Change Your Image
sweper74
Reviews
Jurassic World (2015)
Great special FX, Average movie
Seen the movie twice now, first time at the cinema in June, and the second time on DVD just a week ago. I wanted to wait before I reviewed this movie, to reflect about it a bit first.
I had pretty high hopes for the movie to be a good one, since I liked the past episodes of JP a lot. But it really didn't get me. The positive side is the special FX, really good and well crafted cgi. My favorite scene is when the boys goes on the tour with the gyrosphere and go off-road, ending up right on the I-Rex, lurking on them. That scene is the movie highlight for me. The Mosasaur is a nice acquaintance too, though a very short one unfortunately. We didn't get to see that creature that much. A pity. The acting of Chris Pratt and the two boys are pretty good too. They do their job. The guy with the old JP t-shirt to. However Bryce Dallas Howards character (Claire) felt really unrealistic. Not meaning to criticise her as an actor, but the character she played (which is not her fault). The character was a Park operation manager that did not know a thing about dinosaurs and what was happening around her. She also seemed to feel no enthusiasm for working with the animals overall in the park. How she would ever get that job from the beginning is a total mystery for me, and makes a plot hole for the movie. Also the character Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio) is a sort of a question mark for me. So eagerly convinced that the military would have a major use of raptors. To make them to some kind of superior co-soldier/weapon in future wars? Really dull if you ask me. Also in the movie the old park building from the first JP movie was left untouched..degraded... No one ever noticed it until the boys bump in to it. Wouldn't it have been made to a museum at least and not just left like that? Overall the movie was an average ride. I would have given it 4 of 10 stars first but ended up giving it 5 at least. For me the earlier Jurassic Park Movies were much greater, the first and the second movie especially. I also prefer the third one before this, though it's (for me) unfairly low reputation. That one had a lot humor in it and also a nice flow through the entire movie. A great adventure ride that JW misses to deliver, even if the CGI is top notch. But a movie cannot rely on only CGI.
Les yeux sans visage (1960)
Mystic french horror ...in need of a little more character development
Recently, I have been starting to watch French dramas, crime movies and thrillers. This one caught my attention one late Saturday night, and I wanted to give it a chance. Overall this movie is a good one. Though I don't think it deserves the high rank (7.8). Here is my review: As a mystery horror movie it works well. The scenery and environment chosen for these events emphases the atmosphere and mood of the movie. You get to see a short "prologue" that set you up with some clues about where this film will take you. So far so good. But when you get to know the main character, Doctor Génessier's beloved daughter Christiane, I think this movie is starting to turn a bit confusing. I personally think this film lacks in character development. OK, Christine, is clearly in a weak status after a tragic accident that destroyed most part of her face, and you get to see a girl in grieve having her faced covered by a mask. The doctors mission is to restore the face of his beloved daughter with any method necessary, meaning going to the extreme, sacrificing both people and experimenting on dogs. He has discovered a method to remove faces of young women and apply them or part of them on his daughter instead. She stays in her room in the mansion for most of her time in great grieve. But it is not explained how and why she lost touch of her human side. Her "pre-accident" story is left out from movie too. When people being sacrificed for her behalf, she hardly reacts about their suffering, even knowing about it. She is clearly mentally ill, but you get no explanation of how she was turning into a person that is not even reacting and trying to rescue the people sacrificed, before the procedure. Maybe she had a long time breakdown (this movie misses to explain how much time has passed also), or was ill already before the accident. But there is no explanation revealed. I will not give away more details that will spoil the outcome of the movie. Taking into consideration the lack of main character development as explained, and some other minor flaws, it is not perfect. But I still recommend you to watch this movie.
Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
a celebration to childhood
Before i watched this movie i thought it was gonna be a plain "Fantasy" about children finding a secret entrance to a secret world, sort of. I have not read the book that it is based on, neither did I study the story enough before either, so i have to blame myself for that misjudgment. As a result of that, I was initially pretty bored of the movie, the first half of it.... Before i understood what it was about. I Judged it as a pretty silly "i have seen this before"-movie. But......I am so glad i continued to watch it to the end!!! This movie is no Fantasy!! (though I like Fantasy movies too). It IS a movie about childhood, life, about friendship, to dare to be ourself, to live our life now before we die, before our dearest die. It is a movie about completely letting out and free your imagination, so that we feel alive and free. It is also a family drama, about raising up children overall and attending school. There is a sad event coming up also that you will discover in the second half of the movie (you will understand when you see it). But you will never be frightened, more touched and blessed (not of the event itself of course). But because the second half of the movie helps you understand the first half. It is a beautiful movie. I found myself crying a bit in the second half of the movie, which happens not that often these days, and i am a man! in the early 30 years he he. I can't really compare it to some other movies, the closest maybe should be "Stand by Me (1986)" or "What Dreams May Come (1998)" But still not really the same thing but has the deepness of them in common. I highly recommend it. The movie has a "(View content advisory for parents)" so read that before you start the movie.
Fritt vilt (2006)
I liked this one
I have to give credits to this great movie. There ain't much quantity of horror movies made in Nordic countries (I am from Sweden myself), and i am glad to see Norway produce such a great horror film. The story is pretty simple but it is well balanced and is not rushed through. First you get to see a glimpse of the characters to get a feel of them and build up empathy. You will follow them on a holiday trip into the beautiful Norwegian mountains, to go skiing. The main plot starts when they arrive to their destination. An accident occurs that slows down the skiing and they decide to seek shelter through the night... What happens from that point of the movie and on i let the viewer go look for himself/herself ;-).
Road Movie (1973)
Good movie that could have been even greater...
What should i say about this movie. Overall it's a good movie. The actors are doing a great job and the story is interesting. Two hardworking men, working as independent truckdrivers picks up a prostitute on their journey to Chicago. The movie is about what happens during that trip. The movie is an adventure, a dramatic roadmovie sort to say and the director is very good mixing the elements of exploitation and art and does it in a very talented way. And i think those last elements makes the movie a bit unique. But i think the end of the movie is the weak part. I think it's a bit over-dramatic and can't figure out why things needed to end the way it did in the absolute finale. Just when you thought things was gonna calm down a bit and the situation would get solved, that "thing" suddenly occurred that made it even worse (a bit illogic in my opinion but what the heck). i grade it only 6/10 cause of that (Not that bad grade anyway).
The Transporter (2002)
No No No No....
What a waste of time *gasp*. The "Actionstar" of this movie was of course an expert in everything, he not only had the martial arts skills to kick large butt, but also was good looking, had the best car taste, best talking-skills - could talk sense of a woman in no-time or lecture up the bad guys. If you wanna see a good action-movie/thriller with Jason Statham go watch "Cellular" instead and cut this crap, there's just too many exaggerated or dull things about this movie. This "1 man with a bare breast kicks 20 guys butt at the same time"-movie did not impress me. Not at all (sorry).
I grade it 2/10
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)
OK, but could have been better
I don't know. I think this movie has some good tension and special effects. The acting is good/descent, they do what they can towards the story. But there is something partly quite dull and muddled over the movie/story. I just don't get some things. For example I don't understand the whole purpose of this demonic carnival and what they are really after or want? Furthermore, the arrivals searched for people, sometimes knowing exactly where they were, sometimes not (?) It seems like they sometimes "telepathicly" can reveal peoples location.. or i don't know *haha*... They also seem to know everything about their targets... and sometimes not. This is for example illustrated by the two kids in the movie that they are after, because they have "seen to much". How could Mr Dark know that they were at the library? But when he got there he seemed to not know where they were hiding anyway? Then, he seemed to know again. And if he knew why did he blackmail the father of one of the kids to get their location? One thing more, the end was a bit muddled and mossy, typical for some 80's movies. I don't understand the thing in the "mirrorhouse" completely. To much strange things occurred there. I don't understand why Charles did yell at his son Will when Will needed to cry when his friend laid knocked out on ground? Did he mean that "boys should not cry!" or what? At least for me when you're sad or horrified crying is perfectly natural... even if you don't always show it. I might sound too critic about this movie in a negative way. Over all it is an OK movie to watch. I give it 5/10, but i was close to give it just 4/10.
Killer Fish (1979)
promising beginning
I saw this movie yesterday. I liked the beginning. A couple of jewelery-thiefs carries out a plan to steal some jewels near a powerplant and a barrage. They succeed to steal them and also avoid getting caught when "escaping". They hide the bait in a preplanned secret place for them to recover later on. So far so good. In this part of the movie i thought that "yes! this could be a quite a good/exciting/thrilling movie to watch.." But when they gather together afterwards, a "new" twist in the plot appears or comes up to surface. One member of the company has already planned a deceiving backstabbing plan to get hold of the treasure alone. And how that is done and carried out in the movie is where I get a bit disappointed. I don't gonna say how, but the realism in that plan is far from reliable. It's quite dull how it is carried out and how the actors acts/behaves in that part of the movie. As the title of the movie claims, there is a human threat in the movie called as we all know "piranhas". Small and dangerous predators. But I don't like how they are described in the movie. Of course they can be dangerous to other mammals and us humans, but they don't attack that easily in real life as in the movie. For what I have learned blood and hunger triggers an attack. With that in mind you can wonder how in h-ll they can attack people so easily as in this movie and will they not ever stop being hungry for one single moment!!!?? They just keep attacking and attacking. I'm not gonna let out all details in this movie, I stop here. However this movie does not s-ck totally. it has some tense/exciting moments but you will probably get bored out quickly. At least i did. I Grade it 4/10.
King Kong (2005)
Good but no masterpiece
As said by a reviewer earlier i was not sure about my feelings when i left the theatre. Afterwards, thinking about it, i have come to the conclusion that it's not a masterpiece. It's a good movie though.
The positive things about the movie: Good acting and good special effects. The development of the characters and how they are affected by circumstances. For example Carl (Jack Black) and his more and more urge and determination during the movie to make a big economical profit of things. The development of the relationship between Kong and Ann was really good and made you feel empathic and emotional. The environment looks great also, both on the island and in New York. Very well done on that bit.
The Negative things about the movie: It's about 30 minutes too long!! I think. Some parts of the movie takes up too much time, making the movie a little bit "boring" and raises the yawn-factor a bit. Some elements of the cgi-effects are too unrealistic. For example the native's kind of "pole-vaulting" on the cliffs chasing after Ann. The "Brontosaurus-race", especially along the edge of the cliffs. There were rocks falling down like "domino-bricks" and people were actually able to run along them in a perfect equal pace and without falling down. Those moments looked too perfect, therefor too unrealistic for me. When Kong did not get noticeably hurt by the bite's of the T-rexes, not even blood dripping, Hmmm... I think the fighting scenes sometimes (only) consists of too much cgi-candy for the viewers eyes, a little bit "overdone" in my opinion.
Overall this movie is good. It deals with a lot action, horror, mysticism, romance, greed -there's always somebody that wants the whole cake or at least the largest piece of it ;-) I give it a 6 out of 10 (6/10).
Best Regards /from me
Monster (2003)
remarkable resemblance by Theron!!
I saw this movie 2 days ago on DVD and i like it. The acting by Theron is the best part. I recently watched a documentary about the serial killer Aileen and I must say that Charlize Theron looks so much like Aileen in this movie that you can sometimes believe (almost) that it is her (The eyes, the gestures... ). However, by comparing the authentic story on the documentary with this movie, there are some things that differs. First of all i am thinking about the fictitious person Selby. In the real life doc. there is no Selby, but there is a woman called Thyria. I probably guess the makers of the movie didn't have the legal rights to use the name Thyria in this movie (?), so they created 'Selby'. The second thing is that the first killing in this movie was motivated by a brutal rape of Aileen. It might have been that way in real life, but in the documentary it never occurred that it was a rape. At least there were no evidence of that. The last thing i was thinking of was that in the end on the trial when Selby was called to witness, she looked at Aileen at one time. In the doc. it was stated that Thyria (Selby) never looked into Aileens eyes. If i remember right I don't think she looked at her at all. My final judgment is that it is a good movie with good acting but a little bit fictitious story for some parts (maybe too much fictitious). I grade it a 6 out of 10.