Kitty's Corner

As some of you might know, I got a new job last year. I've had it for 9 months now, so it's kind of wrong to keep calling it a "new job"! Anyway, when I started there, I had myself a new laptop, a huge motherf*cker of a computer! They call it a multimedia centre - it plays music, CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray. It has a built in TV-tuner - so I can watch TV on it also - which I don't.

Anyway - I hardly ever turn on my TV, not even for watching DVDs. I watch them on my "lap"top instead.

So - I went to the DVD store to buy a few movies. I found a couple of interesting ones, and then I suddenly stood by the Blu-Ray shelf, just to check what they had. I've been curious if the format is as good as they claim.

The first one I laid eyes on was "PS. I love you", a romantic movie, that is also on my top 5 list of Movies that made me cry (click link to read the list)...

The difference in price on the DVD and the Blu-Ray was DKK 100 (13.4Eur) - but since I already knew that I absolutely love this movie, I decided to buy it and check out if Blu-Ray is really worth the extra money.

So, that evening I turned on the computer, made sure that there were cold Pepsis in the fridge, and lots of Kleenex nearby. I inserted the BluRay and leaned back - only to find out that the HP QuickPlay needed an update to play the disc.
After what seemed like forever I had the update downloaded and installed. I leaned back one more time, turned up the volume, and let the movie begin.

Okay, let me say right away - the quality is better. Much much better! There's nothing blurry or not sharp at all when you're watching a movie in Blu-Ray format.

The other things I've read should be better with this format is the sound quality. In order to judge that, I'll have to compare directly - which I couldn't because I don't have this movie on DVD. But I doubt it's so evident that I'll be willing to pay extra for it. Remember that I watch it on a computer, there's nothing fancy like surround sound or something like that available for me.

The last thing that should be better, is the access to menus while watching the movie, but I couldn't see any difference in that. Whether it's the HP QuickPlayer's fault or the disc's - I do not know. But fact is that it looked exactly like when I am playing a DVD.

There was one thing, that weighed heavily on the negative side of the scale. It wasn't possible to "speed up" the movie. I could only jump from chapter to chapter, I couldn't press the "fast forward"-button. And that's a huge minus in my book!

So - all in all - I'll keep buying my movies on DVD while it's still an option. That means I can buy more for the same amount of money. :yay:

Yesterday morning wasn't particularly good. I felt down, and needed to be cheered up in some way. I decided to watch a movie; that usually does the trick!


I picked a new Danish movie: "Sorte kugler" - which means "Black Balls". The main character and director is a famous Danish stand up comedian, so even though I hadn't read anything about the movie, I thought that a light comedy would do wonders for my mood.

I was in for a surprise.

The movie is about the estate agent Alex Klein (played by Anders Matthesen), who frowns at his own life; and he takes the persons who is in his life very much for granted. The market for selling houses is hit hard by the financial crisis, and he stands in a very bad situation.

After a car crash he ends up in the Purgatory, in this movie in the form of a quiz show. Alex is going through various challenges to convince the audience to give him points in shape of white balls instead of black ones, in order to win his life back.

Not exactly a comedy, despite the many fast lines. Not really drama either. It was as if Anders Matthesen couldn't really decide whether he should go for comedy or drama, and then ended up with neither of the two.

I was entertained, which is always good. But I was also a little bit disappointed. This director is pretty skilful, he has made so many different cool things by now, so I think he could have done better than this.

I'll be nice, and give it out of 6.

Yesterday I went to see the movie "Angels and Demons". Let me say right ahead that I haven't read the Dan Brown book (or, now that I think of it, I maybe have, but I have forgotten all about it). So... I knew I wasn't going to be anything like "It wasn't as good as the book" for me.

The story takes place in the Vatican. Someone has stolen a canister of anti-matter from CERN in Geneva and killed the scientist who was working on it. Said scientist's assistant, Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer - who reminded me so much about Catherine Zetha-Jones), is summoned to the Vatican, where the College of Cardinals is organizing the conclave so that a new Pope can be elected.

Unfortunately, the same someone who stole the anti-matter is also responsible for the disappearance of four Cardinals, who will be killed between 8 and 11 pm, after which the canister will be used to blow up the Vatican. Since it would seem that the Catholic Church's oldest enemy, the Illuminati, a sect that favours science over religion, the Camerlengo (the Pope's most trusted man), Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), reluctantly asks Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) for help, since the latter's extensive knowledge of the Illuminati's methods and traditions could prove useful in the race against the clock that lies ahead.

There are two Danes on the role list of this film: Thure Lindhardt, who had a minor role as a kind of guard. Thure had a big role in the Danish movie "The Flame and The Lemon". (I made a review of the book - you can read it if you click here.)

The other Dane is Nikolaj Lie Kaas, who actually had a rather big role as the bad guy. That's cool, it seems that more and more Danish actors get to play the bad guy in foreign movies. Nikolaj played quite well in my opinion and it's so nice to hear that I am not the only Dane who speaks foreign languages with an accent!

All in all I liked the movie, it was a good action movie. The music fitted perfectly, the actors played well - I adore Tom Hank's way of acting, he is really brilliant in my opinion. Another thing is that it's possible to follow the plot in general without having read the book - a totally different experience than I had after watching "The DaVinci Code".

Only bad thing I can say is that I didn't understand anything of the first ten minutes of the film. There were so many scientific expressions and stuff that I sat like this: , and said to myself, "Okay I do at least understand that the pope is dead!"

So it'll have out of six.

It's been a while since I went to see a movie last. 1½ months, to be specific. That's way too long!
So I changed that yesterday, and went to see "Slumdog Millionaire".


The film begins as Jamal (Skins' Dev Patel) is under interrogation by Mumbai police for cheating on India's version of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire", being only one question away from winning it all. As the inspector says, even doctors and lawyers cannot come close to the first prize, and so Jamal, having grown up on the streets of Mumbai, cannot possibly know these things. As Jamal tries to avoid further torture, he begins to explain to the police how he knew each of the answers. Flashbacks present Jamal's boyhood and explain how he got to the show.

At the centre of his journey is his brother, Salim, and a girl, Latika, who is left a homeless orphan after an attack that took Jamal's mother as well. After running from a man who exploits the trio for labour, Jamal replays the incident when Latika left his life when she was unable to catch a moving train. His uncertainty of her fate on the streets of Mumbai and his intense desire to see his first and only love again lead him to the interrogation room where the film began.

I liked this movie. The Mumbai slums and Indian conditions are shown brilliantly. In fact, it was portrayed so well, that I thought that it was almost too much misery.

I've seen people question the plot: Is it possible that a slumdog can win the "Who wants to be a millionaire" like that? Who gives a fuck. It's a good movie!

out of 6.

I see a lot of movies these days. The latest one I saw, was Operation Valkyrie.

As the film starts we see the oath of allegiance taken by the German army. In Tunesia the German troops are battling the British and the allies. Colonel Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) is an officer who believes that Hitler is a threat not just to the countries he battles, but also to Germany itself.

After suffering a terrible injury after a British attack, Von Stauffenberg is relocated to Berlin, were as fortune would have it, he comes across the conspirators who are trying to kill Hitler but have failed in their last 14 attempts. Von Stauffenberg believes that as long as they can get a plan to take over from the SS and Gestapo after Hitler is gone, then it could well be 15th time lucky. Using Hitler's own plan "Valkyrie", the emergency plan for the military to retain control if the Wolf's Lair ever became cut off, Von Stauffenberg comes up with a fool proof plan to eliminate one of the most evil men in history.

Since the film is based on a true event, unless you have your head buried in the sand, you'll know the outcome, or at least the end result of Operation Valkyrie. This knowledge was disturbing for me. It was hard for me to cheer, when I knew that this 15th attempt of killing him would be another failure.

Tom Cruise played well, I admire his professionalism. Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Terence Stamp play three of the key figures in the conspiracy. It's been a while since I saw Kenneth Branagh in anything. He still hasn't got any lips, he just got older and more solid. I like him.

I think some of the operation was a bit difficult to understand. I've been giving it a lot of thought, because it made it hard for me to rate the film.

I have 6 stars. I will take one away for the difficulty of the plot and one for the lack of excitement, because the outcome was known (I know that is not completely fair, but I told you it wasn't easy for me to rate it).

That means it ends up with out of 6.