For me, this movie was really hard to rate, because starting with the idea, this movie has a great surreal premises, that fancied me right from the beginning. Seeing the first trailer I was excited because the idea seems absolutely great and crazy, but I had no idea, what direction this movie would take. Seeing the second trailer, however, I was pretty pissed, because crucial story elements are spoiled right away and you get to understand where this movie would probably end up.
Still, the movie has some great ideas, and I liked how it formulates it social criticism; e.g. the people can downsize and by doing so have a great impact on nature and saving the planet, so actively and positively impacting the far future of everyone. Still, by doing so, they also get out of the social system, because their contribution to society also shrinks. And therefore people who decide to not downsize and by choice stay in their position that are already bad, they start hating those who strive to better their own situation as well as the overall future situation of the world in general. And this is something pretty common, whenever change is involved. But that is not the only criticism you’ll find. E.g. we have the problem of dictatorships touched, that are legitimized by us as we still maintain good relationships with these countries, we have the tendency of human being to use anything as a weapon to inflict pain to others. We have the criticism of humans always inflicting systems that segregate us from „others“. Even in a paradisaical place like the shrunk community, where everyone could be filthy rich, we have people seeking personal profit and (in a way) power over others, and segregating those less fortunate into slums - people have the tendency to turn even paradise into hell. And topics like world overpopulation, illegal immigration, etc. are also briefly touched. It even gets philosophical while staring at human annihilation.
So, this actually should be a great movie. But that’s the problem - the creators chose to make a movie, and as a movie this piece of art has a number of shortcomings. Mainly that it has no direction in it’s story telling at all. You feel like our main character is thrown from one situation into the next. These situation are even hardly connected to each other - and never is there a visible story line. So in the end, you keep wondering what is actually happening, and why and how did we get there? This is one of the problems I had with this movie. The other is, that the end was one of the most unsatisfying I’ve seen in a while. I mean, yes, we where presented with some social and global problems, but in the end, what did I learn by watching this movie? I don’t feel like there was any contribution to me personally, there where no new thought processes induced, there wasn’t any answer offered. Nothing. The end feels like it really isn’t an end at all - they just all of a sudden stopped the movie, not at a climax, not a cliffhanger, it isn’t shocking, it isn’t happy, it isn’t sad. It’s just over, unexpected and the first question you ask yourself afterwards is: Why did I watch this.
Because, besides it’s lack of storytelling, there is also hardly anything else this movie has to offer. Acting wise we have Hong Chau, and she is the bomb, she steels the show of everyone with her energy, her charisma, her demanding nature. She makes this movie worth watching. Matt Damon, the main star is interchangeable, Christoph Waltz is as we expect him to be, but nowhere near his high performance that we loved in movies like Django Unchained or Inglorious Bastards. And all the other roles are actually pretty insignificant. Kirsten Wiig doesn’t have many lines and is a story device but that’s it. Udo Kier is nothing more than Christoph Waltz’ sidekick, Neil Patrick Harris actually has a 5 Minutes role, same with Laura Dern, Jason Sudeikis, etc. And each role is pretty mediocre and could have been played by any actor with the same performance. Nothing outstanding here. Soundtrack? Well it has this caching theme from the trailer, but that’s it. Stunning pictures? Nope. Special Effects? Nope. You would actually think, that in a movie where people are shrunk you would encounter some interesting situations where the director had to introduce some clever, some never-before-seen techniques but no - after Matt Damon’s Character enters the shrunk society there is nothing to remind us of this fact, other than a pretty blunt reference to a real rose in his house, or the giant vodka bottle.
So in the end, what do we have? A courageous new idea of how to tackle our world problems, some great critical views on our society, which are then turned into the self finding trip of one man in a wonderful new world that isn’t wonderful or new at all. We have a story that feels random, we see some great actors in mediocre rolls, there is nothing interesting to experience cinematographic-wise, and we are left with the feeling of having wasted some time.
Why does it still get such a high rating from me? Well for it’s great premises, as well as for Hong Chau - the only actress that managed to connect with you emotionally and made you both, happy and sad. A great performance and so much energy, which actually makes this movie worth seeing, even if it isn’t a good movie.
Actually I hate tennis. And this movie shows so much tennis, that I should actually hate this movie as well.
But this movie was so thrilling, even though it shows so much tennis, it was so interesting, it kept me on the edge of my seat, that I have to give it a great rating.
Both actors are incredible. I never saw a Shia LaBeouf movie I liked - this is the first where he actually shows what an incredible great actor he is, and that he has to offer so much more than the mediocre acting we know from the Transformers franchise. Sverrir Gudnason I have never seen before and I cannot understand why this guy doesn't have a lot of hollywood projects in the pipeline. The acting is superb, and Stellan Skarsgård is a great supporting actor.
This movie is a great character study, showing how two characters who couldn't be more different are actually quite similar, as they have a similar struggles, even as children - where different paths led to different personalities. And they still struggle with the same problems, they have the same desires, the same pressures to deal with, the same problems. They deal with it differently on the outside, but they are the same on the inside.
It is a well acted, totally thrilling story. It's worth watching, even though it is a nieche movie. Worth your time!
Alice (portrayed by Reese Witherspoon) is a single mother of two children. She works as a interior designer and is the daughter of a famous moive director (who died). She just moved back to Los Angeles, after living with her former husband in New York.
On her 40th birthday she meets 3 young guys (~20 years old) in a bar, who are on the lookout for someone producing their movie (those three being in the roles of writer, director and main actor). The director starts flirting with her and they end up in bed with each other, while the other two crashed at her living room. The next morning the mother of Alice comes home and is shocked at first, but the 3 guys reckognise her as a famous actress (she played in the movies of her husband, i.e. the late father of Alice) so she is intrigued and offers the guys to live with Alice, building up to a strange love triangle story - and if that isn't enough: now her ex husband moves back to L.A. as well, and starts fighting for Alice.
After long useless scenes, Alice quits her job that doesn't make her happy, finalizes her divorce, breaks up her affair with the young director guy, but still everybody is happy and she has the best time while inviting them all to dine with her. The End.
As if this movie isn't enough by itself - it is accompanied by a ugly, suggary oozing soundtrack - one of the worse I have ever heard. Only one theme, that is used over and over again, over the entire movie. The actors are all overacting, the three guys are some of the worst actors I've seen, the story is totally foreseeable, and the directing is so incredible stupid. I mean do they really think we are so stupid as to not understand what is going on?
Let me give you an example - there is a scene, where you can see (due to the good acting of Reese Witherspoon): "Oh, there's something going on here. There is chemistry between those two". However, the camera keeps on capturing the scene. Witherspoon has to smile bashfully for 2 or 3 times until you think "Okey, now, finally, everybody should have gotten that there is chemistry between those two". But still - it's not enough. She then has to whisper "Oh my god" and start fanning herself. 5 Minutes to tell something that everyone in the audience whould have understood in half a minute.
Only because I really like Reese Witherspoon, I will give it 2 Points. And I am not the only one that was unimpressed. Even a lot of girls in the cinema bursted into laughs because of some of the horrible acted scenes.
I was happy to get to see this movie in a sneak review, because I did not hear of it, and I probably wouldn't have watched it. We get a distrophy in which everyone lives underneath the earth, as the earth itself was attacked by aliens. Those are called "Nonsuchs" and one of the privates of the army, called S.U.M.1 is serving his duty on the surface; every army member has to serve 100 days on the surface and we follow S.U.M.1 in a movie that is mostly a one-man-show seeing what he is experiencing on the surface.
S.U.M.1 is played by Iwan Rheon (Ramsey from Game of Thrones) and is a German low budget movie, directed by a film professor from the SAE institute. This, at least to me, sounds like a great start. However, the low budget is pretty obvious, especially when it comes to the CGI, which looks like the cheap stuff we where used at the beginning of the 90s when watching TV shows. Even the first 3 minutes will make your toes curl.
However CGI is not everything, and the movie manges to build up tention a lot of time, while showing us one soldier serving his 100 days in solitude; however this puffes out unused. At the end, the movie is really long. Also some of the story elements are so obvious (calling the guy S.U.M.1 = someone, and the aliens nonsuchs = no such (thing))
A good idea, and good shooting overall, with a great actor and good soundtrack - but over all, it did not convince me. There are a number of plotholes, some of the things are never explained, other things only work because of coincidences, and a lot of background story is simply missing; they introduced a rat to whom S.U.M.1 starts talking - why not use this idea to give some background? Some flashbacks, or simply some naration of what exactly happend, how the live is under earth, etc.
I wouldn't watch this one in cinemas and I also wouldn't recommend paying money for the home release. Instead, if you are a really big fan of sci-fi movies, then wait for it, until it is shown on free TV.
Taking into consideration that it is a low budget movie, otherwise it would have gotten a worse rating.
If you want to watch a movie that is really similar
*
SPOILER
*
*
*
then you should rather watch 10 Cloverfield Lane. That one is pretty similar, especially also regarding the ending, and that is a movie wich is so much better.
I've seen this a s a sneak preview and I was really entertained - cool movie, a lot of fun. It's not a master piece, and after the incredible good critics I can understand that some might have been disappointed, but other than that, it's just a lot of fun. I liked the action, the cool driving scenes, some really great compositions as well as the incredible good symbiosis of music and pictures. The thing that bugged me most, is that the general idea of having an action movie married to a great 80s soundtrack is not that new, and since the success of Guardians of the Galaxy somewhat exploited. Only this year we had Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Atomic Blonde, doing the same thing, so this is already the third one in one year. And especially Guardian of the Galaxy has some parallels with the soundtrack and an antique music playing device being in the center of attention.
Other than that it was however a good movie. I liked all of the main actors; after coming out of the cinema I was a bit dissapointed by the small roll Kevin Spacey was playing - at that time I would have liked to see him a bit more (of course that was before the scandals).
Other than that, great action movie.
Wow. This movie is great. it is sick. It is disturbing. But also, it is great. Probably one of the best movies of this year, most definatley one of the top 10 candidates. But also so hard to describe without spoilering that I won't even get into it. Just this much: It's a movie about dark secrets, revenge, blackmail and some strange notion of justice.
The story is especially in the beginning, totally strange, and only after some time you'll start to understand who's who and what's happening. However, from the first moment on you get the notion of "something's not right", which is conveyed in so many ways - the dialogues, the way the people talk with each other, the strange relations they have. There is also some small symbolism to find, but not as much as with other movies of this kind, e.g. Nocturnal Animals.
The storytelling is absolutely great, the movie is totally atmospheric and unsettling from the first scene onwards - I mean, wow was that intro intense - classical music, church-themed, and the close up of an open beating hearth at an operating table - uncomfortably long, hard to look at, even harder to look away. Cut. Discarding of rubber gloves and the scrubs from the operation. Cut. Mundane dialogue of the two doctors that walk down a frightening and disturbing looking long corridor, with the camera being far away and moving in the same pace as the two doctors. Cut.
Especially the camera is also quite interesting - it doesn't matter which scene, which shot, which setting - somehow it is always frightening and unsettling. Wow. What great skill in this shootings. The soundtrack is also absolutely strange and uncomfortable - switching from the imperfect singing of a child that in its way is totally scary (see the trailers), to classical music to a soundtrack that is absolutely grotesque and that bears a lot of resemblance to the soundtrack of the Hannibal series.
The cast is great as well - we have Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman who are absolutely great - but the star is probably Berry Keoghan, who is creepy as hell.
After watching this movie you'll feel the urge to discuss it with other people and it'll keep you occupied for hours and days afterwards (at least if you are open to such thoughts about movies and their meanings) - and this is something that I love in movies - there are many ways a movie can be really good. But to be a great movie it'll have to keep me occupied with it. This one does, so it's already clear that I'll consider it to be a great movie. It is however not for everyone. I think it can be best categorized with movies such as Nocturnal Animals, Enemy or mother! - if you loved those, you'll probably also like this one. If you, however hated those, I don't see any chance for you liking this one.
I believe I've rated this one a bit higher than it actually deserves, and maybe that's because I am impartial when it comes to having a movie with batman.
However, this was - after seeing Spider-Man and Thor, the first super hero comic adaption that is more in tune with what I expect from such a movie.
The biggest flaw of this movie is the short playtime, because you feel like there is so much more missing, so much more backstory that could have been told, so many more quieter moments that the movie could have benefited from, and a bit more character time, for a movie where we have three new heroes introduced (next to the villain, and other story arcs that this movie gets into). Still the movie is alright - you don't feel rushed. The Characters are well developed, each of them has its own personality trades - we have the strong and funny guy (Aquaman), the insecure guy (Flash), and the one with a troubled background who still needs to come to terms with who he is (Cyborg) - a good mix that (in contrast to Marvels Avengers) has some interesting contrast, and that fits well into our fighting "couple" consisting of the broken and cynic Batman and the optimistic Wonderwoman.
And we get some fan service - there where at least two references to the old Batman movies as well as one to the old Superman movies - I loved them :)
Of course, this movie also just reinvents the wheel - there is nothing new, nothing we haven't seen already, no elaborate story, and the typical DC problems in regards to the villain who is shallow, superstrong, and leads to an CGI smashdown. However, it finds the right amount of fun paired with seriousness, which I found refreshing after the other two movies.
Justice League definately falls behind MoS and BvS, and probably also behind Wonderwoman, but not by far.
I was really looking forward to this movie, even though I am not the greatest Thor fan. However, the trailer looked interesting, I love the 80s style with the colours, it promised to be a wild movie with a great antagonist - I mean seriously - what could go wrong with Cate Blanchett, and even better in a dark gothic look?
Well, I was absolutely disappointed. Seriously, what where they thinking when shooting/editing this movie? There is no plot, the story is totally random and has no meaning at all anymore. It's just like a bad 90s sitcom that is progressing from one joke to the next, and this time it didn't stop at anything - stupidity, slapstick, vulgarity, we have it all, and without any style or niveau. I mean seriously "Oh, I'm drunk, I will just fall down" (as an entrance of a new and important character), "oh, I just saw hulks penis", "now we'll have to fly into the anus", etc. What's the target audience of this movie, childish boys in their puberty? I think even for them this is rather embarrassing than funny....
Epic, dramatic fighting scenes, e.g. when Hela defeats Asgard are equaly destroyed by stupid jokes as are emotinal scenes. Someone died? Just make a joke. Haha, and let's go on. Due to this, this movie wasn't exciting to me at all, it wasn't emotional, it was just dull. This movie is so jokes-packed, that even after the first three minutes (and did they really just do the stupid rope-joke in the introduction three times?! It was hardly funny the first time, it was annoying the second time, and the third I was angered, because obviously the director must think I am stupid), I had enough. And that is somewhat sad, because in the mass of stupid jokes there are some moments that actually where pretty great and that would have functioned superb in isolation. Take Jeff Goldblums character that is refreshingly eccentric and funny. Or Korg - great humoristic character. But having a more than 2 hour sitcom, this doesn't work anymore, even if it's good.
I do believe the story had potential, I mean they had a great soundtrack, stunning visuals, perfect CGI, absolutely gorgeous colours and scenes, a really great cast, I already mentioned the great Jeff Goldblum, who I found ingenious. Cate Blanchett is always a win, and she could have brought so much to this movie. And Tessa Thompson also stuck out to me - great charisma, interesting character. But none of them gets enough chance to really portrait their character, none of them gets any dept. Especially Cate Blanchetts talent is totally wasted - she could have been absolutly evil, strong, powerful - the perfect villain. But she isn't - the antagonist is (as with so many comic movies these days) a joke and a total disaster. There is hardly any substance, much to short screen time for character develpment, for backgrounds, for some seriousness. Nothing.
Seriously, I wouldn't have been surprised if there was laughter from the off.....
4/10
"If you can't beat the house, be the house" - according to this motto, the Johannes decide to create an underground casino with their friend Frank in their suburban neighbourhood. Their motivation are money problems due to wich they lost their last savings at Vegas.
As expected with such kind of comedy movies, the jokes are pretty simple and mostly based on the stupidity of our characters, which for me is seldom a reason for laughter. So, taking the comedy part, this movie was only seldom funny to me (some sex jokes, he's to stupid for simple calculations, etc.). Also Will Farrell is not someone I'd consider a great or funny actor.
Considering the plot, there is also not too much that is offered to the audience. And taking into account the number of high ranking movie and TV actors, one might wonder why one sees them in such a simple movie that does not demands anything, and gives them no chance to show their talent.
However, there's one thing that speaks for this movie and that is the absurde ideas this movie offers, e.g. the slow mo fighting scenes, the slasher elements, the absurd amount of blood, the image of the gang running through the neighbourhood, collecting money, the kick scene with Nick Kroll. Those where some inspired ideas that worked greatly with the movie and because of them being so absurd I had a number of scenes where I could actually laugh.
In the end it's an okey movie. Nothing that you'll have to see, nothing I would recommend, but also not a movie that annoyed me, or that I would deem a total waste of time. Which is why I rated it a solid middle 5/10. Let this one run in the background, when your local tv station plays it - with some friends, crisps and lights on, and then you won't regret it ;)
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.
Normally I would not review a different cut seperately, but with this movie things are most definately different. "Lisa e il diavolo" is the original Italian title that was first translated into English as "Lisa and the devil", and should have been released in 1972. It was the one movie that Mario Bava put most of his work into, his final great movie, where everything should have been the way he wanted it to be. However, due to some problems with finding potential buyers, producer Alfredo Leone forced Mario Bava into editing the movie. This was not because of bad critics - everyone at the filmfestivals who saw the movie was excited, however noone was in the market. Leone acted like an businessman, analysed the market and jumped on the train that was currently hyped. And that of course was "The Exorcist"; so Leones vision: Let's turn the movie into an Exorcist movie. So even years later after the movie was already finished, Leone reassembled the cast, and made them shoot additional scenes that should alter the movie entirely. What used to be a nightmare like reallity is this time turned into the wild dreams of a girl (Lisa) posessed by the devil. So we get as new scenes how she gets possessed, then how she is deliverd to a hospital, how she turns crazy and how finally priests are gathered to exorcise the demon in her. And while this is happening, we always cut into scenes of the old movie showing her nightmare-visions. It is a totally different movie, and it is totally bad. The atmosphere that Bava created with his original is totally broken, the new scenes that mostly consists of disgusting pictures, obscenities, and nudity are bait-like and where shot despite the explicit whishes by Bava to not have such scenes in his movie (he actually - as a director - left the room when these scenes where shot, because he wanted no part of it).
What we end up with is a movie that is more direct than Bavas original, easier to grasp, with fewer wearisome lenghts, but also movie that loses nearly its entire atmosphere, that has no originallity anymore, no metaphors or symbolism, plus some things that are actually never said in the original movie but are implied for the viewer to find out himself, are simply put into the dialog by just watching Lisa and the Devil the first time I did not grasp that this movie has for example a part that is about impotence. So in the end this movie gets irrelevant, and that is something that even the critics realized - Leones vision backfired - instead on hopping on to the Exorcism train and giving the people yet another movie they would want to see, people realized it to be a blatant rip-off and therefore was denounced.
That already being bad enough, Bavas original vision was litrally butchered, and he was not okey with it (he actually changed his name on the credits to 'Mickey Lion' because of this), and never even saw this version which was the only one in cinemas. He still read the critics and those made him really sad - it should have been a master piece and his final great work before retiring, but in the end it became a cold and soulless movie created for just financial profit-making. The sadest thing: Mario Bava did not even see his original version being released - he died with the knowledge of nearly no one having seen his masterwork (except for France, where it was released in the original cut at cinemas, but for the home release also only this cut was released) and thinking that no one will ever see it. Only in 2012 where for the first time both versions released - and the original version is much better rated by critics and is today seen as the far superior version.
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.
Wow. Only a 69% rating and no comments? I cannot let that stand as it is, so here's a short review. I have watched this movie countless times since I first saw it, and it was one of my "must haves" movie collection wise. I still only have it on DVD, but in my opinnion this movie deserves an collectors edition re-release on blu-ray as well.
What we get is a modern kind of western, somewhere down south, near the mexican border in the 1930s, where John Smith, portrait by Bruce Willis is getting into a ghost town that is inhabited by two rival gangs, one of italian the other of irish origin. John Smith, being an excellent gunman, is drawn into this fight by accident, but instead of leaving as soon as he can, he sees opportunity, playing both ends against the middle for personal profit. But while it starts out to be great, in the end it turns out, that John Smith isn't as ruthless as he likes to appear, which is his downfall.
I used to love the 80s and 90s action movies with Will Smith, and if you do too, you'll get a movie that you've got to love. It's hard, it's brutal, it's Will Smith at his best, it has a marvelous scenery, this ghost town in the desert is perfect for the movie and adds to this gerat atmosphere, and the story - though simple - is not too bad either; plus point are the monologs and the ingenious plan that Will Smith has, and that nearly works out to perfection.
It's not deep in any ways, it does not have a deeper meaning, it has no added value, it doesn't even reinvent the wheel - this is credited as a remake of Akira Kurosawas Yojimbo, and the producers also list the heavy influence of A Fistful of Dollars (which has a nearly identical plot); then again - that movie doesn't have neither Bruce Willis nor Christopher Walken, both really great actors that play perfectly in this movie - but also all the other actors are really gerat and so in the end, you'll get a modern western that is fun watching - if you are into those things.
I know, 10/10 will seem much overrated for many, and I probably wouldn't have given it this rating, if I'd watched it nowadays. However, given the countless times I've already watched and enjoyed this movie (mostly during my youth, but even nowadays I do enjoy it from time to time), I think it has earned these 10/10 - at least in my account.
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!
