Board Reviews

Vishwaroopam (2013)

Total B movie

[3/10 · 14 September 2023]

Granted, I'm not a big fan of Bollywood movies. I'm not particularly fond of how song and dance has to be inserted every half hour in serious movies, but I have nevertheless enjoyed some Bollywood movies, but this was not one of them.

I find that a lot of Bollywood movies have overacting, and this was quite possibly the worst case I've seen. On top of this, the plot here was just lame - a completely standard action movie. When you add bad acting to that it quickly became boring. Even if they had cut an hour off this movie it would still have been a poor movie.

People have different preferences, and that's perfectly okay, but I honestly don't understand why this movie is heralded as such a great movie.

"Ratsasan" is probably the best Indian movie I've seen, "Vikram Vedha" (the 2017 version) is probably number 2, and it's a somewhat similar type of movie as "Vishwaroopam". "Andhadhun", which is somewhat different, was also pretty good. "Scam 1992" was also a good Indian mini-series.

It's not that I only like Hollywood movies - not at all. I quite like Korean cinema as well, for example, and I don't think I've ever seen a Korean film that was as bad as "Vishwaroopam".

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Not really better than the first three

[6/10 · 8 April 2023]

At the time of writing, 8th of April 2023, "John Wick 4" has an average score of 8.3 on Imdb and is #155 on their top 250.

When me and two others decided to go to the cinema to watch it, it was 8.4 and #130, so it has slumped a bit, and deservedly so I would say.

When we came out of the cinema my friend, who's a bigger fan of the series than I am, said, bewildered, that he didn't understand why this movie was supposed to be so much better than the first three.

That's how I felt as well. It was the same basic plot line as the first three: Without giving away more than just the very beginning of number 4, number 3 ends with John Wick going on the run. Then number 4 starts with John Wick killing The Elder in Morocco.

Then, surprise, surprise, the high table wants him dead yet again - just like in the earlier movies. Then a lot of fighting ensues - just like in the earlier movies. Then John Wick defeats them all without even getting wounded - just like in the earlier movies.

"Chapter 4" is pretty much just like the other movies: A very basic plot line and a lot of fighting. They've already made three movies like that, so why do we need another? I found "Chapter 3" to be the weakest in the series. It was overly long and just a lot of boring, long fights without much plot. At least "Chapter 4" is slightly better than "Chapter 3", but not by much. Granted, "Chapter 4" might be the best film in the series, but number 1 and 2 are pretty much just as good. I did also feel that "Chapter 4" didn't feel as long or drawn out as "Chapter 3", despite actually being longer, so I have to give them credit for that.

Nevertheless, the film was all in all pretty much a throwaway, unless you think watching three hours of fight scenes is the epitome of cinema.

One particular aspect needs special mention though, which is Keanu Reeves' acting: I haven't watched many of his films, which hasn't been a conscious choice, but he's sometimes mentioned as one of those somewhat typical Hollywood cases: Good-looking person who can't act.

"Chapter 4" is quite possibly the worst acting I've seen from him. Keanu didn't say much in this movie, and almost every time he did, I almost started laughing, as his lines were just delivered in a ridiculously poor manner, especially if he was in a gruelling situation.

Ian McShane and Laurence Fishburne were great, as always, but Keanu Reeves was terrible. Luckily, he mostly fought and walked rather than talked.

The Great Night (2013)

Slow, boring and depressing

[3/10 · 12 April 2014]

I watched this film at CPH: Dox, The Copenhagen Documentary Film Festival. Here's an excerpt from the presentation in the programme:

"A restless trip amongst stoned and lost souls in a film which has exclusively been filmed at night – chocking, touching and in your face. "Do not go gently into that good night", Dylan Thomas wrote, and the night birds we meet in this film took the welsh poet on his word. The 55-year-old former boxer Zdenek is the chain smoking epicentre in a carousel of turbulent human fates who flap around on the edges of Prague's nightlife. Junkies, drunks, aging prostitutes and a 19-year-old disco queen who dances with herself in the pulsating neon light. 'The great night' is a film in the dark romantic vein of restless dystopian tales".

So, I expected something like a documentary version of "24 hour party people" – a cool, slick, inspirational, fast-paced joyride through clubs and nightlife. Instead I got 1 hour and 15 minutes of barely any content. It was a documentary about people who had nothing to do, nothing to show, and nothing to say. So, they just sat there and said nothing for a long while. Then they smoked a cigarette or took some drugs. And clubbing? Altogether 5 to 10 minutes of film, tops. I've never been to Eastern Europe, but my impression is that some of the cities are very beautiful, but that it's somewhat sad and depressing to live there. I'm from Denmark where people are somewhat introvert and life is somewhat depressing and boring (especially compared to e.g. Spain or Italy), but it's my impression that in general it's even more like this in Eastern Europe. This film only confirmed this view.

I'm sure some people would find this film a very real and candid look at the human conditions in Prague and find it a very touching film about these sad people, and how empty their lives are. I have no problem with that, and there have been many sad films that I have enjoyed. I just lacked excitement, a story line, proper dialogue and some content. It's not worth spending 1 hour and 15 times on just watching prostitutes on the street waiting for customers that never come, or people smoking cigarettes and asking their friends if they have a lighter. After half an hour I was waiting for it to end. This was slow, boring and depressing.

InRealLife (2013)

Inspired or repulsed

[7/10 · 27 November 2013]

This is most likely a film that will split the audience down the middle: One group will say: "Yes, this is really a problem". The other will say "Prfff! What's the big deal? We're just surfing the web. So what?". Although I surf the web a lot, I mostly belong to group one, and this film is definitely propaganda about how much negative impact the internet has had on the world today – not only on entire countries but also on individuals. In some ways it's a documentary version of those disaster movies that show what will happen if all our electricity was cut off, etc. – except here the question is: "What would happen if we suddenly didn't have access to the internet?". Many people would simply have nothing to do, at least according to this film, as they are online almost all of their waking hours. Read a book? No, I can read maximum one line (so a website designer said in this film). Or maybe they would finally find something to do if suddenly there was no internet.

The film shows teenagers addicted to pornography, people being kicked out of Harvard for being lazy, people who committed suicide after being bullied online, people who have sex with strangers in order to get their phone back so they can go back online, and companies who do research into how they can make people spend more time on their websites. And, of course, most of these people think there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. For the viewers (or at least me) it was quite easy to spot their problem (for instance: "I play Xbox five hours a day. I was kicked out of Harvard for not handing in my assignments. I don't think those two things are related").

It's definitely not a positive film. Although I have seen the destructive effects the internet has had on my life (along with all its positive effects), this is a propagandistic film and as such not a great pleasure to watch no matter how much I might agree with the message. One major reason for this was simply that it was information overload. There were barely any part in the film where there was nobody talking. Fictional films of course have more scenes with action instead of talking than a documentary, but some air in the narrative here would have done some good. But nevertheless, this was a good, well-made and informative film (although I already knew most of the information they presented). The threat they present is definitely very real but not everybody will enjoy facing this threat or enjoy the way it's presented here.

By the way: If you have problems controlling your internet use, the program called iNet Protector is the solution. You can set how much online time you can have each day and when (for instance only 1 hour access between 5 to 7 pm Monday and Saturday), and it's of course protected by a password (which you should have someone else do, as it's otherwise pointless). It has improved my life. There's also another programme called PC Auto Shutdown that can switch off your computer automatically when you want it to.

The Great Beauty (2013)

A film of great beauty

[8/10 · 3 October 2013]

The analogy presented several times in this film is that Proust wanted to write a book about nothing. That is also what the director of this film has done, and what the main character has done with his own life. This is a film about nothing, but of course still about something – the main character Jep. The film is simply just about this character and how he spends his time.

Jep has self-reflection, he's honest, doesn't take things so seriously, and he doesn't try to convince himself that he's something that he's not. Although one of his snobbish, bitter and self-righteous acquaintances annoys him, he doesn't let it bother him too much, and he doesn't say anything about it until she asks him to. He lives a happy, carefree life and is not consumed with worries. Unlike the most of us who "spends the summer making plans for September" as one of the characters say, Jep "looks for the great beauty" by living in the present an enjoying everything beautiful around him – paintings, food, birds, churches, trees, the ocean, etc. He finds joy in this moment and not in the future. It is actually quite inspiring to watch. But there is nevertheless something missing. Life basically has two missions: Accomplish your dream (whether through work or through raising a family) and find companionship (whether with a partner or with friends), and while Jep has certainly enjoyed his time in Rome, he hasn't achieved any of those two goals. Sex with someone new is not something beautiful shared with another person for him, but simply an everyday thing that's part of his lifestyle. I found this to be one of the key themes in the film. Jep tries to find "the great beauty" in life but hasn't found the greatest one of them all: love. He has gone through life partying, shagging, smoking and enjoying, but has never found the woman he loves, nor had any children.

All of these characters are trying to find a place where they belong, but none of them are really successful. Most of them want to be accepted by the right crowd or the right woman, but fails in a hierarchy where you can never reach the top. As the movie progresses, more and more people leave Rome as they haven't found the great beauty of love either. One doesn't even want to bring his furniture but just leaves everything behind. Apparently, he hasn't accomplished or accumulated anything there that he would want to remember. So, it's also a critique of modern day Rome and all its citizens' love of being hip. It's elegantly done, and especially the dialogue is beautiful, poetic and well-written.

Another reference to literature I found was that the main character and some of the other characters remind me of the three main characters in Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (the character in this film who wants to stage a play would be Basil Hallward).

The biggest drawback of this film is its length. A film about nothing that lasts almost two-and-a-half hours is simply too long. Had it been 30 or 45 minutes shorter it would have been a more pleasant view. The film starts out as a beautiful feel-good film, but ends up as a sad tragedy – with some hope though. It's never too late to make a change.

Gran Torino (2008)

Looked promising but alas!

[4/10 · 19 August 2013]

Like most others, I like Clint Eastwood as both an actor and a director (at least from around the year 2000 onwards). "Million dollar baby" and "Changeling" were two quite lovely films to give just two examples of him as a director. "Gran Torino" definitely had its strong points, and I enjoyed the themes of misplaced racism, and how it sucks the joy out of life, the unsolvable problem with gangs, and the need to get your problems off your chest instead of keeping them inside. I also liked the pale colours of this film (just like in Changeling), which was perfect for this bleak environment. But the problem for me with this film was simply that it wasn't very credible.

The main character Walt (Eastwood himself) used a lot of foul language, but as he did so in almost every sentence and so overtly, it simply ended up becoming a caricature. At one point his son and daughter in law came to Walt's birthday and suggested that he moved into a nursing home. The camera then filmed a close-up of Eastwood, whose mouth opened and turned downwards more and more in a fit of rage. It just seemed like something from a comic book. Eastwood is one of the archetypical tough guys, but here he simply seemed like a parody of himself. Later, Eastwood dropped a glass of alcohol as he was shocked. It just fell to the ground all too late for it to seem like a believable reaction and not one done by an actor in a poor film (it will make sense if you watch the scene). This is of course a minor detail, but it honestly seemed to suggest that there hadn't been paid enough attention to the editing and the artistic effects used in creating a story that would seem real rather than just a story. This surprised me a bit, as I didn't notice anything like this in the two other Eastwood film mentioned above.

One of the other actors, Bee Vang playing Thao, was even worse. He simply didn't give a very good performance. Especially when he was locked into the basement, his hammering on the door simply didn't seem real.

Lastly, I didn't find it believable that Walt warmed to the Hmong people because of the reasons shown in the film. It seemed credible that he would help the neighbouring girl when she was in trouble with a gang on the street, but he still a bit too easily went from banning all Hmong people from his property to accepting the neighbouring girl's dinner invitation with her entire family simply because they had beer and because the girl was "alright" as he said. Nevertheless, this was something that I could easily have overlooked if the rest of the film had been better – they are after all trying to tell a story, and there has to be some progress.

With better dialogue, better acting and a slightly better script, this film could have made me feel something real rather than make me cringe – which is what it too often did.

Judging from the average rating here on IMDb most people love this film, but I've also seen several people here on IMDb say exactly the same things as I have done in this review (acting, dialogue, etc.), so it seems to be a film that splits the viewers in two camps. I find that if I don't like an otherwise celebrated film it's simply because I didn't become engaged in the story or the characters. But usually I just find films like that mediocre and I can see why other people might like them, and usually I can see that they are well-made and well-acted. Two examples could be Crash or Magnolia. They simply didn't do anything for me. They were well-made, well-acted, and I understand why people like them. But calling them poor films or even poorly made? Certainly not! It's rare that I find an otherwise celebrated film poor, but Gran Torino seems to be a film that people either find excellent or poor. I'm standing on the edge of saying poor (which is 3/10 for me), but due to it's good points I will give it 4/10.

White Collar (2009–2014)

Good show but has headed into the abyss

[7/10 · 8 June 2013]

Although this review doesn't contain spoilers as such, it does outline small parts of the overall plot as well as some of the character traits.

As you might know, this show is about a conman who escapes from prison, is then caught by the FBI and has to help them solve crimes as part of his plea deal. The main reason to watch this show is the character of Neal Caffrey – and Matt Bomer plays him to perfection. He's cool, handsome, charming, witty, clever, confident, ambitious, and well dressed. But he's still flawed 'cause he has problems settling down and finding real connections with people. Especially initially I enjoyed the mismatch between Neal Caffrey and FBI agent Peter Burke. Burke is goofy and pessimistic and says that so and so can't be done, and we just have to do things the hard way, whereas Caffrey shows us that these things are actually possible. Part of the charm of the Caffrey character is his abilities. It's fun to watch him forge signatures, pull a scam or do other tricks and then explain how. At times his tricks, and the episodes' plots, do become a little bit too silly and slapstick-like. Too many characters in these situations are too stupid, and it's a little bit too coincidental that everything works out exactly as planned. So, not everything is credible as the scripts are not always that well-written.

What I also like about this show is the theme of being torn between getting exactly what you want, albeit getting it illegally, and settling into a normal, legal, life. Neal Caffrey has always been a conman, and it is second nature to him to get what he wants by illegal means. When working for the FBI he has to fight this urge, but settling into a legal life also gives peace of mind. He doesn't have to lie and run. He's trying to tell himself that he just wants to escape the trappings of a normal dull life, but does he truly believe this? At least, experience seems to prove him wrong on many accounts.

Although I don't know exactly how TV production works in Hollywood, it is my impression that the network sees if a show is a success and then they grant another season. If that season is also a success, then another season, and so on. Starting out with a script for e.g. 12 episodes that finishes completely after the last episode seems rare. Needless to say (so I'll say it anyway), the latter is the type I generally like the best. So with this let's-see-if-this-season-is-a-success-method, TV shows with an ongoing plot line often turn into perpetual motion machines where they have to come up with more and more bizarre/silly plot twists to keep it going. "Alias" and "Prison Break" are perfect examples of this. "White Collar" is becoming the same. I've watched all four seasons, but the ongoing plot line (which was always the best part of the plot) has gradually become more silly and less important, and the show focuses more on separate cases that needed to be solved in each episode (and, of course, they solve the case every single time). Each season has ended with a big finale, but a few episodes into the next season everything has returned to normal. Then what's the point in continuing this show? It has become a bit like Prison Break season three: "We break out – TONIGHT!", end of episode. Then next episode: "Nah, we have to wait until tomorrow". Then at the end of the episode: "We break out – TONIGHT!", end of episode. And so on. If this show didn't have an ongoing plot line it would be much less frustrating. The problem is that it promises evolution throughout the series but rarely delivers (or at least does it too slowly). Often throughout all four seasons only a few minutes in the beginning and end of each episode dealt with the ongoing plot line, and it seemed that almost every time there was a big thrilling conflict in the plot or between the characters, this would be dealt with in a few minutes in the next episode, so the show could return to business as usual. Part of the suspense is of course only getting to know the details little by little, but there must be limits to how long you can keep people waiting before they lose interest. In the end, there wasn't much difference between watching an episode from season 1, 2, 3 or 4 of "White Collar".

And honestly, there's no need to watch this show to see the team solve cases. Certain other shows manage to do that with better scripts and more surprises. The criminals get caught a bit too easily in this show, and when they are taken into custody at the end of each episode I often sit there with the felling of "was that really it?". If the upcoming season five has not had some changes to the overall plot, and it's still just Caffrey and Burke solving cases, then this show has become redundant. I also noticed that the amount of viewers have dropped consistently with each new season, so I'm apparently not the only one who has been discouraged with how this show has developed.

Season four ended recently, and season five is scheduled for the autumn of 2013. Season four, of course, ended with a big finale. I will probably watch the first few episodes of season five to see what happens, but I already have my theories and I'm pretty sure that all the problems will have been solved within the first couple of episodes so everything can return to normal (as it did with the ending of season three/beginning of season four). I assume nothing dramatic will happen to the ongoing plot line until the show is cancelled and we can finally see an end to the story.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999– )

One of the best in its genre

[7/10 · 31 May 2013]

This review doesn't contain spoilers as such but it does outline the basics of the show.

I'm a subtitler by profession and I have subtitled around 70 episodes of this show. They were all from season 11 onwards, so I can't say anything about the show's earlier episodes.

Special Victims Unit is another procedural crime show about the police solving cases. Here they focus on "special victims", which usually means victims of rape or cases involving children in one way or another. The show is not much different than the five million other shows like it, but it nevertheless does what it does well. If you like shows like this, then this is definitely for you. If not, then don't bother. If you like having details about the police officers' personal lives then this show might not have enough of that. Then the show called The Closer might be a bit better. Nevertheless, I feel there's enough details about the characters to get under their skin but not so much that it becomes tedious.

Unlike many other shows, Special Victims Unit delivers what it promises. It doesn't promise any ongoing plot line, so therefore there are no disappointments with regards to this. It only promises to be a show about solving cases. This is, however, also one of the bad things about the show. With no ongoing plot line it doesn't matter if you watch an episode from season 3, 7 or 13. If the show is not evolving why watch it? I suppose you could say the same about The Simpsons or South Park. There's not much to think about after an episode ends either. As the show is about crime it, of course, also conveys that the world is full of evil and that men are scumbags, which is not an admirable ideology (but to be fair, there have also been episodes about women who falsely accuse men of rape, and women who sexually abuse young boys). So, only watch Special Victims Unit for thrilling entertainment.

Sometimes you watch a TV show or a film with a very intricate plot, but in the end it becomes so complicated and silly that it loses credibility. Special Victims Unit still manages to be credible despite complicated plot lines, simply because it is so well scripted. I want to be a novelist, and I must say that I admire how well-scripted this show is. At times I have been thinking "how did they find that evidence?", or "why would this person admit this?", but overall there are very few plot holes, and my hat goes off to a team of writers that time after time can write something like this.

The show called Prime Suspect was very similar to Special Victims Unit but nevertheless inferior for two very simple reasons: Prime Suspect was too predictable and not very credible. Special Victims Unit is of course predictable too 'cause they always catch the criminals (in only around two or three episodes out of those 70 episodes I've subtitled has the criminal not been convicted), but Prime Suspect was simply too formulaic: Either the culprit was their first suspect, who after some investigation didn't look guilty but then was after all, or it was someone completely random that they found after investigating a lot of leads. The criminals always confess in that show, and not a single episode ended up in court. This of course also happens in Special Victims Unit but not at the same rate as in Prime Suspect where it was in every episode. In Special Victims Unit there are criminals who have been traumatised, criminals who are mentally ill, criminals who are psychos, criminals who are misogynists, people who made a mistake and then tried to cover it up, etc. There's actually also a surprisingly high amount of corrupt cops who commit crimes in this show. Sometimes the first suspect is the culprit. Other times it's their 14th suspect. Sometimes an episode starts with a minor crime and then leads to a whole network of other crimes far from where the episode started. Some episodes end with a confession in the police station, others end in the court room. Others again end with the criminal being caught in the act. Despite being a formulaic show, Special Victims Unit covers a surprisingly wide field. Prime Suspect was also not very credible because the culprits often confessed just because the cops pressured them a tiny bit – probably because the writers couldn't come up with something. In Special Victims Unit there is at least a lot more persuasion being done before a confession is being made – and usually it seems perfectly likely that the culprit would confess under those circumstances.

There have been episodes with sentimental endings where I, maybe because I'm European, have thought "Yaaaih, America", but these types of endings are fortunately not so common in this show. In for instance the Canadian "Flashpoint", every single episode ended with slow motion images, sentimental pop music and an all too clear message. Luckily, with Special Victims Unit I usually think "I'm glad they caught that scumbag", or "I'm glad this person was acquitted" at the end of each episode.

The last episode of season 13, "Rhodium Nights" leads into the first two episodes of season 14, "Lost reputation" and "Above suspicion". These three episodes are probably the best episodes I've seen of this show. My other favourite episodes: srs 14, ep. 10 (Ep. 282) "Spiraling down" (with Treat Williams as a guest star); srs 13, ep. 10 (ep. 283) "Theatre tricks"; srs 13, ep. 18 (ep. 290) "Valentine's day" (with Chloe Sevigny); srs 14, ep. 13 (ep. 308) "Monster's Legacy (with Mike Tyson)"; and srs 14, ep. 16 (ep. 311) "Funny Valentine".

Flashpoint (2008–2012)

Canadian, but still cheesy American

[5/10 · 16 November 2012]

In my job I have subtitled 24 episodes of this show, and I can say that this series is really not much different than so many other shows: Cops chase criminals. Cops catch criminals – every time! Here it's a S.W.A.T. team/S.R.U. team (it's Canadian), but they have just replaced the usual detectives with a different division. The acting is decent, and the scripts are decent, but that's really all it is. This is really not much different than crime films/series from the last 80 years - except that the pace is faster. It's all glorification of the police and what they can do (and all their new high tech gadgets). Crime never pays is still the lesson. While we are on the subject of lessons, the show always want to draw out a lesson at the end. I'm perfectly fine with that – I mean, entertainment is nice, but what's the point in watching something if it doesn't stir something in us and makes us think about certain things? The way "Flashpoint" does it is simply too cheesy. Right after the cops rush in and catch the criminal, save the hostage or whatever (and they practically always talk the perpetrator out of killing anybody), the images switch to slow-motion, and "Dawson Creek" music comes in with acoustic guitars, piano, and very, very, very meaningful lyrics. If I'm not mistaken, the segment with songs and slow-motion pictures has featured in every single one of the 24 episodes I have subtitled (fans of the show even have a name for it, "the montage"), so it's simply becoming cheesy and predictable. It's almost like watching a soap opera. The main characters, of course, also always learn something from their cases about their own lives. If you want to watch predictable crime shows, there are many others much better than this one (for instance "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" or "The closer").

This show uses that trick of showing scenes that occurs three quarters into the story as a teaser/prelude to catch the viewer's attention. Afterwards, they rewind to the beginning. Honestly, in some programmes/films this is done when there's no good beginning to the story. I believe this trick has been used in every single one of the 24 episodes of "Flashpoint" that I have subtitled, so it does seem like this show lacks good beginnings. The show lasts 42 minutes, and the opening credits and title section usually starts after 7 to 14 minutes. That's quite a lot of action they have to put in to make sure the viewer doesn't switch the channel. This is, of course, also a symptom of our day and age. When people have eight different Youtube tabs open in their internet browser at the same time, we lose interest so quickly, so we have to have something hyper stimulating constantly. This is what "Flashpoint" has to work with.

One thing to notice: Hugh Dillon who plays Ed Lane wants to be the new, even tougher, Bruce Willis (especially after Willis shaved his head). His stare (which he has 70 % of the time) is the same, but meaner, and his way of talking (meaning giving out orders, etc.) is the same but meaner. It became a bit comical in the end to see this 110 % tough guy.

Mad Dogs (2011–2013)

Best British series in a looooong time!

[10/10 · 6 October 2012]

My headline is a bit of an overstatement, as I don't watch much British television, but through my work as a subtitler I've subtitled quite a few British series. Usually, I find that British shows pale compared to the best American series. When it does work, I simply find American pop culture a lot more exciting. British shows most often seem a bit dull, slow, old-fashioned and depressing compared to the American equivalents. Therefore, it was a joy to find something like "Mad dogs". I subtitled both seasons (each containing only four episodes each), and I'm hoping I will get the next season too if there's a third season at some point. The show is actually exciting, thrilling and well-made. Only once or maybe twice did I find a few light plot holes or something that didn't make so much sense. The acting is good, the characters believable, and the script is great. Someone else here on IMDb said the show was funny too. I might have laughed a few times, but then I also laughed at one scene in "Schindler's list" (the scene where Schindler hires secretaries) and I wouldn't say that's a funny film. "Mad Dogs" achieves what it set out to do, which was to create a thrilling character-based series about dilemmas that we all might face under the right circumstances – a little bit like a modern noir taking place in glaring sunlight.

From here onwards, this is an update to my original review, which I wrote after having watched season 1 and 2. I then gave the show 8 out of 10. After having finished watching the entire show I was filled with a feeling of having watched one of the greatest TV shows ever! There has been some debate about how the show ended, however, but I will leave that up to the viewers and the users here on IMDb to delve into. I've grown accustomed to having to watch never-ending perpetual motion machines from Hollywood, where every episode is a single episode (usually about a police officer solving a case) with little connection to the ongoing plot line, which is dragged out forever and ever, until it's all either so watered down that you don't bother watching it anymore, or they cancel the show and you get no proper ending (or a very poor ending to a show that started out great). "Alias", "Prison Break" and "White Collar" are prime examples of this. You can't watch one single episode of "Mad Dogs" and get any meaning from it. There are no 'single episode' plot lines, only an ongoing plot line – and all the seasons are different, as the story keeps unravelling. They had most likely written an entire season before starting filming it (or maybe the entire show from start to finish), which is what made it so great: A story, not a money-making machine. Thank you :-)

Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel (2008– )

What a lame show!

[1/10 · 27 September 2012]

What a lame show!

My headline really sums it up. Granted, I really, really don't like reality show (who does?), but this is one of the worst ever.

Every single person is this show is despicable. It's all about flashing off and being seen "because I'm a princess" or "because I'm so buff" or whatever. Well, I suppose "The Grind" on MTV started that trend many years ago, but I had hoped that would have been put to rest. Here, they even made it into a reality show about the people running this party place. How much fun do you seriously think it would be to watch a reality show about bartenders with silicone boobs amidst buff tan guys who are just there to get drunk? This has, oddly, being going on for several seasons now. I only watched episode 15 (mid-season 2), but that was more than enough.

One character needs special attention: The girl Julia is looking at guys all the time, but admits she might be a little bit picky when it comes to finding someone. No, really? "I once dumped a guy, because I didn't like how his hair ended on his ankles. He had hairy legs, but not hairy feet, and then the hair just stopped instead of phasing out". Great gal! Then she continues later: "This guy bumped into me, and I was like totally smitten right away. He stole my heart". Then he asked for her telephone number. "No way. I'm a good girl. I don't just give out my number". Yaih! Good work, honey. If you never give anyone a chance maybe that's why you're 31, single, miserable and complaining about why you can never find a guy.

The episode I watched (I had to subtitle it at my job, so at least I was paid to watch it) featured some guy named Barry who was trying to recruit bartenders here for his own club. What an arrogant and rude bastard. I was actually happy when they kicked him out. The only times I felt entertained was when I was laughing at how despicable these people were. Seriously, though. This is really crap TV with no content at its worst. Maybe it's fun to watch for teenage guys who like to look at silicone inflated bimbos, but that's about it.

Prime Suspect (2011–2012)

Very average crime show.

[5/10 · 19 September 2012]

I'm a subtitler by profession, and I subtitled 12 episodes of this show, so I spent quite a lot of time with each episode. This show has what you would expect of a Hollywood show: Decent acting, good production and okay scripts. The problem is that it's no different than a million other crime shows: A murder has been committed. The cops come in, investigate and find the killer.

Every episode has two options: Either the prime suspect, who they find quite quickly, did it, or he/she didn't do it, and then it was someone random who they find at the very end of the episode. Most other crime shows are like that too, but "Prime Suspect" is simply not very thrilling or very surprising. The criminals usually give up very quickly – probably simply because the script writers couldn't come up with any convincing methods for making them confess. As is the norm nowadays, the show also features some details about the main character's personal life.

If you want to watch investigations of police cases, then "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" is much better scripted and has more intricate plot turns. If you want to watch shows like that with details about the main characters' personal lives, then "The closer" is much better. Both are a lot more believable. Yes, they are just as predictable (they always catch the bad guys), but none of the criminals give up just because the cops say "we know you did it" or whatever. The scripts for those two shows are simply better – and it's actually quite impressive that a show like "Special Victims Unit" still has good scripts, as it has been running for 13 years now.

Beer for My Horses (2008)

Lame script, terrible acting

[1/10 · 5 September 2012]

I subtitled this film (I'm a subtitler by profession), so I spent quite a lot of time with this film. I would have given this film 2 out of 10 if it hadn't been so incredibly poorly made. It wasn't until half-way through the film that the actual story started to kick in. The first half was just very silly small anecdotes and leading up to the real story. The script was poor - nothing seemed believable, there were no thrills and no interesting points, and I didn't laugh a single time. The acting was terrible as well. The only people who made decent appearances were Tom Skerritt and Willie Nelson. Although they are not high-profiled actors, they were still way too good for this film. It didn't really surprise me when I read here on IMDb that the two main actors had actually written the screenplay - it really did seem like a home-made film. I was surprised anybody would finance something like this.

Luck (2011–2012)

BOOOOORING and difficult to follow

[3/10 · 9 August 2012]

I subtitled five episodes of "Luck", and although at times it seemed promising, and Dustin Hoffman was great as always, it always seemed like it never took off. The pictures were mostly beautiful, and everything was as well-filmed as a great Hollywood thriller, but the storyline couldn't keep up. Every episode seemed to simply faze out in the end with Dustin Hoffman falling asleep in his hotel room. I don't necessarily need a cliff-hanger like in Prison Break, where Michael Scofield said "We break out… TONIGHT!" at the end of each episode, in every single episode of a show like this, but there was barely anything in this show that made me want to watch another episode. Besides this, the dialogue was extremely cryptic. I've been making subtitles for a living for five years. At times I get a documentary about some strange subject I don't know anything about, so I have to look up a lot of things, but never before have I had a fictitious show, where the dialogue has been so difficult to understand as in this one. It wasn't so much that they mumbled, but the lines were just strange. Maybe it was supposed to be the way "real people" speak in this environment, but it didn't exactly help the viewer. This mostly happened when the four friends who were betting on race horses were on screen. They were of course at times using "insider language", but most often it was just non-sense they were talking. Although I'm not American, I doubt if most Americans would understand the dialogue in this show. I was lucky to have a script when I had to subtitle what Nick Nolte said. I would think barely any native speakers would be able to understand what he said, as it sounded like he was speaking through his death rattle.

Weed Wars (2011– )

Didn't change my perspective on marijuana

[2/10 · 15 June 2012]

I subtitled two episodes of this show (I'm a subtitler by profession), so I spent quite a long time with those two episodes. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on making a show about the pros and cons about marijuana (which the title would suggest), the producers chose to make yet ANOTHER reality show.

Let me say that this show definitely didn't change my mind on marijuana. I'm mostly against marijuana as I've spent too much time around people who smoked weed everyday and consequently could barely get anything done. Nevertheless, I'm aware of if it's medicinal uses, so I had hoped this show would highlight those, but no. I particular remember reading a scientific article in the Danish magazine Illustreret Videnskab (Science Illustrated) about the use of marijuana as medicine.

The owner of the shop, Steve DeAngelo, was definitely the person I liked the best. He seemed well-spoken and was telling a bit about the medicinal use of marijuana and mentioned that they had produced a marijuana with a higher percentage of CBD, which is the medicinal component, and less content of THC, which is the component that makes you high. This segment took up less than two minutes of one episode of the show. At one point, Steve had to pick out clothes from his massive wardrobe, so he, of course, had to sit down and have some "medicine" (weed). Come on! What is your illness if you have to smoke weed because you can't decide which clothes to put on? Neither did we get to hear about a single illness from any of the employees, but nevertheless it seemed like all of them smoked weed constantly. Some of the producers of the marijuana they were selling would sometimes send the shop a big bundle of samples, and the shop would hand these out to the employees. Steve's brother Andrew was simply a pothead – nothing else! Only he knows, but it definitely seemed like he was stoned whenever he was on camera: "Then don't work here maaaayyyyn!" He seemed like a caricature out of The Simpsons.

We did hear about a few people who had very painful diseases, where marijuana would take away the pain. That's great. More of that please. Other than that, it was just a reality show about what's going on in a shop selling weed. It showed that most of the employees and most of the customers would be stoned constantly and talk or think about nothing else than weed. When the employees would talk about a special type of marijuana, they wouldn't mention the percentage of CBD, the medicinal component, but only the percentage of THC, while they were drooling. For instance, they were preparing for the annual "weed day", and they saved special products for that day. So one employee said: "This one tested at 18,44%. With this kind of a test result it's just gonna fly out of here. Of everything we're saving, this one here will disappear the fastest. It's got 24% THC, and it's the best deal, the most bang for your buck". So, the employees and apparently also the customers, as they are the ones buying the weed with higher THC content, seem to prioritize how high the product will make you, not how much pain it will relieve.

After seeing this show, I agree with one of the critics: Most of the people "on medicine" are not even sick. My personal opinion is that although marijuana might not be as physically addictive as alcohol, cocaine or other substances, the mental addictiveness is enormous. People who smoke a lot of weed get addicted to the feeling of being high and escaping their problems. They don't want to come back to reality and face the problems that has to be solved sooner or later. This series shows us that for most users, marijuana might not be as dangerous as heroin, alcohol or other substances, but it's just as much an escape.

To finish off, here's a quote from that Danish science magazine, Illustreret Videnskab (issue 16 from 2005):

"All scientists agree that marijuana is a drug that makes you sluggish and reduce your ability to react and focus. Abuse destroys your memory and ability to learn, and smoking marijuana for long periods of time increases the risk of lung diseases like lung cancer and bronchitis. It is also know that large amounts of marijuana may result in psychoses and paranoid conditions for some people".

Road Wars (2004– )

Boooooring and nothing short of awful!

[1/10 · 15 July 2010]

I was so unfortunate to subtitle six episodes of this show, and it was time spent in hell. Most of the footage was of UK police officers that stopped motorists for not having insurance, giving them a fine, and then driving off, or of police officers searching people for drugs, and when they didn't have any they would let them go. The show is pointless, dull, idiotic and only of any use if there's nothing better to do, which there ALWAYS will be! If you have to watch television, let it at least be something entertaining. On another note, the show was also poorly made. Sound and images didn't always match, and the shot changes seemed arbitrary. It seemed quickly and unprofessionally made, and when they did arrest someone for, say, drunk driving, they would mention the person's full name and show his face. What's the point of ridiculing these offenders? 1 star out of 10 (because it's not possible to give 0 stars)

Funny or Die Presents... (2007– )

Three episodes, not one proper laugh

[3/10 · 18 June 2010]

I was so "unfortunate" to make subtitles for three episodes (episodes #5, 6 and 7) of this show, and it didn't produce one proper laugh. The quality of the sketches ranged from mediocre to terrible. Some of their ideas seemed okay, but then failed when performed. The worst being a sketch about a musical called "1000 cats", which took up 15 MINUTES of the 24 minute duration. That particular actor probably had some secret love for musicals, which he here had the chance to express. Besides being terrible, the worst part was that he couldn't sing and hear him sing lame stuff like "I'm chilling on cloud nine, I'm cat number nine" for 15 minutes was almost unbearable.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Did it make me fell good? Yes. Did it make me think? Not really

[6/10 · 1 April 2009]

As everybody says this is a feel good film. When the film was over I did feel good, although the feel good factor was not as great as in other films I've seen, and I did also find that the film was somewhat predictable. I think a film should first and foremost be entertainment, but when that aim has been achieved, a film should also raise issues and make you think about certain things. Although I found this film to be stylistically well-made, I didn't feel that it raised many issues or made me think once it was over. The few issues it did raise (like "you don't have to be worthless just because you're poor") didn't seem particular original. If you're just looking for entertainment, then I think it would be worth seeing this film. If you want more than entertainment, then there are many other films I would rather recommend.

The Tiger and the Snow (2005)

A movie that wants it all... and one of the few movies that achieves it!

[9/10 · 29 March 2007]

"The tiger and the snow" is a well-composed and well-crafted movie. I think it's truly remarkable that this movie can incorporate both comedy, drama, romance and political statements without cracking at the edges because of it. A film I saw recently, "Life aquatic", tried to incorporate drama into a comedy, which in my opinion didn't go through that well. The film was fairly funny, but the drama sequences seemed a bit detached, and there wasn't enough drama to properly care for the characters. "The tiger and the snow" gives us both a funny film, and a film where we can care for the characters. It also has beautiful and very poetic dialogue, which I only recall from classics such as "A streetcar named desire" and "Once upon a time in America". I think "Life is beautiful" is a good movie, but this one is even better!

Headbang i Hovedlandet (1997 TV Movie)

Bad-ass and entertaining documentary!

[8/10 · 17 March 2004]

This documentary is basically only interesting/funny because of Lasse from Illdisposed, as others have pointed out! Christian from the black metal band Nidhug and Scott from the death metal band Infernal Torment aren't really that interesting to listen to, and sound like what I basically would call stereotypical metalheads, especially Christian with his "I don't really wanna go party. I would rather sit out in the woods" and crap like that! Lasse is entertaining and funny and doesn't seem like any of these stereotypical metalheads with all their "We praise Satan/Odin" talk all the time, which is basically the only thing some people can talk about. I gave it 8 out of 10!

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

If I hadn't seen millions of remakes, plagerisms & pastiches of this, it might have been even better!

[8/10 · 4 January 2004]

* Contains spoilers * This is the movie that has that "I wish I never been born" thing, where an angel shows him how his life would have been if he hadn't been born, and before seeing this movie today, I had seen it re-done a thousand times in various (mostly lame/gross) stuff, even in "Married with children" (which was a bit funny, and quite the opposite of this movie). So when I found out that this was were it came from (unless I'm mistaken), I must admit that I felt a little grossified. But after all, I liked the movie, and the small grossification was blown out of the water by the ending. Although it was happy, preachy and so on, it impressed me and sent chills down my spine and gave me a bit of a lump in my throat. Overall, this pushed the movie up to be among the best of the old movies I've seen and I'll be a little generous and give it an 8 out of 10.

Orders (1974)

Let me spell it out for you: C-R-A-P!!

[2/10 · 19 July 2003]

This movie lasted 109 min. and already around 5 min. into it I was bored!! I really sat through 109 min. of just wanting something to happen, but nothing did. Maybe this movie is good for people interested in the event that took place in 1970, but as I knew nothing about it, it didn't appeal to me. I had hoped that a good ending would come in and save the movie, but I was let down there as well! I have seen loads of movies and have voted for over 370 movies here at IMDb, some of my favorites being "Schindler's list", "Limelight", "Breaking the waves", "Awakenings", "Fried green tomatoes", "The green mile", "Legends of the fall", "Saving private Ryan", etc., so it's not that I don't like this type of film (drama), on the contrary. I've started viewing more and more drama instead of just lame Hollywood blockbuster action flicks, but this movie was extremely boring and slow. It wasn't terrible, but REALLY bad! No more than 2 out of 10 from me!

Mad TV (1995–2016)

I don't know if I'll say anything that hasn't been said, but...

[28 May 2003]

As many others have stated this show has gone very much downhill. When I "discovered" this show I only saw a couple of sketches, as it gets broadcasted on a Norwegian station at the same time as I'm watching "Simpsons" on a Danish station. Those sketches I saw was quite good and I especially remember them doing a sketch about Master P doing a remake of "Casablanca"! I then started taping it and then quickly found out that much of it was lame, but there still was funny and memorable stuff in each episode. Now (I think it's season 4 that's just started. Phil Lamarr, Pat Kilbane & Andrew Bowen have just left when the previous season ended) I'm lucky if I'll see some funny stuff. All the sketches are lame, and I'm seriously considering stopping taping it. There have been a couple of memorable sketches over the last period, but it's very rarely. It's all repetition! I don't mind reacurring characters, as long as it's not the same sketch over and over again and how many times haven't they done Magic Johnson saying "Ha ha ha ha ha!" and then trying to read, which he can't?!?! How many times haven't they done Kenny Rogers and how many times was it funny (none)?!?! Although they seem pretty popular I also very much dislike Stuart and Ms. Swan!! The worst I've probably seen in the show was with that lady (Mo Collins), who said "Ha?", coughs and "God, that's cute!" at a yardsale Michael McDonald had!! When they did it the second and third time I was ready to throw the tv out the window!! Possible the worst comical sketch I've ever seen!! James Brown was also cool in the beginning, but then got tiresome as it was just repetition. The only decent actors that are on the show at the moment in my opinion is Will Sasso, Debra Wilson and Aries Spears is also alright. Just to bad that all their sketches have gone lame!

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Bad-ass, but could have been just a liiitle bit better...

[8/10 · 28 May 2003]

Contains spoilers!! Most of the westerns I've seen was when I was a kid and my father saw them on tv and I found them all terribly boring, but this one stands as the best western I've seen! What made this good for me, I guess was the plot. When the climax came I thought to myself "Goddamn, this is evil stuff! Great movie! The best old movie I've seen (except for Chaplin's "Limelight" of course, which is the best movie I've ever seen)!!". What dragged it a bit down was that it dragged a bit out after that. I think it could have still maintained the "great" position if it had just ended after the shoot-out or when Harmonica came into the house and said he had to leave. I didn't really need to see his companion, who also had to leave, die. I didn't feel anything for that guy, so that was just a bit irrelevant. It still stands as one of the best older movies I've seen though. "Casablanca" still tops it though, I guess (and of course "Limelight"). I also feel that this is one of those movies where the music and the images came together perfectly! I sat several times with goosebumps when seeing this movie, although I knew Morricone's "The man with the harmonica" when I saw the film (I have the song myself). I usually use a 6 point star system when rating movies and stuff and 4 is for a good movie and that translates to 6,66 on a 10-point scale, but I'll be generous and give it an 8! It could have gotten a 9 if it didn't drag out at the end.

Amores Perros (2000)

Alright, but somewhat quickly forgotten

[7/10 · 12 May 2003]

When I had seen this film I though to myself "Well that was alright"

and then 5-10 minutes later I didn't really think more about it. I compare this a bit to "Y tu mamá también", maybe because Gael

García Bernal starred in both, but also because they are both

Mexican. When I had seen "Y tu mamá también" I also said "Well

that was alright" (and so said the other guy I was at the theater

with), but it got better with time, as there was more to think about

when the movie was over and I agree with other reviewers that it

had more layers. I feel that "Amores Perros" kind of lacked this. It

was alright entertainment while it lasted, but somewhat quickly

forgotten. Worth 7 out of 10 in my book.