Style2

Trailer: Winter's Tale (2014)


A burglar falls for an heiress as she dies in his arms. When he learns that he has the gift of reincarnation, he sets out to save her. From: IMDb.com





Directed by: Akiva Goldsman
Starring: Colin Farrell, Jessica Brown Findlay, Russell Crowe and others
Current release date:  February 14, 2014

The Host (2013) Directed by Andrew Niccol

>>>Watch HEINEKEN TOM, legendary traveler<<<


This movie had a potentially good story concept but it however was a very poorly developed and told one, which makes this ultimately a disappointing movie to watch.

Main thing that kept bothering me about this movie was how flat it was. Flat with its characters, flat with its story, flat with its emotions. This movie is lacking some serious depth. And it's actually really the sort of movie that's going for a more quiet and subtle approach and therefore also required to have a certain amount of depth in it, for it to work out as something compelling and engaging to watch.

Foremost reason why this movie feels flat and why it doesn't seem to have any depth to it is because of the way how its story gets told. Or rather said, how it doesn't tell you certain things. Nothing really feels explained properly enough. After watching this movie I for instance still have absolutely no idea where the aliens come from, what they wanted, or what their big 'plan' with humanity was and why they needed to live inside of human bodies. It honestly is a movie that leaves far more questions than answers. The movie is literally filled with story elements and developments that just don't get explained that very well, or just not at all. Nothing gets really buildup, in a strong or effective enough way and it also never feels like the movie is heading toward something interesting, with its story or any of its developments.

I wasn't looking or asking for more action or a faster pace but I was asking for the movie to at least give me something. It just too often feels like the movie is going absolutely nowhere and it's filled with random moments, that seemed out of place. The romance for instance also falls incredibly flat, due to the movie its poor story handling. Nothing cute or powerful about it but pretty unconvincing and distracting instead. Besides, what a weird approach for an alien invasion movie to take. Out of all the things you could do with an alien invasion movie, focusing on a love story seems like the least likely or interesting thing to do. Or at least to me it does. I know this movie is mostly targeted toward teenage girls but nevertheless, I just can't imaging any of them will be taken by the movie its story or romance, or feel involved with any of the characters neither. There's far too little to grab onto, both story- and character-wise. I was wondering if perhaps there wasn't a deeper meaning behind all of it but if there was supposed to be any, I surely didn't catch any of it and I really tried hard though!

Also can't say I was all that impressed with Saoirse Ronan, as the movie it's main character. She has proved in the past that she's a fine actress and also perfectly capable of carrying a movie but she feels somewhat miscast in this one. I don't know, perhaps it was because her character was supposed to be mostly emotionless but she was lacking charisma and she often is acting with 'herself', which really wasn't her strongest point in this movie. The movie also doesn't really have some other solid supporting characters and actors in it, mostly because the most interesting ones get pushed far too much to the background.

A real disappointing and lackluster movie by Andrew Niccol, who normally is perfectly capable of delivering good movies, with also plenty of depth to them. Not in this case though! It's not a terrible movie by any means but a very pointless one nevertheless, that has little to nothing good- or interesting to offer.

5/10

Watch trailer

Trailer #3: The Host (2013)

A parasitic alien soul is injected into the body of Melanie Stryder. Instead of carrying out her race's mission of taking over the Earth, "Wanda" (as she comes to be called) forms a bond with her host and sets out to aid other free humans. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Diane Kruger, William Hurt and others
Current release date: March 29, 2013

Trailer: The Host (2013)

A parasitic alien soul is injected into the body of Melanie Stryder. Instead of carrying out her race's mission of taking over the Earth, "Wanda" (as she comes to be called) forms a bond with her host and sets out to aid other free humans. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Diane Kruger, William Hurt and others
Current release date: March 29, 2013

Smoke (1995) Directed by Wayne Wang & Paul Auster



If you like a real character movie, in which the movie is foremost all about its acting and characters, this movie is a great one to watch!

It's a movie that follows multiple different story lines and characters, with each their own thing going on. They are not necessarily connected, other than through the Harvey Keitel character. And remember, this is a 1995 movie, so please don't expect an Alejandro González Iñárritu type of movie, with a frame narrative in it. It's from before that era, so it's not as slick and 'clever' with all of its different story lines and the way they are connect. It's a more slow and subtle done movie, that has a simple concept and takes a simple approach to it.

And nothing wrong with that, since it does indeed work out well for the movie. It's great to see the different story lines and characters slowly progress throughout the movie and to see where it's all leading up to.

It's about the little things in life really and doesn't attempt to make things bigger or more heavy than they needed to be. It does in a way let this movie feel as a feel good movie, though it's definitely still foremost done as a drama. It's a good thing that it keeps things light and humble, since this definitely improved the movie its entertainment and rewatchability value.

As you would expect, the movie gets mostly carried by its actors. And it really has a fine cast in it, with people such as Harvey Keitel, William Hurt and Forest Whitaker all involved. It's always great to see fine actors act, so that alone already makes this movie worthwhile.

It's definitely worth watching if this movie sounds like your kind of thing!

8/10

Watch trailer

Into the Wild (2007) Directed by Sean Penn



To be frank, I always thought that I would hate this movie, based on it that it featured a stupid concept in my opinion and because it got directed by Sean Penn, who I thought would turn this movie into something incredibly pretentious and dead serious. But of course as it turned it, it wasn't all that bad. It's a quite good movie, that still doesn't really speak to me but still remains an interesting watch.

The movie becomes interesting to watch due to the its main character. You get why he does things and sees things the way he does. You understand his motivations, whether you agree with them or not. So that makes the movie interesting to watch and all but just not a very compelling one either. At least not for me. I recognize that that's probably just my personal taste and most other people might still be grabbed by its story and all of its emotions.

It sounds strange but I probably would had exactly liked this movie more, if it was done a bit more pretentious. Some more artistic shots, some deeper meanings to some of its themes and characters. I at times missed that in this movie and feel that Sean Penn made a bit of a too mainstream movie.

Not that the movie is not original to watch though. It of course gets made interesting with its unusual story, that got based on true events, which also always makes a movie more interesting to watch, in my opinion.

Thing i didn't always liked about its story and storytelling were its many different character, that kept popping up for just a couple of minutes, before they disappeared completely out of the movie again. I get it that this was supposed to add to the sense of adventure and the feeling that the main characters was constantly on the move but it doesn't always work out too well, since the point of some of its characters just isn't always clear enough. It at times almost feels redundant and slows the movie down, also making this quite a long watch.

And just because he is Sean Penn, he got a bunch of good and big name actors to show up in this movie, which worked out positively, since everybody fitted their roles quite well. It of course mostly gets carried by Emile Hirsch but some of its supporting cast members also manage to impress, such as William Hurt and Hal Holbrook for instance.

So really, it's a good and interesting movie to watch, even though the story still doesn't really speak out to me personally.

7/10

Watch trailer

The Incredible Hulk (2008) Directed by Louis Leterrier

-->



(Review originally written at 13 July 2008)

Seems like I'm one of the very few who actually liked Ang Lee's "Hulk". It was a movie that failed to attract and please the majority of people. Still they obviously thought there was lots of potential with the Hulk character for further movies and therefore 5 years later this movie got released, which is not a sequel to Ang Lee's "Hulk" and instead is a re-telling and re-establishment of the Hulk character. It ignores the facts from the first movie and doesn't very much concentrate on the Hulk origins or emotional aspect of Bruce Banner but it's more a movie that comes straight to the point and cuts to the chase immediately, so to speak. "The Incredible Hulk" is bigger, has more action and far more potential to please the mainstream crowd. It also of course obviously has as a result that the movie is rather simple.


Not only the director is different this time (Louis Leterrier) but also the cast is. Edward Norton seems like an unlikely choice for such a big mainstream blockbuster but he of course is more than a capable actor and therefore also pulls off just fine. Still I liked Eric Bana's more humane and emotional performance of Bruce Banner in "Hulk", despite the fact that I think Edward Norton is a better actor. But to be honest I liked every actor and performance from "Hulk" better than was the case with this movie. Liv Tyler replaced Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross and William Hurt replaced Sam Elliott as general Ross. Completely new characters are being played by Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky and Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns, who are again, two actors who don't seem like very likely choices for such a big summer blockbuster but work out just fine for the movie. Of course especially Tim Roth, as the movie its main villain. Still funny though that a supposedly Russian character speaks with such a fat British accent. It was good though to see him in a big production again. He had been out of the picture for too long.


Of course this is no movie that pays particularly much attention to its story. Once you start over-analyzing it you'll find plenty of plot-holes and the movie leaves more questions then answers. But of course you shouldn't think too much about this though, for "The Incredible Hulk" is just not this kind of movie. It's a movie that is supposed to bring entertainment and at this it really does not fail.


This is obviously a movie that cost some serious money to make. With its budget around $150,000,000, this is a real big summer blockbuster. The money can mostly be seen back on screen with some big action sequences. I actually have to admit that some of the action is the best I've seen in recent years. It's of course also a movie that relies heavily on its CGI, for its Hulk character mostly. The special effects are simply great though so it shouldn't really ever 'trouble' you that this is a CGI heavy movie. This is also due to the directing approach of the movie, that shows the Hulk often more as a mysterious and dark creature who moves around in the shadows. The camera doesn't zoom all the time right into the Hulk or the villainous Abomination. They often instead more walk around in the background and the camera doesn't get a clear focus on them, as if it's 'bigfoot' footage, or the Loch Ness monster. This amateur, shaky, unclear looking style that has become recently popular for movies and is a style that I like very much for movies and also truly works out well for this particular movie.


It's a movie that shows that the Hulk and superhero movie genre in particular still has plenty of potential in it. The movie also hints at possible sequels and even for movies in which multiple Marvel comic book heroes are going to team up. I would pay money to see it happen all!


Even though I don't think it's the best the genre has to offer, it simply was a movie that I very much enjoyed watching.


7/10


Watch trailer

The Good Shepherd (2006) Directed by Robert De Niro




(Review originally written at 7 July 2007)

This always looked like a good movie but I was afraid it would a difficult one and one that would be not always easy to follow. A typical movie that would also be full of itself and would try and look smarter and extra complicated than really necessary. I'll admit that in the beginning it also looked that way, when it kept jumping back and forth between past and present time. It made it hard to always understand what was going on and who all those characters were. But about halve an hour through the movie it got better and more understandable to follow, since it also becomes slowly obvious that the leaps in time were put in for story purposes and in the end were also actually essential for the movie.

The movie is still an hard one to follow at certain points, which is mostly due to the many characters and names appearing in the movie. It gets all the more complicated when it seems that not all characters are who they say they are. The movie is especially difficult if you don't know at forehand what it is about. It doesn't become obvious in the movie until late that it's about the founding of the CIA.

The movie its story didn't seemed to be the most interesting or intriguing (At first I was like; Oh no! Not another movie about the cold war!) one to follow but the movie makes some interesting and great choices, that always keep the movie intriguing, mysterious and in parts even tense. Thank the writer and director for that!

It seems to me that the movie was deliberately kept small. They could had easily overblown things, especially with this sort of cast but every character and role in the movie is as big as needed and the movie does not have the usually typical thriller elements or other action spy-movie elements, though the movie in essence of course still is a spy-movie. The fact that the movie wasn't made as big was probably also a reason why this movie was a pleasant one to watch.

The cast is great. Robert De Niro obviously had no difficulties with getting some big names to appear in his movie. Some even settle with appearing in some small roles. I'm talking about people such as Michael Gambon, John Turturro, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Alec Baldwin (it's funny, the older he gets, the better his acting) and even Angelina Jolie, who is the second billing actor of the movie its role is kept small. It's really not the sort of role she usually plays. Also De Niro himself makes an appearance in the movie as does his good friend Joe Pesci, with his first role in 8 years.

The main character is not always an easy one. It's a very quiet man, who also doesn't really seem to known how to express his feelings and therefor not the most appealing character, though definitely not the least interesting one of the movie. It's the reason why this probably isn't one of Matt Damon's most memorable roles but it of course doesn't mean that he didn't do a great job.

What probably surprised me most about the movie was how well balanced it was. It isn't just a 'drama' it isn't just a 'thriller', it's a mix of several genre styles that all work out great together. Especially the relationship elements of the movie worked out well. Normally it's just put in the movie for commercial reasons and to appeal more to a certain group of audience. But in this case it was a real enrichment for the movie and its story.

The movie also definitely has style. Visually the movie is good looking with the good cinematography from Robert Richardson and the nice looking sets and costumes that help to set up the right atmosphere for the movie, that's also consistent with the time period the movie is set in.

Of course there still are some lesser things about the movie but especially for a 'non-director' like Robert De Niro is, it's a really great and well made movie.

8/10

Watch trailer

Syriana (2005) Directed by Stephen Gaghan





(Review originally written at 4 September 2006)

No doubt that "Syriana" is a difficult movie to watch. You have to keep paying attention at every moment in the movie if you don't want to lose track of things. But those who have the patience and will to keep watching this movie will be rewarded with a thought provoking and effective movie that will leave you thinking afterward.

Best thing about this movie is that it basically follows four different plot lines and characters but it really doesn't feel like four separate and different stories at all. The movie feels as a complete whole and is consistent during its entire running time. All the stories have one thing in common, they are more or less about one and the same subject; oil. This might be the reason why the movie feels like one. The movie is called "Traffic"-'light' for a good reason. It's made in the same style and terms of realistic storytelling- and character treatment. No wonder, the movie is directed by Stephen Gaghan who wrote "Traffic" and one of the executive producers on this movie is Steven Soderbergh, who directed "Traffic". It sort of sounds strange to call this movie a 'light' version of "Traffic", since this movie in my opinion is far more complex (even though it focuses on far less character and plot lines) and focuses on a even more difficult and delicate subject.

"Traffic" taught us that the war on drugs can't be won, "Syriana" shows us that the lust for oil can never be stopped and the movie shows the direct consequences of it. The movie is about the Western and mostly American corruption and naivety. The movie shows how this affects the Middle-East and its population and how that more or less directly hits back at the Western world. It's a sort of vicious circle. We want more and more oil for lower prices but we eventually pay a far higher price than just money for it.

Kudos to Stephen Gaghan and the rest of the cast & crew to have to guts to make such a politically sensitive but relevant movie.

The movie gets carried by its excellently playing cast. This probably the best role of George Clooney I have ever seen him in. He deserved his Oscar for this movie, even though his role was far smaller than I expected. Matt Damon might be a bit out of place in this movie. I don't regard him as 'mature' enough yet to play such heavy and serious roles. I would had preferred an older or a totally unknown actor for his role. Among the supporting cast are Christopher Plummer, Amanda Peet, the always great Chris Cooper, William Hurt and Tim Blake Nelson. Not all of their roles seem relevant enough but nevertheless their presence still adds to the class of this movie.

A sort of an essential movie to watch, at least if you're open for a complex but confronting and direct movie, about a sensitive and not much lighted subject.

8/10

Watch trailer

A History of Violence (2005) Directed by David Cronenberg





(Review originally written at 23 June 2006)

The movie starts of promising; slow, realistic, mysterious and tense. A real Cronenberg gem. The movie mostly remains this good for at least half of its running time. After that the movie takes a not so positive turn and the movie goes from realistic to unrealistic, rapidly.

I appreciate the straight-forwardness of the movie. The movie doesn't hold back with its violence, which is really brutal and graphic to watch. The straight-forwardness of the violence and the movie in general is probably the only reason remaining why this movie is better than the average thriller. The fact that the movie doesn't hold back and the characters in the movie, all make the movie very realistic to watch.

From the moment on the Ed Harris character arrives the movie becomes both tense and mysterious. These are the best moments of the movie. The movie does have some great moments and twists in it, which I'm not going to spoil. However about halve way through the movie the story takes a not so positive turn. Suddenly all tension and mystery is gone and the movie turns into some average action flick, that above all is highly unrealistic and unlikely as well. Especially from the moment on when William Hurt's character gets introduced in the movie. The movie is filled with more flaws and improbabilities story-wise, such as the moments with the school bully, which I found to be utterly ridicules and not completely necessary. I understood the purpose of him for the story and for the forming of the Jack Stall character but still I have the feeling that the movie would had been better of without him. It are all obvious indications that this movie is too mainstream for David Cronenberg's style. Yes, there are moments of greatness both overall it's a fairly disappointing effort by Cronenberg, especially after hearing all the praise which the movie received. The hype-machine apparently did over-time for this movie. It's original, refreshing and it doesn't hold back but it however also has way too many flaws and improbabilities especially toward the ending, to regard this movie as one of the best of 2005. I can't imaging that a person who is familiar with Cronenberg's most other work won't be slightly disappointed by this effort of him. But yes surely, I would have said just as much negative about this movie if it was directed by a different person than Cronenberg. After all it's not the disappointment of seeing this movie being directed by a director who has made so much better and more realistic, straight-forward movies than this that makes the movie flawed but it's the story that mostly makes this movie a flawed one.

But yes, of course the movie still has more positive thing as negatives things in it. The movie will probably still surprise and delight people. There really are moments which makes this movie tense and mysterious to watch, so as a thriller it surely serves its purpose. It still is a very powerful movie to watch, for most of its running time.

The cast is good and the actors are cast to fit their characters as good as possible. Viggo Mortensen is good as a 'normal', recognizable every day person, who gets into some difficulties that seems bigger than him. Really great is Ed Harris in his role. He's mysterious and tough, the perfect combination of his character that is one of the most memorable performances by him of the last couple of years. On the other hand, William Hurt feels terribly out of place in his role. I can't believe that he actually received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie.

There are plenty enough reasons why you should watch this movie but I still feel that I need to warn, to not believe all the hype, which still surrounds the movie.

7/10

Watch trailer

Lost in Space (1998) Directed by Stephen Hopkins





(Review originally written at 15 April 2006)

This remake of the successful '60's television show really is a waste of some good potential. It by no means is an horrible movie but the script isn't really interesting or spectacular and the character treatment is quite poor.

In a way this movie is a mixed bag. On the one hand it has some good actors in it and some of the special effects are really good but than again on the other hand the story is pretty shallow, the costumes are embarrassingly dreadful and some of the special effects are below average at best. Sounds weird, a movie that has both good and bad special effects in it. It's a bit weird, it's like they spend most of the time on the big special effects shots and after that they raffled the rest of the special effects. At times the movie is impressive to watch and at other moments it's just laughable bad to look at. Such as the CG character Blarp. He (or she?) looked absolutely dreadful and it made the movie even more ridiculous and bad to watch. But perhaps worst thing about the entire character is that it's a totally, completely unnecessary one that doesn't add anything to the story at all.

The movie has a solid cast. John Hurt certainly adds some believability to the silly moments in the movie and he deliverers some of the bad dialog good and even credible. Gary Oldman is of course also a great actor but he plays a bit of an uninteresting villain in this movie that doesn't get enough opportunity to shine. Matt LeBlanc is most of the time convincing in his role but he at times deliver some cheesy dialog which doesn't always make him believable as a tough space pilot. Mimi Rogers and Heather Graham also walk around in the movie but they get very little interesting to do. Good in her role was also Lacey Chabert. She's a good young actress, never really understood why she didn't appeared in more mainstream big Hollywood productions. She's an actress with great potential but somehow Hollywood never really picked this up. Maybe it has something to do with the failure of this movie?

Because yes, this movie is a bit of a failure. Not only in terms of how well it did at the box office and how well it was received by the crowd and critics but also certainly in terms of how the movie is constructed. The script is just disappointingly shallow and has some totally unlikely and unbelievable events in it, that at times don't even make sense. The story also uses too many elements from the first Star Wars trilogy and even a little bit from "2001: A Space Odyssey". It doesn't only uses story elements from that movies, it also rips off the looks of some of the spaceships, planets and city skylights. No, "Lost in Space" certainly isn't the most original science-fiction movie ever made.

The movie also lacks some good tension and action sequences. There are too many slow moments in the movie in which totally nothing happens. It's OK to have some slower moments in a movie but only when the script and characters are good and interesting enough to carry those slower moments. In this movie that really isn't the case.

This movie is not a complete disaster and the 4.6 rating here at the moment might be a bit too harsh. The movie does provide some good and entertaining moments. But if only the movie had a better and more original script, than this movie perhaps would had been a bigger success and certainly a better one to watch.

5/10
 
Watch trailer


Top