pygospa

VIP

3

In a prologue scene this movie starts by introducing the main characters an our team: A special task force that operates outside of the law and is supported by bleeding edge high tech gadgets, that allow them to infiltrate buildings without problems and leave as fast as they came, leaving no traces for the police to find.

We then get the background story of our main protagonist James Silva, portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, as timelapse in the opening titles, and then the story finally starts: Our main setting is Asia, we have Silvas team on a new mission - a raid goes totally wrong and Silva is extremely hard and unfair with his team (which he is the entire time from this point on). While at the US embassy from where the team operates, they get a visit from a local (portrayed by Iko Uwais) who has some important information for the team, that makes them want to dirve 22 miles through the city towards an airport. To do so they terminate their contracts and call out the "overwatch" operation - a voice over explains: Now our team is stateless and therefore they become something higher, something special, something overly patriotic. And of course these 22 miles become running the gauntlet....

I was looking really forward to this movie from the very first trailer, and I was totally in the mood for this movie as I was already watching M:I 1-6 and The Equalizer one and two, so I was in the mood for a good action movie. I also loved the premises: An paramilitary operation team operating in a foreign country being outnumbered while a catastrophe emerges - that reminds me of movies such as Black Hawk Down or 13 Hours which are two of my most favorite movies.

The action scenes on this movie are pretty realistic, it seems reasonable what each character can bear unless they break down (much better than most other action movies), the wounds look realistik and our team gets cut down one by one pretty fast. The action isn't reduced to only shootings and fast car chases, but also include man to man fights, and of course Iko Uwais is the guy that stands out most, who will show us some pretty crazy moves and fighting choreographies. These aspects as well as the question what this movie is probably aiming at story-wise make this movie really interesting to watch and also pretty entertaining.

However, the story is also the strongest negative aspect: It is incredible muddled, and many things have to be explained with an voice over from the off, so that the viewer gets whats actually going on. Also there is absolutely no character development, and the crew stays as shallow as possible, making nearly everybody replaceable. Therefore you also don't have any sympathies towards any of the characters, allowing for no emotional bonds to evolve and ultimately in the end you don't care about any of the characters dying, steeling those scenes the dramatic effect they should have had on the viewer. And even for the main character we hardly know anything, except for the view pointers in the opening titles, but that's not enough and even worse: His character is the most exaggerated and therefore does he not only become unsympathetic with the viewer but also unbelievable.

To add to the confusion, a number of story elements are told either via an interview with Silvas (that seems to be taking place in the future), or by cutting either into a top secret hight tech operation center, or an Russian aircraft (it is not explained why). These cuts are both unnecessary and often also don't bare any logic, and you could have left them out entirely and the movie would have still functioned. Even in these scenes with again high ranking actors such as John Malkovich, non of the characters is essential in any way and totally replaceable. And most of the dialogues either consist of exchanging hostilities or of technobabble.

And even though Uwais is great, after the first fighting scenes one will be pretty disappointed because most of the fighting takes place in the dark and additionally there is a lot of cuts, so that a lot of fun is taken out of these scenes.

And then there is the finale, which to me was a kick in the teeth. The resolution seems so artificially constructed, stupid and is also full of logic holes that it takes away a lot of the fun, as you start to believe that the filmmakers question your intelligence. Worst of all, it's an open end that seems to be made for a second part. In no way was this satisfying.

This movie had great potential but wastes it entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This movie was a long time on my bucket list, and finally there was a release of the uncut version on Blu-ray in Germany last year (there was only the R-rated verison on DVD available in Germany, even though the Cinema and VHS verison used to be the unrated cut!). Interesting movie that starts really weak, but then gets better and better. We first have Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson), the first murder victim and I did not enjoy this part of the movie at all. It's main part is the museum sequence, and though I get that there are some interesting ideas, that are conveied by her watching the lovers, the family, the kid that runs of, and the guy hitting at a woman, and how it is connected to what she is going through in her thoughts and emotionally. But in all it was too long and especially the chase scene is - though greatly filmed - not really getting anywhere, and adds some stupid elements to the movie - I mean, especially Kate - how stupid is she?

First she want's to get the attention of the guy, then she takes of her glove, to show off with her wedding ring? Naturally he walks away, so she follows without realizing that she looses her glove. Running through this museum we get the scene where he touches her shoulder with the glove and she sees it, but doesn't recognize that it is her glove? Then, only when walking away, and looking at the map she realizes that she is only wearing one glove? How much feelings does she have in her hands? So, she remembers that she took it off and mus have lost it, but not finding it, again she starts thinking and remembers him wearing it (great job, only figuring that out now!)
So she storms out, and throws away her other glove right at the steps (why? And how rude is that?), only to get lured into the taxi by this stranger waving her other glove. So because she wants it back, so gets to him (regardless that she just threw out her other glove, so she would still be ending up with only one glove?! They start making out in the Taxi and at his home, and when she wakes up, she get's all dressed, writes a note, we have a lot of situations where she looks at her hand - all of a sudden she realizes that she is not wearing any panties (really?! Wtf is wrong with the sensitivity of your skin, lady?!), so she searches his appartment, does not find it, then remembers that she dropped it at the Taxi so it's probably still there, she puts on all her other jewlery except her ring, which until now she did not realize was missing, goes into the elevator, drives down, then realizes that she is missing her ring, thinks about where she could have left it, only to remember that it was besides her watch in his appartment, so she drives back up again.
How stupid is she?

And then there are silly coincidences that actually make no sense

We see the killer, he sees how she drives down with the elevator, but decides to stay just where he is, in case she comes back up - and because she forgot her ring, she does? And runs into him standing there, ready with his razor blade?!

This scene in my oppinion - as some others - are just lazy script writing. They needed a situation, so they created one without thinking two steps ahead.

However from there on I consider it to get better - the scene where Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) is introduced and meets with Kate Miller in the elevator has some ingeniouty in it, and is fun to watch and to experience. Of course there are minor things that don't add up, but Nancy Allen is not only a far better actress, also her character is far more interesting and smart, and with her also the movie picks up the pace and adds some interesting and thrilling scenes, right up to the final, where we see a lot of her that is really beautiful :)

On the downsides, however, I did not enjoy some prejedices the movie proclaims. Take for instance the "punks" - of course they are all black no-goods that assult beautiful women out of nowhere and try to rape her. Of course, the black police officer does not believe a word, of course anyone wanting a sex change must be a psychopath. Not cool. Even for a movie that is from the 1980s, I think it is a bit too much. But okey. Those are only side effects and nothing the movie proclaims as one of its main thesises.

So to sum up, it starts slow and bad, I did not like the acting of Angie Dickinson so much, as well as her character - but it gets better with Nancy Allen, who is great in all departments. Of course we also have a strong Michael Caine, and a believable sidekick with joung Keith Gordon as Peter Miller, the son of Kate. And Dennis Franz, who plays a typical - but in it's acting good and believable - detective. In the second half the movie gets really interesting, we have a lot of scenes that remind me of old Hitchcock movies, but we also have a number of Giallo references, kind of a: "What if Hitchcock had shot Gialli?" sort of movie. And I enjoyed that part.

This movie is hardly critizied (at least in the German community), so this review will be a bit longer, because in many parts I disagree, even though I think there is a lot wrong. First of, I have to admit I dont like adventure movies, so movies like National Treasure, Indiana Jones and the Mummy trillogy are not my piece of cake; I haven't even fully watched the 1999 Mummy yet, so why did I go to the cinema at all? First: Tom Cruise, second: Jake Johnson (I love him as Nick Miller in the sitcom New Gril), and third: I liked the trailer. So my interest was peaked. Still not liking adventure movies I was also skeptic.

And in the beginning, my skepticisim was met: The entire frame story, introducing Nick (Tom Cruise) and Chris (Jake Johnson) and describing how they meet Jennifer (Annabelle Wallis) and how it comes that those three start recovering a sarcophagus - what a load of b... This is not realistic at all, and therefore I cannot believe it; if it was a comedy, okey (and I wasn't so sure that it's not going to be, because in the beginning it surely all pointed in that direction); but for a serious movie? At least I expect som serious story.

The first thing that was interesting to me was the actual finding of the sarcophagus; it really looked cool, they had some cool ideas like with the mercury, the mechanism, and the spiders, and the birds, etc. Why however Nick and Chris can actually abandon their job and fly with Jennifer and the sarcophagus to London? Again - story is not believable. And the logics behind the character Henry (Russel Crow) is absolutely beyond me - no that makes no sense at all! I mean seriously? We dig up a many thousand years old mummy and a some hundred yeras old templar, revive the mummy, give her the weapon to release the ultimate evil, so that we can fight it? Seriously? Why don't just put her back in the sarcophagus, fill it up with mercury again, and let her rott for eternity in a save space as this base where he is operating from is said to be?!

But we have already established this: The framing story is at best average.

And this is the most sadest thing, because the rest of the movie does a lot right - not everything, but I liked a lot of things, starting with the look. When looking at promotional pictures I laughed, because seriously? Sofia Boutella (I absolutely loved her in Star Trek Beyond as Jaylah!!!) in sexy poses being the scary mummy? Not really. But! In the movie she isn't. She eventually gets there, but it's a long journey from starting out as a corpse that can bearly crawl, into various stages of half-humanoid with a lot of wholes in her face and everywhere, up to the latests scenes, where she regains her full looks. And that's pretty cool. Also, her powers are great I loved her kiss that sucked out the live of others, turning them into zombies while simultaneously making her stronger. So when it comes to the costume, makeup, and effects (including CGI), I really liked the movie. I also enjoyed the action scenes, they where pretty well done, and I had fun watching them. When it comes to acting, both Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella do a great job. Also Russel Corw is as good as expected (but more to him later). Jake Johnson plays the role that I expected and that I love. However, I somehow found it not fitting into the general tone of the movie. Especially in the beginning I found him to be a bit annoying; however his later role I somewhat liked, expecially taking in the fact that in New Girl he's also obsessed with this. I mean the zombies - in New Girl he always wants to write his zombie novel - and now in the Mummy he gets to play one. That is pretty neat. But all in all he's just the side kick, sometimes annoying, sometimes neat, but until the end, he is not really relevant for this story at all - and even in the end, you could have found other ways; so I am a bit ambivalent about his role. Non the less, I like Jake Johnson :D
Whom I did not like at all was Annabelle Wallis. She's just means to an end, but other than taht totally irrelevant (as a character), just tagging along all the time, not funny, not interesting, not tough and able to defend her self, not intelligent, nothing. There isn't even any chemistry between her and Tom Cruise, which is why even a main plot line does not really work as it should have. So, all in all, her character could have been written better, she could have had more story impact - I mean, she's there, isn't she? And also, I think Annabelle Wallis was the possibly worst cast. She's however not irrelevant, because there is one important factor she adds to the story.

Besides this I however liked the cast (a bit more of Johnsen would have been nice, but yeah) and I think they did a good job. Another thing I really liked: the genre. I spent some time in the beginning explaining how I dislike adventure movies; well: This one starts out to be an adventure movie with some comedy scenes, but overall it is a rather dark movie, which besides action also offers some horror-elements, such as jump scares, dark and spooky creatures, and an overall dark tone. I liked that - today it might sound silly, but the mummy movies used to be horror movies from the black and white era, and even with color TV the mummy was used, e.g. by the Hammer studios as horror movie creature. So somehow this is kind of a "back to the roots" thing. Not entirely, it is also an action movie and a bit of adventure, but still.

Let's get back to Russel Crow. He is playing an interesting character, and while introducing it, I rememberd reading about the Dark Universe that Universal wants to create - something similar to MCU or DCEU but with horror movie villans (such as Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, etc.); all these will get new movies, and they will have some combining elements - apparently that is Russel Crows character Henry. All in all not bad, the scenery was also nice, you are not pushed into "hey look, our horror universe", it's quite settle, but if you know it, you'll see it (and it is not to be like in the comic movies - we won't have Dracula fighting next to Frankenstein and the Wolfman, having a war with the Invisible Man and Frankensteins Bride, or anything - all movies will stand alone - but there will be a combining component: Henry(?)). So, yes, I liked the idea - BUT: what the movies shows about Henry was - for my taste - far too much. It does not have anything to do with the main story, it totally digresses, and therefore does not fit in. Better they would have left it with the short pointers from the beginning where we meet him.

The end was suprising, and therefore good. I thought it would end the way it was forseen Tom Cruise breakes the stone, the Mummy cannot do anything, maybe the curse breaks while doing so, and in the end, they find a way of destroying her - probably with the mercury; but after Nick doing what he did I thought: Wow, and now?! - I wished the effect of his deeds would have gotten a bit more screen time - what follows was relatively short.

But all in all I was entertained, even though I wasn't that well (my contacts where itching and my 3D glasses at cinema were crooked). The movie does have some lenghty parts, but it did deliver more than I expected and I had a nice evening at the cinema. Most of the negatives I can condone - I have seen much worse. It's nothing you'd need to have seen in cinemas, but it's a nice to watch movie. I am excited about how this will go on and how the Dark Universe will further unfold - 2019 we'll get the next installment: The Bride of Frankenstein :)

I Am Not a Serial Killer tells the story of a teenage boy that realises he has shares all trades with that of serial killers. To stay in check he designs a set of rules, because he is scared of maybe becoming a serial killer if he does not follow them. However, suddenly he experiences something that makes him question himself and makes him wonder if he should "release his beast" for the greater good.

This movie is clearly a movie on a budget, however it still is of high quality. Developed over a time of six(!) years, with early concept shootings dating back to 2013, much love to detail and attention has been paid to create this movie and this shows in the movie. It is an highly atmospherical movie that consinsts of a lot of quiet scenes and a slow pace, but still does not make you loose interest; not only because of the great shooting but also because of great acting, by both, the unknown actors as well as the acting of famous Christopher Lloyd that we all love and know as Doc Brown from the Back to the Future trilogy. I must confess I wouldn't have recognized him as he has gotten really old. However he has lost nothing of hsi great acting, and plays a wonderful role in this movie.

Because of the slow pace and the independant or sometimes even arthouse like filming this might not be a movie for everybody - and unfortunately judging the title and cover one might expect an action horror-thriller; but with your expectation in check this is actually a great movie that is worth watching!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is a pretty interesting movie that is basically a survival movie with elements from horror and thriller that is not afraid to have some drastic scenes (some of the people in the cinema left when the first dead occurred). However, these scenes are scarce. The Alien looks great, far better than I expected from the trailers.

Most of the time this movie keeps you on the edge, it is pretty captivating - the acting is great, however I found the characters to be a bit shallow and would have loved a bit more insights and development. Never the less, the crew is likeable and you do care for them which makes the story of course much more thrilling. The ideas are in part pretty innovative and the filming is great - so is the soundtrack. So all in all a good movie. However, shortly before the end, I did guess what would happen and it did, which I consider to be quite a bummer. However, the way they shot it, was still enjoyable - and again, the music for the end is ingeniously picked.

This is why I award the movie 9/10. It was fun watching from beginning to end, and I will love watching it again some times.

This movie was shown in the sneak preview at our cinema, so I did not know what to expect, and actually I haven't heard from it before (at least in Germany there was no advertising for it at all). I found it hard to rate, and would like to split it into two aspects:
1) The story, which is a story worth telling as it is an important story that pays credit to a real event in history, which is - at least in Germany totally unknown. I don't know how it is in the USA, but I guess even there it might be an eye-opener to one or the other viewer.
2) The movie, as an artistic expression that is created to "entertain" us in cinemas.

Let's start with the second: the cinematic recreation is rather bad. If it wasn't for the other aspect, I'd rate this 5 points. The story is processing sluggishly, the actors do not portrait any great emotions, the soundtrack is nothing that you realize (neither positive nor negative) and not much happens in the entire moive. I like the sentence I picked up in one of the ohter comments to this movie: "it was a bit like watching paint dry" - yeah, it actually is.

And that is so, even thoug you are somewaht interested in what would probably happen next; I was waiting for the dramatic turnaround - was the mother the one that tipped them off? Or was it someone from the girls family? Is anything bad goint to happen to either of them? Like people beating them up, etc.? But actually nothing happens. Of course I understand how the director would have probably wanted to keep this as real and realistic as possible, and I highly appreciate it. However, if you don't have much to tell in a movie, why not make the way you tell it interesting? Take "The Dinner" for example - it's all about some people meeting at a restaurant discussing a family matter - that's all there is to it, still how the story is told, how the events unfold, how we get to get know all the details - that was interestingly shot and cut into a final movie. Or if you want another courtroom drama, take "The Social network" and look how a simple boring story of a guy being sued by two different parties is cut together in a way that keeps you invested the entire time of the movie. I don't think that I'm too much hollywood-maladjusted; I love slow paced movies, I enjoyed Manchester by the Sea, for instance, which is also quite slow-paced and not comparable to typical hollywood cinema, where everything is entirely dramatic and exploding and stuff.

But taking two rather shallow characters and telling their story linearly over the time of 10 or more years - that just doesn't cut it.

So, then there is the other aspect - the story, and that is a story woth telling, hell yes - everyone go watch this movie and learn some empathy. Honor this brave two individuals that both have to fight with different demons and where dealt with a life of hardship only because of their love, which should be a human right. And only this aspect gains the movie a number of bonus points, which lead me to finally give it 7/10, because even though as a movie it fails horrible, the story is worth watching and knowing!

We've catched this at the sneak preview in our cinemas and I was totally suprised. I did not hear anything about this movie before and I found the movie to be great, but at the same time also hard, because of it's difficult topic. So it is nothing you want to see if you want to be entertained on a light/happy evening, but rather a family drama dealing with a difficult situation that is hard to discuss and decide and where the different positions are already so stuborn that it seems to be a deadlock. Of course there is one position who could just decide it for all and therefore is in an advantage point, however especially this person is interested in finding a solution that everyone can live with.

While trying, we get to know the differnt individuals not only by their strange behaviour, but also by showing us different events that took place before and that slowly let us understand the people, even if they are not rational and hard to follow, at least you can understand where they are coming from. These events are not shown linear but unfold over time, piece by piece and keep the whole movie interesting.

The director is playing with the audience, and does not reveal everything - a lot is left even open to imagination. The camera is reallly interesting, there are some quiet sometimes even bizzar scenes that are dropped in, and especially the main cast is ingenious in acting, and we get presented some great dialogs. All this keeps the movie interesting and if that is not enough, we also have a great mismatch both in the setting where the dialogs take place as well as in the music that is used while this family argues.

So to sum it up: I was pretty excited. This movie is definatly nothing for someone who wants to be entertained (at the end a lot of people where asking "WTF?"), but whoever is interested in a really difficult controverse discussion as well as a character study, will find an interesting movie that is worth seeing.