The creators of the first animation film about Knutsen&Ludvigsen has fallen for the temptation of remaking them into a half way copy of Toy Story mixed with some confusing kind of Grimmish fairytale, but sadly this way they lose too much of the essense from the original figures. Although the main characters are based on Gustav Lorentzen's fabulous drawings it's very easy to see the inspiration from Pixar. However some of the other characters are less credible and not fully developed. Still, the digital animation quality is basically good, but even if the main characters have kept their dialect and much of their original naive sillyness, much of the strange and childishly absurd humor gets lost in translation and feels a bit too strained as the story develops.
Of the two main charcters Knutsen's voice actor succeeds better than the actor behind Ludvigsen, which perhaps spoils some of the balance between the two tunnel residents. And why doesn't the badger speak the same dialect? The casting and development of the badgers voice is probably the least lucky. Stylistically the animation also lacks a bit of roughness and edge, and together with the musical production it's just too slick and lacks "hair". Somehow the nemisis character Rasputin seems like a compulsive invention who might have been fun early in the writing prosess, but he doesn't fit well into the universe, and he is basically annoying, lacking intention. This sadly also happens to some of the brilliant songs from Dolmen&Lorentzen, as they struggle to fit in to the plot, or vice versa.
The film's funniest scene appears when we leave their tunnel home, with a simple gag that not even the original creators did think of. Apart from that, it's not as hilarious as it could have been.
This is the best British crime series I have seen since I really can't recall.
The plot is genius, the writers have simply done a perfect job, the camera work is brilliant, and it all just oozes of a director, cast and crew having a hell of a time. The main actors are basically fantastic, with main character actor Nabhaan Rizwan making a highly believable portray of a young English Pakistani, who develops from an ordinary youngster into a very life experienced man. Rizwan is utterly outstanding with his interpretation and must have made quite a breakthrough with this role. The only reasons for not giving top score to this production are sadly and only a few some less credible acting performances.
After seeing the old animation style films fail to meet my expectations, and the live human actor versions even more so, the digital animated version of Asterix is far more amusing than the filmatic precursors. This may of course have much to do with the genius of the original cartoon series, which is damn hard to recreate anyhow.
There's no doubt that the Pixar style has been not only an inspiration but a basis for the creative idea building, but since it has been kept in an allegiance to the originality of the creators, Uderzo and Goscinny, the result is very pleasing.
I have been watching the Norwegian version and was afraid that the voice jobs once again were delivered by the same old actors that have made so many Disney animation films unnecessary dull. Sadly some of them are still present, but the basic reason for not giving another star or two is the lack of creativity when it comes to use of different dialects to substantiate the characters. In this fashion originals are traditionally far better than many Norwegian versions. They could definitely have been a lot more creative also in this Asterix film, like by giving the Gauls a different and more provincial dialect, which again would make more distance to the Romans. There were some sociolectic differences and they had basically found the right voices to the characters, but in my opinion this could have been brought a lot further. So let's just say - not too bad from Mæle, Hatlo&co.
However, in addition to superb animation the perhaps most pleasing aspect is the choice of music from the creators. When the romans are flying senselessly high in slow motion accompanied by a Vienna Waltz, the combination is simply hilarious and it reflects true humoristic creativity.
Thanks for bringing a genuine American into a British crime series. It seems like an egg of Columbus just waiting to happen, and it creates a thrilling frame to what could have been just another ordinary dull and average crime plot. Sadly there are way too many of just those, but this is simply redeemingly different, perhaps basically due to what the aspect of cultural clash brings to the show.
For some reason the frantic realists scream for more realism, but they can't or won't see that it's exactly what they get. Maybe the dialogue is too corny for them, or they don't like crime series having a bit of intelligent humor.
To me the characters seem very real and I like the edgy dialogue. Can't see their behaviour and relations other than believable. The acting is actually quite brilliant and there's not even the slightest touch of over acting, thank heavens. That would of course have destroyed the whole picture, which it so often does.
I am well into episode 3 and looking forward to the rest.
John Wayne all over the screen but nothing really much happening. Take away the music score from this and there's not much left. It's not funny, everything is very overacted, staticly arranged and non realistic.
I'm one who was used to NRK (Norwegian BBC.) having basically quality on the schedule. Sadly, in recent years the state channel has spent too much energy on trying to compete with the major streaming channels, but with a very mixed and disappointing result. Seems like not only viewers are consuming series like cheap candy nowadays, but an endless row of production companies are producing them in the same manner. Series is the big thing. Dead Lucky is another poor result of this and why NRK chose to send it, other than to fill in enough series of mixed genres, is hard to see. Like so many, this could have been quite good, if it had not been for bad directing, a shallow plot, non credible characters, resulting in more less credible acting. I'm not really blaming the actors, but not even the best and most experienced in this crew could save the day. It's painful to see how hard they try but how easy it is to see that they just don't believe in it.
An international political thriller with environmental issues and dirty oil business as a frame could be fascinating and exciting, and the Swedes normally don't dissappoint when it comes to the genre. However, Thin Ice slowly developes into a thin soup with too many threads and to little substance. This is partly due to bad directing and mistaken casting which again is resulting in achievements that are below par for several actors, a plot becoming less and less credible throughout the episodes, dialogue sometimes crossing into laughable, and editing occasionally painful to watch. Too bad then that some actors try hard to raise the level, in particular those from Greenland. The best acting is done by a kid.
The presentation and building up of the plot and characters is indeed promising. Sadly it fades out into solutions that both are too obvious as they also try to keep up a complexity where the aspects revealed become exaggerated. Still, the play is kept in a mellow mood in an effort to maintain realism, and many characters are credible, though the plot developes away from credibility, and rather far into a slow emotional drama. This way much of the thriller feeling is lost. Several actors do a brilliant job, some of the extras not, and it's always gratifying to experience a well-balanced soundtrack.
Uncreative plot and dialogue, all over bad acting with exceptions, unreal action scenes, bad editing, and the sound in particular, with both the dubbing and the music bsically cut to pieces as well as overloads of compressing. Photography is probably the best part, though the indoor scenes are spoiled by bad lighting. What ever you need to make a useless spaghetti action movie.
Hollywood cliché and overrated acting, but still entertaining.
As several viewers already have pointed out, Kevin Costner is not a great actor. He's doing all right, had the perfect looks for his time, and in Dances With Wolves he reached his peak, also as a director and producer. Even more overrated when it comes to acting and credibilty is his female opponent Mary McDonnell. Not only is she basically overacting but her appearance makes it even less credible. Why does her hairstyle have to be absolutely 1990, also even hooker-just got out of bed-and dragged thru the dirt-style? Her character is supposed to have lived with Lakotas for some two decades, and she still hasn't been told to comb and groom her hair like all the other women in the band, not even when she's getting married. It's just silly and does not go well along with the otherwise well studied original clothing and effects among the Lakota characters. This is a big turn down about the film as a total.
The plot is very much a Hollywood cliché, with good fighting evil, and as always the Pawnees are the bad indians. What was genuin and new in 1990, at least in such a big production, was that the audience got quite a good Insight into native culture and even more important, that they spoke their own language. Most of all it's the same old love story, with Euro-American hero saves and falls for captured Euro-American heroine. Nothing New, but told in an entertaining fashion and with brilliant cinematography.
A romantic western told in retrospective about young love to be lost.
The story isn't much though it's nicely told. If the writing were as good as the pictures and visual telling, the directing, acting, casting, costumes and perhaps above all, the music, this could have been a real pearl.
Not a bad try - not at all, and probably perfect for someone in, or who lost their love.
Just like in all the other historical documentary series with Anne Worsley, there's way too much Lucy Worsley. She's neither funny, a good actor or makes history the least more interesting with appearing in the picture all the time, and most likely also with some horrible new clothing. This is about history, not Lucy Worsley or any of her opinions.
Did I say her name is Lucy Worsley? It is in the title.
This isn't quite as bad as her series about the history of the Romanovs, the Russian Tsar Family, but it still has the one and same basic problem, way too much Lucy Worsley, constantly showing off, either if it's her own terrible sense of acting and humor, or just being in the middle of attention, and probably in some horrible clothing. This is supposed to be a documentary series about British history and NOT Lucy Worsley or any of her opinions.
Many probably like her style and her always getting in the way of the actual message, but so many also don't. So, if you're among the first half, feel free to enjoy yourself, and I mean Lucy Worsley. Yes, her name is Lucy Worsley. It's only annoying.
Like about all the stories coming from Astrid Lindgren's genius, Emil i Lönneberga is written for kids, but seems to captive adults just as much. Watching the series for maybe the tenth time is no less amusing than the first. There are a few main factors, first of all there's Lindgren's amazing abilty to capture her audience with rich storytelling, human knowledge, character creating and folklore environment description beyond anyone and anything - all recreated into film and television series and Swedish drama making at it's very best. Director Olle Hellbom and his co-workers have all done a perfect job, likely in a very enjoyable set atmosphere. The casting is fantastic, with Jan Ohlsson and Allan Edwall as Emil and his dad, both shining, but among a group of actors so carefully and well selected that it simply couldn't have been better. Everything is framed with the brilliant music written by Georg Riedel. The series about Lindgren's world famous girl figure Pippi is absolutely fantastic - but without comparison, the series about Emil is just as good, at least.
Those who give this series bottom rating on the basic of claiming just about everything to historically incorrect may still have something to learn, like about what state many of the recruits rescued from Dunkirk and across the channel were in.
A film free from Hollywood stars and style, still with acting and dialogue beyond much of what is normal, and even though it might seem amateurish, it's really not, but instead this aspect and the close up photography gives the story and picture a feeling of being in a documentary, or even like being there. This film is extremely underrated and those who think it is some low budget piece of junk have seen way too many Hollywood action B-movies to understand what reality is.
This brilliant film deserves quoted a comment from YouTube: -My Father was a crime scene photographer, and I can tell you firsthand that this film is pretty much spot on. Too few make it through a CSI career with their elan vital intact, regardless of their strength of constitution...that said, their families also carry an often unacknowledged burden. The range of pain caused by violent crime is farther reaching than most people realize, as everyone personally touched is a victim.
Kudos for a resourcefully made low-budget picture...a bit rough on the surface, maybe, but I see a glimmer of future promise in the folds. (end quote).
If you don't get the picture, see it again. Enough said.
Taken is dramatically and technically well made, and the plot was historically already written out. Trying to create an interesting and semi-realistic drama series about alien abduction without making a sci-fi parody is quite a challenge, even with Steven Spielberg giving his artistical production guidance in the bottom. Those who expected a creepy monster feeling might be disappointed. The drama is well worked out and some of the acting performances are occasionally brilliant, with child actor Dakota Fanning stunning both viewer and obviously also fellow performers one the one hand, but sadly some poor performances on the other, with an over acting Heather Donahue destroying a generally good impression. Also, there is a lack of balance in the development of the story, with the fundemental idea of not wanting to take it all too far outer space but keeping a down to earth mood throughout, and let the human perspective dominate, ultimately making one feel that there really should be more of the alien element. Moreover, when the series feels too long it might be due to mangeling of the basic perspective written in the title. Finally, when we see the aliens appear, there's a reason to question if the digital animations are made unrealistic on purpose, to make it work on a broad family level, or if the standard on such a production is expected to be this low technically. With nearly a decade since the technical realistic wonder Jurassic Park, it must legal to expect something more both thrilling and stunning from a show with Spielberg written all over it.
Sad to say it's not the first time that a potentially very interesting documentary series is being banalized and basically destroyed by the style of comments from and way too much appearance by a person who may not be the best choice to lead the viewers. Lucy Worsley is such a person. She's a historian, yes, but her basic subjects are royalties, and she also had never even been to Russia, which already makes her credibilty fade considerably. But, even worse, why does she have to be in the middle of the picture absolutely every time we are watching one of the amazing palaces, cathedrals, ships, museums and every other possible historical site, walking across the picture and in the way of the site, and talking about it or the people involved like it were from a soap opera and not from actual important historical events? It quickly becomes annoying, even boring, and this style adds to a number of documentaries and particularly from BBC, where the person leading the program seems to be more important than the subject itself. Too often it makes one forget to listen to what's being said, and not everyone has the narrating qualities of David Attenborough.
What a stroke of luck the western series Bonanza has been, in fact a bonanza in itself. It was created and began running just as television was peaking enormously in the US. Around 1959 more than half of US homes had a TV, and everyone gathered around to see what was one. What better than to create a family show based on true American history, with the right set of fundamental moral standards, and where every story has a happy ending? When also the absolute right set of characters played by the ultimate actors were created and found, and their never seen mother character empathicly had passed away, just so that female guest stars could make a much bigger impact in the episodes - how could it not be a success? It didn't matter that the quality of episode plots always weren't that good, that the jingle was truely poor before one of the most recognized theme tunes of all times came along, that the scenes constantly switched from studio to location filming, resulting in sudden changes of light, sound and actor's positions, that the acting sometimes was characterized by actors who were disappointed with their role, having a bad day, or simply being tired of it all. None of this really mattered, because Bonanza was so much the right thing to the right time, that it just had to be an epical success series, the longest running of them all. Evidently Bonanza is still running on repeat in many countries.
In stead of telling everyone how brilliant, unique, timeless and funny this Jarmusch film- and storytelling stroke of genius is, I feel like giving those who hate it and think it's a boring waste of time a lesson.
You, who rate Down By Law 1 or 2, and even bother to review it, why do you actually try to watch a Jim Jarmusch film? Not funny, or enough violent action for you? There's even a car chase and a scene with police and guns.
I don't think you are intelligent enough to have any idea of what this is about, and you don't have enough psychological dept or sense of understatement humor, if any. Oh, how boring it must be. I neither can or like to imagine how it feels or that you ever liked Tom Waits' music. Someone should have told this isn't for your kind or any other person who fancy shallow action movies and false bodyparts.
You see, this is art - not artificial. Please, stay away and go back to Baywatchland and enjoy yourself there.
Utterly interesting - but destroyed by narcissistic narration.
The story of double cold war agent Kim Philby is most interesting, and luckily there are also other documentaries made than this. It all adds to the choise of presenter and narrator, historian Ben Macintyre, who over eagerly want the viewer to know what a brilliant expert he is on the topic. Sadly Macintyre is close to anti charismatic, both in his appearance in front of the camera and when one only listen to his voice. It's simply annoying and even more so when most of the film is showing him with his stiff gaze into the camera, either drinking, sitting, standing or walking in locations where the famous Philby once went. It's just horrible, and doesn't get saved by occasional well made dramatizations, which is one of few reasons to give more than one star.
Psychological Crime Thriller At the Deepest - 1st season
The Sinner, first season, is not for those who think deep psychology and little action easily becomes boring. Still, the shallow minded type of viewer is the one most in need to see this brilliant series, though everyone would learn something by diving into this series.
It's al about human relations, trust, betrayal and deceive, and most of every imaginable hallway in the labyrinth of being human. And when you think the story really reaches the deep bottom, it goes even deeper and into another layer.
Everything is perfectly woven together and the retrospective story technique is used with full intention. Rarely has the cast been better, with Elisha Hening, Bill Pullman and Carrie Coon doing outstanding parts, not to give and discredit to any other actor.
Finally, it's also good to see a series where the recumé and intro vignette are not lasting for minutes.
Yes, this is a tragedy, some of the saddest historical events ever to take place, so those who seem to miss typical western action have really got it all wrong. But sadly the makers of this film also have got many things wrong or not correct.
First of all, the people which story is being described, are not Sioux but Lakota, Dakota or Nakota. Sioux is a term coming from French Canadian and used by other native peoples, and means enemy. Ohíye S'a; or Charles Eastman, who the film makers chose to tell the story through, unlike in the book, was a Santee Dakota. Thathanka Iyotake or Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Lakota, and Mahpiya Luta or Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota, are presented as a stubborn and arrogant old men, far from leaders they were. These nations consist of so many different groups, but are not ever mentioned or described in the movie, and the massacre at Chankpe Opi Wakpala or Wounded Knee itself is merely a small side event in the tale. Unphan Gleska, or Spotted Elk, also known as Bigfoot, a leader of the Miniconjou Lakota, that were the main victims in the massacre, is presented as nothing more than a frozen corps, just a remake of the perhaps most famous picture from after the massacre. Yes, the through going style of presenting characters in old style photo is a good move, but in this case it bites it's own tale. Also missing, the US cavalry present was the 7th, which also got beaten in the Battle Of The Greasy Grass, also known as Little Big Horn. The bloodbath was the revenge for Custer, also not found worth mentioning.
Yes, it is supposed to be a film drama, and dramas need dramatizing, but when it's based on history and a fantastic book, there's a limit to how far from reality one can move. In this case, it's probably always within good intentions, but so much is missing and presented in a wrong manner, so that it borders on to disrespect, not too unlike the disrespect shown to the proud peoples of the plains back when this history took place. It's a wounded knee but the body is missing.
(Sorry for not writing the names with correct letter types, but the IMDb system doesn't allow it).
Pain, revenge and love - all filled with real dust.
Ever since Il Maestro, Ennio Morricone showed the world how dirty the West could, in films like Onece Upon A Time In the West and The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, I've been a true fan of westerns taking it to the bone. Where the world and the people are real, don't come out from fully studio lighted saloons, only to shoot each other in unrealistic standouts, and never meet Indians wearing silly headbands. My favorite in this manner is the masterpiece series Hell On Wheels.
Godless has all the right ingredients , though it doesn't quite manage to overwhelm us with a world to absolutely believe in, at least not me. Some of the plot and the characters are too over done for that. The story is very well put together and we get tangled into it piece by piece. Particularly the retrospective small stories where we get to know how the present story got created appeal to me. And mostly all the characters are to believe in and the universe is realistic, but then, there are aspects that quite don't rhyme with the rest. Still, it's a pleasure just to study Jeff Daniels doing for me the role interpretation of his life. I knew he is a brilliant and versatile actor, but this is perfect.
Let go that there is one too many parallel stories going on, perhaps to fill time, that the Norwegians doing a small visit in an episode don't really speak Norwegian, and that some of the action is somewhat unreal - Godless is a well made western series, with pain, revenge and love - and all filled with real dust.
After a relatively promising start it all goes down the drain. If the intention is to turn a crime thriller into a mediocre soap opera, this is perhaps a success. The characters are so shallow, and the scenes are continuously constructed just like in an old American or Brazilian assembly line series, in particular in the business meeting scenes. The only thing mangling would be someone lurking behind some plant, listening to a secret conversation.
One episode was more than enough. Anna Friel tries her best and is the only on who some how saves the show. It's annoying to see her waste her talent on this. Her agent must be able to find better deals.