Reviews

"Empire" had the better ending. Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader is his father, uh, Han gets frozen, taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All "Jedi" had was a bunch of Muppets."

Very many Star Wars fans agree heartily with Dante Hicks from "Clerks" on this one. They argue that primitive woodland creatures couldn't possibly defeat Empire Stromtroopers, and that Lucas added them just for the kids. Like he did with Jar Jar Binks sixteen years later.

While I agree 100% about the moronic Jar Jar, I don't mind the Ewoks. I think most of the men who view "Star Wars" as more of a lifestyle than a movie can't stand the Ewoks primarily cause it remind them that this big part of their life is somewhat aimed at older children and pre-teens. It makes them feel somewhat embarrassed, geeky and childlike for loving "Star Wars"

Of course, "Star Wars" isn't just a movie for children and teens, but it certainly isn't "Rated R" either. I first watched Lucas' masterpiece trilogy as a child, and found the Ewoks to be a welcome comic relief. In fact, I like "Jedi" as much as "Empire" and even more than the original movie. Every part of the last chapter for me is highly entertaining.

Still, while I love it as much as the two other originals, I find the rating here on IMDb very appropriate. While Episode IV and V have universal acclaim among the fans, this last one has not for the reasons listed above. We still love it enough to vote it in the upper half of the Top 250, a hundred places behind the predecessors. The rating shows EXACTLY what the fans think. Perfect.

When you watch "Big" you get the sensation of watching something unique, something special. Tom Hanks IS a kid in an adult body in this movie. I smiled, i laughed, i sometimes howled of laughter when watching the situations that emerges when a kid tries to be an adult. My favourite scene is the one where Susan gets to see Josh's apartment. You can't help loving Josh Baskin when you've watched through, and it is mostly because of Tom Hanks. I've seen the man in dramatic roles like The Green Mile, Cast Away, The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can, but though they're all brilliant, Hanks has his finest hour when he he is childlike characters like Forrest Gump and Big. Amazing. 9/10

P.S. (Here is the small spoiler) Josh acts more like he's 8/9 than 12/13. I think I can say for sure that most 13-year old boys would've grasped what Susan wanted (I know I would've when I was 13). They probably wouldn't known what to DO about her wish, being inexperienced and all, but anyway my point is: 13-year old boys have heard, and want, sex!

If you are a big fan of the books, like me, you will probably watch this movie no matter what, as I have done. I'm sorry to say though that the biggest spoiler is doing just that. Lets take a look:

• I hated the whole Harry/Ginny-relationship. Firstly, Bonnie Wright is horrible. This relationship evolved through the book, while it was evident from the start here. This is stupid because when Harry came to the Burrow, he looked instantly in love with Ginny, despite the fact that there was no hint of even a start of a romantic connection between them at the end of neither book or film 5. Are they supposed to have fallen in love during a summer absent from each other? The relationship stays like this until Ginny kisses him late in the movie, on a point in the plot when they're together in the book, and Ginny instantly suggests to end it with that kiss. Why use all that time on this twisted portrayal of their relationship?

• The Harry/Snape-relationship is supposed to be immensely hateful, while in the movie they just "slightly don't get along". This counts for Snapes relationship with Bella DeMons as well.

• I've never really liked Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, but in this movie (probably more noticeable because of his extended, more important role) he reaches rock bottom. Rowlings Dumbledore is, how should I put it, a character who just SHINES of power, wisdom, kindness and natural superiority, all traits that are as lacking in Gambon as they were present in the late Richard Harris. This is noticeable from the very start of the picture and becomes even more painfully evident in the climax at the end.

• Bonham Carters Bellatrix DeMons is a performance that would be close to perfect if she was meant to play the poltergeist Peeves. Bellatrix is not a clown, she is an incarnation of evil, and to see Bonham Carter portray her like she was a character in one of her husbands stupid emo-movies is frankly a disgrace. The scene with her outside of the Burrow (which is absent in the book and therefore totally unnecessary ) is an example of this and should be cut to give space for more details in the important scenes.

• I liked the love triangle between Ron(Won), Hermione and Lavender (I found Jessie Cave's performance both great as itself as well as strengthening the character of Ron Weasley) but it got way too much focus next to what should have been the movie's main plot: The story of young Tom Riddle and his horcruxes. Too many scenes concerning this plot were cut, and those that were present were way too short and hurried, just to give space for material either twisted or absent from the book or concerning romance. Why they made such an amazing fantasy story into an average teenage romantic-comedy is beyond me, but I suppose it is all about what gives most profit.

• Horace Slughorn is an amusing character, but he is not the moron portrayed by Jim Broadbent.

• Why the heck did they remove John Williams magical Harry Potter-score?!

• And despite all these major flaws, they are nothing compared to the worst of them all: Harry Potter would NEVER just stand and watch Draco Malfoy, a bunch of Death Eaters AND Severus Snape alone with a weakened and wandless Albus Dumbledore! That is the single most stupid thing I have ever seen in a movie. Why on Earth wasn't Harry immobilized like in the book?! How easy wouldn't that have been to portray? And afterwards, the rest of the movie is one big flaw. The Battle at Hogwarts is simply absent, the Death Eaters just walk calmly out, the confrontation between Harry and Snape is beyond embarrassing, Hogwarts reaction to Dumbledores death is just weird and the end is way too short and simple.

• Many other similar but less serious flaws were also almost constantly present, but I can't mention them all. I think you get my point anyway.

Why then, do I give as much as 4 stars? Well, there were some scenes I thought was well done, especially the comedy, the love triangle, the Quidditch and the scene where Harry got Slughorns memory. Special effects were as always enchanting, and apart from the characters and actors mentioned I was fairly pleased. I love the Harry Potter franchise and can't keep myself from liking it somehow despite major flaws. Also, I see that as a movie for anyone not familiar with the books and less critical than me it can be very enjoyable. 4/10.

The best part about this movie is Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. Such a character! Never does he move an inch from what he stands for, what he believes in, and that is justice! He is amazing in the courtroom, with his children and when coping with everything and everyone. Atticus Finch does it all right, he knows exactly how to behave in every situation. His character alone makes this movie worth seeing.

The movie starts with portraying the daily life of Atticus's two children, Jem and Scout, as they run around the neighbourhood mainly daring each other to get as near as possible to the house of a town original. They are two ordinary kids of 10 and 6, most often doing exactly the opposite of what they're told. Sometimes it's amusing watching them do their mischief, but what amused me most was the fact that they always called their dad "Atticus" and not "dad". It made me chuckle more than once.

The plot thickens when Finch takes the case of defending Tom Robinson, a black man, from having allegedly raped a white girl. Atticus gets VERY unpopular for taking the case, and even has to sit outside the prison guarding Robinson the night before trial so that the men of the town won't come and shoot the man. From here on comes one powerful scene after another with Atticus Finch's power in front.

This movie values equality, justice and strength of character. It shows very clear, yes like many other movies but still, the dreadful injustice racism can give, and has given so many times. Along with Peck's flawless performance, Brock Peters, James Anderson and all the kids also does superb acting. Absolutely worth seeing. 8,5/10

When I started watching Double Indemnity I thought it was okay. It was an okay build-up, and I felt fairly interested in what was going to happen next. It seemed like an okay detective story.

And just like the case was with Walter Neff, I got dragged further and further in. It just got more and more exciting! Such a story! Smooth, slick, cool Walter. Always keeping his mask, doing exactly what was needed all the way to keep suspicion out of his way. I know I would never have suspected Walter, the man who light matches with nothing but his fingers.

But then you have Keyes. The genius with the incredible eye for details. Walter had him fooled for quite some time, but Keyes got closer and closer, and it was just a matter of time before it would all fall apart. And so it did.

I won't spoil any more of this of the story, all I can say is that this is film-noir good as anything; it has the atmosphere, the characters, the thrill and so many clever twists in an excellent story. It is exciting, cool, smart and it doesn't let you go before the end. This leaves you wanting more at the end. (And when you do, try "The Apartment" with Fred MacMurray as the villain. Even better!)

Recommended. 7/10

When I first saw Sällskapsresan some years ago, I laughed a lot. Being a Norwegian myself, I already knew the comedy of Jon Skolmen, one of Norway's finest comedians. Lasse Åberg from Sweden on the other hand, was new for me.

He was even funnier than Skolmen! Who can not laugh at this clumsy and shy weirdo with the silly name; Stig-Helmer Olsson? When he dreams about Majsan for the first time, when he goes to the doctor afraid of flying and when he has socks in his sandals on Gran Canaria. I laugh a lot at Stig-Helmer Olsson.

And then you have Ole Bramserud, Skolmens character. This lively and funny Norwegian with the big heart and the big belly. He really is so different from Stig-Helmer as he can be. Together they make quite a team and a very funny movie.

But despite of Ole and Stig-Helmers many funny episodes, the thing that made me laugh the most was when the two drunkards was getting in to Gran Canaria. The worst of them was, of course, completely wasted after the flight from Sweden and the other one was very worried about how to get in with a drunk man. So he places him on a rolling chair and puts some blankets on him and rolls him out of the airport sleeping just stating to the airport-crew one word: "Invalido!" pointing at his friend. And I laughed so hard that that scene alone makes this film worth seeing.

Just plain fun! 8/10

I read on Wikipedia that this film has been accused of glorifying violence? What the heck? Only people as sick as Alex DeLarge can like and be hungry for more of this after watching him for two hours. Only sociopaths.

Alex DeLarge is a sick, sick character. I felt repulsed, angry, sick and hateful watching him and his doings. It felt good to see him get arrested and tortured by his treatment.

But it hit me that when he got his treatment, the doctors and the politicians responsible was doing virtually the same things to him. They took away Alex's free will by torturing him, threw him out on the street unable to defend himself and when he got beaten up and tortured by the people he had offended earlier in the movie it was really the governments fault. They almost killed him and was applauded for it, even though they were just as evil as him, cause they knew they didn't make him a better man, they were fully aware that they were just restricting him violently to make him a better man TO SOCIETY.

And I felt sick. Just like Alex I felt really nauseous. It all felt so meaningless. Everyone and everything was sick, everyone was violated, everyone got hurt, everyone just thought of themselves and not of others. It made me wanna throw up! The government just wanted to use Alex, first to front their new program, then to ensure that he didn't give them bad publicity after their treatment almost killed him. Yes, he is a sick sociopath, but so is the government people.

They say that Kubricks intention with Clockwork was to attack the treatment. And its probably true, but for me this is just as much a study of all that is bad in mankind, and it really made me feel how bad we humans can be! In the end, Alex turns out just as bad as he started, maybe even worse, because of the violent treatment. And he's glad for it. He's back on the track of violence and raping and he is LOVING it. In Alex' own words: "I was cured all right". The violence made him worse. The bastards made the bastard worse.

Many movies glorifies violence. But never before has a movie made me feel THIS repulsed by it. Now, an hour after seeing the movie, I still feel like crap. Violence makes nothing but more violence, and no one can be cured from anything by violent means. This movie showed me, made me FEEL that one thing clearer than anything has ever done before: Nothing good comes out of violence! Absolutely NOTHING! It just strengthens, expands and makes evil. I had never thought that I would love to be repulsed by a movie.

We should think about that after watching violent action movies. Why do we enjoy violence so much? And I'm the first to say that I do so myself! I find movies like Die Hard very entertaining. But why? After all it is horrible, and that is what makes A Clockwork Orange a masterpiece, what makes it unique; it makes us feel the horror of violence and evil. No other movies that I can think of does that, at least not in such a degree that I have felt literally near vomiting. And that effect is outstanding, cause that's how we ought to feel. In a way, Die Hard is a much more dangerous movie to see for children than this, cause it portrays violence as cool and entertaining. And THAT is scary!

So I ask myself: Can you really like and be fascinated by a movie this repulsive? Yes, when it is horrible for a purpose! And the purpose is strong messages against violence and perhaps even more important against the "justified violence", that the society does for "the common good". I would very much like to give 10/10 but the middle-part could've been paced/altered slightly, so I'll settle for a strong 9/10. Perhaps Kubricks greatest.

Almost 4 hours is a very long movie. Very long. So I sat down and watched with great expectations: To gain an 8.6 average from so many people, these four hours will have to seem like 2!

And indeed it did. From start to intermission after 140 minutes I was very pleased. I had enjoyed Lawrences trip to and visit of the Prince, his journey through the Nefud desert, his meeting with tribe-leader Auda, his attack on Aqaba and his voyage to Sinai and back to the Brits. It was beautiful, exciting, entertaining and fascinating. I absolutely LOVED Peter O' Toole as Lawrence! Alec Guinness was excellent as Feisal and the acting was generally great. I REALLY cared for the characters. It was wonderful to really FEEL something strong for them, and it came from the marvelous acting. The scenery, the music and the storytelling was also flawless and breathtaking. The epics first 140 minutes had felt like 60.

Lawrence continues his quest for the Arabs, he leads them into guerrilla war against the Turks, and everything still goes his way. But he starts losing men. The Arabs goes home to their respective tribes after having earned money and goods from robbing the Turks trains. With only twenty men left, he is caught while scouting the enemy-held city Daraa. He is severely beaten and thrown out in the street.

Lawrence, now a traumatized man from this experience, just wants to be an ordinary British soldier again. And I really feel with him. It's like I just wanna go home to. Lawrence is then convinced by his superior general that he needs to go back to the Arabs to take Damascus for their cause. He succeeds in taking the city, but the Arabs are tribes, not a nation, and can't maintain administration over the city together. In the end the Arabs go back to their tribes while Lawrence goes home to Britain a defeated man.

This movie's second part is harder than the first, and that can definitely be seen as negative. But in my point of view it actually SHOULD be like this. Why? Because Lawrence has it so much harder and tougher in the second part, and when it feels longer it's because we feel with him! Everything takes longer time when you're not enjoying it right? And besides the greatness I've mentioned about the first part, that is what makes this movie so great: It takes you so deeply into Lawrences situation that you feel EXACTLY as he does! The movie captures the mood perfectly. Stunning! 9/10

This is an action movie, it's a sci-fi movie and it's a thriller. And it does it well, it's very good. But what I like, actually LOVE, the most about this feature is something that it doesn't aspire to do; comedy.

Arnold cracks me up as the Terminator. The dialogue between him and John when the kid tries to learn him how to speak "cool" is simply hilarious. And even better; when he tries to smile at John's command. I laughed like I haven't in a long time. If not for anything else, just that scene alone makes this movie worth watching.

So all in all it's a good movie as what it aspires to be; an action movie. The comedy gives it a little something extra and for me that's what pushes this movie up from a 7 to an 8/10.

Hasta la Vista, baby!

There is no doubt that both Ace Ventura-movies are simple, dumb movies with childish, gross-out and "unintelligent" humour. BUT: What is a comedy's first and definitely most important purpose? Of course, it is to make you laugh. And BOY did I laugh! Jim Carrey isn't always funny with his rubber-face and comedic acting, but Ace Ventura is THE role for him. Everything fits, and some parts made me laugh until I cried.

Who can forget the car-scenes, the guano-bowls, talking with the tribe-people and most of all the scene with the monopoly-guy? If anyone who has seen it doesn't at least smile when watching that scene, I simply don't understand it.

So, when you "amateur-serious" film-critics review this film you should consider two things. 1: This movie is MEANT to be stupid. 2.Does this COMEDY make you laugh? For me, it did the two things it was meant to do brilliantly. 9/10: Allrighty then!

Haven't we seen it all many times before? A boy wants to be a gangster, he becomes a gangster, he rises in ranks, gets very influential, very much money, girls, wives, drugs, killings, robberies and it all becomes to much for him. He can't cope and in the end he is redempted. To me it was just another gangster-movie.

Anyway, I found it enjoyable; the first half was good entertainment, and I found myself very interested in continuing watching. The story of Henry Hill was somewhat fascinating although it felt like I had seen it before. But then again, after some 100 minutes I'd had enough. The killings, drugs, money and "gangster-stuff" had done it's time and I just wanted to see how it ended and be over with it.

It must be said that I'm not a big fan of gangster-movies or Scorsese in general, but I can see that this is a good movie, although weaker than "The Departed", a very good, more original and Scorseses best, movie.

In conclusion "Goodfellas" is fairly entertaining, a movie I will watch again if it happens to be on TV on a boring day, but I won't buy it on DVD. Goodfellas is good, it's not great, and therefore overrated. 7/10

"Hauru no Ugoku Shiro" was the last of all the Miyazaki-movies I saw after having seen them all in some 10 days, having been bewitched by "Spirited Away" on one of the last days of Christmas. As always with the Japanese master, it was an outstanding feature; magical, real, intoxicating, wonderful, exciting and adventurous all at once. Still, this one, one of his last to date, was one of the best of the best.

It tells the story of young Sophie, an insecure, silent and sad girl who works in her late father's hat shop. One day Sophie meets a young man who saves her from some bad soldiers. It turns out he is on the run himself, running from some strange creatures. When it seems that they are caught in the middle between them, the man suddenly jumps high up in the air, taking Sophie with him, and starts walking in the sky. That night, when Sophie is at home again, the women in charge of the followers turn up outside Sophies house...

Like I've said, "Hauru.." is an always captivating movie, just like all Miayazaki-features, but this is even one of the best of them. 9/10

"Psycho" is a movie nearly everyone has heard of, either through the movie itself, or through the countless references to it in the media. And so it should be; it is undeniable one of the best horror-experiences in cinema ever as well as a timeless cultural icon.

The story about Marion Crane, how she has to run away having stolen 40.000 dollars, leads her to an old motel out of the main road. The owners name is Norman Bates... From here there isn't long until the famous shower-scene, and that's even just the beginning of the movie.

What makes this movie so great is the tension, the uneasy feeling that something isn't right, present throughout the whole feature. The key-factor in this tension is the soundtrack, one of the greatest ever. One would have to be a psycho like Bates himself to not feel uneasy when listening to "Murder" by Bernard Hermann

When I saw the whole movie for the first time last night, I actually knew the story first. Still, because of the immense power of "Psycho" i had trouble getting to sleep. I saw Norma Bates in every corner of my room. This just proves that it is an outstanding feature and the greatest horror flick I have seen. 9/10

"12 Angry Men" is an outstanding achievement. Why? Like in the movie, I'm gonna tell you why I think so:

1.It's from 1957, it's old. (Many, mostly young, people find this negative.

2.It's in black and white (Even more doesn't even bother to try and see such movies)

3.It has a very simple plot.

4.It's shot almost entirely in a single room.

5.The budget's as low as 340.000 dollars (Citizen Kane, 16 years EARLIER had 690.000)

6.It was Sidney Lumets, the director, first movie. and

7.It consists almost entirely of dialogue.

And STILL; The LOWEST average score is 7.8! (By girls under 18 of course)

Throughout the feature, there is a great tension. There is so much we want to know, so much that fixes my eyes on the screen from the first minute until the end. Did the boy do it? Can number 8 convince the rest? Can he convince me? Who will be the next to have doubts? Will number 8 come up with more excellent deducing?

This is the proof that great movies can be done with very small resources. All you need is a great plot and good actors. Astoundishing! 10/10