heldriver

This series really didn't have me convinced until I had completed the last episode.

First off I must mention that as a native Icelandic speaker I found the conversations quite stiff at times, both the acting and the actual dialog.

There were also details like two scientist in a cabin monitoring an ongoing eruption that would be the biggest one in Iceland in centuries, and the third one (Darri) having to go there to read out some seismic graphs. Uhm, the director and writer should know that this data can all be read remotely from the Met office HQ in Reykjavík. So some of the "setups" were a bit clumsy, but they put the players and pawns in the positions they needed to be in for the story to roll.

I also have to agree with some users saying that a lot of the times the character's actions, conversations and questions (or lack there of) didn't make sense to me. That is, until afterwards when I realized these things didn't matter. Sometimes they weren't logical, because they weren't really supposed to be so.

Warning, spoilers;

There are hints throughout that suggest the whole thing should be considered like more of a dream. A couple of characters say that they feel they're in a dream they can't wake up from. In dreams we experience happiness, loss and grief a bit differently than in waking life, and we can also spend time with loved ones that are departed from this world. The obvious metaphor for the dead boy and the dead sister are there, but what about the "clones" of people that were still alive? Gunnhild (the Swedish lady) and Gríma?

Let me run through what I think each "clone" stands for and why they were there; Gunnhild came back to help Þór to some extent deal with losing the true love of his life, which was young Gunnhild. The suicide of his wife probably affected him, but he obviously wasn't in love with her. But I think this was only a minor part in Gunnhild's purpose, her greater purpose was to lead Þór and his son Björn together, and for older Gunnhild to come to terms with and understand that her son's (Björn´s) handicap wasn't her fault.

The Magnea clone was her sick self's liberator. Her jail was no less real than the jail in the basement. Did she really deny to be relocated to Reykjavík, or was her husband lying about that?

Gríma said her sister Ása came back to help her overcome the grief of Ása's death and in the same way Mikael (the little boy) came back to help his parents come to terms with his death, that nothing could bring him back. If ever I've seen a heartbraking moment in tv/film, it's when he told his mother he stepped in front of the car on purpose, that he, a 8 year old boy wanted to die. It was also brutal as hell when the parents killed the "clone".

But what about Gríma? I, like some other reviewers, was frustrated at why Gríma didn't introduce her husband to the clone Gríma. But I first understood that it was all metaphoric when he walked in on them and he only saw one Gríma. That was farther cemented in the Gríma Russian roulette scene. Gríma's husband had told Gríma that he's just going to milk the cows and then he'll be back inside to help her paint the bedroom. Milking the cows doesn't take so much time that the other Gríma would have had time to clean up the brains and blood and dump the body. What this scene was about was Gríma deciding which one of her personalities should live on, because there obviously wasn't room for both. The "colnes" weren't exact replicas of the people they represented, they were only based on the memories of other people. Mikael was the memory of his father, Gunnhild was the memory of Þór (she literally said she had been with Þór), Magnea was the memory of her husband, Ása was the meomoy of Gríma but also Gríma was the memory of her self, of how she used to be before losing Ása, and with her the joy of life, the love for her husband and the will to live.

When Ása and young Gunnhild dissapear again nobody really seems to bothered about it. Perhaps because they were never really there.

I just wish they wouldn't have explained it by an alien meteor, but I guess they needed some premise for the supernatural beings.

This is definitely not for everyone, as the reviews show, but those who get it truly get it, and are touched forever by this great piece of art. I'd put it in with movies like Begotten, just less visually disturbing, and yet the story even more so. The visuals and music are simply put amazing and immensely emotional. I can not help but mention the cruel irony of life and point out that this was Jóhanns last and first film. The whole story is about death, the ultimate, inescapable end that comes too fast. I feel like Jóhann made his perfect eulogy himself. What an artist, what a loss! R.I.P.

You know when your grandma makes a Facebook account, a decade after everyone else, and she sees the young kids posting memes, so she tries to join in. Worse than dad jokes which can be funny in their unfunniness (yes that's a word), this is just painful to watch. The voice actors fail HORRIBLY at being funny. Who watched a pilot of this crap and gave the go-ahead to make a whole series? I can't believe this to be anything else than professional suicide for those involved!

The cinematography is purely groundbreaking! Not just the technology they use for low light conditions but also the actual cinematography it self. As a photographer I love seeing these wide open apperature shots with the very shallow depth of field. I don't think non-photograhers understand completely how hard that must have been to keep the animals in focus. I'm sure there's hours and hours of footage that was edited out where they did not get that right. Yet I find it painful to watch more than a few minutes at a time. I started this series when it came out and still haven't finished. Why? It's simple; the narrator. I don't know who she is but my guess would be she's an actor because instead of simply narrating she tried to make everything overly dramatic. Instead of giving us insight and knowledge of what's going on, she tries to lead us on with (corny) emotion. At some point I put the subtitles on and muted the sound. Would have been a 10/10 if they had a proper narrator.

This movie isn't getting great reviews for a few reasons. Some reviewers want to see more gore, more action, but in my opinion this movie fails miserably in one aspect above all; the editing. Right from the start it jumps from one thing to the other. It feels more like watching a trailer rather than a final cut of a movie. They also try and cram all kinds of music into the movie, and I don't mean original sound track. Sometimes it feels like the editor's only reason for throwing a song in there is because it's his/her favorite song and he/she really wants it in the movie. A good example of that is a part of a Metallica song, which doesn't even fit the period of the original story. Talking about the story. The story is definitely there, but I for one probably wouldn't make much sense of this movie if I hadn't watch the documentary series "Conversation with a Killer: The Ted Bundy tapes" before watching this movie. I do get what the film makers are trying to do, focusing on the people (Bundy and the people in his life) rather than the actual events, but I'm sorry to say they fail because of bad editing. The 4 stars are for good/adequate acting and an interesting story, but honestly you're much better off watching the aforementioned documentary series.

Let me just start by saying, wow, this is a really good film, much better than I expected. But is it anything new and fresh like some reviewers are saying? Well, yes and no. Take away the space suits and this would be a great film about gold prospectors in the wild west at the end of the 19th century. But personally I must say I love the fact that it's set on another planet, and unlike most space movies this planet has beautiful forests but not a breathable atmosphere. Combining these different elements is what makes this movie so fresh, although taken apart neither the wild west feel nor the space thingy are original in and unto them selves. I must also add that the acting is great, especially from Tatcher and Pascal, and it is beautifully shot and the soundtrack ties it all together in a epic but gritty feast for eyes and ears. My only complaint was sometimes I had a hard time figuring out who some of the characters were, or more precisely how they got there, what they were doing and how it all relates. But that is just a minor setback and the story rolls on regardless. In short; don't miss this one!

What a waste of time this movie was! Every single scene is a fökking cliché and all the conversations are painfully artificial. Spoilers below (hint, Freddy dies!!) Example: Everyone except bassplayer (nobody ever knows their names) and Freddy; "I hate disco music!" Band starts fighting. Bassplayer sits down and starts playing this stupid disco bassline. Fight brakes up. Everyone says "wow that's actually pretty cool". Everyone hugs. The guys playing Brian and Freddy are really spot on, but it's like the producers spent all the casting money there, and the dude playing Rogger looks like he's 15 throughout the movie. And why the fökk did the director think anyone wanted to watch a complete remake of their Live Aid concert? I can watch the original on youtube. And then the movie just ends, on a high note of course, not going into what could have been interesting details of how Freddy fought aids and of course unfortunately lost that battle. And the beginning is just as absent as the ending, with Freddy walking up to the band saying he likes them, the band saying they just lost their singer 75 seconds before (how convenient) and Freddy bursting out in song with the rest of the band harmonizing out in the middle of a parking lot. WTF is this?? A Disney musical?? And less than 15 minutes in the band is already touring the US. What about telling people parts of the story that they don't know already? And WTF is up with Mike Myers as a comic relieve? I can see the events leading up to that unfolding: Movie Producer: "Sorry Mike, but no, we can't do another Austin Powers with you in some crazy makeup doing silly British accents, but we'll find you a role in something else". Producer calls his assistant: "What movies are we shooting right now? Only Bohemian Rhapsody you say? Well that will have to do! Mike, how would you like to play an eccentric record label boss?" Mike: "Only if I can do my bonkers British accent!" P.s. they should have made a disaster movie about Duran Duran at Live Aid. Mike Myers would have been awesome as Simon Le Bon!

I really want Replicas to be a good movie, I want all Kianu Reeves movies to be good, because of the endless stories about him being the nicest celebrity in the history of ever. But the truth is Replicas is very far from being a good movie. I don't feel like wasting more time on this one so I'm not going into details but I will just say the script is thin to begin with and add to that plotholes and horrible acting from almost everyone in this film, and the outcome is a waste of time. I feel generous in giving this 3 stars, it really should be 2.

There are people that are going to hate this documentary no matter what, because it challenges the established view of the Great Pyramid of Giza, who built it, how and why. The notion that the Great Pyramid and many other megalithic structures around the world are much older than we're lead to believe is not new. I've seen and read some compelling evidences to support this many times before. But even though I've watched and read everything I've found on that subject this movie still presented me with a lot of new facts. It's not an easy watch, especially if you're new to this theory, so I suggest you watch it when you really have time to pay attention, and if you watch it with an open mind (or better yet, just take in the facts) I can promise you your mind will be blown!

Montage of Heck is exactly what the name suggests, a montage. An overly long montage I'd say. Most of the film is made up of hand written notes and drawings from what appears to be from Kurt's scrapbook. And that's the problem; notes and drawings don't make for good film material. The film makers have thrown in a few interviews for good measure, but they add nothing to a story that's already been told a million times. I'm no big Nirvana fan, yet I learned nothing new from watching all 133minutes of this film. Kurt's mom and sister, Courtney, Krist Novoselic and Kurt's ex-girlfriend are the only people interviewed (if I'm forgetting someone it's because the film really didn't hold my attention). Where are the interviews with Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Pat Smear, ex members Dale Crover and Chad Channing (to name but two) and Kurt's friends Buzz Osbourne and Dylan Carlson (again to name but two)? And there must have been so many other people behind the scenes that could have contributed to the story, childhood friends, managers, crew members, even bleeping drug dealers. I know the title says montage, but I was hoping for a documentary and was greatly disappointed.