hstilling
A rejoint le oct. 2004
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges3
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Évaluations1,2 k
Note de hstilling
Avis3
Note de hstilling
Some movies makes you ask the question "Why was this movie ever made?" even as you know the answer already.
'2010' is one of those movies. It's obvious that Kubricks masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' was going to have a sequel, to milk the last money out of the concept. So Arthur C. Clarke wrote a follow-up on his original book that was the foundation for the first movie.
'2001' was not an action movie or a drama. It was something rare, as a sci-fi thriller. What made that movie so special was not any alien monsters, laser-weapons or explosions in space. Instead it was a visual masterpiece in both the set and decor, and of course the magnificent scenes with spacecrafts slowly maneuvering in space. Almost like a space ballet.
And it was a thriller. The fear of the unknown and the mystery of the alien monolith, combined with the malfunctioning AI, was more effective than any monsters and beasts. '2001' didn't need a sequel. It was perfect as it provided more questions than answers, giving the viewer a lot to think about after the end-credits.
'2010' tries to answer all these questions, and that is a shame. It is as if Da Vinci had painted another painting, explaining why Mona Lisa is smiling. The end of the original masterpiece.
'2010' is nothing close to a masterpiece. It's no thriller as it is not scary and the suspense is down to a minimum. It's not an action movie, nor is it a drama. The characters are way too shallow and especially John Lithgow is embarrassing himself.
So, should you watch this movie? It depends on your alternatives. It is still less entertaining to sit and stare at a wall, and worse movies have been made. But I can't help the feeling, that this movie is an insult to fans of '2001', and if you regard yourself as such, don't let '2010' destroy that for you.
'2010' is one of those movies. It's obvious that Kubricks masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' was going to have a sequel, to milk the last money out of the concept. So Arthur C. Clarke wrote a follow-up on his original book that was the foundation for the first movie.
'2001' was not an action movie or a drama. It was something rare, as a sci-fi thriller. What made that movie so special was not any alien monsters, laser-weapons or explosions in space. Instead it was a visual masterpiece in both the set and decor, and of course the magnificent scenes with spacecrafts slowly maneuvering in space. Almost like a space ballet.
And it was a thriller. The fear of the unknown and the mystery of the alien monolith, combined with the malfunctioning AI, was more effective than any monsters and beasts. '2001' didn't need a sequel. It was perfect as it provided more questions than answers, giving the viewer a lot to think about after the end-credits.
'2010' tries to answer all these questions, and that is a shame. It is as if Da Vinci had painted another painting, explaining why Mona Lisa is smiling. The end of the original masterpiece.
'2010' is nothing close to a masterpiece. It's no thriller as it is not scary and the suspense is down to a minimum. It's not an action movie, nor is it a drama. The characters are way too shallow and especially John Lithgow is embarrassing himself.
So, should you watch this movie? It depends on your alternatives. It is still less entertaining to sit and stare at a wall, and worse movies have been made. But I can't help the feeling, that this movie is an insult to fans of '2001', and if you regard yourself as such, don't let '2010' destroy that for you.
A bunch of strangers are of some reason caught in a room that turns out to be just one room in a giant cube. Filled with traps it seems to be very tricky to get out alive.
This could be very interesting. How does people respond to be captured like this? How does the relations between the captured evolve? And are people ready to kill to save themselves? Fortunately at least two movies have been able to give thrilling and horrifying answers to these questions. Unfortunately 'Cube' is not one of them.
'Cube' is an awful movie, totally ruined by the actors totally lack of talent. Maurice Dean Wint as Quentin, is the worst of them, he doesn't deliver one single line with persuading acting.
Unless you suffer from extreme claustrophobia you probably wont find this movie scary at all. There's a few good effects, which earns this movie a few points on the 10 scale. The idea behind it is good and this movie could have been interesting - with better directing and acting.
This could be very interesting. How does people respond to be captured like this? How does the relations between the captured evolve? And are people ready to kill to save themselves? Fortunately at least two movies have been able to give thrilling and horrifying answers to these questions. Unfortunately 'Cube' is not one of them.
'Cube' is an awful movie, totally ruined by the actors totally lack of talent. Maurice Dean Wint as Quentin, is the worst of them, he doesn't deliver one single line with persuading acting.
Unless you suffer from extreme claustrophobia you probably wont find this movie scary at all. There's a few good effects, which earns this movie a few points on the 10 scale. The idea behind it is good and this movie could have been interesting - with better directing and acting.
Enough has been said about the Dogme rules, and the many movies that have been made with the certificate. No matter if you like the concept or not, Dogme will always ad a great amount of realism into a movie. And in "Elsker Dig Forevigt"/"Open Heart" the realism is very strong. Probably stronger in any of the other Dogme-films I have seen.
Even more realistic the movie gets from the acting, which is outstanding. I found Mads Mikkelsen a bit under-achieving in the beginning, but as the drama gets more intense so does Mikkelsen. He is Niels, the soft, modern, Danish family-man, who is as good with the kids as he is with his job. Other of Mikkelsen's parts has been very far from that, not least playing Tonny in Refn's "Pusher" and "Pusher II".
The wife of Niels, Marie, is well performed by Paprika Steen. Danish movies have had a reputation (in Denmark) that they are all dull, everyday-dramas with Paprika Steen in a leading role. "Elsker Dig..." has probably played a part in creating this reputation. It's not really fair, firstly because Danish movies are a lot more than that and secondly because Steen is really good. In "Elsker Dig " she shows great dept in her acting, and in one of the best scenes in the movie Marie's 'house-wife-facade' breaks down, showing that Marie is a lot stronger than what you could have expected. It's a difficult scene, but Steen carries it out very well.
As the third corner stone of the triangle Sonja Richter is the young woman Cæcilie who's boyfriend Joachim (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) is severely injured, when he gets run down by Marie, driving a bit too fast. The performances by Richter and Kaas are as spotless as they are outstanding.
I have to comment on the children in this movie. It rarely works really well, because children aren't actors. But the teenage daughter of Niels and Marie, Stine (Stine Bjerregaard), has a lot to offer. She too has a big scene, again it works, and it's brilliant. The younger brothers, Gustav and Emil, works very good too. These kids aren't 'acting' they are 'living' their parts. Stop casting wonder-kids, and look this way!
This thing is normally not my thing. But still I rated this movie high because it is a good movie. I generally like realism in movies (which I guess this review unveils) and that is 100% here.
Even more realistic the movie gets from the acting, which is outstanding. I found Mads Mikkelsen a bit under-achieving in the beginning, but as the drama gets more intense so does Mikkelsen. He is Niels, the soft, modern, Danish family-man, who is as good with the kids as he is with his job. Other of Mikkelsen's parts has been very far from that, not least playing Tonny in Refn's "Pusher" and "Pusher II".
The wife of Niels, Marie, is well performed by Paprika Steen. Danish movies have had a reputation (in Denmark) that they are all dull, everyday-dramas with Paprika Steen in a leading role. "Elsker Dig..." has probably played a part in creating this reputation. It's not really fair, firstly because Danish movies are a lot more than that and secondly because Steen is really good. In "Elsker Dig " she shows great dept in her acting, and in one of the best scenes in the movie Marie's 'house-wife-facade' breaks down, showing that Marie is a lot stronger than what you could have expected. It's a difficult scene, but Steen carries it out very well.
As the third corner stone of the triangle Sonja Richter is the young woman Cæcilie who's boyfriend Joachim (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) is severely injured, when he gets run down by Marie, driving a bit too fast. The performances by Richter and Kaas are as spotless as they are outstanding.
I have to comment on the children in this movie. It rarely works really well, because children aren't actors. But the teenage daughter of Niels and Marie, Stine (Stine Bjerregaard), has a lot to offer. She too has a big scene, again it works, and it's brilliant. The younger brothers, Gustav and Emil, works very good too. These kids aren't 'acting' they are 'living' their parts. Stop casting wonder-kids, and look this way!
This thing is normally not my thing. But still I rated this movie high because it is a good movie. I generally like realism in movies (which I guess this review unveils) and that is 100% here.