Pingo-2 Reviews

Outer Range (2022– )

It's not a western!

[8/10 · 19 May 2022]

If you go into this series with the belif that this is a western, or that you can watch on-and-off and not pay attention, if you have a bad TV setup that can't display modern dark digital cinema (several reviewers seem to think is too "dark", visually, but I had no problems with it at all), then you will come out of this very disappointed.

First of all, this is a mix between COUNTERPART (2017-2019), a bit of TWIN PEAKS' (1990) first season, some interesting hints to THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998) and perhaps a lot OPEN RANGE (2003).

However, this is entirely its own material and develops it nicely.

There are lots of things left for future seasons, when these eight 50-minute shows are done. That's good. We feel that we need more.

However, the underlying, and overall, mystery is completely "solved" and at the end of the first season we at least know exactly what is going on. If not - then you didn't pay attention.

Josh Brolin is great as the rancher Royal Abott, but I think Noah Reid as Billy is maybe the most interesting character - and someone you will hate if you don't like singing. That's a character that grows.

Overall, this is a nice break from action stuff and reminds me much more of PICKET FENCE (1992-1996) and other similar 90's TV-series, than anything else.

But don't do the mistake going into this looking for a modern western. This is pure sci-fi with tons of quirky characters, and if that's not what you're looking for, then stay away.

True Story (I) (2015)

Great cast, good story, but unlikeable characters.

[6/10 · 12 February 2020]

TRUE STORY is a true story.

First: the reviewers who say that this has no "payoff" or that it doesn't have a point, seem to forget what this is actually about: a true story, told by a journalist that is thought by everyone that he can't write one.

The payoff is big, for Finkel.

This film is a slow burning drama with thriller elements. With lesser known cast it would have been a TV-movie, or a miniseries.

Jonah Hill and James Franco shine, however, and they do it because of the script. The screenplay is powerful and so is also their performance, the direction and the production itself.

Felicity Jones as the journalist Finkel's wife (Jill) is underused, though, and the writing of her character is not as strong as the others. It doesn't matter, since this is mainly a story about Finkel and Longo.

The biggest problem with this movie, and this is the reason why I give it a 6, is that the characters are simply not likeable. What these people did is almost unforgivable, and they don't seem to understand when to stop.

TRUE STORY becomes a circus show of egoism, and as such it's a powerful view of our media landscape, and that there are simply no bounderies left.

Simply put: I don't care for Finkel and I don't care for Longo.

Weekend at Bernie's (1989)

One of the most stupid movies ever made - and one of the best.

[9/10 · 8 December 2019]

This is a very different film.

The premise is stupid, the jokes and physical stunts are stupid, the plot is stupid and the characters are stupid.

But it works. It works very very well. The screenplay is perfectly created, with small characters filling great parts to create logic momentum to the weirdness. It is dark, but at the same time bright in the way a neon-filled 80's summer movie should be.

Everything fits together neatly, and if you can go into this film with the right mood, expecting nothing but a stupid 80's comedy - you're going to have the best 100 minutes of your life.

I keep coming back to this film. Just bought it and re-watched it on Blu-ray (in 2019), and it is still amazing. I still laugh out loud. I know the dialogue, I know what's going to happen, I know the pacing. But it is still fun.

This is what you would get if Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay made comedies. One of the best movies ever made - and the reason for that is: it is entertaining. All the way.

The Expanse (2015–2022)

Solid sci-fi, if you enjoy character developements and political conflict.

[9/10 · 3 September 2019]

I feel that a review is best read if you understand more about what other stuff the reviewer enjoys - so here's a short list of other things I believe is equal in quality to THE EXPANSE:

1. BLACK SAILS - great characters, enjoyable storyline, cool action and surprising conflicts. Sets, world and production quality are all amazing. 2. HAP & LEONARD - bizarre, fun, cool characters with fearsome world. High quality storytelling, just let down by some minor production details. 3. SNOWFALL - interesting true story with deep characters, horrific storyline told from the "wrong" side.

Do you want to know what I DON'T like? THE WIRE and TRUE DETECTIVE (S2 and 3).

With that, here's The Expanse:

First season starts of small, with characters you get to know pretty fast, on a world you've kind of seen in other, cheaper, sci-fi before. Somewhat it feels "SyFy", but on the other hand, Thomas Jane as Joe Miller is so likeable that you will stay put just for him.

The story is at first weird and a bit absurd. For me, it felt much like an 80s Star Trek episode - one of the stranger ones - and not really in a good way. But the characters were diverse, believable and compelling - so I stayed. Not breaking Season 1, and staying put, is one of the best choices I've ever done when watching any TV-series.

That's what The Expanse really is: a story told with a pace that not only gives you depth - but demands that you give it the time needed to tell this story. Invest in this, and you will be rewarded.

So when Season 2 started, I was of course more than interested in seeing what happened next. And I was not dissapointed. As many others have pointed out, Season 2 is stronger - but it wouldn't be anything without the build up in Season 1.

Season 3 makes it more epic, and in a great way.

Overall, this is a powerful show that makes most other sci-fi weak. People come up with comparissions like "this isn't Star Wars" or "this is better than Star Trek". Just the fact that most people are comparing The Expanse to the two greatest sci-fi-franchises of all time should give you a hunch of how great this really is.

What makes Season 1 so cool is the world they build. Sadly, Season 3 is so epic that we lose a bit of this - but the story is so mesmerising that you don't mind. Either way, I enjoy how the show grows and comits itself to a greater goal.

Absolutely one of the best TV-series - and maybe sci-fi-whatever - ever made. See it!

True Detective (2014– )

Not as good or bad as they say...

[6/10 · 17 June 2019]

TRUE DETECTIVE is a really messy show.

Lets get down to this by season:

First season is a good detective drama with some nice storytelling. Basically, the good stuff here, is how the action is broken up into different time-lines. Both Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are great as detectives Cohle and Hart.

The story itself is not something special, and the resolution is the basic "modern TV drama" ending that you will expect - even though you might not figure it out before the end.

That said, season one is good TV and well worth the time watching it.

The second season (and this is what all the bad reviews are about) is messy. First of all, the storytelling is not as interesting as season one. Here, it's straight forward. The characters - this time acted by Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams and Taylor Kitsch, are all good as respective detective - but they're not Harrelson and McConaughey.

And, what is worse, the characters are not likeable.

I understand what they did here. Start the show with a CHINATOWN (1974) story and let three "bad guys" be the Heroes. With bigger names, and a less convoluted story, that might have worked. But here, it's just messy and pretty weird at times.

Also - in season one things doesn't just "happen". Season two is filled with dumb decisions and stuff that doesn't really make any sense at all. The characters aren't likeable even after three-four episodes, and that is a huge problem.

Overall, season two is worth a look, but only if you don't have anything else to do.

Season three is better, and maybe the best. Interesting characters and well balanced broken up time-line storytelling again (this time three timelines!), is lifted even further with great supporting cast like Scoot McNairy (from HALT AND CATCH FIRE (2014-2017), a TV-series that is light-years better than this one, by the way) and Carmen Ejogo (ALIEN: COVENANT (2017)).

Here, we follow detectives Hays (Mahershala Ali) and West (Stephen Dorff). Both are good, but the character Hays is a bit difficult to like sometimes, but that of course makes the conflicts shine.

Interesting mystery, followed by a bit too "big" and "weird" ending, but still OK.

TRUE DETECTIVE is by far as good as some people say it is. And it is by far as bad as some say. It's not amazing, it's not the worst ever.

It's a bland pop-culture modern TV detective show with some great cast at times, cool story-telling techniques, and wonderful set pieces in the 80's drama-parts.

As a show, I will probably have forgotten all about it in a few weeks though. And I won't keep my eyes open for season four.

I'm happy I watched it, but today there are plenty of better shows to watch.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

Uneven - but Tom Waits is totally worth the whole 2 hrs!

[8/10 · 18 November 2018]

NO SPOILERS HERE.

OK - so all of these six are not perfect. All of them are uneven in some way, and most of them - maybe all - are a bit too quick in their endings.

The amazing nature footage - some of the best I've ever seen - are so well done that this alone makes it worthwhile. Not even Disney comes close in their best animations!

This is especially true in the strongest, and in my opinion absolutley best, episode of these six small films: ALL GOLD CANYON. In this Tom Waits is a gold digger - and that's all you have to know.

Tom Waits is even more amazing than ever, and it is truly a treat to see him in his best form again.

The other five films are all good - but I expected a bit more from some of them. The actors are of course doing their performances to almost perfection - and they are carefully chosen. Liam Neeson, James Franco, Tim Blake Nelson are all great - but so are actually all of them here.

I do suggest you throw out any expectations and see this as six short films, and not one new amazing Coen feature. Be prepared to see something unique, and go into this with an open heart.

If you enjoy great photo, epic views, some silly and absurd storylines, quriky dialgoue and goofy characters - then you will love this. And if you ever thought that Tom Waits is great - then this might be one of the best films you can see this year.

8 of 10. Would've been 10 of 10 if all six movies were as strong as All Gold Canyon.

Total Recall (I) (2012)

I wanted to like this so much...

[4/10 · 6 August 2018]

As with the new ROBOCOP (2014), this falls short of the original films from 1987 and 1990 (both directed by Paul Verhoeven, by the way).

This "new" Total Recall looks cool, but is simply boring. Characters are dull, story is what you expect it to be - nothing more, nothing less - and since the whole Mars-thing is removed, there is nothing exotic that makes it interesting.

It feels more like a standard action-film that doesn't present anything new.

If you've never seen the original, and you like shiny CGI-action, then you might enjoy this for two hours.

However, if you enjoy the original 1990-version, then this is forgotten before it's even ended.

And that's sad. As with the original RoboCop, this removes everything that made those two originals exciting, fresh and cool, and just spray paints them with CGI action.

Sure, the 1990 Total Recall might feel a bit dated for the younger audience, but it is a far better film, much more fun and much more exciting. The 1987 RoboCop on the other hand, is by far surperior to its "new" take. Even when it comes to the effects...

This film though, has nothing you haven't seen before.

Horace and Pete (2016)

Interesting, but technically flawed.

[9/10 · 6 February 2016]

Louis CK is a master at creating his own stuff that sells on his own website. Not many other people could pull that off.

The first episode of Horace & Pete (and as I'm writing this, the 2nd will be released in a few hours), was emailed to customers on his email-list, but with only a price tag of $5 - and nothing more! We didn't know what to expect. Or, actually, of course everyone expected an episode similar to Louis, or maybe a stand-up special.

Horace & Pete is neither of these things.

What strikes you first is the set, very similar to Cheers. Even some of the camera-angles are the same. Second, the cast. Steve Buscemi, Alan Alda, Jessica Lange - and that's only the top. The cast goes on.

Buscemi and Alda are perfectly cast. So perfectly cast that Louis himself seems awkwardly out of place. Alda also has the best lines, and it is with his barrages of unpleasant, misogynous and racist dialogue that Louis CK's script really shines. You can see that those parts were the easy parts for Louis CK to write.

The DRAMA though - and this is what strikes you, third - is good, but balances on a fine line of becoming either a bit boring, or a bit too over-the-top. BUT it is the first episode, AND it is Louis CK, so you can forgive this. Easily. Because it never dips into the pretentiousness that it could've with a less experienced writer and director.

Impressivly, this production is made by Louis CK himself. Financing, directing, writing, producing - even distributing! That also means that the product has some technical flaws. The worst one being sound! Please oh please, Louis - clean up the sound! This is filmed theater, and as such it's great - but we still need a perfect product. This is the hardest part to forgive - but I do know how extremely difficult this type of sound is. It will hopefully, and probably, be better in the later episodes.

Editing is also a bit jumpy in some parts, and too lengthy in others, but the type of product this is means that we don't mind.

But prepare yourself for a slow moving drama-comedy. This is not Louis, this is not a one-hour-special, this is something Louis CK never really done before. It IS different. And with all the cool action-packed nudeness TV-series with chaotic violence ála Gotham, Black Sails and Game of Thrones - Horace and Pete sticks out like a 60s dramedy.

To be able to be part of this is amazing. Don't stop Louis CK! All your fans are eagerly awaiting the next episode.

Automata (I) (2014)

Slow but interesting.

[6/10 · 30 November 2014]

It is I, ROBOT (2004), but slower. Starts out very nice with cool city locations, nice detective story, a bit noir-ish sci-fi. Then makes some bad choices and becomes a European drama - in a stupid way. Danish Sörensen is worst - but she doesn't have anything to work with either. Terrible dialog and a boring (almost mean) character, does make it difficult for her. Griffith doesn't understand her own dialog as Dr Dupre - she does a better job as Cleo. Though her movie CHERRY 2000 (1987), with a similar story, is better.

Overall it's an interesting film with some really cool locations and neat robots. Dialogue is awful at places and the action moments are completely off. Suspense is not there at all, and the slow movements of the robots doesn't make them interesting - mainly, they're furniture.

Antonio Banderas does a great job though. He seems to enjoy himself, and that's the only reason why you're going to be able to watch the whole thing. If you're not used to watch European films, this will be difficult for you.

It surprises me a bit that it isn't better. Someone made a bad decision on making this too much drama, and that's what kills it. Had it stayed a detective story, without a shot fired, no wife and robots that actually does something, it had been a better film.

Maybe a fan edit will save this one someday...

Elysium (I) (2013)

Looks nice, but has too many problems.

[5/10 · 5 February 2014]

With a cast of Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley and Wagner Moura, directed by Neill Blomkamp, with a huge budget - what can go wrong? Apparently, a lot.

ELYSIUM is like OBLIVION (2013) (the sci-fi-disaster starring Cruise). It is visually really neat, cast and budget is as good as it gets and directors are considered some of the best right now.

But both have major problems. I won't go into Oblivion - that's a different story.

Elysium starts out with great visuals, which is its strength. It then goes on to try to describe the main character Max (Damon), but fails to deliver something interesting. It's a misch-masch of boring scenes where nothing really happens.

Introduction to other (major) characters, as Spider (Moura) is sloppy. Foster gets a lot of screen time, but her direction was obviously not great. Feels like she's reading cue-cards. She looks and feels extremely uncomfortable until her death scene - which seems to be a relief of finally being written out of this mess. That's also her best performance in this film, maybe just because of that.

Best of the actors, however, is the too little used character Frey, played by the excellent Alice Braga. She doesn't seem to have anything to prove, and because of this, she makes a small and pretty insignificant character believable and good.

Worst if the character Spider (though the always good Moura does what he can with the badly written part), who is presented as a bad-guy in the beginning, but turns good in the end - for no particular reason at all.

But it is the script that makes this a bland and uninteresting film. It simply doesn't make sense.

Yes - SPOILERS ahead: If the "med bays" was so important to the story - why not introduce them a bit better and earlier? And why didn't we see that this is the reason why Elysium is fighting against the Earth population? As it is presented now, there seem to be an enormous amount of med-bays - and if that is the case, why not give the Earth population access to them (as they do in the end, which doesn't affect Elysium at all, by the way) and in one blow remove the will and reason for the Earth population to try to gain access to Elysium. Now sure, there are other reasons to go to Elysium, but the Elysium powers-at-be, would have a stronger power over the Planet's population.

All this is never addressed, and it's the main flaw in the whole script. Worse is: the whole story hangs on it. Which actually makes the whole movie completely illogical and totally useless. What's the point, really? I still give this movie a 5 out of 10. It deserves some points for visuals, cast and for some interesting scenes. I like the locations (most, except those that look like taken from ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK), props, costumes and vehicles.

Music is bland, gore and violence is extremely uneven (very gory at a few points, and nothing at most other instances), script is terrible and direction is lacking.

It's disappointing to see such a promising director as Bloomkamp not being successful here. I can only assume it has something to do with the high budget. With this high budget, the producers and investors get way too much power - both over storyline as over final edit. Maybe Bloomkamp can, in the future, go back and re-edit something better out of this. It kind of deserves it.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Corny and childish - but nice action.

[6/10 · 16 October 2013]

It still surprises me that one can get $190M USD to make superior action and wonderful CGI in a 131 minute movie - but leave out character development and serious and realistic sounding dialog. The "scientists" sounds like mice (are probably supposed to be funny) and the characters are, well... kinda boring.

Too many HOORAH's and applauding scenes for me - not really sure why they're there anyway, it just makes a pretty stupid film more dorky.

That said - the action sequences are beautiful and cool. The "aliens" are nice, though nothing you haven't seen before. Conveniantly, they have flashlights in their mouths too! It's sad that there are almost no Huge Robot-movies that can handle this theme with respect and make something serious. All Giant Robot movies doesn't have to be for kids. GANHEDDO (1989) is probably one of the only darker live-action giant robot films ever made.

Pacific Rim is nothing but CGI animations battling it out for total destruction. There's no suspense, no build ups, no real movie here. But as a CGI show-reel, this is amazing.

To be honest - the live action parts can be fast-forwarded (except for the Mako flashback scene, which is good - especially since it lacks dialog).

I give it a 6 out of 10 anyway, because the director is a hero, Rinko Kikuchi did a great job - and I simply LOVE Giant Robots!

Oblivion (I) (2013)

Directed by Captain Obvious for kids.

[5/10 · 30 July 2013]

First - OBLIVION has a great cast and looks wonderful! The post-apocalyptic setting is one of the best I've ever seen, it's beautiful and cool, tough and a bit epic.

Sounds - especially the sound effects of the drones - are equally great. Maybe the sounds of the drones are actually the best thing of the whole film! Yes - they are.

However, that's it. The story is messy with tons of irregularities. It doesn't stick to it's own logic/realism and is very obvious. You will know what's going to happen next - you can even tell what LINES they're going to say! It's that obvious.

This makes it a bit boring at places. Especially the whole dream-sequence (which the film-makers for some reason seem forced to show you ten times) is a tired shot that doesn't add anything to the film at all. Yes - we understood the concept in the first frame - now get on with it! Yes, it's a summer-blockbuster-movie, but it's so dumbed down that it feels like the title should be OBVIOUS FOR DUMMIES instead.

It's based on a graphic novel (which I haven't read), but the film uses re-hashes from IMMORTAL (also graphic novels from the 80's + a 2004-feature film), the FALLOUT games and a bit of MATRIX thrown in for the "mystery" + MOON of course.

It's a pretty stupid film though, even though it's entertaining at parts. If it was a low-budget feature with no known names I wouldn't complain. But this is a major sci-fi with a $120M budget! Question is: why didn't they spend at least a few hundred bucks on a script that was air-tight? Watch this with your brain turned off.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Doesn't live up to the hype.

[6/10 · 1 June 2012]

I expected more. ALIEN + the trailer tells the whole story. There's just nothing more in this. And sadly, there's no characters and no antagonist either.

That said - this is a very well made movie with tons of great effects and nice settings. Beautiful at places and down right nasty at others. Really cool.

But you know - if you stretch out a film over 120 minutes, you should really have material for it. Sadly, PROMETHEUS does not have that.

Sure - Scott wants to save something for the sequel to this, but we who pay to watch the film actually wants to see THIS film. Hence, this film has to stand alone - and it doesn't.

Without the next installment, and ALIEN, this movie would make no sense at all - and scriptwise, it would go directly to an extensive re-write.

Most significant of script errors is the lack of an antagonist. There's just no suspense in the first part of the film. The second part kicks off good - and is really watchable - but only because of cheap thrills and tricks.

It's still a far better film than much else being made today, but for $120M dollars you'd expect them to hire writers that can really really write. We've actually seen much of this in tons of other films, and it's just not fun anymore. Give us something new! If it was a $1M movie, then I wouldn't complain. For that budget, this would be super.

But when you play around with $120M and you still make old-make-up that looks like in the BACK TO THE FUTURE-films - then you know that someone needs to get a reality check.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Looks great - is boring.

[5/10 · 6 November 2011]

Extremely well made. Looks wonderful. Child actors in the first 30 minutes are super impressive. Actually, ALL actors in the film are impressive! So are the action, the music, the sound effects, the CGI - everything is impressive! Except one thing and that is Conan the character. He's Superman without cryptonite. Which makes him completely boring. Which makes the movie boring.

Sadly, but the film is so well made that they forgot to make the main character interesting. Well - if you have a billion dollars and don't care about what you're doing, this is what you end up with.

Schwarzenegger's version was more entertaining - this one looks better.

If you're looking for a movie - rent the 1982-version.

If you're looking for something visually cool - watch this.

5/10

Mass Effect 2 (2010 Video Game)

A bit boring.

[4/10 · 23 January 2011]

I don't know what I expected, but I felt ME2 was a bit boring. It felt like I've already played through this. Story is very straight forward and narrow.

Overall, everything is very competent done, and voice-acting is extremely good, graphics are good, music nice etc. But it feels like something is lacking.

It felt like someone else was controlling Shepard. I didn't have enough choices, everything was already there. Not like filling blanks, but more like following a drawing-by-numbers.

In 2011, we actually expect more from a super-high-budget game than this.

World's End (2010)

Back to Italin post-nuke!

[6/10 · 15 January 2011]

Since I've made low-budget films myself, I first must say that I am impressed by what Simone put together with Philip Kim's script.

It's a professional product and very nice production value throughout. Especially some of the car-scenes had some complicated and really nice filming. I enjoyed the editing with the German-like experimental split-screen - especially since it was mostly used to tell two sides of the same scene.

Of course, we have seen most of this before. Especially in the MAD MAX-films, of course, but mostly, this film resembles A BOY AND HIS DOG (1975) and there's also a lot of nods to Enzo Castellari's incredible Italian Mad Max-rip off I NUOVI BARBARI (1982).

Downstream IS very Italian. If you haven't seen any of the Italian post-nuke films, then you're missing out on a lot of the films inspiration.

Mostly, I thought this was well-made and for the low budget these people worked with, they created a nice film that works. Sadly, the ending is a bit slow.

Otherwise, the fights and car-action was very good. It reminds me a lot of Marshall's DOOMSDAY (2008), of course - but do remember that that film had a $30M budget and this only a $1M! So if you like the casual Italian post-apocalypse thing, then this is for you.

Predators (2010)

Nothing special...

[5/10 · 7 October 2010]

We've seen humans being hunted by predators before. Many times. This is just one more movie showing the same thing. Sadly! PREDATORS could have been a great film. It has nice CGI (I love the spaceships and the planets!), good acting and nice filming and editing. Sound is OK, but nothing unique.

However, the storyline and the locations are actually pretty boring. There's nothing new presented here, even AvP and its sequel are more interesting than this.

The film is placed in some generic forests, not even jungles, and low camera hints of small and cheap sets and locations. The predator "main camp" looks like a small camp-fire setup that was built for $1000. The rest is, well, nothing special...

Storywise we see much more interesting development in PREDATOR 2 (1990). The story could've used much more predator-character development, and almost tries, but looses it. Instead, the film goes for a generic (and extremely boring and unfit!) character "twist" in the end, which is just silly. (And the "yakuza sword fight scene" in the middle is even more misplaced - and boring).

$45 Million in budget should show a better script than this.

Sad - could've been so much better. Right now, it's just plain.

Surrogates (2009)

Made by people who doesn't understand technology.

[4/10 · 2 February 2010]

SURROGATES is a cliché ridden film based on the idea that we sometime in the future will have robots doing our dirty work. In this film, however, every person is in their bed controlling their robot's daily life. A completely stupid idea since that's not how and why robots are made. Why not an AI for simple tasks? Would people really like to lie in the bed and do boring stuff every day? Where's the fun in that? The plot roams around a boring conspiracy. Boring, since there are too few characters in this mess to make the conspiracy work. You'll figure it out after a few minutes, and after that, the only thing that will keep you awake is the incredible make-up and the not-so-incredible action-scenes.

Actors are "good", but not perfect. Bruce Willis is OK, but hey - it's Bruce Willis. The rest - well, I didn't really care. Because the movie doesn't make you care.

And that's sad, because the basic idea here with robots that we can send out to do our daily life - that is a GREAT idea! Sadly, the writers messed it up. But what do you expect from the creators of CATWOMAN and THE NET? It's pretty obvious that these writers LOVE technology - but they don't understand it. They take what they see on the surface, tries to make it their own ideas - but misses the point.

SURROGATES is one of those movies that will pass and become forgotten, along with TIME WALKER (1982). It's OK if you can watch it for free somewhere - especially since the make-up is always in Uncanny Valley.

The rest of the film however, is simply boring.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Boring

[3/10 · 10 July 2009]

This was not only a totally unnecessary remake - it is also a extremely boring film. Meryl Streep is great as a total bitch and the Odipus-story played out between her and her son is at least a little bit interesting.

The rest of the film is a sleeping pill. Denzel Washington has nothing to work with, and he looks like an amateur actor here. Miguel Ferrer - a wonderful actor - has approximately 1 minute of screen time. The rest of the cast is just bleak and predictable.

Nothing in this film feels realistic or true. Everything is plastic, ugly and obnoxious. The special effects - especially in the "dream sequences" - are extremely awful.

This film had a budget of $80M. I would suggest to the film makers that next time you have that much money for making a film - at least use a few bucks on the script. That will help.

XIII: The Conspiracy (2008)

The comic was good - the miniseries sloppy and boring.

[4/10 · 12 June 2009]

I loved the comic. Really nicely done and interesting story where we followed XIII through the painstaking puzzling to understand what he went through and who he was.

Here we're presented with everything from the start, so the surprise effects are all gone. This of course makes the whole setup vanish, and suddenly the miniseries is nothing more than just a Bourne-copy - and very mediocre one too.

The miniseries has sloppy editing, bad acting, a tremendously stupid and boring "conspiracy" and some really nutty 1980's styled scenes. We have a professional "agent" leaving a trail of bodies behind him for anyone to see. He calls up his enemies so they can know he's coming for them. Basically, he's so stupid that we just stops to care.

There are a few nice things in this series though. Stephen Dorph is on his way to become a new Jason Statham. His stunts are good, and he's doing the best he can with the material he has.

Best is however Greg Bryk as Amos - the only intelligent person in the whole thing. I both like the actor AND the characters, which is saying a lot when it comes to this mess.

Overall, this is just something you'd see if you don't have anything else to watch. Otherwise, skip it. It's not worth the time investment.

Australia (2008)

FAR AND AWAY IN Australia

[5/10 · 14 May 2009]

This is not something you've never seen before.

Beware of extreme sappiness and silly happenings. Extremely out-of-place music, bad acting and awful direction.

Otherwise it's quite enjoyable.

Australia is a 165 minute postcard, but is helped by very good acting from David Gulpilil and Brandon Walters. Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman are mostly awkwardly stupid.

Nicole did the same role in the much better FAR AND AWAY (1992) against Tom Cruise. Baz Luhrmann (the director of Australia) might have a good eye for what looks nice on screen - but he sure can't tell good drama.

Things don't "click". There's something missing. Timeing is way of the chart. Most annoying is the music, which takes itself way too seriously.

Could have been helped by being edited down an hour and with less romantic scenes.

Inconscientes (2004)

Original, unique and lovable!

[9/10 · 28 June 2008]

INCONSCIENTES is one of those rare movies that "everyone" will talk about in a few years. Therefor, it's extremely sad that it hasn't received any good distribution outside Spain.

Luckily, I managed to get a DVD of eBay, and even though it wasn't the best DVD I've ever bought, the film itself made up for it.

I won't bore you with a storyline, because this film should be seen with a fresh and open mind. It's a delightful comedy, but yet has some strong drama moments where the story is more important than the jokes. That's nice, and make the fun pieces much more enjoyable.

I was very surprised of the great looking sets, the cool cars, the costumes, performances and almost everything about this film. It's just such a superior movie that I must recommend it.

The only drawback - if it is even a negative point, I'm not really sure - is that it might be a bit slow at parts. But I guess that is needed for it to work and go forward in a steady pace.

Lovely, wonderful and one of the best films I've seen this year.

9/10. Buy it!

The Village (2004)

Slightly overlong, but works.

[6/10 · 14 June 2008]

Actually, I've been avoiding this film because of all bad press, bad reviews and people telling me it sucks. But I was surprised to see a film which actually wanted to say something, and did it in a good way.

For me, THE VILLAGE is probably the best Shamalayan film I've seen, since this is not only good cinema - it also has an underlying theme and story that tries to criticize our world. It's well done.

The twists and turns are good, and the last twist is best.

Best are the actors, dialog and feeling/mood. However, the film is too long and could've used some editing.

Nice little movie that could've been filmed for $1 Million, and still worked wonders. Shamalayan is overpriced, and he's not worth his salary, but at least he gives us some good entertainment for the moment.

I want to give this one a 6 out of 10, since it has some great ideas, even though it's painfully slow and boring at some times. Nice to watch alone a rainy day.

Vantage Point (2008)

Snake Eyes in Spain

[6/10 · 9 April 2008]

Okay, it's not as good as SNAKE EYES, but it's very similar in many ways.

This is a film that builds heavily on the technique it uses to present the very weak story: by seeing the same thing over and over again, but from different persons points of view.

If a more conservative technique had been used, the film had never been done, since the story-line is super-thin and not very interesting. The characters are paper-dolls and leaves the actors nothing to work with.

The main character, the Secret Service agent Barnes (Dennis Quaid) has the only (!) back-story in the whole film, and this is just a few seconds video clip.

But even though the story and characters are not there, it is still a pretty interesting film. Especially the turning point approx half way through the film is kind of nice, and the ending has enough car-chases, noise and stunts to make the whole thing tie up pretty neatly.

It's a small little film that you will forget, but it's cute entertainment for an hour and a half.

Good actors (William Hurt, Dennis Quaid, Forest Whitaker), but best is Sigourney Weaver's cameo in first few minutes.

Directing is mostly focusing on the (many!) extras, and production value is pretty high and impressive at times.

Could've used a few more re-writes and a better location - but it works for what it is.

6/10

The Mist (2007)

Interesting and well-made thriller.

[6/10 · 21 March 2008]

Frank Darabont is a very good writer and director and the only person in the world who can tackle the difficulty of creating something believable out of Stephen King's books.

THE MIST is creepy, has some really good scenes here and there and terrific actors. I don't mind the religious stuff (I'm Swedish) and I don't care about the sad ending.

The good parts is that the actors are great, the build up and tension is strong, it's crystal-clear and doesn't really leave anything up to imagination.

It does have some drawbacks though. The first one is that it's a little bit dated. The Korean film THE HOST does everything this film does, but much better and much stronger. And it looks better too! This feels a little bit like Darabont dusted of a shelved film from the 80's (allthough with sfx from the late 90's).

It has a low budget, which also means you don't really go for any cool shots, cool locations or cool death scenes. Most is pretty basic.

But it works and it's actually scary sometimes. And it works the best when it tries the hardest to take itself serious and be realistic.

The absolutely biggest problem is the ending though. The realism stops ten minutes before the film does, and it feels rushed and not thought through at all. It feels like Darabont wrote the greatest ending in the world - and then someone else came in and told him he had to re-write it, three days before he had to shoot it and him being drunk while re-writing it. That's how the ending feels.

That's sad, because the rest of the film is super-realistic (even though we have monsters from other worlds crawling around) and mostly well done.

So, even though this is a basic, a bit-too-late film with great actors and nice touch - it falls short from being the masterpieces that Darabont usually creates. But it IS an in-between-films thing that he probably just made over a weekend with a couple of friends, since he wanted to make a movie. :)

Worth watching, at least once.

6/10