Reviews

Some things I dislike about Obsession compared to the original movie "Damage" from 1992.

1. Obviously the original has better actors and script. Hard to compete with Jeremy Irons, Juliette Binoche, and Miranda Richardsson. The actress that portrays Anna I guess is ok but the other ones don't come close.

2. Jays father in the orignal is a politician, and Jay is a journalist covering politics. I like that detail it fits better with the story.

3. The ending in Damage was perfect. With William looking at an enlarged picture on the wall of the three of them.

4. In the original story Wiliam is the main character, and after the accident he has no interest to interact with anna again. He just mentions that he saw her by accident at an airport and that was it. In Obsession Anna in pure feministic fashion is the main character and they add another pointless 30 minutes to story. Being overly clear and leaving nothing to the imagination.

5. William in the original is pretty dominant towards Anna and he also shows very strong feelings towards his son who he loves very much. In this version it's the opposite. Anna is more dominant and calling the shots while Wiliam seems almost indifferent towards his son. Even after he dies he's still thinking about Anna. As usual in modern netflix movies the male comes off as a pretty pathetic character.

6. If teels like in the original version Jeremy Irons captured much better the conflict within. His attraction to Anna vs his loyalty to his son. In the remake there was no contest really. You can especially see how much Jeremy loves his son in the death scene, that same scene in the remake wasn't as strong I thought.

7. Also some good scenes from the original were stricken even though the remake was longer. In the original the mother of anna immeditaly can see that William has got the hots for her. "you can't even look at her", "you should let her go" etc

Anyway in short the original is a piece of art. The remake almost turns into a soap operah in the end.

Never before have I seen a terrorist movie where the terrorists outnumbers the entire police force+secret service of a whole city. This parallell universe of a story is so dumb and funny it's entertaining. Completely implausible that the POTUS would be left hiding all alone with his body guard and that the thousands of good guys would somehow be incapable of providing any security for hours and hours. But the stupidity only adds to the entertainment value. This is a movie you could watch with Donald Trump, Sean Hannity. a bag of potatoechips and some cheeseburgers. Good republican fun. It's nasty storytelling but it's better to address the problem in a juvenile way like this than to be forced to silence by the PC-police.

I think it was pretty obvious that the producers have a 2nd season in mind with the pretty unsatisfying and ambiguous ending.

Now they have all the material they need for an equally entertaining second season. However the main line of the movie to me doesn't matter anymore. Who would make a first degree murder in order to cover up a hit and run.

I think it was strange how the producers handled the 2 deaths. Everything circles around an accident, and a murder is apparently less important to the story. Pretty bizarre.

Great characters though. Fish constantly chewing bubble gum, and the funny-walking KJ are a good pair that grows on you and evolves during the show. The bad guys are equally good actors. A great show all in all. Just sad that they fell for the temptation to sacrifice a good ending to make way for season two.

I saw this movie after having watched the 5.7 IMDb rating. I found myself glued to it from the beginning until the end. Afterwards I couldn't understand what's about it that people supposedly don't like. The movie touches a subject that while probably very common in real life you seldom see portrayed in movies. Sex-addiction. I can only remember seeing it once or twice before, in the awful and overrated Nymphomaniac, and in the decent Auto Focus by Paul Schrader. This was easily the most entertaining one. Great actors all around. Among them a hardly recognizable Richard Dreyfuss, in a serious part.

The movie maybe occasionally had a TV-movie feel to it, not that it mattered, the dialogue and ending kept you thinking. Many memorable lines. If you liked House of Cards I think you're gonna like this movie as well. Even if the main character isn't quite as psychotic as the lead from that show.

8 out of 10

****Warning Spoilers don't read this if you plan to see the movie****

This fascist propaganda movie could actually have become a good story with the right ending and message. Seldom have I watched a movie where I ended up hating practically every character shown. In terms of depressing finale this movie even beats "funny games" since I actually started rooting for the so called "bad guys". What scares me is that most people don't grasp how morally repulsive this movie really is. It makes me scared of todays society when movies like this one gets an 8.1 average rating and most people actually think that the end justifies the means, and that police brutality, torture, sadism, suicide, assault, retaliation are stuff you can be OK with if there only is a suspicion of a crime. Don't get me wrong, I've grown up with the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies, and they didn't leave me upset at all. I even enjoyed them. Junkfood for the brain. At least in those movies they catch the bad guys in the act most of the times. But this movie is disgusting. I've got nothing against it portraying selfish, egoistic evil psychopaths and unprofessional people, but it's the moral stand that it takes in the end that makes it awful. They deliberately edit out the scene where Detective Loki finds the tortured and mentally disabled Alex. And everything is immediately forgiven as long as you have committed the right type of sins. During the 2 and a half hours they showed so much egoistic sadistic violence by "the good guys" that I even ended up hoping the girls would be dead. You don't care about them anyway since their characters aren't developed in the story. All crimes should be punished in this movie, not just the ones that media decides are the worst. At least 3 of the parents deserved jail-time, probably all four. The detective should've been suspended if not prosecuted for the way he handled that interrogation. Even the captain was at fault. If the movie showed good police work and real heroes this movie would've gotten an 8. You can't have a morality tale with an hypocritical message. As entertainment it's OK but it's dangerous entertainment and you should never forget that. 3 out of 10.

**may contain spoiler**

Well made Colombian gangster flick. In my opinion Colombian cinema has changed a lot last years and it's with joy and excitement I follow their progress internationally. Also foreign movie makers aren't that afraid anymore to shoot movies about Colombia IN Colombia. This however is a totally Colombian production and probably one of the better ones I've seen lately.

The story is set in 80's Medellin at the peak of the cartel activities, and shows successfully how Colombian society and especially how the upper class and upper middle class are infected with dirty money and criminal activity. And you have to take a moral stand and keep a low profile if you want to remain safe. Directly or indirectly, being wealthy in 80's Medellin consists of fraternizing with people that can easily ruin your life or end it, and will do it if you give them the chance. They are all a part of it, you just have to respectfully be as clean as possible without stepping on anyones toes.

We see the story through the eyes of Santiago, a well educated engineer and family man with good manners, who befriends Don Gerardo. A rich gangster that on the surface seem to have a lot in common with him, but through the course of the movie more and more starts to reveal his true self. After a while Santiago has to pay a heavy price for having got mixed up with the wrong people. And everything he can be happy for in his life is turning into garbage.

The acting of especially the two leads are excellent. Don Gerardo reminds me a bit of Joe Pesci in the American gangster flicks, a short, chubby and cocky little man with scary sides. Fabio Restrepo makes an excellent work portraying him, and you totally forget that it's actually an actor you are watching. Juan Carlos Uribe does an equally good work portraying the little naive engineer Santiago, who at first is easily impressed by the money Gerardo spreads around. So much that he totally forgets who he is dealing with.

I once saw a movie called "bad influence" starring James spader, this movie could've been named the same. They are a bit alike.

It's good that Colombians make these kinds of movies, and openly criticize what's wrong in their society, and therefore taking a closer step to changing it. I think every one living in Colombia can more or less relate to everything portrayed in this movie. Recommended viewing.

****warning spoilers ahead ****

This is a flawless movie. A tear-jerker for men. Real men. About integrity and its cost. How people that tries to do the right thing are punished, and how hypocrites are the only ones getting out of it unharmed. It's the same old story of the Scorpio and the frog. (the prosecutors being the Scorpio in this example).

Etiher you come totally clean or you lie every step of the way. This movie shows that what's even more important than choosing to be clean or dirty, is the choosing to be consequent. To stick with what you are no matter what. Even if its not who you really are. Once you have made your choice there is no turning back. If you are going to judge bad guys you will have to be able to do the same with yourself and the ones closest to you. Watching a well intentioned but naive Ciello having to destroy the lives of everybody he knows and loves the most, is a sad, honorable and at the same time bittersweet journey. But along the way the honor gets lost in the overwhelming suffering. And no honor in the world can cure that. To me the morality of the tale is brave in its inmorality; It's not worth it. You don't have to be selfish or bad to consider that it's more important to save human beings of flesh and blood than to uphold a system that still even without your testimony is being compromised every day. Maybe that's why this movie couldn't get more recognition Oscar-wise. It's too morally daring. And you can't reward a movie that basically says that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. At least that was my interpretation of it. The last scene sort of tells me: this was what he got out of it. It wasn't worth it.

The best of its kind. "Insider" with Russel Crowe /Al Pacino tried to do something similar, but never came close to this. So intelligent, intriguing and moving. Bravo.

***warning spoilers***

Let's face it, in comparison to the other protagonists in this movie the burglar is the one with "less sin". He "only" wanted to steal some money. He broke into a house, didn't physically hurt a soul, except for a little push to clear the way so he could get the hell outta Dodge. What did the other guys do? Val kilmers character who is portraited as some kind of hero, killed entire families as he said himself. With "entire families" I guess that would include children as well…..what a nice guy. People who had done nothing to him except being related to a killer. Dorffs character ran after a fleeing, scared small time crook so he could beat the crap out of him. That's vindictive. How can he feel threatened by someone running AWAY from him and out of his house? Not to mention the guard who is in a league of his own. What a sadistic bastard! (at least they had a somewhat good black guard by his side, otherwise this movie could be accused of racism?) I know I'm being cynical and sarcastic but this movie really has a strange philosophy. But I guess that might be the point of it, to make you think. But to me you almost feel sympathetic to people you shouldn't feel sympathetic about. So the point of the movie: it is okay to use any kind of force, including killing, as long as you feel threatened or hurt. Val kilmers actions were understandable since hey, he had just lost his whole family. The burglars action is not okay since he did it out of "free will". No one, at least as far as we know, forced him to break into Dorffs house. Except maybe circumstances, maybe someone had done something "bad" to him too which would justify his actions as well… If circumstances were to excuse people's behavior even the guard would be forgiven, since the accident of his son had made him suffer. At times I think this movie has a double morality, 1)on one side it shows that NO ONE is pure and without sin. And that EVIL actions comes out of suffering, pain and unfortunate circumstances. Taking that a step further it would mean that no one is truly evil. 2)On the other side it kind of says that: there are some truly evil people, like the burglar, and the sadistic cop, that does evil stuff just for the hell of it, out of free will. These are the TRULY evil people who deserve to get rid of. The other ones like Dorff and Kilmer, are victims that are forced into it. They are not to blame and should be left alone. But if they would have shown scenes when Kilmer slaughtered that family we certainly would get a different opinion about him. This is confusing.. If you give a mass-murderer sufficient screening time he appears more sympathetic than a burglar. Since the mass-murderers actions aren't filmed but the burglars are. And the mass-murderer gets the chance to explain himself. This movie wants to have it both ways. It wants to both get into the psyche of criminals, to understand them and also "punish bad people". To be a "sly Stallone" type of movie. That's why it leaves you more confused than satisfied, even if that might not have been the point of the movie. If I'd rate something in this movie it would be more about the cinematography than the message, since I'm not quite sure what the message is. I think the movie got too repetitive after the prisoners transfer to "the yard". It was a cheap, boring set, and seeing fight after fight with skinny guys beating up 40 pounds heavier opponents got somewhat boring. To me it doesn't deserve an 8. This is more like a 6 or 7 to me.

***WARNING SPOILERS ALERT***

Being a huge fan and admirer of several of Mamets movies I read about this movie months ago on IMDb. After years of waiting I must say it disappointed me a little to find out that he would deal with the martial arts subject in this movie, being a rather uninteresting and predictable genre with few surprises. How do you make a fight movie that is not gonna end like "rocky" or "karate kid"? Still I felt eager to see it when I finally managed to get a copy on DVD. The movie started out okay and the characters and story as a whole is pretty good. Although it could've been done so much better. Mamets ideas are good but the way he carries them out in this movie is embarrassingly bad at times. The good: The characters. As always the actors kind of "grows" under Mamet's direction. Even such actors as Tim Allen which I usually avoid at all costs, looks good under Mamet's direction (or should I say writing, since most of the direction could be better) The main character is an unselfish and admirable hero, who is wonderfully played by Ejifour, and wonderfully written be Mamet. The idea and blueprint of the movie is good, a story that Works on several levels (litterally and metaphorically), with moral dilemmas and which also has a scam included as is Mamet's trademark almost. The bad: The length of the movie. It is way too short. These interesting characters deserved to get more development and screening time. The unbelievable situations and details. The way the window broke, how Laura crashes into mikes car, how the marbles-thing is first presented, the suicide of the cop (with Mike invited to witness the scene of the crime), a cop who moonlights as a bouncer and gets stiffed and does nothing about it. The way they deal with the watch-situation. Etc etc All that seemed like stuff that just would never happen. The pace of the movie is too fast for its own good. We don't know why he has such love and respect for "the master". The master is only seen in the last scene. So the ending feels a little strange. The behavior of our hero is not fully explained. Why is the marbles idea worth copying? What's so great about it? Mamet could've introduced all these things more patiently and in a much more believable way. He could've shown the same moral dilemmas with plausible, believable situations. Personally I think he could've explained a little more how the setup was made (like he's done before in other movies) and give the story more background. This movie turned into some weird "Lynch-do it yourself interpretation". It seems like such a waste of the well written characters to give them such little screening time. He introduces too many ppl for its short screening time. Personally (but this is only me) I'd love it if he'd thrown in some flashbacks or explanations for us "dumb" viewers. About the fight scenes, I think the bar-scene stood out and was even better than the ending. I'll still love Mamet but he's so much better at writing than directing, at least in this movie. I so hope I won't have to wait 4 years to see something new from him again. And I hope he chooses a more interesting topic next time and executes his ideas better, that almost always are interesting. (6 out of 10)

***WARNING SPOILERS*** Emotionally disturbing episode of the Sopranos. After having watched probably a hundred people die over these 6 seasons, I have become sort of indifferent as to who gets to meet his maker. They all have it coming in one way or another. And if there once in a while are innocent victims they are almost always cameos which you still don't get to feel much about. Even Adriana had it coming in one way or another. She knew she was in a relationship with a killer and didn't care. She knew her club and lifestyle was financed by blood-money and didn't care. After 6 seasons probably the only decent person in the whole show A.J (along with meadow ) speaks up and later decides to kill himself. I can't imagine what would have been left had he suceeded. The ending is near. I can feel it. I really hope the writers won't make a mess out of this. I think that after Christopher's death, just about any character can leave the show simply for a fast closing.

***WARNING SPOILERS*** Unworthy finale for one of the lead characters of the show. I was disappointed over which way the writers took this story. The killing of Christopher didn't feel concurrent with the strong relationship he had with Tony. His death felt rushed and without any interesting circumstances. Nothing leading up to it. It was simply a spare of the moment thing, which to me was unworthy of the character that we now have been following for 6 seasons. And also, how many car-crashes haven't we seen in this show? It's starting to become repetitive. There are a thousand more interesting and logical ways which could have produced his death. I would've preferred a "better death" for him or even living. It's hard to keep "liking" (in lack of a better word) Tony after this. He had many reasons to kill him yes, but after all that they had been through it felt as though they were inseparable. Even for a gangster-character this thing felt more like the writers had to wrap it up fast.