Rear Window (1954)

Film: Rear Window
Release: 1954, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: An adventurous photographer is put out of commission by a broken leg and kills time by looking at his neighbours through his rear window.

Hans' thoughts:

Like with other Hitchcock movies, the first thing that occurs to you is just how well-shot the movie is. Once again, Hitchcock uses extraordinary imagery and we as the audience dance from his strings like marionettes. The entire movie takes place - Like Rope - In a single apartment. But while Rope was only shot in the apartment and worked like a stage play, this one instead shows us one of the most elaborate sets in film. A fully recreated back alley of a normal group of apartment in Greenwich, New York. Every single apartment is fully created, and has people inside. Most of whom we learn a lot about, through almost no dialogue. Hitchcock turns his audience into peeping toms as we learn everything we need to know through the window of a one-bedroom apartment. While this certainly is a suspense piece like most of Hitchcocks movies, this one gives the audience breathing space by adding comedy through another Hitchcock staple: Well-written dialogue. Once again the dialogue really makes most of the movie, and the characters all seem well-thought out. While you get the main mystery plot, this movie also manages through it's imagery to put in 4 or 5 sub-plots and somehow they are easy to keep track of, and all well-written as well. This one was based on a short-story "It Had to Be Murder" by Cornell Woolrich. I haven't read the story, but I imagine any deviances doesn't take away from the film.


With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story (2010)

Film: With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story
Release: 2010, Television
Starring: Stan Lee, Joe Simon, Joan Lee
Directed by: Terry Dougas, Will Hess, Nikki Frakes
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A biographic documentary on one of the most iconic writers in comic book history, Stan Lee.

Hans' thoughts:

Stan Lee is one of the few comic book writers that even non-fans has heard about, they may not be aware of all he's created but they know that he's the guy always doing a cameo in Marvel movies, to my friends and I, spotting Stan has become a little game of ours. This is a nice little documentary that gives us some insight into the life of a creator of icons. However, the film seems to spotlight only the good things, while the darker sides such as the Jack Kirby lawsuit has been left out. The ones being interviewed in the movie also has varying levels of relevance. You have Stan and his family, some big name editors, but then for whatever reason they have chosen to bring in almost every single actor that had protrayed a Marvel comics character on the big screen, this distraction made me sometimes rewind the movie because I would miss all the important stuff. This movie also speeds through the major events, seemingly in a hurry to get to the creation of The Fantastic Four, his first major success. All in all, while the movie did inform, it just did it's job poorly. This could honestly have been done so much better, even for a television feature. Stan Lee deserves so much better. Nerds only.


Hellboy: Blood & Iron (2007)

Film: Hellboy: Blood & Iron
Release: TV, 2007
Starring: Selma Blair, Ron Perlman, John Hurt
Directed by: Victor Cook, Tad Stones
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The BPRD (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense) is called out to a haunted house owned by a well-known casino owner and friend of the senator controlling the funds of the bureau. At first, seemingly a simple publicity stunt to get guests for the intended hotel, Hellboy and friends soon realise there is more to this affair than meets the eye.

Hans' thoughts:

Hellboy has always been linked together cloesly with classic hroor and Lovecraftian horror and in this story we get a little bit of both. Being a sort-of follow up to the live action movies, this movie features the voices of all of the orignal actors. Most of them do their job nicely, but I have to say that Ron Perlmans voice can be a bit too stiff at times. This being a TV movie, budget cuts have probably been made and at times reuse of character models can be a bit too obvious. Fortunately, the story is top notch and the action of the movie follows through. All the characters look like they're supposed to and are recognizable in this form. At times, this movie attempts comedy however and it really falls flat on it's back. In the end though, this is an enjoyable movie.

Justice League: The New Frontier (2008)

Film: Justice League: The New Frontier
Release: 2008, Video
Starring: David Boreanaz, Neil Patrick Harris, Lucy Lawless
Directed by: Dave Bullock
IMDB PageLink opens in a new window
Description: A mysterious being threatens humanity, as Earth's mightiest must join forces with the new heroes in this retelling of the forming of the Justice League - set in the 1950's.

Hans' Thoughts:

The first thing you notice when you pop in this DVD is the artstyle, the artstyle looks and feels like an updated version of the 1950's comic books. And it's fitting, for unlike most other Superhero movies this one is a period piece. The only other period piece superhero movies I can think of on the top of my head is X-men: First Class and Captain America: The First Avenger. The latter forcibly so, as Captain America is a character thoroughly grounded in the mindset of the second world war. To me, period piece superhero movies is really an awesome concept. A lot of these characters has origin stories that really work best in the Atomic era and especially the two characters whose origin is explained in this one: Green Lantern (Hal Jordan version) and Martian Manhunter. Anyone who followed the Justice League TV-show already knows an origin story for Martian Manhunter, but this one offers one closer to the original concept. So this is one of the movies very strong points, being set in the 50's the movie can justify the personalities and issues a bit more as these were very relevant problems of this period, feminism versus patriarchy, racism and the space race. The cold war is also very prominent in the mindset of some of the characters. This movie is also the second in DC's Direct-To-Video lineup, an experiment starting with Superman: Doomsday that's still going strong today. The voice acting in the movie is pretty great, the new Batman may not be Kevin Conroy but he does a pretty good job and Lucy Lawless is just flawless as Wonder Woman (hm. Rhyme). This movie also has a lot of nods to the fans and silent cameos of popular characters (forexample Green Arrow.) I don't know how well this movie is adapted from the original comic book however, but seeing as the original creator is attached to the project I'm assuming it does it justice. If you want to get into the DC universe, try this one out for size.


DC Showcase: Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam (2010)

Film: Superman/Shazam: The Return of Black Adam
Release: 2010, Video
Starring: Zach Callison, James Garner, Josh Keaton
Directed by: Joaquim Dos Santos
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: This DVD holds 4 showcases of classic DC Universe characters in the form of animated shorts, In Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam a new superpowered foe has come to Earth, destroying everything in his path. He seems focused on the orphaned boy Billy Batson for mysterious reasons. In Green Arrow, the title hero thwarts the murder-attempt of the young heir to a European throne. In Jonah Hex, the title hero tracks down a group of vigilantes operating too heavily on the wrong side of the law and in The Spectre,  the murder of a popular Hollywood producer brings out supernatural forces and mysterious killings begin to occur.

Hans' thoughts:

Okay, So since this one is a special case I've decided to give each short it's own text blurb. This one's a long one let's go!

Superman/Shazam: The Return of Black Adam:

This one is definitely the strongest of the bunch, which explains why it got top billing. It recounts the origin story of Captain Marvel or - as he's named now, Shazam! It's a very nice little introduction for people who are new to the character, as it's very much grounded in the behind-the-scenes history of the character. Ready for a short history lesson? Back when superheroes was a new thing in 1939 Captain Marvel was actually the property of a rivalling company: Fawcett Comics.  In 1953, DC Comics sued Fawcett comic alleging that Captain Marvel was a blatant copy of Superman and Fawcett ceased publishing his books. In 72', DC Comics aquired the rights to the character and his sorrounding cast. However, in the meantime Marvel comics had created their own "Captain Marvel" character (long story short, an alien) so DC has henceforth promoted the character under the name "Shazam!" finally renaming the character entirely in 2012. Back to the actual movie, the animation style is very nice but it is fairly obvious that a japanese studio was hired to do this one. This movie also felt like it could've been the pilot of an animated series or a shortened script for what would have been a full movie. It could also have been an episode of Justice League: Unlimited from the feel and the atmosphere. Supermans prescense isn't entirely neglected, but he does seem to have put in the movie to have a familiar face to draw people in.

Green Arrow:

This doesn't actually work all that well as an introduction to the character (as he already seems to have an established relationship with follow Justice League member Black Canary). So this one also feels like a scrapped episode of Justice League: Unlimited. While the plot is fairly simple, it is nice to see Green Arrow get some solo action in animated form and the voice actors all did really really great. While I can objectively see that this one is one of the weaker ones it is inarguably my favourite of the bunch. But that mostly comes from my love of the character. Overall, Green Arrow made me smile every time he was on screen, and they definitely managed to capture the spirit of the character. But again, this one may not work as a "Showcase" for the character as I would argue that the best way to introduce someone to a new hero is almost always to explain or retell their origin (like the top billing title did). It was also a bit distracting that a well-established liberal character like Green Arrow would be given a plot to protect monarchy, but I guess that only comes into play when you like me are familiar with him beforehand.

The Spectre:

This one is done very tongue-in-cheek. The whole movie has a 70's quality filter on it, with the frame jumping at times and the colours being faded. It oozes the atmosphere of a grind house feature which makes it even more sad that this one is actually the weakest of the bunch. While Green Arrow did a poor job at showcasing the character, this one actually does a disservice to the casual viewer by not explaining most of what's going on at all. We are expected to accept the events of the movie through-out the most of it and is given a short dissatisfying explanation at the very end through monologue. Number one of any visual medium: Show, don't tell. That said, like the others the animations are well-done and the voice acting is also top notch. They can't save the movie from a, sadly, sub-par script and this one is very forgettable. I honestly recommend the casual viewer lets this one play for the toilet break.

Jonah Hex:

The best one besides the main attraction, this one actually showcases the character of Jonah Hex very well without retelling the origin. Set in the old west, it has all the clichés of spaghetti westerns. Jonah Hex is like Batman in the old west however and the sheer personality of the character is enough to hold ones interest. While the plot is perhaps the most straight forward of them all, this one has the most action. It also has some downright cruel moments so I hesitate to recommend this one to younger viewers. This one is shown last on the disc, after The Spectre and it's apparent that they've saved some of their best for last. The animation of this one out-ranks all of the others and the art style is dark and gritty, befitting for one of the darkest characters of the DC Universe. Do not miss out on this one, even if you did not like the rest. It is the one I think casual viewers will enjoy the most.


Batman: Under The Red Hood (2010)

Film: Batman: Under The Red Hood
Release: 2010, video
Starring: Bruce Greenwood, John DiMaggio, Jensen Ackles
Directed by: Brandon Vietti
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A new threat has come to Gotham - A person calling himself "The Red Hood" has taken controls of the cartels, tipping the scales of power in Gothams criminal underworld. It turns out however, this new villain is more than just another druglord.

Hans' Thoughts:

Old lady Joker
Normally, movies that go direct to video are thought to be either not by a mainstream company or just very low budget - This is not the case on this one. Under The Red Hood is one of the finest animated DC universe movies out there, chronicling one of the game-changing storylines of the Batman comic books.It's really hard to talk about this movie without spoiling it, but I'll do my best. This movie marks John DiMaggio's debut as The Joker, a role he's later revises in the new game Injustice: Gods Among Us. The challenge for new voice actors that take on The Joker is that they will be compared to the absolutely fantastic voice acting of Mark Hamill. A man that's for my generation has been the definitive voice of The Joker since Batman the animated series. That said, John DiMaggio manages to deliver his own take on the character while saluting the characters voice under Hamill.The other voice actors also did a fantastic job, and while the art style is great most of the time at some points I felt The Joker looked more like an old VERY pale lady. Like the villain from The Little Mermaid. Normally, the art style was great and the designs of Nightwing and The Red Hood in particular catch the original art from the comics it's based on pretty well. The art also reminded me of the show "Young Justice". This being a story arc from the comic books, it could mean it would be kinda hard for newcomers to get into but I feel that the newcomers I've watched it with has managed to follow the story just fine. This could also be because the story bears no mention of the major DC event Infinite Crisis which the story arc was part of the aftermath of. Having watched other DC movies which also spawned from comic book story arcs, this one is by far the best of the bunch. Especially newer animated movies like Superman/Batman: Apocalypse
Superman as he looks in "Batman/Superman: Apocalypse" 
are sub-par by comparison, even taking into account my gripes with the art style (in my opinion the lips are way too detailed in the new ones). On the right you should be able to a screenshot from aforementioned movie as an example.  Overall though, The Red Hood is definetly a movie you should track down if you like Batman at all. In my opinion it sits up there even with the very best live-action ones.

EDIT: Turns out "Superman/Batman: Apocalypse" is from later in 2010, same year as the release of The Red Hood making this a bad example. However, my preference of the artstyle of the latter still stands, even compared to titles like "Superman/Shazam: Return of Black Adam" or "Justice League: Doom".


Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Film: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
Release: 2012, theatrical
Starring: Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Anthony Mackie
Directed by: Timur Bekmambetov
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window 
Description: In this retelling of the life of one of Americas greatest presidents, vampires lurks the night and he makes it his personal mission to eliminate all of them

Hans' thoughts:

Assuming you're not put off by the title and the premise, there is good times to be found in this movie. This movie sounds like a comedy, but in fact it takes itself completely seriously and straight-faced. While the premise may be silly, the actors managed (in my case at least) to sell their emotions and the action scenes were pretty well done. This movie has bullet-time but it's careful to not overuse it, making it a thrill to look at. This is also a movie of spectacles, as some of the actions scenes has pretty catastrophic things happening around it (especially the climax). Not having read the book which the movie is based on, I couldn't tell you how faithful this is to the source material. However, if you're the kind of person who can look past the silliness of an American president fighting vampires with a wood choppers axe, and engage in the sheer action and indulgement this movie presents, you will most likely not be disappointed. I wasn't.

Rope (1948)

Film: Rope (1948)
Release: 1948, theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB: Link opens in a new window
Description: A seemingly normal party is held by two friends with a dark secret, can they manage to keep it secret from the party guests?

Hans' thoughts:

This movie was based on a play and it shows. The whole movie is done in as long takes as possible (10 minutes were the longest time on a roll back then) and only on one big set, making this entire movie feel like a stage-act. The set, which is three adjourned rooms is that of an apartment and that basically all you see (with the one exception of the street shot which makes up the intro credits sequence.) As always with these kinds of movies the characters are very archetypical but also fleshed out, in a single evening that makes up the movie the characters are able to provide us with personality traits and backstories - through dialogue alone. But not clumsy "screenwriter" dialogue either, everything is pretty much said naturally which is admirable in and off itself. The dialogue is pretty much what saves this movie, as what would've been a pretty good mystery is taken away from us in the first few seconds. That said, the Hitchcock suspense is still there and as enjoyable as ever. I'll probably revisit this movie soon for the dialogue alone.

Paranoia (2011)

Movie: Paranoia
Release: 2011, Video
Starring: Brad Jones, Brian Irving
Directed By: Ryan Mitchelle
IMDB page: link opens a new window
Description: The newly divorced Mark Bishop defends himself from what he believes is a robber - suddenly he is pulled into a mystery that he has no interest in being a part of.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a pretty by-the-book thriller. Not that it's unoriginal, but picture the genre "thriller" in your mind and this is somewhat close to what you'd probably come up with. Don't take that as a bad criticism, because while this IS very by-the-book it is also really well made. While the acting from our main actor is kinda wavy at first, it quickly picks up the pace as Brad Jones as "Mark Bishop" apparently settles into his character as the movie goes along and the movie quickly gets good. Unfortunately, at some points the sound can be a bit low, fortunately that's what volume buttons are for, so just turn up the sound when you feel you need to. Now it may seem that I'm bashing this movie, but it really is good and with a nice ending I won't give away here, give it a watch. I at least found it very worth it.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Movie: Shadow of a Doubt
Release: 1943, theatrical
Starring: Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A normal small-town American family is paid a visit by their favorite uncle but something is wrong this time around.

Hans' thoughts: 

To me this movie was hard to get into. We get this all-American family suddenly exposed to something mysterious and to me it just felt off, like two entirely different movies were clashing. I do have this itch that this was what the audience were supposed to feel though and it certainly has some good moments. Halfway through the movie we have this big reveal and while the scene itself is good, as with the recurring theme of not knowing how to cope with the subject matter this movie just didn't do it for me. Once the big reveal was done, the movie was kinda just speeding along towards the inevitable and kinda predictable ending. It has some well-made and fleshed out characters, especially the ones played by the two main actors. But at the same time a lot of the characters (including the female lead) acts way too naive than what would seem realistic. Other than that the movie was kind of believable, the city is shot very anonymously, it could very well be in any part of the country, this was probably done to make it easier for the audience to identify themselves with the characters and the situation. I ended up enjoying this movie and I'm glad I saw it, but it is definitely very different from what I would normally put into the disc-player when I need to relax.

Saboteur (1942)

Movie: Saboteur
Release: 1942, theatrical
Starring: Priscilla Lane, Robert Cummings
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Description: An innocent young man is framed of a horrible crime and must traverse the country to find the origin of his problems.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a BIG movie. It has loads of characters, locations, events.. It's just big. The movie starts of simple enough, but every time you think you have something pinned down it throws something at you. That's how I experienced it at least, it was pretty easy to see where the movie was going ultimately, well at least somewhat, but even so I was still surprised by some of twists in this movie (none of which I want to spoil of course!). This is one of those "The journey beats the destination" movies, because the middle part of the movie was definitely the part I enjoyed the most. In my mind I set it as a adventure flick with suspenseful moments, a sort of darker but still light-hearted cousin to the later Indiana Jones flicks and Flash Gordon serial. Although only darker in the sense of the subject manner, this was during World War II after all, and this movie must've hit hard with the masses of the day. I however enjoy it as an adventure with many colourful characters.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Film: Iron Man 3
Release: 2013, theatrical
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley.
Directed by: Shane Black
Previous in the series: Iron Man 2
IMDB Page: link opens in a new window
Description: Tony Stark is once again forced to done the red and gold armor to protect those he love and care about. Picking up after The Avengers, Stark is spending every waking moment in his workshop making new suits of armor, trying to cope with the events of The Avengers. Events soon spin completely out of control when a terrorist calling himself The Mandarin suddenly appears quickly making it personal.

Hans' thoughts:

I'm big on comic books, and seeing them turned into movies has over the years has been met with mixed results. That is, until Marvel started making their movies themselves. Say what you want about the decisions Marvel is currently making in the comic book universe, their movie division certainly knows what it's doing and thus far the cast choices has been amazing. While the Thor movie and the former Iron Man 2 movie were in the good-but-could-be-better category (Mostly because they suffered for having to setup the amazingly well made Avengers movie) Iron man 3 had to remind audiences why the Iron man movies are the Marvel movies flagship-franchise. And man did it do that. Continuing the story rather than just rehashing what happened in the first movie by just bringing in some random bad guy and Stark learning to not party quite as hard any more, the Stark of this movie is actually still in the reactionary phase of what happened the last time we saw him (The events of The Avengers). A nice change to the movie is also the absence of S.H.I.E.L.D. letting Tony focus on growing as a person and re-learning how to fix things himself, personally S.H.I.E.L.D. to me was also a major distraction in Iron Man 2 as it made the whole thing feel like a movie trailer. Stark does not try to shun help completely though, as he was taught not to in the second movie, as he actually accepts the help of friends and allies this time around. The movie actually played a lot like an actual comic book arc, with the entire second act feeling like you could pick it up as a magazine in your local comic book store and get right into the action, not having to have read the comics that made up act one. Don't know what I'm talking about? Try going to the library and looking through a tradeback collection of a major comic book event (personally, I like to recommend the X-men story "The Messiah CompleX" for beginners.). Overall, the acting was also top notch and you will probably find (as I did) that Ben Kingsley will completely steal every scene he's in once he's properly present.

We're Back! A Dinosaur's story (1993)

Film: We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story
Alternate title:
4 Dinos in New York
Release: 1993,
John Goodman, Rhea Perlman, Jay Leno, Walter Cronkite, Julia Child, and Martin Short.
Director(s): Phil Nibbelink, Simon Wells
IMDB: Link opens in a new window

Description: Dr. Neweye travels back to the age of the dinosaurs to bring back four specimen, given human level intelligence to help fulfil the wishes of children all over the world. We follow the adventures of the 4 dinosaurs through the eyes of the T-Rex known as Rex.

Hans' thoughts:

This is from the era where audiences were reminded that all good animation is not done solely by the Disney corporation. Unfortunately, this is not the greatest example of another company infringing on the mouses territory. As a kid, I utterly adored this movie. It had some of my favourite things in fiction, even at the time: Time Travel, Dinosaurs and The Circus! To me this movie was on a pedestal far beyond the reach of mere mortals and nothing could possibly reach it's heights! So yeah, you could say that it was with rose-coloured glasses that I recently decided to introduce Miki to it and popped it in the VCR. Did I get disappointed? Well, no. I actually got surprised at how much I remembered from this movie, but as an adult I've heard some pretty less than stellar things about this instant can of nostalgia of mine and it's rating on IMDB threw me off. So rewatching this also had the purpose of "checking" if I was an idiotic kid all those years ago. You know what? Sure, I was kinda stupid but the movie definitely had things going for it. The things I remember the most fondly from the movie were actually the things that people have poked fun of the most, one of these things were the clown, for some reason nobody seems to like the clown. Now I occasionally do comic strips myself and I actually consider the clown in this movie to be one of my major comedic influences so nobody liking the clown were, to say the least, worrying. Now as I said, I certainly was a stupid kid and this text is not supposed to be me blindly defending every aspect of the movie. Yes, it certainly has problems. Most of the things aren't explained and you just kinda have to sit down shut up and see how much you can take in. As an example you never fully get explained the whole time travel deal, why the kids don't seem to mind the presence of dinosaurs in present time (in the movie referred to as "The Middle-Future"), What the deal with the circus owner is (though "he's crazy" is given as a kinda thin explanation) and why there's an alien present. This is based on a childrens book (which I haven't read) which I should hope gives more of an explanation as to what in the world is going on. In any case I certainly loved to revisit this and I'll be glad to do so again in the future.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)

Film: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Release: 1988, theatrical
Starring: Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd, Joanna Cassidy
Director: Robert Zemeckis
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The down-on-his-luck private detective Eddie Valiant must come to terms with his hatred of Toons when one of his cases go haywire.

Hans' thoughts:

It would be easy to think that this movie won out on technical achievement alone: First filmed with all the human actors, followed by every frame of the movie printed out in full color and drawn on with oil paint, resulting in 82,000 frames of completely fluid, classic-looking animation. No computers were used. Fortunately, this movie doesn't stop at the achievements at that, or even the fact that it was a joint effort between several rivalling animation studios (most notably Disney and Warner Bros.) and the efforts of Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic team. No, this movie actually stands as well on its story and the talents of the actors and voice actors involved. Yeah, you can probably tell I love this movie. I wouldn't go as far as to call it my favorite movie of all time (because I don't believe in favorites) but it is very close to that.

Everyone does a good job in this movie, the animation captures that 40's feel, the brought-in first-timer (at the time) Bob Hoskins shows us some pretty good acting chops, Christopher Lloyd is delightfully creepy and Amy Irving's singing voice as Jessica Rabbit is riveting. The comedic timing is good as well, but at some points in the movie you can tell the animation is off-point. For instance, they used robotic arms and equipment for whenever the animated characters had to interact with the scenery. The most accurate example of something being off-point is early on in the movie when the ballet hippo from Fantasia sits down on a bench and sends the guy sitting on it flying up in the air when it breaks down under her weight. The timing for the bench tipping happens just slightly too late and the joke falls a little flat. It happens a few times when the human actors have to do slapstick, but the funny lines from them are at least delivered perfectly. The mystery in the movie is actually well done as well: Okay, you can pretty much tell who the villain of the movie is from the beginning but the motivation behind his actions are just complicated enough that you don't pick up on them right away (like you would in some of the worse written TV-episodes of Midsomer Murders forexample). Overall, great movie! Loved it.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Film: Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Release: 1975, theatrical
Starring: Graham Chapman, Terry Gilliam, John Cleese, Terry Jones, Eric Idle, Michael Palin
Directed by: Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Arthur, King of the Britons must find his knights of the round table and go on a quest to find the Holy Grail. Watch the movie and you may yet find out: What is the air-velocity of a laden swallow?

Hans' thoughts:

This is the only movie I know of that will make it's audience laugh at the very beginning of the movie. The opening shot? No, sooner. The very first frame of the opening credits. This is an absolutely insane movie and it more than succeeds in capturing the spirit of the TV-show. As opposed to the later Python movies, this one is filled with the meta-gags and lack of structure of Monty Pythons Flying Circus. One moment we're visiting a nunnery, the next we're "riding" on a meadow. It has the animations of Terry Gilliams and the slapstick of the rest of the pythons. That said, this movie does not really support several viewings. It is very grounded in the comedy of the 70's and while the movie is consistently funny, some of the deliveries even from the main actors sometimes fall a bit flat and some attempts at establishing a running gag (one meta-gag in particular) don't really work out as just repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it funny when it wasn't really all that funny in the first place. However, the little things are almost completely erased by the absolute bonkers script and very funny one-liners. I promise that at the end of the movie you will have new insults to throw at people. Actually, this movie is just very quotable and I guess that's what makes it so endearing, the things that are funny are hilarious. Come for the slapstick, stay for the dialogue.


Introduction: Hans

So I've been thinking that introductions are in order for each of us, so consider this short post a description of me and my tastes.

As you may have noticed, my name is Hans. I'm a opinionated guy from the outskirts of Copenhagen - the capitol of Denmark. My interests lay firmly in entertainment; mostly comic books and video games but I also hold movies in very high regard. At the time of writing I am in my early twenties and the flatmate of Miki, the other guy on this site and my best friend. We also live with my cat, Kaiser Vilheilm, he's black and we named this site after him. When I'm not going on about movies here, I'm being sarcastic about almost anything else on my blog and in my webcomic.

The cat we named the site after
Right, my tastes. I am very big on animation in general but especially Japanese. I really feel that while America used to be the crème de la crème when it comes to TV animation, lately it has come down to a few but strong shows that drowns in a very big pit of garbage. There, Japan just have a clear advantage: Of course they have their fair share of garbage too though. When it comes to live-action I have a love for the period piece/crime genre, stuff like The Godfather or The Untouchables. I also watch every comic book adaptation I can get my hands on, seeing as the quality has risen exponentially in recent years; I am still looking for a video game movie on those levels though. My favorite trilogy of all time is the Back to the Future trilogy - time travel is a subject manner that really intrigues me which is also why Doctor Who has become one of my favorite television shows.

Overall, I usually look for a mixture of jokes and action. I can get tired of watching straight up dramas or straight up comedies really quickly. That said, my favourite comedy is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and my favourite drama is Eyes Wide Shut.

So how about my credentials? Why should you listen to me? Well. I've been a critic in radio, working there for about a year in connection with educational purposes. I've also been an intern on a mainstream movieset, working as a runner for one and a half month. Other than that I have dabbled in movie making, especially animation, since I was 12. I am also well-versed in the historical knowledge aspect of my love for medium. I would also wager that I have seen a wider array of movies from all eras than most people. I am far more than casually aqainted with movies.

I hope this article has shed some light on who I am, and that you will read our movie reviews.

Project Wonderful 3