The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

After two absolutely stunning films, would Christoper Nolan be able to deliver what so few have achieved before him: The coveted trilogy of complete quality? Yes. Yes he would.

The opening set piece of this flick seems like something that was stolen from a James Bond movie. Thankfully, a good Bond-movie. It sets Bane up as something of a Keyzer Söze too, though Hardy has better scenes later on.

After a pure action-bred start comes a meticulous build-up. The story is set eight years later and much has happened. As in the previous installments, Nolan excels at characters, making it more than worth the wait for more action. He is also very good at using his surroundings, creating the atmosphere he wants. Most typically the loneliness of Wayne by showing his huge, echoing house with the marble tiles.

Smartly, he uses the astonishing Michael Caine a great deal in this part. In a film brilliantly cast and filled with exceptional talent, the 75-year old is still a good head's length in front of the others. Bale is still perfect, looking every bit 8 years older, and weary. Beaten even. Finishing the trifecta is Gary Oldman. Tormented by his deceit of Gotham, he lingers, waiting for something to save him. Special mention goes to Matthew Modine (long time no see) who brings a little life and credibility to what is essentially a very unoriginal character.

I could go on, and herein lies the problem I feared with this film. There are too many characters that want screen-time and it hurts the film every here and there as they are simply not all interesting enough. And I'm afraid that since Gordon-Levitt does a very nice job, it is Selina Kyle that fails to enthrall. No amount of leather and latex can help the fact that apart from the end scene she adds no real value here. The chemistry Hathaway has with Bale is not good enough to spark any tension, and I would challenge all to compare the ballroom-scene with Keaton/Pfeiffer to that of Bale/Hathaway. Burton has Nolan beaten by miles, maybe even a full state. It would appear as if Michelle Pfeiffer remains the only credible Catwoman of modern cinema.

As for the action, I like Nolan's tendency to realism - as far as that is possible in Hollywood. Motorcycle meets car never means a fiery explosion. It means stop. Hard stop. Other than that a lot of the action applies liberation army war tactics. Very aptly executed, very clever. And most importantly: Full of suspense. And while this all rolls, Bane is established as a most brutal, vicious and seemingly indestructible foe. The first fight Bane vs Wayne is a pain to watch, but it's a brilliant pain, establishing Bane as what could be the fitting end for a worn-down Batman.

There are a few "clues" that are written in much too broad strokes for my taste, but I guess that is my punishment for paying attention in general. Furthermore, the story falls apart for a few minutes with the daft "Talia-angle" but amazingly Nolan still manages to keep the suspense at a high throughout, making me feel like a nitpicker for pointing it out.

As it is, this is the weakest installment. As expected. But though it has its flaws, no one can take away from Nolan that he has made one of the greatest trilogies in film-history, dwarfing all other superhero-franchises in the process. And even though this is the weakest link, it is still mesmerizing in suspense and most of its story and characters. A joy to watch.

9/10

J. Edgar (2011)

Clint Eastwood has directed more than 30 movies, starred in more than double that and much of this is actually quality. Nevertheless, he makes one of the worst rookie mistakes available here. Don't toss exuberant amounts of information at the viewer in the first ten minutes. And the way he does it is even worse. First of all, there is massive voice-over. Added to that DiCaprio hardly has a scene where he does not explain background material in this period. Thankfully Eastwood also shows a hint of brilliance to introduce Mr. Tolson as a most ominous shadow lurking in Edgar's most controlled environment. A stroke of genius there.

After seeing DiCaprio made up to look old, I caught myself wondering: If they wanted to make him look like an older version of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, why didn't they just use Hoffman? Granted, DiCaprio is a great actor but he can not escape culpability for the biggest fault of this film.

Eastwood must take the main bulk of the responsibility though, as this film seems to get lost in its own way. What is Eastwood really trying to do here? If it's storytelling, then there are too many interruptions of scenes that don't really belong to make any kind of flow. And without a flow, a story can't really unfold. Surely he's not trying to portray Hoover as a person here? Because then he is using the FBI files too much and cutting scenes short where he should have kept going. Half the movie I was trying to understand what Eastwood's aim was as he gave a hint of Edgar's alleged homosexuality, a dash of politics, 3 drops of paranoia and a lot of sheer smartness and an immense gift at seeing and seizing opportunities where they presented themselves.

The only good thing about all that is that you feel like researching Hoover's life as soon as the film is over. Not because the film is good, but because it opens a great many doors without ever really entering the room. It's obvious that he hates communism (don't we all) and is willing to go to great lengths to pursue what he feels is right, but we never even touch how his contempt and paranoia arose, nor do we get anything but glimpses as to have far he really was willing to go.

Apart from Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer there aren't characters worth mentioning here. Thankfully, the latter is absolutely brilliant and outstages DiCaprio in most scenes they share. That could of course be Eastwood's idea all along as Mr. Tolson was supposed to have the swagger as Hoover was utterly in control of himself.

And then, just as you sit there wondering if Eastwood has lost his touch. There it is. In a big-budget movie about a great and influential man, with an exceptional amount of necessary and unnecessary details, listing up all his most famous deeds... The gem is a scene with two dying old men alone in the kitchen. A quiet, dignified, underacted and mesmerizing scene where everything just comes together. And instead of ending it there, Eastwood instead chooses to show a lengthy death scene with some unnecessary wailing. Sigh...

Part political thriller, part drama and part biography, "J. Edgar" does not really deliver fully in any of those genres. Hence it falls in the great pile of good ideas poorly executed.

5/10

Lethal Weapon IV (1998)

After mixed reviews of its predecessor Richard Donner needed to make some changes. Unfortunately he was nowhere near understanding what was wrong with the last one and thought he could fix this movie by inserting more stressful screamers and more fires (hardly 10 minutes go by without something burning).

God, I hate Chris Rock. What an insufferable comedian. And matched with Pesci's Leo Getz the nuisance is total. The crude, good (funny) humor is utterly lost in the incessant yelling and whining of the least funny pair on-screen since... Hm. Someone and Ben Affleck, I reckon.

Gibson and Glover seem more forced this time around and Glover is mostly screaming "Riggs" incessantly. The exciting Russo from the predecessor has become the pregnant parody-Russo. It really is depressing how they managed to kill that character off in a single film. But I suppose it goes to show that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Kim Chan as Uncle Benny provides a much more subtle (though somewhat racially insensitive - making it funnier) and genuinely amusing character. Gibson is still funny too, pestering both Russo and Glover in his most charming and playful way.

Furthermore, you know you're out fishing when Jet Li brings something extra with his acting. But his stoic manner combined with an explosive effect works wonders here. Oh, and the absolute minimum of lines he has (hardly any English) helps too.

As I mentioned, Donner chose to abandon all reality (and reason) for the last of the series, so naturally we get two big set pieces within 10 minutes. Only the first provide entertainment, but the second is the only relevant one. Generally, they just bring out bigger guns than earlier, making it increasingly less realistic scene by scene. Exciting? Yes. Immensely stupid? Most certainly so.

The ending that should have been is good, but the ending they provide is tripe of the absolute worst sort. Fitting. At its best this is an entertaining sequel, but it's so rarely at its best, and so incredibly bad at its worst, that it just doesn't add up.

4/10

Lethal Weapon III (1992)

Well, at least they chose a direction. Not my first choice, but hey... the public and I don't really have many agreements anyway.

Exit all that was dark and gloomy, entrance all that is comic and slick. The opening scene leaves absolutely, positively no doubt about that. It's still great though, as it also establishes that Gibson and Glover continue to deliver as a duo.

The silly humor is a bit much, and more distracting than contributing. Speaking of which, Joe Pesci has taken it up a notch. And he was on too high in the first sequel. Now he's quite simply exceptionally annoying. It's all made worse by the fact that this movie has plenty of silliness as it is, due to the change in tone. All is not bad, though.

Stuart Wilson is finding his balance nicely in his role as main villain. Just enough over-the-top to fit the bill perfectly. Rene Russo however, is brilliant. If ever there was a nice match to Gibson's Riggs, this was it. Sassy, violent and with a dark sense of humor she provides a second set of double-team to this flick. Much needed. Russo and Gibson even deliver one of the coolest foreplays in years.

The opening set-piece is good, but then again, you can't really go wrong when you race really heavy trucks. A considerable minus for the gospel-driver though. Most daft. The next is more of a hit-and-miss as it's a bit too frantic and diverts attention at too many places at the same time. The ending is big, noisy and even a bit clever. Most entertaining with a fitting finish.

The side-story is also better than last time, Glover showing off in dramatic scenes and Gibson finally getting to be the mentally stronger partner as the former goes on a serious bend.

Furthermore they still have that utter disregard for Miranda and all that surrounds her. Which is both effective and (still) funny. I doubt breaking into bad guys' houses at night and threatening to run over their heads with their cars is kosher in modern society.

This is very far from the first installment. So far it's almost hard to believe they managed to change the concept this much in only 2 movies. It's still enjoyable though, only much, much less fulfilling an experience


6/10

Lethal Weapon II (1989)

Ahhhh. So the need to be politically correct is still nowhere to be found as the cops at the precinct are taking bets in a high-speed car pursuit involving shooting. Very promising.

The ominous introduction of our villain and the following acts set up the same darkness as the first installment. Unfortunately, this time around they fail to pull off a credible darkness throughout, destroying the flow and credibility. Nothing is worse for that flow than Pesci's Leo Getz. Not a bad character as comical relief, but there is no need for comical relief here, and most of the interaction between Gibson, Glover and their colleagues is much, much funnier than anything Pesci brings. all of a sudden there are mass assassinations of cops in most brutal ways. Pick a lane and stay with it please.

Joss Ackland as the villain has a nice few couple of scenes in the first half, but as time goes by he's more and more of a cartoon. His main henchman, portrayed by Derrick O'Connor, does little to aid.

Worse though, is the romantic interest. Patsy Kensit is, quite frankly, a ridiculous match to Gibson with her fragile appearance and demeanor. So she's the "first half" Bond-girl. Some flirting, some bedtime and some permanent bedtime. At least she won't be back and she gave Gibson some angry motivation. Besides, a buddy-cop really doesn't need romance.

The humor is much lighter this time around, with the condom-gags a particular highlight. Hilarious.Generally, there is still absolutely nothing wrong with the chemistry between the two leads, whether it's for dramatic, suspenseful or (hooray) comedic effect.

They try to insert a racial sub-story here, but they're just not willing to spend enough energy and time on it to make it believable and interesting. Even worse is the lame attempt to solve the "murder" of Riggs' wife with a couple of random sentences.

So to the set pieces. The original car chase is most delightful, the second somewhat drab and daft (with a key piece busted on "Mythbusters"). A real treat, though, is the toilet-scene. Wonderful suspense with some good jokes and prime acting thrown into the mix. The big whoop however is the end game. Very nicely executed from start to finish leaving you wanting a third installment.

This is not a a bad film, it has action and humor a-plenty, just not always the right types at the right times. But considering the prequel, it is still somewhat of a disappointment

6/10

Lethal Weapon (1987)

After having seen the whole franchise many years ago a return to the beginning of it all made me surprised how dark this flick is. At times it's utterly pitch black.

First things first. Villains! Though Gary Busey earned his only nomination for an Academy Award as Buddy Holly, I sincerely feel that Mr. Joshua is the best he has offered us in his career. A meticulous character of great villainy with just the right dose of absolute psychopath makes for a fantastic adversary to our friends.

As far as the buddy-cop-genre goes, there is nothing more important than the chemistry of the two leads. In this movie, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover deliver in full. Gibson as the emotionally unstable gung-ho semi-suicidal rogue and Glover as the methodical family-man with a whole different set of problems to tend to.

The earlier mentioned dark side of this action-flick is established pretty early on. With an absolutely heartbreaking scene of Gibson shoving a gun in his mouth during a Bugs Bunny Christmas Special with a picture of his deceased wife on his lap. He ultimately buckles under and throws the gun away, sobbing. There are more subtle clues too, though. Watch for Gibsons reactions as he on several occasions early in the film escapes from extremely dangerous situations before the botched suicide. Some gloomy and rather unpleasant torture-scenes of our heroes make for another surprisingly dark twist.

In addition to Gibson's lunacy giving the movie a lot of its dark edges it also works great on the comedy front. "You're not trying to draw a psycho-pension. You really are crazy. "

It's hardly politically correct, ridiculing psychology as a science (and in most other ways), making (funny) gay jokes and providing elements of HR no boss today would be caught saying. Personally, I find it funny. Even more funny is Gibson's relentless teasing of Glover. Pure comical gold. There are no romantic side-stories here, no unfunny comic relief, just a great cast, a good story and some very apt directing.

With an absolutely epic stand-off between Gibson and Busey, this is a gem of an action/suspense-movie and one of the best of its genre.

8/10

Stripes (1981)

Ah. The wit of Ivan Reitman. There aren't many reasons to like the Eighties, but Reitman and his team is such a reason.

The misanthropy of Bill Murray is as good as ever through the first hour of the movie. His carelessness, cynicism and utter lack of self-respect (not to mention respect of others) is spot on and Harold Ramis as his enabler is as good as he always was in these parts (he had quite a few). Look at Trey Parker and Matt Stone in some of their pre-episode scenes and see if you can't spot a few things they've taken from this flick.

Generally, there is a lot of comedic talent here, with Judd Reynolds, John Larroquette, John Candy and Sean Young and most of them are funny. As far as drill sergeants there is really only one, but Warren Oates is not at all a bad match to Murray's antics.

As this is an eighties-comedy, naturally there are titties galore. Strange that... there were more breasts in comedies 30 years ago than now. No wonder I hate modern comedy. And to seen John Candy mud-wrestle six models, well that never gets old does it.


The gals even provide some cute romance here. Worth a smirk and a smile as Ramis and Murray play to their strengths, making the girls giggle and put out.

As much as you want this movie to escalate in humor, it gets lost in morals and a manuscript that runs on the leftover-fumes of better comedies. First after the usual 90 minutes a comedy is supposed to last (it would have been so much better with the last 25 minutes) and then again as director Ramis simply can not seem to end at a sensible time.

Elmer Bernstein composed an epic loser-track, and a most humorous comedic action track, most worthy of mention.

Though the thought of a military-SUV is a brilliant one, it's just not enough to justify another half hour, particularly as the film's strong suit is comedy, not suspense. Thus making this a good comedy that wouldn't end rather than a great one.

7/10

The music of James Bond

The Music, or rather the Songs, of James Bond

Nothing is better for my motivation to write than someone else screwing up. So, in honor of James Bond and all those associated with the music  from these (mostly) fantastic films, I have decided to write a short review of all the songs from the series, chronologically of course.

Dr. No (1962)

Monty Norman - The James Bond Theme

No real song, but the infamous James Bond theme originated here. There is still some controversy surrounding who actually wrote this, as Barry refused to deny rumors that Monty Norman had taken undeserved credit for it all these years. Nevertheless. This is an absolutely haunting theme, repeated in countless variations over the years. Only John Williams' main theme from Star Wars comes close to the James Bond theme in fame. And it's not really a close call, just somewhat. Brilliance!

10/10

From Russia with Love (1963)

Matt Monro - From Russia with Love

Entrance John Barry for what was to be the most famous franchise-composer collaboration in Hollywood history.
A true crooner, Monro brings real weight to this orchestral ballad. A rather soft ballad, though, lacking the aggressiveness one later came to expect from John Barry when working with 007. Still pure quality though.

7/10

Goldfinger (1964)

Shirley Bassey - Goldfinger

Thus starteth the aforementioned aggressive ballads.With a screaming intro, Barry sets the pace for a classic Bond-song. Bassey adds more than him, though, spiraling in and out of the chorus with panache and fury, leading to one the true brilliant crescendos of this decade.

9/10

Thunderball (1965)

Tom Jones - Thunderball

John Barry was never more lazy than this, repeating a 5-note intro in every second line of music and leaving most of the rest to the Welshman. Fortunately for Barry, Jones is quite good here, saving what is a very mediocre tune with a set of lungs unequaled since.

6/10

You only live twice (1967)

Nancy Sinatra - You only live twice

An astute orchestral ballad, with more strings than trumpets as Barry finds his romantic side. Sinatra provides a perfectly smooth accomplice, making this a most memorable song without ever really needing to bring out the big guns. 


7/10

On her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Louis Armstrong - We have all the Time in World 

In perhaps Barry's best score comes the late, great Satchmo. A pure ballad, low on Barry's patented horns, Armstrong's characteristic voice was rarely more beautiful than this. So low-tuned that it was thought to set the wrong mood if played during the vignette, this song is the only one ever to be played during the closing credits, in the only Bond-movie without a happy ending. Gorgeously fitting end in all ways.

9/10

Diamonds are forever (1971)

Shirley Bassey - Diamonds are forever

Less fury and more bleeps this time around as Barry and Bassey both fail to recreate former heights. Not a bad little tune, but more dull and less varied. Barry tries to speed things up in the third verse, but the magic just isn't there.

6/10

Live and let die (1973)

Wings - Live and let die. 

Strangely for a Bond-tune this starts off on a slow note with a piano and Paul McCartney. As the chorus beckons the tendencies of a ballad are all long gone. Until the bridge, which is just crap. But 3/4 of this song works fine as McCartney seems to toss a bit too much into at times. But it doesn't get much more dramatic than this.

7/10

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Lulu -  The Man with the Golden Gun

In a very disappointing film, I suppose it's only fitting with a somewhat disappointing song. With a melody that seems perfect for Shirley Bassey, Barry opted for Lulu and although she is nowhere near bad, it would appear that she struggles for the effect that Bassey could have gotten in her sleep. Plus for bringing a bit of aggressiveness back, but it's not quite good enough.

5/10

The Spy who loved me (1977)

Carly Simon -  The Spy who loved me

It is exceptionally, unequivocally clear that this tune has nothing to do with John Barry as Marvin Hamlisch took the reins. A very straight pop-ballad and not a horn in sight. I find this song cute despite Simon's obvious shortcomings when compared to earlier singers like Monro, Jones and Bassey, though, and most fitting of a rather romantic Bond-flick that is a little better than it's reputation.

6/10

Moonraker (1979)

Shirley Bassey - Moonraker

This tune is in no way interesting. There's very little of anything here. Barry's composition is most uninspired and Bassett tries to get away with just showing off her voice here and there, without really making this song hers. Most worthy of being forgotten.

4/10

Octopussy (1983)

Rita Coolidge - All Time high

What the hell is this? Bill Conti does Bond. And it's terrible. An absolute monstrosity of a song, made worse by a singer that has all the wrong traits for the melody. I have no idea how people with a musical background managed to pick this stinker, nor why idiots bought the single later. Horrid, absolutely horrid.

1/10

A View to a Kill (1985)

Duran Duran - A View to a Kill

And there we have it. The normal aggressiveness  in a Barry-intro. Thank God. Duran Duran has a nice sound to join Barry's fondness for huge horns and short, catchy themes. This is one of Barry's best scores and Duran Duran does not let him down with a song very much perfect for its decade.

7/10

The Living Daylights (1987)

A-Ha - The Living Daylights

Magne Furuholmens synth proved a nice intro for another Barry-composition and with Morten Harket we certainly have a broad-spectred singer again. It does seem a bit flat though as the aforementioned synthesizer whimpers bleakly where there should be triumphant horns and drums. In hindsight, this could have been a consequence of the fact that Barry later said he thought A-ha was a nightmare to work with.

6/10

License to Kill (1989)

Gladys Knight - A License to Kill

And: For the first time in more than two decades. A huge, orchestral John Barry ballad. It is better than Moonraker, but not that much as it has all the shortcomings of an 80s-ballad (a decade later) and seems to be short a bit of weight, both in the arrangements and vocals.

5/10

Goldeneye (1995)

Tina Turner - Goldeneye

Eric Serra wrote the score, but this mediocrity was written by Bono. I'm sad to say it's as dull as most of his other works and Tina Turner is unable to lift it out of the mire. It's not a bad attempt on her part, though. It never really goes anywhere, building up here and there but always landing in it's own boring path. Get a job in UN, Bono and stop harassing my ears.

3/10

Tomorrow never dies (1997)

Sheryl Crow -  Tomorrow never dies

For some reason, this was the first Bond-song not to break into the billboard. I guess that goes to show I will never understand the masses. Crow and Arnold make a good couple here as Arnold throws in some very Barry-like guitars and intros to Crow's hoarse, lingering voice that even fits the mood of the lyrics. All in all a very thorough and good song.

8/10

The World is not enough (1999)

Garbage -  The World is not enough

Another female with a voice full of gravel as David Arnold continues to deliver trombones and guitars so Barry-esque it begs belief. Though it sets a nice, sneaking tone, it feels a bit flat, lacking a singer with some deep, deep tones and uncomfortably large lungs.

6/10

Die another Day (2002)

Madonna - Die another Day

I don't like Madonna. I never saw any reason to respect her as a singer nor a composer. Though a brilliant PR-machine, her contribution to music as an art-form is non-existent. And in that respect she delivers perfectly here. This is as drab, flat and as soulless as anything she has made the last 20 years. Her mediocre vocals add nothing to this festival of bleeps and beeps. If I was to guess, the violins in the background that save her from the absolute pit is Arnold's but there you have it.

2/10

Casino Royale (2006)

Chris Cornell -  Casino Royale

Now that's more like it. Rock with some pace in it. Who would have thunk it? A smart, sassy song, delivered nicely by Cornell, with just the right sounds, and horns in just the right places. Another singer that makes you miss the depth of Jones and heights of Bassey, though.

8/10

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Jack White & Alicia Keys - Another way to Die

With perhaps the worst Bond-movie ever, came this more experimental piece from Alicia Keys and Jack White. Though I see that this is a most genius attempt, it doesn't turn out as it could. White and Keys have a very varying harmony, and you need perfection at that with such distinctly different singers. Keys comes across as her most annoying self at times, whining, moaning and shouting. Never a good thing. The interludes also fail when it comes to consistency, making this the only Bond-song that simply doesn't seem well-arranged.

3/10

Skyfall (2012)

Adele - Skyfall

A snarling horn taken by a dull piano. Adele's simply doesn't add the necessary ingredients to the verse. Thankfully for her, Arnolds build-up is very nice and takes us beautifully into a more ordinary chorus (with some nice orchestral arrangements). Generally the arrangements and the production here is good, but the melody line and a somewhat monotonous Adele never allows to explode like it should.

Ted (2012)

The start of this flick about the teddybear wished alive 25 years later is done carefully and with some originality. At least as much as the premise allows. The main plot is of course the same as any of the many horrible rom-coms. Man and woman happy, one does something stupid thus man and woman are unhappy. Then a grand gesture and man and woman are back together. And all is forgotten and blissful. And then there is some other stuff no one cares too much about.

Wahlberg is most underrated in comedies (actually in general), and carries this movie nicely, displaying a brilliant chemistry with Ted and a somewhat credible relationship with Kunis who is becoming quite the expert on comedies despite her young age. Most rightly so. Giovanni Ribisi is pretty misplaced here though and quite awful too, except in his dancing scene.

It is clear however, that this film is made by someone who watches a lot of films, and who is able to recognize quality. I've only seen this movie once, and was able to identify more than a dozen references, either obvious or subtle. Most good, some even brilliant.

So the basis of the story is a bore and the acting varies. Does that mean it's a mediocre film? By no means! As a source of laughs, this is priceless. There's simple humor, smart humor, rhyming humor, homages, hints, fat jokes, gay jokes, racist jokes and sheer slapstick with extra violence. Add to that one or two of the coolest fight scenes ever printed to film (The martial arts can all go suck several tailpipes) and "Ted" simply delivers. Proving that if you have enough really funny jokes, the basis of the story can be left to dwell in the background. And if you've laughed yourself to tears a dozen times during a comedy, nitpicking is hypocrisy on too high a level even for me. This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies made in many years. End of story.

If you don't laugh at this movie, just buy the extended, complete Blu-ray of Friends and stay away from me altogether.

8/10

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

In 1988 the blend of cartoon and acting was quite new, so what surprises me the most is how effortlessly they managed to make it look good through this film. I'm sure it took many takes, and a bunch of very patient and talented actors.

How Bob Hoskins can walk into Toontown with a 40's demeanor, a sour face and alcoholism and make it all seem plausible... Brilliant. He keeps this flick together in so many ways it's hat off to him. A brown fedora hat. And the fantastic thing is that at times he must act like a cartoon, in between being a depressed alcoholic solving crimes. And he pulls that off too. Furthermore, there's special mention to Christopher Lloyd, never better than here. Who would have though that cartoonishly evil would be his finest hour?

The details and in-house joke are amazing in number (and sometimes quality). The whole project really seems thoroughly produced with script-writers at the top of their game. There's slapstick, nerd-puns, and many homages if you have any kind of prior relationship to either cartoons or noir.

The pace is a bit much at times, making it seem a bit forced and even Hoskins isn't always able to grant relief when they smear that extra layer. Though I suppose that's for the youngest viewer. Or the ones who don't like to be entertained through any smartness. It doesn't happen too often, thankfully.

The score is Alan Silvestri and is, at bottom, surprisingly full of jazz. But it works very well (particularly the Valiant theme), so kudos. As this is mostly a cartoon the rest of the music is fittingly annoying. Like in Tom&Jerry.

Surprisingly dark at times, this is a real treat. Prepare to be foolishly entertained with a twist. Or in the words of the most famous Betty of all:

Boop-boop-be-doop-*boop

7/10

Stardust (2007)

Ian McKellen. Now there's a great choice for a narrator. If you absolutely feel you must have one. Off to an adventure it is!

As not too unusual I would like to start with a complaint. Any movie using the term "one true love" without sarcasm is in trouble. And in that respect it does try a bit too hard, but I suppose you can insert a bit of self-irony with the pirate named Shakespeare.

As far as adventures go, the details are important, and there are some good ones there. The goat named Billy for instance. Worth a snicker. Gay jokes? Sure, why not? Even decent ones. And ghosts of different dead brothers applauding and making jokes as we go. Not at all bad.

Our protagonist is the usual wanker, however. Clumsy, socially awkward, and picked on by many. Most mainstream and annoying for half an hour, then suddenly he transforms into the perfect adventure-partner. Right...

Peter O'Toole though is gleefully evil and wicked. A most worthy man to liven up an adventure with a small part. And as he lays the ground rule for the adventure, including the Macguffin, this is most important.

The people you meet are an integral part of an adventure. David Marshall, Ricky Gervais, Robert de Niro are among the lucky ones. Peculiar characters, good for a smile and some time spent. De Niro feels a bit wasted though, this is hardly an ideal way to get the best out of him, and in drag it's just ridiculous. Not the good kind. Furthermore the entertaining characters are a bit far apart at times. Pfeiffer's not bad but a bit obvious.

And while we're at the actors, Danes and Charlie Cox don't have too much chemistry and Danes doesn't really deliver on the old English dialect that they try to get from the others here and although they must endure a bit together, there is not much of a build-up until he is no longer a mouse. And then she glows. Literally. Symbolism above and beyond.

Towards the end there are of course the obligatory misunderstandings and lack of time to fix grave consequences. Most predictable, and absolutely following a pattern. Even the music has the same buildup as most other adventure-films. Though I suppose it works. Now as it did then. And that's pretty much the summation here. This is mostly a predictable thing, but it is thoroughly crafted and not without creativity and aforethought. Besides, it's darker than what you usually get from adventures like these, most likely thanks to Neil Gaiman. So I suppose it's alright. Even though the last 2 minutes are so nonsensical it leaves you annoyed at the end regardless.

6/10

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Tim Burton remaking the lovely and wicked children's story by Roald Dahl? What a treat! Or at least you would think so.

The narrator immediately makes me miss Patrick Stewart's epic epilogue to "The Nightmare before Christmas". This guy sounds like the American troll-version of Augustus Gloop while eating warm caramel by the handful. But I digress.

Let's start with a bit of good news. The actors are mostly well picked and Freddy Highmore is very good as Charlie Bucket. First barrier past. I've seen Depp better than here, but it's still hard to picture how they could have made Willy Wonka without him. Special mention to the outstanding David Kelly and Christopher Lee that makes an absolute nothing of a part into something most memorable. I will truly miss the latter when he passes. One of the true legends of his craft, with an almost omnipotent presence. I do wish Burton would stop casting his wife in every single film he makes though. She's not bad but has nowhere near the versatility of Depp and should leave room for better choices.

Burton is very good at creating the atmosphere of the little room with the Bucket-family in, an example being the tremendous suspense and disappointment over the opening of a simple candy-bar. A most beautiful scene altogether. Unfortunately, it's when the factory and Depp is supposed to take it away for the win that it all falls a bit to pieces. Granted, Burton's cinematography is stunning and there are some fun puns. But the story gets a bit lost and interest fades as the characters roam around in the Wonka's factory. Oh, and the Oompa Loompas suck. If you want a funny Oompa Loompa, try "Family guy". They had better lyrics too.

As always, it's Danny Elfman that scores when Burton directs. Elfman's intro-theme starts out well, but ends in a cascade of annoying sounds with some predictable drums and choral arrangements. It's "Planet of the Apes" mixed with the later installment "Alice in Wonderland". The songs are so far from the quality from "A Nightmare before Christmas" and the fine "Corpse Bride" that it's plain and simply sad. His best pieces are the sentimental ones in the first half, but they're not particularly creative, just effective.

As they leave the factory, the actors are allowed room to breathe and Elfman can stop the incessant drums and theremins. So it picks up again but the damage has been done. What should have been a triumph for Burton, turns into a bit of an overload where he at times forgets what has made this story a classic to begin with.

6/10

Mystery Men (1999)

In the midst of the rejuvenation of the superhero-genre comes... a parody. Hm. It sounds like easy money for them and a stupid film for us. But hey! They put the effort in to make it decent!

There are actually some good ideas here, like the Superhero being dependent on sponsors and genuinely seeing his occupation as a job more than a call. Not to mention the fact that he's willing to get a supervillain released in order to win some of those sponsors back. And the evil 70's discovillains, complete with soundtrack from "Saturday Night Fever". Fun!

The real winner here though is the job they've done with the characters. Most of them are delightful and quite creative... Apart from Stiller of course. He rarely is creative or funny. This is not at all bad for him though, kudos to the rest of the cast for dragging him and Garofalo out of the mire. Geoffrey Rush is his usual outstanding self, and with Azaria playing it up and Macy down , good cameos by Greg Kinnear, Tom Waits and Wes Studi are a pure bonus. Add to that some fine comedic lines i.e. "I can only become invisible when no one is looking" and we're well on our way.

There are a lot of characters, though and not all of them are funny and as a comedy this film suffers greatly when the unfunny characters take the scene. Another poor choice is the romance-story. It adds nothing to anything, apart from more nuisance from Stiller.

Director Usher finds a nice pace for his flick, and remembers to insert comedy in the action as well to hit his genre well and not fall into the "stinky second half" trap. Though at times the references to other films are aplenty this isn't simply a stupid spoof like the Wayans would make. It has its own plan and plenty of its own ideas.

This film is funny and quite clever, never forgetting that it is a comedy. There is no morale, no greater point, just a nice script, with a bunch of good (and some bad) characters. It's worthy of many laughs, and a couple of hours well spent.

7/10

The Day after Tomorrow (2004)

Some CGI is good (the opening in this film isn't) and some is bad. Since this film has no other merits (nor goals it would appear) it's shocking to see it can't adhere to only good CGI.

The opening is as dull and predictable as all disaster-movies: Bad omen, short introduction of theme and characters (including smart but underrated scientist's ignored efforts at warning politicians), then disaster strikes naturally with a very known landmark (in this case the Hollywood-sign) being destroyed and they set up a simple story of a parent looking for their child.

Why would Denis Quaid take this part? It's the same shit as every big movie that doesn't bother to get a decent script. Busy, obsessive father that naturally is a good dad deep down (and the really smart and accomplished mother that still needs the dad to fix things), always too important things to do, and, in the end, right (after having briefed the president directly). The list of clichés go on: The pile-ups of cars (with the honking of course) both before and during their destruction, the smart youngsters that find quite simple solutions no one else has thought of, the dog, the arduous low-tech travel, the expendable friends dying to show that death isn't only about numbers (brave, self-sacrificing deaths of course), the couple finally admitting their love. Add to that some simple, untested, Al Gore-like truths and an oversimplified morale and this flick is dumb as doornails.

Toss in a cancer-ridden child (probably a tip from Steven Spielberg) without any relevance what so ever and weep for humanity. Not because the environment is killing us, but because this is what Hollywood is capable of.

The writing credits should have gone to Alan Smithee. Emmerich took them himself. Example: People are drowning in a taxi because the water is rising, and the cop stands there looking at them dumbly because "he doesn't speak French"? I hate the French as much as any, but seriously...? And in the end, the joy of the one (or perhaps three) is so great that we can all forget about the death of the millions... Yawn. And it ends with a morale so politically correct (and factually wrong) it just makes my mind crawl into a safespot and refusing to come out until this film is over.

There is a little suspense, and some good effects. The fact that Emmerich had enough left in his budgets to add some decent actors (that all should have known better) also makes the film suck a little less.

It would appear as if they made a two-hour film because someone had an idea for some cool shots of waves crushing New York... Much like the meteors in "Armageddon", just more.. Hmmm. Wet. Roland Emmerich has said he wants to continue only making big-budget disaster-films. Too bad he isn't any good at it.

3/10

Batman Begins (2005)

After Joel Schumacher had put his stinking, dirty paws on the Batman-franchise, it needed something spectacular to find its way back into the light. Cue Cristopher Nolan.

Nolan starts the trilogy off by skipping about in time. Quite nicely, keeping it informative and relevant without boring the viewer and without introducing too many characters in the process. Nolan's introduction clearly displays how Bruce Wayne has been scarred by the death of his parents, and although he more or less copies half the shooting scene from Tim Burton's "Batman", this is forgivable.

It's easy to see that the is a labor of love. They have put thought into most details here instead of just Bay'ing it (stupid, illogical explanation or explanation left out all together) and when separating a fine film from a brilliant one, that is important.

As for the actors, Bale and Neeson are very good but Gary Oldman is fantastic. All the more impressive then, that Michael Caine still is a step above the rest. Whether angry, disappointed, scared or simply a British butler, Caine steals every single scene he's in from an already outstanding cast. Even Katie Holmes is good here, although a bit lightweight. Cillian Murphy is most unpleasant and brings that eerie little discomfort with him. Tom Wilkinson perhaps not as interesting but not bad. In particular Nolan gets a credible inner conflict out of Wayne as he clearly struggles to portray himself as a shallow playboy in order to keep his secret, portrayed best in a scene with Katie Holmes.

Nolan allows for drama and his actors subtleties, as can be seen on the amount of facial close-ups and with his brilliant cast he is handsomely rewarded. It's almost amazing how many characters he manages to portray with some depth here, and how gritty realistic he manages to make a movie about a man in a batsuit. Good drama is most rare for a superhero-flick. The tone however is very dark and without depth in the characters, you can't really get a good, dark tone. Without simply turning the lights off.

Even the City of Gotham's fall from grace is made believable through small nuances and little hints here and there, in what is an exceptionally thorough script. The paranoia that has Gotham shaking is tense, without overdoing it. And of course... there is action, violence and outstanding set-pieces. All in galore.

You know that brilliant jaw-dropping scene that fills you with awe? Where the soundtrack and the film meet the script in a brilliantly filmed twist? Very few films have this. "Batman Begins" does. At 1:53:00. Enjoy.

Nolan even dares to avoid the happy ending, leaving Bruce with difficult truths to handle and an uncertain future.

As a film, this is brilliant. As the first installment in a trilogy, it's so good even Peter Jackson should be taking notes.

9/10

Prometheus (2012)

Every sci-fi fan on Earth was looking forward to another dark Ridley Scott sci-fi from the instant this project was launched. Did he deliver on those expectations? Sadly, no.

A tiny annoyance first. It would have been easy to name Rapace's character Dr. Berget or something similar. She is a world famous cave-digger-look-around-for-stuff-people, so naturally she could have taken any nationality. By naming her Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, there is little doubt she is meant to be British, leaving her feeble attempts at hiding her Scandinavian accent an unnecessary nuisance. Furthermore, she lacks a bit of depth in many of her scenes and is not helped by having a much more charismatic Theron showing up regularly. And Theron has been better. The best cast performances come from Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender. The latter nicely combining HAL and C3PO with just of hint of Bishop.

Apart from the cast, the storytelling lacks panache. It feels uninspired at times, as if Scott just needed to fill a few minutes of film before he can chuck some effects in there again. Like bad porn. With some real stupid twists, dull choices and serious logical flaws, Scott really could have tried harder. The cinematography is most impressive though, and there are some cool future gadgets.

What Scott still does very well is suspense in the correct sense of the word. The eerie quiet. That sneaking feeling that something horrible is about to happen where you catch yourself forgetting to breathe. He also still has a knack for coming up with cool ways to die in space.

This is a film that will entertain you for a lot of it's duration, with the exception of the very tedious last 20 minutes. However, it will rarely challenge you and it adds little of anything of real value. Nowhere near a classic, and most unworthy of the hype.

6/10

The Way of the Gun (2000)

There have been far too many movies made where people are in over their heads, and things get more screwed up as they go about their lives making countless stupid mistakes. The Law of Murphy is anything but original in Hollywood. But since our protagonists are neither stupid nor amateurs, this is above average intriguing.

Del Toro and Ryan Phillipe, though hardly an instant classic, is a rather dynamic duo. Juliette Lewis will always deliver and a silver star is also awarded to Taye Diggs. James Caan could do his part blindfolded, but thankfully doesn't and struts his stuff in several scenes. Add to that a brilliant Geoffrey Lewis and the casting here is well above average.

This flick offers regular little surprises and some classic lines, such as "Shut that cunt up, or I'll f***-start her head". It tries a bit too hard at times, though, adding twists that add little and interferes with an ideal flow. There are simply too many angles, and too many little stories. The best, such as Caan vs Del Toro are real good, but some of them just take up unnecessary space.

It picks up towards the end when people start dying (and with them unnecessary angles) and director Christopher McQuarrie is able to focus on the end game with fewer distractions. All in all the film lacks a bit focus from time to time, which is peculiar considering McQuarrie wrote the absolutely magnificent "The Usual Suspects" for which he won an Academy Award. It's still nowhere near bad, and at times outright good.

6/10

Bad Santa (2003)

If there ever was a Christmas-movie meant for Bill-Bob Thornton, this is so definitely it. Usually, voice-overs are annoying and adds little. Not here. The introduction is ripe with loathing and contempt for absolutely everything. My kind of start.

And let's make it clear immediately: A Santa that drinks heavily, swears like a sailor and has a huge thing for asses and anal sex... It's funny. With Thornton and Tony Cox... it's very funny.

Cox is a wonderful addition to Thornton's self-destructing Santa. A great balance of frustration, anger and disappointment as he tries to hold it together for the both of them. Brett Kelly and Lauren Kelly also shine in Thornton's presence, almost making me think he can make anyone good. Then I remember "Love actually". But seriously. How many films has interaction between an adult and a dumb child that has you hollering in laughter? And if you're thinking about "America's stupidest Homevideos" now, grinning to yourself... take a dive off a 60 foot ledge. Besides, the boxing-scene in this film is better than anything Stallone could muster in a dozen films.

Bernie Mac and John Ritter (this was to be Ritter's final full-length feature) both died rather shortly after this film, and they will both be missed. They're very nicely cast here, playing right at their strengths.

It's great fun to see that someone still manages to put a bit of thought and originality into a heist. Seeing Tony Cox slide down an escalator in a snowman-costume... Priceless.

It falls a bit to pieces towards the end in usual comedy fashion. It's hard to be funny when you're trying to add both moral and a happy ending. The kid manages to squeeze out more sympathy than you'd think but the humour suffers.

Oh, and the musical choices are mostly brilliant throughout. Shostakovich's Jazz Suite was never more fitting.

This film will in no way raise any Christmas spirit, but it might just raise the roof with laughs. And that is much, much better.

7/10

I Love Trouble (1994)

A film about a young and ambitious female journalist and her older, more experienced, world famous male counterpart. Oh, I wonder where this will take us? Competing on a big case you say? Both desperately trying to up the other and, if at all possible, poke fun. And, what? Really? There will be lots of sexual tension that will come to the surface WHEN, you say? After they through strange coincidences have to share a room? Who could have thunk it? Actually, anyone could. And considering it was written by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer... anyone did.

On the bright side the director manages to make the tedious and lame script keep a decent pace. And with pace comes a minimum of suspense and entertainment. Not bad, but 122 minutes is definitely more than pushing it. Though I still wonder; why is it that every hitman apart from Jean Reno in "The Professional" is unable to hit even the easiest of targets?

So the script is awful and the pace is decent. I suppose it's up to the stars to decide whether this film makes or breaks. It breaks with the sound of the someone cracking a rib-cage open. Badly marred by the astonishing lack of chemistry between Julia Roberts and Nick Nolte. None of them manage to get out of their regular comfort zones, and since their comfort zones don't naturally blend they just seem like two people from a different film that got lost. It really is that bad. Nolte actually admitted in hindsight that this movie was terrible and that everyone had a miserable time. I won't go as far as to say it shows, but the whole movie seems very forced throughout.

Another little bonus for the casting. Robbert Loggia is his old barking self, Paul Gleason and James Rebhorn always deliver. Add to that a delightful Charles Martin Smith, Saul Rubinek and Olympia Dukakis and the movie doesn't lack in acting talent... in other places than the obvious.

As entertainment it's about like going to a restaurant and being served fish-sticks. You'll be full, but quite disappointed. Other than that, it's an insult to intelligence. "Conspiracy Theory" would be a much better way to spend two hours".

3/10

The Cannonball Run (1981)

The cars and the stars...

Lamborghini, Ferrari, Chevrolet, Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, hell even the police drive Trans-Am's. Oh, and for some reason that stupid little Subaru is there.

Roger Moore, Burt Reynolds, Farrah Fawcett, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis jr., Jackie Chan, Jack Elam, Adrienne Barbeau, Peter Fonda.

If analyzed the jokes are a bit far apart, and many aren't really that funny either, so as a comedy it's not really that good. The threat of "Him" and when "Him" actually appears is the main course (and the blooper reel). DeLuise is entertaining at times and Reynolds making fun of him is also slightly amusing. The pop-cultural references are a-plenty and half the characters are parodying themselves.

Though it lacks the charm from "Smokey and the Bandit" it makes up for some of it in an absolute mass of fantastic cars and some of the finest stunt-driving of the decade. Besides, it's a delight not having Jackie Chan speak any English. And the sound of those engines... God, it makes me hate modern cars so very, very much.

Not too mention the exceptionally gorgeous women in attire that makes you absolutely certain no straight female was supposed to like this film. Some interesting set-pieces and a, for its time, gigantic fight scene makes for decent entertainment at times, but this really is about the cars. If you don't like those, there is little reason to see this film, other than the massive amount of stars making a mockery of themselves (apart from Chan, he still kicks everyones ass... in style).

Oh, and it is naturally a cult movie, though that is not necessarily equivalent with quality.

5/10

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Combining western and sci-fi? Without Nathan Fillion? Sounds like a stretch...

A promising start has some action scenes, remembering that cowboys don't regularly use martial arts. Fists meet faces, some are happier and some are most dead. You do get am early and distinct general idea that they've been better at re-using story-parts than finding any of their own. Perhaps they felt that putting cowboys and aliens in the same movie was enough. Wrong they were.

This is further confirmed when two actors from Carnivale is recast with most of the traits they had in that show. Only Clancy Brown brings anything to the table (despite his lines), but then again, he is a mighty presence wherever he is. Keith Carradine is another modern western-man. Though better in Deadwood, he is decent here as well.

Pretty women always seem to be clean and waltz in straight from the hairdresser in westerns that don't really know what they are. That pisses me off to no end. Olivia Wilde's first dialogue is so bad it begs belief, and it never gets much better from there. Her lines are ridiculous and contains most of the many logical flaws. She doesn't improve either. A miscast of epic proportions. And I like her...

I'll give Harrison Ford a point for playing a genuinely evil man. Unfortunately he thinks sneering, barking and not shaving is all it takes. Besides, the character falls apart in a crappy translation scene anyway, with more shite on its way.

Thankfully, Daniel Craig is good, and the minor parts are mostly well cast.

As a western, it's bad. Unless you really like seeing poorer versions of scenes from earlier westerns. There is undoubtedly entertainment here, and lots of action, thus making you irritated at the lack of quality rather than bored. Which, I suppose when all comes down to it, is a good thing.

And the moral is that if we all work together we can overcome a lot. That sucks... But it fits this flick, as there is very little originality here. If you really like western combined with science fiction, the only real choice is to re-visit Joss Whedon's "Firefly".

4/10

Tango & Cash (1989)

Another testosterone-based cop-movie in the Starsky & Hutch genre. And they cast Stallone for the anal-retentive by-the-book part. Interesting choice. Interesting and stupid. Not as stupid as letting Stallone start the movie by hip-hop voiceover, but still.

Unlike Stallone, Russell is actually a good actor and their interaction lifts Stallone out of the usual puddle. Stallone without Russell in this flick is atrocious. His quips are just awful as his comedic timing is nowhere near good enough. Almost as bad is the fact that they cast Jack Palance as another sneering rich bad guy. He probably only saw the paycheck here and decided not to bring anything fresh. And although I adored Brion James before his early demise, his British accent here really is horrible, screwing up what could have been a somewhat memorable henchman.

Thankfully the action is never far away and that makes for decent entertainment value. At least if you're a guy. Or a woman that likes Kurt Russell. I doubt fans of Stallone can understand this movie. Or how to get dressed in the morning. The latter should suit him fine. I also enjoy the slugger-fights. No 100 lbs weaklings in pajamas swirling on leaves. Just big guys with enormous fists beating each other to a pulp. Merriment for all!

As usual in the 80's the music is synth-crap from A to Z and the only good thing about it is that Teri Hatcher strips to some of it. And since she quickly converts to drumming (!!!), that's useless as well. The story is unoriginal but apart from a couple of most peculiar set-pieces, it holds water as long you don't test it with real water.

As far as testosteron-based actionfilms starring cops, this is about average. Russell in drag doesn't help in that respect.

5/10

Dark Shadows (2012)

A common mistake when you convert a TV-series to a film is that you fail to remember how much less time you have. Unfortunately, Burton makes that mistake in a rather large scale. He simply tries to include too much in the story and there is hardly a single character, apart from Depp, that has enough about them to spark a bit of interest.

That is partly due to the fact that Eva Green simply isn't good enough for this part. Apart from her being bad, Depp is really good, making her seem even worse, and their interaction suffers. She is at her best when CGI and makeup is applied full scale and even then she only has the menace of the robot-prostitute from "Mars Attacks". And looks a lot like her.

Depp. What a brilliant actor. I was actually a bit annoyed when I heard he had accepted this part. He has done so many "weird" main characters for Burton that I anticipated another might be too much, or just more of the same. But no. He does seem to bring something extra to every character when allowed and his 200 year old gentleman combined with some moments of utter viciousness make for a most intriguing Barabas. Furthermore, the comedic timing of Depp must not go unnoticed. And this time around, he actually has some fantastic lines to work with.
As for the rest, they're really nothing but props, Burton failing to make them count as he shares their screen-time so everyone has too little.

Though this is another collaboration with Danny Elfman, Burton devotes most of the musical numbers to the 70's at a hit'n'miss ratio that makes you think they could have worked a bit harder. Watch for a fine integration of a classic Alice Cooper-track though. As for Elfman he has some nice big cellos going, much like his underrated Wolfman-score, though with a lovely theme of violins on top.

Burton still is one of the best at cinematography and iconic images and his gothic tendencies are predictably suitable here, whether it be dark cliffs in the rain or statues on top of magnificent stairs. The man does have a keen sense for detail, naturally with exception for the lacklustre "Planet of the Apes".

This movie is, as always with Burton, an aesthetically wonderful experience, but with too many elements in the story and a lack of depth to the characters, it is fun, but rather shallow fun.

6/10

The Day the Earth stood Still (2008)

A remake of a classic sci-fi featuring the actor with the least facial expressions in Hollywood, including the actors that have been dead for decades? I'm not intrigued.

Strange intro. They actually manage to create a certain expectation in the scene where Connelly is picked up and driven to the airport. Nicely done. After this, dullness ensues and the feeling of being intrigued is forever lost.

The "suspense" is mostly tedious and unoriginal. Flashlights in the fog, trying to find something unknown, bright, blinding lights, lines like "it's close" and what not. Yawn.
Where the original was an epiphany and a science fiction pillar, this is a lot of the time like a horror movie from a forest of some kind, with the odd sci-fi element.
It's filled with stupid mistakes and logical flaws, mocking people who are actually paying attention.

Connolly is an excellent actress who has been mostly very good at choosing her parts. In this film though, she is utterly out of place and brings little to a nothing of a character (even though she cries much more often than necessary). Reeves was always horrible at chemistry, and has none here either, making all his interactions with others a bore. However, none of the characters are really anything but shells, their motivation seems a mystery and their development as well. Except for the kid. Portrayed by Jaden Smith, he is excruciating in every scene and you need to google "JarJar" in order to find an example of a more unnecessary, irritating and useless character. With dialogue taken from the very bottom of the deepest pile of dung in the zoo, there is nothing to find on a personal level. Oh, and John Cleese is a miscast so dire, one could weep.

Unfortunately, the storyline is as bad as the characters. I doubt director Derrickson had a clear thought as to what he wanted to make here. Either that or it was bullocksed later.

There is a bit of action and some sparse suspense and when they run out of script and decide to just blow shit up this flick is at its best/least horribel. But considering the creativity and originality of the original, this mess of a thriller with sci-fi connotations can only be described with one word. Blasphemy. A most worthy winner of the Golden Raspberry Award for "Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel".

2/10

Kick-Ass (2010)

OK. To start off a superhero-flick with a nerd and a voice-over is not ideal nor is it creative, but this flick is so wildly entertaining that I'm willing to let that slip for now.

Our "hero" is very nicely portrayed, with just the right amount of sarcasm, stupidity, awe, horniness and foolhardiness. So I'll forgive the director for overdoing the embarrassed-teenager scenes.
It's exceptionally rare to have a movie totally change pace... without just seeming schizophrenic And it really is an extreme change when director Waughn struts his stuff in the second half. He drops a scene here and there to prepare you, making sure reality catches up to our hero, distancing him from his dreams and fantasies. But you're still nowhere near prepared when the curtain goes up for the final act.
Somehow Waughn also manages to avoid taking the violence that tad too far to make it daft. Though it is over-the-top, it is also excruciatingly real at times.
Nicholas Cage has been mostly mediocre in mostly horrible films the last couple of decades so it is a real treat to see him ace this part. And though Aaron Johnson is more than good enough for his part, 12 year old Chloë Grace Moretz is absolutely amazing. With a mostly unknown, though still most decent supporting cast, this is a treat. They don't really get the romance going here in any significant way and his nerd-friends don't really get enough screen-time to add much more than a smirk here and there, but that's splitting hairs as Waughn doesn't spend enough time on any of it to really prevent a good flow. So is the fact that the best scenes take place before the end-game, leaving the latter almost anticlimactic (though still nowhere near bad).

Both suspense and sheer action works. Realistic in it's parodic way for the first half and just brutal in the remainder. The warehouse-scene and the PR-stunt are absolutely amazing scenes. The first for its fantastic action and cutting (with some brilliant choices in music), the second for it's bare and devastatingly authentic effect.

I fail to give an explanation as to how they manage to blend the utter nerdiness and the brutal violence in "Kick-Ass" but it works in most scenes and at a time when Hollywood sets new records for lack of creativity every week, this is a tremendous example that it's still possible to surprise and shock a viewer without simply going for more extreme versions of things already made. Waughn makes himself a perfectly thin line and balances it with great care throughout.
Kudos to all involved.

8/10

Transformers III: Dark of the Moon

Dette sammendraget er ikke tilgjengelig. Klikk her for å se innlegget.

The Hunger Games (2012)

To specify: I never read the books, so this review is based solely on the film itself.

For a movie with a plot reducing 24 to 1, director Gary Ross certainly makes it hard for himself, refusing to deal with a lot of choices along the way. This makes me start with the films greatest flaw; its runtime. It clocks in at almost two and a half hours and the screenplay really doesn't have enough material for that. Thus meaning it's a bit of hit and miss at times. Intriguing for a few minutes, then tedious and intriguing again. Through the first half of the movie this really does prevent a real flow. And although I'm sure they hired every tasteless designer in Hollywood to dress up the city of Capitol, it still looks horrid and misplaced. No wait. Because they hired every tasteless designer in Hollywood, it looks horrid and misplaced.

When the games begin, however, there is plenty of suspense to keep you awake. Personally, I thought I had had more than enough of animals/shadows/people chasing people, but they create a wonderful suspense for most of it and only a couple of times do they get tempted by the Bay-side (Bay-hater analogy) of the force and refuse to cut scenes that really didn't belong. You are likely to grab onto the seat and feel your pulse increase ever so slightly. It's a good thing!

Ross also fails to make the most of a couple of scenes that set up some possible brilliance but ends in decency. Furthermore he is clearly restrained by the PG-rating, though he could still have avoided using hand-held cameras quite so much to avoid showing any gore. Hand-held cameras add little more than confusion and their use should be kept to a minimum.

The suspense is partly due to something as rare as decent casting for a teen-flick. Both Hutcherson and Lawrence are quite alright and even muster some chemistry here and there, though their characters are of limited interest. Most of the fodder-extras do OK too, though none of them will be missed later on. Love shine a light on Woody Harrelson for the first half though. Whenever he shows up, there's just that little extra amount of charisma and panache that the others lack. Unfortunately he undergoes some strange, unexplained transformation that doesn't really suit him and towards the end he's as dull as the ten thousand extras that stole from Elton Johns closet in Capitol. Another dent for the utter misuse of Donald Sutherland who is left with a nothing of a part, leaving only the subtle hint of utter villainy that he does so well. And, of course, it pisses me off beyond belief that director Ross is unable to allow the heroine a clean kill. It either has to be indirect (dropping wasps on people) or in immediate self-defense. For a contestant in a death game that masters a crossbow, that's just stupid.

This film is nowhere near deserving of its hype, but it's not at all a bad way to entertain yourself for a couple of hours. Did it set up well for a further two installments, though? No! But that's a different matter.

6/10

Transformers II - Revenge of the Fallen

In my opinion the second in a trilogy is often the best. The characters develop and there is usually darkness afoot (i.e. The Two Towers and The Empire Strikes back). The Revenge of the fallen, though is a bigger disappointment than Hellboy II and The Matrix Reloaded.

Why in the sweetest, holiest hell do they start this movie with a voice-over explaining things that inn all essence were explained with broad strokes in the first installment? Naturally, this flick has just as predictable and dull an opening as the first.

LaBeouf is still a whimpering, stressed out and unlucky idiot, same as last. He sucks in every single scene he enters, regardless if he wants to do Megan Fox, dump Bumblebee, calm his mother or not be killed.

Then there's the support cast. All scenes with the family are actually a lot worse this time. Out of place in every conceivable way, adding nothing of anything, leaving me angry or annoyed every single time. Fox is still sizzling, but Bay makes her overdo it in such a fashion that you're just waiting for a plumber to show up to "fix her sink". Horrible.
The caricatures are so obvious and overused it's almost sickening: The bureaucrat asshole hassling the Autobots and soldiers (naturally a wimp when push comes to shove), the nerdy, paranoid roommates, the arrogant professor in his class, the consistent worst of all possible timings, the "cool" dynamic duo (damn, they're annoying), hidden door found by dumb accident etcetc. You'll find more originality in a tomb filled with accountants than in this reeking turd.

The story is virtually non-existent, the characters unevolved, not to mention badly balanced (80% are overstressed and annoying whiners, just as the former movie), and even the humor is horrible. Michael Bay must be the only guy that can try to make fun of the French without making anyone laugh.

Do you remember Maximum Overdrive? It is a very, VERY bad movie. But the kitchen appliances- scene in this stinker makes me miss it.It's so stupid, poorly directed and filmed it leaves me absolutely stunned.

Oh. And Bay still spins the camera around just enough to make it impossible to really enjoy any of the fight-scenes between the robots. I would add a point for LaBeouf dying, but since Bay both uses his sun-shot by the face of Fox and LaBeouf is miraculously revived in a manner so lame that it begs belief, it is deducted with interest. Another debacle of a scene.

That there are robots, explosions and violence for all, just doesn't enter into it. I always meant that if anyone would be able to screw up something as cool as Transformer, Michael Bay was the perfect choice. He is. This movie is perhaps the dumbest pile of shit ever to be formed on the pavement. Everyone seeing it will need to re stabilize their IQ by reading a good book or perhaps just staring blankly at a white wall until the memories fade. Truly, utterly atrocious on every conceivable level.

1/10

The Gauntlet (1977)

Eastwood as an alcoholized no-nonsense cop? That hates authorities and paperworks? In the seventies? How original.

And it is fun to see what you could get away with of discrimination at that age. All the cops are men, and Eastwood is most happy to slap his female prisoner around and applying simple rules "If you mess around, I'll put the cuffs on you, if you talk dirty, I'll gag you and if you try to run, I'll shoot you". You know he will (and he does), you know it's a blatant abuse of power... and still! Both entertaining and cool! Eastwood really could get away with anything those days.

Sondra Locke was dating Eastwood at this point, and she is better with facial expressions than she is with her lines. She does bring out the true scumbag in Eastwood, though, so I suppose there is chemistry. Apart from them, most people are to be regarded as extras, apart from the legendary Pat Hingle. Unfortunately, his character is given nothing to work with and should have been either scrubbed or seriously altered.

As always, Lalo Schifrin provides the score for Eastwood's 70's-flick, and though scarce, it is very good. If you like 70's jazz.

Eastwood seems to want every shooting-scene to be extremely thorough and so they use 2000 bullets when 10 would suffice. I suppose it seemed dramatic at the time. But for the end game it really is cool. Clint Eastwood driving a rigged bus through Phoenix with the entire Phoenix P.D. lined up to shoot at him on the way. Very cool.

The story has the same problem as the film. There are some clever thoughts here and there, but triviality and boredom lurks just behind it. Some fun set pieces, a few good scenes, but all in all not very believable nor enticing.

As a way of securing Eastwood's reputation as the most macho actor of his generation, this'll do. As a film, it's very mediocre.

5/10

Transformers (2007)

A movie like Transformers certainly needs a voiceover, and Peter Cullen demonstrates that he is still an apt choice for Optimus Prime

The first part of this flick is very much without any point of originality and Bay just seems to check things off as we go. Bad omen. The soldiers giving each other a "hard" time, the helicopter, the baby that hasn't seen it's daddy (the natural leader of the soldiers) yet with its mother. And of course, the resolute military response met with utter destruction and serious ass-kicking leading to the inevitable "how can we ever beat something so smart and powerful" question that will set up the young hero; Cue the devastatingly useless Shia LaBeouf, naturally a social misfit of a somewhat stressed but smart type. All written in 4 minutes by a dozen chimpanzees.

As Michael Bay probably knows he is the most stupid director in Hollywood and his films provide the mental challenge of scratching your scrotum, he makes sure all women (including all the extras)are stunning. Even the nerdy ones that hang with other nerds with beards and unwashed hair are absolutely stunning. Utterly stupid. Megan Fox works though, but it is a bit more believable that girl-next-door Kirsten Dunst want Peter Parker than that pornstar-sexy Fox would go for the useless Labeouf.

The family provides a couple of chuckles, but mostly unnecessary background for the annoying dork. Or like Ironhide put it: "The parents are very irritating. Can I take them out?". I understand your pain, Ironhide. Yes you can!

So Labeouf will mostly run around screaming things like "nonononononononono", drooling at women or acting like a dufus. And for this he gets the girl. Argh!

Bay overdoes the use of slo-mo in every film he makes, and this is no exception. And when he leaves what probably is supposed to be a subtle hint, it's like standing in a desert where a nuke goes off for everyone who doesn't have both eyes in a bag of chips.

When it comes to comic relief, Bay is more useless than most, and he fails particularly stunningly here. As mentioned Labeouf spends most of his time on-screen (and that is most considerable) whining and screaming. So does all the comic relief, thus making the level of annoyance grave.

And when it comes to romance he just adds a sun in the back shining through alongside some closeups. God, I hate Michael Bay.

So, is there any redemption? Well, Transformers are cool, as is John Turturro. He's so above and beyond the rest of the trash here that I suspect he was allowed to write his own lines for parts of the film (not the last third). And there are a couple of cool set-pieces here, though most are destroyed partly either by overuse of slow-motion or Bay's eagerness to rotate cameras.

So 2 points for Optimus and 1 for the fact that at least you rarely have time to be bored.

3/10

What women want (2000)

Another potentially funny comedy lost in the sheer boredom of predictable love and clichés.

Because this flick starts out with actual laughs. Mel Gibson was born to play a Sinatra-loving playboy who knows little about women he spends more than 24 hours with and gets away with most things due to charm and power. He practically owns the screen the first for most of the first hour. To watch him indulge in life and exploit knowing what women think is a most satisfying comedic experience. Then it all crumbles.
I'm not certain what the director is trying to do here. First she creates a character out of the ordinary, and then she works herself to the bone trying to fit him into a role as ordinary and boring as the rest of us. I suppose that is the way it is with women. This makes the movie seems a bit half and half. The first half is filled with jokes, chauvinism and flair. The second has relationships, morale and predictability in every scene. An annoying snooze-fest. So I suppose any couple seeing this flick will have scenes they like, though never the same one.

Oh, and one last time for those on the back row: Men dressing as women is NOT comedy. And it has not been since Lemmon & Curtis. So please, pretty please stop inserting these scenes in 20% of the comedies made every year.

As for the score: Half and half

5/10