pygospa

VIP

3

I have to say, I was a bit scared about this movie as the critics I've heard beforehand where all rather negative. But: The movie was really good, and I enjoyed it a lot.

I've seen it in 3D and it was one of the best 3D movies I've seen lately, so I can really recommend watching it in 3D. The setting was really great, and I liked it quite a bit better than the first Fantastic Beasts ; we get a great 1920s vibe, the look is incredible. We are mainly in London and England, and we get to see a lot of new magical creatures and again, what I really liked was that this movie is opening doors and becomes a bit more "international" - so instead of just the creatures of our own mythology (dragons, unicorns, centaurs, giants) we get Asian and South American folklore creatures such as Kappas, Chupacabras, Zouyus, etc. And to me, this is what "Fantastic Beasts and where to find them" is still a main aspect that this series should be all about - expanding the known British magical universe told in Harry Potter to both, new locations as well as new creatures and folklore. Of course as it is closely connected to the Harry Potter universe, there are also a few references, and a number of new background information is provided to a number of characters - some where interesting and of course this is majorly done as fan service. Most of the time I thought that this wasn't necessary, though and I could have lived without them.

What I did enjoy though, where the effects, and I think they where even much better than the in the first movie - with one exception those hairless cats in the French ministry of magic? Seriously: WTF?! Did the budget for the animator run out and so they hired an intern?! It looked like CGI we know from cheap television series such as Xena or Buffy. Other than that, however, I loved the effects, and also the tone that is set in this movie - different to the first one, this one is really dark and grim the entire time - the cuddly aspect of the first one that is spiked with funny jokes and "aww" moments of the first movie are nearly entirely gone. Instead we get to experience an evil emperor like person (a new "Hitler"-like character if you will) slowly gain power and influence with ideas that are horrible but still find their followers. The movie walks into a lot of new territory: becoming more political and mature than any other movie in the Potter universe, but also more dramatic and sad. And I really like that.

Acting-wise everybody is again on a very high level. Eddie Redmayne plays as lovely as in the first movie and I really like the Newt Scamander character. Katherine Waterson is great as well but has much less screen time than in the last movie (unfortunately) and Alison Sudol is again totally charming and beguiling, and one of my favorite characters in this series. But of course everyone was most interested in Johnny Depp and Jude Law; when hearing about the cast I was more covinced of Depp than of Law, but in the end both where really great. Law's Dumbledore is so good that you can really see him as the young version of Dumbledore as we have known him for 8 movies - something that is really hard to achieve. And Depp had one of his greatest performances since probably a decade? Perfectly on spot, never too much, never boring, giving you the chills especially during his monologue.

When talking with other Potter-Fans the greatest criticism I heard was the character break of Qeenie, and I was puzzled as well, but in the end, I see so many little aspects that might give you hints of what might have happened take for instance, the tea scene. What was that all about? Why do they obtrusively try to give her tea which she declines the entire time? Also she is not at his side from the beginning and even raises her wand once he enters - however we never get to know what the talked about - the movie cuts away - maybe something that is revealed in a later movie?, and I can somehow empathize with her - given that it is 6 months later and in all this time she has suffered a lot under the society and their conventions that do not fit her unconventional choice. So even though some of her actions seem extreme and at first glance unreasonable, try to put yourself into her shoes and think of the situation as something so frustrating with no way out where everyone works against you, and then finally you get a "way out". Is her action still so unrealistic?

Another criticism is of course the open end, and the fact that this movie does not proceed in any way. And I share that feeling - but it's exactly the same way I felt about "The Two Towers" - in the end you can say "well great, Sam and Frodo are at the same situation they where in right when the movie started". Of course, story-wise we don't get any progression. But it's not about the story, but rather about building up characters and their emotions and motivations, putting all the pieces together for a great finale, and I myself find that "The Crimes of Grindlewald" does this perfectly and while doing so there is a lot of good stuff going on, character-wise. Also I do believe in J. K. Rowling - she presented as with Harry Potter and had a master plan and an ending that heavily relied on character trades and actions that happened right in the first book - she had a plan - a great one, that unfolded itself over 7 books that where written subsequently as the story progressed, and I cannot imagine that she worked differently when conceptualizing "Fantastic Beasts". So even though the ending seems strange and does not appear to make any sense, I think one should bare with it, and see where the journey will end. Many other movies (such as Infinity War) get better critics even though it is totally clear to everyone that they will just undo everything done in that movie, making it both meaningless and boring. Why be so hard with a movie where everything still is absolutely open?

I myself was really excited - I enjoyed the movie a lot, I think it's worth watching a second time to look into details overlooked the first time, I enjoyed the characters, the magic, the discovery of new worlds - all in all, I really had good fun and liked this one even better than the first movie.

This is one of the movies that is really hard to rate for me, and I am torn between two sides. On the positives:

I liked the acting of this rather unknown cast. Acting for a normal movie is hard enough, and I believe that musicals are the supreme discipline, as you do not only have to have the ability to be a good actor, but you also need to both, be able to sing and dance and it has to sound good and look good. And here I have to say: They are excellent. All dance choreographies where really challenging, and had really funny ideas that made me smile a number of times. Comparing it to other musicals I have seen in the last year I have to say, those choreographies where even better than those in the beloved La La Land. Those choreographies where also well designed and scripted - for instance take the very first dance choreography in the high school - it is used to convey all the relationships of the different characters and their (hidden) feelings for each other, which I think was really great.

And speaking about great ideas - the entire movie is a absolutely great idea - when did you ever see a Christmas-High-School-Coming-of-Age Musical with Zombies? A really innovative idea, creating something new, which is really hard, in today's movie landscape.

The movie uses a lot of absurd ideas and interesting camera angles (e.g. the burning tire or a few of the deaths) and the humor that is conveyed using these angles was also really good. The movie doesn't take itself serious, there are a number of splatter scenes that are really funny, many things look unrealistic, because they avoid CGI and everything is made of practical effects (and those are simple) but with this I think they pay homage to the stage musical where you don't have CGI and use simple practical effects throughout - and also these things make the movie look even more funny.

And last but not least, the movie has a lot of soul, everybody seems to be really invested into this movie and giving his or her very best. It is a really charming movie.

If I point out that I have found a number of positive aspects that means that unfortunately I also have found some aspects that I consider negative:

Probably the most important one for me: The jokes that they made on purpose in movie where absolutely bad, and I couldn't laugh at any of the dialogues or one liners (e.g. "Oh no" - "What?" - "Justin Bieber is a zombie" - how is that even remotely funny?). I thought most of the jokes where either embarrassing, not funny at all or even annoying. And for me that really harms the movie.

Obviously Shaun of the Dead is an inspiration to this musical and it's even referenced. The parallels however are often really obvious and the problem with that is: Whenever Anna and the Apocalypse "copies" something we already know in Shaun of the Dead the later makes it so much better than this movie does. For instance they use the typical cut technique we know from Edgar Wright (e.g. in Worlds End where they order their beers and a water), but when they do, they do not try to convey a funny moment and therefore it seems unnecessary and wasted (for instance they use it in a random scene where the guys get into a car, which has no funny moment and does not compact something that needs to be shown).

Musicals are called musicals because they have music, and for me, a good musical has a song that captures me and that stays with me even after I've seen the movie for the first time (without rehering the soundtrack, etc.). Take La La Land, for instance. I've just seen that movie once, yet when I read the three words "City of Stars", I have an instant earworm that will stick with me the entire day. The Greatest Showman's "This is me" is equally catchy. With "Anna and the Apocalypse" there is no song that stood with me, no song that stood out, that captivated me, and a few weeks later if you'd play a song from this movie to me, I believe I wouldn't recognize them).

And when it comes to the genre of Zombie movies, this movie does not bring you anything new. And even for Zombie comedies there are a lot of better options to turn to. The only thing unique to this movie is it's setting at Christmas time, but they don't really cash in on the Christmas spirit, so other than the date and the decorations, this movie does not feel like a Christmas movie at all - take classics such as Home Alone, you can see that it is possible to convey a Christmas feeling even though your movie is not really about Christmas but cool action. And here - again - Anna and the Apocalypse falls short.

Last but not least - I am not really a musical fan. It's just not my genre. So convincing me is just as much harder, and in that aspect "La La Land" really did an excellent job, while all of the other current musicals didn't - this one included. I would have loved it to become a Christmas steady, I am always open for good new and unconventional Christmas movies (I feel like there are too few Christmas movies that I actually like - you can fill them into one evening, so I would love to have some additions to that list) but I am not sure if this movie could fill that spot - unfortunately.

Still I have to also honor all the positive aspects that I have mentioned, and I am sure that everyone who enjoys musicals will find this movie a great pick - it's no La La Land, no Shaun of the Dead and no Zombieland - but for a low budget independent movie with an entire cast of new inexperienced actors this movie this is really worth your time, so I would still recommend to give it a chance, and I am sure that it will find its fandom.

Again a movie that was shown at our weekly sneak review in cinema and it was a movie that I wasn't even keen on watching, a movie I wasn't really wanted to watch because it would tell the prequel that I thought was really unnecessary, for a movie series that was annoying me more than it was giving me fun.

Also, such prequels are most often born to fail, and just remember the last prequel to the last great franchise: Star Wars' Han Solo - a flop. Because nobody needs to get to know all the secrets, nobody needs to get an explanation for every smallest detail and everybody knows how the story will be ending - so often you cannot surprise, but only deliver some fan service. So if you don't have a good story and strong characters this is bound to be a failure. I was absolutely certain, that this would also happen with BumbleBee. But other than Star Wars this franchise didn't even start well, yet did it do well in my opinion. And that comes from a guy who loved the transformers tv series, and had a number of transformers toys in his youth. I was really excited for the 2007 movie and for a short time during the first watch I was sure that this movie was better than it really was - the second viewing of course knocked me out of the skies and I was knocked down hard. While the transformers still made my eyes glow, the story was bullshit and there is hardly any character more annoying than Sam Witwickey (I'd say he's the Jar Jar Binks of Transformers). Megan Fox could have been left out of the movie entirely, and if you believe the rumors, Michael Bay cast her role by inviting the actors to his home and letting them clean his car. Topped of with stupid dialogues this movie is so much tailored towards boys in early puberty, that it's no fun to watch - and all the other movies don't get much better. My ratings therefore aren't that good either - all of course get the Transformers fanbonus because I grew up with those things - I'd probably rate them even worse if it wasn't for my goodwill due to my childhood:

Transformers 1: 6/10
Transformers 2: 4/10
Transofrmers 3: 5/10
Transformers 4: 6/10
Transformers 5: 7/10

To spoil the end: I was positively surprised by this prequel. Even though the base plot is as uninspired and uninteresting as any of the other transformers stories and absolute foreseeable from the first minutes of the movie, this movie does so many things right, that I wished that this would have been the movie they started of with in 2007.

What does this movie - the first that is not directed Michael Bay - have that the others didn't? In short: It has heart and soul. Travis Knight is still a newcomer, he has only worked as animator since 2005 at the totally crazy studio Laika (who in the 2000s decided that there was still a market for totally expensive and time intensive hand made stop-motion-animation movies such as Paranorman, Coraline or Boxtrolls), and had his directing debut with "Kubo and the Two Strings" which as animation movie is of course different to directing a movie with real people - so in a way, BumbleBee is his first real debut.

And as with Kubo you can really feel the passion that was put into this movie, that you can feel in so many aspects. For instance you get this wonderful 80s feeling which is totally appropriate for an 80s cartoon adaption. This is not only portrayed by the music and the looks of the people and the technology but also by little things such as not using the typical futuristic CGI high gloss that Michael Bay uses to put on all his transformers. Instead, Bumblebee has an antiquated dusty look. We also get a lot of sand and a worn down finish that makes everything look rough and even dirty.

The camera does a great job and a lot of attention to detail, we get a lot of action scenes that thrive without being a fast paced sequence of cuts - instead the camera stays in one position during the action sequences - you always know who is fighting whom, and this makes the action scenes even more interesting. I've missed this in the Bay movies where there are so many fast cuts that you don't even know who is doing what and who's good and bad - you just see robot hands and foots boxing and kicking and stuff exploding - but because you don't see who is who (due to the fast pace) this might look dramatic but it doesn't captivate you (or at least that's true for me). This movie is so different, and works so good.

Of course for a transformers movie there has to be a lot of action, and this movie is no difference. Yet, the movie also takes a lot of time to build up the characters, to let firendships build up over the time of the movie. And that works really well and in favour of the movie - we get many heartwarming scenes, a couple of laughs but it's never too much and never unbelievable. We get a teenage girl, that is struggeling with grief, rebelling against her family, having fears, finds friendship and even first romantic encounters. And all this fits perfectly into this action packed Transformers movie, while still being a Transformers movie that fits into the franchise.

Hailee Steinfeld is a great actress who you'll embosom right from the beginning. She might seem a bit unbelievable at first - playing a "mechanic girl". But you'll get into it fast, and soon everything seems natural. And also Bumblebee is done really great - you'll realize that this time - even though it is still CGI - you have a gifted craftsman on set that spent his entire career animating figures. In the end you'll be reminded of movies like E.T. or Short Circuit. Of course those movies play on a totally different level, but there are parallels.

In my opinion this is the best Transformers movie made, it's the one movie this franchise had deserved from the beginning, it's finally a movie I can identify with, it's the movie where you can say: "Hey I'm a fan" without being embarrassed. It's the first good Transformers movie. Finally! Thank you, Travis Knight!

I've finally come around to re-watch this movie, after it has been sitting on my shelf for nearly a year now. I first saw this movie in a sneak preview - it was a movie that I would have wanted to watch anyways, so I was happy to get a head start, and I really enjoyed it. By now I think everybody knows that this movie is finally the long awaited continuation of Unbreakable (2000) which was not communicated and came as a surprise for all - unfortunately I was the only one to realize that at the cinema hall, screaming "Oh my god, this is Unbreakable" while everyone else looked puzzled. The story, however, is totally detached from Unbreakable and if it wasn't for the ending scene, you wouldn't have known it, as this one does not tie in any of the other characters and stands on its own:

When wanting to leave from the birthday party, the birthday girl Claire and her two friends Marcia and Casey get abducted by a strange guy. The girls are locked into a cellar and don't know what to expect, as their kidnapper seems strange and mentally unstable. And so a struggle for life and death begins.

I've originally rated this 8/10 after watching it at the cinema, but while re-watching it, I believe that this movie even got better. It was interesting in three ways:
First, now knowing that this movie is a sequel to Unbreakable, this movie has so many parallels that seem so obvious. Yet, I did not see them watching the movie the first time, and maybe wouldn't even have realized now, if I hadn't watch those movies back to back.
Second, re-watching this movie I figured out so many more interesting aspects I did not get at the first glance.
And third, even though I now knew the entire story, this movie was still so thrilling and captivating that I really felt of pushing my initial score up a bit.

It really is a great movie, it has so many interesting aspects, a really fascinating premises, and a really great story telling, pacing, it's wonderfully shot with a really great camera and has a great score. This becomes so clear right at the beginning of the car scene, which is so ingeniously done. Everything in this movie seems perfect already - but we haven't even yet talked about the actors and while all are great, there are of course two that stand out. First, there is "The Witch"-Star Anya Taylor-Joy, and her performance is absolutely stunning - her performance is absolutely believable, and she can convey so much just with her facial expression: fear, frustration, disappointment, but also her cleverness, the way she portraits that she is a fighter and a survivor. I feel like her performance isn't actually not valued as much as it should be - and the reason for that is of course James McAvoy, who gives his absolute best performance of his career: A DID patient with 23 prominent personalities of which we actually get to experience 5 in greater detail. He does that so stunningly well, that you can actually always tell, which person he is, right now. Of course there is some help in a number of scenes where the clothing changes - but there are also a number of scenes where he switches personalities in-scene, and even those are absolutely stunning It is a real pleasure to see him change his voice, change his accents, even change his entire facial expression from one moment to the other - that is some extremely high level acting that only few could master. It's incredible that M Night Shyamalan knew how to pick 'em and cast the perfect guy for this incredibly demanding role.

It's simply a really great movie with superb acting, great story telling, a really good story to tell, a clever idea - it's the prefect package.

PS: If you get the BD, take your time and watch the extras as well - Shyamalan actually comments on a lot of things: There's an alternative ending, a huge number of deleted scenes and all of them are introduced and explained by a commentary from Shyamalan that also gives a lot of additional background context to the movie itself. And there are three behind-the-scenes featurettes that are all worth watching as well.

When I saw the first teaser to this movie, I was like "What the hell is this? Something Peter Jackson created, that looks this fantastic? I need to watch this, even though the CGI did not look that good (yet?)". The first trailer wasn't that interesting anymore as it spoiled a lot. Still, Peter Jackson, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang... that could still be a good movie?

But first of all: The marketing - at least in Germany - was irritating. Peter Jackson wanted to do this movie, he held the rights to making this movie for over 8 years but couldn't get around and therefore decided to pass it on to one of his protegees: Christian Rivers, who has worked as storyboard artist and visual effects supervisor in 11 of Jackson's movies, has his directorial debut - Peter Jackson only contributed his first draft, and of course the rights and budget - which by the way is 150 million dollars - not bad for a debut. But does money equal quality?

Let's take a short look at the plot:

In a dystopian future the few survivors of a global catastrophe gathered together to form mobile predator cities and live in an world order called "Municipal Darwinism", i.e. in the great hunting ground larger cities hunt smaller cities for their resources, to enslave the people, etc. In this steampunk setting London is known as one of the most predatory cities - but the free young woman Hester Shaw wants to travel to exactly this city, because she is hoping to settle a score with one of the leaders of the city.

Peter Jackson has already proven that he has the ability to create new, unseen and absolutely fantastic worlds, and at first glance it seems like with Mortal Engines this applies as well, even though this is not really Peter Jackson. But: It's just the first glance. Yes, the world is cool, it has a lot of beautiful and interesting original ideas that we get to see. The CGI at first glance looks good - but unfortunately only at first glance. Different to Lord of the Rings, where you see a number of details, that are filmed in long slow moving camera to make sure the viewer has the ability to actually see, discover and experience all the details, in Mortal Engine you always have very fast tracking shots, so in the end, everything is blurry giving the movie makers the ability to mask the missing level of detail, as well as often also the physical plausibility of things. And that was something that really bothered me. How do the cities actually transform, or rake up to bigger cities? This happens so fast that you don't actually know - because there is no clever way they do fit together. And what are all the details in London? You don't get to see anything - there are 2-3 spots that are shown in detail - the rest is principally just a hill with a number of glowing spots, that blur due to the fast camera pace. Same with the wall. Why don't show how the people behind the wall actually live? They live a totally different life, why not celebrate it, like e.g. Lord of the Rings celebrated the introduction of Rohan? Because these details actually don't exist.

And at least to me, a movie of this caliber, with this budget and playing in such a world needs to be presented, needs to stun me. And we don't get anything.

But it's not only the graphics and setting - this is probably still the best part of the movie. Talking about the story, this movie is even worse. First, this movie is so packed, that you start to ask: Why did they not make a 2-part movie? Peter Jackson made 3 movies out of the hobbit which is a small to medium sized single children's book. But here, due to packing so much into one movie and not getting rid of certain aspects you feel like a lot of things are touched but not really explained. And this is really sad, as the story has a number of interesting parts. I would have loved to learn something about Anna Fang. Why is she hunted? What is her motivation as leader of an resistance movement? What is that resistance movements motivation? We get nothing - Anna is seen in the wanted poster in the beginning and all of a sudden she is there. The whole backstory with Shrike could have also been interesting, but is also just touched. Same with our antagonist. What is his motivation? No idea. Why does he - all of a sudden - decide to destroy something? No one will know. There are also hardly any quite moments to establish the characters, and this leads not only to the characters being really shallow, but also not rally having time to interact with each other and in the end there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters. All could die, and no one would care. And also the story telling is absolutely minimal. Most of the time is spend in an concatenation of action sequences: I feel that more than 80% was just action, and these action orgies where extremely CGI dominated, so they don't even get that exciting - and to me, after the first 2-3 action sequences I got fatigued.

In the end the actors are not challenged at all and fall far beyond what they are probably capable of, and there is not much else that the movie has to offer - I was bored after the first third of the movie, and it did not get any better till the end. A really great disappointment, I had high hopes :(

I've literally seen this movie decades ago and really enjoyed it then, but during the last years entirely forgot about it - until I saw Split in a sneak preview - when they showed the closing (or after credit?) scene, I was the only one in the cinema hall screaming "Oh my god, this is Unbreakable", while all the other visitors where puzzled. Unbelievable. Even my girlfriend didn't know the movie, so it had to be rewatched, and as "Glass" will be released this month, we finally got to actually watching it:

David Dunn (portrait by Bruce Willis) lives an ordinary life in modest circumstances, working as a football stadium security guy who is estranged from his wife and planing to start anew, when he gets in a train accident which he survives as the only person. He is then approached by the comic book enthusiast and comic art trader Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) who is certain that David is a real life impersonation of all the super heroes written about in comic books. He tries to mentor David who doesn't believe a word...

Being a comic book fan and loving the mid 2000s for all the stunning great super hero movies (Sam Raimis Spider-Man, X-Men, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Hellboy, Constantine, Watchman, 300, Sin City and of course the first MCU movies), I have to say this movie really stands out. It's not a typical comic book movie - it's not based on a comic book, it isn't even seeing itself as a typical super hero movie - it's rather a meta comic book movie, all the while having an integral part of typical comic books and focusing on this relevant mechanism that every comic book thrives on.

All the while this movie is so totally different to any super hero movie you have ever seen. Totally calm, slow paced, no special effects, hardly any fight scenes, all the while absolutely thrilling due to brilliant cinematography, great acting and a killer score. The characters and their relations are as deep as in a drama movie, and nearly the entire movie is a built up to a great finale and an unexpected turn of events. There is no CGI, no action, not even a hero vs super villain showdown. All the while it touches the essence of every comic book story, and does so in an ingenious way.

Because of this, of course not everyone will like the movie - a lot will probably not even consider it an comic book or action hero movie. But it really is a memorization of the comic book genre and given its age, and the fact that it came before the action hero genre took off, it really aged well - even after all the Marvel, DC and independent stuff this movie stands out as a great movie.

And now I am really looking forward to seeing the final movie :)

One of the comic heroes from the DC universe that I never understood: Aquaman.

I mean, seriously, why? He's an underwater leader with superpowers that include everything under water, but all of a sudden he becomes a land super hero and one of the memebers of Justice league? I don't really get that.

So I was really uninterested in this character, both in Justice League as also in his solo movie. And even though in Justice League Jason Momoas Aquaman was one of the positive aspects of the movie, I still wasn't really interested in the solo movie. This only changed when I saw the trailer, and somehow I got interested in the movie and so I watched it at the cinemas.

And I have to say: I really enjoyed the movie. It is of course the typical 2010s comic movie, i.e. you get your hero on the one side with some kind of origin story and you get your super villain on the other side - the entire movie works towards those two meeting for the final showdown and on the way to that moment, the superhero has to prove himself and fight hoards of enemy minions. All story elements are exchangable and only needed as vehicle to bring the hero from one action scene to the next, and all in all everything was forseeable in the first 10-20 minutes, and it happens exactly the way you expected it. I used to love those movies in the beginning, but after 10 years of Marvel making these a mass production consumable, I am actually pretty fatigued.

And yet, this movie does a number of things differently, even if only in small doses and nuances. We get the typical dark DC look in the beginning, the lighthouse scene could have been part of BvS or MoS, then all of a sudden we switch to an absolutely colorful popping setting which is neat to see and explore. The underwater world, the techniques these Aquapeople use, the design - this is really great. It's the same feeling that you get when watching Black Panther: You dive into a new, cool, interesting world that is fun to explore, and that is both, bound to nature as well as technologically far beyond the standards we can imagine. However, I would have liked a bit more details, a bit more of this interesting world (Black Panther is a bit better in that regard).

Different to the typical Marvel movies this title again takes itself serious, which has two interesting effects:
1.) The really rare funny moments surprise you, and you have great fun with those. This is so different to Marvel, where I sometimes just sit there and am really tired of the jokes (worst experience for me was Thor Ragnarok. It was the dullest super hero movie I've watched so far). I did not have to smile that many time in most other super hero movie.
2.) There are scenes and setups that seem "willingly unwillingly funny", like some kind of meta joke (if you know what I mean): The movie takes itself serious, so no one is there throwing around one-liners. However the scene is definitely willingly a bit over the top, which in itself is funny, even though there is no forced joke. I hope you get what I mean, this is hard to explain (at least for a non-native English speaker :D ).

We know that every hero needs it's villain, and an action movie really rises and falls with the quality of it's villain. Especially lately most movies have really shallow and weak villains, and again, James Wan knows to surprise. Again like in Black Panther we get a strong antagonist that has a motivation for his actions - a motivation that is comprehensible and human. Showing human characteristics is a strong suite of this movie and does not stop at the villain, but also includes our hero. Even Aquaman isn't free from human errors, makes mistakes, lives with guilt pangs, even creates his antagonists, and Aquaman makes some decisions that will surprise you and that make you think off movies like Sam Raimis Spiderman.

Speaking of the characters: The cast is of course great as well. Jason Momoa has aloready proven himself in Justice League and is once again really great. The supporting cast is not bad either: We get Nicole Kidman (is she ever getting old? I feel like she looks as good as she did 20 years ago O.o ), Willam Dafoe or Dolph Lundgren - and of course Amber Heard as redheaded mermaid - great actors that all play pretty solid - however these characters unfortunately don't get enough screentime or background, so they stay really shallow.

An action movie needs action, and while with all these comic movies this action is usually a CGI thunderstorm. Yet, Aquaman does not only give you CGI carnage. There are also scenes that at least seem like hand made practical effects - there is an entire fast pace action pursuit on the roofs of Sicily; it seems somewhat strange in a super hero movie and has a strange contrast to all those slow-mo CGI fight scenes that are made to be totally epic (somewhat like scenes in Thor Ragnarök). Still it works.

We also get a number of references to other movies, such as Jurassic Park, Fast and Furious and Mad Max - and director James Wan (known for movies such as Saw, Insidious, Conjuring or Furious 7) has said that he put a number of Eastereggs from his other movies into this film - I did not find any, but am sure that there will be an Annabell doll somewhere?

There are some great settings arround the world, such as the Indian Ocean, Sicily, the Sahara - when the credits roll, you'll get a huge list of locations this movie was shot in (from Australia to Canada nearly every coastal country gets mentioned). And last but not least: If you are a comic book fan, and where annoyed about the looks of Aquaman in Justice League - don't worry! You'll get a great lot of Momoa in a skin tight green-yellow spandexy-looking body suit!

I think I've listed a good amount of positive things regarding this movie - if you like super hero movies, you cannot go wrong with this movie. If you are like me and used to like super hero movies, but are now feeling a slight Marvel-featured fatigue, you cannot go wrong either. If however you never ever liked any of these movies at all, this will not change your mind: The movie is deeply rooted in it's 2010s super hero movie time, it knows it's typical DC-roots and honors them, it also knows about Marvel and their success - it uses all of this in it's movie but in the end it also goes it's own way - a lot of times this movie is somewhat over the top, in certain camera angles, in the effects, in pathos, even in the love sequences (there is a incredible long kissing scene where the camera actually slowly moves around the kissing couple three times!) - but all in a very charming way that not only seems like a humorist take of the producers of this movie - it also works. And all the while this movie does not turn into a laughingstock like most of the latest Marvel movies do. You get the typical weaknesses every super hero movie has, but a few of them where actually address - in the end, you get something worth watching, something that will give you a good time.

Watch it in cinemas if you can!

I've watched this back to back with Unfriended on television, but I've seen this movie once before when I did a Prom Night marathon.

I don't remember how I liked the movie then, especially compared to all the other movies in that "series" - however, this second watch was rather boring. The movie starts a reboot of the movie series that started in 1980 and inspired 3 sequels in drastically descending quality. The original was all right, staring Halloween-Star Jamie Lee Curtis in a classic 70s/80s slasher movie, with everything you expect such movies to have: a masked murderer, sleazy guys wanting to pick up girls in their cars, easy girls that wanna get laid, drugs, alcohol, and of course a lot of very graphic and bloody kills, including stabbing, strangling, beheadings and a lot of blood.

The reboot movie does not in any way try to retell the original story: Except for the premises that girls are getting ready for prom night, there are no story parallels at all:

Donna grows up as an orphan after having witnessed her entire family getting killed by her teacher who was in love with Donna. She finally reaches the end of her High School, but at prom night her killer escapes the psychic ward and tries to get in touch with her again.

The worst thing about the missing parallels is that director Nelson McCormick who is debuting as director of a feature film here, is that it not only applies to the story but also to everything else in the genre. No sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no funny kills, no bloody kills, hardly any thrill at all - it's rather boring, and one might find oneself questioning whether this is an attempt to make a PG rated slasher movie?

4/10 points, because - believe it or not: Idris Elba is in it.

I've watched this because I was bored and it ran on television, and I remembered that I've seen the trailer for the second movie and that was so bad (but had an interesting idea), that I thought: Why not watch this?

And to get this out the way upfront: I hate found footage movies and this is best categorized as found footage. Also it is a low budget movie, by an unknown georgian-russian director with hardly any experience. The idea is pretty simple: film just the screen of one of the participants of a group skype call:

A group of teenager meet for a group skype call, which accidentally takes place at the anniversary of a suicide of one of their friends. Now, during the group chat our main protagonist gets messages from that dead girl, while some unknown person always joins the skype sessions. What was first thought of as a harmless prank by a troll seems to be the work of a skilled hacker targeting the group...

Easy premises, easy story. Does it work? Well, partly. I think the acting was okay, though the dialogues where partly way too much and too unbelievable. There are two scenes, that in my opinion where too overdone, totally overreaction and overacting. Also, some scenes where really boring and too long (all the time she starts searching something) - especially interesting: If she starts searching things, the chat automagically is mute, i.e. they stop talking? Really strange.

Also there are a few plot holes, like: why do they not use the smartphone to call each other, or to call help? Chatroulette, really? Why don't they simply turn of their computers all together, to get away, if they so desperately want to get away (of course, it wouldn't help the story and it wouldn't work for the found footage aspect - but it really makes you wonder...).

On the other hand I like the premises - it's something different to the classic camcorder or handycam shaky videos that you associate with found footage movies, and so I am not even that annoyed (I hate the constant shaky cam, the "selfi" parts where the camera operator turns the camera around to talk into it, the pointing the camera on the feet to give the feel of some amateur filming, etc.). That's refreshing. Additionally - and this is really important to me, someone that works as a computer scientist - they did not do any absurd stuff with IT - everything that happens seems plausible, and I also liked that they did not invent apps and websites that resemble actual apps and sites, but used real sites and apps to do their movie. This goes as far as that videos they used in the movie are real videos they uploaded to YouTube - and they are still there: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdblEqwoRg

Getting to the horror aspect of this movie: Well, I wasn't scared. At all. I do appreciate what they tried to do, but this did not work at all for me. There was also no gore, I feel like this is an "FSK 12" rating.

In the end I was struggling with a rating of 2 or 3. I went with 3, because 1) the director is rather unexperienced and unknown, 2) it's a low budget production and 3) it is a fresh and new idea for found footage, and the first time I actually enjoyed found footage. Even though the movie has a lot of problems I enjoyed it, and therefore I grant it 6/10 stars.

A few years ago by accident the first movie I watched with my mother after Sylvester night was an Liam Neeson action movie I did not know (Unknown) and since then this became somewhat of a "tradition". I've been watching Liam Neeson action movies as first movie of the year ever since, and normally it's the movie I watch on January 1st.

This year however we where on vacation and could not watch the movie on 1st, but hey - it is still the first movie of this year, and out of necessity (I ordered The Grey and A Walk Among the Tombstones on Blu-ray but they did not arrive on time) it was Taken, which I've already seen, but my girlfriend hadn't.

We get the story of Bryan Mills, a former CIA operative, who - to get closer to his estranged daughter - allows her to take a trip through Europe with her friend. However, in Paris she get's kidnapped while on phone with him, forcing Mills to reactivate his retired secret agent skillset to hunt down the kidnappers in Europe.

This movie is french cameraman Pierre Morels second movie as director, and he was heavily backed by Luc Besson, with whom he had already worked on The Transporter. It ensembles a great cast with Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Katie Cassidy, and Xander Berkeley who are all but supporting characters to Liam Neeson, with - unfortunately - very low screen time.

I remember watching it the first time and I really liked it then. Liam Neeson is a great actor and his character is wonderfully introduced. He get's a lot of back story, plays a somewhat broken person that has no other desire than to reconnect with his estranged teenage girl that he had neglected in his active days - which is even harder as he is divorced from her mother for the same reasons. He is totally believable throughout the movie and is one of the positive aspects of the movie.

The second positive aspect is the action which is mostly hand made practical effects, hardly any stunt doubles, hardly any greenscreens and CGI, which is really great. The movie is therefore not as action packed, not as fast paced, a lot of steady cams but all the fight scenes are totally believable, and therefore quite thrilling.

The great negative aspect in my opinion - and this was so much more bothering watching it the second time than it was the first time is the story itself, which is totally unbelievable. To start, even the premise is crazy - given what we see, every day at least 20 girls that travel to Paris - apparently mostly from the USA - are kidnapped. And nobody cares? Also, it is inspired by "The Bourne Identity" but does not quite reach that level, and after having seen many current action movies such as The Equalizer, John Wick or Atomic Blonde, this movie seems a bit dated.

Never the less a movie worth watching (but probably not re-watching material).

What a great movie to start the new year. I've finally watched this movie that has been on my watchlist for a while now, due to a number of praises by people I trust, and I can totally understand where they are coming from!

Dan Gilroy has been writing movies since 1992, throughout all genres and all of them great Hollywood movies. With Nightcrawler he gives us his first directorial debut, and this really is a great movie, that is well directed, extremely well shot, extremely captive and thrilling even though it does not even have that many action sequences, it has a great accompanying soundtrack and of course, most important of all: An enormously great performance by Jake Gyllenhall, which too me, after having seen current movies such as Nocturnal Animals, Demolition, Enemy, Prisoners, End of Watch, Source Code, is of course no surprise. Still, in this movie his performance is superb.

However, I did not quite like the ending, and I somehow feel that the movie looses a great opportunity for some social criticism that could have directly addressed the viewer: Because in the end it is us all who enable people like Lou Bloom in his career, because we create the demand for such videos. There is of course a subtle hint, but I would have liked a more "in your face" ending (take for instance the South Park approach with "Super Sexy Action News" in the Episode "A quest for Ratings"). Other than that a really great movie.

I've watched it from the Korean BD release, there was just one 5 Minutes extra but that was really interesting as well: For the movie they had two "experts" as consultants who themselves are active Nightcrawlers, and a paraphrased quote: "In the movie Jake Gyllenhall moves a corpse for the better angle before the cops and parametics arrive - we've never done that, but other than that: yeah, this movie pretty much shows everything we do."

A classic with a motif that is often been adopted since - creepy kids that kill all their parents and try to live on their own; in away this was lastly depicted in American Horror Story: Hotel, with the School-Sidestroy-Arc.

That is definitely something to take into account; as is the fact, that over the time it has gained a certain cult status (it even inspired the name of the Band KoRn as well as one of their song titles "Children of the KoRn"), despite the really low budget this film was produced on.

It is that low budget that in the end invited so much negative criticism: The bad, really cheesy graphics effects, the rushed ending, the bad acting by some actors. Story-wise it is - on the other hand - really strong. It is mostly suspense, and less explicit graphics, it had an - for that time - inspired new idea, it paved the way for children as the evil creatures of horror movies; all points to take into consideration. And talking about bad actors: There are also really good ones, such as Linda Hamilton, who seems to be too good (and kind of untapped as she is capable of so much more) to be in this movie.

On the other hand, however, from a today's viewers standpoint, it has aged really badly. Comparing it to movies such as Orphan or Insidious, the kids are completely tame and not at all frightening, the dialogues are a bit dated and feel strange, and the suspense is - for today's standards - much less frightening and lean more towards the boring side of things.

So in the end I am torn between a high rating that deserves a cult classic that has inspired many other movies to come and the low rating of a dated movie that leans towards being a bit boring and cheesy. I still believe it is worth at least having seen it once. So I'll grade it with an average 3/5

For me, this movie was really hard to rate, because starting with the idea, this movie has a great surreal premises, that fancied me right from the beginning. Seeing the first trailer I was excited because the idea seems absolutely great and crazy, but I had no idea, what direction this movie would take. Seeing the second trailer, however, I was pretty pissed, because crucial story elements are spoiled right away and you get to understand where this movie would probably end up.



Still, the movie has some great ideas, and I liked how it formulates it social criticism; e.g. the people can downsize and by doing so have a great impact on nature and saving the planet, so actively and positively impacting the far future of everyone. Still, by doing so, they also get out of the social system, because their contribution to society also shrinks. And therefore people who decide to not downsize and by choice stay in their position that are already bad, they start hating those who strive to better their own situation as well as the overall future situation of the world in general. And this is something pretty common, whenever change is involved. But that is not the only criticism you’ll find. E.g. we have the problem of dictatorships touched, that are legitimized by us as we still maintain good relationships with these countries, we have the tendency of human being to use anything as a weapon to inflict pain to others. We have the criticism of humans always inflicting systems that segregate us from „others“. Even in a paradisaical place like the shrunk community, where everyone could be filthy rich, we have people seeking personal profit and (in a way) power over others, and segregating those less fortunate into slums - people have the tendency to turn even paradise into hell. And topics like world overpopulation, illegal immigration, etc. are also briefly touched. It even gets philosophical while staring at human annihilation.



So, this actually should be a great movie. But that’s the problem - the creators chose to make a movie, and as a movie this piece of art has a number of shortcomings. Mainly that it has no direction in it’s story telling at all. You feel like our main character is thrown from one situation into the next. These situation are even hardly connected to each other - and never is there a visible story line. So in the end, you keep wondering what is actually happening, and why and how did we get there? This is one of the problems I had with this movie. The other is, that the end was one of the most unsatisfying I’ve seen in a while. I mean, yes, we where presented with some social and global problems, but in the end, what did I learn by watching this movie? I don’t feel like there was any contribution to me personally, there where no new thought processes induced, there wasn’t any answer offered. Nothing. The end feels like it really isn’t an end at all - they just all of a sudden stopped the movie, not at a climax, not a cliffhanger, it isn’t shocking, it isn’t happy, it isn’t sad. It’s just over, unexpected and the first question you ask yourself afterwards is: Why did I watch this.

Because, besides it’s lack of storytelling, there is also hardly anything else this movie has to offer. Acting wise we have Hong Chau, and she is the bomb, she steels the show of everyone with her energy, her charisma, her demanding nature. She makes this movie worth watching. Matt Damon, the main star is interchangeable, Christoph Waltz is as we expect him to be, but nowhere near his high performance that we loved in movies like Django Unchained or Inglorious Bastards. And all the other roles are actually pretty insignificant. Kirsten Wiig doesn’t have many lines and is a story device but that’s it. Udo Kier is nothing more than Christoph Waltz’ sidekick, Neil Patrick Harris actually has a 5 Minutes role, same with Laura Dern, Jason Sudeikis, etc. And each role is pretty mediocre and could have been played by any actor with the same performance. Nothing outstanding here. Soundtrack? Well it has this caching theme from the trailer, but that’s it. Stunning pictures? Nope. Special Effects? Nope. You would actually think, that in a movie where people are shrunk you would encounter some interesting situations where the director had to introduce some clever, some never-before-seen techniques but no - after Matt Damon’s Character enters the shrunk society there is nothing to remind us of this fact, other than a pretty blunt reference to a real rose in his house, or the giant vodka bottle. 



So in the end, what do we have? A courageous new idea of how to tackle our world problems, some great critical views on our society, which are then turned into the self finding trip of one man in a wonderful new world that isn’t wonderful or new at all. We have a story that feels random, we see some great actors in mediocre rolls, there is nothing interesting to experience cinematographic-wise, and we are left with the feeling of having wasted some time.



Why does it still get such a high rating from me? Well for it’s great premises, as well as for Hong Chau - the only actress that managed to connect with you emotionally and made you both, happy and sad. A great performance and so much energy, which actually makes this movie worth seeing, even if it isn’t a good movie.

Actually I hate tennis. And this movie shows so much tennis, that I should actually hate this movie as well.

But this movie was so thrilling, even though it shows so much tennis, it was so interesting, it kept me on the edge of my seat, that I have to give it a great rating.

Both actors are incredible. I never saw a Shia LaBeouf movie I liked - this is the first where he actually shows what an incredible great actor he is, and that he has to offer so much more than the mediocre acting we know from the Transformers franchise. Sverrir Gudnason I have never seen before and I cannot understand why this guy doesn't have a lot of hollywood projects in the pipeline. The acting is superb, and Stellan Skarsgård is a great supporting actor.

This movie is a great character study, showing how two characters who couldn't be more different are actually quite similar, as they have a similar struggles, even as children - where different paths led to different personalities. And they still struggle with the same problems, they have the same desires, the same pressures to deal with, the same problems. They deal with it differently on the outside, but they are the same on the inside.

It is a well acted, totally thrilling story. It's worth watching, even though it is a nieche movie. Worth your time!

Alice (portrayed by Reese Witherspoon) is a single mother of two children. She works as a interior designer and is the daughter of a famous moive director (who died). She just moved back to Los Angeles, after living with her former husband in New York.

On her 40th birthday she meets 3 young guys (~20 years old) in a bar, who are on the lookout for someone producing their movie (those three being in the roles of writer, director and main actor). The director starts flirting with her and they end up in bed with each other, while the other two crashed at her living room. The next morning the mother of Alice comes home and is shocked at first, but the 3 guys reckognise her as a famous actress (she played in the movies of her husband, i.e. the late father of Alice) so she is intrigued and offers the guys to live with Alice, building up to a strange love triangle story - and if that isn't enough: now her ex husband moves back to L.A. as well, and starts fighting for Alice.

After long useless scenes, Alice quits her job that doesn't make her happy, finalizes her divorce, breaks up her affair with the young director guy, but still everybody is happy and she has the best time while inviting them all to dine with her. The End.

As if this movie isn't enough by itself - it is accompanied by a ugly, suggary oozing soundtrack - one of the worse I have ever heard. Only one theme, that is used over and over again, over the entire movie. The actors are all overacting, the three guys are some of the worst actors I've seen, the story is totally foreseeable, and the directing is so incredible stupid. I mean do they really think we are so stupid as to not understand what is going on?

Let me give you an example - there is a scene, where you can see (due to the good acting of Reese Witherspoon): "Oh, there's something going on here. There is chemistry between those two". However, the camera keeps on capturing the scene. Witherspoon has to smile bashfully for 2 or 3 times until you think "Okey, now, finally, everybody should have gotten that there is chemistry between those two". But still - it's not enough. She then has to whisper "Oh my god" and start fanning herself. 5 Minutes to tell something that everyone in the audience whould have understood in half a minute.

Only because I really like Reese Witherspoon, I will give it 2 Points. And I am not the only one that was unimpressed. Even a lot of girls in the cinema bursted into laughs because of some of the horrible acted scenes.

I was happy to get to see this movie in a sneak review, because I did not hear of it, and I probably wouldn't have watched it. We get a distrophy in which everyone lives underneath the earth, as the earth itself was attacked by aliens. Those are called "Nonsuchs" and one of the privates of the army, called S.U.M.1 is serving his duty on the surface; every army member has to serve 100 days on the surface and we follow S.U.M.1 in a movie that is mostly a one-man-show seeing what he is experiencing on the surface.

S.U.M.1 is played by Iwan Rheon (Ramsey from Game of Thrones) and is a German low budget movie, directed by a film professor from the SAE institute. This, at least to me, sounds like a great start. However, the low budget is pretty obvious, especially when it comes to the CGI, which looks like the cheap stuff we where used at the beginning of the 90s when watching TV shows. Even the first 3 minutes will make your toes curl.

However CGI is not everything, and the movie manges to build up tention a lot of time, while showing us one soldier serving his 100 days in solitude; however this puffes out unused. At the end, the movie is really long. Also some of the story elements are so obvious (calling the guy S.U.M.1 = someone, and the aliens nonsuchs = no such (thing))

A good idea, and good shooting overall, with a great actor and good soundtrack - but over all, it did not convince me. There are a number of plotholes, some of the things are never explained, other things only work because of coincidences, and a lot of background story is simply missing; they introduced a rat to whom S.U.M.1 starts talking - why not use this idea to give some background? Some flashbacks, or simply some naration of what exactly happend, how the live is under earth, etc.

I wouldn't watch this one in cinemas and I also wouldn't recommend paying money for the home release. Instead, if you are a really big fan of sci-fi movies, then wait for it, until it is shown on free TV.

Taking into consideration that it is a low budget movie, otherwise it would have gotten a worse rating.

If you want to watch a movie that is really similar
*
SPOILER
*
*
*
then you should rather watch 10 Cloverfield Lane. That one is pretty similar, especially also regarding the ending, and that is a movie wich is so much better.

I've seen this a s a sneak preview and I was really entertained - cool movie, a lot of fun. It's not a master piece, and after the incredible good critics I can understand that some might have been disappointed, but other than that, it's just a lot of fun. I liked the action, the cool driving scenes, some really great compositions as well as the incredible good symbiosis of music and pictures. The thing that bugged me most, is that the general idea of having an action movie married to a great 80s soundtrack is not that new, and since the success of Guardians of the Galaxy somewhat exploited. Only this year we had Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Atomic Blonde, doing the same thing, so this is already the third one in one year. And especially Guardian of the Galaxy has some parallels with the soundtrack and an antique music playing device being in the center of attention.

Other than that it was however a good movie. I liked all of the main actors; after coming out of the cinema I was a bit dissapointed by the small roll Kevin Spacey was playing - at that time I would have liked to see him a bit more (of course that was before the scandals).

Other than that, great action movie.

Wow. This movie is great. it is sick. It is disturbing. But also, it is great. Probably one of the best movies of this year, most definatley one of the top 10 candidates. But also so hard to describe without spoilering that I won't even get into it. Just this much: It's a movie about dark secrets, revenge, blackmail and some strange notion of justice.

The story is especially in the beginning, totally strange, and only after some time you'll start to understand who's who and what's happening. However, from the first moment on you get the notion of "something's not right", which is conveyed in so many ways - the dialogues, the way the people talk with each other, the strange relations they have. There is also some small symbolism to find, but not as much as with other movies of this kind, e.g. Nocturnal Animals.

The storytelling is absolutely great, the movie is totally atmospheric and unsettling from the first scene onwards - I mean, wow was that intro intense - classical music, church-themed, and the close up of an open beating hearth at an operating table - uncomfortably long, hard to look at, even harder to look away. Cut. Discarding of rubber gloves and the scrubs from the operation. Cut. Mundane dialogue of the two doctors that walk down a frightening and disturbing looking long corridor, with the camera being far away and moving in the same pace as the two doctors. Cut.

Especially the camera is also quite interesting - it doesn't matter which scene, which shot, which setting - somehow it is always frightening and unsettling. Wow. What great skill in this shootings. The soundtrack is also absolutely strange and uncomfortable - switching from the imperfect singing of a child that in its way is totally scary (see the trailers), to classical music to a soundtrack that is absolutely grotesque and that bears a lot of resemblance to the soundtrack of the Hannibal series.

The cast is great as well - we have Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman who are absolutely great - but the star is probably Berry Keoghan, who is creepy as hell.

After watching this movie you'll feel the urge to discuss it with other people and it'll keep you occupied for hours and days afterwards (at least if you are open to such thoughts about movies and their meanings) - and this is something that I love in movies - there are many ways a movie can be really good. But to be a great movie it'll have to keep me occupied with it. This one does, so it's already clear that I'll consider it to be a great movie. It is however not for everyone. I think it can be best categorized with movies such as Nocturnal Animals, Enemy or mother! - if you loved those, you'll probably also like this one. If you, however hated those, I don't see any chance for you liking this one.

I believe I've rated this one a bit higher than it actually deserves, and maybe that's because I am impartial when it comes to having a movie with batman.

However, this was - after seeing Spider-Man and Thor, the first super hero comic adaption that is more in tune with what I expect from such a movie.

The biggest flaw of this movie is the short playtime, because you feel like there is so much more missing, so much more backstory that could have been told, so many more quieter moments that the movie could have benefited from, and a bit more character time, for a movie where we have three new heroes introduced (next to the villain, and other story arcs that this movie gets into). Still the movie is alright - you don't feel rushed. The Characters are well developed, each of them has its own personality trades - we have the strong and funny guy (Aquaman), the insecure guy (Flash), and the one with a troubled background who still needs to come to terms with who he is (Cyborg) - a good mix that (in contrast to Marvels Avengers) has some interesting contrast, and that fits well into our fighting "couple" consisting of the broken and cynic Batman and the optimistic Wonderwoman.

And we get some fan service - there where at least two references to the old Batman movies as well as one to the old Superman movies - I loved them :)

Of course, this movie also just reinvents the wheel - there is nothing new, nothing we haven't seen already, no elaborate story, and the typical DC problems in regards to the villain who is shallow, superstrong, and leads to an CGI smashdown. However, it finds the right amount of fun paired with seriousness, which I found refreshing after the other two movies.

Justice League definately falls behind MoS and BvS, and probably also behind Wonderwoman, but not by far.

I was really looking forward to this movie, even though I am not the greatest Thor fan. However, the trailer looked interesting, I love the 80s style with the colours, it promised to be a wild movie with a great antagonist - I mean seriously - what could go wrong with Cate Blanchett, and even better in a dark gothic look?

Well, I was absolutely disappointed. Seriously, what where they thinking when shooting/editing this movie? There is no plot, the story is totally random and has no meaning at all anymore. It's just like a bad 90s sitcom that is progressing from one joke to the next, and this time it didn't stop at anything - stupidity, slapstick, vulgarity, we have it all, and without any style or niveau. I mean seriously "Oh, I'm drunk, I will just fall down" (as an entrance of a new and important character), "oh, I just saw hulks penis", "now we'll have to fly into the anus", etc. What's the target audience of this movie, childish boys in their puberty? I think even for them this is rather embarrassing than funny....

Epic, dramatic fighting scenes, e.g. when Hela defeats Asgard are equaly destroyed by stupid jokes as are emotinal scenes. Someone died? Just make a joke. Haha, and let's go on. Due to this, this movie wasn't exciting to me at all, it wasn't emotional, it was just dull. This movie is so jokes-packed, that even after the first three minutes (and did they really just do the stupid rope-joke in the introduction three times?! It was hardly funny the first time, it was annoying the second time, and the third I was angered, because obviously the director must think I am stupid), I had enough. And that is somewhat sad, because in the mass of stupid jokes there are some moments that actually where pretty great and that would have functioned superb in isolation. Take Jeff Goldblums character that is refreshingly eccentric and funny. Or Korg - great humoristic character. But having a more than 2 hour sitcom, this doesn't work anymore, even if it's good.

I do believe the story had potential, I mean they had a great soundtrack, stunning visuals, perfect CGI, absolutely gorgeous colours and scenes, a really great cast, I already mentioned the great Jeff Goldblum, who I found ingenious. Cate Blanchett is always a win, and she could have brought so much to this movie. And Tessa Thompson also stuck out to me - great charisma, interesting character. But none of them gets enough chance to really portrait their character, none of them gets any dept. Especially Cate Blanchetts talent is totally wasted - she could have been absolutly evil, strong, powerful - the perfect villain. But she isn't - the antagonist is (as with so many comic movies these days) a joke and a total disaster. There is hardly any substance, much to short screen time for character develpment, for backgrounds, for some seriousness. Nothing.

Seriously, I wouldn't have been surprised if there was laughter from the off.....

4/10

"If you can't beat the house, be the house" - according to this motto, the Johannes decide to create an underground casino with their friend Frank in their suburban neighbourhood. Their motivation are money problems due to wich they lost their last savings at Vegas.

As expected with such kind of comedy movies, the jokes are pretty simple and mostly based on the stupidity of our characters, which for me is seldom a reason for laughter. So, taking the comedy part, this movie was only seldom funny to me (some sex jokes, he's to stupid for simple calculations, etc.). Also Will Farrell is not someone I'd consider a great or funny actor.

Considering the plot, there is also not too much that is offered to the audience. And taking into account the number of high ranking movie and TV actors, one might wonder why one sees them in such a simple movie that does not demands anything, and gives them no chance to show their talent.

However, there's one thing that speaks for this movie and that is the absurde ideas this movie offers, e.g. the slow mo fighting scenes, the slasher elements, the absurd amount of blood, the image of the gang running through the neighbourhood, collecting money, the kick scene with Nick Kroll. Those where some inspired ideas that worked greatly with the movie and because of them being so absurd I had a number of scenes where I could actually laugh.

In the end it's an okey movie. Nothing that you'll have to see, nothing I would recommend, but also not a movie that annoyed me, or that I would deem a total waste of time. Which is why I rated it a solid middle 5/10. Let this one run in the background, when your local tv station plays it - with some friends, crisps and lights on, and then you won't regret it ;)

The Beguiled in a word is best described with "different". The movie disregards typical cinema techniques, which most obviously jumps at you with its antique 4:3 format, which on the big screen looks totally alienating, even if you grew up in the 80s and 90s and still know that television had this as standard format since the beginning of television. Also, you won't find any camera tracking shots, fast editing, cuts, or dramatic music - this movie makes due without.

Instead we get a movie with a colour grading that seems ancient, with flickers in stills, unsharp images, many quiet and really prolonged stills, capturing not only the main part of the scene, but also profane things that one would normally discard as uninteresting. If you didn't know it better, one could come to the conclusion that this movie was made by an amateur. But Sofia Coppola is no such thing, and she know that this unconventional style only adds to the atmosphere that she wants to create, which - besides historic - is best described as threatening; the stills captured of the house and it's surroundings are unsettling, and it seems scary that because of the 4:3 format your vision and your grasping of the scenery is always somewhat constrained - there is a hint of a horror moving feeling in there. As scenery we get this old house, hidden in the woods, behind trees that are moss-grown.

Even though its slow pace, it strangeness and the amateur like long stills, this movie never gets boring. We have an ingenious cast consisting of beautiful and talented actresses such as Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst and Elle Fanning on the one side, and of course Colin Farrell on the other side. All of them are absolutely superb and especially in this movie they need to be, because so much is not said in dialogue but by using facial expressions and with glances through the eyes - and these things are at times so settle that it is absolutely great acting which makes it work so well.

Colin Farrell is the alien, the guy that changes everything and stirs up a lot, and it is absolutely ingenious how this changes are reflected in every person - with out anything happening or dialogue - just by watching them and their body language. We see the characters question their life, question their faith and the things happening outside. Also the chemistry between the actors is great. Nicole Kidman plays a totally torn personality, Kirsten Dunst is especially subtile - both deserve to be pointed out. Colin Farrell also needs little acting to convey both his longing, as well as his hidden agenda (figuring out how to get out of his situation without any harm by using the girls).

I also love the look, the setting, the gothic victorian southern states style, and the few humorus scenes that every now and then break the gernally dark tone of this drama/thriller movie.

You'd already guessed it: I liked this movie pretty much. I cannot suggest it to anyone - if you don't like more toned down movies, chamber plays, movies without much action, etc. then you will probably be bored by this movie. But whoever has a sense for the subtile things and loves an atmospheric and asthetic movie with sharp dialogs and great mimic play, that asks the viewer to engage with the movie, to think about what's happening (and why) - all those will probably love watching this one.

I rated it 8/10, and it will surely not be the last time I've seen this one.

It starts of like a great movie, the actors are fine, the camera and scenes look like that of a high quality movie, the soundtrack is good - all the ingredients are there. However, it starts getting strange already, when the couple Ken and Rachel finally meet up with Marco. Premises set: Marco is an old friend of Rachels and in love with her while she is having a serious relationship with Ken, who is ambitious and successfull while Marco had to travel the world to "find himself" (only to realize that he actually loves Rachel).

Of course these three are on a boat trip, and this is already the first thing that seems strange. However, before they start, there is talk about greek mythology and sirens (oh what a clumsy hint, already?), and of course - Marco changes course to an island because he saw a guy in need of help, they strand (and have to fix the motor from the inside to get off again?), the guy dies so they decide to swim over to the island to bury him only to find a beautiful, misterious blond, and from there on, they move forth and back from ship to island, to actually do nothing but wander around and having dreams and fantasies; and up to the ending of the movie that's it.

The biggest problem of this movie is, that it is utterly boring. Nice locations, great setting, and stunning pictures as well as decent acting apart, actually nothing interesting happens - even all the dramatic scenes are so badly done that it just bores you. Action? Not a bit, Thriller? Do you actually know the meaning of this genre? Horror? Ahahahahaha.

Then there are a lot of actions that seem totally random, or do not have any meaning at all (e.g. they stumbling across the boat and the bodies, where Rachel freaks out even though she didn't actually see the bodies, and even though she was totally calm, when the guy they rescued, died). And last but not least, this movie is far from being settle. Calling it "Siren" already tells you what to expect - talking about Greek mythology does not help being suprised about what they'll encounter on the island, and making it so absolutely obvious that Marco is still in love with Rachel only makes you wonder when this will actually become a problem - and it will suprise you that they even did not manage to action-whise cash in when that situation finally arises in the movie.

Seriously, one of the most broing movies I've seen. Even movies that I've rated lower did actually deliver more thrill than this one. Great potential for a good movie destroyed by a horrible script/director.