joshi_3592 Reviews

Moby Dick (1956)

This film captivates you from the beginning, and all of it's aging is ignored.

[10/10 · 25 August 2010]

As long has the art of film as existed, people have made film based on classic novels. Some of them are pretty good, but most of them fail to capture the heart of the the story. This film does not fall under the latter category. This must the one of the best film adaptations of a book I've seen. I admit I have not read the book, so for you who have this might be a disappointment, or maybe you'll love it, I don't know. But as a film, this deserves the title as a cinematic masterpiece.

I rarely expect much from such movies. I was expecting a simple film about an obsessed whaler seeking revenge. But I failed to predict the dept of this movie. The many character, all the individual conflicts, the dialogue, the symbolism, and the narrative was handled which such excellency. John Huston really did a marvel job with this film. I've seen equal and even better skills, but there are very few of them. And that still sets this film above hundreds of not thousands of other films. I guess this is a bit of a cliché, but still valid thing to say "they don't make them like they used too". Despite it's age, and some cheesy effects, it is all forgotten and ignored, as this film captivates you from the beginning.

this film deserves nothing but a 10/10.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

This truly is "the forgotten masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick".

[10/10 · 15 August 2010]

This really is as people often refer to it, "the forgotten masterpiece of Stanley Kubrick". It surprises me that this film has been forgotten and overshadowed by his other films, as it is almost as breathtaking as 2001, and as well crafted as all of his later films. This should, and hopefully is ranking among cinema history's greatest epic films. The only other film of the same genre (and length for that sake), that captivated me as much as this film did, was Coppolas "The Godfather". This film deserves to be as revered and commonly know as that film is. It is of course not Kubricks all time greatest motion picture,but should still rank as on of histories greatest motion pictures, as should all of his films be. I cannot recommend this film enough, every frame of this film is like a beautiful 18th century painting, and it's use of music is nothing but stunning.It is a long film indeed, but that only allows us to enjoy more of the film, longer. I would recommend this to any film buff, but I warn you of it's complexity. This is not a film for everyone, definitely not todays film fans who seem more impressed by short, low-brow, action films, will not appreciate this film in a way it deserves. (Ironically this was the reason for it's box-office). However if you don't fall under this category, you will have missed out on a great deal if you have not seen this magnificent film. I give this film nothing less than a full 10/10.

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

This movie had a lot more than I expected.

[9/10 · 14 August 2010]

This movie had a lot more than I expected. I think all of us have heard of this movie, especially because of James Deans fame after his early death. And with the title, it sound kinda corny. Far from it, this is one of the best 50's movies I've seen taking on many sociological questions about teen environments. I don't even know why the title is "Rebel without a cause", the cause is shown quite clearly. I don't think I've ever before seen such an old film depicting a dysfunctional family, sure compared to today it's not too bad, it it is still very well told. James Deans character Jim Stark is one of the most complex and enigmatic, yet still easy to understand and identify with character I've ever seen. From the very opening sequence his performance is great, and his character well portrayed. Of course this film has more than a dysfunctional family, but there are so many teen related problems in it I think I'd rather just say; "watch the movie". If you like drama, teen film, are interesting in sociology, psychology, or just plain like films, I highly recommend this film. I give it a 9/10.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

Well made, intriguing twist to the story, but it doesn't save it.

[13 August 2010]

To begin with, I must say I'm surprised this film was literally condemned by Christians. This is the most religious film I have ever seen. They should love and cherish this film, but they don't. This however is the reason I didn't like it. It's to religious. It's basically the same silly story we've heard a thousand times, only with a few differences. It's darker, looks more historically authentic, and it has a more human Jesus. The latter I was actually intrigued by, I had hoped for a more human Jesus, kinda like the Thomas Jeffersen adaptation of the gospel, but it was the same old magical Jesus only with more of an internal conflict. Yes, it is a well made movie. Scorsese really impressed me with his great directing, and Dafoe made one of the strongest performances I've ever seen. But sadly it is still the same nonsense story of magic, miracles, talking animals and cryptic messages. Only this time it is hidden behind a more realistic looking view. if you see it simply as a tale, a story, a myth if you like, it it great. But if you take it as religious, it is a truly dangerous movie.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

I don't know. It's funny, but ends in nothing.

[7/10 · 11 July 2010]

I'm not sure what to think about this movie. The movie is at times funny, very funny, intelligent, artistic. But at other times it is simply, flawed, annoying, silly & stupid. The main character is an interesting character, I liked "the Dude". His friend Walter must be the most annoying film character I've ever seen. But he serves his purpose. But then again, you got Buchemis role, he just pops up now and then, never really contributes. The story was good, "the dudes" struggle was funny. But it just kinda ends up with nothing. I don't know. Some call it the 2001 of bowling and weed smokers, fair enough, it has a few clever trippy moments. But I don't know, it lacks structure. I give it a 7/10.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Simple but very good.

[8/10 · 10 July 2010]

Compared to Tarantinos other movies (and yes I've seen all of them) this is not the best one, in fact I would consider it his second least good. However, that doesn't mean that it's a bad film in any way. On the contrary, it's a damn good movie. Sure the story is very simple, it's a heist movie on a very realistic and small level. yet the directing is still better than that of most films. It's a surprisingly long film, two and a half hours, but never a dull moment. So I really don't have more to say, I recommend it. heck, if you're afraid of Tarantino films because of his reputation for violence, relax you can watch this one, except for quite an amount of swearing (which you'll hardly notice) there nothing nasty in it. Pluss if you like this film, which I bet you will, hopefully it will make you wanna see more Tarantino films.

I give Jackie Brown a 8/10.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

It actually makes the first film seem bad in comparison (not that it's bad, but you know what I mean)

[10/10 · 9 July 2010]

I can't believe some people said that this was worse than Kill Bill volume 1. This is honestly much better than the first film. It actually makes the first film seem bad in comparison, not that it is bad but you know what mean. Kill Bill volume one was great. It had a few moment that I didn't like but it was anything but bad. Kill Bill volume 2 hits the spot perfectly. It really summarizes most, if not everything that I look for in a "good" movie. It has cliché's, but that's the point. And they're played out excellently. It has that campy feel to it, a common trade in Tarantino's films. It even has a few 70's kung-fu moments which I just loved seeing. I admire Tarantinos love for classic cinema (or retro might be a better word). This movie unlike the first one has a few funny moments, but still manage to stay serious. And I mean that, it is a serious film. but then again, what revenge movie isn't. And I must say I really loved the ending. It surprised me as well, which is a rare thing to happen. I was sort of moved, or at least intrigued by the ending, and for that I am very happy, because that is such a rare thing.

So why is it better than Kill Bill volume 1? Well, I'll it's longer, hence manage to build up a better and more variable story. Secondly, I like the character better,a nd we finally get to see Bill. So I must say, Kill Bill volume 1 serve as an introduction, so Kil Bill volume 1 is what makes Kill Bill volume 2 so much better, because now we know what's going one. And third, if you for any reason should have read my review for Kill Bill volume 1, you would know that I criticized it's violence. I'm not against violence in any way, in fact it is important in many films. This is one of them. Unlike Kill Bill volume 1, Kill Bill volume 2 is not focused on the violence, butt he story. The violence supports the story, not the other way around. I understand Tarantino was trying to make a kind of anime live-action movie, interesting idea, but I felt it was over the top. Think bad of me if you wan't. But this movie, ditch that idea, and I could enjoy the movie, and even it's more violent scenes.

So what more can I say? I finished the Kill Bill volume 1 review by saying I'm looking forward to Kill Bill volume 2. Well I love this film. it should be considered a cinematic masterpiece, and is probably already a classic. 10/10.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Tarantino's 4th film. It's different, but still impressive.

[9/10 · 8 July 2010]

When I first heard of Kill Bill in 2003, saw the trailer, etc. I though this has to be crap. Just violence, and violence and no structure. then I forgot about it. The a few years later I started looking into Tarantino films. I saw his newest one, Inglorious Basterds, and I though; "wow, this is pretty good". It was refreshing to see someone with a unique and classical directing style. Then I saw Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and already I considered him one of the greatest directors ever. Then after having seen Death Proof (not his best by the way) I figured; " you know what? it's about time I sit down and watch Kill Bill volume 1". So i sat down and saw it, and these are my thoughts on it.

Despite not being the kind of movie I like, I really liked this movie. Okay that sounds weird, but it's how it is. Revenge movies, and Japanese movies, and especially anime is on the bottom of my like list, hate me if you wan't but I fail to see the attraction to it. However, this movie is so well made, I put all of that aside. The tag line "Tarantino's 4th film" as if it is very relevant, is well placed in it's context. When I saw Reservoir Dogs I though; "no way this is his first film! It's too good". He made two more films, and didn't disappoint, so his fourth movie surely had to be a cinematic masterpiece, and I personally think it should qualify as such. It has a visual style both corny and artistic at the same time. He really taps into the heart of a good exploitation film. It is a surprisingly profound movie.

But now that I've praised this movie, I guess the complaint should be written down as well. I only have one complaint about this movie, which isn't actually much of a complaint. The violence. And don't get me wrong, I am not against violence in films in any way. inf act I often think it's very important to make a good and shocking film. However I think that there is only one thing that stands int he way of Quentin Tarantino's artistic abilities; he's need for violence. His Grindhouse feature following Kill Bill; Death Proof proved this point. The violence got in the way of the story,a nd the story got less impressive. I understand Tarantino's need to channel his violence ideas through films, but I'm afraid he might go too far one day. this film an example of how that might one day ruing his films.

Having set that aside, I give this movie a 9/10, and finish by saying, I really look forward to Kil Bill volume 2.

Death Proof (2007)

The best of the two grind house films.

[8/10 · 29 June 2010]

Personally I didn't like the other Grindhouse feature "Planet Terror" it tried to look like a bad cheesy 80's film, and that's what it did, it was bad and cheesy. This movie however, while having some minor flaws, succeeded in reproducing the old 70's 80's cinema feel and still being good. It has that grainy look that old reel films had, but again is watchable, unlike "Planet Terror" which looked like it was gonna burn up every second. It's a simple story, some nut played by Kurt Russel, like to kill young girls with his car. It's a stunt car and is what he calls "Death Proof", not for the people he crashes into, the one sitting in the drivers seat, which is himself. A simple story, executed in true Tarantino style. It has long, realistic, but not boring (well depends on the person) conversation, harsh reality, lots of swearing, and well developed characters. My only problem with this film, aside from some long and slightly dreary sequences, is the violence. I normally son't complain about violence, sine I feel it is both depicts the real world, and is often need to make a realistic movie. But I sometimes feel that Tarantinos need for vi9olence sometimes gets in the way of his artistic abilities. Sometimes it's just there to be "cool". it's not supposed to be "cool", it's there for the realism and the effect it has on an audience. I hate to complain, but sometimes it can be just dumb.

It's a simple and entertaining film. A must see for any Quentin Tarantino fan, heck even Kurt Russel fans. And it was definitely the best grind house film. I give it a 8/10.

Planet Terror (2007)

This is really BAD! But it's on purpose, so?

[25 June 2010]

I don't know, I'm not gonna rate this. It is so bad, cliché's, bad duologue, but it's on purpose so i guess it is a good film? It summarizes really well how bad B-films in the 80's could be. It really feels like one of them so I guess it succeeded pretty well. I mean it has everything; cheesy duologue, meaningless trivial side stories. gore, gunshot platter that flies the wrong way, zombies ripping people apart. Heck it even got one of the weirdest sex scenes I've ever seen, would have been a classic had it actually been made in the 80's. It got zombies, a BBQ house, a one legged GO GO dancer, and a Tarantino cameo as a horny mutant zombie military man. If while reading this you're thinking "man this sound stupid", well it is and that's the point. So enjoy, or not. it's hard to judge to be honest.

Twin Peaks (1990–1991)

Brilliant! I love it, but it also annoys me tremendously.

[24 June 2010]

I must say I have mixed feelings towards this show. One moment I love it, it is the best show on earth, the next minute I hate it, it does nothing but annoy me. The reason I started watching Twin Peaks was because I learned it was written and partially directed by David Lynch. Him being a known artistic film director, I assumed this show would have a quality others did not have. And I was right on that one. The concept behind this show is really compelling. He has managed to make some of the most bizarre and original characters I've ever seen on the TV screen. Sometimes the event that they are in can be seen as a bit of a cliché, but he somehow makes them good. The show also has a supernatural undertone that only appears once in a while, which again makes the show even more compelling. However, like most TV shows, it loses it's quality over time. This normally takes a few season and Twin Peaks only lasted two seasons. But when a TV show has as much quality As this one did, it can so easily hit rock hard bottom. At some point this show sadly fail to deliver, and suddenly the show just ends with a cliffhanger. I feel this is important to mention, just so you've been warned. I truly love this show, it's so much better than most other, but when it comes to the end you might feel a bit cheated like I did. So you've been warned, but I still strongly advice you to see it. Watch the pilot and the two first episodes (there's a scene in episode two that I really interesting) and I can guarantee you that you're hooked.

I have decided not to give a vote on this review as I has such mixed feelings for it. I'll give that start a 10/10, some episodes even fall as far as a 5/10, and some deserve both.

Twin Peaks: Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer (1990) Season 1, Episode 3

It's getting weirder & better.

[10/10 · 17 June 2010]

I started watching this show because I had heard it was a form of paranormal or supernatural based, or something, but at least I knew it had to be good since it is a David Lynch show. The pilot missed any oddities, but it was good so I continued watching. This episode is where it get's weird. If any of you have seen the Simpsons episode "who shot Mr. Burns, part 2" you're gonna have fun with this one. This episode has the infamous dream sequence, it is weird, it is confusing, but I loved it. This is Lynch at his weirdest and best. I can't help it, I love dream logic, and it is very hard to make on film/TV, but this time they really got it right.

And not to forget the rest of the show, it's getting more intricate, butt hat just makes you wan't to watch the next episode even more.

It's finally getting there, I give this episode a 10/10.

Twin Peaks: Northwest Passage (1989) Season 1, Episode 1

I can't wait to See what happens next!

[9/10 · 17 June 2010]

Must say this is an intriguing show, I have only seen the pilot and I can't wait to see what happens next. It is really good at staying interesting all through the episode, and being a pilot this is quite long too. But that's okay, I almost which they will all be this long. The characters really make this show, there's a lot of eccentric personalities and some even a bit cliché, but it still feels realistic and it is what keeps you so interested. Everyone has their own story, everyone has their own secret, and everyone is linked to another in one way or another. The way I explain it it may sound a bit like a soap opera, far from it. Few TV series has the same quality as this has shown me so far. Until now I have never seen anything by David Lynch (a thing I regret), but now I will definitely check up more of his works.

So I advice anyone to watch this episode, and I bet you will just want more. The mystery that arises int he first two minutes is simple, who killed Laura? It is so simple, but we all immediately know this is more than a common crime investigation show. So if you can manage through the sobbing of the first 10 minutes (you since Lauras dead) I'm sure you'l get hooked immediately. I give the pilot episode a 9/10.

Animal Farm (1999 TV Movie)

A very powerful story.

[9/10 · 9 June 2010]

Considering the book was written by George Orwell in 1945, the message of the story is not hard to get. The story of the farm animals parallel directly to the rise of the Soviet Union not too long before the book was written. The film as well as the book is about animals at a farm who feel oppressed by the humans, until one pig called Old Major encourage them to start a revolution. When Old Major dies the pig called Napoleon (voiced by Patrick Stewrat)continues the revolution and start his new era of equality among all animals, or what he calls Animalism. However it does not take much time before Napoleon gets corrupted and creates a dictatorship.

Old Major is Stalin, a man with some good ideas for a revolution which was destroyed by the takeover by Stalin or in this case Napoleon. Even though communism in Russia was the inspiration for the book due to it's relevancy at the time, this story will always be relevant. For this story was very old even when it was written. And it amazes me how powerful this story can be even today.

I have not seen the cartoon version from the 50's, but I doubt they can have the same impact as this movie. Being a real-life film it feels much more real. And normally talking animals movies are kinda cheesy, not this one. The story was serious all through the end. It was well made, and well acted by the few humans in it. The message comes through clearly, and the horrors of dictatorship and hard labour (almost slavery) is portrayed frightenly well. Had George Orwell seen this, I think he would be proud. I give this film a 9/10.

The Godfather (1972)

Why don't they make films like this anymore?

[10/10 · 8 June 2010]

Why don't they make films like this anymore? This is what movies should be. Sure, they don't have to be this long, but 99% of todays movies are pretty weak compared to this. It's funny actually, I knew this was one of the most famous classics before I saw it. I knew it is considered among the top 10 films almost everywhere. Yet everyone I know has either referred to it as the most boring film in history or never even bothered to finish it. Now that I've seen it I can't help but think, what a pity. Today we are given so much garbage, that when a real film comes along, we are suddenly confused. We don't understand it, we miss the points, and we fail to see the subtext in it. It saddens me that that is what the film business has become, when we fail to see a masterpiece when it comes along. Francis Ford Coppola made a timeless film with the godfather, and he should rank among the top ten, no the top five directors of all time. Stanley Kubrick once said: "Coppola sure got it right with The Godfather". And I dare todays director to "get it right" in the future.

I give this film a 10/10.

Color Me Kubrick (2005)

Funny, but nothing more.

[6/10 · 2 June 2010]

I really don't know what to say about this film, it's about a con-man that pretends to be Stanley Kubrick, and that's it. Kubrick being in real life quite a recluse (in a sense of the word) gave him a great chance to take his name. No one had seen a Kubrick film in over 10 years, and Kubrick had stayed out of the spotlight since the 60's, so you can at least appreciate the fact that this story is quite plausible. Well it says, based on a true-ish story, not sure what that means.

The bad sides however, is it's lack of direction. he basically just goes around scamming people with his various "Kubricks", until he's revealed to be a fraud. And that's about it. Also it uses the soundtracks from various Kubrick films, it's funny at times, but almost feels like a bad attempt to copy the genius of Kubrick films. They even attempt to copy one of his quick edits from A Clockwork Orange, which frankly was just silly.

So if you're a Kubrick fan, you might find this an amusing 1 hour 20 minutes film to kill some time one day when you're bored. If you haven't seen a single Kubrick film, this is huge waste of time.

So I give this film a 6/10.

Taxi Driver (1976)

A chilling performance by De Niro. And Scorses dark urban masterpiece.

[10/10 · 25 May 2010]

As the trailer so often says, it's one of the coldest performances you'll ever see. Robert De Niro makes a very terrifying character that you feel could burst at any time. Director Martin Scorsese makes a truly enigmatic main character here. It is New york through a nighttime taxi driver. He sees the worlds dark side, he sees the crime and the corruption, and he's fed up with it. People are shallow and ignore the worlds dark side, and the politicians only give false hope. When he then meets a twelve year old prostitute, he decides to take matters in his own hands.

Scorses creates the perfect dark tone for the film, and De Niro completes it with his chilling performance. It's a very blunt film, which isn't afraid of showing us the world as it really is. It's extremely authentic and being a film from the 70's I admire Scorses for the tremendous research he must have done for this film. Pluss he himself have a cameo in the film, as one of the many "scum of the earth" (as De Niro calls them) that enters our taxi drivers taxi. Also it features one of Jodie Fosters first movie roles.

I think the relevance and realism of this film is well summarised in the horrible fact that a man called John Hinckley, Jr. felt so connected to the main character, that he went and attempted to assassinate president Ronald Reagan in 1981.he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. His attorney concluded his defense by playing the movie for the jury.

But staying on the subject, this film deserves nothing but a 10/10. And I regret waiting for so long to see it. I recommend this at it's highest, but it's not for the squeamish.

Harvey (1950)

Such a simply, Sweet, and light hearted film.

[9/10 · 11 May 2010]

"After this he'll be a perfectly normal human being. And you know what stinkers they are!" I guess what the're trying to say is that if you're crazy, it doesn't mean you're a bad person. In this case on the contrary. Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart) is one of the sweetest characters you can possibly imagine. "I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with." I'm still unsure if Harvey, the pooka as they call him, is real or not. That's not the point. He's a nice guy and he brings out the best in everyone.

I would recommend this film to everyone, it's funny, it's silly, and it has a good story, and a wonderfully played character. "In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant."

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Hard to swallow, but a great start for Tarantinos directing career.

[10/10 · 10 May 2010]

I'm kinda shaky as I'm writing this, seriously the end titles are playing as I'm writing this. And this movie has what is such a rare find these day, a shocking ending. Unless you're used to this kind of films, it's gonna stick to you for a short while. Another thing this film has is a very unique structure. The events are kinda thrown around randomly, they they still feel natural to watch.

What more can I say, I'm almost in denial that this was Quentin Tarantinos first film, todays professionals couldn't have made something as professional as this film. I must say, Tarantino never stops surprising me, and he never lets me down like many other directors do. It's a hard to swallow film, but it's necessary to tell such a story.

I don't really care, but you might. It's rated R for a reason. Minor SPOILERS if you can't handle people dying from gunshot, I mean real messy, blood and all, and seeing a man who's gotten his ear cut of (it's removed off-screen) then you might wan't to skip this one SPOILER ENDS. It's tough, that's all I'm saying.

I'm not sure how to conclude this, I give it a 10/10, that's it, it deserves it.

The Jerk (1979)

A funny movie, with a good point to tell. A rare and enjoyable thing.

[10/10 · 4 May 2010]

I once asked a guy who had seen this film if it was funny. His answer was "I don't know". I asked him "what do you mean about that?". He said "well it's funny, but it also has a good point to tell, so I'd rather say it's a good movie, rather than simply saying it's funny". And after having seen this film, I get what he meant. This isn't just some comedy which you summarise as "funny", it is more than that it's a "good" film.

I've never been much of a Steve Martin fan, but he sure nailed it here. The only reason I rarely watch comedies, is because I like more serious films, and this one is both, so you can imagine how much I loved this one. Navin must be one of the sweetest characters I've ever seen on film. It's a cliché made good, "he's dumb, but he's got a big heart". I think that summarises the character pretty much. Although at times he seem kinda smart.

It's a movie about how a man can accomplish anything, with nothing. How a "jerk" can accomplish anything anyone else can. It's also a statement about the emptiness of wealth, and how important family or just the people who loves you are.

It has great acting, great story, great moral, Great humour, what else but a 10/10.

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004)

The man who never grew up. A sad and intriguing life story.

[10/10 · 17 April 2010]

I warn you, if you like Sellers you might want to skip this one. He was quite an asshole in real life. A genius of comedy, but a selfish and tormented man. This movie really shows us the downfall of star-hood. He was a man spoiled by his mother, struggling to live up to her expectations, eventually he got so good at playing other people he lost his own identity, or so this film will have you to believe. It is none the less, quite interesting to see.

I think his life in film is quite neatly summarized, and how he takes the role of those near him in order to break the fourth wall, brilliant. One of the many questions in the film is, who is Peter Sellers? Is he just the roles he plays, or is there more too him. Anyway, Geoffrey Rush, portrays Sellers better than anyone else could. he makes us both love and hate the man. And our insight in Sellers mind can be almost scary at times. I hated him and sympathized with him at the same time.

Too be honest I only saw this movie in order to see how they handled Stanley Kubrick, they worked together on Lolita and Dr Strangelove. And too be honest Stanley Luccio handled him fine, could have gone deeper into the character, but he did not fail in any way.

So I give this movie a 10/10, but again I warn you, this might ruing your view on Peter Sellers.

Killer's Kiss (1955)

Well...Every genius has to start somewhere.

[6/10 · 13 April 2010]

Kubrick may be a genius in the film-making business, but even he made some less than average films in the beginning. Killer's Kiss is not necessarily a bad movie, it just isn't that good. It's very typical and kinda predictive. But then again it has some good moment, and some "Kubrick moments". At least this film got him enough attention to continue his career, that would make him one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

So for plain film fans, skip this one. For Kubrick fans, sure, but don't expect to much.

I give this film a 6/10.

Spartacus (1960)

Kubrick can turn anything into a masterpiece.

[10/10 · 12 April 2010]

Considering what little creative freedom Stanley Kubrick had in the making of this film, he sure did make it into a very memorable film. Sure there are certain scenes were I can say "that is definitely not a Kubrick scene", but at other times one can say "oh yes, that's a definitely Kubrick scene". it amused me how kirk Dougles (as Spartacus)first the first director and then hired Kubrick, thinking he could manipulate him. Oh, no, if anything Kubrick manipulated him. it is as Dougles said after the release of this film "Kubrick is a talented sh@t!", which in it's own way is a way of saying, "he pisses me off, but he's a damned good director". And I love seeing what Kubrick can do to a film, on the verge of failing.

What more can I say, the cast is excellent. the movie is long, very long! But it serves it's cause. Such an epic can't be told in a mere two hours. And the ending is some of the greatest in all the history of Hollywood epics. I give this film no less than it deserves; a 10/10.

Lolita (1962)

Controversial, dark, funny, a bit too long, but still a far better film than most other of the time.

[8/10 · 6 April 2010]

As a big fan of Stanely Kubrick I felt it was about time I saw Lolita, and I must say I have mixed feelings about it. It's a good story. The first half of the movie I found both hilarious and serious at the same time, the second half however was a bit lengthy. I guess that's my only problem with the film, it was too long, the story was good, but they should have cut it just slightly.

The first half I think was marvellous, filled with weird little hints of what's really going on between Humbert and Lolita, no wonder the tag line is "how in earth did they ever make a film of Lolita?". Just having made this film as early as 1962 is incredible in it self and only Kubrick could have done it. The relationship between Humbert and Chalotte was much sadder on the other side. I must say, Charlotte was the only character I actually sympathised with.

The second part however i felt was a bit repetitious, and Humbert started to get obsessive. I felt it was just nothing but quarrels again and again and again. They could have cut this slightly down, and we would still understand what was going on.

Now except for being a little melodramatic, I really liked the ending. In my opinion it was the only decent thing Humbert did in the film, and for the first time I feel that the viewer can actually feel sorry for him.

So I give this film a 8/10. Not Kubrick's best, but still a far better film than most other of the time.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Royale (1989) Season 2, Episode 12

This is what makes Star Trek so unique.

[8/10 · 1 April 2010]

In my opinion Star Trek in general has three types of episodes; political conflicts, social conflicts, and mystery conflicts. This episode qualify as the third one which happens to be my favourite. Sure Star Trek is so good because it so often brings up real problems which we actually can learn from, but once in a while I enjoy the fact they they can make episodes that are just pure Sci-Fi fun. And episodes like these are quite clever. Episodes like this is a sort of supernatural problem explained trough science fiction.

The away-team; Riker, Worf and Data find themselves in a hotel. It is a lonely structure on a literally dead planet, the inhabitants don't register as life-forms, but still exist. And only to make it more exiting they are incapable of exiting the hotel. (SPOILER AHED) It turns out the whole place is an recreation of a second rate novel owned by a dead 21 century astronaut they find in the hotel. Turns out the life form on the planet assumed this was the natural habitat for humans and created it for him. (SPOILER ENDS) To be honest this episode just makes me laugh, and it shows Data and Riker on their best and funniest. heck even Worfs grumpy attitude are funny at times. But the episode still manages retain it's seriousness.

This reminds me of some of the classical TOS episodes like; the Squire of Gothos, Patterns of Force, and mostly Spectre of the gun. Like mentioned before there are three types of episodes, well there are also three settings for Star Trek; the enterprise, alien planets, and the "bizzarre" setting. I like these because they always present a mystery and plays on the unknown. I like these because they are unique, weird, sometimes a bit funny, and they are a good variation from the casual sci-fi with spaceships, aliens, etc.

I give this episode an 8/10.