Reviews

I saw the 217 minutes directors cut, and while I had planned to watch it over a number of evenings it was hard to take a paus.

It's a remarkable movie, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Beautifully shot and with superb performances from Kris and Christopher, and everybody else involved. It's slow sometimes, but the added minutes of dancing, roller skating etcetera builds a certain feel that certainly adds to the movie's appeal. And when the rough gets going, it's violent enough for more than one movie.

It starts out at Harvard University in 1870, jumps ahead to Wyoming of 1890 and ends in 1903.. it tries to capture the background and ongoings of the Johnson County War, and while it might not be objective it works well as a movie.

It's sad that there is so much critique towards it, but Cimino did over do himself, creating an epic instead of a more streamlined story.

But if you are uncertain if this is something for you, I would advise you to give it a try!

Saw this when I was young and in hospital, must have been around 1990 when it was released. Though I forgot it's name, this short stayed with me as a fond memory for it's rather unique take on a future dystopia.

In a world that is threatening and evil, the main character tries to learn how to be nice through an interactive arcade video game. This is seen as a very problematic behaviour.

The ending is thought provoking.

Well acted with unknown, to me at least, actors in the main roles. This short is made on a small budget and it shows in some of the special effects, but it still very well made. The world building over its eleven minute run time is quite impressive.

I absolutely recommend it.

So.... I have finally had the chance to see this version of the tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. And while it can't compete with Boormans most formidable version "Excalibur" I must say that I do appreciate this take.

Here King Arthur really tries to be the modern king, even accepting that man is flawed and is a tool of his passions, but while being king he can not act as a man. Hence he silently accepts the unfaithfullness of Lancelot and Guinivere, while also accepting the doomed path that this sets his ideal upon.

The decor and the clothes are beautiful, to the degree of rivaling "Excalibur". There is not much action, so the film - clicking in at 3h - donfeel a bit long. But Harris is such a good actor and he makes every scene worth watching. And while he's perhaps not a good singer, Inreally donwnjoy his song.

I recommend this for the Arthurian nerds out there, and for lovers of musicals. Should anyone else stumble upon it I say "give it a go"! But don't feel that you need search the internet for it....there are so many other good films to see our there. But I had a good time, enjoyed the view, laughed a bit.... So for me the 3 hours was well worth it!

With the temperatures high it seemed apt to join Donald Sutherland on an arctic mission.

"Bear Island" is the 13th movie based on an Alistair Maclean book or screenplay. It was directed by Don Sharpe, in his second stint on a Maclean movie set. Earlier he had stepped in to direct the boat chase scene (as well as some additional scenens) in "Puppet on a chain". This is also the second Maclean movie for actor Richard Widmark, he starred in "Secret ways" some 18 years earlier.

The backdrop of the movie relates, again, to the ongoing climate change, but it quickly turns into a post-WWII enigma when it is revealed that there was a German U-boat Base on the Islands. Suddenly People starts dying and "accidents" happens. Who can one trust, and what do you do on an arctic island If some, or many, seem hellbent on killing people?

Donald Sutherland is solid as Dr Lansing. And Vanessa Redgrave is perfect as a Norwegian doctor, accent and all. Among the other cast one can find the aforememtioned Richard Widmark but also Christopher Lee and Lloyd Bridges. Having mainly seen Lloyd Bridges in comedic roles ("Airplane" and the two "Hot Shots" movies) it is a bit difficult to accept him in a serious role. But he does a good job of being convincing.

I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised. User ratings here are generally damning but I think the movie is quite well put together, at least for being a Hammer-Based movie (Don Sharpe and Christopher Lee were both part of the Hammer-milieu).

A nice touch for me as a Swede was to see the Swedish snow scooter "Larven" in action. The design of the scooter seems ridiculous, but it is put to good use in the movie. Horray!

I can gladly recommend this movie If you haven't already seen it!

Sure there are some positives about this movie. The premise is great and to some extent it all falls together beautifully. But I have some complaints.

The biggest problem is the voice/role of the storyteller. It is supposed to tie everything together. But for me it is annoying only. Extend the movie by 30 minutes and make proper bridges in the story. Secondly, there is not enough singing. Compare with Mamma Mia (2008) or Les Misearbles (2012) which is singing only, this is somewhat around 50/50. Not a proper musical. And some of the songs are somewhat bland. I would prefer the non-trained voices of Pierce Brosnan or Rusell Crowe if they come with engaging numbers. Meryl Streep is good, but better in Mamma Mia (2008). Anna Kendrick is perfect by all accounts. So are Emily Blunt, Lilla Crawford and Chris Pine. Johnny Depp is sadly typecast.

The "Jack and the Beanstalk" story line is not properly developed. Nor is the "Cinderella"-story line. The mere adding of some dialogue here and there (not the voice over though) would have sufficed. As it stands, the story takes too big leaps occasionally.

The voice of the storyteller is not "saga" enough. It is too modern and would have benefited from a more mature male or female voice. The voice of Dame Maggie Smith would have been much preferred. Or Ian McKellen or some other classically trained actress/actor. Now, the voice over is provided by James Corden. He is good in his role, but his voice does not suffice for the story teller.

I would have been glad to recommend the movie. But sadly, don't prioritize it if you are not a solid fan of Disney movies. The visuals are top notch though!

This Movie feels like one of those Classic thriller Movies of the 90s. In a positive sense that is. It's a not so complicated approach to a thriller, the stakes are fairly easy to get in to and, in general, the Movie doesn't spend too much time on potentially unnecessary details - i.e. not bloating.

However, and this is in regards to some of the other Reviews for instance the Roger Ebert one, this is not a thriller from hell nor does it provide a hellish suspense. At times, although the positives above, the movie can feel a bit slow on the negative side. There are some characters that are too stereotyped, although well played. This include Kate Maras character Abby but also that of henchman Kolzak, played by Thomas Kretschmann. And the late transformation of Emily Mortimer's character, from liar to truthsayer is somewhat of a miss.

Overall it is a movie worth giving a look. The locations are interesting and apart from the above mentioned it is well played and will provide enough suspense for a cosy evening with your favourite company. I have not been frightened enough to abandon the idea of going on the train myself.

Sometimes there comes a movie so splendid that the plot binds you to the seat. Other times there comes a movie so beautifully made that you doesn't care whether or not it has a real plot. And sometimes there comes movies of this such...garbage!

Too much blood, too much hacked off limbs, to little plot and definitely no sympathy for the main character.

Uma Thurman is OK - you have to give her that. Lucy Liu is magnificent as always. But they have nothing to base their acting upon. The brilliance of Tarantino has risen to his head and he has lost all contact to reality. This movie has no right to exist and I can only imagine how many that would have needed the §55,000,000 more.

Will Uma Thurman survive vol 2? Frankly....who really gives a damn

This is actually a quite good film, considering who has the leading role...I'm glad to say that there is no kickboxing in this movie just plain action which is hard to find in these days. van Damme stars as a boxer who runs away and joins 'the legion'. Although the movie has some plot-holes it is surprisingly good...just enough for a lazy movie-watching evening when you have nothing important to do.

The story is similar to the Beau Geste movies so I guess that Martys Feldmans movie "The last remake of Beau Geste" wasn't really the last one.

All in all I can recommend this movie if you want to see something different with van Damme...

This is a good movie for a rainy spring evening....it holds both action adventure and comedy all combined into a "Indiana Jones"-tribute.

The special effects holds lot to wish for, they often looks to computer animated....most of all the Scorpion King, the Anubis army and the city of Thebe...but that doesn't really matter because the story and the characters are so entertaining.

After have watched this movie I'm planning on buying the two Mummy-movies....they work good together....

I don't know if I recommend this movie on the silver screen because it would do as good on a television set.....but if you do want to see it at the cinema you will not be disappointed

8 out of 10 for a good movie

Better then expected

This was actually a very good movie, but that was not what I expected. After have seen a couple of interviews with Jean-Jacques Annaud - and also after had seen his latest movie with Brad Pitt - I was afraid that he had become to interested in the commercial parts of the movie industry and that the movie would follow standard form 1A...but it didn't.

The fact that everybody talks english wasn't at all as annoying as I had expected either. The thing was that it would have been very strange if the movie involved talk between germans and russian and both are screaming in english but they don't understand each other...luckily there is no such talk between the both parties so then it's ok with english.

The actors was of varying standard. Jude Law - whom has gotten much criticism for his part wasn't all that bad. Rachel Weiss was worse - can't understand why they screened her. Joseph Fiennes was ok but not more...and Ron Perlman was - not good but contributing to the movie with his presence. Best was Ed Harris as the German nobleman....there was real blue blood in his veins. Bob Hoskins was ok as Khrushchev.

The settings was magnificent and the sf/x was good.

One annoying thing was the music...James Horner must have some other music than 'Braveheart' and 'Titanic'....sometimes it felt like he had just taken the score from those two movies and added them in this movie. Not good - even thou the music is good it's sad to hear it in all the movies in which he composes the score.

All in all. a 9/10

One more good thing was that the love part of the movie wasn't as misplaced as it was in Braveheart.

This is a superb movie....I'm missing the words to praise it enough; but if you take the words: good, brilliant and so on and mix them with all the positive superlatives one can imagine...then you will come close to my opinion of the movie....and oh what a soundtrack. Not since the days of Bluesbrothers have I heard the like.

The photo is beautiful and all the actors are great. And I must salute the Coen brothers for this one...I have never been a fan of their movies but this one took me to new levels of movie-entertainment. And as to the Homer bit of this movie...it's is very well covered under the general happenings but once and again you will spot the connections and you can't stop smiling at their genius....

Many, many thanks for this movie Coen-brothers

10 out of 10

This is a very good movie. As they debate in "Trainspotting" - this movie is the last glimmering star in Sean Connery movie-history, since this it has pointed downward with a few exceptions like "The Untouchables".

This is a very good movie. As they debate in "Trainspotting" - this movie is the last glimmering star in Sean Connery movie-history, since this it has pointed downward with a few exceptions like "The Untouchables".

This is a medieval-thriller with all the right attributes. Mystic monks, labyrinths, secret books, murderers and conspiration in all corners of the abbey.

Connery is a medieval Sherlock Holmes (he even uses the fraise "It's elementary"). But this is not a rip off. If you study the history of the book you will see that there is some reality-connections about Connery's monk "William of Baskerville".

So to the debate...is the book better then the movie? Yes and No. If you read the book you will get the movie-title and also more of the thriller/religious part of the movie. You will better understand the actions of the monks because you are told a lot of historical facts concerning medieval catholic Europe. But the book is very long and descriptive so it is difficult reading, therefore in one sense is the movie better. It still has the mystic and nagging-notion but it never tires you. You'll be sitting on needles the whole time.

Summon-up I highly recommend this movie and think that one should read the book to. 10 out of 10

It's fun to think how Hollywood can start new traditions in countries far away. In Sweden there are a couple of things that must be broadcasted in the Xmas and New Year holidays...on Xmas Eve it's cartoon with Donald Duck & Co at 3 PM....(there was a great anger some years ago when there was rumor going on saying that the state-television wouldn't broadcast the show because it had been bought by an other commercial-station...luckily they got it back and broadcasted it thus saving that tradition). The second tradition from Hollywood is the broadcasting of this version of Ivanhoe. Always at 3 PM on New Years Day....

The movie is quite good. The actors does well performances and it follows the plot of the book good. But as in many mainstream-medieval-Hollywood-heroic-movies it romanticize the whole era a bit to much, but that is easily looked over. Therefore I feel I can strongly recommend this movie.

"Pax vobiscum"

This is a real classic, cult movie. Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi blows the screen with great music, fantastic comedy and the best police-car-crash ever made. To aid them there are blues classics like...James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Mat "Guitar" Murphy and many more...

The movie is about the Blues Brothers: Jake and Elwood Blues. Jake has just got out of the Juliett (Jail). To aid a nun they decide to get their old band back together, and raise $5000. Against them stands the Illinois nazis, and the law - who remember what happen the last time they played.

The soundtrack is amazing...probably the best up to now. It includes great blues-sound - actually The Blues Brothers went-on and made a couple of more albums where they feature some more blues-classics. Watch-out for "Briefcase full of Blues"

My rating of this movie is 11 out of 10 possible. And my advice is: WATCH THIS MOVIE!!

This must be one of Bessons best movies ever. It is very suggestive and the music just adds to it. (Hurray for Serra!) I can't understand why everybody is complaining about Milla's performances - there is nothing bad about it. On the contrary she proves that she can be an actress with great depth. Malkovich is as usual splendid and Dustin Hoffman is at first hard to recognize but later one see how good he fits in his role as the mysterious man - perhaps God? I don't know. Another funny fact is that the English king is played by a man who in the movie "Braveheart" was the supreme judge of London - thats what I call climbing the latter of success.

All in all this movie is very deep. The photo is overwhelming and the costumes is well made. It includes both brutal action and humor along with drama and is therefor difficult to pinpoint its genre.

So hats of for Besson and his team for a movie well done.

10/10

P.S the 2 h 40 min slips away very quick so don't be frighten by the movies running time.

This is a good movie about what the dangers are about fanatics. It all starts of nice and easy but after a time the real purpose of the teaching comes forth. What was good now turns to evil. And, mind you, this can be the case in most of the different religious sects that has sprung from Christianity and Islam.

The thing about the military operation shows also how hard it is to appreciate the situation and how dogmas can threaten the life of ordinary(?) men.

So watch this movie with both scepticism and with criticism but think about the message it carries inside and contemplate.

Ok! This movie is very well made and everything but where is the point in it?

So the devil is out looking for a poor girl - what's new. Basicly this is the same story as we have all heard of before. The battle between good and evil. It has been up on the screens several times and this movie hasn't anything to contribute.

Arnold doesn't quite make it all the way, 10 minutes from the end it all breaks down and loses meaning.

So therefor I can't give it more than 5/10. Hope to see Arnold in a good movie soon - like Terminator and Total Recall.

This is one of the better movies done in the 1990'th. The story-line is interesting nd the milieus are breath-taking. Banderas acts as one might expect, and the rest of the cast was also perfect - extra fun to see Sven Wolter in an American movie.

But like every good movie there is always something to complain about.

1) Some of the computer-background were to obvious to spot - like the Arabic city and the boat on the storming sea, but I understand that it's not an easy work.

2) The language the Vikings spoke. Was it Swedish? Icelandish? or perhaps celtish? The language changed many times and therefor it was hard to know what country they was in.

An extra + for the fact that the movie has some accurate historical event. Ibn Falhad was an Arabic adventurer who claimed that he had traveled as far north as Thule (Norway), in fact - historian of today think that he only went to France and there met some Northmen whom he talked to.

This is a very well made movie. The flaws are easy counted. Hopkins, Freeman, Skarsgård and the lawyer(don't remember his name) and off course the actor playing Cinque(don't know his name either) are all doing a very fine performance.

There is only one thing in the movie I didn't like, and that is the statement that it was the slave question that started the American-civil-war. It wasn't. As a matter of fact, even Robert E. Lee (military commander for the "rebels") was against slavery and had freed his own, long before the war. The reason of the civil war has more combined with industrial development than with slaves.

Hurray to Speilberg for managing to produce yet an other splendid movie.

9/10

I only have one thing to say about this show: CRAP! I can't imagine why anyone even bothered to make this. The show is too loud, and full of bad satire.

worthless!

This is perhaps the most violent movie I have watched. It's so full of unnesessary violence that the killings in this movie adds up to a minor war. Body counts - way of in the sky. But the violence is made in a "beautiful"(?) way that doesn't make you feel sick like "Fist of the North Star" does. Dolph stars as the "hero"(?) Punisher who is having his own private war against the mafia. He acts just as stiff as a person with 125 killings on his B-C would be. Louis Gosset Jr is okay as his friend and the most notorious police aimed to track him down. Even if the movie doesn't make it's way to my favorite list it is incredible well made for being a low budget. It's just sad to say that I don't recommend this movie - which (If I'm not misinformed) once was totally forbidden in Sweden. 5/10

This is a strange sci-fi movie. All the characters are wearing handguns of some sort but still they fight with swords and axes, WHY? Because this is a movie where they have taken the middle-ages and put them into the future, including the orders, hierarchy and manner. It is just sad to say that they have actually succeeded in doing that. This is a perfect sci-fi/comedy movie with great actors and a well working plot. The scenary is well made and you get the right feeling.

So all though strange it is a good movie that manage to score a 7 out of 10.

Watch it!

This is the kind of movie that makes you think. It is possible to just watch it as any other movie but if you are the sort of person that likes to think this movie gather a lot of philosophical questions in your mind. Like:

What is the meaning of life?

Why am I here?

Is the world around me real or just a fake?

and so on.

That is the main purpose why I like this movie.

It is also fun to see Jim Carrey do a serious role for the first time - and I must say that I think that he did it very well

10/10