pygospa

VIP

3

When I saw the first teaser to this movie, I was like "What the hell is this? Something Peter Jackson created, that looks this fantastic? I need to watch this, even though the CGI did not look that good (yet?)". The first trailer wasn't that interesting anymore as it spoiled a lot. Still, Peter Jackson, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang... that could still be a good movie?

But first of all: The marketing - at least in Germany - was irritating. Peter Jackson wanted to do this movie, he held the rights to making this movie for over 8 years but couldn't get around and therefore decided to pass it on to one of his protegees: Christian Rivers, who has worked as storyboard artist and visual effects supervisor in 11 of Jackson's movies, has his directorial debut - Peter Jackson only contributed his first draft, and of course the rights and budget - which by the way is 150 million dollars - not bad for a debut. But does money equal quality?

Let's take a short look at the plot:

In a dystopian future the few survivors of a global catastrophe gathered together to form mobile predator cities and live in an world order called "Municipal Darwinism", i.e. in the great hunting ground larger cities hunt smaller cities for their resources, to enslave the people, etc. In this steampunk setting London is known as one of the most predatory cities - but the free young woman Hester Shaw wants to travel to exactly this city, because she is hoping to settle a score with one of the leaders of the city.

Peter Jackson has already proven that he has the ability to create new, unseen and absolutely fantastic worlds, and at first glance it seems like with Mortal Engines this applies as well, even though this is not really Peter Jackson. But: It's just the first glance. Yes, the world is cool, it has a lot of beautiful and interesting original ideas that we get to see. The CGI at first glance looks good - but unfortunately only at first glance. Different to Lord of the Rings, where you see a number of details, that are filmed in long slow moving camera to make sure the viewer has the ability to actually see, discover and experience all the details, in Mortal Engine you always have very fast tracking shots, so in the end, everything is blurry giving the movie makers the ability to mask the missing level of detail, as well as often also the physical plausibility of things. And that was something that really bothered me. How do the cities actually transform, or rake up to bigger cities? This happens so fast that you don't actually know - because there is no clever way they do fit together. And what are all the details in London? You don't get to see anything - there are 2-3 spots that are shown in detail - the rest is principally just a hill with a number of glowing spots, that blur due to the fast camera pace. Same with the wall. Why don't show how the people behind the wall actually live? They live a totally different life, why not celebrate it, like e.g. Lord of the Rings celebrated the introduction of Rohan? Because these details actually don't exist.

And at least to me, a movie of this caliber, with this budget and playing in such a world needs to be presented, needs to stun me. And we don't get anything.

But it's not only the graphics and setting - this is probably still the best part of the movie. Talking about the story, this movie is even worse. First, this movie is so packed, that you start to ask: Why did they not make a 2-part movie? Peter Jackson made 3 movies out of the hobbit which is a small to medium sized single children's book. But here, due to packing so much into one movie and not getting rid of certain aspects you feel like a lot of things are touched but not really explained. And this is really sad, as the story has a number of interesting parts. I would have loved to learn something about Anna Fang. Why is she hunted? What is her motivation as leader of an resistance movement? What is that resistance movements motivation? We get nothing - Anna is seen in the wanted poster in the beginning and all of a sudden she is there. The whole backstory with Shrike could have also been interesting, but is also just touched. Same with our antagonist. What is his motivation? No idea. Why does he - all of a sudden - decide to destroy something? No one will know. There are also hardly any quite moments to establish the characters, and this leads not only to the characters being really shallow, but also not rally having time to interact with each other and in the end there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters. All could die, and no one would care. And also the story telling is absolutely minimal. Most of the time is spend in an concatenation of action sequences: I feel that more than 80% was just action, and these action orgies where extremely CGI dominated, so they don't even get that exciting - and to me, after the first 2-3 action sequences I got fatigued.

In the end the actors are not challenged at all and fall far beyond what they are probably capable of, and there is not much else that the movie has to offer - I was bored after the first third of the movie, and it did not get any better till the end. A really great disappointment, I had high hopes :(

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.

I haven't seen this movie for a really long time and just bought the new restoration from a 4k master on blu-ray and was happy to watch it. I thought it wouldn't be as good as I remembered it, because most of the time you realize that movies you liked in your childhood weren't actually that good.

That's however in no way true for Rambo (the German title of "First Blood" which is why I always got confused in the past when I heard the original title and thought that it was a part of the franchise I hadn't yet seen).

The restoration looks really good (except for some scenes that stand out because of their worse quality (mostly due to bad lightning in the original movie, I guess), and besides that, the movie is still really captivating, though it is in no way over the top. The car/motorcycle chase for instance - how unimpressive was the car flip or Rambo falling from the motorcycle? Still it was more captivating than a lot of modern movies with so overrealistic and fast paced cuts, that you just stop caring all together.

Also I totally forgot how funny Richard Crennas persona was: "God didn't make Rambo - I made him. I'm Sam Trautman - Colonel Samuel Trautman. I came to get my boy" - what an introduction :D And then follows a dick-measuring contest between Will Teasle and Sam Trautman. That is great acting. As is the acting of Brian Dennehy as the dislikable villain character - and of course we cannot forget the actin of our main character, portrayed by Sylvester Stalone - I also forgot how extremely moving the last scene was - I remembered that there was this critical moment when Rambo finally opens up to Trautman, but I forgot just how intense it was, and how unexpected it came. It feels somewhat displaced in a movie that builds up as an action movie with the underdog fighting the bad guys who unfortunately have the law on their side. And at the finale all of a sudden this change of tone - that is really bold, it's both strange but because of it strangeness so much deeper and better - as you are simply not prepared to what is going to happen. I always remember to feel sympathetic towards Vietnam veterans even though I am and always was a pacifist. I guess that is an impression that this movie left with me when I saw it the first time at my earlier teen years.

Last but not least I also really liked the sound track and the setting and locations are also really great. All in all a pretty good movie and factoring in that this movie had me so interested even though I've seen it a couple of times in my youth, and feeling that though it is so 80s it is still a movie that could captivate so many young audiences who have never seen this movie before, I am inclined to give it the best rating possible.

And because I mentioned the new blu-ray release: this is really worth a buy. There is more than 1,5 hours of extras, and these are pretty mixed - from the classics like interviews, making-ofs, trailers and featurettes to two serious documentaries, one on the Vietnam war and the other on the training of Green Barrets, as well as a fitness training featurette from the personal trainer for Rambo, there is a lot really interesting and unconventional ground covered. And the steelbook artwork looks just stunning as well :)

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

I've literally seen this movie decades ago and really enjoyed it then, but during the last years entirely forgot about it - until I saw Split in a sneak preview - when they showed the closing (or after credit?) scene, I was the only one in the cinema hall screaming "Oh my god, this is Unbreakable", while all the other visitors where puzzled. Unbelievable. Even my girlfriend didn't know the movie, so it had to be rewatched, and as "Glass" will be released this month, we finally got to actually watching it:

David Dunn (portrait by Bruce Willis) lives an ordinary life in modest circumstances, working as a football stadium security guy who is estranged from his wife and planing to start anew, when he gets in a train accident which he survives as the only person. He is then approached by the comic book enthusiast and comic art trader Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) who is certain that David is a real life impersonation of all the super heroes written about in comic books. He tries to mentor David who doesn't believe a word...

Being a comic book fan and loving the mid 2000s for all the stunning great super hero movies (Sam Raimis Spider-Man, X-Men, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Hellboy, Constantine, Watchman, 300, Sin City and of course the first MCU movies), I have to say this movie really stands out. It's not a typical comic book movie - it's not based on a comic book, it isn't even seeing itself as a typical super hero movie - it's rather a meta comic book movie, all the while having an integral part of typical comic books and focusing on this relevant mechanism that every comic book thrives on.

All the while this movie is so totally different to any super hero movie you have ever seen. Totally calm, slow paced, no special effects, hardly any fight scenes, all the while absolutely thrilling due to brilliant cinematography, great acting and a killer score. The characters and their relations are as deep as in a drama movie, and nearly the entire movie is a built up to a great finale and an unexpected turn of events. There is no CGI, no action, not even a hero vs super villain showdown. All the while it touches the essence of every comic book story, and does so in an ingenious way.

Because of this, of course not everyone will like the movie - a lot will probably not even consider it an comic book or action hero movie. But it really is a memorization of the comic book genre and given its age, and the fact that it came before the action hero genre took off, it really aged well - even after all the Marvel, DC and independent stuff this movie stands out as a great movie.

And now I am really looking forward to seeing the final 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 cannot remember having seen this as a child; but watching this the first time I was really moved. The episode focuses on depression and how society "To sad to play dodge-ball? That's ridiculous, now let's see some enthusiasm!" and especially parents handle it (both are helpless and while Homer treats her as a child, Marge tries to force her to happiness and sees Lisa's unhappiness as her failure as a mother). It is the first episode after five rather Bart- and Homer-centric episodes that focuses on Lisa, and the first episode that gives her character some real depth and also gives it directions for the rest of the series (after she has been shown as slightly as brattish as Bart in the previous two episodes).

I especially loved Homer in this episode, who even though helpless, behaves warm and fatherly towards Lisa. And then of course there is the music. While I am not a fan of Jazz and the Blues as such, I really love how the saxophone music is integrated into the episode. The tunes and lyrics are catchy. It's also the first time (besides in the Intro) that we see Lisa play the saxophone in an episode.

I feel like this episode addresses some real problems, combined with humor, critical commentary on society, good music and a great conclusion of the conflict that Marge and Lisa have, there is once more also some critic on the school system ("I hope we don't see any unbridled creativity again"), and I can even relate to it on a personal level. And on the negative side? Well, I cannot find anything, this time. For me, this is one of the must sees if you watch the Simpsons.

9/10 Points.

What a tarrific movie. Again one of this lucky moments at the sneak preview - I hadn't heard of this movie before, hadn't seen any trailers, previews, reviews - it would have totally passed by me. This is director Sam Levinson's second movie as a director and in it he tells ports the story of Salem (the biggest witch hunt in the history of the USA) into the modern times and retells it as a story under high school teenagers who live an excessive live on social networks, in a society that still sexualizes women, discriminates against the different and stigmatizes those who do what everybody does in secret but get outed publicly. In this tinderbox of a society a hacker is doing his mischief by stealing private data from our teenagers and also the adults surrounding them and publicly displaying them on the internet, which first only leads to mobbing of individuals and personal tragedies but soon the entire situation switches into a nightmare and a new kind of witch hunt.

The first thought I had when the credits of the movie rolled was "Wow". The dangers of social networks of information leaking and the effects this has both on individuals as well as the society in its entirety is not new (there is even a South Park episode on this regarding the browser history); yet how this movie handles it is refreshing. This movie is different - you get thrown into the story without any introduction, you are there with a group of girls hearing their ordinary daily dialogues (which is kind of Tarantinoesque) about every day's boring stuff, to introduce the characters and their way of thinking. We get great story telling and a really great camera work that captivates you right from the beginning. From all the main characters only Bill Skarsgard rings a bell, so I guess all of them are newcomers yet they all play very well. The sets, the scenes, the costumes the colors, everything is trimmed to create really stunning images that are combined with a great soundtrack. But best of all there is an incredibly great one-take dolly shot that is really stunning as well.

But what kind of movie are we actually watching? That is really hard to answer, actually. The movie starts quite heavy, only unfolds its story slowly and is packed with social criticism without being in your face. The first part reminded me of Spring Breakers. However, Assassination Nation is also packed with a morbid sense of humor while staying serious the entire time, becoming more and more a personal drama until it actually turns into a Gore movie that starts reminding you strongly of the movie "The Purge". And if that is not enough we get a finale that has a lot of elements of a classic Rape-Revenge-Movie that slowly drifts into the surreal.

As you can see, this movie is hard to explain and I feel that rather than reading about it, you'd really have to experience this movie yourself to get a picture of it. I myself was captivated for the first minute, I was really curious how this story will unfold, I have been thinking about the message or the messages that this movie probably tries to convey a lot, I was entertained by the gore elements and I had a couple of scenes where I had to laugh. All in all a well rounded movie, with only one critizism that I have: I thought the ending was pretty forseeable. Not too worse, but still.

Other than that, a really great movie! And everything is done on a low budget!

Btw. here is a great "Anatomy of a Scene" with commentary by Sam Levinson, published by The New York Times. Worth seeing, but also spoilery of course: https://youtu.be/VJNLmfyNpqk

Ignoring the first aired episode (the Christmas special) and bearing in mind that the series ought to be started off with what ended to be episode 13, Homer's Odyssey is the first episode that enlarges the Simpsons universe. We not only get new characters introduced (such as the twins Sherri and Terri, Chief Wiggum or Otto Man, the school bus driver), but with the class field trip we also visit the power plant the first time, Blinky can be seen and we learn that Bart really want's a tattoo (which he actually got in the eight first episode). Also interesting: In this episode Smithers is black for the first and only time.*

Besides this, after the last one being Bart-centric, this one's Homer-centric, and not only shows the heights but also the depths that Homer can go through (e.g. by stealing Barts piggy-bank or trying to kill himself).

Even though I like the general idea of the episode, overall I didn't have too much fun with that episode. The jokes are rather dull and uninspired, who hasn't seen jokes like someone on the way to kill himself complaining about something else that could have killed him on the way? And in the end I really disliked the spinelessness with which Homer is shown at the end of the episode, knowing the disappointment he will cause. While the message is still clear and valid (i.e. most peoples integrity has a price tag), I just felt that in this episode it was a bit to dully conveyed.

So in the end, waying in positives and negatives, again I have to say that this episode holds the balance, ending up with 5/10 points.

*) PS: Again some trivia fact: If you ever wondered why: The coloring wasn't decided by the creators and story tellers, but the coloring department could decide themselves and did so randomly when it came to skin color. They felt like Smithers being black; however, character-wise it was clear that Smithers would have an psychopathic personality with an homoerotic component towards Mr. Burns; and they not only felt that the color choice in this case would not only ruin the personality they've planed for Smithers but also be a bit to much that was unloaded on Smithers. Thus the change.

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.

I am always on the lookout for movies outside Hollywood and therefore was really excited to find this movie as original version with subtitles; I think I haven't seen any Chinese movies before, when it comes to Asian Cinema, only Japanese and Korean cinema. So I had to visit this show to see 影 (pronounced 'Ying').

The movie plays during the period of the "Three Kingdoms" (220-280) in China: The kingdom of Pei lost the important city Jing Zhou to the neighboring kingdom Yang when the commander Ziyu loses a duel to the commander Yang Chang. Ziyu yearns for revenge and wants to recapture Jing Zhou, however the King of Pei, Peiliang is spineless and rather stomaches every disgrace even if it leads to his peoples contempt, as long as he can keep the peace. And thus, in his shadows his subordinates begin to plot and work on their own goals...

While the trailer suggest this movie to be action-packed including foolish martial arts stunts (if you watch the trailer you'll see armies fighting with umbrellas that have razor blades instead of cloth or use them to slide down slopes). However, this is misleading. Zhang Yimou's movie nearly feels a bit arthousy, with a large number of really slow paced scenes, some scenes being totally silent, short dialogues where the subtile facial expressions and subcontext need to be taken into account. Actually, the director trusts the viewer with as much intelligence that he leaves a lot of things unsaid. Instead, the movie focuses on great imagery, and presents a visual feast for your eyes. Also, the whole movie plays with a lot of symbolism. You'll obviously see the "Yin and Yang"-Symbol, with "Yin" meaning wet, feminine, passive, quiet and "Yang" the opposites. And our shadow fighters attack the kingdom of "Yang", using a new, feminine fighting style; all these characteristics can be found and seem to be easily distributed to the different characters, but soon you'll see, that as Yin and Yang, positions will switch, making the story more complex and interesting. Thus also the color grading is focused on the colors black, white and grey, giving the movie a different look that I have never seen. Besides the imagery that looks like Chineese paintings, and all those symbolism we also have a great set and costume design. And last but not least, the music and how it is integrated into the movie is also phenomenal.

On the negative side, I have to say that in the beginning I had a real hard time to get into the movie. The flick starts with a few text screens and than just throws you in, and hearing a lot of foreign names as well as seeing a couple of people that actually look alike (in clothing, hairstyle, etc.) made it not easier. So the first round about 20 minutes I was a bit lost and had my problems following. But I am not sure if I can count this as a negative aspect of the movie. Same goes for rather strange cultural aspects, e.g. there is a scene, where the King asks the commander to play an instrument and sing with his wife, and she refuses, excusing that she has distracted her husband from his duties and that, if she has to play she'll cut of her fingers. She then plays and after that grabs the knife. Her husband stops her and instead cuts of his hair, which is filmed in such a dramatic way, and the entire court is extremely shocked to see this happening. And I was like "uhm... what's just happening?"

These things made it a bit hard in the beginning, but after getting into the movie you'll get a really great move that is worth watching. I'll rate it 8/10 points.

I'm giving this cult classic television series another spin, starting off from the beginning (and also redoing my ratings up to now). So here we go:

The Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire is, as the title card reads, a Christmas Special, and it may seem rather strange, that a television series starts with a Christmas special. To understand this, you need to know two things:

Firstly, this wasn't actually supposed to be the first episode. The first episode produced, was S01E13, Some Enchanted Evening. However, a workprint test screening was received overall poorly, enforcing a long rework of the entire first season that took around half a year. Now, having to air in mid December, the decision was made to grab Episode 8 of that season for premiering.

Secondly, the Simpsons where already well known. It was in 1985 that comic artist Matt Groening was asked to do an animated short series for the Tracey Ullman Show, a ~30-minute long sketch comedy show, to be used as a ~1 minute long "bumper" before and after the commercial break. Groening initially wanted to use his comic series "Life in Hell" but when he learned, that he would actually loose all intellectual property rights, he came up with a plan B: The Simpsons, which - as rumor has it - was developed in 15 minutes in front of the office of producer James L. Brooks, just before pitching the idea. It wasn't the first (and in the beginning not the only) animated short that aired as advertisement bumper in the show that started in April 1987, but it was the one that got most attention and by the second season, all other cartoons were canceled and The Simpsons became the exclusive short series in that show. After the third season, that ended in May 1989, the Simpsons where spun off into a standalone half-hour series.

Taking these two facts into consideration makes it clear, how they could start off with a Christmas Special, but it also puts a lot of undeserved praise into better context. Many point out how this first episode already established so many places & figures and their characteristics right from the get-go (e.g. Skinner, Ned Flanders, Patty & Selma, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Milhouse and Grandpa, Moe's tavern, the power plant, Bart prank-calling Moe, etc.). If, however you watch them in production order, you will see, that the Simpsons started out as any other series; only Moe, Moe's Tavern and the Pranks where introduced in the original first episode. And other characters get introduced gradually over the next episodes, not all at once and some with large differences in the beginning (e.g. Milhouse being black-haired, or Smithers initially being black), so that this episode had already a rather rich background to fetch ideas from and build upon.

So ignoring this aspect, this episode has rather little to offer. The drawings are still a bit clumsy, the story not that original, there is little humor, no real sassy social remars and the dialogues rather dull. On the plus side, however, it is a heart warming story that has a nice happy end, and it manages to bring you into a Christmas spirit, even if you watch it in the summer.

Starting at 5/10 and looking at all the pros and cons, in the end, this episode is rather balanced out, leaving it at 5/10 points over all.

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.

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.

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 ;)

This movie has quite an unfortunate history: It was conceived by three film students at the AFI in 2003, and after managing to get some financing (apparently only 750k) and winning friends for cast and crew, it took them three years to actually get the movie done. It premiered on the IFI in Toronto in 2006, and was bought in a fierce bidding war by the Weinstein Company including worldwide distribution rights. But then the Weinsteins where in disagreement about the movie and in the end it went into the archives until the filmmakers managed to convince Weinstein to sell the rights in 2008 to the German company Senator, who got the rights for Germany and Austria and set out to also distribute it in the USA with their US branch. However, they got hit hard by the financial crisis, and the rights went yet again to another party - an investor who wasn't into film business, and who vaulted the rights. In 2010 the producers tried to get the rights back, and finally in 2013 the Weinstein Company bought the rights back again, to stream it on their Radius-TWC VoD service; probably because most of the actors and the director have finally become famous with later productions, and names like Amber Heard (Machete Kills, Zombieland), Michael Welch (Twilight Saga), Luke Grimes (Taken, True Blood) and even the director Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies) mad names for themselves. Only after the start on the VoD platform was there also a limited theatrical release. And even though there was hardly any marketing for this movie and not many know it, it can be considered a financial success.

In the movie, Mandy Lane is the perfect survivor girl of a slasher movie. She is smart, she is sexy, she doesn't do drugs or alcohol and she does not fool around with guys (probably even is still a virgin) - this is the cliche of 80s teeny slasher movies, and this movie caricatures this cliche with Mandy Lane, a girl that every guy wants to be with and every girl wants to be like - but because she is so unattainable boys start to do everything for her - even go as far as to kill themselves or others.

While in the 00s a lot of 70s movies where remade in 00s style, Levine wanted to make a 00s movie in the 70s style, and created a wild mixture of coming of age and slasher movie that was suposedly inspired by films like "Dazed and Confused", "The Virgin Suicides" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" manages to do really a lot with its limited budget and has a lot to offer. There is a really slow pacing with a lot of time to get to know the characters, the gore scenes are sparse but when they come they are super effective and even though there's not much shown, it can keep up with rather bloody genre colleagues by intelligent cutting and sound design. And even though at first it seems to be a run-of-the-mine slasher movie, it actually isn't, which can be seen both, in some intelligent and unexpected plot twists, as well as in little details, such as turning around the typical slasher movie setup, which usually starts in the day with the first confrontations and ends in the night with all the slashing (where as in this movie, we start at night and have our grand finale in broad daylight). There is a lot of love and appreciation for the 70s slasher genre in the way it looks and feels, yet it manages to find it's own style and add something new and unseen to the genre, that makes it stand out.

And in the end, it even makes you think and realize one and the other thing, like when you think about the motivation. Why do the guys get killed? Obvious. But why do the girls? Why the change of hearts? What's special about the farm hand? If you think about these, you'll realize that these things are not random, there's a deeper rooting, and some kind of a message in this.

And there's nothing much else you can criticize! It has great acting, great camera work, great post production, a good and solid story with some surprises, but no plot holes or logic mistakes, it's thrilling, the gore scenes are gruesome, it has great music, great pacing, and given that this is a 750k budget release, it feels like a really expensive production.

9/10 points!

Rewatching and rerating all Simpsons episodes (and this time, hopefully sticking to it), the second entry (that really was produced as the second episode) is already more to my liking.

As this series is just starting of, this episode is more of a "closed world" episode, i.e. it focuses on the Simpsons family and their relations (as did ) and does not give room to too many outside characters: only Martin Prince, Mrs. Krabapple and Principal Skinner are introduced as characters, Milhouse as a minor and insignificant appearance. The focus is mainly on Bart, with a second focus on the father-and-son-relationship, that really has multiply cynical aspects to think about:

Homer - even though (at least in the first seasons) a caring father - doesn't show much affection or love towards his son, who is on a path that will probably lead him into a similar life (and there are some foreshadowing in coming episodes that also hint that way). Only when there is outside certification of some specialty this aspect shifts; which is especially dramatic as the quite gifted Lisa, who - with 8 years of age - knows "hard" words like "nurturing" as well as as the works of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is not even noted most of the time. This episode can also be seen as a critique on the education- and societies class system. Clearly we know how to teach our children best by giving them the possibility and room to explore their abilities and allowing them to set their own goals and train their abilities individually. However, to get there, you first need to pass an aptitude test, which the kids are clearly not prepared to, giving only a few elite the chance to unfold their full potential, while the rest is rather thought to learn facts by heart and comply - training them to be a good work force. It's not that obvious and maybe even a bit far fetched, but for me this is one of the main takeaways from this episode. Having Bart embark on a journey that on the end helps him figure out what's important in life, is just another aspect that makes this episode really good and one of the few episodes that will stand out.

Starting from 5 points for the average rating, this episode has a number of positive aspects and hardly any negative ones, it has some funny moments, it has a lot to consider and think about, its witty. I like it, and I think it's one of the episode you should consider if you only watch a handful to decide if this show's for you. 8/10

PS: Again some trivia - even though not the first episode, this is the first to feature the famous Simpsons intro, and with Bart having to write "I shall not waste chalk" it conveys the sassy sarcasm this show can offer.

I was re-watching this movie to prepare for the third installment of this series, and even though I am not that big on animation movies (I haven't seen a lot of movies that everybody seems to know, such as the Minions-movies, Hotel Transilvania, Wreck-it Ralph, the Lego movies, etc.). I normally don't watch these movies in cinemas, and I normally don't buy them on Blu-ray - so if not anybody else has them and I get to lend them, I end up not watching them at all.

"How to Train your Dragon" however really interested me, as I am - or used to be - a really big fan of dragons. And sadly there aren't any good dragon movies. Of course there is Dragonheart, which in my opinion is a master piece of that era. But what else is there? Yes, guest appearences in Harry Potter and the Hobbit. And then? I did watch "Reign of Fire" and it was in cinemas, when it was released - but I cannot remember much of it - except that I wasn't too thrilled. I only remember some unrealistic scenes where some actor managed to jump an incredibly unbelievable and therefore laughable distance - and that's all I can recollect.

So, "How to Train your Dragon" interested me, and I was really happy that I did watch it. I believe I've seen it in cinemas the first time, and in 3D, when it was released, and re-watched it 2014 where I rated the movie with 8/10 Points.

Watching it this time, I'd probably take away one point. It did wow me at the time, but seeing it nearly 10 years after it was released, I have to say that the story is pretty foreseeable, it is clearly targeted towards a younger audience, with mostly slapstick humor. Also the animation is a bit simplistic and does not compare with current standard. Never the less, this does not mean at all that the movie is bad.

It's a solid story, its done really cute, it has great characters, and it is still fun to watch - at least once. But it's nothing special - at least for the start. However, it's worth watching the movie and then continue with parts 2 and 3, because this series actually get's better with every movie, which is something that I really like about the series. And I believe that a younger audience will really enjoy it much more. So all in all a really good movie and worth a watch!

I am ashamed to admit it, but I've just seen this movie for the first time now (on Feb. 27th, 2019), so this review has to be seen in that context: We have 2019, so the movie is nearly 45 years old, I am in my mid thirties and a movie enthusiast since at least half of my life, so I've seen a number of movies already.

So, I probably cannot appreciate this movie as much as someone who has seen it in his early years or who was even lucky enough seeing this movie when it was released.

Yet, as you can already see, I really enjoyed this movie. It is incredibly iconic, and if you are a movie enthusiast you will probably recognize a dozen movies that where inspired by, or that pay tribute to this movie. I especially had to laugh at the scene with the white board.

Other than that, it has aged incredibly well. I watched a Blu-ray version that was released by Universal for their 100th anniversary and it has crisp images - there is only one image that is strange, but that's probably due to editing (the scene has both, near focus on a head in the foreground and far focus on the sea at the background and right at the border of these two images you have a really blurry line, so I guess, this scene consists of the image of two cameras that where joined together in editing) - a good sound quality, the dialogues weren't to stale, there are some really great images some of them where you wonder how they managed to achieve those shots in the 1970 on a small boat, and even though the shark puppets are not realistic at all, in general the movie manages to build up a really frightening atmosphere, and there was also one jump-scare-esque scene that really got me (and it's really seldom that I get scared like this by a movie). Also story wise it manages to captivate you and surprises you in the way it evolves. So even though it is that old and even if you've seen so many movies that you feel like you've seen it all, this movie will leave a mark and you will understand why people will tell you that it's one of the best movies.

From today's perspective I'd rate it 8/10, because a) the shark puppets made me laugh - they ARE really bad - b) it had a few lengths and c) some decisions did not make too much sense to me. But I gave it an additional point, because thinking of it, this movie has produced a milestone in cinemas, it is absolutely ambitious and for that time really extremely good produced. And most of all: It has inspired so many movies that followed. I didn't know how many actually where, but watching this I was reminded of a couple of films, and I guess the number is much higher and if I'd watched this one before I've seen all the other movies I would probably realized more movie inspirations than I was able to.

If you haven't seen it already (and let's be honest: who beside me hasn't?!) what are you doing? Please don't wait longer, you are missing out on general knowledge.

This movie is extremely hard to rate, as every word on the story will give away all the fun. You also probably shouldn't watch the trailer and additionally you shouldn't look up the other movie posters as they contain spoilers as well.

The only story you can know: "Rhiannon is a ~15 year old girl that is in an one-sides relationship with her boyfriend Justin. However, one day she gets to know a guy who turns around her entire life".

If you know me you also know that I don't have much love for romantic movies and romantic comedies and even less so if they are teenage romances (or romantic comedies). So it came as an absolute surprise to myself, that I actually liked this movie - which is due to its really strange and unusual story. This absurd idea makes the entire story totally interesting - however it is just revealed in the last third of the movie - two thirds you sit there and keep asking yourself what you are seeing and why you are seeing it and how this all fits together.

In the end, this isn't a classical teen romance story but touches aspects of the fantasy genre and explores a really strange kind of romance. And it's a really great idea and a great take.

There are a number of weaknesses though. Most of all, I think the movie doesn't explore it's idea deeply enough. The romance part is still the main aspect of the movie, and we get a large number of scenes that just focus on teenage romance. One could have shortened this part just a bit and instead could have gone deeper into the aspect of this personality, into the problems and into what this kind of romance actually means. It especially also has an aspect of unconventional love that could have also found a number of parallels to our modern society.

Also the story telling moves towards banality when getting towards the end, even though I liked the resolution.

To end on a positive note: The cast is really good - all of them young actors who despite lacking the experience are already great actors that probably have a great acting career in front of them.

It's not a movie that you'd had to have seen - still, anyone who loves the genre should definately watch this one as it will give you what you love but yet also give it an entirely new spin on things.

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.

One of the few episodes that I can still remember from my childhood (I used to watch this series when I was around 10~14 years, more as a pass-time than actually loving it, because - well - I was to young to get everything, I guess). While the first three episodes felt more like a continuous story from start to end, this is the first episode that already follows the typical setup of later simpsons episodes: We get an introductory story that actually has nothing to do with the main story (Mr. Burns party), except for one single binding element (the family love Homer witnesses from one of his co-worker, that fuels the entire second part (Homer wanting to change his family for better).

On the other side, however, the episode is rather atypical. Marge is the drunk, Homer is the one worried about their image and Lisa misbehaves (which was rather typical for the Simpsons Shorts). Homer selling the TV and wanting to pray before eating is probably the biggest break with his character. In the entire Simpsons context this feels rather strange. But reminding ourselves that this is just episode four, it is understandable that did not have that developed characteristic trades. Would this episode be shown in a later season, we would most definitely have Marge and Homer switch roles in this story.

But even given the short background we do already have, it's rather hypocritical of Homer being the one to judge both, their perceived family image (when he did not care about his personal image at all just in the previous episode) as well as the lack of love in the family (when he only spent time with his son for the first time after thinking his son is a genius, and stopping the second he finds out the truth just two episodes ago). Then again, this episode makes clear, that we are in the early 90s, where it was typical to reset the entire previous history at the beginning of the next episode, by having Homer know his boss so well, which he only met in the previous episode for the first time. Still, with Homer being content with the status quo the entire time, and just wanting a change once Marge gets accidentally drunk and Homer seeing a functional family for the first time, one might wonder why he doesn't try to work on himself and becomes role model instead of just judging and forcing his family, so even when disregarding everything else and taking the episode as a stand-alone story, the hipocracy is still there (even though much less visible).

There is, of course, a lot of settle sarcasm and irony in this episode, starting with Mr. Burns being a parody of Reagan, and ending with aversion therapy, where Dr. Marvin Monroe basically tells Homer that it's okey to hit his family until they comply. For me, the electroshock scene is probably one of the most iconic for a Simpsons episode, and it gets even more iconic as this scene is shown to Holly in the plane in Die Hard 2.

Other than that this episode hasn't too much to offer, for many it's considered one of the worst episodes, but in the end, I still really like it, so this totals up to a 6/10 points.

This movie is a typical Liam Neeson and yet this movie is also refreshingly different. It's like the title suggests: A typical Liam Neeson is what I would describe as a hot pursuit movie - and this time we get a cold pursuit. It's a pursuit non the less, but still different.

The movie plays in Kehoe, a skiing resort in the Rocky Mountains, and Neeson's character - Nelson Coxman - is a snowplow driver. If he wouldn't work, no one could enter or leave Kehoe, which is why he's nominated as citizen of the year, even though he just does his job. But when his son mysteriously disappears, Coxman realizes a set of skills he wasn't yet aware of and with this new set of skills he sets a lunatic chain of events into motion.

When I saw the first trailer to this movie I was a bit torn. On the one hand, I like Liam Nesson action movies - I think Liam Neeson is a charismatic guy and even though a lot of people hat them - and yes, of course they are all the same and all of them reinvent the wheel - I think those movies are great. But a comedy? With Neeson? Oh my... I was fearing something that was more silly and stupid than action, and this movie could become totally stupid.

Luckily I was wrong. To be fair - it isn't a perfect movie either. There are a few weaknesses, but all in all I was really entertained by it and had a smile on my face the entire movie. The humor is really subtle and rather dark. There are no one-liners, no punchlines, nothing that expects you to burst into laughs all the time. It's rather bitter sweet dark humor, that is rather intelligent, and not always worded, but often also just induced by the style of filming, the editing or inappropriate absurd scenes. For instance there is a scene where a corpse has to be identified, and it was stored in a bottom drawer, so after pulling it out, they need to use a lever mechanism - and it felt like taking forever that the guy has to move the lever up and down so that the table is actually at a height so that the bereaved could actually finally lift the blanket and identify the corpse. These scenes remembered me of the first two episodes of Six Feet Under.

Even though it is funny it also has a lot of serious moments, and the movie is also about loss, and coping with loss, and of course about taking revenge. The "cold" in cold pursuit can be taken literally - all in all the movie is pretty slow paced - especially compared to typical Liam Neeson movies - and this is also due to the setting and the way the movie is made. Still whenever we get to the action scenes, it will get ugly. And aesthetic - the movie tries to find a certain kind of aesthetics in violence and also is pretty innovative in the killings, showing scenes you've probably never seen before.

I would think to put this movie somewhere between "The Grey" and "Taken" - a typical Liam Neeson movie that plays slower than his other movies do, paired with the dark humor of shows such as in Six Feet Under or Death at a Funeral, just not as thick and obvious.

I was entertained, I found it refreshing, and really liked it.

This movie is the first from the incredibly great Laika studio that - founded in 2005 had the ambitious and totally crazy idea to specialize in feature film length productions of stop-motion animation movies. They started with contract work but right from the get-go they announced their first movie: Coraline. It took them 4 years and $60 million dollars, but in the end in 2009 Coraline was released. I was intrigued right from the first time I heard about this movie, it looked absolutely fantastic and I love Neil Gaiman on who's children's book this movie is based on.

Still it should take me all the other movies from Laika untill I finally got to this movie. More by accident, and because my girlfriend liked the cover, I bought "The Boxtrolls" on Blu-ray, which was therefore my first movie from Laika. Then - and because I really liked Boxtrolls as a stop motion picture - we got ParaNorman, and it was good as well even though we did not like it as much as Boxtrolls. Then we watched Kubo and the Two Strings (also on Blu-ray), which was incredibly well done, and finally I manged to secure a first edition release of Coraline. Wanting a first edition (wich in Germany comes with a Lenticular O-Card) was actually the only reason that we've watched this movie so late after it's release, because it was already sold out and I had a really hard time searching for it.

But here we are, I could finally see the movie and unfortunately I have to say I wish I'd seen it earlier. After seeing Kubo you are somewhat set up for a disappointment. Still it is a really great movie. The plot is rather simple but non the less good, and the effects are great as well though if compared to Kubo you can see how over the years this company has perfected it's craft more and more. The sets are non the less really fantastic and the effects which are all hand crafted are absolutely worth your while. Here it's worth mentioning that if you actually own this on a physical medium you'll probably get a ton of extras that are absolutely interesting and stunning. A lot of the "magic" is given away, such as how the fire and the fog where done, how the actual dolls look like, and how they make it that these doll animations look so incredibly good, how animations effects of certain scenes where done, such as the "garden scene", and also who is behind the voices and what these actors think about the movie and how it is different to what else they've done.

And if you see these, I am sure you get a totally different appreciation for this craft and Laika as a film studio. What they do is insane. And it is even more insane when you take into consideration that today you could do everything they do with the help of a computer. But they don't use computers, they do everything by hand. The sets, the puppets, the effects. Everything. That's insane. That shows absolute dedication to the art. And that alone is worth at least watching it once, even if you don't like animation movies. It's worth it.

Having said that, I also really enjoyed the fact that they hired great actors for their voice acting, including the - in my opinion - best child actor out there: Dakota Fanning. But also Teri Hatcher is really great and she voices three "distinct" characters which she does great. Also worth mentioning: Keith David!

To sum up: It's an insanely expensive, extremely well done stop motion movie, probably one of the last of it's kind (with Laika being the only one doing "major" Hollywood releases recently and on this level of perfection), with great artwork, a really great dark fantasy story, and fantastic voice actors. Don't be like me: Watch it as soon as you can! :)

After the ingenious first installment "First Blood" of the Rambo series that in retrospect got a 10/10 from me, the second movie named "Rambo: First Blood Part II" can - in my opinion - in no way live up to its predecessor.

This starts with the premises that Rambo - a PTSD Vietnam veteran, who is imprisoned in a labor camp for his psychotic breakdown in part one - is send back to Vietnam (rather then sending him to a mental facility where he could learn to cope with his mental traumas)! And Rambo, of course, agrees to. Because yes, after the heart-felt monologue at the end of the first movie where under tears he describes explicit detail how he tried to scrap together his best friend who stepped on a mine, or how he was tortured by the enemy, this is exactly what you would do. As the tagline reads: "What others call hell, he calls home".

But okey, let's not argue on how well part 2 fits to part 1, let's take a look at it like a solo movie, because after all, except for the character names and their backstories part 2 really does not build upon part 1 at all - it seems like they did not care and wanted to do another kind of movie, so let's treat it as such.

Rambo is released early from prison because he is an expert stealth guerilla war human killer machine, and he is set back to Vietnam, to look at prison camps and - if he should find PoWs he is not to free them, but only take pictures and return. Makes sense to fly all the way to the US, do all the paperwork and go through all the suffering to get out an war expert, who is known to snap, just to have him take pictures... this get's especially weird as at the end it is revealed that all of this is actually a conspiracy and Rambo shouldn't have even seen any prisoners - anybody could have just taken pictures from the camp - they could have been totally staged - why go through the hassle to take a war veteran that is not even in on the plan, so that this plan is risked to be revealed?... but hey. Why not? Let's keep an open mind!

Rambo meets up with his contact, a girl named Co, who actually is just a tag along female hottie, probably to lure in young male viewers. She has hardly any relevance to the story what so ever, there is zero chemistry between the two actors, even though actress Julia Nixon puts her absolute best into acting as she fell in love at first sight. Still there is a romantic part and a dramatic turn of events that is so unbelievable - but I'll get to this later. With the help of her, he gets to a camp, does not obey his orders, but starts shooting everything down, and by this act gets both, the Vietnamese army as well as the Russian army on his tail...

If the plot itself isn't bad already, it gets really bad, when it comes to the action: With no regards on anything, Rambo gets to Vietnam and shoots up everything, using machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. to blow up straw huts. No settlety, no stealth, no intelligence that you would believe a green beret to have. There is however, a part that actually is pretty cool towards the end, where he gears up once more and kills his pursuers one by one, actually using guerilla warfare techniques (sneaking and hiding). Those are really fun to watch, but a small portion just before the end of the movie, and up till then the action is in general overdone and gets boring fast. And that's really sad because Part 1 had absolutely stunning and captivating action, that was so much more fun.

As already mentioned the plot isn't that good either: We know exactly from the beginning who the bad guy is, and as if that's not enough, there are not only a number of plot holes but also simply stupid mistakes. Our project leader seems to be a civilian, or at least he dresses as one, but has the rank of major, and operates form an army base but not with an actual army but mostly mercenaries. Still, in the movie he outranks the Colonel, who simply follows his orders even if he doesn't like them and even if they are straight immoral and criminal - there is nothing cool or interesting about Trautman at all anymore. And then there is the end: I mean, really? WTF! It was a conspiracy? The American major ordered the camp to be empty, so that they could fly in Rambo who would take pictures from one empty camp and that would have been proof that there are no PoWs in all of Vietnam? But by accident the stupid Vietnamese who rotate the prison camps put the prisoners into the camp anyways so that the one date that it was important this camp was empty it wasn't? Which is why they get in the Russians to kill Rambo so he cannot tell what he saw? Well...

The message is all to clear: The bad guys are the people wearing suits, who send the soldiers to Vietnam, then make them loose, by discarding them, and in the end it's all about PR. The US are the good guys, the Russians are the war hungry bad guys, and the Vietnamese are wild animals that are easy to kill... oh yeah, speaking of that: I also feel that the movie is rather stereotypical and in that sense a tad racist. Be it the so overdone and downright stupid fake accent of Julia Nixon, who has Asian roots but a native British father, is US-citizen and speaks perfect English, or the way this movie depicts the Vietnamese people (even the tagline does it by calling Vietnam "hell"), as well as the Russians. That alone wouldn't bother me to much - I mean, hey. It was the 80s, standards where different. But it adds up to all the other things I did not like about this movie.

And to close - we again get a kind of "nervous breakdown" monologue at the end, but while the monologue in the first movie comes unexpected, is ingeniously acted and makes you hold your breath, give you goosebumps and/or wet eye, this one will make you either laugh or yawn. Boy was that a bad attempt of tie this movie on to the first one. A really bad knockoff.

It really is a shame. I would have wanted to love this movie so much more. But 4/10 is the best I can do, honoring a) the few good scenes and b) the influence this movie had on pop culture. But I've rather seen Rambo III following into the footsteps of First Blood.

In a prologue scene this movie starts by introducing the main characters an our team: A special task force that operates outside of the law and is supported by bleeding edge high tech gadgets, that allow them to infiltrate buildings without problems and leave as fast as they came, leaving no traces for the police to find.

We then get the background story of our main protagonist James Silva, portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, as timelapse in the opening titles, and then the story finally starts: Our main setting is Asia, we have Silvas team on a new mission - a raid goes totally wrong and Silva is extremely hard and unfair with his team (which he is the entire time from this point on). While at the US embassy from where the team operates, they get a visit from a local (portrayed by Iko Uwais) who has some important information for the team, that makes them want to dirve 22 miles through the city towards an airport. To do so they terminate their contracts and call out the "overwatch" operation - a voice over explains: Now our team is stateless and therefore they become something higher, something special, something overly patriotic. And of course these 22 miles become running the gauntlet....

I was looking really forward to this movie from the very first trailer, and I was totally in the mood for this movie as I was already watching M:I 1-6 and The Equalizer one and two, so I was in the mood for a good action movie. I also loved the premises: An paramilitary operation team operating in a foreign country being outnumbered while a catastrophe emerges - that reminds me of movies such as Black Hawk Down or 13 Hours which are two of my most favorite movies.

The action scenes on this movie are pretty realistic, it seems reasonable what each character can bear unless they break down (much better than most other action movies), the wounds look realistik and our team gets cut down one by one pretty fast. The action isn't reduced to only shootings and fast car chases, but also include man to man fights, and of course Iko Uwais is the guy that stands out most, who will show us some pretty crazy moves and fighting choreographies. These aspects as well as the question what this movie is probably aiming at story-wise make this movie really interesting to watch and also pretty entertaining.

However, the story is also the strongest negative aspect: It is incredible muddled, and many things have to be explained with an voice over from the off, so that the viewer gets whats actually going on. Also there is absolutely no character development, and the crew stays as shallow as possible, making nearly everybody replaceable. Therefore you also don't have any sympathies towards any of the characters, allowing for no emotional bonds to evolve and ultimately in the end you don't care about any of the characters dying, steeling those scenes the dramatic effect they should have had on the viewer. And even for the main character we hardly know anything, except for the view pointers in the opening titles, but that's not enough and even worse: His character is the most exaggerated and therefore does he not only become unsympathetic with the viewer but also unbelievable.

To add to the confusion, a number of story elements are told either via an interview with Silvas (that seems to be taking place in the future), or by cutting either into a top secret hight tech operation center, or an Russian aircraft (it is not explained why). These cuts are both unnecessary and often also don't bare any logic, and you could have left them out entirely and the movie would have still functioned. Even in these scenes with again high ranking actors such as John Malkovich, non of the characters is essential in any way and totally replaceable. And most of the dialogues either consist of exchanging hostilities or of technobabble.

And even though Uwais is great, after the first fighting scenes one will be pretty disappointed because most of the fighting takes place in the dark and additionally there is a lot of cuts, so that a lot of fun is taken out of these scenes.

And then there is the finale, which to me was a kick in the teeth. The resolution seems so artificially constructed, stupid and is also full of logic holes that it takes away a lot of the fun, as you start to believe that the filmmakers question your intelligence. Worst of all, it's an open end that seems to be made for a second part. In no way was this satisfying.

This movie had great potential but wastes it entirely.

What a great movie to start the new year. I've finally watched this movie that has been on my watchlist for a while now, due to a number of praises by people I trust, and I can totally understand where they are coming from!

Dan Gilroy has been writing movies since 1992, throughout all genres and all of them great Hollywood movies. With Nightcrawler he gives us his first directorial debut, and this really is a great movie, that is well directed, extremely well shot, extremely captive and thrilling even though it does not even have that many action sequences, it has a great accompanying soundtrack and of course, most important of all: An enormously great performance by Jake Gyllenhall, which too me, after having seen current movies such as Nocturnal Animals, Demolition, Enemy, Prisoners, End of Watch, Source Code, is of course no surprise. Still, in this movie his performance is superb.

However, I did not quite like the ending, and I somehow feel that the movie looses a great opportunity for some social criticism that could have directly addressed the viewer: Because in the end it is us all who enable people like Lou Bloom in his career, because we create the demand for such videos. There is of course a subtle hint, but I would have liked a more "in your face" ending (take for instance the South Park approach with "Super Sexy Action News" in the Episode "A quest for Ratings"). Other than that a really great movie.

I've watched it from the Korean BD release, there was just one 5 Minutes extra but that was really interesting as well: For the movie they had two "experts" as consultants who themselves are active Nightcrawlers, and a paraphrased quote: "In the movie Jake Gyllenhall moves a corpse for the better angle before the cops and parametics arrive - we've never done that, but other than that: yeah, this movie pretty much shows everything we do."

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.

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.

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.