Katta-3 Reviews

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

a laugh-out-loud experience for sick viewers like me

[6 April 2004]

I didn't expect much of OUATIM, but ended up liking it very much. The fight scenes, camera work and music were all over the top and turned into a great mix of action and dark comedy. Depp, as always, was fabulous, and most of the others turned in good performances as well, though any viewer should do well to remember that this is an action flick, not an Oscar contender.

I've heard quite a few people, both here and in professional reviews, complain that the plot was confusing. If so many people think so, I can't exactly say that they're *wrong* - all I can say is that I never found it even remotely so.

General Marquez wants to kill the president and take his place. Cartel leader Barillo backs up the coup d'estat. CIA, through Agent Sands, want the president killed, but don't want General Marquez in his place. So Sands hires El Mariachi to kill Marquez and Jorge from FBI to kill Barillo and his henchman. Since Sands is such a SOB, he uses their sense of vengeance to get them to do what he wants. It's all pretty straight forward to me.

Of course, things don't turn out the way they were supposed to, which could be a reason people get confused. When the aim of the hero is to kill the bad guy/save the world/win the race and he ends up killing the bad guy/saving the world/winning the race, it's pretty easy to understand. But when characters fail or change their goals - yeah, it gets a bit more complicated. But also harder to predict and ultimately a lot more fun.

Press Gang (1989–1993)

Watch and learn, TV writers!

[15 March 2002]

I'm an addict to television, simply put. I have followed more TV series than I can remember, and some of them were actually very good. So trust my authority on this: Press Gang is the best show I have ever seen. I

don't own many TV videotapes, and honestly don't want to, but PG is the one show I would want to own all episodes of. Most of them are

fabulous. Two or three might be a bit off, but still better than

practically anything you can get from any other half-hour show.

The concept is simple: take a bunch of teenagers, put them in a room,

tell them to write a newspaper. Even describing the characters wouldn't explain much. The leads, Spike and Lynda, are one of innumerable

Hepburn/Tracy ripoffs, but unlike practically everybody else, these two nearly exceed the original. The rest of the cast is in no way inferior. A personal favourite of mine is the glamour bitch Sam, only

participating in one season, but impossible to forget.

The plots can be corny, but never unintentionally. "Issue" stories a bit oversentimental sometimes, but that's a breeze compared to how they're handled in American shows.

And oh, the dialogue, with so many good lines it's hard to choose. Since I'm so fond of Sam, let's have one with her and Lynda.

Lynda: A few wrinkles might give your face some character. Sam: You've got enough character for both of our faces. Lynda: Both of ours or just both of yours? ...brilliant...

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

I want to own this film

[11 December 2001]

I recorded this film the other day and my stupid VCR cut the ending, of

which I am most displeased. I suspected that any film written by William

Goldman would be great (ah, "The Princess Bride"), and was it ever! The

beginning was slightly slow, but then it paced up and suddenly became

impossible to leave. I just sat there in my nightgown, heavy with a

cold, and my eyes widened, as did my smile.

I'm not a big western fan. I could mention some comic books I liked as a

child, maybe a couple of films and TV series, but that's all. And I

could think of many reasons not to like this film. It's not dirty and

realistic, for those who like that. It's not full of action. It's

remarkably un-hilarious considering how funny it is. But it's a warm

film, showing two deeply flawed, immature men in a way that makes you

want to take them home in your pocket along with the whole film. I could

have lived without Etta Place (or with a less bland actress in the

part), but apart from that, it's nearly perfect. Now I just want to see

those last two minutes, and then show it to everyone I know.

X-Men (2000)

Great fun - all flaws small

[9/10 · 11 August 2000]

I have never in my life read an X-men comic book. I had never heard of them before the film came and David Letterman started to make jokes about them. My knowledge of comic books stretches as far as Wonderwoman and Green Lantern, but my own superheroes were more in the line of Pippi Longstocking and Bamse (the strongest teddybear in the world).

I had three reasons to see the film: 1. Bryan Singer directed 2. Patrick Stewart was in it 3. There was absolutely NOTHING worthwile showing in theatres. Guess what? I liked it. I liked it a lot. As long as you accept the premises - superheroes, saving the day, yada yada yada - it's a great film. Not "The Seventh Seal", obviously, but possibly the best adventure I've seen since "The Princess Bride". (And Star Wars, but the good films are older than TPB.)

Granted, expectations aren't so high for this kind of film. We're lucky if they have a storyline. This one did. Also some fantastic characters, directing and. okay, special effects, but I'm a girlie, I'm not supposed to care. I loved how the mutations were both a gift and a curse - three of the heroes (Wolverine, Rogue, Cyclops) get into situations were they risk killing someone they care for because they can't control their powers. The social aspect could have been used better, it was a little obvious at times (I for one have seen to many Nazis in popular movies), but again, just having one was great.

Main characters Wolverine and Rogue were well done and acted, you really came to care for them. Although, I must admit, I have had it with broody rebels with no past, I didn't mind so much when it came to Wolverine, because he was simply great. Also, he was funny. ("Sabretooth? Storm. What do they call you, Wheels?") Rogue was endearing facing the fear she had for herself. Good/Bad leaders Xavier and Magneto were exactly as well done as one could expect when acted by a couple of long time pros like Stewart and McKellen. Also, I was taken in by Cyclops. (Those of you who question my motives can please think over your own motives for liking Mystique.) Sure, he was a total 90210 preppie, but he was *recognized* and dissed as a such in the film, causing some grins from yours truly, and there was more to the character than that. For one thing, if this had been 90210,

Cyclops would have been the popular hunky guy and Wolverine would have been the badass that mothers tell their daughters to stay away from. In this film, Wolverine can sit in a train full of people comforting Rogue, and nobody raises an eyebrow. Cyclops smiles at a kid and its mother hurries to take it away. Preppie is the *only* one of the heroes who can never pass for "normal". Sadly, they never develop his character much, and this cocky-but-insecure control freak disappears into the background. Same goes for the last two heroes Jean Grey and Storm - the latter is so underdeveloped I can't even tell whether she was well acted or not.

One thing that really bugged me, though: While the good guys are all cool and have fantastic abilities, Magneto is stuck with a pair of unbelievably lame animal people called Sabretooth and Toad. Sabretooth makes me long for good ol' "Beauty and the Beast"-Vincent who was a philosopher between the ass-kicking. I doubt that Sabretooth is even housebroke. On the other hand, there's Mystique, the shapeshifter, and her powers are so interesting I'm willing to overlook that her real shape looks like a wet Playboy dream.

The other main flaw is that the film is not enough to satisfy, it leaves you hungry for more. Not only is the storyline set up for a sequel, but it hints lot of things characterwise (Wolverine's past for one thing) that it never shows. I don't mind seeing a sequel, but I don't want to be *forced* into seeing it. X-men is a little bit too much like the first book in a fantasy series where you have to read the rest. Only, all books in a series tend to be made by the same author. What if they replace the director and the next film turns out bad? That could happen. It's not like 15 more minutes would have spoiled the film. So, big :-( for that and the henchmen, big :-D for the rest of the film.

The Count of Monte Cristo (1998)

enjoyable melodrama

[9 March 2000]

I have not read the book, but my father who has, says that the

series is unfaithful, but true to the mood. Since I have read

other Dumas stories, I believe him. This is a costume piece as its most romantic, adventurous and

beautiful. The music is breathtaking. Sometimes, however, the

melodrama gets a little bit too much - the filmmakers tend to

put in thunderstorms et.c. to make things more dramatic. Depardieu is wonderful as Dantes, but my favourite people are

Bertuccio, Maximilien and Beauchamp. Dantes true love Mercedes

was unfortunately so stiff I found myself wishing he would have

stayed with Camille instead - she had a certain Audrey Hepburn

sort of spontaneous charms. The biggest trouble with this series was that even for someone

who wasn't new to the story (like my father), it was hard to

remember from time to time who people were. For me, I couldn't

place everyone until the last episode, and it took me about

three or four eps to tell friend from foe.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

No disappointment for the TV fans

[9/10 · 24 February 2000]

I was a little worried before I went that South Park couldn't

take the transformation into a full-time movie. But it could. As a Swede - you know how slutty we are! :) - I've always found

the American Redneck values and the moral aspects of film

censoring a bit confusing. People have sex. Big deal. People say

nasty things. Big deal again. Since when did words hurt anyone?

The worst thing that could happen is that the kids start using

the words themselves. Scary. South Park as a phenomenon fights the lying, oversweet "7th

Heaven" way to look at kids. Stan's song in the beginning of the

film is hilarious in its parody of musicals. (I love musicals.

I'm also quite fond of Winona and at least one of the Baldwins.

That only makes it funnier.) When Kyle's mom is ready to keep up a bloody war and let Satan

and Saddam take over the world rather than let the f-word sayers

Terrance and Phillip go free, her son in a simple speech tells

her what the film is all about. It's smart. It's true. It's

dangerously close to sentimental all-American apple sauce.

Kyle's mom listens - and kills T&P anyway. The point with this show is a lot like the animation: it may

look crude, but if you take a good look at it you find it's a

lot neater and harder to do than impersonal disneyfications or

detailed fantasy book illustrations. Part of me has seen this film the way an over-intellectual

college student should. But part of me can't deny that "Unca

f***a" made me laugh 'til I almost cried. Chef and Kenny are my favourites as always. Chef with his

womanizing and his straight to the point smartness. Kenny with

his R2D2 voice talents and his mix of sweet and filthy.

Tea with Mussolini (1999)

Heart-warming

[20 February 2000]

There is war. There is evil. There is fascism. But there is also

hope, goodness and love (agape, not eros). This film is not

easily put into genres. It is sometimes funny, but certainly no

comedy. It is moving, but hardly satisfies the lovers of drama.

As a war-movie, it is highly unusual. It concentrates on people

who have lived a protected life and never really realise what's

going on (at least some of them). It is set with some beautiful

actresses and left me smiling. My favourite part is when Joan

Plowright, very dignified, says: "There are no illegitimate

children. Only illegitimate parents." When a film takes place during a war, you tend to forget that

life goes on, that even though bombs are falling and people are

dying, the living still eat, drink, fall in love, paint walls or

whatever. This is a concentration of goodness in an evil time. It deserves

praise for that and for many

Independence Day (1996)

Hilarious!

[3/10 · 11 October 1999]

I saw this film with my father, and when he laughed at the first lady's death, he said: "I'm glad I didn't see this film in a theatre. People might have been mad at me." This film is simply hilarious, even when it doesn't intend to be so. I don't believe i have ever seen so much waste of talents. (Goldblum, Smith, Fierstein et.c.) ID4 contains EVERY cliché you could ever expect in a film like this. It's like the script writers sat down in front of a computer and deliberately chose the most frequent, least surprising lines for every moment. I'll never understand why people spend millions of dollars on special effects and then forget about the script, when a good script is in no way more expensive than a bad one. This film is worth seeing to get some good laughs. That is the only reason. And that makes it a total waste of money, because as we all know, Ed Wood could make a film of similar quality with much less money.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

Fourth best High-school film ever!

[30 September 1999]

First of all, the three better are Heathers, Fame and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. As a Shakespeare film, this film isn't much of a film. But The Taming of the Shrew is impossible to play anyway. (Kate gets BEATEN into being a nice girl by Petruchio, how PC is that?) As a high-school film, it is wonderful! Acting is good, story & directing half serious, half fun, in a way that reminds me of the wonderful TV series Press Gang. I promised myself not to mention how cute Heath ledger is, but now I just broke my promise. So what. It's not perfect, but it's close. I went out of the theatre smiling like a madwoman, and less than 2 weeks later I went back and saw it another time. I can't wait 'til it comes on video so I can see it again.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Adventure worth seeing (15 times)

[30 September 1999]

This is a film I have seen over and over again. I'm not saying I don't recognize it's flaws. It has some. But not as many as is sometimes thought. First, since that's what everybody's thinking of: The accent. Get a grip! English accents wouldn't be any more "right", even Shakespearan English would be a beastly anachronism. In the 12th century, English looked nothing like what it does today, even "chair" was a foreign word. So, an Oxbridge actor is still way wrong (sorry, Elwes, I do love you). And a film in accurate English would be silly. So, let's leave this subject. As for the other anachronisms -big deal! As if films are usually very accurate. Sadly, Costner's problem isn't his accent but his acting, which is harder to do anything about. He is so dull! Fortunately, lots of other people are not. Morgan Freeman is completely wonderful, Alan Rickman is the funniest bad guy of all times (including Jareth in "Labyrinth" and Count Rugen in "The Princess Bride"). Christian Slater is completely lovable, even if he's not close to his performance in "Heathers" (he never is). In short, this is 2 hours and 15 minutes of cool adventure, if that's what you're looking for.

Playing by Heart (1998)

Well-working mix

[8/10 · 24 September 1999]

Well, as is always the case when you have more than one story in a film, some work better than others. But the mixing and ending is good, and this film is one I would definitely want to see again. The Paul and Hannah story is great. Gena Rowlands and Sean Connery are professional as always, and their story is completely credible. Joan and Keenan are wonderful -so skinless, as if every line went right inside their bodies. Hugh is great, too, I like the fact you have no idea what's really happening. Meredith's story is a bit too TV-like, it's good, but not really interesting. Gracie's story never really puts up any psychologic motivation and is the weakest story. Mark and Mildred are good, but the story is lessened by the fact that I don't like death scenes, especially not AIDS ones, they're all destroyed by excesses such as Tom Hanks's.