Reviews

I write here a total, combining review for both Dune movies made by Villeneuve.

While the work done in this movie and its predecessor on every piece of technology or placement props are done excellently, those things are the ONLY things staying in my mind, when the curtain closes.

And, yes, these two movies does a good job slavishly following the story from the book, but where is the overall atmosphere, the sand-grit between your teeth with a simultaneous pungent taste of spice? Where are the heavy Imperial drapes against the walls and ornamented hallways of the inner rooms of any of the palaces belonging to the great houses? Where are the whispering voice of Shadout Mapes, the feverishly repetitive words of the many mentats, made like mantras? Where are the Navigator guild, its representatives and its many servants.

Where are the ever scheming and hostile mindset of Baron Harkonnen that always lashes out against those nearest him? Where are their devilishly scrutinized plans that should clash heavily with the optimistic attitudes of Atreides? Where are ANYTHING that could give these films a presence so tangible the moviegoer should feel he IS there, and not in a movie salon?

I say nowhere! It is like the book(s) about Arrakis and the universe surrounding it were never written!

I am so utterly disappointed with both these movies.

Compared to the (inaccurate - who cares?) fantastically and thickly woven tapestry that was David Lynch's Dune (even though cut into shreds of its former and supposed glory), Villeneuve had no clue at all.

Lynch's Dune is just as perfect and marvelous compared to Villeneuves both films, as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining was to Stephen King's TV-series on the same book. The author himself couldn't grasp the possibilities that Kubrick could. And Villeneuve could not grasp his own inherent possibilities of building on Lynch's vision, so he essentially failed just as much as mr. King did.

Did Tom Hanks really say yes to this production?

I mean, 07.27 into the documentary, they talk about Tom's then girlfriend Samantha Lewes and he getting married, while simultanelously showing a picture of him and Rita Wilson..?

I really wonder, who made this bad documentary? And who gave it the go ahead? Can just about anyone make documentaries about celebrities and probably not even ask the person of interest and then get away with it?

No, I say: back to the drawing board, and the be sure to get the approval of the person of interest!

Stay away. If you like Tom Hanks this will only annoy you!

This film, which I have only seen once in cinemas, is a hard film to like. I wanted to be enthusiastic about it, but it has one big element missing which I will decribe below.

I was very interested to see how the film makers had formed the story around the concept of revenge - a classic element of many old stories.

And, yes it started out kind of well. And I say "kind of" because I found it rather stiff actingwise from several very prominent actors such as Nicole Kidman (better than many others), Ethan Hawke (so-so) and Alexander Skarsgard (not really the ideal actor in this role) in spite of the very buff Viking combat scenes. No, for me, Claes Bang made the most believeable acting of the whole movie.

But the missing element, what was it? THE NORSE DRY but DARK HUMOR.

Why, you say? Because it plays an important and absolutely critical role in books like thousand year old "The Icelandic Sagas" which most likely form a basis (among other similar inspirations) for the film's story. This humor, which makes the otherwise over-the-top bloodiness of old norse tales manageable by its very human sarcasms, is invaluable. And yet, it's missing.

A major fault. Otherwise, the film closely resembles tales such as the named ones, which makes it doubly regrettable.

... but in spite of that, this was a good little animated movie. I just feel sad that they are pronouncing the "Einheriar" the way they do. It's awful.

Then again not many animated movies make as much merry and seriousness at the same time. I had a great time watching this.

I also wish the director and producers would've adhered to how the actual sagas and legends tell the tale. It's much more fantastic and rewards the reader. That way people could learn how Odin really lost his eye. It's epic.

This review contains spoilers - how could it not?

Ordinarily I do not believe in the 10 rating. It's impossible to give a movie such a high enough praise, but in spite of that, I have given a select few those exact points. In reality, the very best movies should be given a high "nine point something"-rating. But since that isn't possible for me to give, they become "10s".

Why Kubrick's filmversion of "The Shining" fall into this distinguished category of rating is because it is a tale about how everyday, ordinary things like talking, thinking and walking or writing becomes instruments or even languages of horror, directly aimed at one of the viewer's weakest points: the inability to voluntarily bind them to total unfamiliarity and personal fright. And yet, this movie through the work of Kubrick and his closest associates, manages to do just that.

Included into this unfamiliarity within the film (and the book), is seclusion. And seclusion, in my mind, only underlines the coldness of insight into the fact that if a person becomes dangerously unstable, as Jack Torrance slowly does, the strange behavior then contrasts much clearer, both by time and space and among fewer people.

The Overlook Hotel is an almost ideal place and seems sunny and on many levels a totally reliable place to be in over a longer period of time. And that is in spite of the reputation that the hotel manager conveys early on in the movie.

Sure, the overall look indoors soon turn into the mystical, but it's kind of hard to see how the three winter residents is going to be at eachothers throats before long. And it is just that, the mundane and slow build up that make this film into what it was when it came out, and still is! The place and plot, even with todays high-tech surroundings, could be played out at such a secluded spot. That makes the movie timeless, of sorts.

The everyday plk-plk-plk of Jack's writing with his wife's and son's daily discoveries of the place which ever so slowly turns into smaller and then greater feelings of weirdness, is what make me watch this with awe still today. And then the place itself: the carpets, the walls, the rooms and doors, the decorations and all other things that makes me want to ask: why are all these areas still accessable during deep winter? The answer is, as many others have put it: it's alive in and of itself. The three residents are living in the bowels of darkness.

And I like the house! I like the general look of the place. In another setting I would even like to live in such a place with a few other close friends and relatives, without the horror of course. But in this story, the house and place are only using the everyday slowness and unsuspecting minds to drive home its dark horror all the more effectively. And I love it. This for me, is true fright. How slowly it creeps under your skin. How ordinary it all seems and then definitely not.

I like this almost hypnotic movie. The desolation of humanity's future is gripping. It is conveyed through strange and alien, monolithic art in different kinds of grey light.

And the voice is telling a mesmerizing tale of a distant future. It is believable and that is what makes this movie so great.

This film, just as its predecessors are about much larger and more important stuff than just toys and children.

It's about feeling lost. Being found. Being created. And just when you think your life can't draw any more blanks, it reloads its LOVE for you. Because we all have a plan to follow. Even the ones that think they're trash. But for that we need a Woody. And we ALL have a Woody inside, and a Bo Peep, a Buzz and so on. The important thing is to USE that inner voice that only we have.

And then... the ultimate question:

"How am I alive?" the newly created toy says in the end.

Then, Forky replies "I don't know". Just as WE ALL say.

And for your information; I am a fifty-five year old man who absolutely LOVE these movies. They make me cry with sadness and with joy more than any other animated - heck almost any - movie! And I am a teacher for grownups.

We have so much to learn in life. One of them is to appreciate AND listen to our inner voice. It keeps on talking. It is patient. Because it's been there.

From the very beginning of creation. The creation of us. The toys.

I have looked through all (at this moment) 868 reviews on this movie and there are literally hundreds of repeated fake reviews that even have the same head line! Why is it even allowed!?

Then there's my take on this so called "movie":

It is such utter, utter garbage and awful, awful crap as well as horrible acting by all "actors" and don't get me started on the music...

It is also so incredibly far removed from the historical legends that it is criminal (!) to even remotely call it any name coming from the Arthurian stories. And I think that is because it does NOT have anything in it that resembles the myth and/or folklore stories retold in books like "Le Morte D'Arthur" or any other legends having their base in Arthurian myth. It's like the director and script writers didn't want anything to do with the actual historical legends.

And then...

No Guinevere. A real blunder.

But also, NO Merlin, which is the worst, since that is like having NO Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. Just imagine... So many things getting the wrong origin and telling. Like I said it's just criminal. I am so incredibly angry with Guy Ritchie.

It's like he only wanted to miscredit the old legends of Arthur. Why? That is just so dumb and gross that it is inconceivable. Unthinkable.

DO. N.O.T WATCH. STAY FAR, FAR AWAY.

The whole epic saga of Game of Thrones comes to the inevitable end in a surprisingly moral and truely human way. I was so pleased to see that the "perfect woman" Daenerys could become so fallen and corrupted by her rising power. This is EXACTLY the way many powerful humans react before long. You know the saying: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And this is exactly what happends. Stop being such children about it and understand this! And to the people that are frustrated by the fact that Night King died, I have this to say:

Let's say that the Night King wins the fight in the North. Somewhere around 97% of all interesting people in the series disappear and/or become new undead soldiers in the Night King's army.

What happens next? The Night King travels south. The whole thing then becomes a tedious lengthy battle between Cersei and the Night King. That is probably the most boring thing I can imagine. The series is about a story about intrigue and war between families and nations trying to challenge each other. For this, you need lots of interesting people and places of note. How much chance do you think the Night King and his undead hordes have to actually replace all the different interesting styles and personalities of all the lost people? Zero is my answer. Nothing else.

No. This movie is not mainly about death. Please just think of it as a transition, like that of a buddhist kind of view of the after life - but with a twist!

And that - in combination with an absolutely hauntingly beautiful film music - is what makes this movie so great. That's in spite of the most laughable so called special effects a childrens cinema have ever produced. The Katla creature is beyond comedy, but what does it matter, when the weight of the story seeps into your feelings and you just cannot hold back the tears?

The actors, the photography, the overall story of standing up to love, solidarity and morality when it matters the most, the magical music score... MAN! It all just conveys such a life-long memory of thoughts and feelings.

And by that I mean for all kinds of people, of all ages and of all different nations. See this with open eyes, and see it with the children who has such clarity of heart. It is what Astrid Lindgren wanted to say: love eachother with a childlike love and you will always be warmed by it. Stand against militaristic, murderous darkness, and be there for everyone. Even the evil ones. Because they also have a heart, even if it is a different one from the loving ones.

I live in Sweden. Sweden have had gun control laws for close to a hundred years. Since they were initiated the number of gun deaths has dropped to almost nothing and owning a gun in this country is VERY closely regulated and restricted. Yes there ARE shootings, but they are very few compared to the US. We just don't have any other types of gun related accidents.

Now here we have this film, glorifying the ownership and usage of guns to "right all wrongs" with an almost comedy-like lightness to it. I hate how the film makers just don't care about the most basic thing:

Violence is a never ending spiral, especially fatal violence. Because everyone that gets shot have a friend or a relative that's going to come after you.

The film ends conveniently when the "good guy" (and even the police!) have had his (their) fill of "bad guy burials". But in real life, the "fighter for good" would now have to defend against all the people wanting revenge.

I am so sick and tired of these kinds of movies getting made, and they still promote the stupid old message that violence EVER stops. It doesn't.

Only true peace heals wounds. Don't waste you time.

Why is it that most of the time, when ideas are there that could prove really constructive in the world of cinema today, they often goes wasted? This film's basic ideas are not bad, and the first few minutes really gripped me in it's potential when the weird things started happening. The Vaninshing pushes the buttons of basic human fears, and does it so well in the beginning. Then all of a sudden the characters, the story and overall reason for things to happen starts to deteriorate. Dumb, silly ideas from the characters being carried out, outright insane actions and the one thing that really bothered me: the strange calm of the characters in spite of what has just happened, and keeps happening. They start talking feelings in the middle of very dangerous situations and on a whole doesn't even reflect on what has happened.

No, this was a sad try at what could've been a marvelous movie.

This review contains spoilers! The three skiers that are marooned on the mountain are among the most stupid people I've laid my eyes on in a movie. Idiotic moves:

*Not throwing all and everything at the tractor that shows up in the beginning, but instead just shouting at it, in spite of the motor sound killing off all sound for the driver. And the driver of course being both stupid and lazy not to take at least a look outside the vehicle.

*Jumping off the chairlift and not even try to lessen the fall by extending a ski or at least something other, like first hanging by your arms to take some height off of the fall. But no, they do not use their heads at all.

*Then sitting apart from each other, instead of using the combined body heat to lessen the cold of exposure.

No this film is just stupid in the extreme. A waste of valuable time!

This review may contain spoilers. And it should if you want to stay away from this. I don't understand todays castings in many films and series - it must be that some so called actors only get their parts from the reason that they're related to the producers or some such explanation. Eddie Redmayne must be such an "actor", which is a very generous term in his case. Every other participant in this series is actually doing their jobs! Especially Clémence Poésy and Joseph Mawle who doesn't shine here, but does a decent working part.

The story and overall plot is very straight forward, and one easily gets involved in the love affair and more recent situation in the trenches of WWI. But the wooden acting of Mr. Redmayne annoyed me from the start! His face doesn't even move much during the shoots. He keeps the same dumbfounded look in every situation! Even when he's seriously wounded and presumed dead, even then he's as expressive as a door knob! Gods! Please will someone explain to Mr. Redmayne that he's chosen the wrong occupation! He's certainly not an actor. And never will be.