This movie was actually a suprise for me, because I would have expected it to be much worse than it turned out to be. However I have to say first, that I do not know the original series this movie is (hardly?) based on, so I will not be able to compare.
However, I was entertained. The story is all right it has some interesting moments, it is not in its entirety forseeable and besides infantil jokes about sex, male close and a rather idiotic depicted Jon Baker (played by Dax Shepard), it even has some funny inovative quotes that I enjoyed.
Also I think Michael Peña is a sympathetic actor, and so I liked his role as "Punch", he has a certain kind of smartness about himself and they added it to his role - that was interesting, because judging just by the trailer both appear to be idiots and you'd expect something horrible - oh and while I am mentioning the trailers - I loved that actually hardly joke from the trailer actually ended up in the movie - therefore there are no spoilers a number of scenes that you thought you knew actually turned out different.
But besides that, the story is rather mediocre, the characters stay shallow, 80% of the jokes aren't really funny, and a lot of story lines where forseeable. Also it often reminded me of a bad immitaiton of the Bad Boys movies - and compared to those this is a cruel joke.
So this movie is neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. And therefore after long consideration I settled with the exact middle. There are far worse movies, but there are also better. If they show it on TV and nothing else is on, you wouldn't go wrong with this, but whenever you can do something better, you'd better do that ;)
The sequel that was released five years after 28 days later is a good second movie - it picks up the story 28 weeks later. All of England was eradicated and all the people infected did finally die, so a special task force of NATO tries to repopulate the Island again. Under the new arrivers, two children are brought in, something the medical officer does not agree with, as England is still considered a danger zone outside the save fortifications that NATO built. The two kids are refugees that fly back in to meet their father. However things get sour, and soon there is another outbreak of the virus. After containment fails, NATO protocol dictates to kill all humans, no matter if infected or not. And thus a small group including our two kids must again fight against both: humans and zombies.
While the first movie was clearly a low-budget movie, this one is clearly not - the images are more crisp, the special effects are larger, we get a lot of different wide-area CGI effects, like whole streets lighting up in fire from NATO helicopter bombings, blown up buildings, we get gas attacks that produce fog walls that are many stories high, we have a number of helicopters, a plane, a car chase that ends in an underground tunnel. Yes - compared to 28 days later, the game has been stepped up big time. Also when it comes to the list of actors (see below).
Again we get everything we loved from the first movie, however, some of it here and there lost it’s novelty so it is not as fascinating as it was in the first movie. Also the first movie, due to its low-budget nature had a lot of character, and parts of it (not all!) get lost. However, it gains in more graphical violence, so it’s more of a horror movie with much more gore, which might be one reason for loosing some of its charms as it becomes more conventional. But as the first movie, this one isn’t conventional either, it is quite atmospheric and emotional, again it has enormously great acting, it takes its time (though less than in the first movie) it has a rather interesting story, and again you will find philosophical questions that can be asked and answered with this movie. The story is not straight but has some twists in it.
For the cast we have Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Cathrine McCormack, Iris Elba, … all move veterans, some of which did movies in the 80s, most of them in the 90s and those who where younger did also already do a number of good movies before 28 weeks later. And again, this somewhat was the charm of 28 days later - to have a cast of actors that no one has seen before and that where so good that their career sky-rocketed. It is of course nice to see familiar faces - but well… I don’t know, I liked that about 28 days, and I miss It in 28 weeks. However, not entirely though: Imogen Poots is a first-timer. She had a minor role in V for Vendetta and directly after that here she gets one of the leads. And boy is she good. I especially loved here in Long way down, which I consider her best preformances from all the movies I know her in; this is however also absolutely great and again - after this performance she has gotten a number of offers and stared in a number of films.
You may have noticed the slight dissapointment when comparing it to the first movie - that is just my opinion of course - I know a number of people who like the second one better than the first. Me however not. But that does not mean that this movie is bad in general. Besides my critics, nearly everything I’ve written in my review to the first movie also applies to this movie (with the exceptions of course being pointed out in this review). So in the end we get a great, innovative, emotional, perfectly acted, perfectly filmed, and perfectly soundtracked movie that is worth watching and that can be watched a number of times without getting boring. I will award it 8/10 points.
And so, I am looking forward to 28 months later, which - to my latest knowledge - is still work in progress. So keep your fingers crossed!
One of the unfunniest comedy I've ever seen; it does not have a single good joke, it is totally overacted and cliché-ridden, it is totally forseeable, it does not even close all lose ends (why are the cops in this again?), things just happen unexplainedly, the characters behave stupid most of the time. The action is not interesting, the characters are not interesting, the story is totally boring, wow. This is unimaginable bad.
Only the acting is okey, if you know Reese Witherspoon from other movies you can tell that here she is playing a role - and fullfilling it perfectly - to the best of the script. But that's all the positive that I can find and that I can tell.
It won't hurt you to see this, but you wouldn't want to spend any dime for it, because that's just not worth it. And if you've got anything better to do, probably spend your time doing that, instead. However, for a boring evening, with nothing else to do and nothing else to watch, it will make time pass a little bit faster...
A man wakes up in an abandoned hospital, to realize that the world has been taken over by zombies.Well that’s a story we all know? Just turn on the TV and of you go with the Walking Dead. However, 28 days later was released in 2002, it plays in London, and even though everybody is absolutely positive about it being a Zombie movie, it is actually never said they are Zombies. In contrary, we don’t have living deads, or walkers or what you want to call them, but actually an epidemic! Scientists searched for a cure for range (which as the prolog to the movie reveals leads to our typical destructive behavior, such as riots, fighting, looting, etc. However something goes wrong and instead we get a Virus that enhances rage in a way that the being is transferred into a state of full, pure, unconditional and extremely enhanced rage that makes the being irrational and let them lust for blood and flesh. And by being bitten you get infected too - so yeah, basically Zombies. But the focus lies on the Virus that is in the blood, so even a drop of blood into any body opening and you get infected too, in just seconds.
We start with nearly soundless scenes, the quietness is depressing and horrifying, the camera has a number of cuts to show in different perspectives the vast emptiness and loneliness of this situation. We then get to see the empty London, the totally abandoned and our main character making sense of it. Even with this entry scene we get a sense of how ingenious this movie is - the great camera work consisting of many cuts from the same scene that give us the feeling of being lost, the fast pace, the great pictures and the absolutely fabulous use of great music - from starting soundless, to a very slow and quiet music that nearly is just a beat, to the build up that is somewhat absolutely dramatic and hits when it hints the main character of what has actually happened. We get a number of these, and even though we are reminded all the time that this actually is a low budget movie by the quality, you also get a feel that here someone is making a movie that knows what he is doing and that creates great thrilling scenes and enthralling story lines regardless of the money.
Also the actors are great - we have the till then unknown actor Cillian Murphy who has his break-through and will later be seen in high-profile movies such as Christopher Nolans Dark Knight Trilogy, as well as Inception, Transcendence and lately Free Fire and Dunkirk. Naomie Harris as the female lead was also unknown till then and also her career skyrocketed afterwards, with roles such as two Pirates of the Caribbean-Movies, as well as in the new James Bond movies (Skyfall and Spectre), Southpaw, Moonlight and the coming Jungle Book. Other actors chose different career paths, such as Megan Burns who is now the lead of a rock band. However even she does great in the movie. And a few stars could also be acquired, such as Brendan Gleeson. So all in all we have a great cast of unknown actors who did so well that afterwards they where considered for all the big movies in Hollywood.
So great music, great camera, great actors - what about the style and story? You would probably file this movie under horror. However, it has elements of a lot of different subgenres - there is the apocalyptic movie aspect, there is a road movie aspect, and then we have something of an revenge thriller at the end. Further more interesting, we have different aspects of the rage idea - on the one hand we have the zombies who are the extreme regarding rage - on the other hand we have our main character, who is actually a pretty decent guy - the one that comes back for you even if it means to risk his own life, and who in doubt would always help. On the other hand, we have the female lead who is full of rage and heartlessly butchers everyone down even for the slightest doubt of him being effected. And we have that turning point, where she gains hope while in the same time he gains rage (the revenge part of the movie) and this is important because otherwise the group would have been lost.
So if you want, you can start asking philosophical questions (and yes, there are scientists who did and who quote this movie for their assessments) about whether and to what degrees rage is good or bad.
So in the end considering all the aspects, this movie is ingeniously great and this is actually a low budget flick; for me this is a 9/10
A teenage love drama. This at the beginning might sound bad (especially if you don't love that kind of movies), and in the beginning I was thinking that it will be really bad, but over the time I realized it wasn't that bad. I think this is due to the perfect acting of the two main characters - they play totally believable, you just need to look into their faces and can read what they feel. Also there are no clichés, no sob stuff, no over- or underacting: just perfect.
Other than that, there is not much happening in this movie. Still especially at the end, the movie is getting interesting - and I was totally suprised by the ending - I figured out three ways this could end, and I was really expecting a classical ending, but this was somewhat suprising and not that expected - not the typical happy ending, but also not a sad ending.
So, I think 7/10 is a good rating, for a movie that actually isn't that deep, and that you probably don't want to watch more than once. A movie I wouldn't have watched voluntarily; but I was happy that is was shown at the sneak preview.
Wow. This was so not what I was expecting, and really something to chew on. The story was really moving, even though you could say that actually there is not much happening. But even so, it keeps you captivated throughout the movie - you wouldn't feel any drags. On the other hand it is really depressing and no feelgood movie, and I am not sure if you do your kids a treat (you'd rather make them cry :D ). The movie is made really good, however I was so captivated, that I did not have any time to analyse the movie in more detail (which normally I do, when watching movies) - all I can say that in the first 20 minutes I was not really immerged, so it took a shot while. In this time I had the feeling that it would be a lot like Pan's Labyrinth. However this movie stands on it's own and any resemblence to del Torrors movie that you might get in the beginning, will soon be whiped away: while Torrors movie are more on the dreamy-fantasy side, this movie is more direct and more depressing on the reality side of things.
Additional information: My girlfriend read the book and she thinks, this movie is a perfect adaption that stays true to the novel. So whoever liked the book will also like the movie ;)
"The Bye Bye Man" is a relatively classical horror movie which tries to send you the chills by scary images and a scary way of story telling and not so much by using gore or jump scares. There actually are two to three jump sacres, one of which even got me. However, the rest of the time it is slow paced atmospheric horror flick, which I did not find scary most of the time (yet there where approx. 10 of the 40 people that visited the sneak preview that left early). Still it was greatly enacted with some innovative ideas (yes, they did not invent anything new, most of the ideas we have already seen in different versions, but the way the ideas where shown in this movie was somewhat innovative), and it was an interesting and thrilling story.
What I did not like at all (and what cost this movie at least one point) are the CGI figures. Oh my God was this horrible. I hated the figure, it did not even contribute a lot to the story, so leaving it out would have actually been much better; if you'd had to have it, then take a real creature, or some real animal or practical effects. But that was rather cheap and spoiled the mood alot.
Other than that, I was entertained and enjoyed the movie; I believe it's more of a movie for people who enjoyed atmospheric horror movies such as "It". One last thing: I loved how the trailer does hardly use any scenes from the movie - so no spoilers there!
Laika Entertainment - after doing a number of contract works beforehand, with the best probably being "A Corpse Bride" for Tim Burton - is a studio that has specialized on the old artform of stop motion animation movies. Given our current times, this seems to be an incredible amount of work that could have easily been done using a few computers. However, these guys go through the crazy amount of work of first doing animated shots to scetch up the movie, then empoly a number of designers to scetch out the chracters, giving these to sculptures who acutally build DVD-Keepcase-sized puppets that are movable in everywhich way needed, with replacable faces so up to 250000 faces with different facial expressions can be created; carpenters, electricians etc. then build miniature sets for the puppets, and when finally being able to shot, they actually have to create each frame of a 25 frames per second movie by hand. A while ago I've read in an article about Laika that each minute of a movie, takes a week's work of just shooting, errors therefore are extremely expensive and hard to fix and at the end, Laika runs out with approximately +/- $0 USD.
So what other reasons are there to create such a movie, other than being a total movie buff and loving what you do? And that is what you realize when watching the movies and making ofs. This insane amount of detail, as well as lovely stories worth telling make great movies.
I've already seen "Boxtrolls" (7/10) and "Kubo" (8/10), which I both really loved, and sames goes for ParaNorman. However comparing all three movies with oneanother I have to say that ParaNorman is slightly worse than the other two.
When it comes to "Boxtrolls" we had a nice idea for a story that was overall well told - but not as great compared to "Kubo". Therefore it had lovelyer figures that where really cute. "Kubo" did not point that much in the cuteness department but storywise it was great and it really had you emotionally invested.
Taking both into account, "ParaNorman" unfortunately is behinde them in all departments. That does not mean the movie is bad - it isn't. It again has a great and lovely story, nice animated figures and good overall story telling; but in comparison it's simply just not at the level of the other two, so this is why from me it only gets (6/10).
That being said, we get not only a nice movie, but also in parts funny parody on horror movies, so all in all I really enjoyed this movie!
Wow! Probably one of the best Hammer movies, and at least the best that I have seen by Hammer thusfar. I really enjoyed it. It is not the typical monster movie you expect from Hammer (no Vampires, no Dracula, no monster of Frankenstein, no Werewolfs, etc.), still it has a supernatural component with a girl being possessed by a ghost.
She is the perpetrator of the movie, yet you feel pitty for her - not having had an easy life she still seems totally innocent and lovable and you start blaming all the other people around her, that take advantage of her or by using her, by raising her badly or by raping her.
The other lead is the doctor, who is also interesting; in the beginning you suspect him to be the morally steady person, but while the movie progresses you start wondering, and learn that actually he isn't. This is so good, that in the end I wondered if he would stop her, or let it happen, allowing him to get rid of something he is not fond of.
We have - for that time - great actors who manage to protrait deep and interesting characters and that is just the first component. In addition we have a great story, that does not have a black-and-white look on things, and that is interesting from the beginning to the end. Also we have a philosophical-scientific component that is also fun to think about.
At no minute did I feel bored, or was I reminded by the age of the movie, due to modern camera, gerat acting, and a fast-pace movie.
I am really blown away - I did not expect anything this great by Hammer. Up to now I would say, the movies from the studios, that I have seen, all average at around 7/10; this one is clearly far better!
On the German blu-ray release it reads "A hybrid of Mad Max and Death Proof!", which will of course set high expectations that this movie will not hold at all - if you expect anything near those master pieces than you are really in for a disappointment.
I try to watch movies as uninfluenced as possible to not have any kind of expectations, because a high expectation can lead to disappointment which will even lower your rating (due to the negative experience, that you might not have experienced when going into a movie without any expectations). However, I had some expectations, therefore I wasn't as happy as I expected. But, if you are in for a B-Movie with some action and some gore, than you'll get what you've asked for. You will however realize that this movie had an extremely low budget. However, they try to make the best out of this situations and in some departments this really works out great. This movie has a lot of the charme of a typical B-Movie or Grindhouse movie, there are some trashy scenes and a few number of times I had a laugh. However budget cuts where made especially when it comes to story, dialogues and mask, which I consider somewhat bad. Especially the mask - take for example the car explosion and then you see the victim survive with some ragged clothes and some makeup on the face - and you just realize how this is just makeup, not the ashes of an explosion. Also: why is the hair totally okey, if the entire face is black and the clothes are ripped? Also because of the bad writing, we get a number of scenes that are dragging, which is especially bad if you count in the short running time of the movie. And all in all you somehow have the feeling that the scenes are just parts that where somehow mixed together into a movie, but that seem disconnected to each other: We have an action scene, then some driving, then again an action scenen with totally different people, again some driving, and so on.
These are not the qualities that comapre with Mad Max or Death Proof. However, the story is nice, the splatter effects are great, and the practical effects are immensly good. CGI is near to terrible, but given it is a movie on a budget, it's okey - there've been hollywood blockbusters that have been worse. Also, the cast is execpetionally good, I love all three of the main actors that bring different aspects to the story, and that know their acting and know how to get the audiences attention. However, to improve the movie, it should have had more trashy gore (I loved the stop sign axe scene) a little bit less draggy scenes (take the Marry Death Badlands scene - I mean how did that add anythint to the plot? how was this in any ways funny or interesting, etc?), and a more natural look (more dirt, more sweat - it just doesn't fit if the actors look neat and clean after a number of battles - and use real dirt instead of bad makeup), and a little bit more and especially better dialoges (yes, it's a B-Movie but still, why not let the audience feel the attaction between our two main characters?). If those points would have been just a bit better, this movie would have had potential for at least 7/10 points.
But in the end, we have a number of positve as well as negative aspects that cancel each other out, so in the end, I end up with 5/10 points.
This movie was shown in the sneak preview at our cinema, so I did not know what to expect, and actually I haven't heard from it before (at least in Germany there was no advertising for it at all). I found it hard to rate, and would like to split it into two aspects:
1) The story, which is a story worth telling as it is an important story that pays credit to a real event in history, which is - at least in Germany totally unknown. I don't know how it is in the USA, but I guess even there it might be an eye-opener to one or the other viewer.
2) The movie, as an artistic expression that is created to "entertain" us in cinemas.
Let's start with the second: the cinematic recreation is rather bad. If it wasn't for the other aspect, I'd rate this 5 points. The story is processing sluggishly, the actors do not portrait any great emotions, the soundtrack is nothing that you realize (neither positive nor negative) and not much happens in the entire moive. I like the sentence I picked up in one of the ohter comments to this movie: "it was a bit like watching paint dry" - yeah, it actually is.
And that is so, even thoug you are somewaht interested in what would probably happen next; I was waiting for the dramatic turnaround - was the mother the one that tipped them off? Or was it someone from the girls family? Is anything bad goint to happen to either of them? Like people beating them up, etc.? But actually nothing happens. Of course I understand how the director would have probably wanted to keep this as real and realistic as possible, and I highly appreciate it. However, if you don't have much to tell in a movie, why not make the way you tell it interesting? Take "The Dinner" for example - it's all about some people meeting at a restaurant discussing a family matter - that's all there is to it, still how the story is told, how the events unfold, how we get to get know all the details - that was interestingly shot and cut into a final movie. Or if you want another courtroom drama, take "The Social network" and look how a simple boring story of a guy being sued by two different parties is cut together in a way that keeps you invested the entire time of the movie. I don't think that I'm too much hollywood-maladjusted; I love slow paced movies, I enjoyed Manchester by the Sea, for instance, which is also quite slow-paced and not comparable to typical hollywood cinema, where everything is entirely dramatic and exploding and stuff.
But taking two rather shallow characters and telling their story linearly over the time of 10 or more years - that just doesn't cut it.
So, then there is the other aspect - the story, and that is a story woth telling, hell yes - everyone go watch this movie and learn some empathy. Honor this brave two individuals that both have to fight with different demons and where dealt with a life of hardship only because of their love, which should be a human right. And only this aspect gains the movie a number of bonus points, which lead me to finally give it 7/10, because even though as a movie it fails horrible, the story is worth watching and knowing!
We've catched this at the sneak preview in our cinemas and I was totally suprised. I did not hear anything about this movie before and I found the movie to be great, but at the same time also hard, because of it's difficult topic. So it is nothing you want to see if you want to be entertained on a light/happy evening, but rather a family drama dealing with a difficult situation that is hard to discuss and decide and where the different positions are already so stuborn that it seems to be a deadlock. Of course there is one position who could just decide it for all and therefore is in an advantage point, however especially this person is interested in finding a solution that everyone can live with.
While trying, we get to know the differnt individuals not only by their strange behaviour, but also by showing us different events that took place before and that slowly let us understand the people, even if they are not rational and hard to follow, at least you can understand where they are coming from. These events are not shown linear but unfold over time, piece by piece and keep the whole movie interesting.
The director is playing with the audience, and does not reveal everything - a lot is left even open to imagination. The camera is reallly interesting, there are some quiet sometimes even bizzar scenes that are dropped in, and especially the main cast is ingenious in acting, and we get presented some great dialogs. All this keeps the movie interesting and if that is not enough, we also have a great mismatch both in the setting where the dialogs take place as well as in the music that is used while this family argues.
So to sum it up: I was pretty excited. This movie is definatly nothing for someone who wants to be entertained (at the end a lot of people where asking "WTF?"), but whoever is interested in a really difficult controverse discussion as well as a character study, will find an interesting movie that is worth seeing.
Over all a good movie with some twist I wasn't expecting. Most of it is obvious, though. Acting is good and it has a pretty atmospheric setting, which is nice. However, I felt remembered of Memento, and trying to play in that arena, this movie clearly isn't as good, as the original. Non the less, I think it's great to watch.
Good acting (is there anything else to expect from two acting veterans?), but the story is totally transparent, making it a rather boring movie from the beginning to the end. Nice if you have nothing better to do and want to watch some tele, but not worth the money for the cinema ticket...
I thought it had a great start, you didn't really know what's happening and what to expect (didn't read the book). But going on, the movie developed typical stereotypes:
It's in this pattern non-different to many other movies that just came out (Hunger Games, Divergent, etc.), but in a more general sense follows a lot of movies. So arround the middle I got pretty bored, as the yet original start became more and more transparent with no supprises at all. Very unfortunate, could have been a great movie, if it had tried something new.
Btw. I didn't read the book, so my short review does not take that into consideration.
Good movie, althoug for a German movie I (as a German) found it somewhat disconnecting that actors I know speak English all the time and - making it worse - try to pronounce German names in a way that English people would pronounce it. Why the hell?
Not that I have a problem with English movies (I try to watch all my movies in original language (with subtitles if neccessary) and 90% of these are English) as is. But a German movie in Germany played by German actors shown to a German public in English - that's mighty strange. As well as it was strange that Moslem people when with each other, spoke English, and not Arabic.
Would have loved it, if they did what Tarantino did back with Inglorious Basterds; there would have still be plenty of room for English with all the contacts these people where suppose to have with American Contact persons. And then use subtitles whereever needed. I mean for a movie that depicts the conflict of interest of international collaboration in fighting terrorism a bit more international touch would have been great.
Other than that, however, the movie was really great. I enjoyed it a lot, the actors played their roles well and it was great to see a movie that just depicted the field of problems without judging - it's hard to find someone to relate to, there is no good or bad - you feel like you're thrown into something where you can understand the reasoning and interests of the different people, but where you cannot say "Ok, that guy's the good one, and that's the bad".
I really liked that about the movie.
I liked it. It's not the best movie ever made, but it had it's moments, there where some shockers that even got me (and that happens seldom) and all in all I had fun. I have to agree with Gazoo69 about the exorcism, though. That was a bit long and all in all quite disappointing. Other than that, a tad to religious for my taste.
But besides that a good movie. Was fun watching it!
It had one or two funny moments (justifying the 4 I gave), but all in all, this was really weak. The characters where totally unbelievable (I mean really, who would still take pitty on a evil bitch who is not only mean but also tries to steal the car twice and totally wrecks it)? Still the overall plot is forseeable, the jokes are in generall not funny at all...
Not the worst movie I've seen, but pretty close.
After a first impression that said "Oh no, not again some intercultural comedy packed with shallow clichees". But apparently it turned out to be a really good movie, even though forseeable, with some scenes that actually really where funny.
Nothing that you'll definately have to see, but if you tune into it somewhere, it's worth your time ;)
This one's not worth your time and money: Forseeable plot, typical cliché, and a boring story-line, with jokes that weren't funny at all! I was actually relieved, when it was finally over and couldn't wait to get out of the cinema (normaly I stay until the credits end).
