In "The Evil of Frankenstein", Peter Cushing, as doctor Frankenstein tries to reanimate corpses but is hindered by the people of the village he lives in. Frustrated he decides to move back to his hometown Karlstadt, which he had to leave after successfully creating his famous monster, which was killed by the town folk. While returning, he finds out that all his possessions where stolen - and there is another suprise...
This movie is somewhat interesting. While telling a known story, it twistest the roles of good and evil; while normally Frankenstein is precieved as crazy man that creates evil, in this movie he is rather portrayed as victim of the evil leadership consisting of church, police and the mayors - who not only persecute him but also steal all his belongings. And even the town folks are portrayed evil (when of course a somewhat lesser evil) - they are not only the lynch mob but also bully the poor deaf-mute town girl.
Frankenstein on the opposite together with his helping hand Hans are the misjudged heroes who achiev the unbelievable. Who manage to cheat death and lead mankind to scientific wonders. The main evil is a human hypnotist Zoltán, who instrumentalizes Frankensteins monster for his own revenge and enrichment - and degrades the deaf-mute town girl by trying to rape her and then not going through with it, because she's not worth the trouble. The monster on the other hand is the victim.
I think this is - especially for its time - a really progressive story. Normally there is a typical black-and-white idea of good and evil which seem to be static in movies from that era. The story is interestingly told, and never forseeable, the acting varies.
Peter Cushing is of course the star, and this movie is one of his greatest, because he has a lot of screen time (compared to, i.e. his portrayals of van Helsing). Katy Wild has also great potential even though she plays a deaf-mute girl. The acting of Kiwi Kingston as the monster is however extremely poor, and with exception of Peter Woodthorpe (Zoltán) the acting is pretty bad. However, all in all the movie is enjoyable and can be seen numerous times; I liked it!
The movie tells the story of an ambitious "house keeper" of a CIA safe house in southern Afrika who wants to raise in ranks and become a CIA agent. However he is held back until the day a rouge agent is brought in for questioning. The house gets attacked and the house keeper has to flee with the agent, being targeted by the rouge agent, the misterious attackers, the South African police and getting no help by his people...
To list the positive aspects first: The acting of Ryan Raynolds and Denzel Washington is good - but somehow that was to be espected. The action shots are interesting but not as exciting as they could be.
The story however feels highly constructed, and in its essence forseeable. Also, there are some scenes that make absolutely no sense, for instance, why while car chasing do the bad guys first install their silencers before they start shooting? And why did they take them off, after using them in the attack previous to the car chase? Those scenes that make you question the logic are somewhat aclimatic, which is also not in the movies favour.
It is never boring but it is never so good as to be as exciting and interesting as other movies of this genre - take for example the current bond movies or the Bourne series.
In my opinion, if you want a light movie night with friends where you spend more time talking then serious watching, then this movie is all right - but for a serious movie night you can choose far better.
This movie was a suprise to me, because I haven't heard of it before. Even when you spent 2 or 3 evenings a week at the cinema, there are trailers and movies that you do not find any advertisement for. So when this movie started I did not know what to expect at all.
Only as the movie commenced did I finally get that this must be the story of McDonalds - a story I did not know anything about, so it was pretty interesting. As I am no fan of fastfood, I probably wouldn't have watched it, if I had known about it exsistance, but watching it was great. The story is interestingly told, we have a great cast and we have Michael Keaton who again plays ingeniously good. Even better than the so acclaimed Birdman. I really loved his play, the way he deals with his ups and downs and the turn from being a likeable fellow who you feel for, to turning out to be a person you dispise, yet find somewhat disturbingly understanding in his situation.
Additionally I love the 50s and 60s flair of the setting and the cast is great (Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, B. J. Novak - you cannot go wrong with these guys). I was considering 8/10, especially as it is probably not a movie that you will rewatch often; but taking into account that there was not a single minute in this movie that I wasn't captivated, I think the little more outstanding position is justified.
For me, this movie is hard to rate. There are different aspects that I really liked, but at the same time a number of aspects that I disliked.
What I liked:
- The psychodelic aspects of the movie, the crazy colorful lightning, the strange surreal subworlds, such as the water hole in the beginning, the cellars, the inbetween floors.
- The nightmare-like flair
- Perfect acting of part of the ensemble (i.e. Irene Miracle, Alida Valli, Sacha Pitoëff)
- Some of the strange scenes that this movie uses
- The ingenious soundtrack that leaps from classic to gothic rock; pretty great!
What I disliked:
- The sometimes really slow pace, that in some cases tend to boredom
- The story telling in it self; some scenes seem to be arbitrary and do not add anything to the movie, neither for the story nor for the esthetics. Especially while watching it the first time I felt a bit lost sometimes and wondered what has happend and why and why this is in any way important.
- The bad acting of some of the cast (i.e. Veronica Lazar, Leigh McCloskey, or Elenora Giorgi)
- The End (the transformation to "Death"... well... for 1980 that could have been done much better)
So all in all, I am torn between the greatness of this movie on the one side - the camera is ingenious, the music is great, parts of the acting is great some of the scenes are thrilling as hell - and on the other side some scenes that where boring, made no sense or consisted of bad acting.
It is better than average, so not a 5/10 but also not as great as it could be, which is why I ended up with a 6/10. (In comparison: 4 Flies: 6/10, Crystal Plumage: 7/10, Opera: 8/10).
For me, this movie was quite difficult to follow and therefore also a bit difficult to rate. In the beginning we see Elizabeth Sloane, a successful lobbyist working in a prestigious lobbying office that develop ideas for their clients and pitch them to the right people to make them happen in politics. And we get to know how good Sloane is at her job, but also how ruthless she is, both with her co-workers/employees, clients and also bosses - but also with herself, when it comes to substance abuse and an unhealthy living style that is built around her job and her addiction to winning.
The first turning point comes in place when she is approached to work for another firm that contrary to the firm she is employed with, is for stricter gun regulations. She accepts, saying it is because of her believes, but it seems like this is also just for the challenge - the firm is on a sinking boat and it seems impossible to win, because they lack power, money and supporters. And here we get to see her bloom, using everything at her possession be it legal or illegal, moral or immoral, humane or inhumane.
While being in general interesting, I often felt lost and thought that this part of the movie was too detailed, and also for me a bit complicated to grasp in all it's details (and I do also not know in detail how the US politics system works). If it had stayed this way I would have considered a 7/10.
However midway through the movie it gets extremely interesting due to her downfall and here is where the genius of the movie plot start to shine through. Not only does Sloane start to crack, due to some unfortunate events, we also get a feel of how important it is for her to win, and how conflicted this is on the one side, but also how enormously great she is. This turning points deserve more, so in the end I'd reward it with 8/10, and there has to be an additional point just for Jessica Chastain. Hell was this a great piece of acting, ingeniously played in all facets - she has great emotional scenes (even though 90% of the time she is just the tough woman), but maybe some of her greatest scenes are those where she just shows little nuances, and where you start asking yourself "Is she just regretting this? Was that a glimpse of sorrow?" etc.
So I end up with 9/10 Points, because I think it is worth watching, and I believe it is a movie that has to be seen at least twice. Interestingly even though it is about gun regulations, this whole topic is just means to an end, the end being not to be a pro/against gun regulations movie, but rather to be a political thriller as well as a character study, that - if you want to take a message from - shows how the American politics system (and by the way - this is true for so many other countries as well, even though the mechanisms work in different ways) is somewhat corrupt in a way that senators do not act according to their own believes or in the interest of their voters, but rather in their own political interest which are highly steered by people in power that can afford to pay geniuses like Miss Sloan to force through political ideas. And in this sense the note scene at the end becomes especially interesting and conveys another character trade of Miss Sloan that was up to then hidden and could only be guessed. One last thing: I felt in a way remembered by another great movie that - even though being made totally different in style and content bears some resemblance when it comes to the main motives: The Life of David Gale. If you liked that one, you’d probably also love this movie - for me, The Life of David Gale is a 10/10.
One might guess that it is a no-brainer to rate this movie a 10/10, however, for me it wasn't. The reason is that Tolkien is one of my favorit authors of all time. I've read everything that he ever published, and also everything that he didn't but that was published posthumous. This includes letters, and scripts, essay-like writings where he just describes how certain islands look like, or how certain plants look like, family trees, etc.
My favorite book, by the way is the original release of Narn i Chîn Húrin, which is a loose collection of chapters that did not really fit together and that missed some chapters - in Germany at least it was released as single book, in England/America it is part of the Unfinished Tales. Recently (2007) his son Christopher Tolkien edited that story into a finished tale and released it as new book under the title "The Tale of the Children of Húrin" (which until now I haven't read because I am really content with the J.R.R. Tolkien-Version).
But I digress. What I tried to point out is, that while being his famous work, I think "The Lord of the Rings" is one of his lesser works, with his best being those about the early times (which are really unfilmable). Still being a fan of Tolkien I've read Lord of the Rings several times and some of my favorite parts are the first encounter with the woodland elves, as well as the adventures in the Old Forrest and of course Tom Bombadil - non of which appeared in the movie. Instead, you get the feeling, that Frodos travel to the prancing poney is a days jorney (it isn't, and in the book it takes months to prepare and further months to reach), and that meeting Aragorn and going on to Rivendale is another day or twos journey (again it itsn't) - all in all it takes 9 months from Gandalf telling Frodo about the Ring to the journey of the Fellowship starting in Rivendell. And the time between Bilbos birthday and Gandalf returning from his research about the ring is 17 years, rather than the same evening (what some people actually believed after watching this movie).
So while watching it for the first time in cinemas I felt totally rushed through the story, I missed important parts in the book, and instead Peter Jackson added things that never happend, e.g. all the scenes with Arwen (Arwen in the books is a sidenote, that Tolkien takes when finishing the third book and explaining what happend to all the characters of the book, after they disband). And also Galadriel getting all blue-greenish ghostlike. And I hated, the soupy romantic scenes "I choose a mortal life. - You cannot give me this. - It is mine to give to whom I will. Like my heart." ....
So, even though I hated it, befor it came out to cinemas I did buy tickets for two shows at once, one with German dubbings and on the next day in original Language. And at second viewing, while knowing what to expect, I liked it a bit better - still being angry of course, I had time to take into account all the little things. And of these, the movie has plenty, such as using the Rings engravings in Black Speech as background song at the Council - something only true fans of the book would recognize - as well as adding parts of Bilbos journey (the stone Trolls), or the Lore of Middle Earth with Aragon singing about Beren and Luthien. Some things are so well hidden, that even hardcore fans will have a hard time recognizing them, for instance when Boromir dies the music uses elvish singing using English quotes from the book. So we find references to all of Tolkiens other works, showing that Peter Jackson has read them all and understood their importance and relationship to the Lord of the Rings-Story. He also wanted Christopher Lee in his Cast, because Lee is famous for being a Tolkien fan, and at own admission reads books by Tolkien every year; furthermore he was the only one in the crew to have met and spoken with J.R.R. Tolkien in person, which is why his input was valued highly - most of the scripts where rewritten daily to incorporate such input, and even Tom Bombadil was to have an cameo which in the end they couldn't shoot. Besides we have homages and cameos hidden all over the movies, paying tribute to famous Tolkien artists as well as people who have had any connection with Tolkiens works (Ian Holm voiced Frodo Baggins in the 1981 radio series, many scenes where taken straight out of Ralph Bakshis 1978 animated Lord of the Rings moive, etc.)
These are enourmous levels of detail, and once you get over the fact, that the Lord of the Ring movies are not 1-to-1 adaptions of the book (which is impossible to do) you will actually realize that the adaption per se is pretty darn good. Everything you see, meets your expectation, there is always the highest amount of detail, even all the little things matter, nothing seems arbritary. A lot of craftsmanship was put into the movie - they use CGI only where absolutely neccessary and if used, it is extremely good. But hordes of orcs are masked extras, weapons have been forged, a lot of carpenters, gardeners, mansons, blacksmiths, landscapers, etc. employed to create middle earth. The score is one of the greatest in the last years, with a number of themes that all have their single purpose (we have the theme for the wraiths, the theme for Gondor, the theme for the hobbits, a theme for the fellowship, one for Gollum, etc); in the end, listening just to the score, when closing the eyes you can see the entire movie in your head!
The acting of course is also great, everyone was put through a lot, by having to learn languages such as different Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin), dwarfish language and orcish language (which all exist! Tolkien was a philologist, and in one interview he said, that his stories are just a side product as any good language mus have it's story of origin - so in the end, what he really did was develop at least 6 languages with all their words, pronounciations, grammatic rules and writing systems!), they had accent coaching, Gandalf for instance talks in the same accent that Tolkien did!, they had to learn to fight and to ride, etc. And it is all turned into perfection, nowhere is it half-hearted. The scenes and locations are great, the camerawork is beautiful, all in all it is a good movie in every aspect.
I've ended up watching the movie 6 times in cinemas, then I got a copy of the movie and watched it for half a year nearly every weekend at least once, until the official home release of the cinema version of the DVD, and half a year later, I of course got the extended cut, and watched that at least as many times as I did the DVD. So to sum up: It is my most favorit, most often watched movie - even today I am not tired of watching it, altough I nowadays only watch it once every 1-2 years. If compared to other movies I wouldn't say it is the best movie ever, because of several reasons: First and foremost it is an adaption, and therefore not an original work, which I think is an important factor - I wouldn't know if I was a fan of the movie if I never read Tolkien or disliked him - then and only then would I be able to judge the movie without prejudice. Also - I am a big fan of all the works so I get a lot of the little hints, which to me are a "wow. how cool is this"-moment. But that is just me (and some other hardcore fans), but to the general audience these little acts of greatness that influence my judgement go unnoticed. In addition to that, a movie that has so much to tell and three overlength movies to do so, escapes the boundaries of a traditional movie, i.e. to bring across a story, emotions, and a message, to make the audience meet new people that they like and that they understand, in just under 2 hours. That, I think, is a hard job to do and a reason why most movies might be "okey" but only a few are great.
So is it the best movie ever made? Certainly not, although it deserves to be listed beside those. It is however the best adaption I've ever encountered, it is the greatest, most fan-friendliest movie that takes into account everything available to that fictional universe and it is one of my alltime favorites and the best tribute that could have been paid to the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.
The trailer of Gold made me expect a fast pace, party like movie such as The Wolf of Wallstreet. However it turned out to be a pretty slow-paced movie with lots of lengthy scenes, especially in the beginning. Basically, it is a movie of downward spirals. We meet the main character played by Matthew McConaughey who starts out in a successful family business that he takes over and from there loses everything. However, he does not give up, even when it means to have no money, to live at his girlfriends house and to work from a pub.
But he believes in his dream of finding gold and after finding the character Edgar Ramírez, who has a similarly strong believe for an unlikely goldmine in the Philippines, McConaughey not only wagers his last possessions, but also his health. Suprisingly, they get lucky, and make the gold-find of the century; only to discover that having a gold mine only steers up more problems than it actually solves. So in the end what should have been a lucky turnaround turns out to only go from bad to worse.
The story was interesting but not as well told as I would have expected, there are a lot of tedious lengths in-between, and most of the time I was wondering where this story was heading. I had some ideas, however these always seemed to be wrong (but in the end I was right from the beginning on - only in a total different way).
So, while watching the movie, I was considering a 6/10; mostly because this is probably one of McConaugheys best performances that I've seen. His character is pretty broken and McConaughey plays this to perfection. But besides this, the movie had not much going for it.
Until the end. I really loved the last scenes, and I was surprised by the last scenes, that to me really made a change; I would not have expected the dramatic turnaround, I would not have expected what McConaughey did, and I sure as hell did not expect the final scene, which to me added a lot to the characters and their relationship to each other. I loved it. And therefore I was willing to add a point, so we end up at 7/10.
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.
Wow. This movie is quite intense. I did not know much before watching it, except that poeple considered it to be good and that it's somehow about drumming. Not much to go on. So the first thing you'll notice is the unconventional start - no introductions, no title credits, etc. You are just thrown in: It's dark, you don't see anyome, someone is drumming, and he's getting faster and faster, at the last (climax) beat: light on. A long floor at which end (far away) you see Miles Teller at his drumset. He starts the next song, we slowly move towards him - Teller suddenly looks up and stops, because a man (J.K. Simmons) just walked in - they have a short unconventional dialog, J.K. Simmons being quite condescending. This is how their relationship start, and that's what the movie is all about - there are other actors, but they are just means to an end and could easily all be extras - no one gets enough screentime to leave a deeper impression.
At least 80% of the movie takes palce in the practice room, and shows either Teller in front of his drumset or J.K. Simmons conducting. Sound's riskey, but that's what makes this movie so great: it totally works out! It's thrilling, captivating and intense - right from the first scene to the last, and that's because of so many things: Great camera work, grate editing, great music and of course: great acting.
I don't want to say much more about the story, because I think it will spoil the fun and the movie - only so much: throughout the movie this picture stays unconventional - up to the final which is exceptionally good and yet another "wow".
This is really worth seeing and also worth owning. Great movie!
This movie was actually a suprise for me, because I would have expected it to be much worse than it turned out to be. However I have to say first, that I do not know the original series this movie is (hardly?) based on, so I will not be able to compare.
However, I was entertained. The story is all right it has some interesting moments, it is not in its entirety forseeable and besides infantil jokes about sex, male close and a rather idiotic depicted Jon Baker (played by Dax Shepard), it even has some funny inovative quotes that I enjoyed.
Also I think Michael Peña is a sympathetic actor, and so I liked his role as "Punch", he has a certain kind of smartness about himself and they added it to his role - that was interesting, because judging just by the trailer both appear to be idiots and you'd expect something horrible - oh and while I am mentioning the trailers - I loved that actually hardly joke from the trailer actually ended up in the movie - therefore there are no spoilers a number of scenes that you thought you knew actually turned out different.
But besides that, the story is rather mediocre, the characters stay shallow, 80% of the jokes aren't really funny, and a lot of story lines where forseeable. Also it often reminded me of a bad immitaiton of the Bad Boys movies - and compared to those this is a cruel joke.
So this movie is neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. And therefore after long consideration I settled with the exact middle. There are far worse movies, but there are also better. If they show it on TV and nothing else is on, you wouldn't go wrong with this, but whenever you can do something better, you'd better do that ;)
The sequel that was released five years after 28 days later is a good second movie - it picks up the story 28 weeks later. All of England was eradicated and all the people infected did finally die, so a special task force of NATO tries to repopulate the Island again. Under the new arrivers, two children are brought in, something the medical officer does not agree with, as England is still considered a danger zone outside the save fortifications that NATO built. The two kids are refugees that fly back in to meet their father. However things get sour, and soon there is another outbreak of the virus. After containment fails, NATO protocol dictates to kill all humans, no matter if infected or not. And thus a small group including our two kids must again fight against both: humans and zombies.
While the first movie was clearly a low-budget movie, this one is clearly not - the images are more crisp, the special effects are larger, we get a lot of different wide-area CGI effects, like whole streets lighting up in fire from NATO helicopter bombings, blown up buildings, we get gas attacks that produce fog walls that are many stories high, we have a number of helicopters, a plane, a car chase that ends in an underground tunnel. Yes - compared to 28 days later, the game has been stepped up big time. Also when it comes to the list of actors (see below).
Again we get everything we loved from the first movie, however, some of it here and there lost it’s novelty so it is not as fascinating as it was in the first movie. Also the first movie, due to its low-budget nature had a lot of character, and parts of it (not all!) get lost. However, it gains in more graphical violence, so it’s more of a horror movie with much more gore, which might be one reason for loosing some of its charms as it becomes more conventional. But as the first movie, this one isn’t conventional either, it is quite atmospheric and emotional, again it has enormously great acting, it takes its time (though less than in the first movie) it has a rather interesting story, and again you will find philosophical questions that can be asked and answered with this movie. The story is not straight but has some twists in it.
For the cast we have Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Cathrine McCormack, Iris Elba, … all move veterans, some of which did movies in the 80s, most of them in the 90s and those who where younger did also already do a number of good movies before 28 weeks later. And again, this somewhat was the charm of 28 days later - to have a cast of actors that no one has seen before and that where so good that their career sky-rocketed. It is of course nice to see familiar faces - but well… I don’t know, I liked that about 28 days, and I miss It in 28 weeks. However, not entirely though: Imogen Poots is a first-timer. She had a minor role in V for Vendetta and directly after that here she gets one of the leads. And boy is she good. I especially loved here in Long way down, which I consider her best preformances from all the movies I know her in; this is however also absolutely great and again - after this performance she has gotten a number of offers and stared in a number of films.
You may have noticed the slight dissapointment when comparing it to the first movie - that is just my opinion of course - I know a number of people who like the second one better than the first. Me however not. But that does not mean that this movie is bad in general. Besides my critics, nearly everything I’ve written in my review to the first movie also applies to this movie (with the exceptions of course being pointed out in this review). So in the end we get a great, innovative, emotional, perfectly acted, perfectly filmed, and perfectly soundtracked movie that is worth watching and that can be watched a number of times without getting boring. I will award it 8/10 points.
And so, I am looking forward to 28 months later, which - to my latest knowledge - is still work in progress. So keep your fingers crossed!
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
A teenage love drama. This at the beginning might sound bad (especially if you don't love that kind of movies), and in the beginning I was thinking that it will be really bad, but over the time I realized it wasn't that bad. I think this is due to the perfect acting of the two main characters - they play totally believable, you just need to look into their faces and can read what they feel. Also there are no clichés, no sob stuff, no over- or underacting: just perfect.
Other than that, there is not much happening in this movie. Still especially at the end, the movie is getting interesting - and I was totally suprised by the ending - I figured out three ways this could end, and I was really expecting a classical ending, but this was somewhat suprising and not that expected - not the typical happy ending, but also not a sad ending.
So, I think 7/10 is a good rating, for a movie that actually isn't that deep, and that you probably don't want to watch more than once. A movie I wouldn't have watched voluntarily; but I was happy that is was shown at the sneak preview.
Wow. This was so not what I was expecting, and really something to chew on. The story was really moving, even though you could say that actually there is not much happening. But even so, it keeps you captivated throughout the movie - you wouldn't feel any drags. On the other hand it is really depressing and no feelgood movie, and I am not sure if you do your kids a treat (you'd rather make them cry :D ). The movie is made really good, however I was so captivated, that I did not have any time to analyse the movie in more detail (which normally I do, when watching movies) - all I can say that in the first 20 minutes I was not really immerged, so it took a shot while. In this time I had the feeling that it would be a lot like Pan's Labyrinth. However this movie stands on it's own and any resemblence to del Torrors movie that you might get in the beginning, will soon be whiped away: while Torrors movie are more on the dreamy-fantasy side, this movie is more direct and more depressing on the reality side of things.
Additional information: My girlfriend read the book and she thinks, this movie is a perfect adaption that stays true to the novel. So whoever liked the book will also like the movie ;)
"The Bye Bye Man" is a relatively classical horror movie which tries to send you the chills by scary images and a scary way of story telling and not so much by using gore or jump scares. There actually are two to three jump sacres, one of which even got me. However, the rest of the time it is slow paced atmospheric horror flick, which I did not find scary most of the time (yet there where approx. 10 of the 40 people that visited the sneak preview that left early). Still it was greatly enacted with some innovative ideas (yes, they did not invent anything new, most of the ideas we have already seen in different versions, but the way the ideas where shown in this movie was somewhat innovative), and it was an interesting and thrilling story.
What I did not like at all (and what cost this movie at least one point) are the CGI figures. Oh my God was this horrible. I hated the figure, it did not even contribute a lot to the story, so leaving it out would have actually been much better; if you'd had to have it, then take a real creature, or some real animal or practical effects. But that was rather cheap and spoiled the mood alot.
Other than that, I was entertained and enjoyed the movie; I believe it's more of a movie for people who enjoyed atmospheric horror movies such as "It". One last thing: I loved how the trailer does hardly use any scenes from the movie - so no spoilers there!
Laika Entertainment - after doing a number of contract works beforehand, with the best probably being "A Corpse Bride" for Tim Burton - is a studio that has specialized on the old artform of stop motion animation movies. Given our current times, this seems to be an incredible amount of work that could have easily been done using a few computers. However, these guys go through the crazy amount of work of first doing animated shots to scetch up the movie, then empoly a number of designers to scetch out the chracters, giving these to sculptures who acutally build DVD-Keepcase-sized puppets that are movable in everywhich way needed, with replacable faces so up to 250000 faces with different facial expressions can be created; carpenters, electricians etc. then build miniature sets for the puppets, and when finally being able to shot, they actually have to create each frame of a 25 frames per second movie by hand. A while ago I've read in an article about Laika that each minute of a movie, takes a week's work of just shooting, errors therefore are extremely expensive and hard to fix and at the end, Laika runs out with approximately +/- $0 USD.
So what other reasons are there to create such a movie, other than being a total movie buff and loving what you do? And that is what you realize when watching the movies and making ofs. This insane amount of detail, as well as lovely stories worth telling make great movies.
I've already seen "Boxtrolls" (7/10) and "Kubo" (8/10), which I both really loved, and sames goes for ParaNorman. However comparing all three movies with oneanother I have to say that ParaNorman is slightly worse than the other two.
When it comes to "Boxtrolls" we had a nice idea for a story that was overall well told - but not as great compared to "Kubo". Therefore it had lovelyer figures that where really cute. "Kubo" did not point that much in the cuteness department but storywise it was great and it really had you emotionally invested.
Taking both into account, "ParaNorman" unfortunately is behinde them in all departments. That does not mean the movie is bad - it isn't. It again has a great and lovely story, nice animated figures and good overall story telling; but in comparison it's simply just not at the level of the other two, so this is why from me it only gets (6/10).
That being said, we get not only a nice movie, but also in parts funny parody on horror movies, so all in all I really enjoyed this movie!
Wow! Probably one of the best Hammer movies, and at least the best that I have seen by Hammer thusfar. I really enjoyed it. It is not the typical monster movie you expect from Hammer (no Vampires, no Dracula, no monster of Frankenstein, no Werewolfs, etc.), still it has a supernatural component with a girl being possessed by a ghost.
She is the perpetrator of the movie, yet you feel pitty for her - not having had an easy life she still seems totally innocent and lovable and you start blaming all the other people around her, that take advantage of her or by using her, by raising her badly or by raping her.
The other lead is the doctor, who is also interesting; in the beginning you suspect him to be the morally steady person, but while the movie progresses you start wondering, and learn that actually he isn't. This is so good, that in the end I wondered if he would stop her, or let it happen, allowing him to get rid of something he is not fond of.
We have - for that time - great actors who manage to protrait deep and interesting characters and that is just the first component. In addition we have a great story, that does not have a black-and-white look on things, and that is interesting from the beginning to the end. Also we have a philosophical-scientific component that is also fun to think about.
At no minute did I feel bored, or was I reminded by the age of the movie, due to modern camera, gerat acting, and a fast-pace movie.
I am really blown away - I did not expect anything this great by Hammer. Up to now I would say, the movies from the studios, that I have seen, all average at around 7/10; this one is clearly far better!
On the German blu-ray release it reads "A hybrid of Mad Max and Death Proof!", which will of course set high expectations that this movie will not hold at all - if you expect anything near those master pieces than you are really in for a disappointment.
I try to watch movies as uninfluenced as possible to not have any kind of expectations, because a high expectation can lead to disappointment which will even lower your rating (due to the negative experience, that you might not have experienced when going into a movie without any expectations). However, I had some expectations, therefore I wasn't as happy as I expected. But, if you are in for a B-Movie with some action and some gore, than you'll get what you've asked for. You will however realize that this movie had an extremely low budget. However, they try to make the best out of this situations and in some departments this really works out great. This movie has a lot of the charme of a typical B-Movie or Grindhouse movie, there are some trashy scenes and a few number of times I had a laugh. However budget cuts where made especially when it comes to story, dialogues and mask, which I consider somewhat bad. Especially the mask - take for example the car explosion and then you see the victim survive with some ragged clothes and some makeup on the face - and you just realize how this is just makeup, not the ashes of an explosion. Also: why is the hair totally okey, if the entire face is black and the clothes are ripped? Also because of the bad writing, we get a number of scenes that are dragging, which is especially bad if you count in the short running time of the movie. And all in all you somehow have the feeling that the scenes are just parts that where somehow mixed together into a movie, but that seem disconnected to each other: We have an action scene, then some driving, then again an action scenen with totally different people, again some driving, and so on.
These are not the qualities that comapre with Mad Max or Death Proof. However, the story is nice, the splatter effects are great, and the practical effects are immensly good. CGI is near to terrible, but given it is a movie on a budget, it's okey - there've been hollywood blockbusters that have been worse. Also, the cast is execpetionally good, I love all three of the main actors that bring different aspects to the story, and that know their acting and know how to get the audiences attention. However, to improve the movie, it should have had more trashy gore (I loved the stop sign axe scene) a little bit less draggy scenes (take the Marry Death Badlands scene - I mean how did that add anythint to the plot? how was this in any ways funny or interesting, etc?), and a more natural look (more dirt, more sweat - it just doesn't fit if the actors look neat and clean after a number of battles - and use real dirt instead of bad makeup), and a little bit more and especially better dialoges (yes, it's a B-Movie but still, why not let the audience feel the attaction between our two main characters?). If those points would have been just a bit better, this movie would have had potential for at least 7/10 points.
But in the end, we have a number of positve as well as negative aspects that cancel each other out, so in the end, I end up with 5/10 points.
This movie was shown in the sneak preview at our cinema, so I did not know what to expect, and actually I haven't heard from it before (at least in Germany there was no advertising for it at all). I found it hard to rate, and would like to split it into two aspects:
1) The story, which is a story worth telling as it is an important story that pays credit to a real event in history, which is - at least in Germany totally unknown. I don't know how it is in the USA, but I guess even there it might be an eye-opener to one or the other viewer.
2) The movie, as an artistic expression that is created to "entertain" us in cinemas.
Let's start with the second: the cinematic recreation is rather bad. If it wasn't for the other aspect, I'd rate this 5 points. The story is processing sluggishly, the actors do not portrait any great emotions, the soundtrack is nothing that you realize (neither positive nor negative) and not much happens in the entire moive. I like the sentence I picked up in one of the ohter comments to this movie: "it was a bit like watching paint dry" - yeah, it actually is.
And that is so, even thoug you are somewaht interested in what would probably happen next; I was waiting for the dramatic turnaround - was the mother the one that tipped them off? Or was it someone from the girls family? Is anything bad goint to happen to either of them? Like people beating them up, etc.? But actually nothing happens. Of course I understand how the director would have probably wanted to keep this as real and realistic as possible, and I highly appreciate it. However, if you don't have much to tell in a movie, why not make the way you tell it interesting? Take "The Dinner" for example - it's all about some people meeting at a restaurant discussing a family matter - that's all there is to it, still how the story is told, how the events unfold, how we get to get know all the details - that was interestingly shot and cut into a final movie. Or if you want another courtroom drama, take "The Social network" and look how a simple boring story of a guy being sued by two different parties is cut together in a way that keeps you invested the entire time of the movie. I don't think that I'm too much hollywood-maladjusted; I love slow paced movies, I enjoyed Manchester by the Sea, for instance, which is also quite slow-paced and not comparable to typical hollywood cinema, where everything is entirely dramatic and exploding and stuff.
But taking two rather shallow characters and telling their story linearly over the time of 10 or more years - that just doesn't cut it.
So, then there is the other aspect - the story, and that is a story woth telling, hell yes - everyone go watch this movie and learn some empathy. Honor this brave two individuals that both have to fight with different demons and where dealt with a life of hardship only because of their love, which should be a human right. And only this aspect gains the movie a number of bonus points, which lead me to finally give it 7/10, because even though as a movie it fails horrible, the story is worth watching and knowing!
We've catched this at the sneak preview in our cinemas and I was totally suprised. I did not hear anything about this movie before and I found the movie to be great, but at the same time also hard, because of it's difficult topic. So it is nothing you want to see if you want to be entertained on a light/happy evening, but rather a family drama dealing with a difficult situation that is hard to discuss and decide and where the different positions are already so stuborn that it seems to be a deadlock. Of course there is one position who could just decide it for all and therefore is in an advantage point, however especially this person is interested in finding a solution that everyone can live with.
While trying, we get to know the differnt individuals not only by their strange behaviour, but also by showing us different events that took place before and that slowly let us understand the people, even if they are not rational and hard to follow, at least you can understand where they are coming from. These events are not shown linear but unfold over time, piece by piece and keep the whole movie interesting.
The director is playing with the audience, and does not reveal everything - a lot is left even open to imagination. The camera is reallly interesting, there are some quiet sometimes even bizzar scenes that are dropped in, and especially the main cast is ingenious in acting, and we get presented some great dialogs. All this keeps the movie interesting and if that is not enough, we also have a great mismatch both in the setting where the dialogs take place as well as in the music that is used while this family argues.
So to sum it up: I was pretty excited. This movie is definatly nothing for someone who wants to be entertained (at the end a lot of people where asking "WTF?"), but whoever is interested in a really difficult controverse discussion as well as a character study, will find an interesting movie that is worth seeing.
