motor. Actually, they just stole the octopus from a prop stock. The team have just finished the "sea" for the octopus, then the scientist, Bela Lugosi, about 70 at the time, steps in the water to "fight" with the octopus (ie. sit on it, scream, and flap it's rubber flippers around like a kid lost in his toys) after taking a shot of morphine.

If that really happened - and stuff like that must've happened around Ed Wood - the people in the set were sure to remember it for the rest of their lives.. surreal, funny, unique situations.

Funny film - at times you just feel sorry for Ed Wood, the center of this network of outcasts and weirdos - he basically wanted to make things happen as soon as possible without having the skills to pull them off. Johnny Depp really gives the impression of Ed Wood's will to make it big, and of course, how that driving force ends up making the movies so bad.

The whole film has a very surreal feeling to it, at times it feels like a "normal" biography, and at times it's very much like a 50s-movie with that black and white soul to the acting. The end result gives you a great feeling of the mood that must've surrounded Ed Wood, almost lets you smell his bad props. Nice work by Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, and especially Martin Landau.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Shocking, terrifying and fun. A full movie - more enjoyable than vol 1

[2 May 2004]

Kill Bill Vol 1 and Vol 2 are two quite different movies, and to be able to describe the movie experience I had today I'm simply going to have to compare the two. Here goes:

Vol 1 was highly anticipated by most Tarantino fans and "film buffs(c)(tm)" - and I just couldn't shake off the feeling many of these people liked Vol 1 simply because they wanted to like it, and because it fit easily into their "Code of Coolness in Film". To put it in another way, I saw a lot of people just swallowing Vol 1 whole without being able to explain to me what they found so amazing. Hence, Vol 1 became, in my opinion, overrated.

The concept that most annoys me with Vol 1 in particular, is that when a fightscene is introduced, you know the one(s) not being Uma Thurman will die horribly. Then, it takes a lot of time before said death(s) occur.

Like it was in vol 1, where you knew ridicoulusly little on characters and background, it left you as a puppet watching people you had no relationship with - shed ketchup aesthetically, and "fighter B" inevitably having to die.

Boring - unless you're the kind of guy/girl who enjoys it to the max every single time you see a gush of artificial blood. Though I'll admit that might have been fun back in VHS days when parents still frowned at "violence as entertainment".

In Vol 2, events and scenes take more surprising turns than in Vol 1. Vol 2 also goes deep into characters and story, and lets actors ACT in addition to doing the "grrr!" thing. We see more of the reasons why the characters did what they did - and why they do what they do. Tarantino is first and foremost good with shaping solid characters and solid scenes, and that comes well out for this part of "Kill Bill".

Vol 2 is also quite horrifying at times, and yes, I am more or less pointing to the grave scene here. That one shakes you good for a long while. Then follows the parodic and fun chapter with Pai Mei, The Bride's strong "kung> fu"-master - this is refreshingly light and feels good after The Grave. That contrast had a lot of good movie energy in it.

A lot of people have been calling this movie inferior to Vol 1 - they're simply wrong - on several levels. I think it's safe to say Tarantino wanted to make two contrasting parts, where Vol 2 had the actual content and plot of the movie. So basically what it boils down to, is whether you were ready for Kill Bill to become a Movie.

OK - Vol 1 is quite predictable, but a good 2 hours - it has a lot better music than Vol 2, and is also more experimental in filming than this one.

In fact, both are good movies, and as a whole, "Kill Bill" leaves a mark in your memory. Still, as separate parts, Vol 2 is surprising, shocking, emotional, terrifying and fun where Vol 1 was more or less "shocking and fun" alone. Was this contrast intended? Probably. Anyway, if you're only going to watch one of them (for some reason), watch this one.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Just when we needed more blood n religion - Mel gives us a meaty piece of faith-pornography

[26 March 2004]

When you see all the commending reviews from religious people at this site, be sure to remember that being religious is as much about DOUBT as it is about FAITH.

I've been a christian myself, and I know how painful this doubt is; to feel that your universe's fundament is cracking up, to feel you've been living a lie. It happens every now and then, to all "believers".

And with my inside-knowledge as a previous christian, I can reveal that just this is the reason why you'll see so many praising Halleluja!-reviews here at IMDB: This film mauls christians and puts them in the depressing, blind state of mind they seek, filling them with the fear, providing a credible feeling of "faith", for months to come. This is faith-pornography at it's worst. Also, pathetically, christians love this phenomenon because they feel this film credits their "team".

You'll notice I'll barely mention the movie itself here, because this isn't a movie as much as it as a religious message. The traditional way of spreading tradition-based religion has almost always, when nothing else works, been the "cram it down your throat"- method. Mel Gibson wants to do just that, convert you by traumatizing you and cramming the message down your throat.

Obviously, if you are not religious, this movie will work against it's purpose as nothing more than a pathetic, desperate last choke from the christian religion.

Enough blood and religion! IMDB used to be one of these places you could go without any risk of stepping into people living the lie of tradition-based religion. What we need in the world today is to give people NOT into religion a voice. Let's hope Gibsons movie - for all it's faults - can do just that.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

A worthy end to the trilogy! Highly recommended. (even Keanu did a good job)

[9/10 · 8 November 2003]

The Matrix: a pumping action movie. Visually stunning. I had heard very little about the movie when I stepped into the theatre. Two hours later, it felt like some time had passed, but not "earth time", and definitely not "two hours". I had just witnessed "The Matrix", or "The Matrix" had run through me.. or something. :) Yes, yes, the greatest action movie ever made - no doubt. Btw: I just read a review claiming "Die Hard" as the best action movie ever made, which really makes me laugh. "Die Hard" and similar 80s/early 90s action movies are as close to this movie in the action genre as "Troll 2" is to "Lord of the Rings" in the fantasy genre..

Anyway, 3 minutes after seeing the movie - me and my girlfriend, moping around outside the theatre half speechless; I still remember that I actually said: "they can just forget making a sequel to this". I didn't know sequels were considered, I just figured a sequel would almost certainly be a anti-climax in comparison to this.

Then, 3 years after: "Matrix Reloaded". I wouldn't admit right after seeing it that it was disappointing, but it was. A good film, yes, but completely void of what "the Matrix" had - without sting, without the attention to detail. Even though I'd said a sequel would fail anyway, I still felt it all crumble in front of me - like the Star Wars series, magnificent "Matrix" was being mishandled by it's creators.

Now, finally, "Matrix Revolutions". I went into the cinema with no expectations what so ever, the movie had really gotten a bad rep at IMDB and started out at a 6.7 rating, even rated below such completely talentless trash as Terminator 3.

I won't comment the content of this film in bigger words. I'll just say that I actually got that "Matrix feeling" again, the universe actually gripped me. That doomsday-mood, the environments. The attention to detail, the depiction of "normal people" from the Matrix, the innovative effect dynamics - the feeling of intelligent directors behind it all - it was back. I even felt that Neo and Trinity were in love for real - not kissing robots like in "Reloaded".

PS: Despite what everyone are saying, great acting by Keanu Reeves. I'm not one of his kiss-up fans or anything, but there's not much in this movie he could do better - or different - as the cyberpunk hacker he is indeed playing.

PSII: I almost got a feeling "Reloaded" was made tame on purpose, to take off some of the inevitable anti-climax effect from "Matrix", then release "Revolutions" shortly after so people would see it anyway.

*MINI-SPOILERS - (these shouldn't ruin the film for you, but..) *

A couple of flaws - a far too long deathscene (you'll know which one) made an unworthy goodbye for a certain character. Also, The Oracle is played by a new actor, as the original (outstanding) actor has actually died. Although this is well built around in the story, it doesn't feel quite right. The Wachowskis did their best with this though.

*MINI-SPOILERS*

Conclusion: There are obviously too many people visiting IMDB who just follow the mainstream. I guess the movie buffs who used to dominate this place have been outnumbered now, and IMDB has become a playground for every mainstream filmgoer without a clue about what a movie experience really is about.

Anyway, to me, "The Matrix" trilogy now feels completed, and unlike what I feared, I don't have to see the first movie as a separate chapter, as I've been partly forced to with the "Star Wars" series. I accept this ending, it feels whole. OK - as a separate movie, it's not as good as "The Matrix", and sadly, I guess few movies will be able to equal that as a movie experience. Still, "Revolutions" is a remarkable movie in the Matrix universe, far surpassing "Reloaded".

Higly recommended!!

Hero (2002)

"Crouching.." > Hero.. great film though

[23 October 2003]

"Hero" was an excellent movie for photographic reasons, there is very much beautiful drama in these pictures.

However, a great film as this is, you can't help but compare it to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" set at virtually the same "age", with the same rules of physics, focus on aesthetics (although more of that here) and also some of the same actors.

In that comparison, Hero falls very short. "Crouching.." is a complete universe with a whole society of personalities, hierarchies, and so many complete stories behind each person. Small details like kid acrobats at the market, the nightwatch in the city and so on, it's all done in "Crouching..", and done well.

Hero is a canvas, not a movie. So I'll leave the comparison with "Crouching.." by saying "Crouching.." is completely superior as a movie. "Hero" is an an excellent experience, no doubt about it, especially aesthetically. Though - if you find loong, sad deathscenes disgusting, scary or simply annoying, skip this movie. It's got six or seven (?) of them.

Freddy Got Fingered (2001)

Take your date - (your future wife) - to this romantic comedy

[9/10 · 30 September 2003]

Go to the cinema to see this wonderful romantic comedy! I guarantee you - you will be surprised time and time again by the amount of wonderful spots where you'll feel the urge to meet lips with your lady of the evening.

As you watch this movie, Freddy got Fingered, and it's scenes unfold, you will feel the romance like a magnet (a romantic mouth-magnet) pulling your mouths together for an unavoidable smooch - of the juicy kind.

And as your tongue writhes and rotates sensitively around her mouth cavity, dancing beautifully from tooth to tooth in mucus and food from meals long past, and you're indeed - indeed I say - having the most romantic moment of your life, you'll notice that you - you're not alone! From all over the theatre you'll hear the romantic sounds of spit mixing, and you'll look up only to see everyone's - kissing - while the movie flickers by.

Even the doorman, who took your tickets - your tickets of past - is kissing. Don't forget this young man, because it will be your Experience of a lifetime. Don't forget the Doorman.

If you want a wife, watch this movie.

Ma-ma (1976)

Great movie, great music (contact address for people interested)

[4 September 2003]

This is not my typical film at all; a baltic/russian musical movie for children, with rock'n'roll music..

I don't like musicals much, and I grew up with everything being rock/pop, so I don't like rock much either. But this movie is great.. maybe it's because I watched it as a kid? The movie has got that magical touch, and a strange, mystical tone to it. It was certainly scary the first time I saw it. And the music is gripping, even though it's, as said, not my style at all. I would like to see/hear it again to see if it is as special as I remember it.

Also, I see other people are interested in seeing it again. It's important in the DVD era not to let old movie gems disappear before they can get into DVD print, so I decided to see if it was possible to trace it.

After some searching on the web, eventually using the name of the guy playing the wolf, Titi Suru (Mikhail Boyarsky), I found a contact address (seemingly a friend of his) which I tried, and luckily, this person got me in contact with the russian television company TVIN which are now distributing the rights (and are interested in making a DVD, depending on interest).

Teen Wolf Too (1987)

Horrible.

[26 August 2003]

I watched this when I was about 14 years old, as a follow-up to Teen Wolf (which I don't really remember at all, but must've liked well enough to see this).

And yes, it sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything, but it was basically really, really horrible. The special effects when people turn to wolves are just .. gruesome.

This is not one of those "fun to see because it's so bad"-movies. It's just horrible.

Freddy Got Fingered (2001)

Disturbing to watch.. the joke's on the audience. A classic!

[9/10 · 18 August 2003]

If you've seen Tom Green's show, you'll know he's an aquired taste. I don't really watch the show that much, but it's had it's moments. Like Andy Kaufmann, T.G's wildest moments are best watched from a fly-on-the-wall perspective, when you can see both the show and the reaction of people watching. Yes, Tom Green screams and makes purposly dumb poo-poo jokes, in his everlasting search for the coveted "embarrassing silence" which means he has actually managed to shock/surprise his audience.

In this movie, he does that ^ 2. :D

To watch "Freddy got Fingered" was shocking and borderline to horrible - me and my girlfriend had several points where we just stopped and stared at one another in disbelief.

However afterwards, talking to others about this movie, I just have to laugh every single time. It's the lengths to which Tom Green goes playing his retardedly insane, wildly unfunny comedian and p*** off the people who can't see the irony.

Just about every scene is a joke on the people who think "real" humour is something safe which you can put a label on, like manly stand-up comedians who go on stage armed with an arsenal of f-words and an invisible "I'm going to be funny"-sign above their heads.

As an experimental movie, this is just one you have to go to experience. In about 10-15 years, "Freddy" will probably by many be considered a cult movie classic and shown in movie clubs with clips of angry, shocked reviews and IMDB ratings as part of the entertainment.

The joke's on you.. like it or not! 9/10

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

What a Turkey! Brings the Terminator series and IMDB to shame..

[1/10 · 17 August 2003]

Me, my girlfriend and two others were on a week holiday to Amstedam when we decided to check out Terminator 3, which I had been looking forward to for a long time; I like (futuristic) action movies, I liked the other Terminator-movies, and this movie had gotten a pretty decent IMDB rating.

We stepped into the cinema, and.. what followed was a chain of disappointments and to be blunt - extreme annoyances.

Here are some of the "goodies" what you can expect when you go to see T3:

1. jokes and humour with references to previous films - which very quickly grow very, very old ("she'll be back"). 2. far too long and tedious action scenes (and I love the Matrix, T1, T2, etc and action in general). 3. plot holes with a B-movie, low-budget quality to them. MANY of these.

This is the one film where I cannot get myself to agree with or understand the IMDB rating it has gotten. One of the worst, dullest films I've ever seen, has at this moment a 7.1 IMDB rating. IMO it deserves something around the 3.0-5.0 mark. This really shocked me, because IMDB has usually been very trustworthy in this matter.

I do not recommend you to see this movie! But good luck if you do..

Hulk (2003)

Surprisingly phat movie! (Note: Andromeda Strain link?)

[9/10 · 11 July 2003]

The weird, but interesting and elegant sceneshifts, the highly credible scientific details, the underground science labs - no, it doesn't have the exact, indescribably eerie mood of the Andromeda Strain - but the similarities are obvious.

Anyway! I went to this, expecting a lightheaded action treat like "Charlie's Angels". In stead: The emotional trauma description, the portrayal of an unstable mind - and the mentioned scientific details; chemical centrifuges, petri dish shots, C code with if-statements and boolean sentences - Ang Lee has gone to the bottom of this film and does his very best to make the insane Hulk-universe credible.

He has gone as far as he could to link the Hulk up to "our" reality, and it's good that he has gone to these lengths - because the Hulk himself is not that linked to reality. You remember CG-Gollum from Two Towers, one of the more credible (CG) characters ever seen in a movie? Well, not that kind of CG-character...

Why? The design of CG-Hulk is without a doubt based on cartoon pages - but it doesn't work as it should. For the X-men's "travel to the silver screen", their cartoony look was replaced with something more high-tech, to fit into our time, and the movie format. Although I didn't like that with the X-Men, it might've helped The Hulk. Made him more humanly looking, given his anger a better, more credible look - or give him some sort of movie-adapted touch that didn't bring your thoughts towards computer generated graphics..

But! The CG-scenes with the Hulk are the only weak parts of this movie - in my opinion. Anything that surrounds the Hulk, everything that happens around him - bear the fingerprints of a great director. I really love the Hulk's effect on his surroundings - heavy metal items smashing against stuff like toys. Yes, "Hulk like smash things" - but the scenes still maintain their artistic integrity.

You can see that Ang Lee is a true filmmaker - he's not only a photographer who makes beautifully composed shots (and he does!), but he thinks in the fourth dimension - time. He makes beautifully composed movements. He uses forces, materials and consistencies against each other in an excellent way. He uses perspective shots which have an excellent movement flow to them.

The fight-scene in the desert is genius.. using the consistency of sand to underline the forces at work and the Hulk's size! Really, really nice! Together with his experimental approach, this is a courageous movie. Ang Lee, great work!

For everyone that can't see the beauty of this movie, or connect to the core of it: Try to look past the Hulk-character. If you can't, well, then I can understand you hated it. Look at the director's work. Absorb the moods. The Daredevil was, in relation, a parody, with a horrible story and hardly any credible characters. Spiderman was flat, predictable, and had the worst bad guy + costume ever seen in a movie. The Hulk thrones easily above these movies. In my opinion.

8/10