gilknut Reviews

Thunder Road (2018)

Warning: NOT a comedy in any way or form.

[21 October 2018]

...and I'm not saying that just because it's not funny. Obviously that's a matter of perspective. The thing is, most of the time it really doesn't even try to be funny. I don't know if they categorized it as a comedy first in the hopes it would make it seem more appealing, but I watched it hoping to laugh, not to get treated to a bleak, slow-moving, depressing and almost documentary-feeling portrait of an unbalanced loser battling grief and an endless cascade of major and minor misfortunes. Some people (including a lot of critics) seem to have found it moving and inspiring, I did not. Perhaps I'd have viewed it differently if it wasn't marketed as a comedy. But it is, and as such it fails in absolutely all respects.

War Dogs (2016)

It needed a few strippers, minimum.

[8 November 2016]

Yeah, that sounds pretty shallow -- but it's really quite an unsexy movie, both literally and figuratively.

Some people deny the similarities both in intent and execution, but it really is impossible not to draw lines between this and "Wolf of Wall Street" (2013). But where the latter is entertaining as heck, "War Dogs" is surprisingly boring and low key. "WoWS" serves up both bigger money, absurd trips on much harder drugs, and a truckload of absurdly attractive and for a large part naked women.

War Dogs -- there's basically one woman in the entire movie, and barely any bit parts and extras to speak of. And this character, while played by a beautiful actress, is a whiny, pregnant, self-centered hypocrite (basically your typical modern Western woman).

Oh, and there's actual comedy in "WoWS". This movie has almost none, and while that could be marketing's fault (the trailer promises an entirely different movie), at the end of the day it's just not very entertaining. It might be that the director's intention was simply to tell this "true story" and convey the questionable politics that made it possible, but in that case they should've made a documentary, IMO.

I don't think it's a bad movie, really -- just very, very forgettable compared to what you might expect from a cast like this.

Teen Lust (2014)

Funny premise, god-awful movie

[17 September 2015]

The basic idea of the movie is funny, sure, but that's about it.

Also: It's not nearly as raunchy as one might think; no nudity whatsoever, no really explicit scenes at all except for a lot of sexual references in the dialogue.

Extremely low production values are painfully evident throughout, and it's hard to say if the jokes could have worked with some remotely decent actors. Apart from Cary Elwes, Kristin Bauer van Straten (Pam from "True Blood") and (possibly) Jon Dore, chances are you won't be familiar with any of the other cast members. And you won't be wondering why...

Really, an absolute waste of time. Move on.

The Third Wave (2003)

Painfully outdated conspiracy theories

[16 August 2015]

It's important to note, when looking at the reviews and comments on this movie, that nearly all of them were written more than a decade ago. At the time, news media and the entertainment industry were just waking up to the new crime waves from Eastern Europe, and speculations and predictions were wildly out of proportion. This movie is a good example of that, and while it probably seemed somewhat realistic at the time, watching it for the first time 12 years later means almost two hours of facepalming.

Another funny thing is that of this first trilogy of Johan Falk movies, only the first one holds up today. "Noll tolerans" was a tight, domestic thriller, and while suffering from some genre clichés, it could very nearly have been produced today. The next two, "Livvakterna" and this one, simply come across as sensationalist speculations run amok. Wildly inaccurate numbers and absurd conjecture are painfully present throughout. Yes, financial organized crime was and is of course a large and real international problem, but neither the European governments or society as we know it fell, as this movie would have us believe. If you're just getting into the Johan Falk movies, I'd recommend you watch the first one and then move on to the 2009 installments. This initial trilogy is in many ways a set of relatively well made thrillers, but their wildly distorted look at contemporary events come across as mostly embarrassing today.

The Numbers Station (2013)

Starts off slow, but gets a lot better

[14 April 2013]

About 15 - 20 minutes in, I was very close to giving up on this. I'm glad I didn't. It's no masterpiece, but what you'll get is a very authentic, at times claustrophobic and thoroughly convincing thriller.

This is a *british* production, and it shows. There are very few Hollywood stereotypes here, just a believable story that avoids most of the action blockbuster clichés and that actually manages to keep you on the edge of your seat as soon as the "situation" starts. There's an obvious reason why it seems a bit slow in the beginning, and the impact is all the more effective when it hits.

I was slightly worried that Cusack might be miscast in this (that happens frequently with him, I find), but he's actually quite convincing as the suddenly conscience-ridden sociopath assassin he plays.

All in all I'm pretty sure this will be both too low-key and a bit slow in the build-up for younger audiences, but it's certainly one of the more intense thrillers I've seen in a while. Mostly, I realize now, because they manage through a thorough build-up, an authentic frame and good acting to actually make me care about what happens to the lead characters. And that's increasingly rare in movies these days, I think.

The Big Year (2011)

Nice movie, in a very confusing package

[19 January 2012]

I think "The Big Year" failed mostly because of its leads, not in spite of them. That doesn't mean they do a poor job at all, on the contrary, but it's really a very confusing production when it comes to marketing and expectations.

It's not a bad movie at all, it's sort of cute in a low-key and philosophical kind of way, but it's not really a pure-bred comedy and you probably won't do much more than chuckle here and there. That's where the confusion sets in, because you have three very high profile leads that are first and foremost famous for being comedians. And when the premise is as obviously boring (to most people) as bird-watching, you sort of expect it to be, ironically, hilarious. How would they ever dare make a movie with something like this a main theme otherwise, right? Unless it's actually the opposite of what you think when bird-watching is mentioned? I think that's what most people expect, and it's not at all what they get. It doesn't really help that the opening title card (as many others have pointed out) is the funniest moment in the movie, stating: "This is a true story. Only the facts have been changed". This sets the tone for exactly the kind of movie you were expecting, but not at all for the actual movie that follows. For me it took most of the movie to really get on board with what they were doing here, and I have to say I nearly gave up halfway through. I think this movie would do better being marketed differently and with less famous comedy actors in the lead roles, even though they're doing a good job as it is. It really is a nice little movie, just not a very funny comedy.

Suburban Secrets (2004)

Defies belief

[29 October 2009]

It's always great comedy when crew members are the only ones voting and writing comments for a film. But if you, like me, can't believe the high IMDb-rating at this point (6.2 after 43 votes) -- don't worry. As more people (poor bastards) make the mistake of watching this, it'll sort itself out. There's really not much to say about this that the term "homemade disaster" can't describe on it's own. And I do mean disaster, the acting is such that I've never seen anything like it even for this genre. Come to think of it, I've honestly seen better in several hardcore flicks, and by the time the first scene is halfway through, you'll understand that I'm in no way exaggerating. I don't know the budget of this production, but we're probably talking about 4 figures -- the whole look and feel of it in the way of props, lighting and camera work is way, way below the standard even for soft core movies in general. A few gorgeous girls among the cast help (for instance A.J. Khan, who somehow also delivers one of the best performances), but sadly they're a severe minority. You really, really don't wish this movie upon yourself.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

The twist is: there aren't any

[1 October 2009]

Let me first say, I haven't seen the original from 1974. But when it comes to this version: It's not a bad movie, per se. It's just that you expect so much more. When both director Tony Scott and actors like Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro and James Gandolfini are involved, you expect the script to have an intelligent plot with some surprises along the way. I read several places before watching it that it would have "plot twists". I'm afraid there aren't any. Anyone with half a brain will suspect early on that 10 million dollars is way too low a sum to ask for in this context, and on cue, not that far into the movie, we of course discover he's aiming to get the "real" money from somewhere else.

I kept watching half in disbelief, and I gotta say I was pretty disappointed when the end credits started. It's just a very straight-forward, 13-a-dozen action thriller with very little actual suspense. The whole premise seems to rest on us being worried for the hostages. But at no point do we get to know any of them even remotely well enough to care much. (I'm not saying I wouldn't care if 18 people I don't know are killed, but let's be honest, in a movie like this it doesn't really raise your heartbeat).

It's not an awful movie in any way, it's just shockingly plain and devoid of plot for a movie this big and with names that huge both sides of the camera.

The Compass (2009)

Cheesy

[14 September 2009]

A pathetic attempt to cash in on the already quasi-cheesy phenomenon that is "The Secret". Yes, some of the ground principles are certainly good, but even if you believe in the Law of Attraction -- as originally described by Abraham-Hicks (who interestingly enough pulled out of "The Secret" after seeing the results) -- this film does not seem very convincing. I don't know about you, but I thought quite a few of the people who were interviewed in "The Secret" came across as less than reliable and just plain cheesy. They're all here as well, and its all bound together by the most tacky, amateurishly filmed "story" you can imagine -- topped with horrible music by a third rate folk singer trying to cram as many clichés as possible into his lifeless tunes. Stay clear, and seek out the source instead. Any original work by Abraham-Hicks will tell you all you need to know, in a much clearer and more sensible way than this drivel.

Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)

Wake up and smell the oil

[26 March 2007]

Sci-Fi series set in a deep space environment have a tendency to be all about high browed aliens with bad plastic make-up and sleek-looking spaceships displaying shiny interior design, clean surfaces and neatly vacuumed wall-to-wall carpet. To me, series like Star Trek and Babylon Five come across as Disneyfied plastic shows -- while they can be entertaining, they're never ever believable. Not so with Battlestar Galactica. This is a series where you can smell the oil dripping off the battered remains of the fleet, where you'll believe in the characters and most importantly, where you'll *care* what happens to them. This isn't simply a soap opera set in space, it's a series as fascinating and innovative in the fields of story, script, dialogue and character portrayal as it is in special effects and story driven action. If you don't like Battlestar Galactica, I'd say there's a good chance you don't like moving pictures.