pygospa

VIP

3

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.

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

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

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

I am no friend of remakes, and I am especially no friend of Hollywood remakes of hit movies just to make them Hollywood - especially if the remake comes out in a really short time after the original did and if additionally it doesn't even try to be creative. E.g. even though a lot of people hate it (for understandable reasons) I would say Rob Zombies remake of Halloween is a valid remake, as he tries to give the story a totally other viewing point, a different interpretation and a totally own style - and he did it in the 00s to a movie from the 70s. But Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? (2009 vs 2011) Let the Right one In (2008 vs. 2010's Let me In?) - having exact 1-to-1 copies just with Hollywood stars and fishing away any further success that the foreign movie could have had, even in the U.S.? Come on.

The Upside is the Hollywood remake of the french surprise hit "Intouchables" (https://trakt.tv/movies/the-intouchables-2011), and as soon as it turned out to be a surprise, The Weinstein Company acquired the rights for a remake, that was started just the instant they had the rights. Thankfully production had a lot of problems, e.g. there where at least 5 directors that started and left the production, and the actors where switching as well, from Chris Rock, Jamie Foxx and Irdris Elba and Chris Tucker we finally got down to Kevin Hart. And Colin Firth finally got switched to Bryan Cranston, and Jessica Chastaine and Michelle Williams where eventually replaced by Nicole Kidman.

For me this was a movie that I was bound to skip - I never cared too much for Nicole Kidman, and though I love Bryan Cranston, I have to say that I really really detest Kevin Hart. So, as I didn't plan to go to see this movie, Fortuna took it upon her to make me see it anyways: It was screened at a sneak preview.

Let me get back to Kevin Hart: In this movie - and it really is the first - I really liked him. Wow is this guy a good actor, once he starts playing serious roles and is not doing his usual silly small guy clown routine. I really liked his acting, he was really believable and I felt really sympathetic towards his role and his character. Please Kevin Hart, do more roles like this. It suits you so much better than the stupid comedy stuff. Bryan Cranston was great as usual. And then there was Nicole Kidman. And wow. I really loved her as well! First, i wasn't even sure if that's actually Nicole Kidman, because to me she looked too young to be her. Yet she was. And her acting was really superb, you knew exactly what was going on with her right from the moment you saw her - without her even saying a thing. That was some really great acting - I actually didn't see too many movies of hers, but after seeing this performance I am really looking forward to seeing some of the other works she has done. I've got a lot to catch up, I guess!

Acting was great, music was great, and if it weren't for the bold copy of the entire story, I would be even giving this movie a higher rating. Still it was a surprise to me and even though it is one of these remakes nobody asked for, I am happy to have seen it just for the performances.

I'd still recommend all of you to watch the original, but if you like to see Kevin Hart in a serious role or if you are a fan of Nicole Kidman or Bryan Cranston, you might enjoy this remake. Just make sure to watch the original first, because it deserves the credit!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Normally I would not review a different cut seperately, but with this movie things are most definately different. "Lisa e il diavolo" is the original Italian title that was first translated into English as "Lisa and the devil", and should have been released in 1972. It was the one movie that Mario Bava put most of his work into, his final great movie, where everything should have been the way he wanted it to be. However, due to some problems with finding potential buyers, producer Alfredo Leone forced Mario Bava into editing the movie. This was not because of bad critics - everyone at the filmfestivals who saw the movie was excited, however noone was in the market. Leone acted like an businessman, analysed the market and jumped on the train that was currently hyped. And that of course was "The Exorcist"; so Leones vision: Let's turn the movie into an Exorcist movie. So even years later after the movie was already finished, Leone reassembled the cast, and made them shoot additional scenes that should alter the movie entirely. What used to be a nightmare like reallity is this time turned into the wild dreams of a girl (Lisa) posessed by the devil. So we get as new scenes how she gets possessed, then how she is deliverd to a hospital, how she turns crazy and how finally priests are gathered to exorcise the demon in her. And while this is happening, we always cut into scenes of the old movie showing her nightmare-visions. It is a totally different movie, and it is totally bad. The atmosphere that Bava created with his original is totally broken, the new scenes that mostly consists of disgusting pictures, obscenities, and nudity are bait-like and where shot despite the explicit whishes by Bava to not have such scenes in his movie (he actually - as a director - left the room when these scenes where shot, because he wanted no part of it).

What we end up with is a movie that is more direct than Bavas original, easier to grasp, with fewer wearisome lenghts, but also movie that loses nearly its entire atmosphere, that has no originallity anymore, no metaphors or symbolism, plus some things that are actually never said in the original movie but are implied for the viewer to find out himself, are simply put into the dialog by just watching Lisa and the Devil the first time I did not grasp that this movie has for example a part that is about impotence. So in the end this movie gets irrelevant, and that is something that even the critics realized - Leones vision backfired - instead on hopping on to the Exorcism train and giving the people yet another movie they would want to see, people realized it to be a blatant rip-off and therefore was denounced.

That already being bad enough, Bavas original vision was litrally butchered, and he was not okey with it (he actually changed his name on the credits to 'Mickey Lion' because of this), and never even saw this version which was the only one in cinemas. He still read the critics and those made him really sad - it should have been a master piece and his final great work before retiring, but in the end it became a cold and soulless movie created for just financial profit-making. The sadest thing: Mario Bava did not even see his original version being released - he died with the knowledge of nearly no one having seen his masterwork (except for France, where it was released in the original cut at cinemas, but for the home release also only this cut was released) and thinking that no one will ever see it. Only in 2012 where for the first time both versions released - and the original version is much better rated by critics and is today seen as the far superior version.

Wow. Only a 69% rating and no comments? I cannot let that stand as it is, so here's a short review. I have watched this movie countless times since I first saw it, and it was one of my "must haves" movie collection wise. I still only have it on DVD, but in my opinnion this movie deserves an collectors edition re-release on blu-ray as well.

What we get is a modern kind of western, somewhere down south, near the mexican border in the 1930s, where John Smith, portrait by Bruce Willis is getting into a ghost town that is inhabited by two rival gangs, one of italian the other of irish origin. John Smith, being an excellent gunman, is drawn into this fight by accident, but instead of leaving as soon as he can, he sees opportunity, playing both ends against the middle for personal profit. But while it starts out to be great, in the end it turns out, that John Smith isn't as ruthless as he likes to appear, which is his downfall.

I used to love the 80s and 90s action movies with Will Smith, and if you do too, you'll get a movie that you've got to love. It's hard, it's brutal, it's Will Smith at his best, it has a marvelous scenery, this ghost town in the desert is perfect for the movie and adds to this gerat atmosphere, and the story - though simple - is not too bad either; plus point are the monologs and the ingenious plan that Will Smith has, and that nearly works out to perfection.

It's not deep in any ways, it does not have a deeper meaning, it has no added value, it doesn't even reinvent the wheel - this is credited as a remake of Akira Kurosawas Yojimbo, and the producers also list the heavy influence of A Fistful of Dollars (which has a nearly identical plot); then again - that movie doesn't have neither Bruce Willis nor Christopher Walken, both really great actors that play perfectly in this movie - but also all the other actors are really gerat and so in the end, you'll get a modern western that is fun watching - if you are into those things.

I know, 10/10 will seem much overrated for many, and I probably wouldn't have given it this rating, if I'd watched it nowadays. However, given the countless times I've already watched and enjoyed this movie (mostly during my youth, but even nowadays I do enjoy it from time to time), I think it has earned these 10/10 - at least in my account.

I really love this show - in my opinion it is one of the best quiz and entertainment shows we had in at least a century in Germany, with a lot of incredible moments and guests that you get to know from a totally different side. I was surprised from some guests who I had prejudice against, that I found really sympathetic after watching them in this show.

So in a way it breaks my heart to see this season not being one of the weakest, due to the inclusion of Klaas, who always competes against Joko in the finales, and where all finales felt rather boring because those two know each other so well; but also boring within the shows as the wildcards, plus Lena and Sarah perish between Joko and Klaas interaction during the show.

But that was not the low-point. The low point was the show of Klaas once he finally won it; this had everything: tasteless questions (with the guests knowing the answer but actually saying: "I dare not to give that answer"), unfunny repetitions (like the senseless "sensation" buzzers and the "sensation cam"), and the sad climax in an embarrassing "joke" where Klaas had a naked man dangling from a crane in front of the guess - he actually seemed to get laughter with this, but neither the audience nor the guests where amused at all - Lena saying "I don't believe this", Kathrin saying "I'll leave after this round, this is too much, seriously", and Joko pleading to Klaas: "Please don't drag my show through the mire".

I've actually never seen Joko and Klaas together and I also never saw any other solo shows of those two, so I don't know if this is what you usually can expect from them. This show was the first time I saw Joko and he really grew on me. Klaas on the other hand I'll happily skip in the future...

Worst season so far - and worst overall episode. Hopefully the next one will be better again.

With now 40 years of age, Phantasm is a rather old movie, and given its $300k budget, it's a movie that is pretty low budget, leading to amateurs and aspiring actors, this movie was reviewed rather negatively during its time, which to me is rather incomprehensible. Not only did this movie inspire a lot of other movies, such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "One Dark Night", it also is surprisingly entertaining to watch, even today.

The story is a bit strange, and incoherent, which is probably one of the main reason people have problems with it - however this incoherence is part of the plot and makes sense if you watch it till the end, and think about the meaning this movie could have, and the point of view we get to experience the story. It is also quite inventive - tell me any other horror movie that has a never-dying undertaker that steals corpses to revive them, shrink them and kidnap them to another realm, and hunts his enemies with small chrome balls that drill into their brains? Phantasm is iconic for so many things, such as these chrome balls, which even lead to the naming of Phasma in Star Wars (a storm trooper captain in chrome armor). One of these iconic symbols is the Tall Man, the evil antagonist, depicted by Angus Scrimm, and Scrimm is one of the examples for the really great acting, that Phantasm shows - there is no other actor who could walk so scary as Angus Scrimm does. Also the child actor, Michael Baldwin, and the family friend Reggie Bannister do their job good - only Billy Thornbury is a bit weak. Also on the down side are some of the dialogues, that are somehow a bit off, and there is one dialogue that really makes me bust out in laughter, because it's so strange and unfitting.

However, for a low budget film, the effects are pretty good: The finger in the box, the chrome ball, even the fly, though clearly fake, does mange to be rather scary instead of beeing to cheesy. That shows some real skill, both on the filmmakers side, as well as the actors.

Also iconic for this movie is the soundtrack, that in my opinion is on the same level as the famous Halloween-theme. And it adds to the overall atmosphere of the movie, that is really spooky, and really great. It's unfortunately - at least for today's standards - not scary overall. But at least the atmosphere is rather scary.

And last but not least, this movie does have another level and a deeper meaning that becomes apparent at the end, which I actually like.

All in all this is a unjustly overlooked must-watch horror classic that is most definitely worth your time!

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

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

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

The movie cleverly plays with typical Irish cliches, and has beautifully scripted characters that are perfectly depicted by both, the main cast as well as the supporting cast. And while it has it's surprisingly gruesome scenes and shockers, it is mainly a comedy, and one that is typically British and reminds you of movies such as the one by Edgar Wright, especially Hot Fuzz. It is full of little absurd situations and dialogues, which will make you laugh, if you like this kind of humor. The story is interesting and captivating, and refreshingly witty. However, the last third of the movie gets a bit predictable and a bit tedious. Acting is great, and especially the chemistry between the characters works out really good. And for a low budget production, this movie uses some of the greatest CGI scenes I've seen. The alien is not only perfectly designed, it looks great, and given that the movie relies heavily on CGI the interaction between actors and CGI is seamless. Responsible for the effects was Shoume Harrison who is known for his works on movies such as "Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows" or "Captain America: The First Avenger".

All in all this movie is greatly entertaining, and refreshingly original.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3/10 Points.

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

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

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

I 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a really great movie, with some disturbing imagery. David Ayer wanted to capture the everyday life of police officers in one of the most criminal districts: South Central Los Angeles, in a way that hadn't been done before; of course there are many movies that play in South Central Los Angeles, such as Colors, Boyz N the Hood, South Central, or Training Day, and especially compared to Colors you can find a number of similarities. Still, Ayer makes good on his promise: Similar to Colors we get a movie that in the first half seems totally random, we follow two around two cops, experiencing a lot of ugly stuff and soon some of these events lead to bigger events that unfold dramatically.

Different to Colors, however, Ayer focuses on the two cops. These are both young and in the beginning of their careers, and as two young guys their heads are full of shit, while their hearts are still in the right place. Even though being highly trained and professional when it comes to the job, they fool around a lot, and often just push their damn luck. They seem different at the beginning, yet they call each other brothers and you soon get to know why: Being in a car with each other nearly 8hrs a day makes for a really special friendship. In the Interviews Peña says that a third of the movie plays in the car, and I don't feel like that's an over-exaggeration. What's also interesting about this movie is, that for probably half of the movie "found footage" like shots where used. Gyllenhaals character "Brian Taylor" is filming his everyday for a class project, and both carries a camcorder with him as well as having his partner and himself wearing body cams on their shirts. Besides we often also get "ego perspective", especially when they move in somewhere with weapons drawn. Other great "found footage" like shots include cameras mounted on long weapons filming towards the actors, dashbord cams, etc.

These are however mixed with real camera work, and different to most found footage horror movies they are not used as long single shots, but all these different approaches are edited together to form great scenes. The pacing switches from slow scenes that are mostly driven by dialogue or off-duty scenes that seem mundane (e.g. the day that Brian has off with his girlfriend and has a special date planned from which we only get to see the drive with both of them singing to music playing on the radio), but that in their very special ways convey so much emotions, that makes you really love all of these characters, with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies. In contrast we get these highly thrilling on-duty scenes that are either packed with suspense or with fast pace action. Acting-wise we get a number of high ranking actors such as Anna Kendrick, Maurice Compte, Frank Grillo or David Harbour who just play small supporting roles with minimal screen time. The main focus lies on Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña, and both are so good and excellent in their roles that you cannot imagine this movie with any other actor in their place.

So all in all this is a shocking movie with a - to me - really unexpected ending that shocked me. However, I found it could have had an even deeper impact if the ending was slightly different, and I would have loved it if it wasn't for the last scene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the first part of "How to Train your Dragon" introduced us into a new world where vikings where fighting with dragons for their existence, where our two unequal outsiders managed to form a team that finally united dragons and vikings, in the second part of the series we revisit the viking village which of course has changed a lot. Instead of playing amusing sports with sheep and fighting against dragons, our vikings now ride dragons to play new and more exciting amusing sports with sheep.

Different to the first movie that had it's entire focus on the main story, this movie however opens a number of side stories: A father-son conflict between Hickup and Stoick, Hickups search for his identity, how to cope with new family members, as well as questioning deep friendships. We get happy moments, but also really dramatic and sad moments, experience a lot of rage as well as loss and grief. And all these things are just side elements to a typical action adventure story, where we have a main enemy - Drago - who is threatening the peaceful cohabitation of our dragons and vikings.

This movie will surprise you with topics that you wouldn't expect an "children's animation movie" to have, and to me, even the finale was pretty surprising, and also pretty touching.

Additionally this movie has a great soundtrack that goes right into your ear from the first minute, and compared to the first movie, the animations got even better, and the humor is a bit more mature that it was - as is our Toothless-riding Hickup.

It's a really good movie, a must see!

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.

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

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

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

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

A big negative point however is the ending:

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

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

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