Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
White Wall (2020– )
Painfully bad pacing
1 October 2020
This is unfortunately another case of a potentially interesting idea that is poorly executed. The basic plot has been described by others and will not be repeated here.

The show suffers from some of the maladies common to Swedish films and TV shows. The main one here is the acute lack of proper pacing. The show just plods along, seemingly with little thought of what is important to the plot and what is not. There are unimportant sub-plots and characters who contribute little or nothing and just make the story drag painfully at times. A third or more of the footage should have been left on the cutting-room floor.

There are also the "traditional" attempts at social commentary that, once again, contribute little. The company managers are suitably spineless and/or single-mindedly result oriented. And as always in Swedish shows, there are marital problems and unhappy children - also quite unnecessary to the story.

The acting is OK without being remarkable. There is the normal and unfortunate Swedish tendency for the acting to be overly dramatic, though, and everyone is very serious most of the time, staring fixedly at each other.

On the plus side, the locations are very good and the cinematography excellent.
59 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A major disappointment
6 February 2012
There is no two ways about it, this version was a disappointment. The production values were top notch but somehow it seemed to skip over the story with no real substance.

What I found particularly frustrating was the total lack of character introduction and development in most cases. This was particularly noticeable with the four main suspects, a couple of which hardly have speaking parts at all. Half way through the film, I was still trying to figure out who was who in some cases. It would have been nice with a simple shot of each person, with someone addressing them by name, or something equally simple.

And why have some of the book's locations been switched, apparently for no good reason. Thus Prague has become Budapest, and Lisbon has become Istanbul. Perhaps it is just a case of filming convenience.

The film is shot for cinema (obviously) and this means it doesn't always work that well on CD. It can get murky and rather distant. And don't get me started on the miniature subtitles.

Sorry, but even allowing for the constraints of a film rather than a miniseries, I think this was only a so-so-effort.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Danger Man (1960–1961)
Nothing much, really
16 August 2011
I remember watching this series on TV back in the 1960s. I thought it was terrific then even if I can't recall many details.

Seeing it again on DVD, nearly 50 years on, I must confess to being very disappointed. The story lines are boring, predictable and without any finesse whatsoever. And the 25 minute format just doesn't work: it is simply to short to allow any kind of reasonable character and story development. It is all very formulaic and bland.

The only saving grace is some of the actors, even if they don't get much chance of real acting.

We must have been really starved back in the 1960s, to have considered this series good. Oh well, another fond memory out the window.
3 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sublime
19 July 2011
I just watched this again (on glorious VHS, official BBC issue) and had to upgrade my vote from 9 to 10. Despite having seen the series at least two or three times before, I was riveted the whole way through.

The series is quite simply faultless, without a false note anywhere (except perhaps Ian Bannen's less than fluent Czech). The casting is perfect and all the actors are giving excellent performances: Alec Guiness, Ian Richardson, Hywel Bennet, Bernard Hepton, Terence Rigby, etc., etc. Even the minor roles, such as Joss Ackland's Jerry Westerby, are spot on. It is definitely superior to the follow-up, 'Smiley's People.'

To do a re-make of this seems like pure folly and I can only pity the poor buggers who will have to stand comparison to the original. Gary Oldman as Smiley? How can he possibly hope to compete.

/Leif
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Big Disappointment
29 December 2009
This is by far the worst entry in the series so far, I'm sorry to say. There is no zest to the film. And as others have mentioned, many important story elements in the book have been left out. Why leave out the opening scene with the muggle PM meeting the Minister of Magic? That would have been an excellent summary for new viewers. With a little persuasion they might have got Tony Blair to play the PM: that would have been a hoot.

Very few of the supporting characters get to do anything interesting at all, everyone just walks around looking wooden. The direction is really dull and this bodes ill for the remaining entries, which have the same director. The special effects are top-notch, of course, but that is not enough to carry a film. To top it off, the sound balance was quite poor in the first part of the film, making it difficult to hear the dialogue over the music and other sounds (at least on my DVD).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flygnivå 450 (1980)
Drivel
14 November 2003
This is pretentious drivel of the worst kind. The plot revolves around evil multinational companies doing nasty things, for reasons which are not quite clear, and some convoluted political plotting. Against these forces of darkness are ranged a journalist and a pilot who happens to see some suspicious goings-on. The whole script is not only ridiculous but downright juvenile in its attempts to be politically correct and socially relevant.

To confuse things further, the title (meaning Flight Level 450) has really nothing to do with the contents of the film, but only refers to a casual reference at the very end of it.

Since the film-makers are unable to explain things on screen, the film begins with a narrative introducing the different characters and ends with another narrative wrapping the story up.

In addition, the whole film is very poorly made. Direction, acting and the so-called special effects are all quite terrible. The one actor who does a credible job is Lars Amble, but he only has a small role.

This is a true turkey if ever there was one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sentimentalist junk
25 October 2003
The story, and particularly the ending is the worst type of Hollywood sentimentalist junk. Since the film is so consistently trying to manipulate the viewer, many scenes become quite predictable (especially when various Americans get shot; you could pinpoint some of those to within +/- 2 seconds). The use of string music to push people's buttons - please be sad here - is more obvious than usual. It all becomes quite boring.

Any why is it so hard to produce a film with believable Africans? As usual in American films, most of the time they react and behave like black Americans. I guess that had more to do with the script than the actors, since many of them seemed to be Nigerian immigrants.

Having said all that, the art direction was very good and most of the sets had a quite African feel to them.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seamless
10 February 2002
This may not be a great movie but it is excellent craftmanship. The acting is uniformly good and relaxed and the cinematography simple but efficient. The story may be similar to the first film but it is not a copy and is quite OK for a Sunday afternoon type film.

The film flows effortlessly and seamlessly from beginning to end and there are none of those badly played/cut/directed/whatever scenes or really dull spots that reminds you it is "just a film". For this reason it is one of those films I can watch again and again with enjoyment.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casting of "the girl"
9 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(Moderate spoiler ahead)

One thing I miss in most previous comments is the absolute perfect casting of Emmanuelle Seigner as "the girl". Who else could portrait a present-day witch (in jeans and trainers) as believably? The strength is not so much in the acting itself, but rather in those hypnotic eyes and hint of a smile. And the lighting of her face in the final scenes is really masterful, in bringing out fleeting flashes of something dark and terrible.

Indeed, the excellent casting throughout is one of the real strengths of the film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ricci rules
3 November 2001
This is a film with several excellent performances, but that of Christina "Wednesday" Ricci is near perfect. The reluctant smile outside the "harmony hut" is Oscar material. And Christina as Pocahantas is the very definition of "cute".

Of the others, Joan Cusack also stands out. I doubt anyone else could play the part of "the black widow" quite as well, with just the right mix of sleaze and slapstick. Her deranged laughter alone is worth half the rental fee.

It may not be a classic but it is solid entertainment, with few if any weak passages. Go and see it!
96 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed