Reviews

29 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Man Bites Dog (1992)
10/10
Pure genius
16 March 2004
One of the nastiest and most notoriously evil dark comedies ever is actually filmed in Belgium. Belgium that is, not France like some people seem to think. It's (at least what I know of) the only Belgian film I've ever seen, but it's also just happens to be one of the best films I've seen from any country.

Benoît Poelvoorde is fantastic as the totally mad and nihilistic serial killer Ben, his mere presence makes this movie stand out. The shootings in black and white makes this movie feel like a real documentary. And the humor is darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night. It's fantastically funny, if you can stomach it, that is.

Many scenes of grisly violence against kids, bystanders, elders and various others will probably disgust a whole lot of people, but if you can handle it then you've got yourself a film you'll remember for a long time.

I really wonder what happened to those who made this. They should have been stars by now. This probably just proves that life simply isn't fair.

Genius doesn't come along often. Do yourself a favour and watch this.

10/10
63 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It spits on your grave.
11 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

Freddy got fingered is a very rancid blend of the worst type of "jokes" around. One of the earlier scenes involves Tom Green w*nking off a horse and it's all down from there. This seems to have been made for the sole purpose of shocking people, at times it doesn't even try to be funny, it's more like it wants to put off and spit at anyone who's been foolish enough to spend their hard earned cash on it. I bet Tom Green is laughing all they way to the bank.

To put it short: this is a hideous abomination of a movie, which should have been instantly butchered at birth. The only reason that I don't give it a zero is because it's still not really as bad as "Naken" or "Route 666", but that's not really saying much is it?

1/10
33 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nice Dreams (1981)
4/10
Flawed.
11 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

Nice Dreams a follow-up to the very entertaining and funny pothead movie Up in smoke. This doesn't come near the whacky-tobaccy entertaining original. The script is riddled with flaws and it's hard as hell to keep track of the story. Cheech & Chong are still hilarious in some scenes, even though they can become somewhat annoying at times. The movie's also seriously bizarre in some aspects. What's with the end of it anyway? I couldn't figure out much of it.

I'm not sure if this is one of those movies that requires the viewer to be high to enjoy them, and I'm not aiming at finding out either.

Overall this is strange movie and it should only apply to those who're already hooked on Cheech & Chong. Anyone else would probably do good to stay well clear and go rent "Up in smoke" if they're desperate for spaced-out, ganja humor.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A modern masterpiece.
10 March 2004
This is without doubt my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie. It's a vicious, cynic, modern masterpiece and one of the best debuts I known to date.

The story about a robbery that's gone very wrong is told in an amazing way. We never actually get to see the robbery, the only thing we viewers get to know about it is what the characters say, as they are trying to figure out who's the rat among this bunch of vermin.

A great cast where Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi and Harvey Keitel stand out among the others, whom are also great.

A masterfully written, witty and highly sarcastic dialogue and well thought out scenes and screenplay, this is Tarantino in his prime.

The cynical and at some parts sadistic violence might put some people off, but that's their loss. After this movie, Tarantino's career has been somewhat of a yo-yo, Directing and/or writing great stuff like "True Romance" and "Pulp Fiction" and less inspired flicks such as "From dusk till dawn" and "Kill bill".

Anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet, you should know what to do about know.

10/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scream (1996)
8/10
Better than you might think.
9 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***Possible spoiler***

I should hate this movie, not only because what it is but because it has spawned hundreds of shoddy movies that has tried to cash in on it's success. I should hate it for what it is because it's a thriller which just tries to look like a horror movie plus it stars David Arquette one of the most annoying actors in the business. But I still can't help myself from liking it.

The plot is at sometimes rather smart. A killer is slaughtering people and terrorizing them by forcing them to answer questions about (in)famous horrormovies. Craven could and should have used this element more than he did since it's a pretty clever idea. Still he makes it work well.

The movie has got some good actors in it: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Skeet Ulrich, David Arquette is actually good as the nerdy cop here but I think that we should have had the rights to see more of Drew Barrymore. She's easily one of the best actresses in Scream.

The movie has got some scenes packed full of suspense and tension. Sure some scenes may seem clichéd, but not so much that it doesn't work. And this is a movie about movies, so I guess that it wouldn't have that much of a point if it didn't seem clichéd at one point.

The first time I saw this, I had a special kind of feeling in my stomach. I had a feeling that anything could happen. I don't think I've had that kind of feeling watching a movie ever since. It was my first contact with the horror world, even though this is more of a thriller than pure horror.

The only downsides I can figure out was that the plot weakens at the end, and everyone tends to be look a bit too crazy to make it work as good as it should.

So to spell it out: if you want to start to watch horror movies but you don't know where to begin than start here. It might be a blend of thriller and horror but it's still a very fine start. It just worked for me.

8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Evil Ed (1995)
4/10
Doesn't keep what it promises.
9 March 2004
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?

Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void.

Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad.

Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.

4/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Route 666 (2001)
1/10
Horrible horror.
7 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS***SPOILER***SPOILERS***

This is clearly one of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to watch. A couple of feds are taking a witness to court and travel along a closed down road called "Route 666". Of course there are some mean, ugly zombies here who wants to make asphalt (yes, you heard right, asphalt) out of everyone foolish enough to travel there, because the road is cursed you see, some prisoners were killed here for a long time ago. The hero is, of course, the chosen one who is the only one who can break this evil spell, he's the chosen one since his father were one of the prisoners. Now that's what I call a coincidence. Among thousands of feds, the chosen one just happens to have the mission to transport a witness across this particular road.

Wait, things just get dumber.

His companion gets mad when he finds out that he is a son of a murderer and prisoner so after one of the most tedious and hideously acted monologues ever, he starts a fight with the Jack (the hero).

I almost went to pieces. Why is he so stupid that he starts a fight over something that no-one can help? Jacks special lady, Steph is just watching this outrageously useless and unnecessary fight without a thought of helping Jack out.

Wait, things get even dumber than this.

After the feds have gotten some of they're men slaughtered by the zombies they call the local marshalls to help them out. The marshalls arrive, and what do they do? They're starting to kill off the feds!!!

And that's when it struck me: this is one of the worst movies I've seen. I mean why was this even written? Why did they make a film out of this inane script? Were they actually paid to write this?

You might think that I'm not telling you anything about the good things in this movie only because I'm mean cynic who loves to slog off movies but no. I tell you this because there are almost no good things in it. The actors are painfully useless, the characters are truly worthy of my hate and one-dimensional, and the camera-work... Oh the camerawork. Figure out what it would look like if a drunk man with spastic hands armed with nothing but a handcam was allowed to film a movie. This is like that but actually even worse. It's among the most atrocious things to date. Not even the gore can save this one, since there's very little of it and all the FX sucks, so even gore-hounds will be let down. The only thing that was the least bit redeeming was that at least the black guy survived it. It's almost a rule in movies like these to have coloured, funny sidekick which gets killed in the end of the movie, oddly enough it didn't occur here, which is good. But one right can't make up for the hundreds of errors, a plot with more holes than swiss cheese, laughable dialogue, awful camera work and editing and every other countless mistake which is to be found herein.

If you're still interested in watching it then may I recommend full-frontal lobotomy?

0/10
8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A truly classic and amazing western.
5 March 2004
This one was the first movie I saw by my now favorite director Sergio Leone. It's one of those films you'll remember forever.

Eli Wallach is simply astounding as Tuco, a character which you both love and hate. Eastwood is in his prime as the avenger and Van Cleef gives one of the chilliest performances in western movies as Sentenza.

Morricone did some of his finest work on this very movie. The main tune is one that sticks in your brain like a tar-drenched dart. It's almost impossible not to whistle it after seeing the movie.

The camera work by Tonino Delli Colli is a treat for the eye. From the high mountains to the railways. Everything oozes hot, sweaty western atmosphere (though it's filmed in Spain.

The gunfights are really impressive. And there's lots of them too. The moment which I rate as number one in any movie, is the grande finale of this one, I'm not going to spoil for you unlucky few who have yet to see this movie but I can promise you all that it won't let you down.

You might think that this must be impossible to better, but Leone actually topped it with the even greater "Once upon a time in the west", which, by the way, is my favorite movie. I may not rate this movie as high as "...West" but this is more entertaining while "...West" is more slowpaced and dramatic. So if you want action, then this is a better choice.

Basically; you can't call yourself a western fan if you haven't seen this one.

10/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A bit of a let down.
4 March 2004
This was the last of the Monty Python films, it was also the last one I saw and unfortunately it's not nearly as fun as their previous work.

The meaning of life is a very bizzarre and uneven film. Some scenes makes one laugh loud enough to make the windows in one's house to tremble (Mr. Creosot) while others are simply too long and boring (the intro).

It seems that for every funny scene there's one that's just too strange for it's own good. It sometimes seems like the Pythons were too interested at making a zany flick than a good one, this never reaches the incredibly high standards that Monty Python set years befor with the amazing "The quest for the holy grail" and the even better "Life of Brian". That's not to say that it's bad though, it has it's moments and it still beats over 90% of all the comedies made today. But I still have to say that I expected more from the Pythons than this.

Nice but no cigarre.

7/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Con Air (1997)
6/10
A lot of action but very little else.
3 March 2004
Con air is one of those films that actually requires you not to think at all. Because if you do you'll just end up questioning its content; dialogue, plot, everything.

But hey, this is a movie, it's Hollywood man, it's not even trying to be original or feel real. It just want to give 100% action and it does deliver.

The story is simple and nothing talk about really. A lot of bad guys escape while being transfered from one prison to another with an airplane called "Con Air". This is, of course, a perfect excuse for spectacular explosions, shootouts, men going to pieces, cars burning, stuff flying around with total disregard of gravity etc. etc.

A thing I enjoyed about it is that it has two of my favourite supporting actors in it: Steve Buscemi and Colm Meany, Buscemi is entertaining as a total psycho. But the acting don't get a big part here, and maybe it shouldn't. It's just one spectacular scene after another, which is fun if you're in the right mood for it. So as long as you don't mind plot holes, more clichées you can count and terrible dialogue, this is nearly perfect entertainment. See this but remember to unplug your brain before you do.

6/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man (2002)
7/10
Maybe the best comic-book based film.
2 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

A couple of years ago, to say that a movie was "a great comic-based film" was a bit like saying "George Bush is the worlds keeper of peace".

Luckily things have changed, X-men, Hulk and others have improved the genre a lot and spider-man just might be the best of them and the only films that I think can compete with Spider-man are those classic japanese Lone-wolf samurai movies.

A good cast including the fitting Tobey Maguire as Pete Parker, the extrordinary beautiful and talented Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson and an, as always, fantastic Willem Dafoe as the bad guy, Green Goblin, at least makes this the most well-played comic-movie.

Sam Raimi has succeeded in making the characters believieble, it's not your ordinary, dumbed down super heroes and villains you'll meet here, there's a dark atmosphere captured within the movie and not the happy-happy-joy-joy feeling some might have hoped for. The good effects also helps this movie.

Overall this is a interesting and entertaining movie wich succeeds in bringing our beloved spidery hero to the big screen. It's not without it's faults though, I felt that the ending was somewhat of an anti-climax and some other parts felt a bit unnecessary. A sequel will soon be at hand, and I hope that it's at least as good as this one.

7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the funniest movies I've seen.
2 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***May include spoilers***

The Coen brother's "The big Lebowski" is what I would call a masterpiece: great actors, superb dialogue, great score. Jeff Bridges is amazingly funny as the slacker/pothead/whiterussian-junkie The Dude. The supporting cast is full of good actors such as John Turturro, John Goodman and Steve Buscemi and everyone's contributing to the movie. The humor goes from clever to pure slapstick but always manages to be funny.

The most fascinating thing about this movie is that it improves upon each look. After the first time I saw it, I thought that it was great, the next time, I thought it was even better. I've seen it six times now, and it just keeps on improving. I think it's the complex story, a fine blend of parody and celebration to the film noir, that makes it better the more you watch it.

10/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kingpin (1996)
8/10
The second best bowling-movie.
24 February 2004
The second best film I've seen about bowling, "The Big Lebowski" is by far the best. This one is about the ex-star bowler (Harrelson) who wants to reclaim his former glory by helping a promising talent (Quaid). Bill Murray (very funny!) plays his biggest rival. Most of the jokes here are about sex, but somehow the Farrelys make it work without making it cruel like a whole bunch of other films, they actually seem to like the characters the movie is about. Kingpin is maybe not as good as "There's something about Mary" but it's still a great movie and it's well worth your attention.

8/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What were they thinking?
18 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS***

I never thought movies could be this bad. I mean the people who made this should never have started and they should sure as hell not released it when they were done making it, at least not if they wanted to keep their dignity.

I had some pretty good laughs over this movie though, like: a man falls in love with a girl whom he has only seen in a porn movie, a mental institution sells body parts like arms and legs, Satan and God are sitting down and having a chat, an atrociously bad band is playing in the train over and over again. I'm not sure if the director intended this to be a comedy or a horror movie. If it's meant to be the former than he has succeeded in making it somewhat funny in an odd, this-is-so-bad-that-it's-funny way, I laughed at it anyway, if the latter, he couldn't have failed more even if he'd tried to.

So the ratings are the following and they are based on what you watch it as:

Comedy - 4/10

Horror - 0/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taxi Driver (1976)
10/10
A true masterpiece
16 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS*** Taxi Driver is considered by many to be one of the most powerful films ever. And I have to say that they're not joking about it. I don't think that I ever have seen Robert De Niro act as good as he does here. He is Travis Bickle. Every one else casted here also stands for great performances.

The script by Paul Schrader is masterful. The story is about a man who can't sleep at night and takes a job as a cab-driver. All the filth and sleaze on the streets makes him dream about violently lashing out at it and clean the scum of the streets. The plot gives the public a foundation for some serious thinking and discussing: Is Travis Bickle good or evil? Can you justify his actions?

This movie is even by today's standards at times a very violent movie, but the violence is never speculative. It feels real and I guess some people might have a hard time watching it, but Scorsese makes sure that it's never unnecessary.

I could go on for hours on why you should see this movie: the camera angles are superb, the score is great and the feeling of it all is so real. But I won't say any more except that you have to watch this one. They don't make 'em like this anymore.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A must-see for everyone
16 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS***

This is one of those movies that I always will remember. The script is based on the great book by Ken Kesey but I think that this movie is even better.

Jack Nicholson's character Patrick McMurphy has been transfered from a prison to a mental institution. This is not only a great drama but also a masterful satire of the way mentally challenged sometimes get treated at the mental hospitals. It's impossible not to like Jack Nicholsons character just as much as it's an impossibility not to hate Jessica Fletcher's role as nurse Ratched. She is superb as one of the meanest b*tches in film history. This movie is full of loveable and memorable characters such as Danny de Vito's Martini, Brad Dourif's Billy Bibbit and of course Will Sampson's chief one of the coolest guy's caught on tape. If you're 6' 7" and don't say word for over an hour in a movie then you deserve creds as hell.

This movie makes me both happy and sad, and for all you people who rate "The shawshank redemption" as the best movie you've seen, watch this and be amazed.

I have nothing more to say now than: watch, watch, watch!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Versus (II) (2000)
5/10
Slow but okay.
11 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***POSSIBLE SPOILER***

Now here's a strange piece of work: a movie about yakuza-zombies. Actually the main plot is about portals and immortal men or something. Anyway it doesn't really mather, the backbone of this flick is all the blood and guts spilled in it. Think japanese "Bad taste" with more style but less humor and it's probably something like this that springs up in your mind.

The humor in this movie is pretty annoying. Especially with a guy that runs around and screams all the time. The fights are very impressive, considering the low budget. The angles are sometimes inventive but also repeating themselves occasionally. The worst things about this movie is the slow pace wich sometimes make the movie look better than it should but almost always makes it feel boring. But besides that and that the movie is a bit too long I've got to say that I found it to be rather amusing.

5/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Much cooler than the QT stuff.
11 February 2004
This is by far better than the highly overrated pompous pile of crap that is Kill Bill. Okay, this doesn't look as cool, but in some way it actually feels more real than Kill Bill, I think it's beacause the japanese approach to death is less cynic than the QT one. This old movie involves more swordfights you can handle and tons of blood. Could you really ask for anything else? No. At least you shouldn't.

So don't waste money on Kill Bill, Tarantino probably won't need them anyway. This is what samurai bloodbaths are and should be all about. Blood, blood, blood.

7/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Valentine (2001)
3/10
Same old, same old...
10 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***Possible Spoiler*** This is MTV slasher nr 1000 something and it's just like the rest. Bad, predictible and it comes along with sub-par acting. Like every other movie in it's genre, the plot involves some sort of revenge from a man wearing a mask like always the revenge involves killing teenagers in public-friendly ways wich in other words mean little blood and little agony. It also means unrealistic ending. And more clichées than you can count.

This movie is really boring but it could have been whole lot worse. Okay, maybe not a whole lot worse but worse non the less. If you wan't this kind of films, go see Scream instead. Even the third part was better than this tired old mess.

4/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Naken (2000)
1/10
Movies like this should be outlawed
8 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is a useless pile of turd that includes the following, *spoilers ahead*: 1. Bad acting. Most actors are just irritating.

2. Extremely stupid and unlikable characters: a man takes a s*** in his hand and a girl falls in love with this totally unlikable moron. Everytime I see him I want to hurl bricks at him. He's that annoying.

3. Stolen plot. And it STILL manages to be bad. The plot forces us to watch the same sequence over and over and over and over... you get the point.

4. Humor so dumb that you will want to slit your wrists. I almost commited suicide when my friends forced me to watch this so-called comedy. This movie makes "Not another teen movie" look like Monty Python or Mel Brooks.

This sums up to one of the worst movies I've ever seen. If somebody ever puts a gun to your forehead and lets you choose between either to watch this movie or get you're brains spilled, go for the gun and pray for a quick ending.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A cinematic masterpiece.
7 February 2004
This is definitively the best western I've ever seen. It might even be the best film I've ever seen. The reasons why I think so are many. Firstly the casting is great. Claudia Cardinale is perfect as Jill and Henry Fonda is one of the best bad guys I've ever witnessed. The wide camera shots are just amazing, it's like you can see the entire wild west when you look at the horizon, wich is a bit ironic since most of the film was shot in Spain. The closeups at the eyes, Leone's trademark, are also to be found here, better and closer than ever. Ennio Morricone has also contributed to the experience by making what I think is the greatest score ever. Every character has it's own song. Some are beautiful (Jill's song) others are truly chilling (like Frank's song), every song is terrific though.

Some people might feel that this film is too slow to be great, but I can't really understand why. The slow tempo is what makes this film what it is, it gives the whole film an arty, wonderful touch to it.

This is what I wish to see everytime I watch a movie, Once Upon a Time in the West is not just film. It's art, it's magic, an enjoyment for every sense. This is without doubt as good as movies get.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not what I had expected.
31 January 2004
When I bought this I didn't expect anything else than a funny and gory flick that I could watch anytime I don't have anything better to do.

Well I was proven wrong. This movie rocks.

I have never considered zombies to be scary. But somehow Romero made it work. He has created some really suspenseful scenes. Also, besides being scary at times Romero has succeeded in making it funny and smart. In many ways this movie works like a satire, and it does it well, it's also filled with black humour wich gives the movie an extra dimension. So I was mighty surprised and impressed.

One thing that didn't surprise me one the other was that the movie contained much gore and blood, but hey, that was expected. Pretty odd though that I sometimes thought that the movie felt so good in different departs that the gore even wasn't necessary.

This is by far the best Zombie film I've seen. It's way better than Lucio Fulci's lame "Zombie flesheaters". It also surpasses the good-but-not-truly-great "Night of the living dead" and this trilogy's third part, the too-much-talk-too-little-rock "Day of the dead".

So go and rent it now. If you're phobic to blood and gut's, watch it anyway. It's worth it.

9/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I really don't need to know...
17 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has problems. Lots of them. First of all this movie is extremely light on the gore. It's almost no brutal deathscenes at all. Nothing to remember or have a laugh at.

Second, it's predictable as hell. You'll know when someones going to die a long time before it happens.

Third, it almost has no thrills. It's plain boring most of the time.

Fourth: the plot manages to be both unoriginal and unexciting.

-Some spoilers ahead!-

Fifth: The stupid characters. I mean: Oh we hit a guy. He's probably dead. Let's throw him into the water.

These kind of MTV-slasher wannabe movies should be outlawed so no one will be able to make the mistake of actually watch them.

Garbage!

3/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Missed!
16 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is actually a bit sad: movie genius Quentin Tarantino has delivered a movie without any original elements. Almost everything here has been done before. There's really nothing in it that I will remember for a long time; no torture-scenes including razors and ears, no cripples. This is a tribute to old samurai films such as those about Lone Wolf, no wonder it feels unoriginal.

-SPOILER ALERT!- Sure it includes plenty of gore; a guy gets his intestines spilled all over the floor in a café, a girl gets her arm cut off, limbs don't really seem to follow natural laws in this film and they fly as if they had wings and blood literaly gushes out of severed arms, legs, throats, whatever.

Many critics call this the most violent movie ever. I have no idea why. If they, for example would take a look at some Italian or Japanese underground movies, than I think they would change their minds. And the violence in this movie is anyway so supernatural that you can't take it serious. But the gore is also a problem with this movie. It's neither shocking nor very funny, it is, however, very stylish but it's not that entertaining that Tarantino had to make a movie about it.

This movie also has a couple of other problems; the dialogue for example, is not very smart, not at all in fact, especially not for being written by Tarantino. Take for example the opening scene, which includes a pretty horrible quarrel. Uma Thurman isn't very convincing as the avenger and her passion for katanas is just ridicolous.

It does however include some good parts: Lucy Liu is very good and the music is great fun. The movie also has a lot of clever references to old samurai-films.

All in all this feels like a missed opportunity. While it has got it's good sides it often feels like lots of old flicks cut into one, and isn't exactly a recipe for a masterpiece. Tarantino should go back to making more original and realistic films, such as the excellent "Reservoir Dogs" and use his own imagination instead of stealing others.

6/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anaconda (1997)
3/10
Yawn.
16 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is a instantly forgeteable try at making a decent monstermovie, featuring J Lo, Ice Cube and a badly animated snake.

--WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!--

The plot is dumb, but the men behind it seems to ignore reality. If they knew anything about snakes than they wouldn't let that ugly, badly animated bastard regurgiate the people it has righteously swallowed, since snakes can't do that. Another large plothole is the one where the snake keeps eating people as if they were snacks. Snakes seldom eat and if they ate humans they wouldn't have to eat in weeks. Many might not be bothered about this, maybe I wouldn't either if it has had any redeeming parts but doesn't.

This movie is in other words an insult to everyone who knows anything about these reptiles. But it won't stop there. This movie also insults those who see it by being so mindnumbingly stupid and predictable.

In other words: this movie is a joke. Watch it, and the joke is on you.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed