Reviews

I have really enjoyed Hedberg's stand-up and Hirviniemi's performances on several TV shows. So I was somewhat disappointed that neither comedian had apparently nothing to do with the script that is adapted from a Danish movie of the same premise.

The film is about three middle-aged men that together decide to take a road trip to a class reunion. On the trip, each man is forced to face a personal problem of some sort - more or less involving their love lives.

I'm not offended by adolescent or chauvinistic humor which caused quite an uproar in the Finnish audience when the movie released, but I just had hoped that the script would have had more mature humor _besides_ the obvious dick jokes. The repetitive gags get old pretty fast and the characters offer little more in sense of depth.

Can't remember an Allen movie I actually liked, but I decided to give this movie a shot nonetheless. The concept was very delightful, but sure enough, Allen is still bad.

We all know the usual mannerism of Will Ferrell, but much like every other character in this movie, his delivery was more like an imitation of Allen himself - down to the stuttering. I completely agree with another reviewer who questioned "How many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive über-New Yorker persona?"

Allen's directing style is very distinguished, but I'd say more like repetitive. He's basically producing never ending remakes of the same story with the same characters. The dialogue was horrendous. Wooden clichés sprinkled with occasional fancy words. Hobie considers himself to be an intellect (like all the characters that are projections of Allen) yet he speaks and stutters like a 10-year-old. Then, in the middle of mindless repetitive ramblings where he goes on and on and on about some extremely mundane topic, he throws in a completely random reference to Dostoyevsky or Kieślowski. Wha? Worst thing is - I really think that Woody is giving himself pat on the back for the "ingenious" cultural references. The cinematography wasn't a treat, either. In one of the restaurant scenes the camera sweep was so bad it was painful to watch.

Without giving out too much about the ending, the dialogue was so embarrassingly corny, I thought it was a dream sequence until the credits began to roll on the screen. The ending could have been cobbled together by an average 12-year-old fan-fiction writer.

I'd like to begin my review with the notion that I have not read the actual novel, but have seen the 2007 BBC version of Northanger Abbey, which I enjoyed exceedingly. Northanger Abbey is probably closest to Brontë's style out of all the other works by Austen. Darker in tone yet remaining romantic and mischievous in the true Austen spirit.

What I found most disagreeable with the 1986 version, first off, was the soundtrack. 80's electric guitar in period Austen drama, seriously?! The obvious influence of the time of filming in clothing, hair and make-up I can bear, but the electric guitar? No.

Secondly, I was not impressed by some of the performances. I think that, for the most part, actors did well, considering what the script was obviously going for. However, I was disappointed in Peter Firth as Henry Tilney. In the beginning, he appears as Austen had probably intended him to. Elegant and genteel but slightly impish. I loved the warm smile he flashes at Catherine when they first meet. Henry is supposed to be slightly more cultivated and grown compared to Catherine, somewhat brother-like, and tease her for being the silly young girl she is. In the 2007 version, JJ Field's Henry truly gives the impression that he is caring even though he takes much delight in the fact that Catherine takes him far too seriously for her own good. Henry seems affectionate towards Catherine, but not necessarily romantically interested. In comparison, Peter Firth complete over-acts his Henry with the extremely obvious long ogles at Catherine and exaggerated gestures. Peter Firth seems to sneer rather than jest at her. There's no chemistry. Catherine appears ignorant and naive and Henry cynical and sardonic. In the 1986 version, Henry is slick toady who's little mean to Catherine. It just doesn't work. And Peter Firth just simply does not have the commanding authority (what Henry is supposed to have) in presence as JJ Field genuinely has.

Thirdly, I think there was overall some problems with the casting (my god, did they not have attractive men back in the 80's!). I did not care for the script for the 1986 version having seen the 2007 version, which works better in every department. In the 1986 all the characters have no depth to speak of, they are plainly good or bad. In the 2007, the viewer is kept guessing of the characters' intentions.

Recommended to obsessive Austen fans, for others, please see the 2007 version.

This movie is profoundly a tale of utter despair and misery. It's a saddening story of love that can never be. I haven't read the original book for comparison, but, in my opinion, this movie lacked balance. The anguish of the characters is so overwhelming that it straight out required some lightness to balance the entirety. The problem with darkness is that, in time, the eyes get used to it. In the sense of drama, this movie became quickly bland, because there was no dramatic variation.

The reason why I didn't give this movie a 3/10 is Ralph Fiennes who gave out an outstanding performance. That man requires no lines since his eyes can carry out all the unspoken words. Needless to say that the whole entity of his being is gorgeous. He is sheer beauty, but can actually act, as well. His performance in this movie is so incredibly powerful that it provokes very violent emotions in the viewer. This is the only man who can make a murderous and twisted psycho a truly appealing and lovable character.

Fiennes just steals every scene he's in, even simply by standing in the background, sulking. He possesses such raw sexual appeal that I just feel sorry for all the other male leads. (A nude Fiennes scene would have given this movie a full 10, but sadly no...) As a side notion, this movie has a breathtaking opening sequence. Sinister and demure strings begin playing on the dark screen, then the whole sky opens on the canvas and high, beautiful notes roar passionately like the ocean waves as the viewer is met by a gloomy landscape of an endless stormy sky and dark meadows that go on to the distance.

An added point for this movie comes from the soundtrack. Japanese truly master the art of capturing emotions into music and Ryuichi Sakamoto makes a fantastic score for the film. His music is full of longing and melancholy, yet it's powerful and consuming.

I would only recommend this movie to a person who is specifically interested in periodical drama. As a chick-love-flick this won't do.

... which weren't that high in the begin with.

The reason why this movie has been rated this low is beyond me. It's definitely not the most original, best written nor the scariest bundle in the horror genre, but it offers a great deal of thrills and goosebumps.

This is a good-looking movie with a smashing opening act. The rest of the movie doesn't quite follow up to the beginning, but the eerie tension and beautiful CG cover for some lacks.

The most bothering thing in the whole movie was the ending twist. It was unnecessary and left me unsatisfied with the closure. Other than that, this movie offers good entertainment and, of course, Gabriel Byrne *drool coma*

"Pelkkää lihaa" (direct translation "Sheer meat") is a show about a slaggy, simple, 20-something, Mika (Jarkko Lahti) who dreams of heavy stardom, but hasn't even managed moving from his childhood home to live on his own. Most of his time Mika spends with the co-members, Sami and Ropi, of their very own heavy metal band, Iron Dragön, either practicing in his family's basement or hanging out at the local bar.

Mika's parents, Keke and Marjatta, secretly wish that their adult son would already get a grip on his life and do something useful instead of freeloading on his parents' expense. Mika, however, is waiting for Iron Dragön's great breakthrough, which is reeeaaaaally close. Honestly! It is!

It's been a while since I saw this film, but undoubtedly it's still as good as it was back then.

Cutthroat Island reminds me greatly of Pirates of the Caribbean film trilogy. Not only for the pirate theme, but for the similar spirit of the movies - adventurous, at times dramatic, comedy with a romantic twist and loads of action.

I'm not the right person to judge the historical accuracy of this film, but maybe it shouldn't be sought out from a fictional adventure movie in the first place.

And for the person who wrote: "If you can believe Geena Davis is the leader of a ship load of pirates without being the victim of a perpetual gang-rape, then by all means, enjoy the film.", I'd like to reply: Ching Shih. Who was not only a leader of a "ship load of pirates", but the leader of 2,000 ships load of pirates.

I have to admit that the actors performed well, especially wonderful Angela Bettis, but this simply wasn't my kind of horror. When it comes to gore and horror, I prefer something more sensuous and smooth. The violence portrayed by this film was raw and impassionate, more like ruthless killing done by a professional with no emotional attachment. Good gore includes tension, beating hearts, cries and blood play. As for the other elements I didn't like in this film, animal cruelty is absolutely one of them. I can deal with fictional torture and slaughter of humans, but not of animals. It's my soft point and caused this film to lose three stars.

Anyway, it wasn't all bad, but as a very empathic person, I felt way too much shared embarrassment during those long and silent awkward moments between May and the people she interacted with. The whole point of the movie is that May is unaccustomed to communicating with real people, so it's only natural that she doesn't open up easily. Still I wonder, what kind of individual doesn't have the common sense to reply when someone is talking to them (especially when it's obvious that May isn't retarded or unintelligent)? Often May just sat there with a goofy smile on her face every time someone was speaking to her. This behavior build up loads of awkward tension which I just couldn't bear. I felt very uncomfortable during most of the film and that feeling cost another three stars.

I'm hugely dissatisfied with the series finale, but apart from that, this is definitely one of the best sci-fi series I've seen. DA presented many previously rather unknown actors such as Jensen Ackles, Michael Weatherly and, of course, the leading lady Jessica Alba, who have since then continued their acting careers in prime movies and TV-series.

The main reason, why I got reeled in, was the undefined "thing" going on between Max and Logan. I admit that I love romantic drama above all, but there is more to DA. Jensen Ackles's character Alec, introduced during the second season, was another interesting aspect to the series - it provided the classical growing story of the Prodigal son who begins to come in terms with the big issues in his life: trust, friendship, family, love, ethics and other Christian crap. Not only the characters, but everything else worked fine as well! Hilarious dialogue, interesting plot twists, good drama and so much eye candy to handle! I loved the story, the world, the characters and everything else about the series - it's such a shame how it all had to come to an end in a way that it did; there where so many questions about the relationships and the main plot left unanswered when they decided to pull the plug.

Tales of Terror (Kaidan Shin Mimibukuro: gekijô-ban) is a collection of 33 short horror films from different Japanese directors. Among these horror films there are few more light hearted one's with bits of black comedy. All of them are made with very low budget so it can be seen in the quality (especially in the quality of special effects).

The word suspense would, in my opinion, describe better the contents of these stories. There's not much (as in: not at all) gore, blood, violence; only a couple of them hold enough horrific elements to actually be called horror. Mainly the stories are at most just thrilling or plain bizarre. Horror fans won't probably get too much out of these, but if one likes suspense, mysteries and Japanese oddities - this might be worth seeing.

I salute the cast and crew for this shamelessly brilliant piece of.. well, not quite art, but something similarly visually astonishing and somewhat interpretationally intriguing.

There is one thing what I found strangely funny; the dialogue actually works better in the English subtitles. So foreigners, fear not of missing the comedy if you do not understand Finnish - the humor is heavily Americanized, and while there are some puns and lines that only Finns could find amusing, mostly the humor doesn't work in Finnish. The American jokes simply sound weird and unnatural spoken in Finnish. By all means that doesn't mean that the humor wouldn't be right on target - quite the contrary - and I don't wonder at all why the jokes work also on foreigners (traditional Finnish socio-political, dry and mostly black humor couldn't possibly be understood by someone not familiar with Finnish culture). I'm a Finn, but watched the movie with English subtitles and I want to compliment on very well done translation which manages to be funnier than the actual dialogue.

But most importantly why the crew has earned my full gratitude, is that they made all this non-profit. I truly think that every consumer should have the right to see in advance what they are paying for. Going to the movies and renting films aren't free. Star Wreck crew enabled free Internet download, thus allowing the viewers to decide, free of charge, if they wanted to pay for the proper version of the movie or not. Just because of this exemplary deed, I'm willing to invest my money on this film to support this kind of action from the movie producers. I encourage all those, who are against Hollywood's fare-collection, to do the same.

Okay, I admit, this wasn't really a god-awful film - on the contrary - it's passable and somewhat good entertainment - for _young_ children that is. To a person who really loves animation, such as me, this was a huge disappointment.

I can't understand what happened at Pixar. Films like "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life" were truly original and delightful movies to enjoy. But Finding Nemo?! Let's see. "How about we make a adventurous comedy about sea-creatures - I bet nobody has done that previously!" Yeah, riiight. And the so called "comedy".. It suffocated to death like a fish on dry land (ehhheheheheheh) when they desperately tried to force laughs out of the audience with idiotic and worn-out jokes we've heard countless of times before. I think that I managed to smile during the film - or the 100 minutes ordeal - not even once. I guess they saved all their fireworks for "The Incredibles" which really WAS an incredible movie (I apologize for my poor pun).

Finding Nemo is not the worst animation movie at all, but for a Pixar movie, it's an embarrassment. But it is, if nothing else, joy for the eyes, although not to be recommended to anyone over the age of six.

First of all I'd like to praise the film's cinematography; Japan looked astonishingly beautiful even with the more gruesome images of winter's coldness and the state of poverty at the time of the war.

I think the actors performed well, but what annoys me is that when Hollywood moguls want to make a historical film about Japanese culture, they pick Chinese actors and make them speak the lines in English. In my opinion, it would have been better if the film had Japanese cast who'd have spoken in Japanese. After all, it is set in Japan. But what made the decision of using English, instead of Japanese, even more idiotic, were those tiny Japanese words like "hai, arigatou, mite" etc. which were randomly scattered here and there. They only managed to confuse. It was painfully obvious that not all of the actors were used to speaking English and the credibility of the movie wobbled. It's not pretty when some of the actors have to stutter their lines with immense difficulties. And besides, Japanese is such a beautiful language; why not use that.

Further more, I enjoyed the film. One or two scenes more of chairman and Sayuri would have made me happier, but the end didn't disappoint.