pygospa

VIP

3

The Beguiled in a word is best described with "different". The movie disregards typical cinema techniques, which most obviously jumps at you with its antique 4:3 format, which on the big screen looks totally alienating, even if you grew up in the 80s and 90s and still know that television had this as standard format since the beginning of television. Also, you won't find any camera tracking shots, fast editing, cuts, or dramatic music - this movie makes due without.

Instead we get a movie with a colour grading that seems ancient, with flickers in stills, unsharp images, many quiet and really prolonged stills, capturing not only the main part of the scene, but also profane things that one would normally discard as uninteresting. If you didn't know it better, one could come to the conclusion that this movie was made by an amateur. But Sofia Coppola is no such thing, and she know that this unconventional style only adds to the atmosphere that she wants to create, which - besides historic - is best described as threatening; the stills captured of the house and it's surroundings are unsettling, and it seems scary that because of the 4:3 format your vision and your grasping of the scenery is always somewhat constrained - there is a hint of a horror moving feeling in there. As scenery we get this old house, hidden in the woods, behind trees that are moss-grown.

Even though its slow pace, it strangeness and the amateur like long stills, this movie never gets boring. We have an ingenious cast consisting of beautiful and talented actresses such as Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst and Elle Fanning on the one side, and of course Colin Farrell on the other side. All of them are absolutely superb and especially in this movie they need to be, because so much is not said in dialogue but by using facial expressions and with glances through the eyes - and these things are at times so settle that it is absolutely great acting which makes it work so well.

Colin Farrell is the alien, the guy that changes everything and stirs up a lot, and it is absolutely ingenious how this changes are reflected in every person - with out anything happening or dialogue - just by watching them and their body language. We see the characters question their life, question their faith and the things happening outside. Also the chemistry between the actors is great. Nicole Kidman plays a totally torn personality, Kirsten Dunst is especially subtile - both deserve to be pointed out. Colin Farrell also needs little acting to convey both his longing, as well as his hidden agenda (figuring out how to get out of his situation without any harm by using the girls).

I also love the look, the setting, the gothic victorian southern states style, and the few humorus scenes that every now and then break the gernally dark tone of this drama/thriller movie.

You'd already guessed it: I liked this movie pretty much. I cannot suggest it to anyone - if you don't like more toned down movies, chamber plays, movies without much action, etc. then you will probably be bored by this movie. But whoever has a sense for the subtile things and loves an atmospheric and asthetic movie with sharp dialogs and great mimic play, that asks the viewer to engage with the movie, to think about what's happening (and why) - all those will probably love watching this one.

I rated it 8/10, and it will surely not be the last time I've seen this one.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am actually not the biggest Disney fan, I grew up with quite a lot of Disney movies and I wouldn't want to miss them, but while growing up I soon realized that somehow they all follow the same storyline and logics and in the end they started boring me; if I am not mistaken, The Lion King was the last Disney movie that I really enjoyed and watched at cinemas, and from there on, most of the Disney movies I've seen where somewhat below the quality standard that I think the first movies had.

Beauty and the Beast is of course a movie that came before, but still as a kid I never got deeply interested in that movie (as opposed to e.g. Aladin, which I had on VHS and watched regularly); I only saw it once and I never rewatched it ever since.

So having this movie be turned into a live-action adaption should have probably not have interested me at all, but strangly seeing the first trailer it did. So I went to the movies and I watched it with no greater expectations and - well - I was blown away. Somehow even though I knew the whole story, this movie kept me on my toes the whole time, the acting was great, it has a great cast, the musik was great (okey, in the beginning I was like "Oh my god, song after song - if that keeps going on, I'm definatley in the wrong movie"), the CGI was mostly great (I discovered that the beast looks funny while walking and then I realized that sometimes they forgot to leave footprints in the snow for the beast -.- ), the jokes where funny and all in all I was entertained the whole time.

I couldn't have forseen this but after having only positive things to say, to me this ends up to be a 9/10 Points!

Great movie, go watch it!

This feature film length documentary is a collage of scenes that where filmed during creation of the movie "The Boondock Saints", which is a pretty interesting but also pretty depressing story, about the rise and downfall of Troy Duffy, the director and writer of the cult classic.

Starting out as a bar tender he meets Harvey Weinstein and that guy is so convinced by Duffy first apperences that he not only buys the script, but also offers Duffy 15 million dollars to create it, and signs Duffys band and even buys the bar Duffy worked in, and made Duffy a co-owner. If he'd only known better. As it turns out, Duffy is so sure of himself, that he has no problems dissing everybody, his actors, his co-workers, his producers and even his friends and family. This paired with his alcohoism - (quote) "I get drunk at night, wake up the next morning hung over, go into those meetings in my overalls, and they're all wearing suits." - leads to his downfall: His funds are taken away, Harvey Weinstein does everything to make sure his movie doesn't sell and in the end, he signs a shitty deal for having his movie shown in five cinemas in whole USA for one week! The end of it: The deal did not include any shares for the home video release, so practically at the end he got nothing and since then has a hard time even finding a job in the movie industry.

While showing this, one of course gets a totally different perspective of what went on behind the scenes of this movie. Wow. However, for me it also showed how pitty some people (Harvey Weinstein, the owner of Miramax) can be, fighting a guy he had some disagreements with - which even leads up to the question if he was in any way responsible for an assult on Duffys life (if it wasn't anybody of the entire crew who all had plenty of reasons for it themselves).

All in all it is a pretty interesting documentary, although I wouldn't call it a documentary in the traditional sense, but rather a collage of behind-the-movie scenes, as there is no narration and hardly any context given; rather the opposite - from the beginning you get thrown in into raw footage that someway inbetween the first days of producing the videos Duffy thought would be a good idea, because from his perspective movie history was written (because in the end we would have gotten the classic dish-washer -> millionair story if he hadn't screwed it up). Now and then there is a textcard or subtitle telling us something like "beginning of shooting", etc. but that is it. No narrator from the off, most of the times even no talking to the camera but rather something like blairwitch-project - a found footage film, so to speak, without the cameraman ever turning the camera arround. Which is somewhat crazy, because we get to see some really fucked-up scenes that no one in his right mind would want himself to be seen in.

To me the found footage style is a bit displeasing which is why I the rating is not as high as it could be. Other than that, it was really interesting, eye-opening, and also disturbing if you like the movie...

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.

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!

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

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

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

"Devil in the House of Exorcism" is an alternative title to "The House of Exorcism" which is a really weird poster to have with this version of the movie, because this one - as title and year clearly state is the original version as Mario Bava intended it (for the other look up "The House of Exorcism" there - I have written a review for that one as well explaining the differences to this version).

This one is "Lisa and the Devil" - Lisa e il diavolo, and it is by some considered to be Bavas masterpiece. You can really recognize the totally different style that Bava uses in this movie, it's poetic, full of symbolism and metaphors. A lot of scenes show his genious for those times, take for example the opening scene that is extremely depressing, or the love triangle during the car ride, where the viewer understands what is going on without anybody saying a word - just because of the way Bava shot the scenes.

Still especially in the first half the movie has a number of weary lengths, and there is hardly any suspence or excitement, except for all the symbolism and metaphores that Bava installs. Only when leaning towards the end does this movie turn into a horror movie.

Thoug having yet another movie with genious camera work I still do also miss all the technical finess, that I used to see in his first movies (think about Black Sunday, that is full of craftmanship, when it coms to inventing new and extrodinary effects for the movies. Stuff that today we ask the PC to do without even thinking about it - but that where - during that time impossible to get shot - and yet he somehow did it and invented innovative ways to film those. I miss that in this movie.

Still it is an interesting piece of art, and something you should spend some time with, when you see it. In the beginning I was like "This is a 5/10", but looking at all the extras, understanding what he did and why he did it - and what makes it ingenious - those where the things that made the movie even more interesting. I guess it's hard - at least to me - to fairly critizise movies from so many decades that we cannot even begin to understand what amount of work simple scenes consumpted. And taking all those factors into consideration I end up with 7/10 Points.

Opera was my first Dario Argento movie and I am really happy that this was the case. Probably wouldn't have been that interested in Argento if it was another movie of his, because I don't like all of his work; this one however, is in my opinion up to now the best movie I know by him.

Just consider the film making taking the first scene: It starts with a raven eye, and we see the entire scenery as the reflection inside the raven eye: an opera stage and the audience sitting in front of it. This is a special metaphor: Eyes and observing things, be it as a voluntary observer, or as a forced observer. But it's also about seeing things and not seeing other things - with a lot of POV shots. This movie is also about unhealthy relationships, psychopaths and music. A large portion is also critizising the opera due to the fact that Dario Argento wanted to create an Opera but was riddiculed. All this is put into a relatively easy but yet really captivating and thrilling story - we have a masked serial killer that stalks an opera singer and forces her to witness his or her kills.

The movie offers a lot of original ideas that one hasent seen as such before - one for example being the needels being sellotaped to the eyelids, to make shure they cannot be closed. Another interesting thing are the elaborate dolly shots that where hard to film because everything had to be done by hand. This makes this movie great even for todays standards and there is no wondering, why this is considered to be one of the most outstanding movies of the italian horror movies.

It's really worth seeing!

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.

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 :)

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.

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!

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!

The movie tells the story of an ambitious "house keeper" of a CIA safe house in southern Afrika who wants to raise in ranks and become a CIA agent. However he is held back until the day a rouge agent is brought in for questioning. The house gets attacked and the house keeper has to flee with the agent, being targeted by the rouge agent, the misterious attackers, the South African police and getting no help by his people...

To list the positive aspects first: The acting of Ryan Raynolds and Denzel Washington is good - but somehow that was to be espected. The action shots are interesting but not as exciting as they could be.

The story however feels highly constructed, and in its essence forseeable. Also, there are some scenes that make absolutely no sense, for instance, why while car chasing do the bad guys first install their silencers before they start shooting? And why did they take them off, after using them in the attack previous to the car chase? Those scenes that make you question the logic are somewhat aclimatic, which is also not in the movies favour.

It is never boring but it is never so good as to be as exciting and interesting as other movies of this genre - take for example the current bond movies or the Bourne series.

In my opinion, if you want a light movie night with friends where you spend more time talking then serious watching, then this movie is all right - but for a serious movie night you can choose far better.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.