Reviews

The Reckoning ***½ of *****

Contains *minor* spoilers.

Saw this film the other night, as it's been out here in Sweden for the past two years (I even saw it as a low-price DVD (about $9) in a store).

The story takes place in 14:th century England and we get to follow the young priest Nicholas (brilliant English actor Paul Bettany) who, after committing adultery and murder (or possibly manslaughter), decides to leave his priesthood behind himself and flees the town he works in. He runs into a group of traveling actors (Willem Dafoe, Brian Cox and others) and gets to join them.

Basically, the group performs stories from the bible, but after arriving in a town where a woman is accused of murder, the master player (played brilliantly by Dafoe) decides that the group will put on a play about the murder instead of their usual bible plays.

Paul Bettanys character tries to solve the murder, as he believes the woman is innocent. The priest wants forgiveness for his own acts of adultery and murder and tries to do so by helping someone who is wrongly convicted for a crime and to find the one who really did it.

I certainly liked this film. The photography is excellent, as well as the actors. The pace of the film is moderate, I believe another twenty minutes might have been appropriate to evolve the story even further (especially the ending is a bit...unevolved). Vincent Cassel (french actor from, among others, The Brotherhood of the Wolf and Shrek) does a great job as the evil feudal lord, but he's unfortunately only in the film (with lines anyway) the last ten minutes or so.

All together a good film, well worth seeing in the cinema or renting.

Saw the premiere of the movie last night at midnight and I was completely blown away.

First things first, I loved the first movie, saw it a bunch of times in the cinema, then I bought the extended DVD and I loved it even more. The second movie, I saw twice in the cinema, then I waited until the extended was out, bought it and just saw it once or twice.

On both these first movies the cinema versions were great, the extended versions excellent.

Enter: Return of the King. Just the first scene blew me away (spoiler start) when we get to see Sméagol and Déagol finding the ring and fighting over it (spoiler end).

The movie progresses, and does so beautifully. The dark moments in this film (and there are a bunch of them) really makes you...I can't say "scared", but sorry for the characters. The happy moments make you happy and - believe it or not - the sad moments are so well made that they actually make you cry. Or at least give you a lump in the throat. I know I got one and last time THAT happened in a movie was in "My Girl 2" (I was about 13 or so at the time).

Sure, sure, Mr. Jackson has messed with the books from day one (but listen to what they say in the interviews they do) and with the pressure from New Line, I understand it. I'm sure Jackson would have loved to release a 50 hour movie and try to cover -everything- in the books, but they've changed stuff that a lot of people complain didn't need changing. I tend to disagree. You change something fundemental, that's going to affect alot of other things.

Return of the King is an excellent movie, probably in my top ten list of best movies ever. The day I can watch all three movies in the extended versions (supposedly 11½ hours) is the day I will see the best movie(s) I have ever seen - and possibly even ever will see. Makes me kind of sad to think of it, actually, but then again - it's just a movie. Right?

I will give this movie a 10 out of 10, not because a lot of other people will, not because it's the "right" thing to do - but because it deserves it. I have given out tens before, sure, but only a handful after voting on hundreds of movies.

So, Mr. Jackson. Let's see what you can do with King Kong, The Hobbit (?) and anything else you do in the future - I'm sure I'll love those movies to. I salute you.

(MINOR SPOILERS)

I saw a press screening of this new version of the 1960 classic Sci-fi of the same name. I have to admit, just as I walked into the new version of (also 1960) "Ocean's 11" I kept thinking "Why make a new version of a movie that's already made great?". Coming out from "Ocean's 11" I felt that the original was better, coming out from "The Time Machine" I...had almost the same feeling.

I'm not going to talk about the original any more than that. I can't remember it good enough to compare the two, but I'm definitely going to try to get it and see it again to see if I remember it correctly as a better movie than the new version.

Basically, the storyline is about the scientist Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) in the end of the 19:th century that loses his fiancée in a robbery turned murder. Obsessed with this, he tries to build a time machine - and after 4 years he manages. Going back in time to save the girl, all that happens is that she's killed in a different way. Instead of going back to his own time, Alexander decides to travel into the future to try to find out why he can't change the past, at least not the fundemental things (people dying for example).

Alexander travels into a bright and technical future, where he runs into a computer (Orlando Jones) who defines time travel as science fiction. Then, something goes terribly wrong and Alexander is knocked out while travelling and ends up some 800 000 years into the future. This world is nothing like the one we know, but man has gone back to the state we were long before the Egyptians built pyramids...

I'd like to think that the biggest enjoyment in this film are the two famous actors who are least seen on screen; Jeremy Irons and Orlando Jones. Had they been given more space, hade the script been a bit stronger and maybe changed a bit more from the original, this might actually have been a really good movie experience. Now, however, it's just another decent sci-fi flick that will probably go away as just that.

I'd give it 5/10 at most.