pygospa

VIP

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch it in cinemas if you can!

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

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

And then there are silly coincidences that actually make no sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A man wakes up in an abandoned hospital, to realize that the world has been taken over by zombies.Well that’s a story we all know? Just turn on the TV and of you go with the Walking Dead. However, 28 days later was released in 2002, it plays in London, and even though everybody is absolutely positive about it being a Zombie movie, it is actually never said they are Zombies. In contrary, we don’t have living deads, or walkers or what you want to call them, but actually an epidemic! Scientists searched for a cure for range (which as the prolog to the movie reveals leads to our typical destructive behavior, such as riots, fighting, looting, etc. However something goes wrong and instead we get a Virus that enhances rage in a way that the being is transferred into a state of full, pure, unconditional and extremely enhanced rage that makes the being irrational and let them lust for blood and flesh. And by being bitten you get infected too - so yeah, basically Zombies. But the focus lies on the Virus that is in the blood, so even a drop of blood into any body opening and you get infected too, in just seconds.

We start with nearly soundless scenes, the quietness is depressing and horrifying, the camera has a number of cuts to show in different perspectives the vast emptiness and loneliness of this situation. We then get to see the empty London, the totally abandoned and our main character making sense of it. Even with this entry scene we get a sense of how ingenious this movie is - the great camera work consisting of many cuts from the same scene that give us the feeling of being lost, the fast pace, the great pictures and the absolutely fabulous use of great music - from starting soundless, to a very slow and quiet music that nearly is just a beat, to the build up that is somewhat absolutely dramatic and hits when it hints the main character of what has actually happened. We get a number of these, and even though we are reminded all the time that this actually is a low budget movie by the quality, you also get a feel that here someone is making a movie that knows what he is doing and that creates great thrilling scenes and enthralling story lines regardless of the money.

Also the actors are great - we have the till then unknown actor Cillian Murphy who has his break-through and will later be seen in high-profile movies such as Christopher Nolans Dark Knight Trilogy, as well as Inception, Transcendence and lately Free Fire and Dunkirk. Naomie Harris as the female lead was also unknown till then and also her career skyrocketed afterwards, with roles such as two Pirates of the Caribbean-Movies, as well as in the new James Bond movies (Skyfall and Spectre), Southpaw, Moonlight and the coming Jungle Book. Other actors chose different career paths, such as Megan Burns who is now the lead of a rock band. However even she does great in the movie. And a few stars could also be acquired, such as Brendan Gleeson. So all in all we have a great cast of unknown actors who did so well that afterwards they where considered for all the big movies in Hollywood.

So great music, great camera, great actors - what about the style and story? You would probably file this movie under horror. However, it has elements of a lot of different subgenres - there is the apocalyptic movie aspect, there is a road movie aspect, and then we have something of an revenge thriller at the end. Further more interesting, we have different aspects of the rage idea - on the one hand we have the zombies who are the extreme regarding rage - on the other hand we have our main character, who is actually a pretty decent guy - the one that comes back for you even if it means to risk his own life, and who in doubt would always help. On the other hand, we have the female lead who is full of rage and heartlessly butchers everyone down even for the slightest doubt of him being effected. And we have that turning point, where she gains hope while in the same time he gains rage (the revenge part of the movie) and this is important because otherwise the group would have been lost. 

So if you want, you can start asking philosophical questions (and yes, there are scientists who did and who quote this movie for their assessments) about whether and to what degrees rage is good or bad.

So in the end considering all the aspects, this movie is ingeniously great and this is actually a low budget flick; for me this is a 9/10

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

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

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

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

After a really excellent first movie in the Conjuring universe, this spin-off was created in just a year after "The Conjuring", and the focus on the doll was also a financial one, as it was one of the famous characters of "The Conjuring" where it just played a side role to explain who Ed and Lorraine are and why the family heard of them. And unfortunately, the really short production time has a highly negative impact on the movie.

The plot is rather predictable due to the main points being already discussed in "The Conjuring", but even worse - the things that could have been original and made a story like this interesting, are also taken directly from "The Conjuring". So in the end, we get a demon that wants the soul of a child... well... yawn. However, there is a little plot twist, which could have worked pretty well in my opinion - if the movie wouldn't spoil it by explaining it, right before it happens! All the other story points you see coming a mile away, so in the end, the entire story is rather boring. Then again, a horror movie mustn't be extremely clever or original. Horor movies should be scary, and "The Conjuring" managed to build up a really scary atmosphere and dramatic scenes, has a great spooky setting and manages to give you the chills. Annabelle doesn't even try this; instead we get a bunch of jump scares, that again you will see coming from a mile away. The acting is okey, but nothing special and because Leonetti doesn't spend half the time that Wan spent to introduce the characters, they stay pretty one dimensional, making it hard to sympathize with them.

This leaves you with a rather boring movie, which actually started of really great; I really enjoyed the first third of the movie - up to the attack everything was great, especially the scene in the neighbors house that you get to witness in the background through the window - that was a rather great shot and promised a great movie - a promise that the movie couldn't keep.

Already in the first scenes it is pretty obvious that this is an low budget production, but the introduction showing the previous six months in flashbacks is pretty well done, even though it already makes you wonder about the logic (to battle a Zombie plague, the whole of the USA was bombed with EMP bombs? Why? How does not having electricity affect Zombies?).

The movie stars Taryn Manning who looked really familiar to me (but isn't), and she is soon joined by Ving Rhames (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Mission Impossible 1-6), and a couple of other actors that are all pretty unknown (a few are extras in TV shows, rest are only seen in a couple (or no other) productions). The acting isn't too bad, especially Taryn Manning has some potential, we know that Ving Rhames can do really good, the rest does okey as well. However, that doesn't make up for a really bad script, bad directing, and really bad cutting.

The story doesn't have much to offer, but it's decent and believable enough: Three people who survived the initial six month by not going out, get out of their cabin for food and news. They get attacked by Zombies, but then another group of three survivors comes along and saves them. They are on their way to the island of Catalina (near Long Beach, CA), where there is supposed to be a camp of survivors. On their way there they get attacked by Zombies, Zombie Dogs and other Zombie animals, a lot of them die, while other surviving groups join them. I won't spoil the end, but so far so good.

Given that this is a low budget production, I wont criticize the bad CGI - they did what they could, and the exploding heads actually are the singular thing in this entire movie that are actually unintentionally funny to watch. They also had a lot of extras playing zombies, using interesting different makeup jobs. Things didn't look too realistic, definitely no Walking Dead, but all right, and I do like it if they use real people for extras and practical effects instead of CGI - especially for a low budget movie this is always a plus (nothing is worse than bad CGI people). I also won't criticize things like weapons that aren't blood-dripping, a machine gun, where the cartridge belt isn't moving, bad CGI fire and explosions, or the really bad and unrealistic looking cracks in glass windows. A decently good job (or a decently bad one) can still make up for these things, and deliver a good end result. Take the low budget production of 28 Days Later, for example. A tremendously good flick, even though it suffered from its budgetary restrictions (such as the bad Canon X-L1 cameras used, that only allow for a digital resolution of 512x492; worse than what DVD is capable of delivering). I also don't care that a lot of the times you see the same extras, even thou they are supposed to be other zombies.

But there are these errors, that are bad enough to bug you, but not as bad, that they are at least funny, and this movie is full of them - plot holes in the dialogue that don't make sense. For instance: the leader of the group is wearing a sleeveless vest with nothing under it, so his arms are basically free. Yet, he insists that our group raids a store, because the new guys aren't dressed appropriately: T-Shirt-Guy has free arms, all of them have no armor. In the Store they find leg pads, but only the most armored up guy takes them. The girl gets new shoes, T-Shirt guy keeps his shirt, and of course vest-guy stays as he is as well. Another example: In one scene they get attacked by zombies, and split up, which makes them vulnerable, so one of the girls screams that they should stick together, especially as her friend gets into a lot of distress. But then she is the one leaving the group, wandering really far off - yet she's pissed at the others when that guy dies because the others went away without helping him. Yet one more example: There are some archers, and they say that they need to be thrifty with their arrows, and reuse as many as they can, asking everyone to pick up any arrows they can. In the next scene, they shoot three zombies with arrows, and then walk right past them, without picking up any of the arrows. These are the script errors, I am talking about. They are so obvious that they'll annoy you, yet this isn't in any way funny in the way that certain B-movies are.

The dialogues are also pretty dull, not even funny. But also in a lot of situations not really believable. For instance, they loose friends tragically during the day (especially one girl lost both her best friends, whom she spent the last six months with) and at night they sit together and talk about their stories. One lost her brother, and got separated from her husband. She was all alone in the end, but then met the other guy of the group. She is telling this tragic story that she actually didn't want to talk about, with a smile on her face, joking around, and the others all cheer in - as if they where on a class trip, rather than in a Zombie apocalypse, which makes the whole thing unbelievable. What also makes this story hard to believe: none of them are dirty, there's no blood on their clothes, even the weapons stay clean the entire time. Yet, the thing they all long for (with their perfectly clean hair) is a bath/shower.

But worst of all, in my book, are the most evident post-production errors, this movie has. For instance, there is this scene right in the beginning, where there is a cut between two scenes: A guy shooting zombies, and the other two people, getting something to defend themselves from a garage and running out into the action. The scene goes like this: Guy shoots a zombie - cut to garage - girl runs out of the garage - cut to guy - guy shoots another zombie - cut to garage - girl runs out of garage again - cut to guy - guy shoots another zombie - cut to garage - again, she runs out of the garage. The fast cut between this scene suggest this happens in seconds of time, and so it appears that the girl runs to the street, then disappears and runs out again, disappears and runs out once more. Or in another scene they add CGI to a scene where a girl cuts off the head of a zombie with a Katana. When she moves the Katana there is a "difference in height" of the CGI Image and the real one where they are stitched together, so the point of the sword is cut off and appears a few centimeters below - as if there was a refraction.

And then there is bad direction and a missing of vision by the director. E.g. actors looking in one direction to see something "in the distance" but once the object they look at is added by CGI, this object is somewhere else than where the actors are looking.

I still think, in its entirety the movie was thrilling enough to be enjoyed, and it had a lot of references to famous genre movies, e.g. someone called Kirkman (after Walking Dead comic book author Robert Kirkman), S-Mart (from the Evil Dead), or a satellite exploding in earths atmosphere (like the Venus space probe in "Night of the Living Dead"). Apparently there are a lot more, that I have missed. But I do like this, and together with the more or less thrilling story, this is worth +1 point, but I do have to factor all the errors in as well - even though it was still somewhat "okey" to be watched once, these points don't make this movie worth watching again. The errors do not have the quality of something that makes you laugh - I did not laugh at all. They are not stupid enough, to have that humorous quality, they are just annoying. So I'll be deducting -1 for Post production, -1 for bad directing and -1 for the dialogues/script.

3/10 Points.

The movie is pretty decent - unfortunately that's it. The story is that of a typical disaster movie: Someone realizes that something is happening, governments keep this secret but prepare in secrecy, while everywhere in the world since of this happening, appear (but are played down). Some random guy, who has some kind of quarreled family finds out by accident, gets involved with one of the officials and by chance manages to get himself and his family saved as well, and in the end they get over the dispute they had, jut because of the experience. Sounds familiar? Well then, maybe because you've seen "The Day After Tomorrow". or "Independence Day". Or maybe, because you've seen 2012. What else do these movies have in common? Well, Roland Emmerich - seen one Emmerich, and you've seen all.

And while I am not saying it's bad in general, it's just not incredible good either - just one of the many (and there are even more of these), so it won't score any points with the plot or the story. On the plus side, however, even though it has a lengthy run time of 158 min (2.5 h), it will keep you interested till the end, it's not boring at any time and doesn't have lengths. Of course, you'd wonder at one or the other scene if that was really necessary, but other than that, it's an entertaining movie throughout. The camerawork is decent, but nothing to but nothing to brag about, the VFX looks stunning, but the story telling is quite straight forward. There's a great cast with John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover or Woody Harrelson, but the acting - though decent and well played - are never really challenged, and don't give the performance that you'd expect them to be capable of; this leads to actually the children actors being the most interesting ones, because they just play the biggest and most believable emotions. But all in all, there is no chemistry between the actors, and this is probably due to mediocre directing. On the negative side, there's the question of how believable this whole story is. And to me, it isn't at all. Of all the scientists, both astrophysicists, as well as particle physicists only one guy sees a) the massive, never before seen sun eruptions, as well as the high neutrino concentration that just a few meters under the surface of the earth brings water to boil? And that's it? Of the tens of thousands scientists arround the globe no one else makes this observation? No one else notices anything wrong? And years later, when all the nature catastrophes start even Universities say "It's just a little earth quake", while whole cities where layed to waste with no prior indication what so ever? To me, that's a rather weak point of the script, and it really bothered me two or three times.

So summing it up, for every good point I can find, there's an equally negative point. This movie is enjoyable, it doesn't make any bigger mistakes, but that's just it. So in the end I end up where I started: in the middle! 5/10 Points.

I haven't seen too many Spanish movies, but all of those that I can remember (e.g. Relatos salvajes = Wild Tales, or Crimen Ferpecto) are rather absurdly strange - and this movie (originally titled "Las brujas de Zugarramurdi"; "The Witches of Zugarramurdi") is no exception.

This action-horror-comedy tells the story of a group of people that in rather absurd disguises steel a large amount of gold, and flee the scene. During their escape they come across a pact of witches (as the Title suggests)...

This movie is great fun for a lot of reasons: First, the dialogues. They are really great, and give a feel that reminds you of Tarantino, yet it is totally different to his style. It's non the less absurd, has some great lines and situational comedy and is simply great fun to watch. Second, the absurd situations that the story starts of with and puts our main characters into. Starting with their costumes, how the robbery takes place, how they loose their escape car and find a replacement, how the characters from then on play out. Third, of course the absurdness that we get to experience in the second half of the movie, where the action-comedy turns into a horror-comedy. Fourth, the way the story is told (at least in parts), e.g. the scene with the books of the son. This really made me laugh a lot. There is also a beautiful parody in the battle of the sexes, these topics are extremely well parodised and turned into jokes.

Despite all those positives there are also a few things I did not like. Mainly, the movie has some lengths. After the long chase there is not too much happening, and once our heroes are at the dining table the scene (including the phone-scene) gets really lengthy and you start wondering how long this is still going to go on. Here and there one could have shorten a few things. Also not all of the jokes are good, there are a very few that where just too much. And while I liked the mother in the first part of the movie, I did not like or even understood her part in the second half of the movie. I even feel like, if you'd left her out, you'd win a couple of minutes without loosing any story element at all. She also does not provide a lot of laughs, so in the end it didn't matter if you'd had her in the movie or not.

I did like the car chase though, that was great fun, the introduction scene is superb, the performances of our main cast and Carolina Bang where really great - this movie has a lot going for it. Something you don't see every day, something besides Hollywood, definitely worth a watch, especially if you have a strange humor (again, I would say that people who like Tarantino or Edgar Wright might like this movie a lot).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I did it with the first two movies: The original title アウトレイジ 最終章, is finally a bit different - phonetically "Autoreiji Saishōshō", so not two English words, written in Japanese and pronounced totally strange - "Saishōshō" litterally means "Last chapter" (as does coda in music - so good translation there!), and it is the final installment in the Outrage movie series. The best things come in threes?

Well... at least I did not like this movie as much as I liked the first two movies, and that for a couple of reasons:

First, the story is far less interesting than the other two are: Otomo is living in exile, on the one hand because of a certain killing he did in the previous movie and second because after defeating the Sanno-kai, the Hanabishi-kai started executing the former Sanno-kai officials. Otomo builds up a new crime ring in Korea, however, when one of Otomos subordinates gets killed by a Hanabishi man on holiday, Otomo returns to Japan to settle the scores.

As you might imagine, this time the movie is pretty straight forward: Otomo returns to clean up. Different to the first two movies where it was a power play and different characters all followed their own internal motivations that only got unfolded slowly, leading to quite a few "aha" and even some shocking "i didn't expect that" scenes, this time, there was just one scene that I didn't see coming.

However, even though the story is straight forward, I somehow felt it harder to follow. And to be fair: I've watched all of these movies in original soundtrack with subtitles, so this is probably a contributing factor. However, I felt like in the first two movies the different characters where much more invested in, so you really knew who was working for whom and what was actually happening. Here, I felt, most things where conveyed in dialog, rather than in seeing the people interacting, so I somehow struggled to understand who was doing what with whom. Still, somehow I felt that it wasn't that big of a deal because I wasn't missing out on anything major.

Also I felt this movie did not add anything new to the world of Outrage - in the first movie we had the internal power play, the intrigues, the way these people treat each other and how one can rise and fall. In the second movie we had the revenge theme, as well as the external wars and in addition the tie ins with politics and the police.
And the third? Well it's a bit of the first and the second. Nothing new, nothing interesting that is explored. And also in the department of violence this movie is far less interesting than the other two movies who had far more awful killings and tortures, things that made you grit your teeth. Coda brings nothing new to the table.

What I liked, however, was the weariness that Takeshi Kitanos character Otomo exuded. You really feel his fatigue, his reluctance to return to Japan, and his retirement-like life in Korea, and this makes the ending so much more interesting. And of course, there is the absolutely captivating ending, that was really good.

Still, for me its the least favorite movie out of the Trilogy, with the second being the best.

アウトレイジ ビヨンド, phonetically "Autoreiji Biyondo", in English "Beyond Outrage" is the unexpected(?) sequel to Takeshi Kitanos 2010s Outrage, and picks up the story of the Yakuza bosses that started in the first movie.

Before you read on, please be aware that it is impossible to not spoiler a crucial ending point of the first movie - so only read on if you have at least watched the first movie (or better yet, watched both movies) or don't care.

As most of the people in the last movie died as a result of Katos power play, Kato as the new Grand Yakuza boss of the Sanno-kai clan has a all new family that concentrates on legitimate businesses, stock markets and influencing high-ranking politicians. By doing so the Sanno-kai gains in influence that the police find more and more problematic to deal with. But instead on stopping them with legal measures, the corrupt police detective Kataoka tries to initiate a Yakuza war between the Sanno-kai of Tokyo and the equally powerful Hanabishi-kai of western Japan.

Again we get the typical structure that we already got in the first movie, only this time, it's between fractions and not internally. Also, thanks to the first movie and the faith of Otomo, we finally get a character that you could at least feel some kind of sympathy for. The guy that got played even in the first movie, that however has some kind of remorse for some of the actions he did in the first movie, and that in this movie is the underdog, that on the one hand wants to rest, but on the other hand is pressured back into the game, and also feels the lust for revenge.

To me, this movie was a bit more interesting, a bit more surprising and a bit more thrilling than the first movie was, which is why I rate it a tad better, even though basically it's the same deal as the first movie.

One of the things that always shock people when I tell it to them is the fact that I really don't like the Godfather-Trilogy. To me it was really long and boring, not much happening, and I simply cannot get all the fuzz people are making around these movies.

Outrage - in the original アウトレイジ , which should rather be translated into the phonetically correct "Autoreiji", as Japanese people would translate this title to, is probably best described as the Japanese version of the Godfather-Trilogy. And surprisingly I really enjoyed the movie.

First of, we get a more interesting movie that is not too hard to follow, still in the beginning you don't really get what this movie is going to unfold into:

We start of with a great meeting of the Sano-kai clan, the Yakuza family that is reigning over the greater Tokyo region. The grand Yakuza leader Sekiuchi is displeased with one of his Yakuza leaders, Ikemoto, who in prison befriended an unassociated and rivaling Yakuza leader named Murase. Ikemoto is ordered to get Murase in line, however to do so would mean to break the holy pact he swore, which in turn would be dishonorable. So he orders his subordinate Otomo to steer up some trouble that would so that would make Murase to be in debt to the Sano-kai clan which in turn would have to make him swear his legion to the Sano-kai. However, what non of the bosses are expecting: This actually is clever power-play and a plot to shift a number of power relationships.

This movie is interesting in may ways. First we get into a Yakuza movie that is more modern than typical other movies. And this modernes is a topic that is picked up even in the movie. We have younger Yakuza bosses who do not follow the customs of the older Yakuza, e.g. things such as cutting off a finger to plea for forgiveness. It is also a clever plot at which end a chain of events have been released to find a really unexpected end.

Besides this, the movie has some really ruthless graphical violence that will make you clench your teeth. In the end, every one of these guys is a ruthless criminal, there are a lot of events you will simply not see coming such as the cutting of the face.

It is also interestingly filmed - there where a few very interesting angles, but all in all the camerawork is really slow and steady, and the transitions rather untypically: They simply fade to black and then start at the next scene. And as strange as this is, it doesn't feel bad. It somehow fits the overall style, both of the movie as it is made as well as it fits the content of the movie, i.e. the plot.

I was intrigued and it got my interest right from the beginning to the end. Something you probably haven't seen yet, if you are - like me - more into western movie productions.

When you liked the first two movies you're probably gonna love the third This is one of the few movie series where each movie tops the previous one.

I missed the soundtrack that I loved in the second (and the first?) movie - in general I did not feel like the third one had a sound track that is memorable, but other than that, the movie is at the top of it's craft. The sound and sound effects as well as the visual effects are extremely good. I've seen it in cinemas in 3D and I can add: the 3D was also really ingenious. Right at the beginning of the movie I suddenly ducked because I thought somebody was throwing something from behind us to the front - only to realize that it was a sound and 3D effect of the movie. That hasn't happened to me since the introduction of 3D movies in the 00s. The new level of detail is incredible, for example the scales on Toothless, the hair of Hickup in the wind, the water, sand in the beach, the clouds in the sky or the fern leaves and grass in the wind - it's really incredible and a lot of fun to see - the style is of course the same as it was in the first movie 10 years ago, so really simple faces and forms. Still the added level of detail shows that DreamWorks is really getting out everything they can, animation-wise. This is really beautiful to watch, and worth your time just for the images. Also the style and tone of the movie has changed. Right from the beginning we get really dark atmosphere, fog, great camerawork - it feels like being in a Pirates of the Carribean movie when we are on the ghost ship - scenes that could easily be taken out of a action or even war drama movie. This is counterbalanced by really colorful art - especially in the "Hidden World" we are greeted with an explosion of colors, light and glowing effects.

But enough about the imagery. Let's take a look at the plot, which again is extremely dense and packed with a lot of side stories and elements. One of the main topics seems to be love and different facets of it: Love between lovers, love between friends, love as people grow, jealousy and letting go. Another important topic is growing up and being a grown up. What does it mean to take responsibility and to make decisions? And there are even social topics, such as making a group of people dependent from others, how to live happily, overpopulation, migration and immigration - boy this movie is packed. And all of these topics are handled really mature but in a way that this movie still stays a typical children's movie. I really liked this pretty much.

And if you are open for it, then this movie is extremely touching. There was a lot of sobbing in the screening that I visited, and a lot of watery eyes. This movie is extremely emotional and extremely touching.

Plot-wise I was surprised as the movie develops in a totally different direction than you would expect. 2 or 3 times I did not see the things coming the way they did, and expected something totally different.

So to sum up, I had really great fun with the movie, it is done incredible well, it conveys important topics and ideas in a very subtle way, it still has it's funny moments and great humor, that works on both grownups as well as children, it invites you on an emotional roller-coster ride and is technically really incredible to watch.

Everybody who loves animation movies should watch this movie and if you can, watch it in cinemas, and try to get a 3D screening. It's really worth it and a constant improvement of the series, as well as a great finale.

Based on a true story, Diane Keaton plays a embittered widow who cannot uphold the luxury life she used to live with her husband, while Breandan Gleeson is portraying a cranky hermit who built himself a minimalist shack that is build hidden away on a piece of land, on which he is able to live autarkic. Now, of course exactly this piece of land has to be sold and it is Diane Keatons character that wants to chase Gleeson of the land, but in the process of doing so falls in love with him and at the end fights on his side.

I think the movie had great potential. It had a few really funny moments and of course grate actors. However all in all the movie lacks authenticity. It starts with the lack of chemistry between our two main characters - seeing them on screen you wouldn't believe that there are any feelings involved at all. There is too little build-up, too little investment in the characters, which is why they stay absolutely shallow. Even though the actors themselves are doing okay and the general idea and concept of the movie is okay as well, there is somehow no emotions at all.

To make things worse, this movie has just one song. One single theme, that - if you hear it without context makes you feel like you are watching one of these feelgood advertisements for some care product. Only, this positive feelgood melody is used throughout the entire movie, and I gout sick of it after the first quarter.

The plot is really slow, the characters sometimes not reasonable in their actions, but over all it is so foreseeable that I actually knew the entire outcome after the first quarter. Its a typical love comedy for the elderly from which we have seen so many already, and it doesn't add anything new to the genre that we haven't seen already.

A big negative point however is the ending:

After Keaton being the one pressuring Gleeson to fight for his land to be finally able to live out his days in peace and quiet as he always wanted, and to stand up for his rights and not to give in to the others who bully him arround against his will, at the end she is actually the one who pressures him into selling so that they could move in together. Wow. Seriously? Because he doesn't she breaks up and moves away, and in the end he sells, moves his shack onto a boat, because conveniently enough she lives at a river and now he is anchoring right in front of her house... Happy end.

Way to build someone up to live the life he always wanted only to then pressure him to do something else and force him by emotionally blackmail him...

For me this wasn't a nice movie experience, and these 4 points are just because of me liking the main actors and the few funny moments, but not for the movie direction, editing, sound, or overall plot.

After having seen the trailer and after hearing all the critics I wouldn't have watched this movie. I thought it would be stupid and boring, without much action and totally unbelievable due to the total disregard of physics.

I must say that after watching it anyways (I got the Blu-ray due to a coincidence) I was actually pretty impressed. Yes it doesn't reinvent the wheel, yes it's not a Die Hard, and yes, there are scenes that are laughable due to the afore mentioned disregard for physics. But in general, this is actually a pretty decent action movie - it's not full of jokes and stupid one-liners, it has some decent acting and it is pretty thrilling most of the times, and has some really clever ideas, beside the obvious crane jump for which you needn't study physics to know that it's totally absurd. It's still good for a laugh though and other than that, this movie was good fun.

If you like simple action movies, if you don't expect the next "Die Hard", "John Wick" or "Equalizer" but are also content with simple movies, this is one of the better ones worth a watch. Really. I've seen far stupid (e.g. that really horrible Die Hard 4.0).

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a kid and young adult I was never into Manga or Anime or Japanese culture, so I believe that I've actually never seen a Japanese Anime before this one. I did watch the Last Airbender series, though, but even though they use the typical Japanese Anime style I'd feel like cheating if I'd list that as an Anime, because it's a US production.

However, as someone that is interested in movies and talks to other movie enthusiasts, there are certain Anime movies that you will simply hear popping up. Director Hayao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli productions for instance, and Princess Mononoke as one of his works is - according to many - something you should have seen. His works are celebrated as classics, even among non Anime-enthusiasts, his movie Spirited Away is listed in Steven Jay Schneider's !1001 movies to see before you die", and in the IMDB Top 250 movies you'll even find 6 of his movies, one of them being Princess Mononoke. This is just one reason why I always planned on giving those movies a try - I just never came around. Another one was just added recently as I started learning Japanese and saw it a good practice to watch movies in Japanese. And a third reason was a recent special in a YouTube format I like to watch (for the German readers: "Rocket Beans TV's Kino+"), where the guests talked about their Top 20 anime movies.

So finally I got myself the Blu-ray to もののけ姫. I actually really wanted to get the Japanese releases on Blu-ray but as they are extremely expensive, I settled for the German Steelbook releases which look fine as well (but unfortunately don't feature the Japanese Titles). Mononoke was the first I got, because it was the one with the lowest availability. It wasn't the movie that I was interested most in (that is actually "Spirited Away" but that is already out of print :( ), but it became the first I watched.

As someone who isn't that deep into Japanese Anime Culture the movie was somewhat confusing at the beginning. There where a few things I did not pick up, and this might have also been due to the fact that I watched it with original soundtrack and German subtitles - I feel like it's much harder to read subtitles on animated movies than it is on live action movies. But even though I was sometimes a bit confused about the behaviors, I generally enjoyed the movie. It had a few really cute ideas, e.g. I enjoyed the "Kodamas" as they are called - the wood spirits. And I liked the general idea of the Shishigami - the forest spirit. I did expect this movie to be much more about the girl (called San, not Mononoke - also she is not really a princess - so the title is a bit puzzling) though. However it is told entirely from the perspective of prince Ashitaka, who is actually a prince who got attacked by a vengeful spirit and tries to find a cure/and or the cause of the demons existence and finds it in Lady Eboshi and her Iron Town, who seek to destroy the forest and by doing so defeat all the Gods and spirits that dwell in it.

As you might already have heard out of the small plot summary, this movie bears a deeper meaning, and it is really strange from any western movie, because even though we get a typical antagonist, we actually never ever really get a showdown with her. She is still treated as someone who is good and protected by our protagonist, even though her actions are pure evil and threaten the world and are the cause of curses and wild demons savaging the nearby villages.

All in all, it's an interesting movie, it has a deep meaning that we should all think about, yet it is also really strange and at times confusing. I feel like I'll have to watch it a second time, and maybe at least once with German dubbings.

I was excited though. The art is beautifully done, and there are really creative ideas that went into this movie. I am probably still not an Anime/Manga guy - yet even I can realize that it is worth a watch.

I have to say it right away: This is probably one of the best German movies made in the last 20 years. And having gotten this out of the way, just sink your teeth into this next bit of information: It's a "No-Budget" production. This team started out with an idea, that was developed in free time and produced in free time just with the help of friends and family, and whenever they had something they could show off, they asked for any money they could get, to get the next bit of movie produced. All in free time, e.g. over the time of five years they filmed on weekends, using as requisites what they had. The result was something most people shook their head - famous directors said to just delete the movie as it could never work. The cool thing? The crew kept believing in it. As they said in the making off: "Often we said to our selves: We cannot do this, this can't work. And then we stopped and asked our selves: But why not? We are laughing? We're having fun? Maybe it will work?"

The end product was subtitled: "The most fucked up German fairy tale since the Brothers Grimm." And yes, that it is. Let me just say a few words on the story - but beware: The less you know, the better:

Two gangsters, after committing a crime and steeling a car, find a screen play in that car that - in the screen play describe what just happened since the movie started. It end's a few minutes after the screenplay is found, so the two gangsters, believing that they are in some kind of hoax, search for the author of that screenplay.

Javid: "If this screenplay is turned into a movie it's going to be the most retarded movie that has ever existed"

The movie is a really strange genre mix: it has action, it has gore and splatter, crazy shoot-outs, comedy, a revenge part, a love story, it has God in it, cannibals and even social criticism. All this is packed together in a movie that is captivating right from the moment it starts, that has great black humor, doesn't take itself to serious and has a plot that is surprisingly refreshing and has a really original story idea.

To make it short: This movie is just fun to watch, and whenever I think about it, it's fun again, and whenever I see scenes or hear other talk about it, I start smiling, so yeah. It's a must watch!

I've seen this movie in a sneak preview and I really liked it for the message it conveys as well as for the movie being different to all the other movies that you'll see. It is really slow, it takes a lot of time, has a lot of dialogues and is probably told for at least 40% in off-screen narration. I think this is something that is pretty brave.

Additionally I liked a lot of the scenes that where really artistic, e.g. the scene where you have Fonny with his sculpture and the camera circles around it and we have the smoke of his cigarette. I liked that a lot. And I liked the camera, e.g. in the beginning scene where Tish conveys her news to the mother - this is really great camera work, really great editing and aspects that make this movie really good. Another thing that got me right from the get-go was the music.

Now having pointed out all the positives, the biggest problem I have with this movie is in a kind a missing emotionality. Take Green Book for example: I really had a lump in my throat when Mahershala Ali stood in the rain and started screaming out his dialogue - that was intense. That gave you goosebumps. And I would have really liked to see something of that sort in this movie as well - the story is absolutely worth telling and could have easily included a scene of that kind. In a way it even has - that moment when the mother Sharon is in Puerto Rico. However, and I don't know why - it didn't get to me, which is why I was really surprised that this performance actually won an academy award.

However, I am not saying that the acting was bad. I liked the acting, there was great chemistry between some of the actors, especially KiKi Layne was really great as this young, dreamily-naive girl that just experiences first love. And Colman Domingo and Michael Beach as the two fathers where absolutely great as well and had some really great laughs. Equally good where of course the mothers, portrayed by afore mentioned Regina King and Aunjanue Ellis.

However, in the end, I feel like I wasn't as invested into the characters as I should have been, and I am not sure where exactly to pinpoint the guilt. One aspect I did not needed in the extend it was shown in the movie was the love scenes - we had a lot of those, and for a movie where there isn't much happening, you really wonder if it would have needed that many love scenes - maybe that time would have been better invested into further developing the characters and thus having the viewer more invested?

To end on a positive note: One thing that I actually realized, was the really settle but still very apparent switch of tone - while in the beginning you see this movie probably ending on a positive note, there is that one scene (the artsy one I mentioned before) where this feeling starts to tip over to the negative side - I wouldn't have been surprised if this movie had a really bad ending; and reviewing this movie I wonder if it maybe would have needed this ending ... e.g. I wouldn't have been surprised if at the end the scene from the beginning was something Alonzo was experiencing in his head right before successfully taking his life after having lost the trial

I am quite a Liam Neeson fan since I actively took notice of this actor due to his Qui-gon Jin role which was one of the only good things about Episode I. I've since then seen over 20 movies with him, and most of them are probably a tad better rated just because I like his character.

So I was really looking forward to this movie for a long time - Liam Neeson staring in an action movie against nature, in a nearly one-man-show, with a lot of positive reviews from people who've already seen this movie. Now that's got to be good doesn't it?

Well... the movie starts off really great. We have some workers doing seasonal work at an oil station in Alaska, which is not only a rough place location-wise, but also from the people. Liam Neesons character John Ottway is a hunter who's task is to guard the workers from wild animals. On their way back home however the plane crashes in the mountains, and only a hand full survive. The first survivors succumb to their wounds but soon they find themselves facing another enemy, that is picking the survivors for killing one after the other: A pack of wolves.

Liam Neesons character gets a really good background story, that makes his character interesting: He has lost everything and given up on live already, but when thrown into this live threatening situation his survival instincts kick in. There is something secretive in his character and we get to learn this while the movie enfolds. This makes the entire first half of the movie really interesting. Also they have a great location, with stunning pictures, a really high quality camera, and good performances, which I really enjoyed a lot. There is good chemistry between all the surviving characters which are totally different in style and believes, providing some room for arguments.

However, on the other side there where a few things I disliked. First of: The wolves, that hardly look anything like wolves. Here we get really cheap CGI and as the movie maker probably knew, most of the wolf attack scenes are in the dark and with hectic camera so you only see glimpses of the wolf. However I don't really enjoy shaky cams and rapid movements through hectic editing, so all in all this took a lot of excitement out of the scene because you actually do not see what happens but keep pondering about the few glimpses you get, while the action sequence is still going on. Also, the behavior of the pack of wolves is totally atypical: They don't hunt a group of men that are capable to defend them selves over days just for sports?

Also, during the movie the physical accuracy gets smaller and smaller - with the cliff jumping scene being the worst part of it. If you find yourself thinking: Well that's not realistic at all, that's plain idiotic, your brain gets occupied by other things than merging into the plot of the movie. And there are a number of these little things (like Ottway finding his letter after the crash which has been for hours in the snow but is still in excellent condition, or all the guys sleeping and not hearing how the one guy standing guard is taken by wolves just a couple of meters away, etc.), as well as movie mistakes (the letter has an re- and disappearing coffee stain throughout the movie).

In the end we get a 2hrs movie that feels really long and doesn't add anything new to the typical man vs nature survival movie (such as The Edge or the Mountain between Us, which I actually liked a bit better), that starts of really great but in the end gets actually pretty unrealistic and boring. And that's really sad, because they have some great scenes, really wonderful images, and a good Liam Neeson. But especially with high expectations that I had, this movie was mostly rather disappointing to me. It's still a solid movie, though.

I feel like lately I am always pointing out that on of the genres that I do not enjoy at all is romantic comedy - and though this is more of a family comedy I would put it into that broader category of romantic comedies.

And actually, this movie is not that much of an exception: It is absolutely foreseeable right from the get go, most of the jokes are not that funny and have been heard a number of times, and in the end we get a dreamy happy end. It's so unbelievable cliché.

Yet, I gave it a good rating - that might shock you, but different to most other movies of this genre, I was pretty entertained - while thinking about it, I think there are 3 main reasons:

First, though humor is always difficult (and I mostly like intelligent humor, good made parodies, socially critical, ironic and sarcastic humor, such as in Silicon Valley, South Park, Futurama etc.) I do have to appreciate their take on things. Even though it's a 2018 movie it is far from the really stupid and dumbed down humor that (like movies by/with Melissa McCarthy, Jillian Bell, Kevin Hart, etc.) everyone uses this time. It's also not intelligent, of course - but at least it has heart. And it had some surprises in it's story, side characters that are funny in certain ways, etc.
Second, even though it's a comedy the actors play serious (not over the top like for instance Blockers) and the play really good. Of course with Marc Wahlberg and Rose Byrne we have two veteran actors. Of course, especially Byrne is in her element, having made mostly comedies (I would have loved to see her in more movies such as 28 weeks later). But we also have a lot of unknown actors and they are good as well - the kids are great, they are cute and great actors - you start to hate the petulant episodes of Julianna Gamiz character Lita, pitty the clumsy weepy boy Juan portrayed by Gustavo Quiroz Jr. and you sympathize with the teenage girl Isabela Moner having a hard time adjusting. And then there is a great supporting act by Margo Martindale.
Third, as already mentioned, the movie has hart. You start to like all the characters, even though they are so cliché.

Of course - as for a romantic comedy there are a few negatives - the story is all in all rather unbelievable, and avoiding any deeper character conflicts (e.g. the birth mother had great potential for drama), and in the end you get an happy end that is rather unbelievable (180° turn of emotions by some characters just because of one moment). But hey. It's a romcom.

To put it up front: I am not a fan of boxing, it never really interested me. And thus I haven't even ever seen any of the Rocky movies. So you might think: "Why am I watching this? Can this review really be fair"?

Well, I can at least try? Give me a chance. The truth is: I really enjoyed this movie. I still cannot understand why everybody likes boxing so much - yet, this movie made it seem really interesting. The staging is really captivating, and the fight scenes look really authentic - it was a pain watching them bloodied up. It also had a lot of heart, and the actors where great. I like Tessa Thompson, I think she is a great actor - unfortunately she doesn't get much screen time and especially not much background - but hey: It's about Creed - and Michael B. Jordan is not only a good actor - he also makes you jealous as a man, because of his great physique. And Sylvester Stalone is also pretty decent.

All in all I was really entertained, would love to both, see the second movie in cinemas soon, as well as filling a gap in my cinematic education by watching the Rocky movie. What more can a movie like Creed hope to achieve? Keep in mind that I never ever was interested in boxing ;)

Worth your while!

7 Days in Entebbe is a movie that shows a dramatized version of the real historic events around a plain kidnapping and blackmailing that took place in 1967. Similar to movies like 13 Hours, this movie concentrates on planing a military coup to free the hostages, but different to other movies this one creates its drama by a theatrical dance piece.

This makes the movie unique when compared to other movies that you are used to. There will be a number of viewers that will probably be disappointed by this; others - like me will be extremely pleased by the fact to not have yet another movie concentrate on this story (that has been told in a couple of other movies already) the same way, but to actually have a movie that uses new innovative and intelligent aspects of art to dramatize a story that is otherwise heavily based on dialogue and personal emotions and personal doubt. that is what this movie focuses on heavily. We don't get classic good and evil - instead every character is put into a spectrum in which he decides to go to the one or the other direction, while not knowing if what they are doing is right or wrong. This is something that a few people critizise and I can understand it, because it makes the characters appear different than they where in reality. A lot of critics have pointed out that certain personality aspects are simply left out and that the historic personalities get off much better in the movie, downplaying the actual horror these people unleashed.

However in these situations I like to counter with this being not an accurate documentary but rather a entertaining movie. Movies are a form of art, and art is never something that is factually correct but always something that explores ideas and emotions, that points out certain aspects of life and explores them in great detail. This movie does nothing else. It presents us with characters that do extremely violent things but are still represented as the heroes, as a group of people that have a moral code, and that question their actions on every step and live with the consequences they unleash.

The movie is pretty captivating and interesting, even though it is heavily based on dialogue (which eventually starts to repeat itself) and where not much else is happening. It is captivating even though there is no action, no violence and no drama - which I think is a real achievement.

This of course needs good actors and we do get two really great actors. On top there is Rosamund Pike, who is not only acting extremely well (as I have no doubt since seeing here in Gone Girl), but also speaking a language that is not native to her. And she does so incredibly well - she has an accent of course, but after learning German only for this movie, that what she does here is incredible. It saddens me a bit, that only us Germans are able to actually appreciate this, and I hope so much that the German dubbing does not replace her original voice. Next to her we get german Actor Daniel Brühl, and he of course also is a great actor and one of my favorite. Other know actors include Eddie Marsan and Denis Ménochet, but non of them are really challenged in this movie, even though they are really good and provide believable performances.

And I really liked the dancing parts and the music. I had an earworm right after watching the movie and even looked up the theater group that performed for this movie - it is really good. And it really is something different.

Unfortunately I am pretty sure that this movie wont find many fans, but I recommend it to anyone open to seeing something different.