Boromir28 Reviews

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Faithful adaptation, off beat pace.

[7/10 · 27 July 2021]

HP and TCOS is a good fun movie in the HP franchise. The music, the acting and the effects are great. Especially Kenneth Brannagh as Gilderoy Lockhart is magnificent.

However, I find the pacing very off. Most scenes go on a tad too long. Most are meant for the actors to react to what's going on, but their reactions come too late, that if it had been a play I would have thought the actors had forgotten their lines.

But it's also the rewriting of certain scenes. Now professor Binns isn't in the movies at all, so they've chosen to give the lines to McGonnagal. Fair enough.

But there's no sense of dread or hesitancy or foreboding regarding the tale.

It falls a bit flat.

But, all in all the movie is still in the a fun watch.

Into the Woods (2014)

This is a Stephen Sondheim movie - not Disney

[8/10 · 23 February 2015]

Good. Now we got that cleared up.

This isn't as much a review as it is a response to those who are disappointed with Disney about this movie.

Well there's a reason for that: It's not a Disney movie. They didn't have anything to with the characters, plot or the songs. If you didn't know it was a movie adaptation of the Broadway play, tough luck.

Now into the movie itself. The good news first:

The singers: Wow I was very much impressed with everyone involved. Stephen Sondheim's songs are notoriously difficult to sing, but no one, NO one fell through or left me wanting. Unlike other recent musical movies *cough*Les Miserables*cough*. And in a movie that is 80% singing I was very much entertained in that regard. James Cordon and Emily Blunt had a very good on screen chemistry and were very believable as a couple. Anna Kendrick and Merryl Streep had some difficult songs to sing and were wonderful. Everyone shone in their songs and knew what to do with them. Cudos.

Now the bad news:

The script: The story was of course given, and the movie had to follow that story. However, some of the changes made and the way it was edited took away the fast paced feel of the play. Scenes took too long to get started and made the movie feel made up of individual stories that didn't quite seem to connect. The last third of the movie was problematic especially. A lot of the lines that would have a theater audience laughing fell flat because of too much background noise from bird, brooks, leaves etc. On to of that the camera angles were often too far away from those talking, so it was hard to know exactly who said what, to whom and why.

The overall cinematography was nice looking, but the grey tone that seem to be predominant in every movie these days took away the fantastical element that was so vivid in the stage performance. For instance if I didn't know they were looking for a golden slipper it would be hard to see it really was golden.

All in all I think it's an OK movie, but largely because of the music and the actors. The direction, editing and cinematography brings it down. This is not a musical movie for the general public but for those interested in music or know the play. I would say a pre-knowledge of the story is a must to fully enjoy it.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Hell's Bells (2002) Season 6, Episode 16

Seriously...where the hell did Xanders bravery go?

[4/10 · 7 September 2014]

After all the things Xander has done through this show, and after all the problems he has had with his parents, it would have been SO good to see him stand up to his family's way of behaving and assert himself as a strong, loving family man. Instead he's turned into a wimp. I wish that they just let them elope and find their own piece of heaven. Schmaltsy maybe, but some of the scobbies deserve happiness.

Just imagine how powerful a support he and Anya could have been to Buffy. Their stable and unprejudiced love is exactly what she needs. Instead the entire Scooby gang seem to be doomed to eternal misery.

With this and "Normal Again" every character seem out of character. And it's really getting rather annoying to watch.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Normal Again (2002) Season 6, Episode 17

Man season 6 is just about all the fun...right?

[4/10 · 7 September 2014]

It seems inevitable in every show that if it is on air long enough, the writers start to disrespect the characters. It happened on "The West Wing" when Toby turned whistle-blower, "Doctor Who" when Amy and Rory lost their child and also here on "Buffy".

Let's cut to the last scene in this episode "Normal Again". The episode ends with a look through the glass in the door to Buffy's room at the mental institution, indicating that none of the show so far has been real. I can not express how much I hate that ending. With everything that has happened from season five and onward, Buffy deserves to get a moment of victory. This episode has such a scene when she's able to get out of her hallucination and save her friends. She was able to beat the poison on her own showing her former strength. However the writers cheat her and us for a chance to finally move on, with such a bad ending.

After the frustrating ending to the previous episode with Xander's run-away groom, I hoped that things would somehow get better, but the writers seem to want to find out how much they can put the characters through before the viewers switch off. I'm nearly done with my Buffy marathon, so I am sticking by it, but had I been following the show when this season aired I would probably have tuned out.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More, with Feeling (2001) Season 6, Episode 7

This could easily be a high school musical...the good kind

[10/10 · 6 September 2014]

This episode is so good.

Joss Whedon is a true genius. Having an episode completely silent and now a musical? And we're still captivated! As I was watching it I could see high shoolers doing this. The songs are fantastic, funny and cheesy, especially Xander and Anya's song about their fears and insecurities about their wedding, could have been taken directly out of a Stephen Sondheim musical. But the songs are not all funny. Buffy's grand soliloqy about her being taken out of heaven is really painful. Willow hopefully learns something from this, even though the damage is probably done. If the songs are truly how they feel, Tara has had enough of her wicca overload.

A definite 10/10. I really liked that it was the cast's own voices, it wasn't meant to pretty, but none of them directly sucked. Xander was probably the weakest voice, but it had it's charm. At least he was better than Russel Crowe in Les Mis. Oh and a final note: Michelle Trachtenberg showed some really sexy moves...and it's OK to say that as she's no longer 15.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

Took me by surprise

[8/10 · 23 August 2014]

I did not know what to expect from this movie. I like animation films, but having been spoiled by Disney and Pixar, I don't really watch that many other types of animation. However I'm glad I gave this one a shot.

Cloudy with a chance of meatballs has it all. A likable protagonist, an easy straight forward story, an occasionally creepy vibe when the food comes alive (those deep fried chickens crawling down from the ceiling like the orcs from The Felowship of the Ring, were pretty creepy). But what really got to me, was the relationship between the hero Flint and his blue- collar father Tim really pulled at the heart strings.

It was beautifully crafted and had a good heart.

Check it out.

Arrow (2012–2020)

Good but not great

[6/10 · 5 March 2014]

Let's begin with the Arrow. Stephen Amell is very impressive in the fight scenes and the the scenes showing him training is just a slap in the face of most of us of the male gender. That being said...his acting is very wooden. He has three or four stances with which he delivers duologue and no facial expressions at all.

Now...the show is still really entertaining. The plot and the action is as good as most action movies out there.

The rest of the cast is OK but the characters are very one dimensional, maybe this is because of the source material or bad writing, i don't know, but it would be nice if the characters were more fleshed out.

The origin story of Arrow and his escape from the prison island is actually the most entertaining. How he goes from spoiled rich kid to effective killing machine is handled very well in flashback, occasionally the episodes have to many back and forths from present to past and back again that the overall plot of the individual episode gets lost.

Anyway...it's good entertainment...just don't expect Sorkin level of duologue.

The Green Hornet (2011)

The Green Hornet without it's sting

[3/10 · 1 September 2012]

The Green Hornet starring and written by Seth Rogen is a movie that seems more based on a set of ideas and jokes that doesn't really come together to form a coherent story.

The Green Hornet as he is known in the daytime Britt Reid is a no good son of a very successful newspaper owner and journalist played by Tom Wilkinson. The two don't have a very good relationship as Britt doesn't live up to his father's standards. When his father suddenly dies of a bee sting Britt is forced to take over the multimillion enterprise The Daily Sentinel. But as he says to his father's right hand man Edward- James Olmos he has never read an entire edition of the paper so the staff are free to do what they think is right.

Now that kind of attitude is almost a given premise that has to be in a super hero movie: that there is some kind of emotional hindrance that the hero has to overcome before finally accepting his responsibilities, however in this movie it takes too long before that happens and when it did I didn't really believe it.

The plot is also very weak: in an attempt to do something to fill his life Reid and his father's former mechanic Kato go out into the streets dressed in black and green wearing half masks as their disguise. However it soon becomes clear that the only one with a skill set is Kato. He can move in ways Neo from the Matrix would kill for, and is both a gifted mechanic, inventor and can make a cappuccino just the way Reid wants it. But as neither of them know where to go in order to look for crime they rely on the knowledge of Reid's secretary Lenore played by Cameron Dias who has a degree in criminology. And may I just say that they could have cast anyone in that role. It was so vague and badly fleshed out that it didn't matter who played the role.

They soon find themselves on the radar of LA's biggest crime lord Chudnofsky played by Christoph Waltz who still hasn't found that one good role to top Inglorious Basterds, and this one isn't it either. He seems however more interested in figuring out why he isn't feared as much as he should be and genuinely takes a lot of time thinking up catch phrases, outfits and even name change to become feared in the underworld. He has a good line near the end wearing a red gas mask to match his new name "Bloodnofsky" he says "I'm ungasable" when his cronies start dropping like flies as the Green Hornet shoots off gas pellets. But again this character is not important to the story either, it is fixed on Rogen being a jerk who shoots off jokes and insults left and right. I like Seth Rogen and thought he was good as the comic relief in "50/50" and as the rude sexists alien in "Paul", but that type of wise ass is much better as a sidekick and not as the main character. Because of all the jokes I never got to care for him and it didn't matter to me if he survived his ordeals or not.

I give it 3 stars out of ten. It has some funny moments but I couldn't take The Green Hornet serious enough to really care. Had he had the goofy persona as a ploy to throw of the scent of him being The Green Hornet it might have worked, but when there is no difference between the two persona it gets tiresome in the long run. One thing I did like though was the cameo by James Franco in the very beginning of the movie. Seeing him as a gangster was actually cool – maybe a 30's gangster flick for your next project Mr. Franco?

300 (2006)

Close to perfection

[10/10 · 21 July 2012]

The movie 300 is a magnificent cinematic feat. The pacing, the acting, the action and not to mention the cinematography. The look and feel of this movie surpasses other comic book movies where the source material is actually the storyboards. Movies like Sin City and Watchmen are good movies, but 300 manages to take it to another level. It's tight and lean.

The plot of the movie is that the Persian army under the self-proclaimed god Xerxes is on the march to world domination. Their plan is to reach the European continent after taking over all of Asia Minor. But the Spartan King Leonidas refuses to be ruled as the entire Spartan code is derived from the notion of free will, and the Spartans way of maintaining that freedom is by being the best soldiers in the entire world. From infancy the male children are weighed and measured and if found wanting hurled to the wild animals. There is simply no room for weakness in the Spartan world.

Leonidas marches off with 300 of his best men, under strong objections from the counsel and the in direct contradiction of the will of the gods, to stop the oncoming Persian hoards. He bottle necks them into a narrow mountain passage known to this day as the Hot Gates and the fiercest battles ensue.

This movie thrives by its action sequences and taking at a glance you would think there is nothing more to this movie. You would, however, be cheating yourself to a fantastic piece of cinema. The acting equals in my opinion the visual side, helped a great deal by a tight and funny script. The characters are of course over the top but in this sort of movie they have to be. The Spartans live by the sword and all they crave for in life is a good death. Therefore their moral code has to be far and above what we today would find reasonable.

Three characters who illustrate this is Leonidas played by Gerard Butler, Stelios played by Michael Fassbender and the Captain played by Vincent Regan. Butler and Fassbender are by now the most famous of the three mentioned, but the character that is best fleshed out is the Captain. Vincent Regan brings a sadness to the role that makes the Captain the most believable character of the bunch. Joining the 300 is his son so you know that he more than the rest of them, has emotions tied up in this even though they all are tough guys. He doesn't have that much screen time but his presence in the scenes lends a kind of voice of reason to the small army. He and the King are the only ones in the army who seem to understand that there is no way 300 men over time can stand their ground against a million Persians, they know this but still don't care. Fassbender plays the young soldier who is incredibly "gung ho". He and the Captain's son form a striking friendship and together they are a menacing force able to take on 30 men all by themselves, because they understand each other and know how they both move on the battlefield. Even though he is young there is nothing he craves more than "a good death" as he explains to an Athenian soldier (the Athenians have joined forces with the Spartans to overthrow the yoke of tyranny), and he seeks it in every battle relentlessly.

Everything in this movie is perfect: the acting, the story, the action, the cinematography, the costumes, the makeup, the score everything comes together so incredibly well in this movie.

If you are a fan of movies than this is a must see movie. Nothing in this movie is out of place, pace or sync. It works on all levels.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Lack luster and un-engaging

[2/10 · 9 July 2012]

Tim Burton's take on this franchise is really appallingly bad. The characters are uninteresting and the dialogue is virtually non existent.

I especially hated the scenes where Wahlberg leads his merry men through the jungle. Now, this guy has just fallen from the sky unto an unknown planet. You would think that he would take it slowly as he is not familiar with his surroundings, but no. He instead walk as if it's his daily road to work and not once do you get a sense that they are being chased. There's a scene where all the soldiers are ready to march and at the last minute the general played by Tim Roth, gets called away because his father is dying. Yes it was perhaps a pivotal scene (which isn't saying much as there aren't any pivotal scenes) but why place it just before marching off?

The movie is just not worth watching. Really watch the original if for nothing else than the famous lines by Heston.

And for those of you who think the makeup is good...well...maybe I've gotten accustomed to better things because I was not impressed. I mean...The Lord of the Rings had way better makeup than this one, and they premiered at roughly the same time.

No, watch the original or if you want the more modern take on the franchise go watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes - now THAT'S an epic movie largely because of an excellent Andy Serkis.

The Boat That Rocked (2009)

The Boat of Feeling Good!!

[30 January 2012]

"The Boat That Rocked" is one of the best feel-good films I have seen in a long time.

The cast is a tight knit group that supports each other superbly. However, Bill Nighy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Nick Frost and Rhys Ifans are the pillars in the film as their characters are larger than life. It doesn't mean that the rest of the cast is unimportant, far from it. You get to love each character for what they are.

Like "The School Of Rock" and "Almost Famous" the music plays a character as well. It drives the movie forward and supports the emotions of the cast. The scene with a heart broken Simon (Chris O'Dowd) always brings a lump to my throat.

It's not a big story but it's such a good one that just makes my day every time I watch it. Like "The School Of Rock" it's a movie I can watch no matter when...be warned though...when you've seen it you want to listen to this music for the next many hours. For me it has meant a lot of sleepless nights, but they've been spent in good company.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)

National Treasure: Book of Bad Plotting

[3/10 · 21 September 2009]

National Treasure: Book of Secrets, is a decent action film that suffers from the inevitable decease that it has to follow a top notch action adventure movie NT 1.

The writers of this one must have had some difficulties setting up the plot, because more than once are there scenes taken almost directly from the first one, though set in Paris or London this time around. Especially the whole plot revolving the villain is almost copy-pasted from the original, however, the writers just never get around to explaining Wilkinson(the villain)properly, and it results in his switching around from bad guy to good guy three or four times during the last 45 min. An example of this is that he apologizes for smearing Ben Gates' great-great grand dad and five minutes later he holds a blade to Diane Kruger throat if he isn't allowed to leave the horrible booby traps first.

Also, Ben Gates, who in the first one really showed his skill as a treasure hunter using only his brain, seems to get a lot of help from the writers to suddenly realise the nature of his quest, without really having to put an effort into it.

The movie seems to have been made in order to make a quick buck, as the first was a huge success, the execs (Bruckheimer) and director Jon Turteltaub do not seem to have made much effort in telling a cohesive story, but seem more engaged in selling tickets.

First Blood (1982)

A good Vietnam movie

[18 September 2009]

Sylvester Stallone has by many been seen as a brute or muscles without brains because of the movies he has made. In particular the Rambo or First Blood series has given him this reputation.

Also the entire First Blood series has, due to the sequels to the one in question, been seen as over the top, right wing propaganda, that shows the world exactly what happens when you mess with the United States of America...you get your ass kicked by relentless killing machines such as John Rambo.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and the original story of First Blood has a much deeper element than violence for the sake of violence.

The main character John Rambo is a former Green Beret, who, after having served in the Vietnam War, returns to America and finds it difficult to reenter society. He becomes a drifter who still carries his duffel bag from the army in which he has all his possessions. When entering a small mountain town he is approached by the town Sheriff Teasle (Brian Dennehy) who takes one look at him and decides that he is bad news. Rambo is escorted out of town, but decides to go back into town, despite Teasle's warnings, because he is exhausted, hungry and refusing to be bullied around. Rambo is arrested and tortured in the holding cell by some idiot deputies and escapes into the mountains having maimed all of the deputies.

Rambo's next goal is to stay alive and the only way he can do this is by reentering the role of the soldier, the killer, whom he has tried so long to discard.

This is basically the whole message of the movie. How society deals with those who have done nothing but answer their nations call to arms, and then find that all they have done gets marginalized and ignored. First blood is a very good Vietnam movie in the lines of Deer Hunter and Jackknife because it shows the problems that come along with having seen and done unfathomable deeds on the order of the establishment and then finding the same establishment unwilling to commemorate these actions.

What is in fact the most amazing about this movie is the level of intensity with which Stallone conveys the emotions of this battle weary man. Stallone proves with this that he is one of the best actors of his generation and the scene in the demolished sheriff's office where he finally succumbs to the emotional strain of what happened in Vienam, and as a result suffers a complete mental breakdown, is painstakingly beautiful to watch, because it is so real and authentic.

First Blood is a must see film as it both has some great acting, but also because it is a window into a time of recession and collective amnesia towards a dark period of American history.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Thought I hated it...

[8/10 · 29 July 2009]

...turns out I love it!

For a very long time this movie was my absolute least favorite of all the HP films. It has largely to do with the fact that the cinematography changed massively from the first two to this one and I had trouble adapting to this new cinematic style.

However, after a recent HP marathon I came to the conclusion that Alfonso Cuarón was able to capture the darker mood of the book much better than Chris Columbus ever would have been able to, and in fact seems to have a better grip on the universe than the following directors (read David Yates). In Columbus' movies the childlike innocence worked as Harry hasn't begun to fathom the elements of his life and his parents death, but he would not have been able to turn this book into the great movie it is.

Although Cuarón changed a lot of the ways Hogwarts looks it actually is better as in this way the wildness of the Scotish mountainside really becomes much more profound.

The elements of the book that were significant for understanding the story were well explained and as a coherent story it works very well. The actors all did a really good job and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Tom Felton all showed that they have grown since the first two films and particularly Emma Watson was allowed to show her qualities as an actress (a feat she has been so incredibly denied since David Yates took over).

The new characters introduced were also great casted David Thewliss as the soft spoken, haunted Remus Lupin quite simply stole every scene he had on screen with his underplaying. He fitted the part perfectly and he really conveyed the love he had for Harry's parents as well as the affection he has for Harry with exceptional artistic quality. As for the rugged and insane Sirius Black, no one else could have played the part as well as Gary Oldman. Unfortnately he isn't on screen much, but in the few scenes he has he really nails the essence of his character. Now Michael Gambon had some pretty big shoes to fill, and I feel that he never completely steps out of the shadow of Harris (which also is felt in the sequels) however I must say that he is far more like the Rowling Dumbledore in this one than in the next three films. Also Timothy Spall shows his quality as the loathsome, pitiful Peter Pettigrew and you feel that the casting director had the best luck in the world with these positions (which I generally feel as not one single character within the entire HP universe could have been played by others than those who play them).

All in all Harry Potter and Prizoner of Azkaban is probably my favorite so far, tied maybe with Goblet of Fire, and I (unlike previously) would have liked to see Alfonso Cuarón finish the series as I think he would have done a far better job than David Yates.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Harry Potter and the Halfwitted Director

[3/10 · 21 July 2009]

OK...so we're reaching the final chapter of the franchise, and the inevitable confrontation between the forces of good and evil are ever fast approaching.

The sixth installment of the books really set up all the obstacles that were to be overcome in the seventh as well as giving Harry the necessary tools to overcome them.

This crucial element is almost completely omitted from the movie leaving at the end, Harry with almost no clue as how to defeat lord Voldemort. The adaptation and execution of this book to film is appallingly bad. As someone so correctly wrote in here it DOES feel like the director only read the cover and decided to make a movie based off that.

I still wonder why David Yates was chosen for the last four films - his constant insertion of pointless action sequences, omitting of crucial information for the development of the last films as well as his prioritizing the least important aspects of the books to extents that they are downright disturbing to the plot, makes you wonder if he has the WB executives and JK Rowling under the imperious course.

I simply think that it comes down to laziness, an attempt to set his own mark on the franchise or a combination of the two. I can see the predicament of having to bring one of the most loved book series to the screen, being true to it as well as doing what a director is supposed to do namely bringing his own vision to the screen. On one aspect it is obvious that he has not understood the task he has undertaken, is in the characters. Perticularly Emma Watson, Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman aren't given the room to find the Rowling version of Hermione, Dumbledore and Snape.

To start with Watson: Hermione seems through most of the movie shrill and not at all as daring though scared as she is in the book. This was a problem for her even in Order of the Phoenix and it seems that Yates has a specific idea as to how Hermione should be that Watson can't really show her true potential as an actress. I feel she showed better acting in the first four movies before Yates was invented.

Michael Gambon was never properly introduced to his character and his acting is considerably hindered by it. Rowling's Dumbledore is a man of incredible humor and softspokeness and above all, he has a very academic approach to the world around him, meaning that he does not get emotional at all but remains calm and collected. All through this movie he seems scared and unaware of the dangers lying ahead as well as totally oblivious to the real magic behind Horcruxes. This is just wrong: Dumbledore knows all there is to know except the real memory of Horace Slughorn, which he needs Harry's help to retrieve. It gives the impression in the film that Dumbledore is losing his touch and this is further illustrated by Hermione's statement that people feel Dumbledore is getting old. He is not getting old...he is dying from a terrible long lasting curse that eventually will kill him. But his mind is as sharp as ever.

Now for Alan Rickman...one thing you can't blame the man is for stealing the show as he hasn't had much screen time in any of the movies. With the title of the movie being "HP and the Halfblood Prince" you would think that the Halfblood prince would get more screen time this time around. However, the execution of revealing Snape's identity is done as almost an afterthought and has basically no importance for the plot in the film. Like Draco Malfoy being under severe strain so is Snape, and it would have been good to see some emotion in this regard. It feels like, however, that Rickman has been told to keep the same facial expression throughout the movie, making his two pivotal scenes at the end where he kills Dumbledore and again when he confronts Harry flat and pointless. He was supposed to be really upset and close to vomiting as he is made to kill the only real father figure he has ever known. Then was he supposed to become almost insane when Harry calls him a coward, as he at this point is near a total mental breakdown. This does not happen and anyone who has seen Alan Rickman in other movies, Robin Hood and Die Hard knows just how insane he can act, therefore it was sad to see the direction Yates has chosen for the last movies.

The bottom line of this review is that Yates completely missed the point of the book and he has set up as many obstacles for himself as Voldemort has for Harry.

One must also (amidst the Yates bashing) ask the question of JK Rowlings involvement in this. Has she given the director and screenwriter carte blanche to do anything to her story or is she simply so fed up with Harry Potter that she no longer cares for her amazing body of work?

I give three stars for Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Tom Felton.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

a "copy-paste" movie

[4/10 · 14 June 2009]

When a book is made into a movie, more often than not a lot of things are being erased, switched around or altered in order to make a cohesive film that the audience can enjoy.

With the Da Vinci Code there isn't really that many changes, and it is basically because the original Dan Brown book is as close to a synopsis for a movie script as you can come.

The movie follows the events of the book almost chronologically with some alterations which will always occur, but generally does not disrupt the flow of the story.

However, when director Ron Howard and his scriptwriter chose to be as faithful to the book as they have, they have forgotten one important element: interpretation. There are basically no description or depiction regarding story, character or anything else that does not come straight from the book. This fact results in the movie not being able to assert its own position in the world of the Da Vinci Code, in which it now has entered, instead it gets reduced to a visual aid for the book.

I perticularly found Tom Hank's Robert Langdon flat as a pancake. Hanks, who through movies such as Philadelphia and Forrest Gump really showed his awesome caliber as an actor, never really delwes into the character and makes it his own. Ron Howard and to some extent Dan Brown, had a pre-conceived idea as to how Langdon should walk, talk feel and act that Hanks seems cut out of any relation to this character. It gives him no room to manuver and he becomes a stooge giving his lines with an almost wooden feel, that doesn't entice the audience in anyway.

The other main character Sophie Neveu is also just a pawn in the hands of the director. Audrey Tautou is, to an even greater extent than Hanks, left with nothing other than an already set idea and with even less material to work with. The writer has forgotten that the character Neveu has been trained in solving riddles by her grandfather, and as it is her grandfather who leaves all the traces for them to follow, you would think that she would be teaching the Harward professor a think or two, but that never happens.

Of course it is difficult when dealing with a bestselling novel which the entire world has read and loved, to begin changing the story too much as you would than alienate a large portion of potential movie gooers. However, Ron Howard should have taken more time to think about the project and tried to really make it his own, rather than just "copy-pasting" the book to screen.

Instead of watching this movie, read the illustrated edition of the book, because then you get the exact same locations as are present in the movie, but you will be able to create your own images as well.

The book is great in the sense that it actually invited the reader to think and guess alongside Langdon. This is not possible with the movie as Howard, while using every element in the book, still feels it necessary to explain that which would otherwise make the audience do their own thinking...you can't have a thinking audience...can you?

Firewall (2006)

I seriously wanted to walk out....

[2/10 · 3 December 2008]

...this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

The plot is very straight forward: Ford being head of the security at a bank and Bettany wants to rob it.

This is basically all you need to know because once you've seen 5 minutes of this movie you KNOW what's coming next. It is by far the most formulaic movie I have ever seen. As such there is nothing wrong with that except that this movie has SO many plot holes and cheesy dialog that it's just a pain to watch. I've never in my life uttered so many: Oh jeez...during a movie as I did this one.

As mentioned Ford plays a bank security guy and he has invented the best firewall ever...but apparently he hasn't done a very good job as any one with a lap top and a portable internet connection can hack his way through. And when his family is taken hostage he HAS to cooperate to save them, even though the bad guys are younger and presumably better at computer stuff then him.

The movie just SUCKS.

As mentioned several times in other reviews...Ford has played this role one time too many...

Maybe he should follow Sean and Clint's examples...stop now...before you do too much damage to an otherwise GREAT career.

Heroes (II) (2006–2010)

A better ending than x-men III

[7/10 · 23 July 2008]

Having read a few comments on this show it is clear that not all are happy about it, stating that it starts out good and then falls in quality.

Well I haven't seen it on TV only on DVD and I think that outs me in a better position to comment on it as I didn't have to wait a week for the next episode.

So here goes.

I think it is one of the most innovative shows in recent years. Living in Denmark we are bombarded with American sit-coms, dramas and crime shows and they all get very repetitive after only half a season. Heroes is in my book a nice and welcomed change to the array of American shows. It has a very interesting premise: ordinary people discovering their extraordinary abilities and how they deal with that.

A lot of you guys out there compare it to X-men and it is easy to do, I just think it is better because these are "real" people instead of green or blue creatures supposedly human. It gives it more edge and you really care for these people because you get shown their background and the problems they all have.

My favourite character is Hiro Nakamura who has such a clearly defined idea of what it means to be a hero and although real life makes it difficult for him be the type of hero he wants to be, he does what he can to make things right.

Peter Petrelli also has the stuff in him to make a true hero, unfortunately he gets tangled up in family relations and expectations, which sidetrack him a couple of times before being able to fulfill his destiny.

As the show progresses it also becomes clear (at least to me) that Hiro (Masi Oka) and Peter (Milo Ventimiglia) are the ones the focal point revolves around, probably as a result of the popularity of the two characters, and I think that is OK, because Masi and Milo are such talented actors that they can pull it off without it becoming a Hiro/Peter show.

All members of the cast are excellent, and I think it is the best ensemble show for a long time.

So if you have a passion for super heroes and comics this is a show for you, but give it a chance if you don't anyway because the acting is just phenomenal and they really make you relate to every single character.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Brynner Beats Wayne

[10/10 · 1 July 2008]

This is a movie that means nostalgia to me. On Danish television 15-16 years ago they would show old American classics among which The Magnificent Seven was one. It aired quite a few times after wards and my Dad and I would watch it on Saturday afternoon with our legs up on either couch...well I would watch it, my Dad would usually nod off after twenty minutes. That's why this movie, to me, is epitome of nostalgia.

It is in my humble opinion that this is about as good a western as they come. I haven't seen the original movie "Seven Samurai" and I don't think it really matters.

This is just a "magnificent" movie in it is own right. The all-star cast and the FANTASITIC score by Elmer Berstein lifts this movie up and beyond any other western ever made. I have never been a fan of the butch-chauvinistic-patriotic westerns starring John Wayne, as they are too much caricatures where the characters in this one come of as REAL people.

The great, although sparse, dialog between the gunslingers set up the feel of the characters and their background. The whole conversation during dinner where the six experienced fighters try to tell the newbie that their lives really suck and that they NEVER can win, is just pure brilliance and completely unheard of until then.

I can only regret that this classic movie was turned into a franchise with very poor sequels, and I can only wonder why Brynner agreed to do no 2, and George Kennedy as Chris in the following two is just not believable.

Brynner, McQuen and Bronson in the "original" are really the driving forces of the group and Bronson's talent for under-acting is bone chillingly great. I especially like the scene with the celebration in the town square: Eli Wallach and his men are approaching and the seven have to get ready for their first showdown. Brynner gets up from his chair, walks over to Bronson and without any conversation he knows what to do. His face and body language says it all.

All in all this is a must-see movie no matter if you like western or not. It is so much more than just a western, it is a character study of people living on the edge of life and how they cope with the fact that no one cares if they live or not.

HAVE to see it....

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

It's going to be difficult with films 6 & 7

[6/10 · 25 June 2008]

I looked forward to this installment of the HP series as the book was the darkest of the bunch and really the first to set up the ominous future Harry has to meet.

The screen writer however, falls flat in his attempt to cover the vast grounds laid out in the book, it is the longest of the series, but it results in the shortest film.

David Yates, who for some reason has been chosen for the last movies puts too much emphasis on the visual sides to display the ongoing battle within Harry, and it doesn't quite work and here's why.

Through all the books, no matter what happened to Harry and his friends J-RO makes sure to tell that the surroundings look exactly the same as before the terrible things occurred. This means that you shouldn't make a summer day notorious for it's excessive heat and drought into a cloudy rather autumn looking day, as happens in the very beginning. The effect of the presence of Dementors in Little Whinging would be much more profound had the sky not already been murky. Furthermore, when Dementors approach it turns COLD NOT WINDY.

The same feel does simply not come across in this one as with the previous films, particularly the first two films(and especially NOT the third). Furthermore Yates, and his screenwriter, simply don't understand the franchise they've inherited. Instead of putting things in the movies that has no place or omitting things that NEED to be there for a better understanding of the ongoing action and further development of characters, they should ALWAYS keep close contact with J-Ro and really make sure that IF they leave out things, that they are the RIGHT things, and not just things THEY feel are pointless.

I would much prefer the more "childlike" visions of Chris Columbus, than the new cinematography and editing initiated by Alfonso Cuarón, because it is more in tune with what Rowling writes. Also they should bring back John Williams for the last three movies as only HIS music have lifted the movies.

It is the weakest second only to HP and the Halfblood Prince.

Cold Case (2003–2010)

Predictable and unbelievable

[2/10 · 25 June 2008]

The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.

I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.

The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.

I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.

Band of Brothers (2001)

I missed 1 episode...

[10/10 · 25 June 2008]

...and the next I saw made me feel like a replacement.

Maybe a cryptic title, but it is meant as a complement.

I watched this when it aired on Danish television and I was hooked from the first second.

The atmosphere, the acting, the lingo, the costumes...everything was genius and innovative, and FAR better than Savign Private Ryan, as you here got an all around look into the battalion and the various stages of the war they entered.

As mentioned I missed an episode, and not just any episode. It was the second at Bastogne where they get the s... kicked out of them in the woods overlooking Foy. The next one I DID see was when Eion Bailey's character Webster returns from the hospital and gets treated like a replacement because he hadn't been at Foy.

I felt really the same way and all through that episode I was three steps behind the action.

That really makes a show great, when the way the viewer feels matches that of the characters.

My deepest respect for the men of Easy-Company and to Spielberg and Hanks for bringing us the best show on WWII EVER.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

George Lucas - the destroyer of worlds

[5/10 · 20 June 2008]

From 1981 to 1989 the world saw the best action hero ever to emerge on screen since the first Bond film in 1962. Then 19 years passed and in between there were rumors that the Man in Fedora and Bull Whip would return and we ALL collectively jumped in the air of joy....

Then what happens....George Lucas and his constant need for bad dialog, CGI excess and fury-fuzzy animals that are downright annoying.

What was great about the first three movies was STORY first and effects second. You were really drawn into the story by the slow-paced (yes slow-paced) dialog scenes where the premise for the story were set up, and then you were ready for the adventure.

There are virtually NO dialog-set up scenes in Skull and you really feel the half hearted explanation as to why the skull is so important unfullfilling and useless.

The first half of the movie is actually great and have high entertainment value and some good one-liners. Perticularly the motor bike chase through the university library is GREAT fun and very in tune with the wicker basket chase scene in Raiders and the speed boat chase in Crusade. It works because of the editing which is really the only time it comes close to the first three and because of the interaction between Indy and the young rebel Mutt (LeBeauf) who looks like a Brando clone from "The Wild One" (he has the cap and all), is crisp and brings back the feeling of the Indy/Short Round duo.

Indy and Mutt then have to rescue Mutt's pseudo Grandfather Professor Oxley whom Indy studied with in Chicago and Mutt's mother Mary Williams ( a shocker to find it was really Marion Ravenwood ALL ALONG).

The characters in this one are no way NEAR the great characters of past Indy films: Sallah, Marcus and of course Professor Henry Jones, Sr. Only Lebeauf's Mutt seems to have been given the care that it deserves.

Karen Allen(whom I found annoying back in Raiders) manages to double that annoyance by substandard acting and constant giggling in face of almost certain death. I blame Spielberg for that one, always wanted to bring Marion back, even for no. 2. Karen Allen is just not that good an actress.

Oxley played by the otherwise great John Hurt, is reduced to a speaking version of Lassie. He holds the great secret to the success of their mission but has lost his marbles by meddling too much with the skull, and Indy is the only one who can interpret his ramblings, and is rather annoying: again Lucas!!!!

Mac played by Ray Wintone is a character that never really makes sense. He is apparently and old friend of Indy's but double-crosses him two or three times during the movie for no other purpose than gold, and STILL Indy tries to save him in the end.

Spalko,( Cate Blanchet) the Russian Übervillain is flat and does not come across as a potential threat to Indy like Elsa Schneider was in Crusade.

The Indy franchise has by now become larger than life and is one of the reasons why the movie doesn't reach it's full potential. Look at Raiders, practically only Harrison Ford was by then a known name to the wide cinema going world, the rest of the actors were found in small film venues or from the stage, and it gave the room for Harrison Ford to shine as the star he is and as the true hero Indy is( Crusade being the exception with Connery, but he was necessary as only he could tell Indy to finish his dinner, so to speak, and to do it realistically).

In Skull there are all of a sudden too many "names" that are crowding the screen and it results in a group adventure rather then an Indy adventure.

There are some GREAT humoristics in Skull and some nice references to the previous films that will excite the fans, but they are few....

I have spoken at length about this film, mostly negative, but you have to see it anyway as it IS Indiana Jones. Just remember that none of the actors(Karen Allen excepted) are to blame for the rather many mishaps. Even Spielberg aren't so much a villain as victim...it ALL comes down to George Lucas - the destroyer of worlds.

The Patriot (2000)

Yes it is a BAD movie....

[8/10 · 6 June 2008]

....but my word it's entertaining.

Mel Gibson portrays a farmer Benjamin Martin who's greatest goal in life is to live peacefully and taking care of his children...and to build a rocking chair that doesn't break. When the colony of South Corolina enters the revolutionary war he reluctantly sees his eldest son Gabriel (the late GREAT Heath Ledger) join the regular army. By the cruel hand of fate his second eldest son is killed and Gabriel is taking prisoner, from here on Benjamin has to take action in order to save his son and finds himself drawn into the fight for a free country.

Yes it is a bad movie and it is by no means historically accurate, far from it, and that is not really it's purpose. The purpose of the film is to tell a compelling story about a man doing extra ordinary things under extra ordinary conditions, and as such it works. It does not have the same feel to it as Braveheart, which it clearly tries to copy. Where Braveheart to some degree was very serious and took itself very seriously.

The Patriot tells roughly the same story but here "Braveheart" has grown a little older and has a family who he fights for. The movie has two parts: part one where it goes really well for the militia Benjamin leads along with his son and a French officer (Tchéky Karyo, who I think they got because Jean Reno isn't fat and Gerard Depardieu is too old) sent to train the militia. Part two the militia is being hunted by Colonel Tavington (Jason Isaacs) and who uses very un-gentlemen-like methods to drive them out.

Mel Gibson has played this part a lot in recent years and it shows as he most of the movie runs on auto pilot and relies on his eyes and his Lethal Weapons mannerisms. Jason Isaacs is also very stereotypical and one wonders if really wanted to be there.

This was a lot of bad things, but really the movie IS entertaining because you can watch it without having to think...at all...I know Roland Emmerich has been criticized for making such films, especially his Armageddon epic The Day After Tomorrow, but i really think there has to be room for that kind of movie as well.

As a movie critic on Danish television so rightly said today: sometimes you have to watch the bad to appreciate the good...

...I like to watch this movie anyway...it's just good entertainment.

Goodbye Bafana (2007)

Too much jumping around...

[5/10 · 4 June 2008]

I had great expectations for this movie as Nelson Mandela is by far the most important political figure of our age(second perhaps only to Ghandi), and as such he deserves every bit of homage that can be sent his way.

"Goodbye Bafana" should have been the paramount praise for this extraordinary man, yet it never reaches the potential that lurks just beneath the surface.

One reason for this is the fact that the time frame that has to be covered is too big for the time set aside telling it. As a result, the movie jumps from episode to episode or from highlight to highlight because every aspect of the two men has to be told. This way of telling the story leaves the characters under developed and rather one dimensional. Especially the change in Gregory (Fiennes)from bigot to humanitarian seems to happen overnight.

The leading men are excellent as the prisoner and the guard, but the pace of the movie is too fast and does not give time to delve into the relationship, because there are so many events that have to be covered.

The movie receives 5 stars for the acting and the settings, the direction prevents it from achieving greatness.