Mikkel

Member since: Sep 24th, 2006

Mikkel's Latest Comments

Blog Activity

Blog	# of Comments
AOL TV	8 Comments
Cinematical	4 Comments
Download Squad	1 Comment

Recent Comments:

Farrah Fawcett beats Michael Jackson in the ratings (AOL TV)

Jun 26th 2009 5:02PM Isn't the simple answer - as your source also explains - that Michael Jackson's death was covered intensely on a myriad of stations at once, thereby fragmenting the viewers between them, whereas coverage of Fawcett was limited to ABC. It's a bit appalling that you don't mention this.

Finally, to say that it is debatable who of the two is the biggest star is ludicrous. With all due respect to Fawcett and her great achievements, her importance is minuscule next to that of Michael Jackson. Everybody everywhere knows who Michael Jackson were. While on the other hand, as a Dane, I have been hard pressed to find anyone who knew who Fawcett were.

Stump the King: Tim Russert (AOL TV)

Jun 23rd 2008 5:07PM Of course, it's awkward to have made a joke at the expense of a dead person, especially one as highly revered as Russert. But it's not disrespectful, especifically if your "joke" is actually indirect praise, as it seems Kirby (and I) understood the comment.

With regards to your mention of 9/11. Yes, the reaction displayed by most of the comedy world was respectful and appropriate in the wake of 9/11. But how can you use that to argue against a perceived "joke" made before the - at the time - highly unlikely and tragic event that is Russert's death.

Wouldn't your reasoning prohibit any and all jokes involving contemporary living persons in print magazines, and other similarly delayed mediums, due to the risk of the target's intervening death before the magazine reaches its readers? And how about things that might possibly happen in the meantime? That's just... Wow... Something I'd regard as lame humor.

And finally, how is Bruce Fretts "joke" at Russert's expense any worse than your use of him in this week's question?

Quintessential: Highly customizable and extensible media player (Download Squad)

Jan 26th 2008 12:28PM As Andy said, no player comes close to MediaMonkey 3, I can't tell you how many times I've found myself wishing for a certain functionality, only to discover it's already there seconds later.

The Simpsons: Little Orphan Millie (AOL TV)

Nov 12th 2007 2:16PM This episode just felt off, I didn't laugh once, and actually winced a little whenever the "rivalry" between Danes and Dutch where mentioned. As a Dane, I can safely say that I've never heard of it. How about making fun of our mostly friendly and brotherly rivalry with Sweden and Norway? It was just a bad plot device. And the little that characterized Solvang was just... Uck.

Numb3rs: Trust Metric (season premiere) (AOL TV)

Sep 29th 2007 1:39PM Decent episode, even though it was quite predictable, even without having the knowlegde that Dylan Bruno wasn't leaving the show. Numb3rs is one of those shows I can't quite seem to justify watching, but still duly do.

Moonlight: No Such Thing as Vampires (series premiere) (AOL TV)

Sep 29th 2007 1:32PM The whole "Let's expose the differences between our vampire and the countless others" interview thing was just so... uck. Not only was this exposition sequence badly executed, but had it been left out, it would probably have lent the rest of the episode some much needed excitement. As we would actually have something to speculate about, since the horrendous episode plot didn't even bother with just a single half-decent twist. Come on, at least provide our main character with a thrilling background (like, say, Angel's) and motivation. Perhaps the problem with this show is that the Buffyverse shows have done the whole "good vampire guy" to near perfection, and thereby exhausted all decent and/or good plots that can be thown into a vampire show?

Dohring and Kevin Weisman (Marshall from Alias - who doesn't seem to be credited on IMDB and probably won't return) were the only highlights. Not that either had much to do.

Kid Nation, Kitchen Nightmares do well in ratings (AOL TV)

Sep 21st 2007 10:05AM Sure it was an interesting setting for an episode, but the actual soul of the show (the food) were never really discussed. We were left with: This is dangerous, this is what you do. Said with no more words. We didn't really get any numbers or insight. And the fact that the restaurant was just given a brand new kitchen left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The son had been incredibly selfish and wasteful in his demeanor and should have been forced to give up some of his fancy ways (like similar owners were forced to do in the UK version). Where as the UK version followed Gordon Ramsay as he fixed restaurants using nothing but his personality (and a bit of the surrounding PR), this version has nothing against using a deus ex machina, which makes it a lesser show. If I wanted that, I'd watch Extreme Makeovers.

Overall, nothing had been improved upon compared to the original. The insane editing, narrator and soundtrack made me feel like it was a Michael Bay movie I was watching.

Kitchen Nightmares -- An early look (AOL TV)

Sep 20th 2007 10:35AM I really enjoyed watching the UK version of Kitchen Nightmares, but the US version is just a mess, it took about five minutes of hyping the show I'm ALREADY watching for Gordon to appear. What's more annoying? The obnoxius music, which made me reconsider watching the show at the 10 minute mark. Overall, this version is just way to flashy compared to the UK version and focused way to much on the "drama" compared to the food, which is the soul of the show.

How Much Should a Critic Spoil a Movie? (Cinematical)

Jul 24th 2007 2:00PM I find it funny that this should appear just as I've been fuming over certain reviews of the new Harry Potter. Of those reviews, one in particular angered me as it offered nothing constructive at all about the more "technical" aspects of the boook besides the given rating, but took the form of a through out recap of the book which detailed all major plot points and heavily hinted what the ending would entail. No warning about the endless amount of spoilers where given. If I hadn't already read the book, it would have been utterly destroyed for me.

Now, had it been some obscure review found on an even more obscure website, I would have forgiven the writer, but this was a professional reviewer writing for one of the largest papers in my country. It's lazy writing. Either warn the reader, give alternating versions of the review (one "before" and one "after"), or at least try to find the delicate balance of revealing (or better yet; hinting at) parts of the movie which help underline your criticism, but doesn't damage your reader's enjoyment of the given movie/book.