pygospa

VIP

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intresting movie. As far as I can reconsider my ver first "blaxploitation" movie (I didn't even know this genre existed) which is exactly like any other exploitation movie: You get violence in form of fistfights, shooting, and rape, there is love, there is sex, there are drugs, there are criminals, helpless cops, corrupt judges, prostitution and vigelanty justice - the only difference are the main cast being black. I found some of the depictions a bit stereotypical and there are some racist prejudices (like for instance "No family loyalty? I guess that is something those kinds don't have". But taken the time this was created into account it's okey I guess and depicts quite well what white people then thought of black people (a shame, but accurat contemporary testimonies).

Other than that, the movie has not much to offer, acting is alright, the dialogs are not that great (except for the crazy one liners), action and violence is cheap (you can figure that they are not actually fighting a lot of the times), the fake blood looks horribly like paint :D But hey, it's a B-Movie. Not as much fun as modern B-movie remakes (such as Machete or Planet Terror), but still pretty neat.

If you are into those kind of movies, or if you'd like to know where Quentin Tarantino get's his inspiration from (Jackie Brown is heavily inspired by Foxy Brown and Coffy), you should give this movie a whirl. But probably also if you are a cineophil, as this movie is probably one of the landmarks in the history of cinema, having a strong black female lead, that fights herself thoruhg an entire drugs cartell, as well as it being one of the more prominent blaxploitation movies.

I was a bit shocked after watching this movie, to find out that actually (here in Germany at least) no one is talking about this movie! I don't know why, I have started some discussions about it, but the general interest is really at a lowpoint, despite the partly famous cast (I mean Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, David Wenham, Nicole Kidman - all names one knows). There are so many bad movies that everyone talks about and that are not worth the attention. This one is actually a masterpiece.

We see the story of a young boy, 5 years old, who living in India makes a mistake, which separates him for 20 years from his family. This alone is so absurd and unbelievable for us living in the western world, as we have functioning civil services that will be able to bring you back to your parents if you are found lost. Not in India though. This movie is devided into three parts - the first part being the general part showing him how he grows up as a child, what he does for "leisure" and where he is rooted. The second part is his faith and how he deals with it in India, and this is probably the most horrible part in the entire movie. I realized when watching this in cinema that some people actually didn't get what happened and why it happend, because the movie does not care to actually explain, that India has a number of (somewhere I've hear 36?) main languages that totally differ from each other. Most people grow up learning only their language, only the educated ones from the big cities also know how to talk in Hindi and/or English (both accepted main languages besindes the one of your county); the boy being miles away from home basically can't communicate with anybody, because he doesn't know Hindi/English and nobody in that county speaks his home tongue).

The last part than focusses on his turn of luck and his search, with the search being the final 20 Minutes, so not a major part.

Not only is this movie totally touching because of the general story; it is also an ingenious acting piece, with the star being the 6 yesrs old Snny Pawar. Wow, is this guy good. Absolutely crazy, absolutely believable and therefore also absolutely frightening and touching, when it comes to the sad parts of the movie. This is really one of the best child actors I've seen since dakota fanning, and he beats her by lengths. You are actually sad when it comes to the agining and suddenly Dav Patel jumpes in, even though, also Dave Patel is great (you know him from Slumdog Millionair or Chappie). Rooney Mara is a great support and also Nicole Kidman is really great in this movie.

And if that is not enough, we also get great pictures and sets, a really thrilling contrast in comparing India to Australia, and wonderful camera work. So, yeah - it is a great picture, it is really worth seeing, it will invite you for an emotional jorney and give you a lot of food for thought.

Absolutely worth watching!

I am working myself through the legendary Hammer movies, one at a time (as they are released by Anolis - a German movie label that produces high-quality restaurations as blu-ray releases in digipacks). Some of them are really great - but of course not all can be. "The Vampire Lovers" - one of the three movies of the "Karnstein Trillogy" - is one of the later movies, one that is strongly leaning towards the trashy side of things. On the one sind we have again Peter Cushing who is again exceptionally good; however in this movie he just gets an supporting role with little screen time. The lion share of the screen is invested in Ingrid Pitt, who - differently to Christopher Lees Vampire roles - is not the really the villain, but rather a sad character that acts badly due to her loneliness. Because of this loneliness she looks out for female lovers, but whomever she finds gets sick and finally gets turned into a vampire herself. In the background however, there is a misterious vampire lord who seems to be pulling the strings. However this is never really further elaborated - not sure if this is exposed in the other movies of the Karnstein Trillogy? Haven't seen them yet, so not sure abotu that.

I don't want to get further into the movie - however there is not much more happening. The typical final fight of the other movies is in this one really bad and unspectacular. Most of the movie shows the flirtations between Ingrid Pitt and the daughters of the village, which she picks - one after another. Her longest love interest is portrait by the beautiful Madeline Smith, who until then was unknown (she had another role in a Hammer movies - in Tast the Blood of Dracula she has a minor role), but managed to finally become a bond girl.

Besides from that the movie has nothing really to offer; theintroductory scene with the ball is really nice, and Peter Cushings acting is once more great. Ingrid Pitt however I did not like - her performance is average at most; Madeline Smith is better than Pitt - however, you realize that at that time she did not have much acting experience and probably got this role only because of her looks.

All in all it's still acceptable, and taking the time into considertaion I would still award it 5 out of 10 points. However, not a movie that I'd recommend or consider rewatching ever again.

A group of Irish men want to buy weapons for their resistance and meet in an abandoned warehouse. Their team is a rather spontaneous group of not entirely trustworthy persons - but so is the team of the weapons dealer, and because of this everything goes wrong and turns into a movie filling shootout.

This movie consists of a number of situational comedy shaped by the fire exchange of all participants and the way that these fundamentally different react in such an hopeless situation. The shootout that takes up 80 percent of the movie is kept interesting by different objectives that both sides try to reach as well as their constant trying of maybe somehow defusing the situation and get out of it somehow (which again fails as someone else screws it up again).

While the story is simple and can basically be summed up in a paragraph, the movie manages to stay entertaining the entire time using comedy, action and great shooting and storytelling, as well as using parallel storylines. If I had to compare the movie to another, I guess the closest match would be Tarantinos Reservoir Dogs; however the movie is still quite distinct, has it's own comedy style and is powerd rather by comedy than by excessive brutality (although it is brutal as well, of course). So in the end even people that don't like Reservoire Dogs end up liking this movie (my girlfriend for example).

I was grealty entertained and enjoyed this movie quite a lot.

A guy whos life consists of a mediocre job and getting into bar fights after work gets the information that his brother has died and travels back to his hometown, only to learn that he inherited custody of his brothers son. Back in his hometown, Manchester, he also faces his past wich is as we find out pice by pice an incredible tragedy.

As I am from Germany, we often don't have the luxury to being able to watch all movies wich earned an Oscar before the Oscars. For Manchester by the Sea this was true, and so I was eager to see this movie which I did not have heared about before the Oscars as there was no advertisement or trailers for this movie where I live.

In my opinion, this movie does not stand out in any category - I wouldn't say that I've seen great acting, I did not realize any incredible camera work, I did not realize the Score as something remarkable. But it is not a bad movie and all in all it was solid. Where it actually wins, is the story, which I find incredible - it is rather a character study than movie that is based on a lot of dialogues or action and acting. It therefore has a slow pace, a lot of still moments and a lot of flashbacks that help us understand this guy. It is the story telling that makes the audience change it's viewpoint of the main character - while in the beginning we get the feeling that this guy is an unsympathetic asshole, a guy that nobody would want to hang out with we will start to gain more and more understanding and sympathy for this man as the story progresses and the tragedy unfolds.

However, there is no epiphany, no character change, no lessons learned. At the end we are right where we started, with a slight hope of some minimal changes, and then we're let out to go home. Somewhat frustrating.

As I said, the story is great, and also the acting is totally fine - I believe Afflecks acting and I believe everyone elses. However, it is not exceptional - it is not hard to play, it wasn't challenging or daring. And thus being said I don't get how Affleck could have been chosen over Viggo Mortensen (I haven't seen the other nominees movies in that category) who in Captain Fantastic played a much more dynamic, much more changing character with a variety of emotions and changing views and character over the progression of the movie.

That being said, I guess the Oscar for best original script is more than justified! This is an epic tragedy that the writers came up with and it is perfectly told in a way that keeps you interested throughout the movie which is a great job for such a slow-paced movie!

For me, Silence is a tough movie. Tough to watch, tough to digest, tough to judge.

As with Manchester by the Sea, with Silence we get more or less a character studies, but this time from a person who makes a shocking change in his live, having a 180 degree change of belives, which are enforced of course by outer conditions, but it still happens.

The title Silence is quite literal; you'll experience whole passages that are without any noise and only show images, sometimes still images, sometimes beautiful scenary. We get some great sets and beautiful shots, the camera work is phenomenal, absolutely great. In many parts the movie tires and manages to convey feelings and emotions only by the use of excellent camera work and succeeds (e.g. the feeling of both lonelyness, cold and hunger, as well as being lost and hopeless, by showing how Garfield sleeps leaning against a stone first in closeup then in a wide angle shot).

Besides these great things, the movie is mainly driven by Garfields thoughts and his prayers and letters and diaries which are conveyed by narrating them offscreen. And here starts my critics, because as for an great director as Scorsese it would have been easy to tell us a lot of what is told us only by narration by using moving pictures. By narrating it, it starts getting extremely slow, and boring, because it us extremly long and a lot that is narrated. All in all the action is at a minimal, interaction with other people is reduced to mainly dialogues (which are of course much more interesting than the monotonous narrator), and I got the feeling that a lot could have been told much faster. Therefore watching the movie becomes cumbersome and that is really sad, because the movie actually has so much to offer.

We get the afore mentioned great camera work. We also have Andrew Garfield, who is at the peak of his acting skills - this guy is extremly good - I enjoyed him in a number of other movies and was aware of his greatness long before but this is probably his best acting piece yet. We also have an interesting story about percecution of Christians in Japan which I had known nothing about before; and this movie has absolutely great food for thought - raises a lot of hard questions without giving any answers to them and the best of all: It doesn't even judge. You can feel for both sides - of course you have the classical villain and the classical hero at first glance - but the movie does not make it as simple. It gets more and more complex, and in the end, you can understand both sides but don't want to have to be on either. It shows a great conflict between religious convincement (and borderline personal egocentric delusion) and moral and ethic on the other side. This is actually ingenious work and definately a move one SHOULD see!

However, all the negative aspects hindred my enjoyment of the movie. A lot. It was too long, had too much narration, to many lengths, a much to slow pace, and all this made it a non-enjoyable experience, and especially a moive that you watch once and never again. Which is sad, for such an important message.

Therefore - even thoug it made me think a lot and occupied me days and weeks after watching it, I cannot make up more than 7/10, which somehow saddens me.

In the 1970 an unchartered island gets discorverd by new satelite technology in the mids of the cold war, and a scientist manages to finance an expedition to this island. With the help of the military under a leader played by Samuel L. Jacskon who is to be retired but loves war, they reach the island only to find it inhabited by a number of giant creatures like spiders, squids, water buffalos - and of course the king of all creatures: Kong; and as Ahab, Samuel L. Jackson sets out to kill this enemy of mankind at any cost.

This movie is mainly all about showing off giant creatures fighting. The framing story is sound, the sets are beautiful and show a number of beautiful and impressive scenery. After setting the story up, the pace is extremely fast - we approach the island via helicopter and the movie makes a hommage to Apocalypse Now, and then already King Kong appears and rips the helicopters from the sky.

Stranded on the island, the team tries to reach the pick-up point to get of the island and while doing so we witness what this movie is all about: CGI creatures fighting each other in epic battles. These are more interesting than the survivial fights and especially more interesting than the acting of the crew. Even though the cast consists of highly appreciated actors, such as Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Toby Kebbell - all actors from wich we expect great. However in this movie their talent isn't even yielded but rather vasted. The only two actors that are somewhat remarkable are Smauel L Jackson and Jason Mitchell - all the other roles could have been played by amateurs and wouldn't have changed the quality.

The tone of the movie that is set with the jungle, the action and the giant biests is rather frightening - however it is often disturbed by jokes. While some things where really good, such as some funny scene changing cuts and some situational comedy, most of the time I was annoyed by the funny remarks that where constantly made and that had an aclimatic touch.

So at the end we have an rather insignificant movie, that has great CGI, great images and great beast fights, but nothing more than that. However, it was fun watching it, it isn't a movie that one has to see, but it's an entertainment movie that does it's job well. To compare it with a similar movie: I gave Godzilla 8/10. This movie was slightly worse.

If you watch this in cinemas: Stay seated! There is an after credit scene!

In "The Evil of Frankenstein", Peter Cushing, as doctor Frankenstein tries to reanimate corpses but is hindered by the people of the village he lives in. Frustrated he decides to move back to his hometown Karlstadt, which he had to leave after successfully creating his famous monster, which was killed by the town folk. While returning, he finds out that all his possessions where stolen - and there is another suprise...

This movie is somewhat interesting. While telling a known story, it twistest the roles of good and evil; while normally Frankenstein is precieved as crazy man that creates evil, in this movie he is rather portrayed as victim of the evil leadership consisting of church, police and the mayors - who not only persecute him but also steal all his belongings. And even the town folks are portrayed evil (when of course a somewhat lesser evil) - they are not only the lynch mob but also bully the poor deaf-mute town girl.

Frankenstein on the opposite together with his helping hand Hans are the misjudged heroes who achiev the unbelievable. Who manage to cheat death and lead mankind to scientific wonders. The main evil is a human hypnotist Zoltán, who instrumentalizes Frankensteins monster for his own revenge and enrichment - and degrades the deaf-mute town girl by trying to rape her and then not going through with it, because she's not worth the trouble. The monster on the other hand is the victim.

I think this is - especially for its time - a really progressive story. Normally there is a typical black-and-white idea of good and evil which seem to be static in movies from that era. The story is interestingly told, and never forseeable, the acting varies.

Peter Cushing is of course the star, and this movie is one of his greatest, because he has a lot of screen time (compared to, i.e. his portrayals of van Helsing). Katy Wild has also great potential even though she plays a deaf-mute girl. The acting of Kiwi Kingston as the monster is however extremely poor, and with exception of Peter Woodthorpe (Zoltán) the acting is pretty bad. However, all in all the movie is enjoyable and can be seen numerous times; I liked it!

A teenage love drama. This at the beginning might sound bad (especially if you don't love that kind of movies), and in the beginning I was thinking that it will be really bad, but over the time I realized it wasn't that bad. I think this is due to the perfect acting of the two main characters - they play totally believable, you just need to look into their faces and can read what they feel. Also there are no clichés, no sob stuff, no over- or underacting: just perfect.

Other than that, there is not much happening in this movie. Still especially at the end, the movie is getting interesting - and I was totally suprised by the ending - I figured out three ways this could end, and I was really expecting a classical ending, but this was somewhat suprising and not that expected - not the typical happy ending, but also not a sad ending.

So, I think 7/10 is a good rating, for a movie that actually isn't that deep, and that you probably don't want to watch more than once. A movie I wouldn't have watched voluntarily; but I was happy that is was shown at the sneak preview.

Wow. This was so not what I was expecting, and really something to chew on. The story was really moving, even though you could say that actually there is not much happening. But even so, it keeps you captivated throughout the movie - you wouldn't feel any drags. On the other hand it is really depressing and no feelgood movie, and I am not sure if you do your kids a treat (you'd rather make them cry :D ). The movie is made really good, however I was so captivated, that I did not have any time to analyse the movie in more detail (which normally I do, when watching movies) - all I can say that in the first 20 minutes I was not really immerged, so it took a shot while. In this time I had the feeling that it would be a lot like Pan's Labyrinth. However this movie stands on it's own and any resemblence to del Torrors movie that you might get in the beginning, will soon be whiped away: while Torrors movie are more on the dreamy-fantasy side, this movie is more direct and more depressing on the reality side of things.

Additional information: My girlfriend read the book and she thinks, this movie is a perfect adaption that stays true to the novel. So whoever liked the book will also like the movie ;)

"The Bye Bye Man" is a relatively classical horror movie which tries to send you the chills by scary images and a scary way of story telling and not so much by using gore or jump scares. There actually are two to three jump sacres, one of which even got me. However, the rest of the time it is slow paced atmospheric horror flick, which I did not find scary most of the time (yet there where approx. 10 of the 40 people that visited the sneak preview that left early). Still it was greatly enacted with some innovative ideas (yes, they did not invent anything new, most of the ideas we have already seen in different versions, but the way the ideas where shown in this movie was somewhat innovative), and it was an interesting and thrilling story.

What I did not like at all (and what cost this movie at least one point) are the CGI figures. Oh my God was this horrible. I hated the figure, it did not even contribute a lot to the story, so leaving it out would have actually been much better; if you'd had to have it, then take a real creature, or some real animal or practical effects. But that was rather cheap and spoiled the mood alot.

Other than that, I was entertained and enjoyed the movie; I believe it's more of a movie for people who enjoyed atmospheric horror movies such as "It". One last thing: I loved how the trailer does hardly use any scenes from the movie - so no spoilers there!

Laika Entertainment - after doing a number of contract works beforehand, with the best probably being "A Corpse Bride" for Tim Burton - is a studio that has specialized on the old artform of stop motion animation movies. Given our current times, this seems to be an incredible amount of work that could have easily been done using a few computers. However, these guys go through the crazy amount of work of first doing animated shots to scetch up the movie, then empoly a number of designers to scetch out the chracters, giving these to sculptures who acutally build DVD-Keepcase-sized puppets that are movable in everywhich way needed, with replacable faces so up to 250000 faces with different facial expressions can be created; carpenters, electricians etc. then build miniature sets for the puppets, and when finally being able to shot, they actually have to create each frame of a 25 frames per second movie by hand. A while ago I've read in an article about Laika that each minute of a movie, takes a week's work of just shooting, errors therefore are extremely expensive and hard to fix and at the end, Laika runs out with approximately +/- $0 USD.

So what other reasons are there to create such a movie, other than being a total movie buff and loving what you do? And that is what you realize when watching the movies and making ofs. This insane amount of detail, as well as lovely stories worth telling make great movies.

I've already seen "Boxtrolls" (7/10) and "Kubo" (8/10), which I both really loved, and sames goes for ParaNorman. However comparing all three movies with oneanother I have to say that ParaNorman is slightly worse than the other two.

When it comes to "Boxtrolls" we had a nice idea for a story that was overall well told - but not as great compared to "Kubo". Therefore it had lovelyer figures that where really cute. "Kubo" did not point that much in the cuteness department but storywise it was great and it really had you emotionally invested.

Taking both into account, "ParaNorman" unfortunately is behinde them in all departments. That does not mean the movie is bad - it isn't. It again has a great and lovely story, nice animated figures and good overall story telling; but in comparison it's simply just not at the level of the other two, so this is why from me it only gets (6/10).

That being said, we get not only a nice movie, but also in parts funny parody on horror movies, so all in all I really enjoyed this movie!

Wow! Probably one of the best Hammer movies, and at least the best that I have seen by Hammer thusfar. I really enjoyed it. It is not the typical monster movie you expect from Hammer (no Vampires, no Dracula, no monster of Frankenstein, no Werewolfs, etc.), still it has a supernatural component with a girl being possessed by a ghost.

She is the perpetrator of the movie, yet you feel pitty for her - not having had an easy life she still seems totally innocent and lovable and you start blaming all the other people around her, that take advantage of her or by using her, by raising her badly or by raping her.

The other lead is the doctor, who is also interesting; in the beginning you suspect him to be the morally steady person, but while the movie progresses you start wondering, and learn that actually he isn't. This is so good, that in the end I wondered if he would stop her, or let it happen, allowing him to get rid of something he is not fond of.

We have - for that time - great actors who manage to protrait deep and interesting characters and that is just the first component. In addition we have a great story, that does not have a black-and-white look on things, and that is interesting from the beginning to the end. Also we have a philosophical-scientific component that is also fun to think about.

At no minute did I feel bored, or was I reminded by the age of the movie, due to modern camera, gerat acting, and a fast-pace movie.

I am really blown away - I did not expect anything this great by Hammer. Up to now I would say, the movies from the studios, that I have seen, all average at around 7/10; this one is clearly far better!