pygospa

VIP

3

I cannot believe I haven't written at least a small review on this movie, yet. This can be - no doubt - regarded as a classic already. It's the movie that revived the slasher era, who had it's "Golden Age" in the mid 70s to mid 80s, and then disappeared for a decade from the big screen. The genre of course wasn't dead, and enthusiasts where happy to get new movies to classic slasher movie series on direct-to-video releases. But in mainstream they disappered totally - untill - yes - until Wes Craven decided to make a slasher movie, that both, paid it's tribute to the slasher classics while also being fun and new, and more appealing to a modern youth.

Following Scream, we get 3 sequels and a number of new generation slasher movies, such as "I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Urban Legends", "Final Destination" and "Jeepers Creepers" and finally the "Saw"-franchise, and also finally created budgets for follow-ups and/or reboots on those 80s movies, such as Halloween, Cucky, Friday the 13th or Elm's Street. Not to forget the 2010s first(?) slasher television series that is also called Scream and steps into the fooprints of this movie. Now that deserves the term "classic" doesn't it?

The movie convinces you not by a scary killer or inspired new or especially hard kills, but by a really good base story an excellent cast that play some of the most lovable slasher movie characters, a witty meta-level about slasher movies and last but not least finally not a scream queen but a survivor girl. It is not by accident that Neve Campbell's Sindey Prescott survives, you never see her fall down crying between a still masked Michael Myers just to start screaming again the minute he get's up. No, instead she'll confront him, fight him, and stand her ground.

For me, the secret show stealers are however Courntey Cox's Gale Weathers and David Arquette's Dwight Riley - who together with Sidney are staples throughout the Scream series.

Then of course there is the iconic Ghostface, a great soundtrack, and a great supporting cast, including the antagonist, who isn't revealed until the end, so the entire movie you keep guessing. Oh and did I mention all the great references to the classics?

I don't know what's not to love about this movie. I've seen it a number of times, and I am not yet tired - I usually watch this around Halloween and nearly once a year, and up to now it never got old. If you haven't seen it, you need to watch it. If you have, you know what I'm talking about: It's a great atmospheric horror classic :)

I cannot remember having seen this as a child; but watching this the first time I was really moved. The episode focuses on depression and how society "To sad to play dodge-ball? That's ridiculous, now let's see some enthusiasm!" and especially parents handle it (both are helpless and while Homer treats her as a child, Marge tries to force her to happiness and sees Lisa's unhappiness as her failure as a mother). It is the first episode after five rather Bart- and Homer-centric episodes that focuses on Lisa, and the first episode that gives her character some real depth and also gives it directions for the rest of the series (after she has been shown as slightly as brattish as Bart in the previous two episodes).

I especially loved Homer in this episode, who even though helpless, behaves warm and fatherly towards Lisa. And then of course there is the music. While I am not a fan of Jazz and the Blues as such, I really love how the saxophone music is integrated into the episode. The tunes and lyrics are catchy. It's also the first time (besides in the Intro) that we see Lisa play the saxophone in an episode.

I feel like this episode addresses some real problems, combined with humor, critical commentary on society, good music and a great conclusion of the conflict that Marge and Lisa have, there is once more also some critic on the school system ("I hope we don't see any unbridled creativity again"), and I can even relate to it on a personal level. And on the negative side? Well, I cannot find anything, this time. For me, this is one of the must sees if you watch the Simpsons.

9/10 Points.

Ignoring the first aired episode (the Christmas special) and bearing in mind that the series ought to be started off with what ended to be episode 13, Homer's Odyssey is the first episode that enlarges the Simpsons universe. We not only get new characters introduced (such as the twins Sherri and Terri, Chief Wiggum or Otto Man, the school bus driver), but with the class field trip we also visit the power plant the first time, Blinky can be seen and we learn that Bart really want's a tattoo (which he actually got in the eight first episode). Also interesting: In this episode Smithers is black for the first and only time.*

Besides this, after the last one being Bart-centric, this one's Homer-centric, and not only shows the heights but also the depths that Homer can go through (e.g. by stealing Barts piggy-bank or trying to kill himself).

Even though I like the general idea of the episode, overall I didn't have too much fun with that episode. The jokes are rather dull and uninspired, who hasn't seen jokes like someone on the way to kill himself complaining about something else that could have killed him on the way? And in the end I really disliked the spinelessness with which Homer is shown at the end of the episode, knowing the disappointment he will cause. While the message is still clear and valid (i.e. most peoples integrity has a price tag), I just felt that in this episode it was a bit to dully conveyed.

So in the end, waying in positives and negatives, again I have to say that this episode holds the balance, ending up with 5/10 points.

*) PS: Again some trivia fact: If you ever wondered why: The coloring wasn't decided by the creators and story tellers, but the coloring department could decide themselves and did so randomly when it came to skin color. They felt like Smithers being black; however, character-wise it was clear that Smithers would have an psychopathic personality with an homoerotic component towards Mr. Burns; and they not only felt that the color choice in this case would not only ruin the personality they've planed for Smithers but also be a bit to much that was unloaded on Smithers. Thus the change.

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.

Rewatching and rerating all Simpsons episodes (and this time, hopefully sticking to it), the second entry (that really was produced as the second episode) is already more to my liking.

As this series is just starting of, this episode is more of a "closed world" episode, i.e. it focuses on the Simpsons family and their relations (as did ) and does not give room to too many outside characters: only Martin Prince, Mrs. Krabapple and Principal Skinner are introduced as characters, Milhouse as a minor and insignificant appearance. The focus is mainly on Bart, with a second focus on the father-and-son-relationship, that really has multiply cynical aspects to think about:

Homer - even though (at least in the first seasons) a caring father - doesn't show much affection or love towards his son, who is on a path that will probably lead him into a similar life (and there are some foreshadowing in coming episodes that also hint that way). Only when there is outside certification of some specialty this aspect shifts; which is especially dramatic as the quite gifted Lisa, who - with 8 years of age - knows "hard" words like "nurturing" as well as as the works of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is not even noted most of the time. This episode can also be seen as a critique on the education- and societies class system. Clearly we know how to teach our children best by giving them the possibility and room to explore their abilities and allowing them to set their own goals and train their abilities individually. However, to get there, you first need to pass an aptitude test, which the kids are clearly not prepared to, giving only a few elite the chance to unfold their full potential, while the rest is rather thought to learn facts by heart and comply - training them to be a good work force. It's not that obvious and maybe even a bit far fetched, but for me this is one of the main takeaways from this episode. Having Bart embark on a journey that on the end helps him figure out what's important in life, is just another aspect that makes this episode really good and one of the few episodes that will stand out.

Starting from 5 points for the average rating, this episode has a number of positive aspects and hardly any negative ones, it has some funny moments, it has a lot to consider and think about, its witty. I like it, and I think it's one of the episode you should consider if you only watch a handful to decide if this show's for you. 8/10

PS: Again some trivia - even though not the first episode, this is the first to feature the famous Simpsons intro, and with Bart having to write "I shall not waste chalk" it conveys the sassy sarcasm this show can offer.

One of the few episodes that I can still remember from my childhood (I used to watch this series when I was around 10~14 years, more as a pass-time than actually loving it, because - well - I was to young to get everything, I guess). While the first three episodes felt more like a continuous story from start to end, this is the first episode that already follows the typical setup of later simpsons episodes: We get an introductory story that actually has nothing to do with the main story (Mr. Burns party), except for one single binding element (the family love Homer witnesses from one of his co-worker, that fuels the entire second part (Homer wanting to change his family for better).

On the other side, however, the episode is rather atypical. Marge is the drunk, Homer is the one worried about their image and Lisa misbehaves (which was rather typical for the Simpsons Shorts). Homer selling the TV and wanting to pray before eating is probably the biggest break with his character. In the entire Simpsons context this feels rather strange. But reminding ourselves that this is just episode four, it is understandable that did not have that developed characteristic trades. Would this episode be shown in a later season, we would most definitely have Marge and Homer switch roles in this story.

But even given the short background we do already have, it's rather hypocritical of Homer being the one to judge both, their perceived family image (when he did not care about his personal image at all just in the previous episode) as well as the lack of love in the family (when he only spent time with his son for the first time after thinking his son is a genius, and stopping the second he finds out the truth just two episodes ago). Then again, this episode makes clear, that we are in the early 90s, where it was typical to reset the entire previous history at the beginning of the next episode, by having Homer know his boss so well, which he only met in the previous episode for the first time. Still, with Homer being content with the status quo the entire time, and just wanting a change once Marge gets accidentally drunk and Homer seeing a functional family for the first time, one might wonder why he doesn't try to work on himself and becomes role model instead of just judging and forcing his family, so even when disregarding everything else and taking the episode as a stand-alone story, the hipocracy is still there (even though much less visible).

There is, of course, a lot of settle sarcasm and irony in this episode, starting with Mr. Burns being a parody of Reagan, and ending with aversion therapy, where Dr. Marvin Monroe basically tells Homer that it's okey to hit his family until they comply. For me, the electroshock scene is probably one of the most iconic for a Simpsons episode, and it gets even more iconic as this scene is shown to Holly in the plane in Die Hard 2.

Other than that this episode hasn't too much to offer, for many it's considered one of the worst episodes, but in the end, I still really like it, so this totals up to a 6/10 points.

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

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!

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

One might guess that it is a no-brainer to rate this movie a 10/10, however, for me it wasn't. The reason is that Tolkien is one of my favorit authors of all time. I've read everything that he ever published, and also everything that he didn't but that was published posthumous. This includes letters, and scripts, essay-like writings where he just describes how certain islands look like, or how certain plants look like, family trees, etc.

My favorite book, by the way is the original release of Narn i Chîn Húrin, which is a loose collection of chapters that did not really fit together and that missed some chapters - in Germany at least it was released as single book, in England/America it is part of the Unfinished Tales. Recently (2007) his son Christopher Tolkien edited that story into a finished tale and released it as new book under the title "The Tale of the Children of Húrin" (which until now I haven't read because I am really content with the J.R.R. Tolkien-Version).

But I digress. What I tried to point out is, that while being his famous work, I think "The Lord of the Rings" is one of his lesser works, with his best being those about the early times (which are really unfilmable). Still being a fan of Tolkien I've read Lord of the Rings several times and some of my favorite parts are the first encounter with the woodland elves, as well as the adventures in the Old Forrest and of course Tom Bombadil - non of which appeared in the movie. Instead, you get the feeling, that Frodos travel to the prancing poney is a days jorney (it isn't, and in the book it takes months to prepare and further months to reach), and that meeting Aragorn and going on to Rivendale is another day or twos journey (again it itsn't) - all in all it takes 9 months from Gandalf telling Frodo about the Ring to the journey of the Fellowship starting in Rivendell. And the time between Bilbos birthday and Gandalf returning from his research about the ring is 17 years, rather than the same evening (what some people actually believed after watching this movie).

So while watching it for the first time in cinemas I felt totally rushed through the story, I missed important parts in the book, and instead Peter Jackson added things that never happend, e.g. all the scenes with Arwen (Arwen in the books is a sidenote, that Tolkien takes when finishing the third book and explaining what happend to all the characters of the book, after they disband). And also Galadriel getting all blue-greenish ghostlike. And I hated, the soupy romantic scenes "I choose a mortal life. - You cannot give me this. - It is mine to give to whom I will. Like my heart." ....

So, even though I hated it, befor it came out to cinemas I did buy tickets for two shows at once, one with German dubbings and on the next day in original Language. And at second viewing, while knowing what to expect, I liked it a bit better - still being angry of course, I had time to take into account all the little things. And of these, the movie has plenty, such as using the Rings engravings in Black Speech as background song at the Council - something only true fans of the book would recognize - as well as adding parts of Bilbos journey (the stone Trolls), or the Lore of Middle Earth with Aragon singing about Beren and Luthien. Some things are so well hidden, that even hardcore fans will have a hard time recognizing them, for instance when Boromir dies the music uses elvish singing using English quotes from the book. So we find references to all of Tolkiens other works, showing that Peter Jackson has read them all and understood their importance and relationship to the Lord of the Rings-Story. He also wanted Christopher Lee in his Cast, because Lee is famous for being a Tolkien fan, and at own admission reads books by Tolkien every year; furthermore he was the only one in the crew to have met and spoken with J.R.R. Tolkien in person, which is why his input was valued highly - most of the scripts where rewritten daily to incorporate such input, and even Tom Bombadil was to have an cameo which in the end they couldn't shoot. Besides we have homages and cameos hidden all over the movies, paying tribute to famous Tolkien artists as well as people who have had any connection with Tolkiens works (Ian Holm voiced Frodo Baggins in the 1981 radio series, many scenes where taken straight out of Ralph Bakshis 1978 animated Lord of the Rings moive, etc.)

These are enourmous levels of detail, and once you get over the fact, that the Lord of the Ring movies are not 1-to-1 adaptions of the book (which is impossible to do) you will actually realize that the adaption per se is pretty darn good. Everything you see, meets your expectation, there is always the highest amount of detail, even all the little things matter, nothing seems arbritary. A lot of craftsmanship was put into the movie - they use CGI only where absolutely neccessary and if used, it is extremely good. But hordes of orcs are masked extras, weapons have been forged, a lot of carpenters, gardeners, mansons, blacksmiths, landscapers, etc. employed to create middle earth. The score is one of the greatest in the last years, with a number of themes that all have their single purpose (we have the theme for the wraiths, the theme for Gondor, the theme for the hobbits, a theme for the fellowship, one for Gollum, etc); in the end, listening just to the score, when closing the eyes you can see the entire movie in your head!

The acting of course is also great, everyone was put through a lot, by having to learn languages such as different Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin), dwarfish language and orcish language (which all exist! Tolkien was a philologist, and in one interview he said, that his stories are just a side product as any good language mus have it's story of origin - so in the end, what he really did was develop at least 6 languages with all their words, pronounciations, grammatic rules and writing systems!), they had accent coaching, Gandalf for instance talks in the same accent that Tolkien did!, they had to learn to fight and to ride, etc. And it is all turned into perfection, nowhere is it half-hearted. The scenes and locations are great, the camerawork is beautiful, all in all it is a good movie in every aspect.

I've ended up watching the movie 6 times in cinemas, then I got a copy of the movie and watched it for half a year nearly every weekend at least once, until the official home release of the cinema version of the DVD, and half a year later, I of course got the extended cut, and watched that at least as many times as I did the DVD. So to sum up: It is my most favorit, most often watched movie - even today I am not tired of watching it, altough I nowadays only watch it once every 1-2 years. If compared to other movies I wouldn't say it is the best movie ever, because of several reasons: First and foremost it is an adaption, and therefore not an original work, which I think is an important factor - I wouldn't know if I was a fan of the movie if I never read Tolkien or disliked him - then and only then would I be able to judge the movie without prejudice. Also - I am a big fan of all the works so I get a lot of the little hints, which to me are a "wow. how cool is this"-moment. But that is just me (and some other hardcore fans), but to the general audience these little acts of greatness that influence my judgement go unnoticed. In addition to that, a movie that has so much to tell and three overlength movies to do so, escapes the boundaries of a traditional movie, i.e. to bring across a story, emotions, and a message, to make the audience meet new people that they like and that they understand, in just under 2 hours. That, I think, is a hard job to do and a reason why most movies might be "okey" but only a few are great.

So is it the best movie ever made? Certainly not, although it deserves to be listed beside those. It is however the best adaption I've ever encountered, it is the greatest, most fan-friendliest movie that takes into account everything available to that fictional universe and it is one of my alltime favorites and the best tribute that could have been paid to the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.

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

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

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

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

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

4/10

I was re-watching this movie to prepare for the third installment of this series, and even though I am not that big on animation movies (I haven't seen a lot of movies that everybody seems to know, such as the Minions-movies, Hotel Transilvania, Wreck-it Ralph, the Lego movies, etc.). I normally don't watch these movies in cinemas, and I normally don't buy them on Blu-ray - so if not anybody else has them and I get to lend them, I end up not watching them at all.

"How to Train your Dragon" however really interested me, as I am - or used to be - a really big fan of dragons. And sadly there aren't any good dragon movies. Of course there is Dragonheart, which in my opinion is a master piece of that era. But what else is there? Yes, guest appearences in Harry Potter and the Hobbit. And then? I did watch "Reign of Fire" and it was in cinemas, when it was released - but I cannot remember much of it - except that I wasn't too thrilled. I only remember some unrealistic scenes where some actor managed to jump an incredibly unbelievable and therefore laughable distance - and that's all I can recollect.

So, "How to Train your Dragon" interested me, and I was really happy that I did watch it. I believe I've seen it in cinemas the first time, and in 3D, when it was released, and re-watched it 2014 where I rated the movie with 8/10 Points.

Watching it this time, I'd probably take away one point. It did wow me at the time, but seeing it nearly 10 years after it was released, I have to say that the story is pretty foreseeable, it is clearly targeted towards a younger audience, with mostly slapstick humor. Also the animation is a bit simplistic and does not compare with current standard. Never the less, this does not mean at all that the movie is bad.

It's a solid story, its done really cute, it has great characters, and it is still fun to watch - at least once. But it's nothing special - at least for the start. However, it's worth watching the movie and then continue with parts 2 and 3, because this series actually get's better with every movie, which is something that I really like about the series. And I believe that a younger audience will really enjoy it much more. So all in all a really good movie and worth a watch!

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.

The 'Burbs is a crazy comedy playing in a street in the suburbs called Mayfield Place, and it's inhabitants live the typical suburbian life: people perfectly mow their lawn, everybody greets their neighbours at the morning when picking up the newspaper, the veterans hoist the American flag, and everybody is angry about the neighbours who let their dogs take a dump at ones lawn. And one talks, all the time, and especially about tne new neighbours. Especially if they have an unamerican name such as "Klopek", you never see them and your son tells you, that he saw them digging in their garden at night; they have strange bin bags in their trash cans and they don't care about their garden! Is there something wrong with them?

This movie dances on the thin wire between being serious and being absurd - many things are exaggerated and therefore absurd and funny; still it also manages to be a serious caricature of the typical suburban live (similar to series such as Desperate Housewives - which by the way has a street that looks extremely similar). It also shows how people manage bluster into something extreme. Also this movie has a couple of comedic references to movie classics, such as Once Upon a Time in the West, Rear Window, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, etc. You will realize that Joe Dante normally produces horror movies (e.g. Gremlins, The Howling and Piranha are three of his movies). Many of his sets are therefore also used before in other movies (e.g. sets from Jaws). And if you are not into movie references, then maybe you might get interested if you hear about the cast? On the one hand, we have a 1988 Tom Hanks, who I have never seen looking younger. Wow. And even without the experience in acting he is great - a natural. But he's not alone - we also get Carrie Fisher, and wow! We all know her from Star Wars, and we all like her well known character Princess Leia. But wow, in the 'Burbs she is so much better - and that's coming from me, a Star Wars fan! If you liked her in Star Wars, go watch this one. She's at least 10 times better!

I was really well entertained and had a lot to laugh with this 80s charme comedy movie and therefore award it 8/10 points.

Wow. Only a 69% rating and no comments? I cannot let that stand as it is, so here's a short review. I have watched this movie countless times since I first saw it, and it was one of my "must haves" movie collection wise. I still only have it on DVD, but in my opinnion this movie deserves an collectors edition re-release on blu-ray as well.

What we get is a modern kind of western, somewhere down south, near the mexican border in the 1930s, where John Smith, portrait by Bruce Willis is getting into a ghost town that is inhabited by two rival gangs, one of italian the other of irish origin. John Smith, being an excellent gunman, is drawn into this fight by accident, but instead of leaving as soon as he can, he sees opportunity, playing both ends against the middle for personal profit. But while it starts out to be great, in the end it turns out, that John Smith isn't as ruthless as he likes to appear, which is his downfall.

I used to love the 80s and 90s action movies with Will Smith, and if you do too, you'll get a movie that you've got to love. It's hard, it's brutal, it's Will Smith at his best, it has a marvelous scenery, this ghost town in the desert is perfect for the movie and adds to this gerat atmosphere, and the story - though simple - is not too bad either; plus point are the monologs and the ingenious plan that Will Smith has, and that nearly works out to perfection.

It's not deep in any ways, it does not have a deeper meaning, it has no added value, it doesn't even reinvent the wheel - this is credited as a remake of Akira Kurosawas Yojimbo, and the producers also list the heavy influence of A Fistful of Dollars (which has a nearly identical plot); then again - that movie doesn't have neither Bruce Willis nor Christopher Walken, both really great actors that play perfectly in this movie - but also all the other actors are really gerat and so in the end, you'll get a modern western that is fun watching - if you are into those things.

I know, 10/10 will seem much overrated for many, and I probably wouldn't have given it this rating, if I'd watched it nowadays. However, given the countless times I've already watched and enjoyed this movie (mostly during my youth, but even nowadays I do enjoy it from time to time), I think it has earned these 10/10 - at least in my account.

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!

This is a really great movie, with some disturbing imagery. David Ayer wanted to capture the everyday life of police officers in one of the most criminal districts: South Central Los Angeles, in a way that hadn't been done before; of course there are many movies that play in South Central Los Angeles, such as Colors, Boyz N the Hood, South Central, or Training Day, and especially compared to Colors you can find a number of similarities. Still, Ayer makes good on his promise: Similar to Colors we get a movie that in the first half seems totally random, we follow two around two cops, experiencing a lot of ugly stuff and soon some of these events lead to bigger events that unfold dramatically.

Different to Colors, however, Ayer focuses on the two cops. These are both young and in the beginning of their careers, and as two young guys their heads are full of shit, while their hearts are still in the right place. Even though being highly trained and professional when it comes to the job, they fool around a lot, and often just push their damn luck. They seem different at the beginning, yet they call each other brothers and you soon get to know why: Being in a car with each other nearly 8hrs a day makes for a really special friendship. In the Interviews Peña says that a third of the movie plays in the car, and I don't feel like that's an over-exaggeration. What's also interesting about this movie is, that for probably half of the movie "found footage" like shots where used. Gyllenhaals character "Brian Taylor" is filming his everyday for a class project, and both carries a camcorder with him as well as having his partner and himself wearing body cams on their shirts. Besides we often also get "ego perspective", especially when they move in somewhere with weapons drawn. Other great "found footage" like shots include cameras mounted on long weapons filming towards the actors, dashbord cams, etc.

These are however mixed with real camera work, and different to most found footage horror movies they are not used as long single shots, but all these different approaches are edited together to form great scenes. The pacing switches from slow scenes that are mostly driven by dialogue or off-duty scenes that seem mundane (e.g. the day that Brian has off with his girlfriend and has a special date planned from which we only get to see the drive with both of them singing to music playing on the radio), but that in their very special ways convey so much emotions, that makes you really love all of these characters, with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies. In contrast we get these highly thrilling on-duty scenes that are either packed with suspense or with fast pace action. Acting-wise we get a number of high ranking actors such as Anna Kendrick, Maurice Compte, Frank Grillo or David Harbour who just play small supporting roles with minimal screen time. The main focus lies on Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña, and both are so good and excellent in their roles that you cannot imagine this movie with any other actor in their place.

So all in all this is a shocking movie with a - to me - really unexpected ending that shocked me. However, I found it could have had an even deeper impact if the ending was slightly different, and I would have loved it if it wasn't for the last scene.

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!

Hey "Mortal Engines" - look at this: This is how it's done!

Both of these movies play in the steampunk/cyberpunk genre setting, both movies are about revenge, both movies have a female lead with a male sidekick that is also somewhat of a love interest, and both movies play in a fantastic world that has different rules and different factions. Both movies are CGI heavy and heave a lot of action/fighting scenes and a final enemy as well as sub-boss - everything such as it was with "Mortal Engines". With costs of $150m and $170m both movies are even in the same league budget-wise.

The difference - to me - was that while I was really interested in "Mortal Engines" I wasn't really sure what to expect from Alita, and after Mortal Engines being really bad (see my Trackt-Review here: https://trakt.tv/comments/209128) I wasn't too interested in watching this - we even pushed the cinema reservation 3 times before finally watching this (unfortunately it then wasn't shown in 3D anymore).

But be assured: Other than the similarities mentioned above, these movies don't share much else - especially quality-wise there is an enormous gap between both movies.

The plot: In a dystopian future the offspring of the survivors of "The Fall", a mysterious event in which all but one sky cities crashed back down to earth - the junkyard of the sky cities, the offspring of the survivors of the sky city falls spend their time with robotic enhancements, playing Motorball or being a Hunter-Warrior, while dreaming of getting the chance to move to Zalem, the last floating sky city, where live is rumored to be paradisaical.
In this setting Dr. Dyson Ido, a earth dwelling doctor and scientist and expert in cyborgs, finds parts of a cyborg in the waste-dumps of Zalem: An intact brain and heart combination - and he rebuilds her: Alita however does not remember anything from her past, and tries to make sense of what's happening around her as well as her origin.

So much for the plot. As you can see, there is a lot of plot already in this really short extract that I gave you. This is probably the biggest negative aspect: To get all of this background into one film. The movie manages this arguably quite well - if you are someone who needs an explanation for everything right from the get-go, you will probably have your problems with the story. If you can, however, just accept what you are given, and - so to speak - step into the brain of Alita who experiences everything from a clean slate as well, you wont have that much problems. I am of the second kind - I like comic books and in comic books it's often like that: You get presented a situation that you do not fully understand but you just appreciate the artworks, the little explanations that you get, and how the story unfolds. Alita is doing just that. And it's doing it very well:

With Christoph Waltz and Rosa Salazar we already get two really talented and lovable characters. Of course, Rosa Salazar is totally computerized and the thing that will stick with you right from the very first trailer are her huge eyes that make her look unnatural. Her CGI is however done extremely well, her facial mimics look ingenious and so you really like her right from the beginning. And this is a great plus - you find her likable and you identify with her (something Mortal Engines did not achieve at all). She is really cute in her naive ways, but you also realize right form the beginning, that she has her own mind, a great sense for justice and that she is extremely brave. After having established these two characters and the father-daugther bond that is to be, new characters get introduced, and while I was excited to see Jennifer Connelly her role is unfortunately a minor one. However, Ed Skrein as an enemy and Keean Johnson as love interest are really interesting characters. I really liked Keean's character Hugo and though that he and Alita had really great chemistry. And that's really seldom in a CGI and a Human character - but here it works absolutely excellent. There are other

Talking about the CGI: It's absolutely gorgeous. Everything looks great and realistic, and - different to most other CGI movies - you still get the felling that what's happening is intense and has consequences. This makes the fight scenes thrilling, e.g. when Alita faces Grewishka, and starts taking damage, this is actually pretty intense.

The running time of over 2h is pretty long, still you never feel bored or overwhelmed by fighting scenes and you never start asking "is the end near yet" - once or twice I wondered how it would end, just because we where already sitting at the cinema for a long time, and I dreaded an open end. Unfortunately in the end that's exactly what you get - an open end. Yet it didn't bother me as much as it bothers me with most other open endings - in a way this movie gets to a really satisfying closure in it self. Of course, it doesn't even begin to address even half of the questions that you might have, e.g. who is Nova, why is he doing what he's doing? Who is Alita, was her origin on the good side, or actually on the bad? Who threw her away, when and with what purpose? And what did she do all that time in Zalem? What was the Great Fall, why did it happen, who are the Martians, etc. pp.

Actually you might wonder if this movie did answer any question at all, and well - probably it didn't. But never the less, we get a really satisfying end. An ending however, that cries for a sequel, and I really really really hope that we do get to see one. This is of course unclear, due to this being probably the last movie that Fox has made as Fox (i.e. not under Disney), and Boxoffice results not being as high as expected, due to probably also many negative preliminary critics that I cannot share at all.

On the negative side however, I would say that over all the story isn't reinventing anything. It's a fish-out-of-water plot, you know who the end-bosses will be and the story develops in just the direction you'd expect, with a number of precursors.

I had a lot of fun in cinemas, I was really captivated, I loved the setting, I loved the characters, the CGI, the plot as it evolved. For me this is a must see, for anyone interested in cyberpunk/steampunk-ish movies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch it in cinemas if you can!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normally I would not review a different cut seperately, but with this movie things are most definately different. "Lisa e il diavolo" is the original Italian title that was first translated into English as "Lisa and the devil", and should have been released in 1972. It was the one movie that Mario Bava put most of his work into, his final great movie, where everything should have been the way he wanted it to be. However, due to some problems with finding potential buyers, producer Alfredo Leone forced Mario Bava into editing the movie. This was not because of bad critics - everyone at the filmfestivals who saw the movie was excited, however noone was in the market. Leone acted like an businessman, analysed the market and jumped on the train that was currently hyped. And that of course was "The Exorcist"; so Leones vision: Let's turn the movie into an Exorcist movie. So even years later after the movie was already finished, Leone reassembled the cast, and made them shoot additional scenes that should alter the movie entirely. What used to be a nightmare like reallity is this time turned into the wild dreams of a girl (Lisa) posessed by the devil. So we get as new scenes how she gets possessed, then how she is deliverd to a hospital, how she turns crazy and how finally priests are gathered to exorcise the demon in her. And while this is happening, we always cut into scenes of the old movie showing her nightmare-visions. It is a totally different movie, and it is totally bad. The atmosphere that Bava created with his original is totally broken, the new scenes that mostly consists of disgusting pictures, obscenities, and nudity are bait-like and where shot despite the explicit whishes by Bava to not have such scenes in his movie (he actually - as a director - left the room when these scenes where shot, because he wanted no part of it).

What we end up with is a movie that is more direct than Bavas original, easier to grasp, with fewer wearisome lenghts, but also movie that loses nearly its entire atmosphere, that has no originallity anymore, no metaphors or symbolism, plus some things that are actually never said in the original movie but are implied for the viewer to find out himself, are simply put into the dialog by just watching Lisa and the Devil the first time I did not grasp that this movie has for example a part that is about impotence. So in the end this movie gets irrelevant, and that is something that even the critics realized - Leones vision backfired - instead on hopping on to the Exorcism train and giving the people yet another movie they would want to see, people realized it to be a blatant rip-off and therefore was denounced.

That already being bad enough, Bavas original vision was litrally butchered, and he was not okey with it (he actually changed his name on the credits to 'Mickey Lion' because of this), and never even saw this version which was the only one in cinemas. He still read the critics and those made him really sad - it should have been a master piece and his final great work before retiring, but in the end it became a cold and soulless movie created for just financial profit-making. The sadest thing: Mario Bava did not even see his original version being released - he died with the knowledge of nearly no one having seen his masterwork (except for France, where it was released in the original cut at cinemas, but for the home release also only this cut was released) and thinking that no one will ever see it. Only in 2012 where for the first time both versions released - and the original version is much better rated by critics and is today seen as the far superior version.

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!

2 guys that don't know each other that long (and don't know how far they can trust each other) but work together doing jobs for the Mexican drug cartel. When the cartel boss crosses them, they plan to rob the bank where the boss has $3 mio. US dollar stashed. However, when robbing the vault, they end up not having $3 mio. US dollar, but $43 mio. that do not belong to the cartel boss but some mysterious 3rd party, and due to some unfortunate events they lose hold of the money, facing an enemy that is far superior...

2 Guns is not really a new concept and does not really add anything to its genre which is best described as action buddy movie, similar to films such as Bad Boys, The Hitman's Bodyguard, etc.

The story seems rather constructed and parts of it I did not get. E.g. if Stigs "motivation" has always been the money, why did he get into a business arrangement where they get paid in drugs? Was he going to sell it (on the street)? Steeling the money to get to the drugs, okey. But given Bobbys "obligations" the lengths that they have to go through seems absurdly unrealistic. Who would ever sanction the things they have to go through in order to being able to rob the bank? The Earl character is the most unrealistic, but okey, let's go with it. However the Harvey-arc - no way, that's a hell of some coincidence, and it even collides with yet another coincidence on the side of the cartel boss - that doesn't make any sense at all. Storywise, as you can see not too good and not too well thought out.

Character-wise already this movie manages to make up for a lot. Buddy movies need the chemistry from their main actors, that's the basis for every movie in that Genre, and given Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg as counterparts, this works absolutely gorgeously. Even though I am not the biggest fan of Mark Wahlberg, he has some great performances, and this is one of them. But it wouldn't work without Denzel Washington, who I really love watching and who is - in this movie - once more really great. There are a lot of jokes that work pretty well, it's fun watching both of them play, this is really a great team.

While the plotholes are gaping, and get bigger the more you think about the movie, the story*telling* is not too bad. I didn't know what to expect and so it got really interesting to watch along, especially as more and more secrets got dropped. That was rather cleverly done.

What I also really liked where all of the action effects - and here I have to say: kudos to the film makers! This movie is full of rather expensive practical effects (e.g. crashing a real helicopter), with only minimum use of CGI or green screens - and apparently even a minimum amount of stunt doubles stepping in. The making-of and behind-the-scenes videos that you can find on the Blu-ray release are really worth a watch.

So while I was thinking of giving the movie 6/10, I upped the rating, just because watching the making-of was so fun and interesting and made the movie just a bit more interesting to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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