Change Your Image
FamousGirlfriend
MY RATINGS
1 = WARNING! Avoid it, for the love of god! Go blind if you have to.
2 = Really bad, don't do this to yourself.
3 = A total waste of my time.
4 = If I even do remember it, it's because it was so plain.
5 = Watchable. At least I didn't waste my time.
6 = Overall enjoyable.
7 = Pretty good. You should watch it!
8 = Highly recommended!
9 = I'm in love. This is a real Must see! Bucket list NOW!
10 = As close to perfect anything could ever be.
WHAT I LIKE comes first, production second. It's not like I'm a film professor.
IF IT'S A REMAKE, I may compare them. I do respect different takes on the same story, but if one of them is better or worse than the other I will point that out.
IF IT'S BASED ON A BOOK: I don't really care for reviews like "boo hoo, the book was great, I hate this movie", because no, this isn't the book, darling, it's a movie. I respect artistic freedom and varying interpretations, but that being said: "based on a book", "inspired by a book" and "based on whatever, while shamelessly using the book for publicity" are completely different things.
I MAY CHANGE THE RATING, simply because my opinion may change, especially when during the run of a tv-series.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againI only included series suitable for adults and teenagers in this list. As per usual, I try to rate them by genre, so what I judge to be the perfect comedy series cannot be compared to what I want a great drama series to be like.
Series are really hard to rate, some episodes may be really bad while others are great. Another problem's that some shows are still running, so my rating may change.
10 stars: titles 1-4 9 stars: titles 5-20 8 stars: titles 21-30
1 star: titles 1-6 2 stars: titles 7-16 3 stars: titles 17-30
Limitied to the bottom 30 because oh my god I don't even want to see their titles again.
I don't necessary LIKE films starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Keanu Reeves, but DiCaprio seems to be able to do EVERYTHING well and Reeves chooses what he wants to do, from silly action movies to romantic dramas. I feel Anna Faris is famous for some roles, but should be famous for much more and Felicity Jones' career is a long one with roles that vary a lot.
Reviews
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Not a Poirot we wanted or even needed, but a brief moment of entertainment
This film isn't awful. It just terribly disappointing. It had lots of potential, the actors were doing fine, the scenery is pretty and there was obviously lots of money put into the project.
Branagh's take on the character of Poirot isn't that bad. His accent needs some work and the fact that Poirot is vain and as meticulous with his appearance as with everything else, should have been noted. Poirot dyes his hair dark and has those dandy moustaches, that old Western movie moustache of his doesn't really fit the character. Apart from this, Branagh's Poirot is NOT bad. If you look back at Peter Ustinov's Poirot in Death on the Nile from 1978 you see that Branagh's Poirot is more true to the books.
Death on the Nile from 1978 was well-made and well-written, though. Murder on the Orient Express is messy, script, cinematography and all! The landscapes and surroundings are oftentimes beautiful, and some of the shots are really great. However, very often it feels like the director of photography, or whoever, didn't really know how to make the shot or when to cut. Sometimes a shot starts out beautifully and leads us in a grandiose way just to break off and end in some dubious jump cut. It's so anticlimactic.
In the very beginning, Poirot's quirky personality gets pushed down our throats - with commentary! You really don't have to be TOLD why he does things the way he does, just show it. That's one of the benefits of this new hot thing called Moving Pictures, you can give the audience a chance to watch, think, understand, instead of just telling it to them as if they were unintelligent children. It's a detective story, if there's no mystery, there's no point.
While the original detective story is dark and chilly as well as intelligent and comedic, this take on Murder on the Orient Express is far less about uncovering the mystery of the murder and the mystery of human nature, and more about an ensemble cast in an adventure flick, a bit like Indiana Jones. Branagh's Poirot is very nimble for being an old man.
Then there are the things that are just plain stupid. The film hints at the possibility of a sequel, a death has occurred on the Nile, but that's ludicrous, since Poirot was present while that death occurred in Death on the Nile, not snowed in in Yugoslavia. And while I accept the artistic freedom when making the Swedish character Greta Ohlsson a Spanish subject, why naming her Pilar Estravados, as is the name of one of the major characters in the book "Poirot's Christmas"? Are these supposed to be clever nods to Christie fans? Because as a fan, I just find them idiotic and unnecessary.
Though I wouldn't mind seeing Branagh reprise his role as Hercules Poirot, some adjustments should be made, but most of all: take care when adapting the stories! Agatha Christie wrote simple, fun and clever books, stick to that. Don't try to put in old flames of Poirot's in dusty picture frames and other pointless things into the film just because you can. If you want to change something for artistic purposes, be sure that you know what and how to do it. The British Poirot series have made countless changes during the series run from 1989-2014. That's right. Watch that if you haven't already.
Man with a Plan (2016)
A promising show that probably will get worse, sadly
This show is much better than I expected, then again, my expectations were somewhere below basement level. The first episodes were not very good, but there are moments that are genuinely hilarious and as the characters develop the show seems to find its pace. Episode 8 had me laughing so hard I actually cried.
LeBlanc and Snyder have great chemistry and the kids are good. They aren't the problem, the problem is the writing. The idea that a man who starts taking more (that is,equally as much) responsibility for his family is somehow in for a shock because omg parenting is hard, is terribly outdated. LeBlanc does this in a heartwarming day; of course everyone wants to be the fun parent, and it's good that he realises that being a parent is more than being fun. It's like his character is on the right track, but the writers still throw really sexist scenarios at him. His character is in many ways too good to be a stupid man child, but still the writers don't seem to have understood this.
Adam (LeBlanc) and Andi (Snyder) are clearly capable of being a grown up, lovable couple that tries really hard to navigate through parenting, but for some reason the writers just have to go there, that murky place with all that stereotyping: men are like this, women like that, etcetera. Adam and Andi are relatable in many ways, so that the writers feel forced to make them less relatable is beyond me.
Sitcoms generally freak me out. If you can't make the comedy stand on its own, without a laugh track showing people when to laugh or not, you're not good at doing comedy. Plus it's just scary watching something together with invisible people with a bad sense of humour. If the producers of this show would just let go of some of those laughs and allow the characters to be a driving force instead of letting old, sexist and cliché ideas of family life take the wheel, this show could really go somewhere.
There's something unique with this show, but that could disappear really quickly if the writers eff it up, and they actually seem to want to do that.
Warcraft (2016)
Not what I expected at all!
My expectations were so low you'd have to look for them in the cellar. And my flat's on the top floor.
It's like it's against my better judgment, because somewhere my brain tells me that this is a 4, or a 5 at most. Maybe it was those low expectations and my utter surprise that added two stars to those four. I really don't know, I just know I really enjoyed it.
So the story line about the humans sucked. Sucked. Another reason I can't believe I rated it a 7. The film is so cliché it hurts. It was the story about the orcs that made it worthwhile. Maybe the orcs added a third star.
And there you have it. 7 stars and me, all astonished and really looking forward to a sequel.
G.I. Jane (1997)
If strong people who just happen to be women provoke you, then this is not a film for you.
Jordan O'Neill (Demi Moore) is selected to be one of the test subjects in an attempt to explore the possibility to change the policies for women in the navy. Unsurprisingly, there's more than one agenda in the mix.
Yes, this is kind of a flat film. Yes: it has flaws. Yes, it's ridiculously predictable. But do I love this film or what? It's one of my dearest feel good films of all time. I think Ridley Scott managed to capture a few real issues in a film that is essentially an amusing and very simple story. The actors do a great job and the story is straightforward, I think it is all it was intended to be.
Also, they beat each other up and there are helicopters and explosions.
***SPOILERS and annoyingly large wall of text below!***
The gender issue is so apparent it might as well be a joke, and in a lot of cases it is! Symbolic references to genitals everywhere. Maybe that's why it works so well. You want the jokes and extreme symbolism. And the helicopters and the violence.
There are two powerful women in this film, both of them are trying to make it, but while being a woman is part of the strategy for one of them, being treated as a person rather than a woman is vital for the other. DeHaven is trying to make a feminist statement as part of a (not so clean) political campaign, Jordan just tries to do what she wants in life, despite being a woman.
Jordan is victimised and diminished by basically all people around her, DeHaven being the most cruel of them all. At least C.O. Salem is honest. Even her partner is trying to hold her back to some extent, though he comes to respect her decision in the end. But Jordan never considers herself a victim and doesn't for one minute feel sorry for herself.
There is just critique and hopeless idiocy in a lot of the characters' reasoning: 1) Women in combat isn't a yes/no decision, because it IS true that men tend to become more protective towards women, and that IS problematic in a war situation (I just read a book on this, so I feel comfortable stating this). Ideology and reality have a tendency to clash. But this doesn't mean that we can't change this: by the time this film came out the policies for women were different from they are now, so apparently we are getting somewhere. 2) There is always someone who decides what is and what isn't politically correct, and while striving for equality, what is important and what is just for show? Does forcing "gender education" upon someone really make a difference or is it just antagonising? Even if I thoroughly dislike the character C.O. Salem and all his opinions, I get where he's coming from and it's not only the 50s.
How can we strive for equality when there are still people using their gender as justification or means to succeed? How can we look past "gender norms" when we are the ones upholding and creating them? And why are people not judged by what they bring to the table, when that should be the only thing that matters?
Fucking Åmål (1998)
A love story. Your love story?
There are a few reviews here that to some extent focus on the film being about young girls and homosexuality. When I saw this as a teenager I never really thought of it as a film about lesbians. I just felt that everything it was Real. I related the characters because they were teenagers, with angst, insecurity, the brutality of being young and feeling lost and lonely.
(I felt the same way when I watched "Let the Right One In", the Swedish ORIGINAL, NOT the Hollywood remake "Let Me In". "Let the Right One In" isn't a film about vampires, but a film that happens to have vampires in it. What it comes down to, is that it is a film about children and what it's really like to be a child, feeling misunderstood by a grown up world etc, etc.)
SHOW ME LOVE/F***ING ÅMÅL happens to be a film about two girls who are lesbian, and though it bears on the story, this film truly is made for everyone who's ever been a teenager... Or maybe needs to be reminded how it was to be one.
This is a love story. Not THE love story, but a love story that I think most people can relate to in one way or another. Gender and sexuality doesn't matter.
Some refer to Swedish movies are "low budget" or "TV-films", but what it's really about is that Sweden isn't Hollywood. I'm sure most European movies may feel cheap to some viewers, who are used to a Hollywood format, but the fact is that this is what the film makers have to work that, and they do it really well. I'm not saying we don't need Hollywood, I'm just saying that Hollywood needs more film making like this, especially for teenagers. Teenagers don't need more movies about the Perfect High School Experience, they need something that shows them that their imperfect and confusing world is legitimate, 100% REAL, however heartbreaking and difficult it may be. That is a way to show them love.
I'd like to recommend you to watch other movies by director Lukas Moodysson as well.
Making History (2017)
Better than you'd think
First off: I'm very tired of mean jokes and people trying to be oh so edgy. Not because series like that are necessarily bad (they really can be hilarious!), but because I know you can be fun and clever in a more laid back way. That's one of the seven stars (if I vote below five means you're wasting your time).
This series is not genius in any way, BUT IT IS GOOD FUN. The acting is good, Meester and Lester perform well, while Pally will improve, hopefully (or maybe I'll just have to get used to his character). Some room have been kept for decent character development. The script and comedic timing is enjoyable and makes up for Pally's awkwardness. It's not The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, though I do get a few laugh out loud-moments in every episode. Good enough for me!
I guess you could watch a sitcom about a family in front of a TV, and that it would be OK too. But this is a far better option.
Vampire Academy (2014)
Only decent thing I've seen in it's genre since Buffy, give it a sequel
OK, I'm going to keep myself short: I'm not really the target audience for a film like this, I'm too old, and I really, really dislike vampire movies and pretty much all of the mind numbing teenage flicks of late. I just watched this because of Zooey Deutch, since I liked her performance in Ringer.
AND I LIKED IT SO MUCH I VOTED 9 OUT OF 10. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I was even more surprised that I actually went and got the books and read them all in 2 days.
In it's genre (teenagers+vampires+romance+high school) this was the only good thing I've ever experienced (except Buffy, which I love). It joked playfully with it the genre itself, it was not too serious, still you could empathise with the characters in the manner of a proper high school drama. Zooey Deutch was great and Danila Kozlovsky translated well (I've only seen him in Russian movies).
The one thing that was really TOO MUCH was Lissa's speech in the end. Which I later on realised wasn't even in the book. No wonder. Can't you make just one movie without that crappy hero-speech in the end? Really annoying.
This is about teenagers, vampires, magic, and high school. Is there ANYWAY you can make it merge well into a deep, insightful and life changing experience? Well, not really. But if you do a Buffy you come pretty close. That is, you play with the genre, you make the fantasy element symbolise whatever else we can fear in life: To lose your parents, forbidden love, to fight to protect the ones you love, the feeling of not being able to trust the adults around you, bullying or being left out in school, living up to a family name, et cetera.
There are too many stuck up,pretentious vampire movies for teenagers out there. This story's got strong female characters who don't just weep over werewolves, a new take on the genre, lots of humour and real Russian actors playing Russians (thank you Hollywood, FINALLY!). I'd actually really like a sequel.