Reviews

I understood that this would not be "Aliens" or "Terminator". I knew even without reading anything about this movie that this would basically be aimed at a younger audience.

I can't blame Jim Cameron. He has been out of the game for a while so when returning to the stage, naturally he plays it safe and goes for a big time matinée that in every single category (and those are one) will please the guys in charge of finances (and it will... many times over).

The good stuff: The CGI is nearly groundbreaking. I say "nearly" because the concept of this film is so out of this world (literally) that a CGI element is unmistakable to recognize 99% of the time, and you always have this in the back of your head. They are still very, very nice, however. I love the colors, the concept of this imaginative world and the production design (even though at a few occasions I felt I was watching the Pride Parade). If you like fast-paced, eventful films (and I do, among many other types of films, having a very dynamic taste in motion pictures) this is a good film. Not super-good or even great; but just plain good. It entertains you for over 2½ hours, but not much more; I don't really feel breath-taken after having seen it in the cinema.

The bad stuff: The story. I've seen it before. More than once. The references to contemporary American politics are a little bit too "in your face" (although not as bad as the references to how bad racial problems are, in the movie "Crash" for instance). The acting is mediocre; suitable more for video-game cut-scenes, but then again, of course, that is pretty much what they were shooting for I suppose. Another thing to remark on is that cinemas today is no better than a semi-cheap home-theater system. The sound is just louder. And in a cinema you have to sit with a hundred other people you don't know who makes noises and interrupts at times when they need to go to the bathroom... and then there is the annoying subtitles (in non-English theaters)... the loss of focus at times... etc. etc.

My advice is: Buy a BD-player, A full-HD Plasma-TV (or LED) and a small, suitable home theater system and watch it at home. It won't cost that much, and it will be worth it over time. Then a movie can get the attention and quality it deserves.

Anyway: You have to see this movie with the right sort of mind to really, really enjoy it. Had I been fifteen I would have loved it, the way I loved Jurassic Park when that came (a movie I rate about a 6 today but would have called at least a 9 back then). You have to think of this movie the way you would about a Disney Pixar movie, but with some real live elements in between the massive orgies of CGI splashed at you.

I think of the visuals when I think back on it now. I think that when I purchase the Blue-ray late spring or whenever (and I will), I will buy it to see the visuals, and not at all for the story. It will basically be a fairly expensive screen-saver for my Plasma-TV. I pray that is not what Jim Cameron wanted it be and that his next feature will be far better written and developed in that regard...

Summary: A stunning movie, visually. A mediocre movie story-wise. Does it deserve a place on IMDb's top250? Hell No! But there are plenty of movies there that does not belong there these days, right (after IMDb now being run by teenagers, basically)? When asked about this movie I would say: "An OK adventure movie if you need to relax and no be too judgmental, wrapped in pretty CGI and decent production design. Don't watch this movie as an adult; watch it as a kid. And don't see it in the cinema; buy the Blue-ray and watch it in the controlled environment of your home."

What can I say. I have played it for about 4 days and finally beat it. The plot goes lost early on. I just could not focus on it. Mostly since every cut-scene, angle and tone of voice from the extremely mediocre actors never grips you.

At first - day one of playing - the game felt great. It was interesting; climbing, jumping, fencing. But it got so, very repetitive that after two days everything just happened.

Furthermore I felt that the character should receive more upgrades throughout the game, not just getting weapons and "health" slots. You should have been given the ability to climb faster. To jump more accurately. The only motion-upgrade you got early on was "grab" when you jump. More of that stuff would have helped. Maybe even an added body-armor or something more interchangeable with the look of the character to make things interesting throughout the game. Better A.I. and more dynamic dialog from the people in the streets would also have been a plus (think GTA 4, which is massive in that department... and gets your attention completely). Last, to the wish-list would be a lot more ways of gathering information. You have like three or four ways to do it, and they get really boring already the second time around.

Most focus has been put on the look of the game and the groundbreaking climbable environment.

Worst was the repetition of things, over and over again, and the stale and uninspiring voice-acting. The actor who did Altaïr in particular sucked and made me listen to something else instead.

Best was the more interesting and dynamic last "act" of the game (no spoilers here), the game's music and the ability to break the leg of an enemy which made me outright a joying sadistic.

I hope for a much better Assassin's Creed 2.

I had high hopes for the first one, but those hopes were drastically lowered of what was only a mediocre film. I had quite high hopes for this one as well, but tried my best to not expect to much. And thus I got almost exactly what I expected. This is a entertaining piece, fast, loud (not to loud, just right) and with some outstanding special effects (they are really, really great actually).

I would seem this film had big potential for a higher score from my part, but unfortunately it plays it safe (as custom is in formula-A-feature film these days). What raises the grade from an average (5-6) is the marvelous performance of Johnny Depp and the improved (not yet perfected thought) performance of the other lead actors. Also the very nice, and progressively enhanced CGI helps the grade. This film contains more humor, which in my book never is a bad ingredient if done in a proper way, as here is.

What lowers the grade is the safe-play, as mentioned. And I just can't give to much credit to a producer with dollar-signs in each eye (he himself a modern pirate, but less entertaining and more self-denying).

So all in all, a mediocre film, with some shining details and fewer flaws then it's previous installment.

I had high hopes for this one. The whole film, shot in one studio with minimal props and set decoration, sounded like a fantastic, experimental idea, but turned out a great disappointment. All through the film (wich is way, way to long - and I love long films, if anyone...) there is an obviousness to everything, and a taste of nothingness (imagine eating chocolate with the taste of nothing). You can feel what direction the plot is going and nothing surprises you, even the least.

A note on the style of shooting, the so called dogma-style, is in my opinion not suited for full-length-projects. It's visual style has a feeling of unprofessional-ism over it, especially when it's constantly shot with a vibrating camera. I have seen work done in the HDV-format and there is nothing wrong with that, but Von Trier f**ks it up. In my opinion, he is just lazy and cheap.

In short, Von Trier is the arrogant one (and all his work has a grown more and more pretentious and uninteresting), and it shines through the entire project. Mostly i felt bored, and like I threw away almost 3 hours of my life on this dung.

I looked forward to seeing this one, but the only thing good about it is the special effects, and those are to few.

Asian films often tend to have a strange, childish humor, that does not fit in properly, and this is a typical example of one of those film. In other film (like Oldboy) the humor stands for something, and suits the mood, but here it's just stupid.

I don't know a word of Japanese, but I can tell that these are no superior actors. It's sad really to see a nice layout to a plot become so destroyed. Next film up is Casshern, and I have very high hopes for this one.

I like modern action-movies, particularly since they often intermingle with other genres. In this case, comedy and romance. The real trick (which was the major problem during the 80's and 90's) is to make the genres mix seamless, like the action can't be without the comedy and the other way around.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith succeeds in this. It is fun, fast and pleasant. So, the problem with it. I've never been a huge Jolie-fan. I feel she only found her true character-style in Girl Interrupted, but everything else is just wrong (especially the Lara Croft: Tom Raider-films, in which she really, really sucks). OK, she is not a disaster i Mr. & Mrs. Smith, but you can feel she is not having any fun.

So the grade only reaches an average, and only because of this insanely overrated (both as an actress and as a beautiful? woman). But in all other departments this is a great film. I would have loved to have seen a more down-to-earth-woman in the role as Jane Smith. Brad Pitt (even though he happens to be a mega star, a hunk, a versatile big-time actor etc.) pulls off the "average-guy-part".

Read the DVD-cover. Sounded like an OK setup for a good sci-fi. Boy; was I as wrong as I ever could be. This has to be a joke. I has to be. A three-year-old could create a better version of the same script. Peter Hyams must be retarded or something; I just can't find a good explanation for why this "film" is so incredibly bad.

I mean; Battlefield Earth, is really, really bad, but in the same time it has a cult-kind-of-value in it, and good effects.

So, what could possibly be the reason for a film to become so completely... Bad!? 1: they had 1 week to shoot it? (Come on: Phone Booth was shoot in less than that and is pretty good). 2: a 2.50-dollar-budget? 3: Everybody involved are actually zombies? Please, if you read this Mr. Hyams. E-mail me the explanation, I just can't figure it out?! Mail: "mkyb@hotmail.com"

Well, this kind of light weight fantasy adventure is gonna become more and more common now. It's really a shame. Could someone, at least once, create a fantasy epic with raw brutality, pitch black story and with no concern for the budget (aka. "we need to make it for a larger focus group, hence the mild violence and language and easy-to-melt-characters").

I hate (yes HATE) the kids. The actors who plays them really suck, and I am usually very, very tolerant (always looking for positive upsides to a performance), but this just is to much crap. The director does not make any kind of statement in his "work", and is pretty much non-present throughout the entire film. The Oscar-nominated special effects is not really that good, not "A-Sound-of-Thunder-bad" but not very special at all, with the small exception of Aslan who actually looks like a real lion whenever he does not speak. The voice of Aslan by Liam Neeson is not good (Liam is a great actor, but the voice does not fit... or maybe the audio-mix is just crappy). The one thing that makes it worth watching is Tilda Swinton as the Queen, and also some the set-designs.

All in all, two and a half hours of: "When is the suspense ever gonna start!?", and; "When will the four disturbing children die already!"

Well, where to begin? The good things first then. The overall feeling of this gigantic adventure is that the special effects got most attention from Peter Jackson. No hard words about the actors, but they never really get the chance to "act out" fully. They are often beaten down by the effects. During long periods of the film there are no dialog, except screams or grunts. Of course this could work, like it did in Cast Away with Tom Hanks, but when the story demands so much sound-effects-wise the audience gets all torn apart. There are almost no comic reliefs (not always a bad thing) and the romantic more emotional segment always gets abruptly disturb by yet another action-packed sequence. This story has a lot of soul in it, unfortunately the soul is mostly in the effects. I wish the actors had received more direction. Although, these matters are possible to endure.

The good things are equally many. The action sequences are very well made, and leaves you breath taken, which is always nice. The casting is pretty good to, but like I said earlier, they never get the chance to show their skills. More is to be seen - I hope - in the extended version, and could also jump the rating a nudge. More good things. The part of the big ape is played by the brilliant Andy Serkis, who also has another significant part in the film. This role is played with passion, and it glads me a lot. The special effects is also brilliant in many cases, and in some they are even so good I actually question if they really are CGI or not a puppet or something. Last I want to give some credit to the fact that some violence has been left in, although made in such fashion it let's your own imagination fill in the really gory details.

So, all in all, this is a good film with some spectacular scenes. Some things could have been given more effort, like the (for my part at least) highly anticipated score by Howard Shore. My rating of 7 is very generous in fact, considering my expectations being shattered a little.

I know Jackson can do better than this. I'm patiently waiting.

Well, after being stupid enough to have listened to several critics comments about this film, how dark and great it was, I went to see it... and all in all I had to high expectations. It's a good movie with good actors, great cinematography and all that, but the action (and I am for sure NOT an action-buff at all) never gets into that higher gear that this film needs.

And no matter how fun it is to get all the entire "mythology" of Batman explained and broken down to it's bare bones, I go home after-wards feeling a bit stupefied, like some things are not obvious enough? Thus my vote becomes sort of low. This IS the second best Batman-flick, the first with Keaton-Nicholson - of course - being number one still. A comic-book-movie should have some black comedy to it - and also some of the self-sacks Burtons original Batman had. Nolan is a great director, but he should stick to mellow thrillers.

I went in with some expectation (which one should never do), but I had my reason since Romero's previous work has been more than good. I got the feeling right from the start that the screenplay had fallen into the dreaded studio grinder where certain elements always seems to have to exist. The more then nice and cunning good-guy. The greedy and evil bad-guy. Zombies that had grown into more than walking, flesh-eating corpses and the brave, hardball (but miss-treated) good girl. All of them are sickening to be exposed of time after time after time.

I have the feeling Romero lost his great zombie-concept to the studio, whom in return gave him a bigger budget. But what is money compared to a movie you never forget. This film WILL NOT be remembered.

Okay; this production has it's good things also. The special-fx are pretty cool and there is a lot of them to feast upon. It never gets slow or boring, which is a MUST when the final script basically sucks. I mean: why does the zombies have to start to think? They don't get any bit scarier or interesting - only silly and laughable.

All in all it's a below-average-film, and finally: the idea is that the greedy over class elite in the tower (our bad guys in the film) gets what they deserve, but what about the greedy filmmakers who gladly scarifies a great concept for some extra cash??? I, for one, has lost much of the respect and admiration I had for Romero... time for the man to redeem himself!!!

This is my absolute favorite sci-fi movie ever. It's largely due to the beauty it renders. It's one of two, fantastic Scott-films, the other being (of course) Alien. This is one of those movies that keeps getting better each time you see it, and every time I watch it again, I get stunned over the special effects. It is absolutely breath-taking.

As goes for the story, it couldn't be told better I think, and nor could it had been better casted. Ford an Young does a perfect performance, as do all the supporting roles. I just can't find anything about it to criticize. I love it, and really cannot understand those who give this masterpiece thumbs down! Well, in short: I get lyrical to the break of tears when viewing it. If you haven't seen it yet... run NOW, rent it, buy it or what ever and see it many times. You won't regret it! One of my top 10 films!

I didn't really expect to much, and I was right... There is something fundamentally missing from this film. The characters, and their development are horribly plain and worst of all; the ironic tone of the ending of the book, has been "hollywood-ized" to the level that I could almost cry. Further more I didn't like the design of the tripods so much... I realize that the point was to make them look a little like comics from that time would have made them, but it feels pressed out.

Okej, that's the bad things. The good things are equally many. First of the dark, apocalyptic mood is great. You don't see more then a few clips from the devastation round the world but still feel like it's a global attack. I like the special effects, and how they blend in so well with the hand-held camera, making it feel even a bit more realistic. Last, I really like Spielberg's lately dark-in-style films (ever since Saving Private Ryan, I guess) and he brings it a step further this time. All though; I feel through-out the movie, that the death and destruction has been slightly limited to pass for lower age-rating. Thats one of the things about todays movie industry that I so terribly wrong.

All in all: this is an average kind of film. It's definitely worth seeing a couple of times, but I hope I get to see another version of the story before I die... maybe directed by Nolan or Fincher?

Well... this is maybe the ultimate movie in which you could apply the saying; you either love it, or hate it. And I, for one, really love it! You may ask yourself, just how good can a 2 hour movie be without any plot what so ever? Well, it can be astonishing as this example clearly states.

It's completely sick humor and twisted style reaches a long, long way, but then Johnny Depp and Benicio del Toro adds thrust with their even sicker performances (all the little characters on the side does it's part to). Terry Gilliams fires everything in his arsenal contributing even more girth to an already pretty fat comedy... it seems this film never stops surprising me no matter how many times I see it, and I laugh till I cry every time.

One last thing: I do however respect those few who totally hates it. It is fully understandable that no plot, ground-breaking-performances (disgousting might fit better) and insane direction might make you spew... but you won't forget it, no matter how hard you try...