Chris Engelbrecht

Didn't think too much of it at first. But then I read some of the few reviews in here and elsewhere, and everything started to sound fishy. It ain't _that_ bad. Sure you can tell stories about the impact of religious mass hysterical envy on an entire country, suffered by decent people just because they dare to have made a bit of money under the old regime. So the Shah wasn't a bloody angel either, but you don't fight fire by pissing gasoline on the fire. In fact you should tell such stories, as this flick clearly shows. Not that I didn't already know that Ayatollah Iran is no different in hysteria from a communist regime, but this one confirms it again.

This flick suddenly became important tell just on that alone. Somebody here isn't from Estonia. Or from Bulgaria. I guess some people just aren't accustomed to their selfish oppression of decent folk having a better life than themselves being called out in international movies. It's a bitch being on the wrong side of history too, innit, fana? (Lot of that going 'round in the world these days.)

I think we're supposed to get a point about the importance of human feelings. So we get a stupidly enforced scenario, where you see no correlation between act and react. If somebody is to be evil and kick somebody to death or disfigure somebody, I'd like some grasp as to why.

Hell, maybe it's based on some personal loss. Or it's some peculiar fable over the current European refugee crisis or something. Admirable, in such case. Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with fables, it has its own beautiful tradition and storytelling raison d'être. But you need to at least believe in the scenario for the duration. If you fail at that, your point is lost to people. There's no discernible reason as to why it's so life-or-death important, that people of this civilization has to be paired, otherwise they get killed because they're "loners." Or why pairs has to share interests, otherwise they have to split up and then they get killed. It's a completely bizarre construct, you can only imagine came up during a talentless script session. "This is how we make something, that'll stand out. 'Cause we're artists, we are, we are!"

Sometimes a crappy film is worth the time just for the laugh. Not here, you just feel sad for people acting in it. No actor should be subjected to such a naked emperor. If it didn't have another chap's name on it, you'd think it was a Lars Trier pile of poo. This is the kind of stuff Monty Python justly mocked. Not even unsolicited graphic sex scenes can save this junk. I smell razzies so much it hurts. I smell an A list actor quickly going B or worse.

First off, I never saw the original, nor the two live action movies, so I have no idea what I might be missing, though I don't mind the 3D as much as some.

Some users complain about the apparently new character Talon to match Penny, but I have to say, their classically Hawksian teenage banter between one good and one bad is mainly why I keep coming back. Maybe I'm a slobbering softy without knowing it, dunno. Oh, that and a helicopter in your hat ... how can you go wrong with that‽‽‽

It's silly and fun and spies and constant explosions and malfunctions. Brilliant Netflix pick for the-day-after.

Satire has a hard time in Hollywood these, well, decades really. I was shocked to realize that this gem was produced way back in 2003 (at the height of the terrorism hysteria) ... and weren't released until five years later, and that only via home entertainment. Many recognizable faces (some already then, some later coming into TV prominence) have bit parts in this biting satire over everything stupid in contemporary America and everywhere else. It sounds like a perfect formula. And for once, it actually is. It is a breath of fresh air in a sea of really lousy "comedies", 'Scary Movie 27' and the lot.

Imagine that scene, some producers sit in their office and say, "This Onion stuff is really funny, let's ask them if they'd be interested in making a feature movie from it." The movie gets made, comes back: "That's so (...) funny." "Yeah ... We can't put it out." "Yeah, let's not put it out." "It's just too frickin' funny, ain't it?" "Yeah, it'll give us loads of problems to put that out."

Americans seriously need to get a sense of humour. (...) you and good night. (Actual line from the film.)

Oh, and God bless Seth McFarlane for picking up that thread. Americans sorely need it.

In Reagan's 1980's Cold War America, Russian KGB-agents live like regular American citizens, while conducting Machiavellian operations. An exiled Polish priest leads from New York the opposition to free Poland of Soviet oppression, but the KGB sends in a pretty agent to entice him. Even after he politely rejects her advances, he wakes up naked the day after with the girl in hospital having been "raped" by the priest. This episode relays the elements of a classic sex trap against a good man, which sends echoes from similar cases in latter years against the likes of Julian Assange from WikiLeaks. The episode (and the show in general) is a good warning to constantly be critical about what one is told, and what may be going on behind the curtains.

I had the opportunity to watch this film without knowing anything about it at all, and found it to have a wonderful sharp satirical humor that had me flat constantly. Its slasher element makes it a weird hybrid of a movie, but one which I thought worked fine.

I'm sure there's some Author's Message with various covert government (psychotic) operatives starting to bludgeon each other to death being some kind of symbol on the eight years of the Bush administration (that's how I read it, anyway), and I love that I can't quite figure out if the elements carrying the day at the end are good guys or bad guys.

Let's not deny that maaay-be there's a couple of lines, they could've worked a little more on, or that there may be a plot hole here and there, but in the overall, I fail to see why it's being hammered the way it is by some users here. Except, if the film was sold the wrong way to people as some popcorn comedy, you can watch with your partner (which I wouldn't do with this one), but then it's a studio's bummer, not the film's. Just being its own, the film works fine all the way through. To me, anyway.

I didn't catch TDK in the theater, and I'm not a connoisseur into the Batman comics. When at first I saw TDK on DVD, I was subject to the hype, expected everything.

I was disappointed. I didn't think the acting was top notch, the sound score didn't catch me, the action I felt I'd seen before. I started wondering if one can still cheat with the IMDb voting system, etc., etc.

Then I noticed that Empire magazine had comprised a recent best-films-ever list, and TDK was also high on this list. What, along with Godfather, Indiana Jones, Fight Club??? I didn't understand. Had all the hype gone nuts because that poor kid died of a medical overdose? I grabbed the film and watched it again. Still didn't quite get it. I let it go.

Then a few days after that, I noticed that I was still thinking about TDK. Something stuck. The themes, the contrasts, the ethical conflicts. I was still reading all I could find about it online. Had I too been devoured by hype? I found a notice that the Nolans had been inspired by "The First Triumvirate" of the Roman Empire (them Americans love to compare themselves to the Romans, don't y'all?). Julius Ceasar, Crassus and Pompey taking power in the empire from the senate in a time of horrible chaos. Seeking to protect the empire, service the Roman people, their actions held accountable only to each other. For the good of Rome.

Apparently, I'm a sucker for a good analogy. Them three old Romans suddenly became the three Gotham City servants, Batman, Commissioner Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent a.k.a. Two-Face, standing on the roof planning how to get their city out of this Hell. Entering a highly illegal, but nobly intended conspiracy of three. A comic version Triumvirate.

I now wondered as to which is supposed to be which. Batman is the main character, so he aught to be Ceasar. Cesar is the one you always hear about when it comes to Rome. The greatest Roman ever if there ever was one.

But no. Doesn't add up that way. Caesar would be ... Two-Face. As Caesar a white knight, intensely popular, the new hope of Gotham City. Flips a coin to make his choices, as Caesar threw dice. Falls to pieces in corruption, takes the law into his own hands, the hero became the villain. Was assassinated, but his image sought untouched. Because Rome needed its White Knight.

Pompey becomes Commissioner Gordon. An avid civil servant, an excellent general. Found his family threatened when Ceasar fell from grace. Just like Gordon in TDK, when Two-Face puts a gun to the head of his son.

You find out the analogy is wonderful, when Batman then becomes Crassus. Who the hell is Crassus? You never hear about him as you hear about Ceasar, or even Pompey. Crassus was the richest Roman of his time, a personal fortune of 200 million sestertii (that's a lot). Like Bruce Wayne is the richest in Gotham City, but hides his true effort to protect his city. You read that Crassus was the general that defeated Spartacus...

... who suddenly becomes the Joker! The slave rebel becomes Heath Ledger's Joker!? You revisit your opinion on Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. What did Spartacus really try to achieve, other than catch mayhem on Rome? And even zanier, you wind up drawing comparisons to our contemporary hell of a world. This is where TDK really takes off in your head. 9-11. Afghanistan, Iraq. Who is our biggest hope right now? Will he fail as Two-Face does? Which one joker started this psychotic chaos, seeking only to set the world ablaze? Who is our Gordon? And who is our Batman, the hero the history books will forget? Our Dark Knight? So what's the big hype of The Dark Knight? Well, it's an entertaining, action-packed piece which takes a bunch of well-known comic book icons and reinvents them all anew quite nicely. And then mixes that with a marvelous analogy on the best and worst days of the Roman empire, which is the chief comparison for our modern Western World. While also indicating an analogy of the mess our world is now, like the best of stories told always draws on our own present. Intellectual bla-bla as hell. Don't get me wrong, I love it. Oh, and not to forget, that poor kid died shortly after finishing a great acting performance. It adds to it, whether we like it or not.

Is that enough to put The Dark Night so high on various all-time top lists? Yeah. I do think so. Funny how some films grow on you.

Definitely the best cinema comic I ever saw. And I liked X-men and Superman Returns.

The first rule of journalism is to observe and document, nothing else. This is exactly what this little docu does, and even if that should be a doh, some topics makes it extremely difficult.

We're in Afghanistan on one of the key Qhuran school that has seen religious education of thousands of holy-warriors-slash-terrorists, given one's preference. A now infamous university that has provided leaders and soldiers to the Taleban and others.

The Western film crew does the only right thing: No pointing fingers, no silly conclusions from a speaker; in fact, not a single member of the crew is seen or heard through the film. The only people that tells the story are the teachers and students of this somewhat peculiar educational facility. All of them men and boys, mind you. All of them being surprisingly frank about their personal motives and dreams. And fears and hates.

Strong images are those of a teenager dedicated since age 8 to become a Mullah, or a 23 year old super student that is extremely well-informed on the political world, or a mass gathering of thousands (again, only men and boys) with speaker after speaker screaming and yelling their hatred towards the decadent life of USA and the West in general.

So what do you get out of hearing these people tell their stories? Well... Something is definitely wrong in the Orient. You understand just how important it is to keep politics and religion apart, now faced with the alternative.

The tragic is, that these people are just victims of a well-meaning, but astray tradition that down through history has proved to suffocating itself. If one is not to become anti-Islamic, one has to constantly compare a religious school such as this with various Christian monasteries from 1000 years back. No separation of God and government, memorize the Book, it can never be wrong. In the midst of these theological discussions about how Islam can't possibly separate religion and politics, you get the feeling that Islam is in a desperate need of reform. Christianity reformed in the 1400's, and the Christian sphere has prospered by it ever since.

But who's to tell that to muslims such as these? A pork eater like me? In their world, I'm in the Satanic alliance with Bush and Blair and Musharraf. Watching Children of Allah makes you wish for a Luther to these people. But where's he supposed to come from, when the Muslim world has such a perfect enemy in their face to blind them from the need to reform?

The biggest problem with Bad Boys 2 is not that the humor has been systematized, that there's no originality or intelligence in the storyline, or that the film is poorly paced and way too Kevin Costner-like long...

The biggest problem of this film is Jerry Bruckheimer. If he really wants to agitate pro American values and con Cuban socialism, this is not the way to do it, even at this ultimate mainstream level. His production 'Black Hawk Down' succeeded where 'Pearl Harbor' failed. You understood why the US troops actually were the good guys when all was rounded up, where this constellation was an insult in PH. You could hope that Jerry had learned the lesson after that, but then he launches BBII. What the heck is wrong with him?

To point out: A violent Columbian drug lord cannot in any way set up a drug traffic operation out of present day Cuba let alone build his own mansion in the wide open land. If he tried, Fidel Castro would immediately have him rounded up and shot, he'd most likely blow his brains out himself to prove a point. Fidel Castro may be an extreme dictator, but the political reality is that he hates drug dealers and organized criminals to the core of his body, because his extreme ideal is based on humanism. One of the main reasons that Castro, Guevara and others in the 50's rebelled violently against Cuba's former dictator Batista, and one of the main reasons why millions of Cubans actually supported them to victory, was that Batista for years had made Cuba a haven for drug lords from Columbia and Cosa Nostra gambling & prostitution tycoons from USA and Italy, making Cuban life more miserable than anything they must encounter today. Claiming that the opposite is true, that Castro can be bought by the kind of people he hates more than anything, is not only a political contradiction in terms, it's a gigantic and dangerous lie. Dangerous because it tries to convince the mainstream audience that the Cuban problem lies somewhere it's not. If Master Jerry really wants to tell people about the drawbacks of Castro's policies, then he must first accept and ally with the truth. That won't prevent him from producing a blowout of an entertainment flick and make a [S-word] load of money, as BHD proved.

This is not healthy political agitation at the people's level, this is disgusting nationalist propaganda. The deep travesty about it all is that this 130M$ insult actually made ends meat. I feel I can hear the devil snicker...

Bad Boys 2 is short of a crime against humanity. A worse sequel than Highlander II.

'Osama' is not this 'cute little foreign film'.

It is, in the lack of better expression, an uproar. A cry for recognition of Asia's Poland, a country everybody has stomped on. A film that clearly shows that unjust people all to easy is allowed free play in too many places in the world. The only hope in this awful and tragic story is that it is actually told, that it's being told by the Afghans themselves, and that it's being promoted in the so influential West (only justice!). Leading actress 12-year old Marina Golbahari is the find of the year, director Siddiq Barmark is a genius. He presents this tale straightforwardly without falling into some sentimental pitfall, and for that he must be praised, 'cause it makes the story hit so much harder.

Generally, Westerners don't see too many 'foreign' films. And that is a pitiful shame. There are not enough letters in the word 'masterpiece' to fully disclose the 'masterpieceness' of 'Osama' (which has no actual connection to the Arab maniac). It is one of the few films that will actually make a difference if this world is to become a better place at all.

Recommends it strongly, but please, don't bring your sweetheart (either gender). Be prepared to be strong, for the end of this film hurts intensely deep into your heart if you have even the slightest sense of justice and compassion for your fellow human beings.

An absolute must-see if one is at all fond of films. Or fond of other people, for that matter.

As a movie goer that generally knows very little about China and Chinese tradition, I watched this movie with awe and amazement. Its message is simple and talks about honor and duty, as it was in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. The caracters in Hero (In Mandarin: Ying Xiong) are not as complex as in 'Crouching Tiger...', but Hero's story goes further than its predecessor in that it takes a political stand. It's a story about a viscous king maturing to a wise emperor, worthy of managing 'all beneath the sky'. It's a story of valiant legendary warriors willing to sacrifice their own lives to ensure a higher purpose beyond any king or emperor. It's a story about the little man educating the big man through deeds worthy of remembrance. I can imagine this plot is a center piece of Chinese people's self understanding, something they carry with pride. For me as a bloody Westerner, I get a kick out of it, too.

This film is beautiful. No lesser word can describe it. The camerawork is extraordinary, the use of colors fabulous. The use of slow motion is sublime, the kung-fu is in a class no one in the West can muster. I didn't notice any CGI during the movie, or though I can imagine rain droplets, yellow leaves or multitudes of arrows could have been CGI. As in 'Crouching Tiger...' caracters are capable of flying to right and left, something that I suppose is as natural in Chinese legends as the magic in the Lord of the Rings.

Don't ask me about the acting, I'm a Westerner that has hardly seen any Chinese films...yet. However, Jet Li's stone face is perfect for the warrior Nameless, sitting merely 10 paces before the king, patiently waiting to unleash the blow of deliverance. (Watch the film to see what I mean.)

All in all, the film is mysterious to me, it's a China filled with wonder and fascination. It's 2500 years of applied philosophy that provides a little hope for this mess of a world we live in.

All beneath the sky...that is SO cool!

This is the first feature movie ever to come out of Greenland. In Nuuk, the capital of Greenland with a population of barely 10.000 people, this movie sold 20.000 tickets.

The movie deals with the struggles and social problems for a Greenlandic people needing to remember their own identity. We are faced with Greenland's problems with alcohol and suicides left behind by a well-meant, but misplaced Danish colony-policy. We watch a man's personal tragedy and following search for acceptance deep in the Greenlandic wilderness, a nature so spectacular it does take your breath away on the screen.

This type of story has probably been told before, and probably better. Some acting performances are extremely poor, much of the cast are local and untrained. The lead role played by Rasmus Lyberth, a talented Greenlandic music performer, however carries the movie. In a somewhat mediocre production, the much deserved pride of Greenland shines through by the end of the movie. For the broadening of one's global perspective, this movie is recommended.

There seems to be no end to the CG development! Shrek is the present day climax of that development, in terms of technical efforts combined with storability. We are here given a good old-fashioned fairy tale (with an obvious twist!), told with the good heart of a storyteller wanting to entertain the crowd.

The movie manages to combine a wonderful voice casting with a good and (incredibly) funny story; a superstory in a 3D-animated environment, a world that exists only in the memory of a computer. Despite this, the technical work is done to so much perfection, that you have no hesitations in believing fully in the existence of the settings and of the characters.

We are given the rare phenomenon of a CG romantic story that, within the grounds of a fairy tale, is highly credible. We see the vulnerability of true love in the faces of the hideous ogre Shrek and the fair Princess Fiona, beautifully animated time and time again throughout the entire movie.

That the creators of this movie have managed to perfectionize both the process of making an entire environment out of nothing but zeros and ones, the process of using human facial communication in computer animation and use them both so artistically wonderful, is, I find, the highest feat so far within the animation features. You laugh, you cry and you end up sighing sobbingly after 90 well-spend minutes. Shrek is a wonderful, wonderful movie.

Ok... I've read through most of the posted comments posted before this about this movie; I find that some people love the music, but think the characters are thin; some hate Eddie Murphy's presence, and think the love story is stupid. Well, your experience with a film is individual, I guess.

That said, I'll follow the trail and state why I loved watching this movie not once, but several times:

First of all, I'm far from being a fan of animated Disney classics. I'm in that age between child and adult(currently 23), where everything is a rebelry. Most of my viewing pleasures is action or its like.

My original incentive for seeing this movie was to please a friend of mine, who has a long-life fascination for oriental culture (read: karate films!). When Mulan was released in Denmark, a single copy with the original voices track (usually all animated Disneys are dubbed into danish with good result) was shown in a local theater. Asking a couple of girls out, we went and saw it. Ok, I was blown away. Before I had left the cinema that day, I too was captured by chinese history and culture. The singing and music I was prepared for; I knew The Jungle Book and Aristocats from childhood. The songs didn't mean anything to me, other than that they were few - good for me. (Some of them do kling to the ear - irritating for me!) I quickly realised Eddie Murphy was on the voices cast. I started liking the movie right then. Some find him malplaced in a Disney epic, but fact is that the business of animating classics is profiting well these years in bringing in already established names to the animations; Tom Hanks in the Toy Stories, Mel Gibson in Pocahontas, Robin Williams in Aladdin, and who else I don't know of. These names sell the film before the film have a chance to sell itself. (The danish producers, by the way, have stolen this idea when dubbing the films, using local media stars for the voice cast.) Well...it did work for me. Eddie Murphy is not as funny in this production as he is in others, but what the heck...he can't exactly use too much harsh language, it IS a children's flick. But with the room he got, his speedy tongue made me laugh again and again. I have later seen Aladdin, and find Eddie Murphy's achievement as funny as Robin Williams'. That Eddie Murphy chose this project was an interesting and probably very clever career move. Later, when I studied the rest of the cast list, I noticed a lot of chinese names. That very much pleased me. Who other than Chinese people to tell a Chinese tale to Westerners? I found some old friends, Soon-Tek Oh and James Hong, people who had worked with Chick Norris in the 80's. Pat Morita as the emperor made me smile. B.D.Wong I remembered from Jurrasic Park, but Ming-Na was new to me (had to look her up in IMDB, was stunned not to have known her before (Ok, I went wow!)). Harvey Fierstein as a ploppy little soldier and Miguel Ferrer as the Hun leader I found the perfect voice-choice for their characters...other names rang also. Anyway, a lot of the above have only value after you've seen the film. When you are an Atlantic ocean from most of the sales pitch, the film had to sell itself. It did - for me, anyway. Before then, I knew little about China and her history apart from things here and there (read: karate films!). Meeting angient China like this totally threw me away. Wership of the ancestors, the power and position of the emperor, I found myself lost in the dream of a world long gone; I loved the image of a China with different traditions but still found myself attracted to the pro-Disney story about a girl standing up to a culture's sexist prejudice. (I do find the plot a bit silly, actually, but I let myself be taken away...it's just a Disney.) Agree, the characters lack a little bit, the love story of Mulan and Shang should perhaps have had a few more frames to play with. The project was a little bit tuned down from the Disney board of directors, but honor to all who worked with it: You people did a good job! The computer animation used for the Great Wall and the attack of the Huns startles me again and again; Not many live movies can do the job as good.

So that's what Mulan is for me...The dream of ancient China and Eddie Murphy's speedy tongue. I accept the term classic. I have the damn thing on video now (English language) and must prevent myself from seeing it too often, in fright of one day getting tired of it.