kebman

For the love of God, avoid the dubbed version of this series!

The show is alright, and it's very cool to hear classical Latin. I wish they'd also research the proto-germanic language that they spoke at the time too, but I guess you can't help execs who will ruin all movies just to protect "revenue," even though the series could have become so much more with that extra linguistic touch. No, doing that would require balls, and I don't know any execs who have that...

So why take that chance? Well, for one, this topic isn't just interesting to Germans. For instance I'm Norwegian myself, and judging by how many English speakers go on and on about Roman history on places like YouTube and the History Channel, I think I'd even call this a sure thing. As such that is a huge lost opportunity.

I might be caught up in details, but what really irks me about this series, is the extremely poor use of sound effects. Every time someone draws a sword, a hammer(!) or even a puny sheath knife, you hear a really loud animé-like "ka-ching." Instead of hearing the soft rip of leather and the gargle of blood when someone's throat is cut, you hear ... "ka-ching." This is so badly done that it totally ruines the rest of the experience for me. At some points I had to stop the movie and laugh out loud. It's truly that jarring! Whoever's in charge of the sound effects on this series; yeah, please fire him! :) Listen, I know you have to exaggerate a few things for TV, but this is just ridiculous.

In film theory this is what we call a "verfremdungseffekt." It's an effect that takes you out of the drama, and makes you notice that you're watching a film, such as breaking the fourth wall. When done right, you get Pulp Fiction. When done wrong, you get "ka-ching" in a historical drama...

While not totally ruining things, the theme of the prodigal son is a bit over the top. Also it's factually wrong (stirrups anyone?), but all series seem to rewrite history these days anyway. I guess they have to keep the sheep engaged somehow, though cheap, and so this time-tested topic is very easy to reach for.

In my humble opinion they would have gotten a lot more out of this drama by more solid character development, like that showed in the 10/10 HBO series Rome. On top of that, there is of course the usual feminist narratives spouted out of all current popular shows, which is especially jarring considering how completely different society was in those ancient times. A rewrite to really show how life was back then would have made this series a lot better, but I guess it's hard to rid yourself of the zeitgeist of the current, when you also have to cater to all those politically correct yet historyless snowflakes out there.

All in all I think this series is a huge missed opportunity. I'd give it a 5 out of 10, but it still somehow manages to be somewhat entertaining despite its flaws, so 6 out of 10 it is, though I'm a sucker for things like these. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while this series has some truly jarring flaws, it's not all bad and it ends up quite entertaining in the end if you just take it for what it is: a melodramatic soap opera, and not really a historical show in any respect.

If this film was much shorter, I'd give it a 10 out of 10. There are so many details to notice, filmatic as well historically. And the use of language will crack you up - at least if you know a little French or Spanish. Lots of silly slapstick and creative use of both props, sets and costumes.

All in all a very funny and silly film that, while it will certainly will keep you entertained, soon runs out of gas. Or you could say that it's a little too far between each gas station, so to speak. This is why I gave it only 7 out of 10, however the funny parts are so good that they are worth the wait.

I am quite glad the Stargate Franchise takes a step away from the fantastic McGyver drivel of old, and tries to do something a bit more serious with SGU. Even though this makes fans of the old series frown, it captures new followers with a more refined taste in Sci Fi. I really love the concept of humans being captured aboard an ancient ship, having to make due with what they get while trying to find out how to take control, quite literally, of their Destiny. This is all good.

However, I can see why some call this Battlegate Galactiverse. It has a very melancholic and dark design. I have no problem with the darkness. This is great, and all the ancient design of the ship, its surrounding and how it is presented is really cool.

What I do have a huge problem with is how the series delves into depressive melancholy all the times, with meaningless flash backs to "get to know" characters, while what I really care about is if the get any more clues to how they are going to get the hell out of there. I'd really love it if they stopped with the damn introspection all the time, and started exploring more.

For instance, when they met the aliens for the first time, it was totally awesome. They represent the unknown in such a great way. But then they started showing flash backs again, about boring daily life back on earth. Sorry guys, I get enough of that as it is. What I want to see is how they master new technology, how they brave new worlds, find crazy artifacts, and gain new clues as to how to control the ship, and how to get the hell home again. That's what's great about the series, and why I keep watching it, and not because of that boring everyday melancholy.

I'm thinking about only giving this six stars because of melancholic drivel, but the series does at least show promise, and there is after all something that makes me come back to it, so seven stars it is.

If you were a fan of Battlestar Galactica, a series that also had problems with too much melancholy at times, you probably know how to look past those faults, and I can whole heartedly recommend this series. However, if you are a hard core fan of the old SG1 series, stay away. Go watch another episode of McGyver or something.

Let's begin with the positive: It actually has some great scenes, if you don't look at the whole of the film. There's a really cool near accident car stunt, for instance, and some cool space scenes.

But by far the BEST part of this film, is all the comments you'll find yourself saying in reaction the incredibly terrible manuscript.

Here's a couple: "Oh, the world is ending, and the girl is wondering what she'll pack in her beauty bag?" "Now, let's see... The world is ending, and we can't afford a space chase... No matter! Let's have a car chase instead - by the evil Hezbollah!" Now to the negative: It's a terrible film! No need to say more, really. It's so terrible some people might even find it entertaining.

Some people accuse this film's animation technique of not being at the Disney level. And I totally agree. Disney haven't dared to make something nearly as compelling as this since Fantasia (1940)! Simply put, The Snowman is art at a very high level.

No, the animation technique isn't like Disney's - and for a good reason: Artistic Integrity. I'm sure the animators could have used a "Disney-technique" perfectly well if they wanted to, but instead they chose another, more dreamy, way of animation. They actually dared to use an animation technique that is neither smooth nor clear, and still the film has gotten immensely popular. Not to mention that this special technique is particularly time consuming to work with.

This film is an incredible achievement, and even here in Norway it airs every Christmas. Christmas just wouldn't be the same without it.

I would give this film 10/10, but sadly I have to give the producers a slap in the face for not giving the director enough economical space to do what was left to do on this film - which isn't a whole lot. England doesn't have the crazy capital needed for films like these, but then again the producers probably wrung out all they could of what was available. I certainly know the director and actors did.

I'm just reading Nineteen Eighty-Four now, and the film seems more based on that book than most other things. Sure, it borrows a lot from other places too, but I'm pretty sure that's the main influence. Oh, how I'd love to see the same team make 1984! They've got the large "telescreens" all over the place, and take it right down to the über-controlled office environment the protagonist works in. There is an eerie omni-presence all over, without it needing to be Big Brother that sees you. Then it really hits you that backstabbing societies like these has actually existed, like Ceausescu's rule over Communist Romania. Could they exist again? This is definitively not a Matrix-clone. Sure, they've got the fancy Gun-Fu - but no, this film isn't about machines. This film is about something much more dangerous -- human nature, and how evil it can actually get.

This sure is an odd piece of work. It's the best Norwegian animated feature since the extremely well made Pinchcliffe Grand Prix, but in the end it doesn't even reach up to the knees of the old classic. However, that's not saying it's bad. It's good, but it's just not perfect. I really got quite sentimental about that old junkie elephant, but then it hit me - it's just a lump of pixels. The set detail is all very gritty and gloomy, just like junkie life is supposed to be, but at some points the quality of the graphics take me a bit out of the story. Or possibly the story dragged a bit on some points, and that made me think about the graphics. I don't know, but there's something that didn't feel right. Still the film kicks back a few quite memorable laughs. But while the film has a really serious topic of drug use, I feel like it's handled a bit superficially. The reason for it I think is what seems to be the need to fill out the film with action and Brit-like complication humour all the time. I don't know, or maybe the creator was on speed when he made it... The speed scene, bye the way, is one of the funniest in the film. Most of the humour is low key and dark, but at some points it's just plain hilarious. Just the thought of a Sami biker mafia is bound to make you chuckle. Not all of the humour hit home, though, like when Nielsen (the director) tries to do a Tarantino on you. Still, the budgetary lapse of this production was worth it, because for every fault this film has, there are at least two things that makes up for it. So, if you're in for something dark, strange and funny - go see it! Or like Timothy Leary would have said it: "Turn on, tune in, drop out."

Two words: Pod racing. I haven't payed much attention to the end titles of Star Wars Episode I, but there really should be a "thank you Caprino" in there somewhere. Of course that's an entirely different picture, but still the racing scenes are conspicuously similar to the ones in the thirty-some years older Pinchcliffe Grand Prix.

Yeah, this film is what makes me proud to be Norwegian. Reading the other comments on this film simply fills me with joy. I see it's hard to find abroad, but I'm sure it's possible to order an English version on the internet, and possibly the latest Caprio Collection DVD set with the ingenious short films that predates this full feature masterpiece.

If only the the up and coming Norwegian filmmakers could make something like this... It doesn't even have to be better, so long as it's close. But then again, that's why masterworks are masterworks, and everyone else are mere mortals.

There are many who complain about the comedian being sent to India to make Muslims laugh, and go into great length to explain that this doesn't make sense since India have a mostly Hindu population. But the fact that the comedian is sent there is just pun to the U.S. Government and their poor understanding of foreign culture. Sending a comedian on a diplomatic mission to gain better cultural relations to another country is rather dumb in the first place. This way humor is spread through the movie on quite a high level, and probably on certain levels that some might not understand. That said this film might not be the right cup of tea for everyone, but if you do find it amusing, you may also pat yourself on your own shoulder and acknowledge to yourself that you don't only have a good sense of humor, but that you're also a smarter human being. Now how's that for a feel-good film!

This film was actually curriculum where I studied once. This is six years ago, yet the film made enough of a lasting impression to make me dear to write about it now. I was too young to really enjoy it - or grasp it, if you will, and I must admit, parts of it seemed like a terrible drag, all tough other parts were very interesting and oozing of some sort of eerie repression, or maybe horror. The film is very demanding, and sets you back into wondering what, why and how a lot of the time. Tarkovsky, it seems, isn't about to give anything to the spectators for free on the intellectual level, and I guess many are simply put off by this. The simplest example to this might be what other commentators has perceived as a World War III scenario, but in fact there are no clear references to any war at all in this film (to my memory). There aren't any scenes of combat, and no war machinery is ever shown (for sure). What is it then, but that of a feeling conveyed? This is of course very important to the understanding of the film's underlying topic.

Slow paced, difficult to understand, and confusing it may be at times, however I think it's worth the endurance, if only to experience something different, and a lot more thought provoking than the average Hollywood entertainment film. Further more, Tarkovsky's skills with film techniques are very evident and this film is, if nothing else, a good film to spot the successful use of film language on a very high and subtle level – the way he so dynamically and dramatically uses lighting, and the way he chooses to use sound, like in the opening sequence where the dialogue of characters far away in the picture is unnaturally audible across a vast meadow. And not least the way he so subtly can convey feelings and moods with simple, but effective means – maybe even tricking us to make connotations to some sort of nuclear holocaust. Or is it a nuclear holocaust at all?

This film is about as believable as... baloney with cheese. But just about as hard boiled as a diamond rock. Despite this, it's quite entertaining, if not always for the right reasons. It's gotta be any teenagers dream film, and it's a good look back at the 80's. So how do you watch it? Well, baring these facts in mind, of course! It all amounts to a good evening laughing at the tough-talk, and gawking the nicely done car chases - at least by 80's standards. With lines like "This is where the law stops, and I start," it's no wonder Stallone was cast for Judge Dredd.

The best thing about this film's gotta be the music. It's kind of got a vibe from the Alien films - and maybe even 2001, only this isn't about creatures from outer space. Hm, but actually it might have been better if it was. And after all the lead antagonist did go on to play in the X-Files series.

The film's got a kind of Postmanesque anti-television message, mixed in with an evil sect with some kind of kill-off-the-weak-to-make-lebensraum ideology. That part was really lame, and this is why I think the evil-doers could have been swapped with aliens, or something like that. Otherwise, Stallone is the perfect knight in shining sunglasses saving the damsel in distress. How's that for original! But it's still quite OK for an action flick like this.

• Alright, since there is nothing else to do, I thought and went off to the cinema. The title only thought to promise me an indy film about meagre slum life. By the scant knowledge I had about it, I actually expected some kind of boring social drama. Boy, was I surprised!

So, let's talk about violence; of which there is a great deal in this film. Unlike so many Hollywood films, where violence seem to take a recreational dimension, this film really gets to you. It makes you think twice about it, since it doesn't present dead bodies, but dead persons. A big difference in my book.

Then there is storyline; of which every thread is followed. Forget about main character. Yeah, there is one – but he's more a link to the entire story, than a real protagonist. OK then, you can slice them out of the story, sure! But when the film finishes you know the life story of about seven characters. No mean feat, considering the time frame.

Camera placement and movement with lighting and editing; everything molded into near perfection. I got aware of it sometimes, because there are some special moves done, and some intricate solutions to it. In some films it's not that good to get aware of such things, but in this film, I thought it was just fine.

Now, I'm not used to Portuguese, but the only thing I really dare to kick at is acting. Well, voice acting. The acting is fine, but sometimes the voiceover seemed a little dull – but hey! It's a voiceover!

This film really chases the chicken to the end. It goes where it has to go, perilous as it is, but it's so beautifully done that I've even watched the film without subtitles – and I don't know a word in Portuguese! I did this after seeing it with subtitles first, of course. And maybe it's actually subtitles that will put off most English viewers, since I don't know if it has been dubbed to any other language. Being Norwegian I, not unlike the Dutch, innately resent dubbing, but I've heard this is the other way in the USA, Germany and Spain.

This is what I would call a promising manuscript still in the condition to be molded into something good, that unfortunately turned into half hearted muck. What could have been, `just ain't!' So I'd love to direct this film, and here's a few things I would have changed.

The acting is done with way too much bravado. Was the direction `act like you're all priests?' Very Shakesperian, but not at all suited for the Silver Screen. Maybe this could have been solved on a very early stage in the magical process called casting. Alright, I'll give the actors credit for being professionals (as in doing it for money), but great acting doesn't come by it self. It has to be inspired - most likely from someone or something; usually the director or the manuscript - or a large paycheck. So this would have to be mended; possibly by toning down the sneering and illusions of grandeur.

Then there are simple things like military uniforms that look completely ridiculous (red pyjamas, need I say more?). Well, I'd certainly change that to something better suited for real combat. After all, soldiers of today don't march on line into combat. They sneak trough grass, jungles and puddles of mud and water, and thus need something else than glossy parade uniforms.

Alright, I know the battles of the Armageddon are supposed to be chaotic, but in this film every fight scene defies what most people know about simple logical behaviour during a conflict. Even though most people haven't been to the army, they know from watching the daily news that military conflicts just aren't fought the way this film wants us to think. There was talk of some tactical maneuvering in the film, but I certainly never saw it. The only thing I did see was a lot of uninspired shooting in all directions, and it went on and on and on. There's simply no development. All the excitement of a raging battle is gone. It's not seeing hundreds of explosions that thrill, but someone trying to break trough, and maybe failing - or someone trying to get into position for a good shot, and making it or not. That's exciting! Not mindless shooting followed by even more mindless explosions.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD: Then there are the small things like the President of the USA personally going into battle. The word I'm now looking for begins with an 'r' and end with 'idiculous!' However, there was one particular air war scene that caught my eye in which they fly over the battlefield and down with a jet. It's all glorious CGI of course, and the only combat scene I'd keep. Just about the only cool scene in the entire film, so it's worth a meriting mention.

OK, I can live with that the Devil corrupts the EU, and thus come into conflict with the USA. Though it would have been a far more interesting film with the USA as the Evil Empire. I mean, how's that for a nice twist! In fact I think that's far more likely, since the EU largely drowns in its own bureaucracy, while the USA is largely lead by one single man. It's also very interesting in the perspective that the world mostly knows the USA to be a bastion of democracy and good (of course disregarding the Vietnam war, The Iran/Contras scandal, Watergate, the death penalty, racial segregation until the 60's and not to mention Bill Clinton's marital vows).

Unfortunately there is sort of an unwritten rule that you can't criticise the American government in a film - well, not unless you're foreign or named Oliver Stone, anyway. So maybe that's one of the things I would have to forego. There's also the question of ratings. Many hardcore patriots might fall off, and you don't want that. Then again, there are patriots of the American government, and patriots of the American way. Two slightly different things, if you ask me (the latter being the better, since governments are much easier to corrupt).

POSSIBLE SPOILER: Further more, all the mayhem suddenly stops as an act of God dawns on the battle. It sort of works like the proverbial cavalry coming to the rescue of mankind. It's all very biblical, but it completely robs the victory from the films true hero - especially since there is given no presupposition to this event. It simply happens, without any apparent cause. Yes yes, God's our only true hero and all that, but it's simply not who the film calls us to relate to. There would have to be a different solution in where our hero wins with God by his side, instead of this great wonder. Or there could be a condition our hero had to meet in order to make this wonder happen, but there is simply no such thing in this film. I mean, what's the point of fighting so hard to win, if God's going to come to the rescue with a big wonder of all wonders anyway?

I would also tone down the childhood of The Dark Ruler, 'cause we all know he's bad, don't we? There's no need to waste time telling it in so many details, all though the `torching the baby scene' was quite cool. There's simply too much talk in the beginning. If I wanted to see a play, I'd go to the theatre. Get on with it! Further more, the Devil without disguise looks like my uncle Bark. Ugly, but not scary. I would be looking for someone more like the Balrog of LOTR for this role.

There are of course many more things to pick on, but this will have to do for now. So if I got the chance to make this film, I would not only do it better, but I'd even do it with a smaller budget. Because only a few small steps would have made this film much better. It's just sad it turned out so bad.

Let's begin with acting...

Well, if the director would have bothered to direct, instead of picking out costumes, or whatever he did, it might actually have become a very entertaining film. He had some very talented actors with him, I think... I just can't tell by this film, really, but I've seen them in other films where they did much, much better. The fact that they all - yes, every single one of them - did such a poor job in this film, just can't be all their own mistakes. There must be a greater force behind, and I choose to blame the director.

I think this must be what the actors in this film thought the most: - OK, deliver the line, get paid...

Good manuscript

In fact I don't think I've ever seen such dull and uninspired acting my entire life. And that's such a shame, because I think the material given to the director was very good. The manuscript seemed to be both quite witty and interesting, but somehow he hasn't been able to refine it for film use. Either he has followed it word for word and not given any thought to that such a way of working may not give the best result on film, or the original film was cut severely for some odd reason - probably because of bad acting.

Yes, cutting... I don't really know if the director cared much about how it was cut at all, because occasionally there is actually a rather nice scene in this film. Well, nicely shot scene, anyway. But a worse "guillotining" of a film can't have been done since the French Revolution! The cutting really s**k! And it surely doesn't help the rest of this poor film. Take the love sequence by the lake, for instance. Some very nice and calm photography shredded by some Jack-the-Ripper editor with a dull razorblade.

Aiming and missing

But even the photography could be better. I'm especially bewildered by the rainy night scene. Why on Earth did he suddenly shoot a night scene with flood lights when the rest of the film was so beautifully lit? Did the D.P. suddenly quit?

And even though the photography is mostly nice, the camera setups don't help the film progress. It seems like the film is shot very inconsistently. Or maybe this is just another edit blunder? I don't know. Either they didn't shoot good enough material, or the editor just didn't bother to show the good stuff. Bye the way, there are also some blatant scripting faults hampering the photography with camera shadows popping up here and there. These aren't funny mistakes. They're just plain annoying.

Hey, is that it? Didn't the film receive enough funding? Maybe they ran out of film, and simply couldn't afford retakes when they were sorely needed. Or maybe the director simply didn't bother looking trough the dailies. Ah, there are so many possibilities...

Kung-Fu fighting

It was easy enough to see that the fighting had close ties to the Kung-Fu classics. I actually rather enjoyed that, but also here better editing, and maybe also more concise photography, would have helped. It just doesn't help to have a lot of fast fighting in a film, if all the nice little details of the fight are lost. I'm sure this Xin-Xin-guy is an extremely good choreographer, but it just doesn't help if the director or DP can't shoot it right.

Even so, the ladder fight was particularly cool, but sometimes I wondered if D'Artagnan wasn't more of a circus artist than a real musketeer in this film. Also, the many fast blows just didn't seem very plausible given the way real musketeers fight. Swords are actually quite heavy, but it looked more like they were all fighting with bamboo sticks. Another thing I think would have added a bit of tension in the film is the fact that it took time to reload the guns back then - a lot of time, in fact. So a musketeer shooting his gun like some revolver – well, that's just plain laughable. So, my word of advice regarding film fights: Don't overdo it! Especially when it's supposed to spice up an old European story like this. Europeans simply didn't know Kung-Fu fighting until the late seventies – when the first Kung-Fu films got there. I'm not saying that it can't work. Just that it got a little out of hand in this film.

Verdict

As a purely educational piece, this film is quite worth watching. It is a very good example of how bad a film can turn out, despite good actors and material. It actually made me so sad that I almost wanted to cry. Such a waste...

One word summary: Wow! Why? Well, first I thought this was going to be a shameless copy of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The really strange thing is that it in some ways is, but that doesn't make the film bad. Hero makes use of some of the same scenery, it has a very melodramatic story, the music is very similar, and not least they have flying sword fights, but here is where similarity largely ends. Take acting, for example. It is much more "iconic" in style. It looks more like an ongoing choreography than real acting, but that doesn't hurt the film. In fact it only supports the very symbolic use of color and the fact that the film is about one of the greatest legends in Chinese history. Yes, Hero uses many of the same techniques as in "CTHD," but goes way beyond in the use of symbolism - and it works. It has a much more thoughtful use of style, and unlike "CTHD" it seems to try to differentiate between "reality" and "fantasy" inside the premise of the genre. The only thing I really have against such a heavy use of stylistic tools is that it where "CTHD" gets warmer, Hero gets more stylish - or cold, if you will. So, in conclusion, Hero is definitively a film worth a second or third look, but sadly, because of its many similarities, will never really get away from the shadow of its forerunner, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which bye the way is itself a pure remake).

When I first saw The Sixth Sense (Shyamalan 1999) I was in awe. "You've got to add a few twists and turns," I think the little kid Cole (Haley Joel Osment) said. Well, sadly that's what's lacking in Signs. It begins very well, though. All in all it's extremely exiting, funny and not to mention down right scary. There's some good acting too. That man does magic with kids. So, there is no doubt that Mr. Shyamalan has gotten much better at calculating story effect and to execute it on the screen. In that respect it is a powerfully entertaining film. In fact it's so well done, technically speaking, that it almost makes up for the extremely closed up Hollywood-happy-ending. I suppose it isn't a spoiler to reveal that yes, it has a happy ending. There's nothing wrong in that either! The Sixth Sense had a happy ending as well, but the big difference is that Sixth Sense wasn't a cliché. Or maybe, after seeing that already classic film, and the lesser but still very good Unbreakable; is it that I just have too high expectations? In Signs he doesn't once dare to challenge the audience (other than scaring us a little of course, but that's expected of a thriller), and he takes that to the bitter end. Well, this is OK as long as you're just trying to entertain. But I don't think that's all Shyamalan is doing. He's throwing in a huge chunk of morale as well. He is trying to teach, which isn't a bad idea if you've got something new and important to tell. This however, wasn't terribly important, and not really new. So stop insulting my intelligence! Next time I want the same amount of superb technique and thrill, but please; get rid of the blatantly cute moralistic clichés.

I wonder... What do the people who laud this film really know about the Internet?

Still I have to say that it CAN happen to you. Only problem is that the Social Security people don't have their data available to the general public, i.e. on the Internet - or if they do, it's not deletable, (read-only), and, believe me, they have a backup safely stored away - not reachable from the Internet (something else would be down right stupid). There would have to be a physical break in (like the people who tried to break into the Watergate building - only they were caught, and [correct me if I'm wrong] it wasn't even a Federal building), if such a thing was to happen.

Then there is your files at the IRS... Do you have a criminal past? If so, the Police have files on you - possibly even stored as PAPER COPIES. Have you ever gone to the dentist? They don't normally keep the X-ray pictures of your bad teeth stored digitally. In short, the data about your person is spread out over a wide area, so just DELETING you isn't that easy.

Yes, cell phones can be "triangulated", even tapped. Again, there would have to be a PHYSICAL break in. It isn't enough for a geek to find a wire dug into the ground. To achieve such an absolute control of a human being - or at least over the data on a human being, would require such a level of conspiracy and down right corruption that the whole country would probably be in danger of a coup d'etat (what I'm implying is that the country would have to be on the verge of civil war).

As for the film; it's entertaining enough, and if your willing to let go of the Realities of Life (and the Internet) it's down right scary (besides Bullock is really cute). But it isn't anything more than pure entertainment. The philosophy behind it is too weak for that. Besides the film rides on a wave of technophobia, so it's basically a just a cheap sell out on the fears of the novice or non-Internet user.

For something really scary - and a much better kick at the dangers of a controlled society, read "1984" or "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, or "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. These books at least doesn't try to hide the fact that they're Science Fiction. If you want to see a better film about the phenomenon, see Hackers. The Matrix is the sci-fi part, and a classic, and for pure Net-action see Swordfish.

Nobody had warned me about the film Harrison's Flowers by Elie Chouraqui. It makes me wonder why such trash as Behind Enemy Lines was ever made -- why it mocks the deaths of thousands in the name of entertainment. Yes, Harrison's Flowers gives you the unimaginable hell of modern day civil war right in your face, and minors should stay well away from it, but what the f*** is war anyway? If any one film deserved to come to a screening where I live, it would be Harrison's Flowers, but instead I got to see big buck, sweet ass, easy morals Behind Enemy Lines on the big screen - and to tell you the truth, that just plain sucks! I had to se Harrison's Flowers on DVD, witch isn't half bad, but the 2.35:1 ratio doesn't quite come to it's right on a small TV set.

First of all Harrison's Flowers is a remarkably well told story about photo journalism, all though I doubt it really is as violent an occupation as depicted in this film (although people like Frank Capra prove otherwise). Second, the film paints the violence of the Yugoslav conflicts in a way I find similar to the insane portrayal of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now (although without Lt. Col. Kilgore), and that's pretty good. What can I say? If you plan to see Behind Enemy Lines, don't bother. Rent Harrison's Flowers instead!

I'd just like to say that this film was as great fun to make as it is to watch. I'm proud of it - specially since it is the first film we've ever made.

Still though, it might not be everybody's cup of tea. It takes to the air with exploding fart humor and jokes that might be offensive to some. But for the person bored with up-tight middle class entertainment, this film is surely a pearl. I dare say it has a certain intimacy that professionally made films don't have. Still it isn't really visible that the whole film is mostly improvised with only a main idea to act out each scene. If only the Academy had a First Film Ever category...