pygospa

VIP

3

This is an interesting movie that is really not your typical Hollywood blockbuster cinema flick. This movie is slow paced, it takes a lot of time concentrating on small thinks and a number of things are not comming from acting but are conveyed to you by narration coming from offstage; thought that our main character has, while he is on his journey into the wild, which most of the time he is doing just by himself. Nothing for the mainstream audience, but if you are open to a slow-paced movie that makes you think alot, and that shows you great imagery of the scenery, with in the beginning absolutely no indication to where this movie is actually going to go, you'll be in for an interesting jorney.

The end is however the most interesting part; it is only in the last minutes that you start realizing to where this movie is going to go, and as you get there, everything is going really fast and it kind of suprised me a lot. I especially like the final realisation, this is an enormously great message that was worth the journey and that actually raised my ratings by one point (otherwise I'd have ended up 7/10 because of the lengthy parts inbetween).

The second surprise I was in for (I did not know anything about this movie beforehand), was that it is actually based on true events - this actually happend, and in hindside you start believing that this is actually with hardly any fictionallisation. My girlfriend actually knew this beforhand as she read the novel, and she said that this is a great adaptation which means a lot because she is often critical when it comes to movie adaptations of books. So if you read the book and enjoyed it, you'll probably enjoy this movie as well.

With now 40 years of age, Phantasm is a rather old movie, and given its $300k budget, it's a movie that is pretty low budget, leading to amateurs and aspiring actors, this movie was reviewed rather negatively during its time, which to me is rather incomprehensible. Not only did this movie inspire a lot of other movies, such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "One Dark Night", it also is surprisingly entertaining to watch, even today.

The story is a bit strange, and incoherent, which is probably one of the main reason people have problems with it - however this incoherence is part of the plot and makes sense if you watch it till the end, and think about the meaning this movie could have, and the point of view we get to experience the story. It is also quite inventive - tell me any other horror movie that has a never-dying undertaker that steals corpses to revive them, shrink them and kidnap them to another realm, and hunts his enemies with small chrome balls that drill into their brains? Phantasm is iconic for so many things, such as these chrome balls, which even lead to the naming of Phasma in Star Wars (a storm trooper captain in chrome armor). One of these iconic symbols is the Tall Man, the evil antagonist, depicted by Angus Scrimm, and Scrimm is one of the examples for the really great acting, that Phantasm shows - there is no other actor who could walk so scary as Angus Scrimm does. Also the child actor, Michael Baldwin, and the family friend Reggie Bannister do their job good - only Billy Thornbury is a bit weak. Also on the down side are some of the dialogues, that are somehow a bit off, and there is one dialogue that really makes me bust out in laughter, because it's so strange and unfitting.

However, for a low budget film, the effects are pretty good: The finger in the box, the chrome ball, even the fly, though clearly fake, does mange to be rather scary instead of beeing to cheesy. That shows some real skill, both on the filmmakers side, as well as the actors.

Also iconic for this movie is the soundtrack, that in my opinion is on the same level as the famous Halloween-theme. And it adds to the overall atmosphere of the movie, that is really spooky, and really great. It's unfortunately - at least for today's standards - not scary overall. But at least the atmosphere is rather scary.

And last but not least, this movie does have another level and a deeper meaning that becomes apparent at the end, which I actually like.

All in all this is a unjustly overlooked must-watch horror classic that is most definitely worth your time!

The movie cleverly plays with typical Irish cliches, and has beautifully scripted characters that are perfectly depicted by both, the main cast as well as the supporting cast. And while it has it's surprisingly gruesome scenes and shockers, it is mainly a comedy, and one that is typically British and reminds you of movies such as the one by Edgar Wright, especially Hot Fuzz. It is full of little absurd situations and dialogues, which will make you laugh, if you like this kind of humor. The story is interesting and captivating, and refreshingly witty. However, the last third of the movie gets a bit predictable and a bit tedious. Acting is great, and especially the chemistry between the characters works out really good. And for a low budget production, this movie uses some of the greatest CGI scenes I've seen. The alien is not only perfectly designed, it looks great, and given that the movie relies heavily on CGI the interaction between actors and CGI is seamless. Responsible for the effects was Shoume Harrison who is known for his works on movies such as "Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows" or "Captain America: The First Avenger".

All in all this movie is greatly entertaining, and refreshingly original.

After the first part of "How to Train your Dragon" introduced us into a new world where vikings where fighting with dragons for their existence, where our two unequal outsiders managed to form a team that finally united dragons and vikings, in the second part of the series we revisit the viking village which of course has changed a lot. Instead of playing amusing sports with sheep and fighting against dragons, our vikings now ride dragons to play new and more exciting amusing sports with sheep.

Different to the first movie that had it's entire focus on the main story, this movie however opens a number of side stories: A father-son conflict between Hickup and Stoick, Hickups search for his identity, how to cope with new family members, as well as questioning deep friendships. We get happy moments, but also really dramatic and sad moments, experience a lot of rage as well as loss and grief. And all these things are just side elements to a typical action adventure story, where we have a main enemy - Drago - who is threatening the peaceful cohabitation of our dragons and vikings.

This movie will surprise you with topics that you wouldn't expect an "children's animation movie" to have, and to me, even the finale was pretty surprising, and also pretty touching.

Additionally this movie has a great soundtrack that goes right into your ear from the first minute, and compared to the first movie, the animations got even better, and the humor is a bit more mature that it was - as is our Toothless-riding Hickup.

It's a really good movie, a must see!

I am no friend of remakes, and I am especially no friend of Hollywood remakes of hit movies just to make them Hollywood - especially if the remake comes out in a really short time after the original did and if additionally it doesn't even try to be creative. E.g. even though a lot of people hate it (for understandable reasons) I would say Rob Zombies remake of Halloween is a valid remake, as he tries to give the story a totally other viewing point, a different interpretation and a totally own style - and he did it in the 00s to a movie from the 70s. But Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? (2009 vs 2011) Let the Right one In (2008 vs. 2010's Let me In?) - having exact 1-to-1 copies just with Hollywood stars and fishing away any further success that the foreign movie could have had, even in the U.S.? Come on.

The Upside is the Hollywood remake of the french surprise hit "Intouchables" (https://trakt.tv/movies/the-intouchables-2011), and as soon as it turned out to be a surprise, The Weinstein Company acquired the rights for a remake, that was started just the instant they had the rights. Thankfully production had a lot of problems, e.g. there where at least 5 directors that started and left the production, and the actors where switching as well, from Chris Rock, Jamie Foxx and Irdris Elba and Chris Tucker we finally got down to Kevin Hart. And Colin Firth finally got switched to Bryan Cranston, and Jessica Chastaine and Michelle Williams where eventually replaced by Nicole Kidman.

For me this was a movie that I was bound to skip - I never cared too much for Nicole Kidman, and though I love Bryan Cranston, I have to say that I really really detest Kevin Hart. So, as I didn't plan to go to see this movie, Fortuna took it upon her to make me see it anyways: It was screened at a sneak preview.

Let me get back to Kevin Hart: In this movie - and it really is the first - I really liked him. Wow is this guy a good actor, once he starts playing serious roles and is not doing his usual silly small guy clown routine. I really liked his acting, he was really believable and I felt really sympathetic towards his role and his character. Please Kevin Hart, do more roles like this. It suits you so much better than the stupid comedy stuff. Bryan Cranston was great as usual. And then there was Nicole Kidman. And wow. I really loved her as well! First, i wasn't even sure if that's actually Nicole Kidman, because to me she looked too young to be her. Yet she was. And her acting was really superb, you knew exactly what was going on with her right from the moment you saw her - without her even saying a thing. That was some really great acting - I actually didn't see too many movies of hers, but after seeing this performance I am really looking forward to seeing some of the other works she has done. I've got a lot to catch up, I guess!

Acting was great, music was great, and if it weren't for the bold copy of the entire story, I would be even giving this movie a higher rating. Still it was a surprise to me and even though it is one of these remakes nobody asked for, I am happy to have seen it just for the performances.

I'd still recommend all of you to watch the original, but if you like to see Kevin Hart in a serious role or if you are a fan of Nicole Kidman or Bryan Cranston, you might enjoy this remake. Just make sure to watch the original first, because it deserves the credit!

"What is it." - "Blue light" - "And what does it do?" - "It turns blue"

At least in Germany this is one of the best known movie quotes that even people know who have never seen any of the movies in this movie series. After the excellent "First Blood" (10/10) and the rather disastrous sequel "Rambo - First Blood Part 2" (4/10), we get third installment "Rambo III", in which John Rambo has retired in Thailand, living peacefully among monks. However, when his former commander gets captured and his fate is left to him, Rambo decides to get active once more. He travels to Afghanistan and is aided by Afghan Mujahideen (i.e. people engaged in Jihad) who during the time of the cold war where of course supported by the U.S. army in their fight against the invading Russians under their communist regime.

Different to the last movie, this one is really good once again, even though in general there are a few parallels to the last movie: Rambo has to meet up with his contact, find a prison camp, sneak in, and get out the prisoner, which does not work right from the beginning, so he has to return, fight some more enemies until he can safe the prisoners. However, this time it's really captivating. The plot is sound, there aren't many plot holes, the action good, and not as overdone as in Part 2 - even though it's probably more. The enemy is interesting as well, and not as stupid as in the last movie. We also get some thrilling sneak and hide scenes, and a lot clever usages of blue light :D They are also hopelessly outnumbered, take some hits. Yet the body count is probably equally high as in the predecessor, and there are a number of rather innovative killing scenes that are really fun to watch.

Plus we also get some decent tag alongs that can actually pull their weight, have more personality and that actually have some chemistry with Rambo. So to me, while it cannot get near to the first movie in any way, it is still a solid, fun to watch and also fun to re-watch typical action movie that is captivating and never boring. Even though its a 102 minutes long time really passes by - something I could not say about the second installment that over long parts was boring and where I was often looking at the blu-ray counter to see how long it would still last.

And thankfully there wasn't yet another bad attempt to copy the ingenious monologue scene from the end of the first movie. Instead we get a text card just before the credits roll in:

"This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan"

For today's standards this seems rather awkward, but keep remembering: It where other times back then.

Willard is an extremely old movie, nearly 50 years old. Yet, even though it was pretty famous in its time and broke some records and influenced a number of movies to come, as also being fueling a genre with not yet many movies, it's rather unknown for most of the younger generations due to an rights issue due to which it wasn't also never released on neither VHS nor DVD. Fortunately this time is over now, and if you want to, you can get this movie in a stunning restoration on BD.

Judging such an old movie is often hard, what was cool effects then might be boring today and also acting and storytelling standards have since long changed. I can totally see how for new viewers Willard might not live up to the praises one might have heard. The movie isn't as thrilling and captive - it's even not an natural horror movie, even though this one influenced them heavily. It's rather a natural drama - the title giving boy "Willard" is in the center of the movie, his social awkwardness, not fitting in and being pushed around by everyone, until he finds his "release" by pushing around creatures of his own.

But there is a lot to this movie that one should take into consideration. First, and this is undesputabel - there are some great actors, most of all Ernest Borgnine, whom you will hate from the minute you see him. And then there is our main character Bruce Davison, who up to then did not have any acting role, kick-starting his career with this one. As for the rats, no tricks where used - they are all real, and in this movie 600 rats where actually used. These where not harmed - plastic rats where used whenever a scene was too dangerous. And because it is not possible to train rats, these could just be lured with tricks (like peanutbutter smears), and so a large number of scenes where improvised, and there are scenes that had 30 to 40 takes.

Willard was the first movie to ever use rats (many other natural horror movies with rats as protagonists followed), and set an precedence for many movies to come.

Given these background facts I am willing to add +1 points to my initial rating which would have been 6 points, totaling in 7/10. Definitely worth seeing if you are interested in movie history.

The main character in this movie is a Captain Joseph Blocker (portrayed by Christian Bale) , a veteran in the wild west, who is a living legend for his merits in the American Indian Wars with an reputation as a ruthless killer. Waiting for his retirement he gets one last mission, that goes against his entire believes and that he only attends because he would be court marshalled and lose his pension if he doesn't: After 7 years of imprisonment the Cheyenne war chief and arch enemy Yellow Hawk should be brought to a reservoir, and Blocker and his company are task with safely escorting the war chief through enemy territory controlled by warring Comanche Indians.

This movie has totally conviced me. The storytelling is sensitive and precise, and is supported by really great imagery of the landscape - if you can, watch it on the big screen. This visually stunning picture is supported by a great and fitting score. Even though the movie is really long and mostly really slowly, it is not boring at any time. There are a few action scenes but they are sparse and most scenes are slow and quiet, as the main focus of this movie is what our characters go through emotionally and how they are believes are challenged during this mission, as well as how they cope with the things happening to then during this mission.

For this to work, the movie needs good actors and of course with Christian Bale we get a high class actor that delivers an absolutely great performance: Wow. He's supported by Rosamund Pike who actingwise is his equal. Both of them have a great chemistry going on, and it is ingenious how often they converse just with looks and gestures, without seeing a word - yet the viewer gets exactly what's going on, what the characters feel and think. They do this so well that at the end I had goosebumps when for instance Pike looks thoughtful and melancholic, then tears starts running over her face and in the next moment, she wipes them away, contains herself and puts on a natural smile. Wow.

It is really seldom that I feel like clapping in cinemas, but here I did. This is an absolute recommendation beyond the typical blockbuster mainstream, absolutely worth watching. Great movie!

I cannot believe that I am the first one commenting on this movie. I've bought this on blu-ray from a small independent German label because the label boss recommended it to me and after watching it I have to say: Wow. This is one of the most absurd and craziest movies I've seen in a long time. It is full of morbid black humor with a touch of social criticism, and tells the story of a guy who has build himself a little paradise in a shopping mall that he works in. But after years and years of perfection his life takes a turn for the worse (quote): "In this moment I realized that hell existed. And the devil existed as well. He wears a skirt, a girdle and an incarnadine bra!"

This movie isn't for everyone, but everyone who loves angry humor, exaggerations and caricatures, everybody who is open for movie that is truly different (quote from the director in the audio commentary: "We actually did everything exactly in the opposite way then they teach you in literature") will find a little movie pearl, full of references and tributes to great directors of our time. Stile-wise we get a really crazy mixture of drama, thriller, horror and comedy, great camera works, that manages to show the same set once like being in paradise and then fearful and claustrophobic. The Set is great and timeless, even though this movie is now 15 years old you get the feeling that it could play just today - or in the 60s or 70s.

Some of the scenes are so absurd (for instance while one of the detective is in a dialogue with another person, his partner all of a sudden and with no reason starts to play with a plaster this guy is wearing and then starts padding his face - all this happens without any interruptions of the Dialogue). There are a lot of details you won't get when watching it the first time and I had to watch it a second time right after the first time (this time with audio commentary).

The actors are - unfortunately - rather unknown, because they are local Spanish actors - nonetheless they are really great actors: Guillermo Toledo for instance plays a character that is totally lovable even though he is an unsympathetic despicable person. On the other end we get Mónica Cervera who has to do the same thing - but in opposite order. While we start to sympathize for the asshole, Cervera is sympathetic right from the get go and over the movie you start thinking "oh my god, please help me, that woman is crazy!". Also Enrique Villén plays a character that you will remember.

The story itself is in no way foreseeable - you will be totally captivated. And everything is managed with an absolutely low budget. This movie is really really great fun. A must see, and a recommendation for anyone that shares my sense of humor :D

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 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.

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!

This movie was a suprise to me, because I haven't heard of it before. Even when you spent 2 or 3 evenings a week at the cinema, there are trailers and movies that you do not find any advertisement for. So when this movie started I did not know what to expect at all.

Only as the movie commenced did I finally get that this must be the story of McDonalds - a story I did not know anything about, so it was pretty interesting. As I am no fan of fastfood, I probably wouldn't have watched it, if I had known about it exsistance, but watching it was great. The story is interestingly told, we have a great cast and we have Michael Keaton who again plays ingeniously good. Even better than the so acclaimed Birdman. I really loved his play, the way he deals with his ups and downs and the turn from being a likeable fellow who you feel for, to turning out to be a person you dispise, yet find somewhat disturbingly understanding in his situation.

Additionally I love the 50s and 60s flair of the setting and the cast is great (Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, B. J. Novak - you cannot go wrong with these guys). I was considering 8/10, especially as it is probably not a movie that you will rewatch often; but taking into account that there was not a single minute in this movie that I wasn't captivated, I think the little more outstanding position is justified.

For me, this movie is hard to rate. There are different aspects that I really liked, but at the same time a number of aspects that I disliked.

What I liked:
- The psychodelic aspects of the movie, the crazy colorful lightning, the strange surreal subworlds, such as the water hole in the beginning, the cellars, the inbetween floors.
- The nightmare-like flair
- Perfect acting of part of the ensemble (i.e. Irene Miracle, Alida Valli, Sacha Pitoëff)
- Some of the strange scenes that this movie uses
- The ingenious soundtrack that leaps from classic to gothic rock; pretty great!

What I disliked:
- The sometimes really slow pace, that in some cases tend to boredom
- The story telling in it self; some scenes seem to be arbitrary and do not add anything to the movie, neither for the story nor for the esthetics. Especially while watching it the first time I felt a bit lost sometimes and wondered what has happend and why and why this is in any way important.
- The bad acting of some of the cast (i.e. Veronica Lazar, Leigh McCloskey, or Elenora Giorgi)
- The End (the transformation to "Death"... well... for 1980 that could have been done much better)

So all in all, I am torn between the greatness of this movie on the one side - the camera is ingenious, the music is great, parts of the acting is great some of the scenes are thrilling as hell - and on the other side some scenes that where boring, made no sense or consisted of bad acting.

It is better than average, so not a 5/10 but also not as great as it could be, which is why I ended up with a 6/10. (In comparison: 4 Flies: 6/10, Crystal Plumage: 7/10, Opera: 8/10).

For me, this movie was quite difficult to follow and therefore also a bit difficult to rate. In the beginning we see Elizabeth Sloane, a successful lobbyist working in a prestigious lobbying office that develop ideas for their clients and pitch them to the right people to make them happen in politics. And we get to know how good Sloane is at her job, but also how ruthless she is, both with her co-workers/employees, clients and also bosses - but also with herself, when it comes to substance abuse and an unhealthy living style that is built around her job and her addiction to winning.

The first turning point comes in place when she is approached to work for another firm that contrary to the firm she is employed with, is for stricter gun regulations. She accepts, saying it is because of her believes, but it seems like this is also just for the challenge - the firm is on a sinking boat and it seems impossible to win, because they lack power, money and supporters. And here we get to see her bloom, using everything at her possession be it legal or illegal, moral or immoral, humane or inhumane.

While being in general interesting, I often felt lost and thought that this part of the movie was too detailed, and also for me a bit complicated to grasp in all it's details (and I do also not know in detail how the US politics system works). If it had stayed this way I would have considered a 7/10.

However midway through the movie it gets extremely interesting due to her downfall and here is where the genius of the movie plot start to shine through. Not only does Sloane start to crack, due to some unfortunate events, we also get a feel of how important it is for her to win, and how conflicted this is on the one side, but also how enormously great she is. This turning points deserve more, so in the end I'd reward it with 8/10, and there has to be an additional point just for Jessica Chastain. Hell was this a great piece of acting, ingeniously played in all facets - she has great emotional scenes (even though 90% of the time she is just the tough woman), but maybe some of her greatest scenes are those where she just shows little nuances, and where you start asking yourself "Is she just regretting this? Was that a glimpse of sorrow?" etc.

So I end up with 9/10 Points, because I think it is worth watching, and I believe it is a movie that has to be seen at least twice. Interestingly even though it is about gun regulations, this whole topic is just means to an end, the end being not to be a pro/against gun regulations movie, but rather to be a political thriller as well as a character study, that - if you want to take a message from - shows how the American politics system (and by the way - this is true for so many other countries as well, even though the mechanisms work in different ways) is somewhat corrupt in a way that senators do not act according to their own believes or in the interest of their voters, but rather in their own political interest which are highly steered by people in power that can afford to pay geniuses like Miss Sloan to force through political ideas.

And in this sense the note scene at the end becomes especially interesting and conveys another character trade of Miss Sloan that was up to then hidden and could only be guessed.

One last thing: I felt in a way remembered by another great movie that - even though being made totally different in style and content bears some resemblance when it comes to the main motives: The Life of David Gale. If you liked that one, you’d probably also love this movie - for me, The Life of David Gale is a 10/10.

The trailer of Gold made me expect a fast pace, party like movie such as The Wolf of Wallstreet. However it turned out to be a pretty slow-paced movie with lots of lengthy scenes, especially in the beginning. Basically, it is a movie of downward spirals. We meet the main character played by Matthew McConaughey who starts out in a successful family business that he takes over and from there loses everything. However, he does not give up, even when it means to have no money, to live at his girlfriends house and to work from a pub.

But he believes in his dream of finding gold and after finding the character Edgar Ramírez, who has a similarly strong believe for an unlikely goldmine in the Philippines, McConaughey not only wagers his last possessions, but also his health. Suprisingly, they get lucky, and make the gold-find of the century; only to discover that having a gold mine only steers up more problems than it actually solves. So in the end what should have been a lucky turnaround turns out to only go from bad to worse.

The story was interesting but not as well told as I would have expected, there are a lot of tedious lengths in-between, and most of the time I was wondering where this story was heading. I had some ideas, however these always seemed to be wrong (but in the end I was right from the beginning on - only in a total different way).

So, while watching the movie, I was considering a 6/10; mostly because this is probably one of McConaugheys best performances that I've seen. His character is pretty broken and McConaughey plays this to perfection. But besides this, the movie had not much going for it.

Until the end. I really loved the last scenes, and I was surprised by the last scenes, that to me really made a change; I would not have expected the dramatic turnaround, I would not have expected what McConaughey did, and I sure as hell did not expect the final scene, which to me added a lot to the characters and their relationship to each other. I loved it. And therefore I was willing to add a point, so we end up at 7/10.

Wow. This movie is quite intense. I did not know much before watching it, except that poeple considered it to be good and that it's somehow about drumming. Not much to go on. So the first thing you'll notice is the unconventional start - no introductions, no title credits, etc. You are just thrown in: It's dark, you don't see anyome, someone is drumming, and he's getting faster and faster, at the last (climax) beat: light on. A long floor at which end (far away) you see Miles Teller at his drumset. He starts the next song, we slowly move towards him - Teller suddenly looks up and stops, because a man (J.K. Simmons) just walked in - they have a short unconventional dialog, J.K. Simmons being quite condescending. This is how their relationship start, and that's what the movie is all about - there are other actors, but they are just means to an end and could easily all be extras - no one gets enough screentime to leave a deeper impression.

At least 80% of the movie takes palce in the practice room, and shows either Teller in front of his drumset or J.K. Simmons conducting. Sound's riskey, but that's what makes this movie so great: it totally works out! It's thrilling, captivating and intense - right from the first scene to the last, and that's because of so many things: Great camera work, grate editing, great music and of course: great acting.

I don't want to say much more about the story, because I think it will spoil the fun and the movie - only so much: throughout the movie this picture stays unconventional - up to the final which is exceptionally good and yet another "wow".

This is really worth seeing and also worth owning. Great movie!

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!

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.

I'm giving this cult classic television series another spin, starting off from the beginning (and also redoing my ratings up to now). So here we go:

The Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire is, as the title card reads, a Christmas Special, and it may seem rather strange, that a television series starts with a Christmas special. To understand this, you need to know two things:

Firstly, this wasn't actually supposed to be the first episode. The first episode produced, was S01E13, Some Enchanted Evening. However, a workprint test screening was received overall poorly, enforcing a long rework of the entire first season that took around half a year. Now, having to air in mid December, the decision was made to grab Episode 8 of that season for premiering.

Secondly, the Simpsons where already well known. It was in 1985 that comic artist Matt Groening was asked to do an animated short series for the Tracey Ullman Show, a ~30-minute long sketch comedy show, to be used as a ~1 minute long "bumper" before and after the commercial break. Groening initially wanted to use his comic series "Life in Hell" but when he learned, that he would actually loose all intellectual property rights, he came up with a plan B: The Simpsons, which - as rumor has it - was developed in 15 minutes in front of the office of producer James L. Brooks, just before pitching the idea. It wasn't the first (and in the beginning not the only) animated short that aired as advertisement bumper in the show that started in April 1987, but it was the one that got most attention and by the second season, all other cartoons were canceled and The Simpsons became the exclusive short series in that show. After the third season, that ended in May 1989, the Simpsons where spun off into a standalone half-hour series.

Taking these two facts into consideration makes it clear, how they could start off with a Christmas Special, but it also puts a lot of undeserved praise into better context. Many point out how this first episode already established so many places & figures and their characteristics right from the get-go (e.g. Skinner, Ned Flanders, Patty & Selma, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Milhouse and Grandpa, Moe's tavern, the power plant, Bart prank-calling Moe, etc.). If, however you watch them in production order, you will see, that the Simpsons started out as any other series; only Moe, Moe's Tavern and the Pranks where introduced in the original first episode. And other characters get introduced gradually over the next episodes, not all at once and some with large differences in the beginning (e.g. Milhouse being black-haired, or Smithers initially being black), so that this episode had already a rather rich background to fetch ideas from and build upon.

So ignoring this aspect, this episode has rather little to offer. The drawings are still a bit clumsy, the story not that original, there is little humor, no real sassy social remars and the dialogues rather dull. On the plus side, however, it is a heart warming story that has a nice happy end, and it manages to bring you into a Christmas spirit, even if you watch it in the summer.

Starting at 5/10 and looking at all the pros and cons, in the end, this episode is rather balanced out, leaving it at 5/10 points over all.

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.

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 ;)

This movie is again a movie hard for me to rate. On the one side, I like it. It was good, and I did enjoy it. But on the other hand it wasn't what I expected it to be - I had high expectations, I enjoyed the trailers and even though I block myself from reviews before watching and experiencing a movie myself, I did realize that people where loving it. So maybe I also had some really high expectations - I don't know.

However, the movie did not wow me the way that Man of Steel or even Batman v Superman did. Maybe, those did because MoS I had no expectations at all (I am no Superman fan) and BvS I did not expect to be so much about Batman (I love Batman). Wonder Woman however I do not have any childhood connections to, and never followed her, and her role in BvS wasn't the best - not because of she was bad, no - but because it was introduced in probably the most unfortunate way.

Taking all movies of the DC Universe into account, Wonder Woman is better than Suicide Squad for sure. However it is worse than both MoS and BvS - so somewhere between 7 and 8, and I actually put it on an 8 beforehand, but thinking a lot about it, I'd rather see it at 7.

The movie starts really great, I love the child Diana actor - and don't get me wrong: I love what this is doing for small girls who love becoming her, who will dress up like her on Hallween, etc. It's great! And that alone deservs a good rating. But, looking at the movie from a cinephile perspective, there is again a lot of things that I have to critizise.

What I loved: The fighting scenes, especially in the beginning. They are great - I would have loved it to be R-Rated, a bit more brutal, such as Fox's Logan - it would have done the movie better. But okey. That's just a small thing. Bigger however is the missing atmosphere. What I love about MoS and BvS is this dire atmosphere, the hopelessly, which is not only expressed by the story, but which is also aided by the camera work, by the beautifull imagery, by sometimes the shaky cams, etc. In Wonder Woman, which is set in the First World War, which is discussed as one of the most horrible wars we've ever experienced, when it comes to brutallity, mortallity, and the way the war was fought (trenches and gas attacks, etc.), we should ge a dire atmosphere as well. However, what we actually are presented with jokes, with silly characters, etc. All these things take some of the seriousness of the entire situation and that also affects the credibility of the entire situation. I cannot believe that Wonder Woman is so touched by the wouded people, for example - yes she wants to fight, she was born for this, she feels this to be her purpose - no question. But then she's war/fighting hungry - and that is okey. But her feeling shocked when seeing the wounded? She feeling the need for helping those people freeing their village? I don't feel that, when seeing it. They are saying it, but it's not credibil, especially if it was said between two jokes.

That is not me saying I didn't like any of the jokes - especially in the beginnig they where somewhat nice, and put her in an interesting spot, because on the one side she seems like the strong, unapproachable and unrelatable fearless godlike warrior; but giving her being thrown in a world she doesn't know and doesn't understand making her appear even naive in some situation, that on the other hand makes her relatable, makes her cute and funny in the same time. And I enjoyed these two contraries.

Another thing killing the amtosphere was the sometimes overdone action. I mean, seriouly: She jumpes into the window of a church tower and the whole building collapses? Why doesn't she jump all the time and by doing so invoke some earthquakes killing all the enemies? Not only does she sometimes show powers unmatchable and therefore breaking the mood: She also seems unbreakable. She never takes a scratch, she's never tired, never wounded, never in doubt, nothing. She's even hardly in pain about loosing some of her loved ones. And that makes all the action irrelevant, because you know that she will never be overpowerd in any situation. That's what Marvel is doing and that's what set the frist DC movies appart: We had Superman, who is fighting an inner conflict by protecting those who are fighting him, and we have Batman, who is broken because of his past - we have heroes that are wounded, that bleed, that can actually die and this makes it even more interesting to watch, more thrilling, more realistic and relevant.

And then - this is probably just me, but actually I hate it when Germans are played by English actors, and the only way you realize that they are Germans is because they speak in an accent. Why? We are in the Post-Inglorious Basterds era, where Tarantino had shown us, how great movies can become when you do them multilingual. The French speak French? The woman in the Trench spoke something (that I did not recognize)? We had Italian, we had Chinese. And we hat a lot of fun with different British Accents used in this movie. Hell, they even made all the other Amazones speak a Israeli accent, so that it doesn't sound weird that Gal Gadot had one - that is intelligent script writing! But why then not have the Germans speak Geramn? Makes a movie so much more fun to watch. It is of course just a minor thing, but it adds to the list.

So up to now I listed everything wrong with this movie - however not everything is. I think the acting was great - I am not a fan of Gal Gadot, but I think in the role of Wonder Woman she has mad her best performance yet. She fits perfectly into this role and I cannot imagine any other actress that can fill this movie with both, the power of an fearless strong female lead, who at the same time keeps her feminine features, and who has the right amount of sexiness without it being too much, sexist, etc. And I also liked Chris Pine - he is just about right, without being too much, and also fits perfectly into his role. Also I enjoyed the fighting scenes - they really maxed out everything they could - being an R-Rated movie this still looks absolutely stunning and great and just makes a lot of fun.
I also found the story to be reasonable, it is really good, you can follow throuhg and find every step making absolutely sens (lessons learned from Suicide Squad wich in that department was aweful). And somehow it does rectify her role in BvS - I do believe that when rewatching BvS, I will like her character - I will not think "okey, where did she come from and who the hack is she and why is she there all of a sudden and helping them" - no. This scenes now will actually make total sense - I am sure of it, and I am looking forward to rewatching BvS.

As it goes for the DC Universe: I hope that Justice League will be a little bit more back to the DC roots, but I am looking forward to it - I love that DC is having a great success here and that finally they work and effort will pay off (after the not so well received BvS and the horrible critics on Suicide Squad, I was fearing a bit for them; I am especially keen on the single Batman movie. I want it to happen!). But I hope that they will also recognize that the main reason is that we have the first female comic hero lead that is captured on canvas. I loved their style thus far, with Suicide Squad one could see that they where adopting Marvels style and that did not pay out. This one has it's flaws aswell and it does not mean to put back more comedy into the movies and take away their seriousness.