Change Your Image
Monamai
Reviews
Aus dem Nichts (2017)
Weak Storytelling
This movie disappoints in numerous ways. I had high expectations from Fatih Akin.
A significant amount of time is dedicated to the mourning aspect of the film, which lacks any real message. The plot feels like an extended soap opera dragging on.
Furthermore, the constant focus on women's menstruation throughout the movie is puzzling. It has no relevance to the story, yet the girlfriend repeatedly mentions it, and even the main character experiences it. Perhaps Fatih Akin has an unusual fascination with menstruation, but it adds nothing to the narrative. The dialogues between the women are absurd and unnatural, resembling conversations one would expect from men.
The main character is portrayed as a drug addict and even takes cocaine, and the deceased husband had a notorious criminal history. These characterizations make them entirely unlikable. It's perplexing why such choices were made in a movie that presumably aims to create sympathy for them. In fact, the film fails to make the husband a likable character at all. He is barely introduced, except for showcasing his heroic reputation among his fellow inmates.
Drugs appear to play a significant role in the movie, yet they are not integrated into the plot effectively. Almost everyone is either involved in drug dealing or consuming drugs. Even the victim's lawyer is involved in drugs and provides some to his client.
The police detective is portrayed as a degenerate without any background in criminology. The way he conducts the interview with the victim is deeply incompetent. Despite having no clues about the crime, he randomly throws out various criminal organizations, including the Turkish, Kurdish, and Albanian Mafia, as possible suspects. It's almost as if he enjoys making baseless assumptions. Furthermore, instead of assisting the victim, the police decide to search her premises with a warrant, leaving the audience wondering why, with no explanation provided. Suddenly, the police miraculously apprehend the actual perpetrators, leaving the audience bewildered about the circumstances surrounding their capture. The film does not provide any explanation or details regarding this significant development. Furthermore, the police detective, who played a prominent role earlier as a nincompoop, strangely fades into the background as if he was abruptly removed from the storyline during production. He briefly resurfaces in a cameo-like appearance during the court scenes.
The movie then proceeds to depict a grossly inaccurate representation of the German judicial system. The movie writers doesn't seem to know that in Germany, the District Attorney (DA) serves as the prosecutor, safeguarding the public interest in a criminal prosecution. The attorney for the joint plaintiff, played by Denis Moschitto, cannot have a leading role as shown in the film. It should be the District Attorney who takes center stage before the Chairperson and lay judges of the court. In the movie, the District Attorney remains mostly in the background, accomplishing virtually nothing. This representation of the German judicial system is completely inaccurate. The courtroom scenes lack coherence, and when the judge delivers the verdict, the basis for the decision is incomprehensible and unexplained.
From this point onward, the movie further deteriorates more rapidly, almost resembling a poorly made soap opera episode. The victim inexplicably constructs a bomb as if it were as simple as baking. Conveniently, the perpetrators reside in an RV on a deserted beach in another country, which serves the filmmakers' purposes but makes no sense to the audience. The victim then walks to the RV and detonates the bomb with herself inside, leaving us questioning why she opted for explosives instead of using a gun.
The only redeeming aspect of the movie is Diana Kruger's exceptional performance. She stands out among the other actors, who range from mediocre to bad. The lack of conviction in the actor's portrayals is evident, as if they were merely reading lines from a script. However, Diana Kruger delivers a remarkable performance, despite the overall embarrassment of the movie.
David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020)
Documentary's Neglect of Societal Hardships
This documentary, while initially exploring the animal kingdom and its historical context, takes an unfortunate detour into politics, completely overlooking the struggles faced by impoverished nations for their survival. It becomes evident that the filmmaker himself hails from a privileged background, allowing him to pursue his passion for animal exploration while remaining detached from social issues and poverty that surrounded him. In doing so, he places animals in the spotlight while disregarding the human element.
Had the documentary solely focused on animals, such a perspective might have been acceptable. However, by delving into political views, the filmmaker demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophical and sociological concepts. He fails to grasp the complexities behind why some people resort to hunting animals when much of the world is plagued by hunger. Instead, he asserts his mission to raise global awareness of animal rights. This approach garners him praise and positive feedback, seemingly achieving his goal of attracting mass attention. Unfortunately, it hides or overlooks truths that may be uncomfortable to hear, ultimately creating a documentary that feels more like clickbait and populism.
I had hoped that in his later years, the filmmaker would prioritize revealing the true nature of our world over furthering his career. Regrettably, this documentary falls short of providing that deeper insight. It appears that the filmmaker himself may be unaware of the broader context. This leaves me questioning how this documentary distinguishes itself from any other clickbait video that offers a simplistic and popularized perspective on animal rights, nature, and environmentalism. One can't help but wonder what his next endeavor will entail ... perhaps an exploration cute puppies?
Good Night Oppy (2022)
Unwatchable
After seeing all these positive reviews and watching this film, I couldn't help but suspect the positive reviews must mostly fake. The quality of the scriptwriting left much to be desired, often falling into the realm of mediocrity. In fact, it followed such a simplistic and predictable pattern that one could easily anticipate the next lines of dialogue. The utilization of numerous clichés further hindered its originality. For example, the Mars rover was depicted as listening to Rock'n'Roll (specifically B-52's Roam) while rolling on the ground.
The individual responsible for this documentary seemed to be an avid fan of 80s and 90s movies, as evidenced by their overt reliance on traditional documentary filmmaking techniques. While this approach isn't necessarily negative, it became problematic when zero effort was made to create something distinctive or innovative, failing to acknowledge that we had already entered the year 2022.
The subjects portrayed in the film were portrayed in a rather nerdy light, while the anthropomorphization of the Mars rover reached ludicrous levels. Redundant interviews, discussions, and footage failed to evoke any sense of excitement. Additionally, I found the choice of music to be inappropriate, failing to establish a connection with the documentary's intended audience.
Initially, I watched this film with friends, but everyone lost interest within the first 10 minutes. I revisited the documentary at home in order to understand the basis for these positive reviews.
Kim Dotcom: Caught in the Web (2017)
Compromised Narrative
This documentary explores three interconnected themes: the enigmatic figure of Kim Dotcom, the influence of copyright and media lobby in the U. S., and the shortcomings of the political and justice systems in New Zealand.
Kim Dotcom is portrayed as a deeply troubled individual with profound psychological issues. His behavior suggests a self-centered egomania and a pronounced narcissistic personality. Additionally, he exhibits a criminal mindset, believing himself to be above the law and comfortable with lying and deception.
Despite his troublesome past, the German justice system has been lenient with Dotcom, sparing him severe punishment. This leniency, coupled with his distorted perception of his own superiority and divinity (reflected in his choice of vanity license plates reading 'GOD,' 'KILLER,' and 'CEO'), has contributed to his lack of a moral compass.
The documentary also delves into the flaws of the copyright system and the influential media lobby in the United States, providing ample material for critique and analysis.
Dotcom's life takes a dramatic turn when the U. S. government, operating in New Zealand, finally cracks down on him. This serves as a defining moment for him, although he masterfully manipulates public perception through various PR campaigns. He endeavors to convince people, the media, and politicians that his actions were not about himself but rather a sacrifice in the fight against the media lobby. Exploiting trending topics such as privacy, security, and internet freedom, Dotcom tries to divert attention from his own illegal activities.
However, the documentary becomes confusing at times. It skillfully portrays Dotcom as a fascinating yet disturbed character, satisfying our voyeuristic desire to witness psychological turmoil, akin to our fascination with TV shows about hoarders or failed criminals. Paradoxically, the filmmakers seem to unintentionally align themselves with Dotcom's perspective, as if they were swayed by his manipulative influence during production. It feels as though they started off documenting a cult only to become part of it themselves, convinced of the false deity the cult worships. This reminds me of an old Belgian movie in which a documentary team follows a heinous killer, eventually becoming complicit in his crimes (C'est arrivé près de chez vous).
The documentary also sheds light on the manipulability, weakness, and incompetence of the New Zealand political, justice, and police systems. New Zealand is depicted as a vulnerable country that can be "hacked" and exploited by a hacker like Kim Dotcom. This portrayal offers a new perspective on New Zealand, presenting it as a small, easily influenced nation with a handful of key figures who can be easily manipulated. It implies that anyone with a fabricated idealism could invade the country at any time. While it remains uncertain if this portrayal is accurate, it is presented in a manner that suggests vulnerability.
Rather than delving deeper into the potential flaws within this apparently volatile system, the filmmakers unexpectedly shift focus and assert that Dotcom's success stems not from the weaknesses of the New Zealand system, but from his own righteousness and idealism.
In the end, I was left perplexed by the filmmakers' failure to see beyond the façade, even when the truth was evident throughout their own documentary. They became entangled with their subject, displaying clear bias.
It almost seemed as though the filmmakers consciously chose this path to appeal to the proponents of a free internet, copyright-free ideals, and liberal movements, solely to garner more attention for their documentary within this specific target audience-a strategy reminiscent of Dotcom himself.
Nowhereland (2016)
Story: Fake. Reviews: Fake. Everything fake.
The person who made this movie clearly knows nothing about prostitution or sexual abuse. They didn't bother to read any books or talk to people who have experienced abuse. It's like they're just clueless about the whole topic.
The movie has no connection to reality whatsoever. It's a completely made-up world that doesn't resemble anything real. It feels like someone was desperate to get attention, so they just kept making up one exaggerated and unrealistic situation after another. The whole concept of the movie shows a very immature understanding of people and sexuality. Who are they trying to fool, and why?
It's just plain wrong to show this kind of nonsense to audiences. Prostitution and sexual abuse are serious issues that need to be handled with care and based on proper research.
Looking at the evidence here that the first 20-25 reviews are all fake, the unethical and dishonest conduct of the film makers becomes very clear.
The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012)
He should have read "Guide to Documentary" before
The documentary may have a point. But it's unwatchable because of the monologue, the horrible accent and the lack of incentives to watch it. I really wanted to watch this, but it's torture. He should have learned from other documentaries how to make one. It can't be just about filling the audiences head with tons of philosophical and political thoughts. If that would be the case, he should have written a paper. But as a documentary, this is a fail.
A Hologram for the King (2016)
A beautiful movie.
Basically it's a wonderful movie. It's creating a wonderful atmosphere. The characters perform beautifully. The wonderful soundtrack accompanies the whole movie perfectly. The script and story are solid. One may ask, how could this movie fail?
The answer is simple. It's not a movie for the international audience. Basically this movie was made and produced by Germans. When I lived in Germany, one thing came to my attention: Germans have a much more different view of political correctness as Americans have. If you have never lived in the US or experienced the point of view towards political correctness in the US, you will have troubles to access the US standpoint and market. Is that a fail, though? I miss movies like these ones in the U. S.
Now, let's see what this movie deals with. It's a very sensitive topic, when your protagonist is an American and travels to Saudi Arabia and falls in love to a married Saudi woman and decides to live there. I admire the courage to try a story like this. To find the right finesse to make this movie great is one of the greatest challenges, because you have to deal with the most sensitive topics. This movie is addressing a much higher educated target audience.
You did a wonderful movie. I believe they have been putting lots of effort into the beauty of movie-making, but I think the audience has failed failed to understand it. However, it was a very enjoyable setting.
The Martian (2015)
Predictable, immature dialogs, artificial heroism, non-innovative action.
I believe this is one of the overrated films on IMDb. While it has a high user rating and for some reason totally mistakenly in the Top 250, user reviews are mostly bad. And they are right. This movie is boring, unrealistic and totally not entertaining. I mean, what makes a movie a good movie? We all know that a movie is not real. We still feel entertained, why? Because we can feel the main characters struggle in a difficult situation, we suffer with him, we have empathy. None of these are happening to the audience when you watch this one.
It was actually the sappy behavior of the characters making you feel bored watching. I would have accepted the fact that he grew potatoes out of the feces of his buddies and they have left them there, okay why not ... he a botanist (how exciting by the way).
Just a few examples: For reasons unknown, he starts taking Vicodin with his potato - I actually had to look it up what Vicodin was, and then did not understand the message of this.
The captain of the ship blames himself immediately "I left him there" after they have received the message. Come on guys, give the character some time to emotionally apprehend the situation, before she starts blaming herself! Nobody does that immediately... not ever!
Who is this stupid moron looking like a drug addict in his totally messy office, where no one should have taken seriously? A total loner-loser, who works for NASA, doesn't even know the directors name when he is in his office... and then performs an act of a 3-year- old? What is this, are you kidding me? Why should the audience take this seriously at all?
Ridley Scott has totally failed to give the crew them some meaning. They could have just robots as far as I am concerned, wouldn't make this movie less worse.
There is just no excitement the whole time. He was deserted. You know exactly that his own crew will go back to help him at about in the middle of the movie. You know the attempt with the first rocket will fail, because you have already understood, some heroism with the "we won't let anybody behind"-message is actually the main story here. But you had to watch all that story of building that bogus rocket – I was bored to death! And then it explodes and fails, what a surprise!
So after that, you beg for a plot where something miraculous will happen. Instead, something totally ordinary happens, again! He flies to the crew. An astronaut goes out, he flies out of his capsule. I was asking myself... this is it?
For a moment I thought I was watching a Roland Emmerich, but I had sworn never to watch an Emmerich again. Ridley Scott now goes the same way. Predictable, immature dialogs, artificial heroism, non- innovative action.
The Last Stand (2013)
Mad Max like sci-fi movie
Good sci fi movie, Mad Max like
I liked this sci-fi movie, it reminded me of Mad Max. The weakness of this movie is, you don't really get to see it, that this takes place in a parallel universe and that it's actually a sci-fi movie. But the signs are there and the story is nicely done: As you can see, in the beginning of the movie, there is a car, which crosses light speed and enters another realm, where the actual story takes place. This realm is another form of the USA, where not just the police is being operated by just a few people. Some of them can only operate from offices with big screens and are incapable of being mobile. Others live in deserted towns, probably after a big war. So there is not much life left. The office officer's only weapon is to make calls around places and plan. As I said, being mobile in this parallel universe is almost impossible, probably due to the lack of fuel. The few cars left in this world belong to the mob or the police.
One mob boss escapes from custody, who has been a racer all his life and probable the only one ever lived in this world. He gets himself in a prototype car, where he chooses to cross the border to Mexico just by driving. This is where the story begins. The police, restricted in its mobility, has only a few chances to send cars or helicopters, to stop him. Because there are not many police forces left in this parallel universe and the resources are limited to a few cars and one old helicopter, the police has to make strategic decisions mostly. At the same time, the mob boss uses a big ass prototype super power car.
So at the end, the only one force to stop him seems to be a few police officers in one of those deserted towns, who have to acquire weapons from a local weapons dealer, in order to stop that race car. And this is where heroism meets that fast car. Can they stop it? Do they have enough fire power? And will there be enough cars and fuel? And should we care?
Red Dawn (2012)
This movie is the answer to life itself!
What I liked most about this movie is its genuine realism. It is obvious that soon a united force of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Thai and probably Mongolian and of course some Russian alliance will form to attack the USA. This evil alliance invades the US with a special and very difficult war technique, that is probably known only among real war dogs: So this is how it's done. And I hope, that I won't be banned from IMDb for revealing such classified military information. So please guys, don't try to conquer USA this way at home: All you need is just some big planes, all of them hiding in the clouds for weeks. At day 0, just appear like from nothing everywhere in the air. And with a special super electric burst, just eliminate all communication systems. Now a with a surprise parachute attack, soldiers can conquer the US within 3 minutes, shooting from the air. Of course they would attack civilians only. Why? Because this way, US military is not involved! How smart! I mean, some of the soldiers probably don't even know they have been invaded. See: no communication, no idea what's going on. USA's weak spot! The country is totally helpless! What can they do? Nothing! Check mate.
Now the real and stunning story: It begins, when a couple of high school students decide to free the country. They are outnumbered by whole armies of course. As the main character says, they have to be smart. And they are! They decide to use heroic-guerrilla techniques, which is much different then classic guerrilla techniques. You see, classic guerrilla would demand you hiding and attacking from distance, preparing bombs in the shadows and placing them at night. The heroic-guerrilla-techniques do all this, but in plain sight! And of course it involves opening fire on hundreds of soldiers with only a couple of teenagers. Why does it work? Because and true heroism can't be defeated and only the guilty hide! That deep message within this movie really got to me! Of course, the story gets complicated, when one of the teenagers wants to free his blond girlfriend. This way, he puts all his team at risk. And for what? For love! So it is also a love story, that broke my heart! And the blond was so convincing! I felt in love with her the moment I saw her on the bus. Definitely Oscar material!
Well, some of you would think, this movie is a little bit discriminating, because the Asians seem to be the bad guys here
and the Russians
and the black mayor. But I think it is not discriminating. Because, the movie doesn't tell you whom to hate! The Koreans, the Russians
or the Chinese
or the black mayor. It's good, the movie doesn't discriminate just one race or country. It's totally up to you, whom to hate. You may want to hate all Asians or Russians. You may even want to hate yourself. That shows real quality, that you have that choice. I liked that philosophy on that movie and decided to hate myself in this situation. I was so angry at me! Thank you movie makers!
The movie has a lot of shootings, bombs and so forth. The whole time I was like: "whoooo ... explosions ... cool! Ohhh, bad Asians, you are so mean, leave them alone ... ohhhh, love story, how neat, I want to cry. Ohhh, bad Russians, go away. Oh look, bombs again. Kill them .... ratatatatata ... ohhh yeah!" It's good that the movie ends with the teenagers showing the piece symbol. That's the real message of the movie I guess. The movie shows you, that world peace is important ... and love of course
and the right to carry automatic weapons ... and that we will all miss Sub Sandwiches, if the Asians take over.
When the movie was over I was so sad, because so many good people died.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Water Boarding, Killing Bin Laden, Weeping
The first half of the movie is about CIA operatives interrogating terrorists. Water boarding is being shown as the only world of torture. The terrorists, pretty unimpressed by all this, respond with a bad- ass attitude while bombings continue. Meanwhile the CIA employees show emotional outbursts and are unable to make professional decisions.
The next half, the main character, a good looking young female CIA operative, comes closer into play. Now the movie is all about her. She knows the place of Bin Laden. But the CIA turns into an incompetent organization, where bureaucrats want proof, and therefore decide to do nothing. Thanks to her intrusive attitude, she pushes the CIA into action. She yells at her boss. She takes a pen and writes angry notes on the office glass separation of a higher CIA boss every day. She curses in the conference room to another, even much higher CIA boss etc. And only because of all this behavior, the CIA decides to raid that place.
Now some special forces raid Bin Laden's place and kill him. The girl is relieved, gets on a plane home, and she weeps. And that's how the movie ends.
Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010)
"Shut up already"
The first 15 minutes of the movie is enough. You actually don't need to see more. There is a cave. And they are cave paintings. A bunch of scientist go in, followed by a film team with a tiny camera. Once they are in, you see the cave paintings ... and you see the scientists looking at those paintings - mostly they look like robots, probably instructed by the director to put some drama into this. But of course, scientists are no actors, it looks extremely contrived. Besides, the whole movie doesn't explain anything. Probably thrilled by the phenomenon of this, the director seems so emotionally obsessed, that instead of explaining and answering the questions the audience has in mind, he loses himself in artistic film making: Look, I am an artist, I can create 100 different angles of the paintings with different versions of light effects, and I am an intellectual, because I can talk poetic and metaphorical ... I was just about to say: Shut up already and tell me, how the people lived there? What did they use to paint those things? How? When? ... Not a chance you will get answers. The filming style felt very labored. He was forcing so much to make something special, that the whole thing failed. Instead, you have to listen to a speaker with a very french accent and a voice that is so hoarse, that it hurt my soul while listening. Like the director himself is in love with his own voice and superior intelligence, he decided to be the narrator and also scripting everything himself, even he has definitely no skills in doing that.
The Smurfs (2011)
What a dissasmurfment
You got it all wrong. This was just the rehearsal. There is no other explanation. The whole movie felt more like 80s slapstick. Like there has been no development in comedy and humor in the last 30 years. I can only imagine, that the makers of this movie were meeting and saying something like this: "Guys, we have bought the rights for Smurfs. It's a sure sell. Why risk anything at all to make something special? Let's do it the absolutely classic and trivial way, and everybody can go home with their pockets full. High five!". The only special thing about this movie was, that even they had a lot of jokes, you didn't have one reason to feel entertained.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
A sad drama, intelligent Sci-Fi
Never compare, take a movie as it is. Do you like Sci-Fi, but not the ones with Flying ships, laser guns and cliché super heroes, but a good story, good acting and characters? This one it is. Since I have seen this movie, I cannot imagine Vin Diesel in any other movie. He was the perfect match for this one. It has many levels. A love story of its own kind, heroes, leaders, drama. And the sets are so real. For many occasions, you can see that they haven't used green screen, but real buildings. Especially the Necromongers, they seem to be futuristic and ancient at the same time. Using guns, but also axes made them quite dark. For a moment, I thought I was watching Barbarian with Schwarzenegger, then I thought, it is kind of a Blade Runner, and I had the feeling of the new Series of Battleship Galactica.
I also love movies with no happy ending. This one was kind of strange. The hero we were all relying on becomes the head of the bad guys? How sad is this! It was said, that you have to get the more evil to fight evil, and at the end, the more evil destroys the bad guy and becomes him.
I loved this movie. And the soundtrack was just fantastic. When I watched this film, the moment I knew, people won't appreciate it.