Reviews

I remember attending a double feature as a child. I had the time of my life watching 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', but 'First Blood' stayed with me longer.

'First Blood' made Stallone into the worldwide actionstar we all know and love, and this being one of the biggest blockbusters of the early 80's, it has held up very well.

It's one of those cinemagic treats that grabs you from the beginning and never lets go, and where you really sympathize with the protagonist and his struggles. It was made in a time before CGI where the stunts are all real and the action setpieces support the story, and not vice versa.

If you like movies and haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend to catch it somewhere on a streaming platfom.

On an island in Denmark where the sun seemingly always shines, a young girl is found dead on the roadside. Years later a chief of police shoots himself in the head due to some inner demons created because the closed case was never solved. Huh? It turns out that absolutely nothing can justify this overreaction, but I guess the story needed some kind of shock opener.

This movie is based on a book from overrated Danish novelist, Adler-Olsen, who somehow got away with penning one of the dullest protagonists ever created, detective Carl Morck, who feels compelled to reopen the case, but just ends up witnessing things, as he strolls along from point A to point B, always speaking in very short sentences and in the end doesn't solve a thing, because all answers are just handed to him (and the audience) along the way, without him doing the slightest effort.

Seasoned director, Ole Christian Madsen, at least tries his very best to make this run-of-the-mill story come sort of alive with a pacing that makes sure you don't fall asleep. But when your protagonist is the least interesting character, there's isn't a whole lot you can do to avoid it ending up as somehow of a mess.

So for his final trial the soon-to-be Messiah has to traverse the desert coming across all sorts of dangers as explained to him thoroughly by Stilgar. "Beware of the small ones, they are the most dangerous." And off he goes, right? No! Instead: Cut to him walking alongside Chani in the dunes. Next scene he's with the fremens again. What happened here? Clearly some scenes are missing. Worse... it's never explained how he dealt with the trial.

Besides that, there's a lot of build-up, over two hours, to a somewhat epic conclusion that is much too brief. And the main battle looked like it was lifted from Star Wars Attack of the Clones, only with better CGI.

I found 'Dune part one' a masterpiece, but part two really didn't do it for me.

If you have seen the movie from 1999 with Matt Damon and Jude Law, there's not much new to be had here. The eight-part series is the exact same story with the exact same twists. In the series some things are left out however, like Dickie impregnating a local woman, who ends up killing herself.

For example: In the movie the boat sequence lasts 4-5 minutes. In the series it lasts more than half an hour using a lot of filler shots and close-up shots of Andrew Scott looking intense.

All actors do a great job, but I'm not buying the triangle of friendship, where one looks like a 50-year old (Tom), the other 30 (Dickie) and the third a teenager (Freddie). That's not good casting.

The series is beautifully lensed and the black and white suits the noir atmosphere perfectly. But I would have loved some twists on a story I already know.

Masters of the Air suffers from lack of coherent vision. They used five different scriptwriters and five directors. And it shows. It's like the series was penned by a commission, who were more concerned with ticking all the boxes, rather than give us a full fledged story where you actually feel something and care for any of the characters.

American pilots in harms way in the sky over nazi-occupied Europe? Check!

Episodes that show life in a Stalag POW camp? Check!

American downed pilot escaping through occupied France with the help of the resistance? Check!

Another downed pilot coming across an abandoned concentration camp to remind us of the horrors? Check!

A token british female who falls in love with an american pilot? Check!

Portraying british men as arrogant but russians as hospitable? Ehh... can't really get my head around that one.

There are A LOT of characters crammed in during the nine episodes, but only two reaccuring protagonists. And everyone gets along. Many character arcs, like the female agent, are left unresovled and there's no real conflict between any of the characters. There's no antagonist either, which is a big mistake, since the common enemy - the germans - are mostly faceless.

If you want to make a great war movie - or series - you have to have characters to root both for and against. Otherwise you are just left with a spectacle which quickly becomes repetitive, because you've seen it all before. Either in a Call of Duty cutscene, a documentary, another movie or the previous episode.

For future shows like this, can we have good old fashioned storytelling back, please?

I couldn't stop watching, and binge-watched all episodes. It has Guy Ritchie written all over it, meaning crazy characters, tongue-in-cheek dialogue, and a pacing that sometimes can be all over the place, especially in some of the side stories, like the episode with the young nazi lord, who has a dog that ends up eating... well, words can't describe how ludicrously funny this scene is.

But it's all fun and games and you can tell that everyone involved in the cast had a blast making this. I haven't been this entertained by a Netflix show in a long time, and luckily it ends on a note almost promising us that there will be a second season.

What a waste of time. We get a rather interesting first episode. A dark isolated and cold setting. People at sciencecenter dying of... something. We are presented with the main characters.

But then it just drags along in the following episodes and the progression of the story moves veeeeeery slowly. There's like 10% actual investigation. The rest are scenes with the cast dealing with family issues, their past, and driving from one place to another in the dark. Jodie Foster, who is a fantastic actor, is sort of the only redeeming quality here.

What this season really needs is some kind of antagonist and actual thrills. Halfway through I found none. I will not be watching the last episodes of this yawner.

This could actually have been great if the aim was a coherent story about one of the most interesting and dramatic events in Nordic history,

Clearly made for a global Generation Z Netflix generation it aims big. It's loud, there's alot of swearing and frequent use of the F-word and the costumes, scale and the vibe is pretty much spot on.

But at the same time it doesn't trust its audience, meaning that danish and swedish actors all speak english, most with an accent. But why? To maximize the potential for it to be a hit when it hits streaming? This is a weird choice for a period piece, Actually it's as cringe as if Hitler spoke english in the epic germanmade movie called 'Der Untergang' ('The Downfall').

But I could forgive all that if I was engaged in the plot. But I wasn't. Imagine that... there's so much they could have done with this. So many directions and opportunites. They just had to stick to one clear narrative. Because one moment it's trying to be Game of Thrones, the next a Shakespearean drama and the next something entirely else.

It was like being served a main course with a steak, a cake and a piece of pineapple on the plate. Each indiviually great tasting it itself, but mixed together....

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark, and there's a secret society called 'Danehof' that wants to control everything. This is the premise of the first couple of episodes, before it forgets all about this, and the plot turns into a small scale revenge story.

A fine cast of tier one danish actors can't really save 'Oxen' from being somewhat of a mess. Why build up characters only to have them offed in the next episode? When watching a show that runs for many episodes we invest in the characters and 'Oxen' has people getting killed left and right, without us knowing exactly what is going on. Often there's no real character motivation and most of the characters somehow seem to know each other from somewhere in the past. Hey, Denmark is small, but not THAT small.

'Oxen' could have been suspenseful if they just settled for one clear narrative and fewer anatagonists that had larger parts. But they didn't.

Back in 2005 Ridley Scott's 144 minute version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' premiered in theatres to somewhat mixed reviews. A couple of years later the vastly superior 190 minute director's cut version finally arrived, with the general consensus that the final product was a masterclass in storytelling, directing, acting and cinematography. - without doubt the best motion picture ever made about the crusades.

Almost 20 years later we are yet again treated with a compiled highlight reel of a Ridley Scott movie in the theatre, rather than a full-fledged historical epic, since it has already become official that 'Napoleon' will be released later on streaming with its entire runtime of almost four hours, which clearly is needed to flesh out many parts of the movie and fill in the emotional and historical blanks, because this - somewhat butchered cut - moves in a breakneck speed and feels too rushed.

Whereas the underappreciated 1970 movie 'Waterloo' starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte, featuring thousands of extras, portrayed events only during the 100 days campaign in 1815, Scott's 'Napoleon' takes us through decades of various major events and battles beginning with the siege of Toulon in 1793. In this version we never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful. Why did he win the admiration of so many? It's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in real life, but here he is portrayed as a childish brute? It felt like the focus was more on setpieces and his troubled relationship with Josephine, than on him as a ruthless and cunning emperor, and in the theatre cut there really isn't a lot of places where Joaquin Phoenix truly shines as an Oscar contender. Maybe the director's cut will remedy that.

In spite of its shortcomings (no pun intended) 'Napoleon' is still one of the best movies I have seen this year, but I am baffled. Because if people can sit through 3+ hour box office hits like 'Avengers Endgame', 'Avatar 2' and 'Oppenheimer' - why the need to release just a very extended trailer of 'Napoleon' in the theatre, especially when everyone know that they can just wait a couple of months for it to arrive on streaming in its entirety? An attempt by Apple at a cash grab? "You need a subscription to our streaming service to watch the whole thing"?

With that being said, I do predict some Oscar nominations here. Ridley Scott yet again proves why he is one of the best filmmakers out there. But a word of caution: If you only plan to see this once, you might consider waiting for the director's cut.

This was somewhat an underwhelming lone-assassin take. It has more monologue than dialogue, is devoid of any humor, and is just a stone cold Fassbender killing someone at location A before moving on to location B where he kills someone and moves on to loca.... you get the point.

I wasn't expecting chases and action, but except a fist fight somewhere in the middle of the movie he's never really threatened by someone, meaning that there's really nothing at stake.

I guess the best parts of the movie were where people were begging for their lives.

The acting is solid all over, but this being a David Fincher movie, I expected a lot more. Suddenly it makes sense that 'The Killer' went straight to streaming.

The 3rd instalment had some great stand out moments from Harrison Ford and especially Mel Gibson. How to top that? Bring in Megan Fox! A 40'ish woman with the same tight fitting clothes she wore when she was a hot 20 in the first Transformers movie. Except this time there's a lot more make up to hide her age. She still can't act, though.

There's a a lot of very cheesy CGI explosions and blue screen scenes that look like they were made with computer software from the last century.

Not even Statham can save this turkey,

Best scene in the movie, where Statham briefly works as security guard for a SoMe influencer, wasn't even part of the main plot which is both generic and predictable.

So only psychiatrists know something about the most well-known american serial killers? Cops in San Francisco have to be schooled from said psychiatrist about the victims of the famouse Hillside strangler, Ted Bundy etc?

The cops actually had to use their computer to research that Ted Bundy used a Beetle as a car. I mean WHAT the actual F....! This is like common knowledge.

And then there's the cop who leaves his key in the gun drawer lock near a suspect at the police station, and just walks away. I don't need to explain what happens there. Tripple facepalm.

'Copycat' does have several redeeming qualities, though. The killer, who reminded me of Patrick Bateman from 'American Psycho' is perfectly cast. But the highlight for me must be crooner Harry Connick Jr, who plays even a bigger psycho, although in fewer scenes.

Probably one of the five best films I have ever seen and I have seen a lot. This is peak Mel Gibson. Both as a director and protagonist.

I am a sucker for historical epics, and this was made before huge battles were green screened and CGI'ed, so imagine a Cecil B. DeMille film with thousands of extras on real locations.

The acting from the lead and supporting cast, the cinematography, the wonderful score by late James Horner - 'Braveheart' deserved every Oscar.

It hits all the right emotional beats and the pacing during its three hour runtime is perfect. You will not look at your watch a single time. It's THAT intense.

Today, in 2023, we only really have one director left, who can take on a similar project: 86 year-old Ridley Scott ('Gladiator', 'Kingdom of Heaven', 'Napoleon' (soon to be released).

What a shame. When the superhero frenzy dies out, there will hopefully be room for more epic historic movies.

This movie looks expensive. There's the globetrotting, many action setpieces, rouge agents, it even has the exact same plotline as the lastest Mission Impossible movie: An AI device that can control everything which must not fall in the wrong hands. In the MI movie it's called 'The Entity', here it's 'The Heart.'

If both movies try to warn us about AI getting out of hand, I think 'Heart of Stone' does the better job. However it doesn't have Tom Cruise doing crazy stunts. But 'Heart of Stone' wastes no time with endless exposiition, and is fast paced from start to finish. There are so many setpieces, and any one of them could be the highlight in other movies of the same genre.

I expected less from this, but got far more.

"Please write movie script. It has to have to following present: -grieving protagonist who's trying to solve a case, so there's both inner and outer conflict -a killer who films his acts, Make him a hacker also, to confuse the police. -some tech talk thrown in to add credibility -a sidekick (Roland Moller) who's there just to ask questions on behalf of the audience, so no one gets confused"

Voila... and there you have it. A script without any soul. And actors completely wasted. I have never seen Roland Moller - who's usually good at playing at villain - deliver such an uninspiring performance.

Master craftsman, Christopher Nolan - probably the best blockbuster director out there (along with Ridley Scott) - returns to good old fashioned no-CGI drama, where tension comes from words spoken, and how people react to them. There are no chases, no shoot-outs , death defying stunts or explosions.... wait, actually there is one explosion. I don't know how they made those scenes without CGI, but it's technical achievement for sure.

All shot in 70mm IMAX this is beautiful film. And the lead cast - all seasoned actors - do a terrific job.

My only gripe is that it's a tad too long. The final act could/should have been trimmed. But it's still the best movie I have seen this year.

I strongly recommend to watch this on an IMAX screen before it's taken down in a month or so.

Remember that classic MI scene where they broke in at CIA, and Cruise was hanging from the ceiling using wires? It's not a huge setpiece, but that scene is a nailbiting example of ingenious problem solving.

In 'Dead Reckoning' there's none of that. Here it's keys changing hands every 10 minutes that is suppose to pass as suspense. And of course the only true selling point: the stunts performed by Tom Cruise.

But I want and expect more than that.

A large part of the film is devoted to people sitting or standing in a room, explaining what the plot is. Endless talking and explaining. We are told in several scenes the same information we just heard. Worst one is Benji, who is merely there to repeat things for someone in the cast, to make sure everyone in the audience knows what is going on. That is sloppy writing. One of the biggest no-no's as a screenwriter is resolving to "so what you are saying is, that..." info sharing. Benji does this all the time. And he is as incompetent as usual. And he is supposed to be a part of a small and unique team that is saving the world? Really?

I hope MI:8 isn't just another Tom Cruise stunt reel where it looks like they make the story up as the go along, as long as all marks are checked in the end (running, face swapping, dealing with heights etc), and where character development takes a backseat. Bigger is not always better. And the action ALWAYS has to serve the story, not the other way around.

A warning to those who really enjoy John Wick/Marvel/the Fast-movies, or almost any other modern action blockbuster: 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is made back when they relied on practical effects and stunts. And where story mattered. Like other action movie classics (Die Hard, Terminator 2 etc) the action supports the story, not vice versa. So this 1981 movie doesn't have wall-to-wall action. It's not mostly shot in front of a green screen, the characters do not defy gravity and there is no multiverse to be had here. Just real people doing real things in real locations.

If this sounds boring to you, please move on. But if you choose to spend two hours of your time following Indiana Jones on a quest against the nazis involving traps, tombs and various chases, you have chosen wisely.

This is based on the first two episodes (of six). A lot of old and new characters are introduced, including Hollywood's go-to latino lead, Michael Pena, who's clearly miscast as some sort of chameleon. Abbey Cornish is also back, which is a good thing, since she's an important part of Ryan's personal life.

I found the story rather unengaging so far, because I've seen it so many times. They really couldn't come up with something better and more original than the usual drugs/mexican cartels/shady americans involved, that we've seen so many times? And the pacing? It moves very slow, because we need to learn something about the +10 main characters. But after almost two hours, the plot hasn't really moved that much forward and by then it's not really clear who wants what and for what purpose.

I will watch the last four episodes in hope of this being a slow burn. But realistically I'll probably end up falling asleep.

I almost gave up all hope. Every action blockbuster nowadays are either defying gravity, mostly shot in front of a green screen or simply lacks an engaging plot. Maybe I'm getting too old. But 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' certainly made me feel young again.

No, it is not as great as the first three of course, and yes, there is the occasional use of CGI, but seeing real people doing real stunts in real locations on the silver screen is what made me fall in love with action movies in the first place.

What sticks out as a positive surprise is the production design. Case in point: There's an actionscene which takes place during a huge parade in New York. When they shot the scenes every store and facade were made to look like New York in 1969. Posters, merhandise, etc. You hardly see this in the movie, but the meticulous attention to detail is felt throughout the movie.

I also really like the themes of this movie. A perfect fit for the swan song of the legend, Indiana Jones.

Loved the first one. It was excellent and set the bar so high, that a sequel could only disappoint.

There's a couple of great action setpieces in 'Extraction II' but that's pretty much it. It misses the same tension as found in the first one between the lead characters. All the bad guys - the standard eastern european thug - are cardboard characters, and it doesn't really offer anything new, except setting us up for yet another installment.

Unlike this sequel, Rake was really put through the ringer in the first one, and we've felt his struggle and it had many interesting characters, like Raja - foe turned friend - who I hope returns in the future.

Gave this one a shot. Ended up bingewatching all eight episodes.

There are so many things I love about this show, especially the chemistry between all the leads and the deadpan jokes combined with Arnold antics. I didn't expect 'Fubar' to be that much of a laugh riot, honestly. It's kind of the same silliness as you get in a Ryan Reynolds movie ('Free Guy'), meaning that it doesn't take itself too seriously, which is a great trademark for a show like this.

If you follow Arnold on various social media, you know that he doesn't take himself that serious, too. So he basically plays himself and to a degree recycles his character from the James Cameron classic ' True Lies', which is a good thing. Although here his jokes aren't directed towards a wife, but largely a daughter with severe daddy issues.

Loved it.

But I prefer Jackie Chan. He can move and does his own stunts.

I guess it looks cool when a slow moving, slowly speaking Keanu Reeves elminates 40+ bad guys in close combat in 5 minutes... but really? A blind guy doing the same?

John Wick 4 should be labelled "superhero movie" because this is insane. Not even Rambo in 'Rambo II' or Schwarzenegger in 'Commando' have a killcount this high.

Likewise, the rating for 'John Wick 4' is much too high. The script could be lifted from any B-movie actioner and the action quickly gets repetitive and doesn't know when to move on.

I guess the high rating must because it just looks "cool" or whatever.